Everyone seems to eat below daily calories??

ruthfmoy

When your caloric intake is too low you will have several health problems. One problem is reduced muscles mass. Your body searches for sources of energy to just keep vital organs functioning and it will turn to your muscle mass for those energy foods. This is called catabolism. Your metabolic rate will drop dramatically if you eat too little calories and after three days of low calorie intake this will compound your muscle mass loss. When you don"t eat enough calories you become sluggish, develop nutritional deficiencies, and are often highly irritable. If you are lowering your caloric intake for weight reduction, you are actually setting yourself for high weight gain when you do being to eat properly again.

Sued0nim

ruthfmoy wrote: »

When your caloric intake is too low you will have several health problems.

How far below for how long causes what kinds of health problems?

One problem is reduced muscles mass.

any weight loss is a result of the loss of water, fat and muscle, even at a very low cut which is why progressive resistance and protein are important to minimise the LBM loss

Your body searches for sources of energy to just keep vital organs functioning and it will turn to your muscle mass for those energy foods. This is called catabolism.

thats how the body is designed and yes that's the term but no that is not a scary proposition, just basic functions


Your metabolic rate will drop dramatically if you eat too little calories and after three days of low calorie intake this will compound your muscle mass loss.

yeah, no it won't. There is a thing called thermogenic adaptation which is minimal in the scheme of things and over a longer scale. Your metabolic rate is mainly a function of musculature and activity

When you don"t eat enough calories you become sluggish, develop nutritional deficiencies, and are often highly irritable.

true. I am also like this when I am overtired, premenstrual or my husband is being a dweeb

If you are lowering your caloric intake for weight reduction, you are actually setting yourself for high weight gain when you do being to eat properly again

Losing excess weight and getting fit and active are healthy, sustainable lifestyle choices that can improve your life expectancy

.

Wowsa

jesslynchxo817

This is why I, (idk about everyone else) have a high calorie day on Wednesdays. That's my "cheat" day where I'll eat a bit above my intake. But you are correct. Eating less than 1200 calories consistently is not good for anyone at all.

Sued0nim

jesslynchxo817 wrote: »

This is why I, (idk about everyone else) have a high calorie day on Wednesdays. That's my "cheat" day where I'll eat a bit above my intake. But you are correct. Eating less than 1200 calories consistently is not good for anyone at all.

Sorry the basic premise of this place is nobody eats below 1200 to ensure nutritional balance

Averaging calories over the week is also an appropriate method

I dislike the concept of having to cheat yourself, it doesn't bode well for future sustainability

If you are following some kind of IF that's a different approach of course

crazyjerseygirl

Sometimes I'm below my 1200kcal, sometimes I'm above. It's usually just around 20kcal difference so there no reason to think "below" means "way below"

Duchy82

This is a bit of a broad generalisation, taking yesterday as an example I was under my calorie allowance technically as I had done 1.5 hour of exercise and don't eat all of them back for the usual reasons. No one can see my diary but I suppose if you read my feed it would say I was under.
I would hope my body was catabolising that is the whole purpose of weightloss, with a bit of luck the majority of what was being used to make up for the on purpose deficit was my fat stores. Am I malnourished absolutely not, nutritionally deficient? Nope, setting myself up for gaining it back? I think NOT and the way you have phrased it we might as wel all give up hope of maintaining our losses as it would be impossible. What needs to be realised is that weightloss should NOT be achieved with a diet but should be achieved with a LIFESTYLE CHANGE it isn't a quick fix scenario you can just drop once goal weight is achieved.

If you would have said consistently eating way below the minimum scientifically proven 1200kcal for women and 1500kcal for men than yeah that comes with considerable risks.

lithezebra

I often eat below my daily goal, because the daily goal is an approximation, because I have days when I go over, because I spent 3 weeks in Iceland where I didn't log at all, because sometimes I forget to log something, because there are days when I'm not as active as usual, because I'm not always hungry, and because my daily goal isn't particularly low to start with.

lemurcat12

If your friends list is people who are consistently way below 1200, that's an issue with your friends, not MFP as a whole. When I first started I ate 1250 and happened to pick up a number of friends who ate at similar levels (many of whom are lovely people and still my friends). I think this was because I was a newbie and responded in a thread about eating 1200-1300 calories. As I went on I gathered friends from other sources, like a couple of challenges and some running and tri threads and a women interested in weights thread and those people typically tended to eat more. As I got more active I also ate well over 1200 typically (once I figured out that you were supposed to eat back exercise calories) and changed my goal to a TDEE-based on of 1600 (and then more at times).

Anyway, I don't think 1200-1300 is a bad goal for a subset of people (including me when not being active), but I wouldn't try to create a group of friends who encouraged staying BELOW 1200 (which I think is a bad idea for most, with exceptions for those on doctor-monitored diets with specific health concerns), and I'd definitely think about getting a group that's maybe more diverse with calorie goals, as it's nice to see that people can lose eating more. It was helpful to me and I know some of my friends said it was helpful to them.

(Full disclosure: I rarely look at people's diaries unless they ask me to, and I haven't been logging here because I've been practicing maintenance and trying out a different site.)

lemurcat12

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

For those at the bottom end of the calorie goals, I do think it makes more sense to set yourself to 1250 or 1300 just to give yourself a buffer. That way you avoid the red numbers in your diary, but you can still be under without going below the 1200 mark.

This is why I picked 1250 when I started, even though MFP would have set me at 1200 (for a supposed loss of 1.8 lb, it claimed -- 2 lb was appropriate at my weight) since otherwise I'd be in the red from going above (which I hated) or get the message about eating too little -- it seemed ridiculous.

I soon learned I could eat more anyway, since I wasn't really sedentary, and plus I started exercising.

nordlead2005

Eating below my daily allowance just means I'm back on a slightly more aggressive goal, still well within the 1% suggested max weight loss rate. Eating above/below that number doesn't make magic happen (like major health problems within days or massive fat gain overnight).

RoxieDawn

Us really short people out there are not on higher calories to loose weight at a deficit. Just a thought..

So how low is low and how are folks inputting their exercise calories or are they using a fitness device.. I don't go around looking in peoples diaries.. I never haven understood why it is important to see everyone's diary anyways..

abatonfan

Did you consider that some people set their goals to maintenance and then leave 250-500 calories remaining each day? I hate seeing the red numbers if I need to go over to treat a low blood sugar (and it also gives me the freedom to decide one day that I'm really hungry and want to eat at maintenance). My blood sugar has been running super high today (and don't like eating until I get down to a lower range), so I'll be lucky if I can reach 1000 calories. I'm irritable and have a killer headache from the high, but I'm going to try to enjoy this bacon-fest.

From personal experience, I know I'm facing some of the effects of "starvation diets." For three months, I didn't know that my body was unable to metabolize carbs (and a portion of protein due to certain metabolic pathways -yay, type 1 diabetes ), so despite consuming at least 2000-2500 calories, my body would only be able to generate energy from about 600-700ish; all the other calories were peed out ("sugar in the urine"). I certainly lost a ton of weight super quickly (about 55 pounds in three months), but I also lost a ton of muscle (and have a lower BMR now because of it). I will never remember the look on my mother's face when she realized how much weight I was losing; her exact words to me were "you look skeletal."

shadowfax_c11

recently, Instead of worrying too much about the daily goal, I just track net calories. I use a Fitbit for tracking daily burns and log very little exercise outside of that. I try to keep it between 1200 and 2000. Most days I am in the red at the end of the day but with a low Net. Been losing weight steadily since I started doing it this way, and not feeling too hungry in the process.

While sure I would sometimes like the numbers to drop faster, I know that this is for life and I need to be in for the long haul instead of expecting a quick fix to a decades long problem.

Sometimes I look at the ways people here try to make this complicated and just wonder how long they will be able to keep that up. Why make yourself miserable and set yourself up to fail, with an aggressive and restrictive plan, when you can just slow down and enjoy life while still making positive changes.

jemhh

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that everybody is starting with the minimum 1200 calories and going below it. When I started, my goal was 1980 plus exercise. I frequently came up a bit short. I don't think that hurt me one bit.

For those at the bottom end of the calorie goals, I do think it makes more sense to set yourself to 1250 or 1300 just to give yourself a buffer. That way you avoid the red numbers in your diary, but you can still be under without going below the 1200 mark.

This.

This week I've eaten under 3 days and over 2 days. I've still averaged right around my goal of 2150.

I admit to pretty much loathe the idea of 90% of 1200ers having that as their goal but don't assume that people coming in under their goals have such a low goal.

SergeantSausage

ruthfmoy wrote: »

When your caloric intake is too low you will have several health problems. One problem is reduced muscles mass. Your body searches for sources of energy to just keep vital organs functioning and it will turn to your muscle mass for those energy foods. This is called catabolism. Your metabolic rate will drop dramatically if you eat too little calories and after three days of low calorie intake this will compound your muscle mass loss. When you don"t eat enough calories you become sluggish, develop nutritional deficiencies, and are often highly irritable. If you are lowering your caloric intake for weight reduction, you are actually setting yourself for high weight gain when you do being to eat properly again.

Lolwut?

Let's start with the "eat properly" phrase, right? The very reason we got to a point where we needed to lose weight is *exactly because* we weren't eating properly in the first place. The rest is pretty much a garbage bag full of a heaping mismash of misinformation.

It appears you'll fit right in here ...

IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt

abatonfan wrote: »

Did you consider that some people set their goals to maintenance and then leave 250-500 calories remaining each day? I hate seeing the red numbers if I need to go over to treat a low blood sugar (and it also gives me the freedom to decide one day that I'm really hungry and want to eat at maintenance). My blood sugar has been running super high today (and don't like eating until I get down to a lower range), so I'll be lucky if I can reach 1000 calories. I'm irritable and have a killer headache from the high, but I'm going to try to enjoy this bacon-fest.

From personal experience, I know I'm facing some of the effects of "starvation diets." For three months, I didn't know that my body was unable to metabolize carbs (and a portion of protein due to certain metabolic pathways -yay, type 1 diabetes ), so despite consuming at least 2000-2500 calories, my body would only be able to generate energy from about 600-700ish; all the other calories were peed out ("sugar in the urine"). I certainly lost a ton of weight super quickly (about 55 pounds in three months), but I also lost a ton of muscle (and have a lower BMR now because of it). I will never remember the look on my mother's face when she realized how much weight I was losing; her exact words to me were "you look skeletal."

Setting your goal to maintenance and eating 250-500 below is a very interesting idea! I had never thought of that, so thanks for passing that concept along. I don't know whether that would mess with my head too much, but the beauty of MFP is that I can always try that and then go back to the traditional way if it doesn't work!

debrakgoogins

If you're talking about people who log less than 1200 calories a day, that is problematic. But...if you are talking about those that have a higher calorie limit, this isn't an issue.Yes, I consistently eat below my calories. I set my calories at an amount that allows me to slowly lose weight but doesn't leave me starving but it is well above the 1200 amount.

IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt

@HappyCampr1 - That's a good point! I think it might help my brain get used to that long term maintenance number, too, if that makes any sense. Sort of a reminder of the big picture and the fact that in order to maintain my loss, I'll never be able to go back to how I used to eat. I think I'll try it out and see how it goes!

ndj1979

ruthfmoy wrote: »

When your caloric intake is too low you will have several health problems. One problem is reduced muscles mass. Your body searches for sources of energy to just keep vital organs functioning and it will turn to your muscle mass for those energy foods. This is called catabolism. Your metabolic rate will drop dramatically if you eat too little calories and after three days of low calorie intake this will compound your muscle mass loss. When you don"t eat enough calories you become sluggish, develop nutritional deficiencies, and are often highly irritable. If you are lowering your caloric intake for weight reduction, you are actually setting yourself for high weight gain when you do being to eat properly again.

I am sorry but your body will not start cannibalizing muscle at three days of low intake. That takes months of eating almost nothing to happen.

Please stop fear mongering and spreading pseudoscience, there is enough of that on these boards.

ndj1979

my daily allowance is 3200 and I am bulking...so according to OP if I eat below that I will lose muscle mass...lol

talk about generalizing...

MsMaeFlowers

I don't eat back all of my exercise calories, and I also have my daily goal a bit higher so I can eat more on hungry days. It's set to 1320 for a goal of 1lb a week loss, but I will sometimes stop at 1200 if I'm feeling good. Combined with not eating all of my exercise calories back, I am always clocking in below. It doesn't bother me, because I know why it says it's below.