Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad - backed by science

jofjltncb6

Oh I don't know... all i know is I don't gain wait at 1200 or 2000. I stay at 100 pounds. When I eat over 2500 I gain 1 pound per month. Guess i'm an alien. Or maybeee... I never gained weight or was overweight. Science? I can find a study that refutes anything any of you say. It's not hard.

The existence of studies that contradict a particular position doesn't mean all studies are worthless.

To believe otherwise is to misunderstand how research works.

EniBee

Title should say: Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad FOR SOME PEOPLE - backed by BAD science.

It should really be "why losing weight while exercising is much better than losing weight without exercising."

I totally agree!! As a chemical engineer, one of the golden rules is: Mass in = (Mass out + Mass accumulated). the same applies to energy. The reason why we put on weight is due to an inbalance of the equation - when we accumulate too much fat. It is obvious that if your calore intake is below what is required for your body to function, your sugar levels go down, you feel weak and tired. However, when you add exercise whilst maintaining 1000/1200 cals per day, you force the body to use up your accumulated fat while you maintain your energy levels. Your body becomes an oven burning stored fat deposit.

QuilterInVA

I'm doing medically supervised weight loss and on 1000 calories, high protein (100+ grams) and low carb (no more than 50 grams net) so according to you I should have lost a significant amount of lean body mass along with fat. I have lost 18 pounds, 16.3 punds of fat and 1.7 pounds of lean body mass. I have had a decrease in my thyroid medication. That article is hooey. It depends on the person, what foods they are eating, and how much and what kind of exercise.

jonnythan

I'm doing medically supervised weight loss and on 1000 calories, high protein (100+ grams) and low carb (no more than 50 grams net) so according to you I should have lost a significant amount of lean body mass along with fat. I have lost 18 pounds, 16.3 punds of fat and 1.7 pounds of lean body mass. I have had a decrease in my thyroid medication. That article is hooey. It depends on the person, what foods they are eating, and how much and what kind of exercise.

How did you measure body composition?

NonnyMary

I dont follow anything that the obamas recommend.

LMick1986

But it has been effective.

Good, you didn't say. I covered it with "may".

As you lose weight you have less fat stores to supply the deficit and generally speaking you need to reduce the calorie deficit.

If 500 is working now that's fine, but expect to back it off as each pound of fat can turn out about 30 calories/day to fuel the deficit.

Got it. So the main thing to take from all of this is to not STAY on a low calorie intake. Basically, when I reach goal (or near) I need to keep adjusting my deficit. That's what I always thought, but then I see these threads that attack anyone who ever eats around 1200 calories. I didn't know if I was missing something. Thanks!

LMick1986

I know this thread is super long and I don't want to get caught up in all the craziness. I'm curious though. All the calculations I've done put me at that caloric range to lose weight. I'm a 120lb female and would ideally like to be closer to 110. (And before I get trampled all over about wanting to lose that weight, that's the lower end of my "safe range"). Am I way off? The calculations I've done put me at about 1600-1700 for maintenance and a 500 calorie deficit would put me in the range you're talking about. Is that really unsafe for me?

That 1600-1700 for maintenance is, presumably, before exercise. A 500 calorie deficit will put your target in the 1100-1200 calorie range, which is fine..... if you eat back exercise calories. If you don't eat back exercise calories, you will be running a larger calorie deficit than that.

For example, if you burn 300 calories on a treadmill you that means you'll be burning 2000 calories that day. If you only eat 1200 that's an 800 calorie deficit and that's too large.

Thanks! That's what I thought and have been following. I just don't go below 1200....well, I try to stick right around 1200 net anyways. I eat back my exercise cals since it is so low already. I don't feel like I'd be helping myself any if I had a net intake of only like 800 cals. I just wanted to make sure I haven't been doing it wrong this whole time.

FightingFox

It should really be "why losing weight while exercising is much better than losing weight without exercising."
[/quote]
^^this

threshkreen

There is a famous study quoted in a lot of the newer nutrition books about a study made during WWII in which a group of men were put on a starvation diet for a period of time at......ready? 1000 calories a day.

The most interesting thing I get from this study is that when they were again allowed to eat whatever they wanted many of them had become so obsessive about food they ate more than they did on average before the study, gained weight over their starting weight and some developed eating disorders.

1000 calories is too low to allow for long term success for most people. Someone out there most know the name of the study I am talking about. I am pretty sure it is at least in the Gary Taube book (may have misspelled his last name) Why We Get Fat.
Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can post more about that study.

sugaree1202

If only the cr+ex group was required to move, then how can the authors claim the other groups decreased activity because of their reduced calories? Is this what the participants reported as their reason for less activity or was the direct correlation assumed by the authors? It could be the other groups weren't required to exercise so they didn't exercise because they didn't want to, not because they reduced caloric intake.

Personally, the more I exercise, the less hungry I am. Due to a low BMR caused by health issues, I would have a very low deficit at 1600 calories a day, Everyone is different, making a general statement about a specific calorie range will not apply to everyone.

mahanaibu

Title should say: Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad FOR SOME PEOPLE - backed by BAD science.

It should really be "why losing weight while exercising is much better than losing weight without exercising."

Well said. So the key is--don't let your physical activity level drop and building it up.

mahanaibu

It appears to be a legitimate, randomized trial. But like any single study, it has limitations. The subjects were overweight, not obese, and previous studies have found that obese people tend to lose more fat on steep calorie reduction than overweight people do. Overweight people see more lean muscle loss. The two groups differ in other ways as well. There are also these restrictions that the researchers put on which subjects entered the study:

"Participants were excluded if they smoked, exercised more than twice a week, were pregnant, lactating or post-menopausal, had a history of obesity (BMI>32), diabetes, cardiovascular disease, eating disorders, psychological disorders, substance abuse or regularly used medications except for birth control. "

I understand the reasons for the exclusions, but keeping out people who exercise more than twice a week makes a huge difference in the kind of person in the trial.

volume77

my eyes hurt

yarwell

If only the cr+ex group was required to move, then how can the authors claim the other groups decreased activity because of their reduced calories?

The decreased activity is done by difference, they know the TDEE from DLW, measure RMR etc and hence physical activity is the difference between TDEE and RMR plus TEF etc.

The weakness of this approach is that the "decreased activity" is actually "decreased activity + errors + things we didn't measure"

yarwell

I guess I have one question and one statement. I've dropped to 1500 calories, but don't plan going below that. Are any of the dynamics listed for the 1000-1200 calorie diet observed as high (or low) as 1500?

The groups were on a 25% calorie restriction, 12.5 % calorie restriction and 12.5% extra exercise and a sub 900 calorie VLCD for a limited time (<3 months).

So 1500 calories would have happened to people with a TDEE of 2000 on the 25% CR but the average TDEE was more like 2500 so probably only a few women on 25% CR got to 1500. So little evidence in this study to answer your question.

55in13

There is a famous study quoted in a lot of the newer nutrition books about a study made during WWII in which a group of men were put on a starvation diet for a period of time at......ready? 1000 calories a day.

The most interesting thing I get from this study is that when they were again allowed to eat whatever they wanted many of them had become so obsessive about food they ate more than they did on average before the study, gained weight over their starting weight and some developed eating disorders.

1000 calories is too low to allow for long term success for most people. Someone out there most know the name of the study I am talking about. I am pretty sure it is at least in the Gary Taube book (may have misspelled his last name) Why We Get Fat.
Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can post more about that study.

The MN starvation study. That is discussed ad nauseam around here. IMO, the biggest problem with it is they purposefully got them down into the starved range (BF% around 5) and kept them there for some time because they were trying to learn how to refeed starved populations. The physical and psychological effects of that were much different than a dieter going from overweight/obese to a more normal body weight. They saw as much as 40% dropoff in RMR, but only after their BF% was down in the unhealthy low range.

55in13

The MN starvation study. That is discussed ad nauseam around here. IMO, the biggest problem with it is they purposefully got them down into the starved range (BF% around 5) and kept them there for some time because they were trying to learn how to refeed starved populations. The physical and psychological effects of that were much different than a dieter going from overweight/obese to a more normal body weight. They saw as much as 40% dropoff in RMR, but only after their BF% was down in the unhealthy low range.

Just stumbled across this looking for body fat info:

A research paper by Gallagher et. al. in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) came to the conclusion that certain low body fat ranges are “underfat”, which implies “unhealthy”. According to this research paper, men who are between 20-40 years old with under 8% body fat are considered “underfat”, whereas a “healthy” range is described as between 8-19%.

This is what makes the MN study suspect to me. They didn't just lose into the healthy range then stop and try to maintain it. Some (most? these were conscientious objectors but they had to qualify for service and I think they still had to do basic training) of the participants started the study in a reasonably healthy state. It was not a study on weight loss; it was a study on the effects of starvation.

hollymartin90

This study is based on sedentary people I eat between the range of 1000/-1200 calories and exercise every other day (if not every day) it seems unlikely that this would result in decreased metabolism?

salladeve

Everyone's an expert.

Eating 1200 cal/day is so bad, I lost 80 lbs and have kept it off a year and a half. Its awful, don't do it!

This is the best quote of the day, love it!

AnabolicKyle

nvm...

Baba_Roxy

wouldn't this be relative to the person?

I feel that this sums up *almost* everything anyone says on this site, this post included.

jofjltncb6

nvm...

^this

randomtai

nvm...

^this

+1

nelinelineli

Another totally misunderstood article. And another pointless post.

SherryTeach

Is there anything in that study that discussed calorie needs based on height, weight, and age? I'm guessing that my 5'1", 58-year old body doesn't need as many calories to maintain my current 102 pounds as a much larger, younger, and male person.