3 week weigh in - 20.8 lbs gone in 22 days! I'm stoked!

vespiquenn

ModernRock wrote: »

vespiquenn wrote: »

If you're eating below your BMR, your weightloss is going to cause damage to your organs, including heart, along with hair loss ect.

I'm not going to get in the middle of the specifics of this particular person, but I'm curious if you have a citation supporting your warning for an obese person eating under BMR, but above 1200. The citation should show evidence that their body will cannibalize organs (and cause hair loss) prior to using their substantial fat stores to make up the difference between caloric intake and BMR. If that's the case, then MFP is recommending a highly dangerous calorie intake for many, many people.

I'm also curious what you think about eating above BMR, but then exercising to an under BMR deficit? Does that result in the same negative health consequences? Why or why not? After all, the result is still fewer calories available for basic functions.

I have about 30-40 pounds to lose. My BMR is about 1900 with a 2400 sedentary TDEE. MFP's recommendation, set at sedentary and a 2 lbs weekly loss, is around 1680. Are you suggesting my organs and hair would be in imminent danger if I followed that plan?

I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.

What I have noticed with this individual is she avoids answering questions of her stats. Judging by her ticker on the profile, she has about 100lbs to lose. So I took a shot in the dark, registered her weight at 250lbs, height at 5'2", and age at 44. That still brought up a BMR of 1737. So she should at least aim for an area around that. I'm sure that's not accurate in regards to stats, but her BMR wouldn't change all too much. If the height increased, it would even go up. Now, that isn't to say that eating at 1600 would kill her, especially when there other body elements involved and the area of error in the calculator, but definitely 1200 is not safe at long term. At 5'9, mine is technically 1,509. Unfortunately, MFP doesn't take BMR completely into effect. Even though mine is 1509, it has allowed me to go down as low as 1300. It just is not sustainable in the long run to go too low. That isn't to say I don't have days that I don't net 1200, and obviously I'm alive. But it's not good to do it on an continuous basis. So to answer your question, yes, exercising below your BMR can result in negative consequences down the road.

However, if this what works for them, more power to them.

Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. With that much weight to lose, she probably can survive on fat storage for awhile. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly along with that fat. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible. So even in your case, with 30-40lbs to lose, you should start thinking of dropping it down to 1lb a week soon. I have about 15-20lb to go, and it's still recommended that I stick to a goal of .5 to 1lb per week to ensure I'm not going to low. Pretty soon I'm going to have to fully bring it to .5lbs. Slow and steady wins the race.

But with that being said, I wish everyone luck.

ModernRock

vespiquenn wrote: »

I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.

Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible.

I agree that "slow and steady" is a great way to win the race. No disagreement. I started out at 1690 calories a day and was losing quicker than 2 pounds a week. I had plenty of energy, more than usual actually, but I was often truly hungry and even got light headed a few times. It might have been because I underestimated my activity level, or perhaps a result of eating 300 below my BMR, a combination of both, or perhaps nothing to do with calories and everything to do with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iron and/or potassium).

However, you made a strong unconditioned statement about the dire consequences of eating below BMR, and still haven't provided any citations. (I can Google search bogus beliefs about anything, but it doesn't make them true.) Now you seem to be saying a minimum of 1200 is fine, just not sustainable or healthy to go under 1200 for an extended period of time. She says she's doing 1200, and unbeknownst to her, perhaps her doctors already plan to increase her intake after a brief (read: not extended) period. Also, that you prefer not to lose lean mass is irrelevant to her. I apologize to the OP if it sounds harsh, but I'd guess she'd prefer not to lug around that 100 extra pounds of fat every day.

vespiquenn

ModernRock wrote: »

vespiquenn wrote: »

I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.

Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible.

I agree that "slow and steady" is a great way to win the race. No disagreement. I started out at 1690 calories a day and was losing quicker than 2 pounds a week. I had plenty of energy, more than usual actually, but I was often truly hungry and even got light headed a few times. It might have been because I underestimated my activity level, or perhaps a result of eating 300 below my BMR, a combination of both, or perhaps nothing to do with calories and everything to do with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iron and/or potassium).

However, you made a strong unconditioned statement about the dire consequences of eating below BMR, and still haven't provided any citations. (I can Google search bogus beliefs about anything, but it doesn't make them true.) Now you seem to be saying a minimum of 1200 is fine, just not sustainable or healthy to go under 1200 for an extended period of time. She says she's doing 1200, and unbeknownst to her, perhaps her doctors already plan to increase her intake after a brief (read: not extended) period. Also, that you prefer not to lose lean mass is irrelevant to her. I apologize to the OP if it sounds harsh, but I'd guess she'd prefer not to lug around that 100 extra pounds of fat every day.

I will admit that the increase is very possible. It's exactly why I'm not necessarily arguing the point, because at the end of the day, her progress or lack there of isn't important to me nor anyone else here. Just her.

I will also admit that I have been looking for a peer reviewed article on this matter that I actually just read a few days ago, but not having luck finding the forum that it was located. However, what it essentially stated was that folks that are under BMR versus those that did not had lost a greater percentage of lean muscle mass. Which you claim is irrelevant, but I don't know why any person would willingly do that to themselves. If I can manage to find it, I will link the article. But to be perfectly honest, it doesn't take a scientist to know that eating below what your body needs at pure rest isn't going to result in consequences after time.

But I will admit that I did not think of them upping it at some point, which may or may not be the case. But I'm not going to further this debate because I do not want to keep giving the OP alerts over a conversation straying from her original post. Essentially, I don't want to continue being a Debbie Downer on her celebratory topic. If I can manage to find that article, I will link it.

In the end, I essentially just wanted to ensure that the OP was aware of BMR because many newbies (not saying she is; general statement) are not. She claims she is, so there's not really much more to discuss. If she's confident in her doctors and feels that she can sustain her intake, I'm not one to challenge it further.

ModernRock

vespiquenn wrote: »

However, what it essentially stated was that folks that are under BMR versus those that did not had lost a greater percentage of lean muscle mass. Which you claim is irrelevant, but I don't know why any person would willingly do that to themselves. If I can manage to find it, I will link the article. But to be perfectly honest, it doesn't take a scientist to know that eating below what your body needs at pure rest isn't going to result in consequences after time.

Sure, there are consequences. Your body will turn to stored fat for fuel, to a lesser extent muscle, you'll be hungry, and you'll have a hard time sustaining for long periods at a time (if that's even the plan). I have no doubt that studies find sub-BMR diets burning more muscle. Makes sense to me. But, I was responding to the warning that eating under BMR results in organ damage and hair loss. It is entirely possible that those starvation-level effects disappear at 1200+ calories even if under BMR. I'd be interested in any study you find on that issue. In the meantime, the The NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute states "Eating plans that contain 1,200–1,500 calories each day will help most women lose weight safely."

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/eat/calories.htm

Domicinator

I got a lot of flack when I started out eating 1500 a day. I felt totally fine, and didn't even feel especially hungry at night--I was just eating smaller, more protein rich meals and that kept me feeling nourished and energetic for a long time. Most people here were very encouraging, but there were also ALWAYS people telling me I was undereating and being unhealthy about my weight loss. I mostly just shrugged it off and listened to my body.

About two months ago, 1500 calories a day started feeling really bad, because I started getting a lot closer to my goal weight. I was hungry all the time, crabby, unenergetic, etc. I simply listened to my body and upped my daily caloric intake to 1700. That made a HUGE difference and I was back to being energetic and happy again. What's more is that my weight loss has continued, and I'm now 13 lbs. away from my ultimate goal of 175. (My minimum goal was anywhere in the 180's, which I hit a few days ago.)

If you feel fine at 1200 a day, go for it. Listen to your body when it starts telling you that's not enough and adjust up from there. You will be fine. Congrats on your weight loss.

lauramariew

Way to go! Listen to your body and your doctor's. I salute you on finding what works for you! Being a diabetic changes your life, and it seems you have it all under control. Keep up the good work!