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

Options
1234568

Replies

  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    some guy on the internet that did a study.

    Ummmmmmm. Here's who actually did the study, and where:

    Redman LM, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, de Jonge L, Williamson DA, Delany JP, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.
    Source
    Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.

    The study was conducted by several actual scientists and then subjected to actual peer review before being published.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    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? My statement was that you're not considering people that are overweight to the extent that physical exercise is damaging- knees, heart, etc. and it may be necessary to focus on stomach reduction, portion control and changing eating habit in order to get to a point that physical exercise is more practical and safe.
    Samiamy2k

    The OP messed up his interpretation of the study results pretty severely. This study isn't about specific calorie targets regardless of body mass and activity.

    The take home message here is that metabolic adaptation diminishes over time, and that if you exercise while losing calories you avoid said metabolic adaptation completely. Furthermore, it appears that calorie restriction alone doesn't preserve as much lean mass as calorie restriction plus exercise. The final piece is that running a large calorie deficit produces the most weight loss but may cause more metabolic adaptation.

    In other words, there's nothing here we didn't already know. For best results, run a moderate calorie deficit and exercise.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    some guy on the internet that did a study.

    Ummmmmmm. Here's who actually did the study, and where:

    Redman LM, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, de Jonge L, Williamson DA, Delany JP, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.
    Source
    Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.

    The study was conducted by several actual scientists and then subjected to actual peer review before being published.
    Yeah, it would have been more correct to say some guy on the internet summarized a study and lots of people have brought up some good points about the validity of the summary.
  • GamerLady
    GamerLady Posts: 359 Member
    Options
    OP, thanks for the read.
  • Y05H1
    Y05H1 Posts: 9
    Options
    some guy on the internet that did a study.

    Ummmmmmm. Here's who actually did the study, and where:

    Redman LM, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, de Jonge L, Williamson DA, Delany JP, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.
    Source
    Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.

    The study was conducted by several actual scientists and then subjected to actual peer review before being published.

    Tell ya what, this makes it into Guyton's, I'll take it seriously. Just because 'someone did a study' doesn't mean it's right and should be preached as fact and has the same affect on everyone.

    Studies used to show Native Americans were inferior in intelligence.
    Studies used to show that smoking was healthy.
    I could make a huge list of this.

    I'm basing my opinion on my own experiences, and I call bollocks.
  • Serenstar75
    Serenstar75 Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    I don't know much about the science of that study. I do however know that I was maintaining a 1600 calorie diet and after getting a metabolic test, I'm under eating by 600 cals a day. Without factoring in my excersice. I had this test done at Kaiser and it turns out my metabolism is faster than normal. For each person I'm sure that right number of calories depends on their resting burn. 1200 is a average, which means there are going to be outliers.

    hey, I don't know much about heart surgery but come over later and I will do a triple bypass for you ....

    So basically, if anyone is experiencing anything different than what you suggest by your science, then your responses will all be like this?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I'm basing my opinion on my own experiences, and I call bollocks.

    On what part, specifically?
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    I am about done with this discussion; those of us left in it seem pretty entrenched. But to be clear to others trying to make sense of it, the conclusions reached by the OP are a stretch; it wasn't just a summary of the research. There was nothing about 1200 calories and they found a gradual partial slowdown of metabolism that did not interfere with weight loss on the VLC diet.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I actually just reviewed the metabolism chapter of my copy of Guyton's. It has a lot of info about metabolic rate and BMR, but doesn't really say anything about how BMR changes over time with calorie restriction or surplus.

    It does say this, however:

    "As long as a subject remains healthy, almost invariably the BMR, when expressed as a percentage of normal, does not vary more than 5 to 10 per cent except for age-related changes."

    It's only the ninth edition. Maybe the newer versions have expanded this section.

    Incidentally, it does have this line which I find interesting:

    "85% of normal people have been found to have BMRs within 10% of the mean."
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    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
    EniBee Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    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
    QuilterInVA Posts: 672 Member
    Options
    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
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    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
    NonnyMary Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    I dont follow anything that the obamas recommend.
  • LMick1986
    LMick1986 Posts: 431
    Options
    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
    LMick1986 Posts: 431
    Options
    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
    FightingFox Posts: 44
    Options
    It should really be "why losing weight while exercising is much better than losing weight without exercising."
    [/quote]
    ^^this
  • threshkreen
    threshkreen Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    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
    sugaree1202 Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories