Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Calorie Deficit vs Starving Yourself
Replies
-
I'm 14 pounds from my ideal body weight (based on what a chart tells me is ideal, I think I look pretty decent for 40!!). Anyway, I've lost 13 pounds already and i did that by drinking a protein smoothie for breakfast & lunch that are about 180-200 calories each. Then I eat about 500-600 calories the remaining part of the day. I take a multi-vitamin and put hemp powder, moringa, chlorella in my daily smoothies. No dairy, very low carbs from starches. Some people accuse me of "starving" myself because I'm not eating 1200 calories. However, I'm not hungry and I'm meeting all of my nutritional needs. I workout moderately about 3 days/week for a total of 2-3 hours, mostly elliptical or brisk walk on incline. It works for me. I think if you eat the right kinds of food, (veggies, veggies, veggies) you can be full, healthy, lose weight and keep it off.4
-
I'm 14 pounds from my ideal body weight (based on what a chart tells me is ideal, I think I look pretty decent for 40!!). Anyway, I've lost 13 pounds already and i did that by drinking a protein smoothie for breakfast & lunch that are about 180-200 calories each. Then I eat about 500-600 calories the remaining part of the day. I take a multi-vitamin and put hemp powder, moringa, chlorella in my daily smoothies. No dairy, very low carbs from starches. Some people accuse me of "starving" myself because I'm not eating 1200 calories. However, I'm not hungry and I'm meeting all of my nutritional needs. I workout moderately about 3 days/week for a total of 2-3 hours, mostly elliptical or brisk walk on incline. It works for me. I think if you eat the right kinds of food, (veggies, veggies, veggies) you can be full, healthy, lose weight and keep it off.
Your weekly weight loss goal should be 1/2 pound a week. This would very likely bring you above 1200 daily calories. The reason for eating more would be to fuel your body and it's basic functions......heart, lungs, kidneys, existing lean muscle, etc.
Sure your body will use fat stores for some things, but unfortunately with aggressive weekly weight loss you are using existing lean muscle mass as fuel also. Healthy weight loss is about reducing your body fat percentage.
To keep more lean muscle: eat enough protein, eat enough calories overall (moderate deficit) and add resistance training to your workout regimen.0 -
TamzFit777 wrote: »The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
Me too. I'm always hungry, especially between lunch and dinner, even with a snack. And after my dinner, im still hungry, by the time I go to bed, I'm very uncomfortable (even after an attempt to fill up on an after dinner 8pm salad) and I get cold and have a difficult time going to sleep. Maybe I need more calories.
Possibly, but you might benefit from altering the foods you eat to incorporate greater volume: veggies, egg whites, oatmeal, low sugar fruits, and lean proteins like chicken/turkey. Even at 2400 calories, I still have to do this. I eat loads of volume.
Yes, those are all good choices but I don't do egg whites because I wouldn't be able to eat it. Or maybe, I could give up the pumpernickel bread (140 cal) that I have in the morning with my egg for some kind of veggie.. But I really do enjoy my egg with the bread.
Lunch is usually a protein shake with a banana, 1 tbsp peanut butter and a 1/4 cup raw oats. Dinner example is boneless skinless chicken breast, sweet potato and a half avocado, and a spinach kale salad with 7 almonds and a few dried cranberries (1tbsp dried cranberries). Usually will have a fruit for snack (1 cup cantaloupe). The calories add up so fast.0 -
I'm 14 pounds from my ideal body weight (based on what a chart tells me is ideal, I think I look pretty decent for 40!!). Anyway, I've lost 13 pounds already and i did that by drinking a protein smoothie for breakfast & lunch that are about 180-200 calories each. Then I eat about 500-600 calories the remaining part of the day. I take a multi-vitamin and put hemp powder, moringa, chlorella in my daily smoothies. No dairy, very low carbs from starches. Some people accuse me of "starving" myself because I'm not eating 1200 calories. However, I'm not hungry and I'm meeting all of my nutritional needs. I workout moderately about 3 days/week for a total of 2-3 hours, mostly elliptical or brisk walk on incline. It works for me. I think if you eat the right kinds of food, (veggies, veggies, veggies) you can be full, healthy, lose weight and keep it off.
Your weekly weight loss goal should be 1/2 pound a week. This would very likely bring you above 1200 daily calories. The reason for eating more would be to fuel your body and it's basic functions......heart, lungs, kidneys, existing lean muscle, etc.
Sure your body will use fat stores for some things, but unfortunately with aggressive weekly weight loss you are using existing lean muscle mass as fuel also. Healthy weight loss is about reducing your body fat percentage.
To keep more lean muscle: eat enough protein, eat enough calories overall (moderate deficit) and add resistance training to your workout regimen.
Another thing to point, I rarely ever see someone with an aggressive weight loss goal (i.e. - 1000 calorie diet) ever reach their ideal body image. And i many cases, it takes significantly longer due to them being required to rebuild the muscle they lost during weight loss (very common with women who are close to or are under weight (maybe still have stomach fat issues).
Keep mind, that it is MUCH easier to maintain muscle than to build new muscle. And more importantly, muscle is what gives people that slim, toned or cut appears. And slowing down weight loss by a few months is a lot better than the year(s) of bulking/cutting... not even including the psychological impacts on adding fat to your body.0 -
TamzFit777 wrote: »TamzFit777 wrote: »The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
Me too. I'm always hungry, especially between lunch and dinner, even with a snack. And after my dinner, im still hungry, by the time I go to bed, I'm very uncomfortable (even after an attempt to fill up on an after dinner 8pm salad) and I get cold and have a difficult time going to sleep. Maybe I need more calories.
Possibly, but you might benefit from altering the foods you eat to incorporate greater volume: veggies, egg whites, oatmeal, low sugar fruits, and lean proteins like chicken/turkey. Even at 2400 calories, I still have to do this. I eat loads of volume.
Yes, those are all good choices but I don't do egg whites because I wouldn't be able to eat it. Or maybe, I could give up the pumpernickel bread (140 cal) that I have in the morning with my egg for some kind of veggie.. But I really do enjoy my egg with the bread.
Lunch is usually a protein shake with a banana, 1 tbsp peanut butter and a 1/4 cup raw oats. Dinner example is boneless skinless chicken breast, sweet potato and a half avocado, and a spinach kale salad with 7 almonds and a few dried cranberries (1tbsp dried cranberries). Usually will have a fruit for snack (1 cup cantaloupe). The calories add up so fast.
What I generally do is mix 2 egg whites with one egg (top with salsa); my omelets are generally 4 egg whites, 2 eggs, peppers, onions, cheese and salsa.
Replacing a banana with low GI/low sugar fruit such as berries will give you greater volume. Swapping pumpernickle with some whole wheat (I use Arnold breads) will save you 80 calories, and I sparingly use avocados due to the fat content. I tend to cut fat due to the low satiety for me. I increase starches (potatoes) as they fill me up more. When I do red meat, I go sirloin or strip as it has less fat.
Alternatively, some people who need volume, find interim fasting beneficial so they can have larger volume meals. It didn't work for me.0 -
Thanks for the comments. I exceed my protein recommendations everyday. Vegetables, Hemp, Moringa, Tofu, Nuts all contain protein and are nutritionally dense. I have a great diet. I also do Yoga and weight lifting ocassionally. I am quite strong. Today I did a 2 min plank, rowing and incline walking. My Dad is a doctor and Mom is a BioChemist/Director of Public Health who is a 25+ year Vegan. I've never been really overweight because I am generally a healthy eater, however when my son was battling cancer I ate a lot of crap out of stress and convenience. I think sometimes making a drastic change in your habits can help people reset their priorities and begin to develop new/better longterm habits. I do agree that if your goal is to achieve your ideal body weight that it has to be a sustainable and healthy plan. I feel like my plan is sustainable to my lifestyle and I'm confident that I will lose another 7-10 pounds... I'm not striving for perfection. Just keep trying new things until you find what works. :0)0
-
[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I'm always vastly skeptical of these claims. Of the reviews that state this, I often find they all get the number based on a specific study that involved not 20% decrease in TDEE, but actually a decrease in energy used to pedal a bike at low levels. This same study also only found it for low speed, and only in individuals that lost weight without any resistance training - they even avoided letting the people have much physical movement in the facility where they were studied.
I'm generally skeptical of them in that they clash with evolution. Why would the body bother waiting for the first famine event to alter calorie use? Evolution involves constant selection for organisms that produce the most offspring per calorie count, and most of human evolution has been a story of feast-famine cycles. Again, why wait for the first time a person hits a famine to reduce their calorie use if the body has access to a power saver mode?0 -
@psulemon but isn't "Males" too broad of a term to use in such a statement? I mean what if the guy weighs 500 pounds or 456 like the subject of the medical test I linked to earlier? If the fat stored can be used for fuel, then doesn't it stand to reason that people with more fuel stores can afford a higher calorie deficit? The guy in the study fasted for over a year. He didn't eat anything but vitamins for over a year! Now, I'm sure he wasn't hitting PRs on workouts or anything, but he survived fine. Heck, even child molester Jared from Subway sustained a diet of less than 1000 calories for a very long time while incorporating walking. I just think that a lot of people fail to take into account the full scope of the parameters affecting the "morbidly" obese.Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.
Males should not be cutting at 1250-1350 calories, especially when they are exercising (outside of highly trained people cutting for composition and short periods of time under doctor supervision). You may wont to reconsider your calorie and macronutrient levels based on long term goals and training.
0 -
@psulemon but isn't "Males" too broad of a term to use in such a statement? I mean what if the guy weighs 500 pounds or 456 like the subject of the medical test I linked to earlier? If the fat stored can be used for fuel, then doesn't it stand to reason that people with more fuel stores can afford a higher calorie deficit? The guy in the study fasted for over a year. He didn't eat anything but vitamins for over a year! Now, I'm sure he wasn't hitting PRs on workouts or anything, but he survived fine. Heck, even child molester Jared from Subway sustained a diet of less than 1000 calories for a very long time while incorporating walking. I just think that a lot of people fail to take into account the full scope of the parameters affecting the "morbidly" obese.Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.
Males should not be cutting at 1250-1350 calories, especially when they are exercising (outside of highly trained people cutting for composition and short periods of time under doctor supervision). You may wont to reconsider your calorie and macronutrient levels based on long term goals and training.
You're cherry-picking down to a size of one. I could also conclude it is safe to jump out of planes if you let me select single individuals surviving it.
Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision. Even the initially supervised VLCDs (very low calorie diets, the kind that involve 1,000 calories or less) cause amino acid deficiencies because of the protein source used in them, despite them being done under medical supervision (though admittedly during a less knowledgeable era).0 -
@psulemon but isn't "Males" too broad of a term to use in such a statement? I mean what if the guy weighs 500 pounds or 456 like the subject of the medical test I linked to earlier? If the fat stored can be used for fuel, then doesn't it stand to reason that people with more fuel stores can afford a higher calorie deficit? The guy in the study fasted for over a year. He didn't eat anything but vitamins for over a year! Now, I'm sure he wasn't hitting PRs on workouts or anything, but he survived fine. Heck, even child molester Jared from Subway sustained a diet of less than 1000 calories for a very long time while incorporating walking. I just think that a lot of people fail to take into account the full scope of the parameters affecting the "morbidly" obese.Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.
Males should not be cutting at 1250-1350 calories, especially when they are exercising (outside of highly trained people cutting for composition and short periods of time under doctor supervision). You may wont to reconsider your calorie and macronutrient levels based on long term goals and training.
The fatter you are, the more loss per week you can get away with, but it's always a weighing of risks. In those cases, staying at the extreme obese bodyweight is more dangerous than surviving on only vitamins.0 -
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.0 -
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.
There is a huge difference between a self prescribe vlcd than a doctor supervised, especially on the nutrient side. And as much as we would all love to believe we are doing a great job, it becomes even more difficult to get those nutrients on a lcd.
But it does come down to pros and cons. But generally those that are 300 have a good chance on being under dr care.0 -
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.
Well the potential side effects of both are death. Being deficient in amino acids is probably going to do it a lot faster than being 200+ pounds overweight.
Any proper VLCD done by an actual doctor and dietician with specialty in weight loss and nutrition is going to be safe currently.
My personal feeling as I've lost weight is that I can't recommend surgery as a weight loss method for anyone, though anyone who has done it is free to feel it was worth it to them. As far as the calories, post surgery it might be that low and for such a time it would be medically supervised. Even after recovery, my understanding is anyone that has undergone such surgeries has to supplement under medical direction because of malabsorption from the surgery. Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.0 -
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.0
-
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school.0 -
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
My doctor prescribed me the highest dose of Phentermine when I was 15lb overweight, so yeah.. Doctors are not always responsible or knowledgeable on ALL things human.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
My doctor prescribed me the highest dose of Phentermine when I was 15lb overweight, so yeah.. Doctors are not always responsible or knowledgeable on ALL things human.
Possible heart valve damage for 15 lbs? Interesting trade off your doctor thought was worth it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."0 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition? How do we determine the certain minimums? Why 1500? Erring on the side of caution is great, but that's a lot different than telling someone they are without question eating too little, without taking into account their whole situation.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
0 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png1 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png
Easy, bro. It was an honest question (see below). We're having a discussion here, right? There's no need to come at me and accusing me of attempting to inject a fallacy into the argument. We can surely address the content of the discussion without devolving to personal attacks.from Bing
def·i·cit.
[ˈdefəsət]
NOUN
1.the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.
synonyms: shortfall · deficiency · shortage · debt · arrears ·
[more]0 -
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
Calorie deficit on MFP is never below 1,200 (which is only for small people like myself, and is definitely possible to do without starving per se...just have to get in the habit of snacking and not wasting all 1,200 cals on one meal)0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
There will always be scenario's where being a very low calorie diet is more acceptable; generally, those are generally under the care of some medical professional so they run continuous blood work to ensure no deficiencies. Generally, you will see this in those who are very obese (males at 300lbs +). In these cases, the aggressive weight loss disadvantages can outweigh the disadvantages of being obese. Where issues become a factor is self prescribed very low calorie diets. This is where real deficiencies can occur. And yes, I have seen people hospitalized for real life deficiencies. My friend see them all the time (she is a pediatric cardiologist); between extreme restriction and/or diet pills, it can lead to all kinds of problems.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »All this VLCD information. Is just that, those who want to go under 1000 cal will. We won't be able to educate them or make them see a GP to monitor them. I am happy to sit at 1350 when losing, but speaking from experience VLCD can be quite damaging to people around you. I would personally never go under 1350.
That is a very sensible approach however I'm now confused as to why you would say on another thread that you lost 10kg (22lbs) in 1 month?0 -
[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I'm always vastly skeptical of these claims. Of the reviews that state this, I often find they all get the number based on a specific study that involved not 20% decrease in TDEE, but actually a decrease in energy used to pedal a bike at low levels. This same study also only found it for low speed, and only in individuals that lost weight without any resistance training - they even avoided letting the people have much physical movement in the facility where they were studied.
I'm generally skeptical of them in that they clash with evolution. Why would the body bother waiting for the first famine event to alter calorie use? Evolution involves constant selection for organisms that produce the most offspring per calorie count, and most of human evolution has been a story of feast-famine cycles. Again, why wait for the first time a person hits a famine to reduce their calorie use if the body has access to a power saver mode?
Consider something like muscular coordination - with training, muscles fiber recruitment becomes more efficient and uses less energy in exercise; any cardiovascular fitness program focused on driving an improved response in oxygen utilisation. Why aren't we always at the top of our muscular recruitment and cardiovascular form? Because these processes are driven by other things than evolutionary cost.
The same thing occurs with weight gain - functional efficiencies and costs (from creating fat cells, vascularisation, liver weight, muscle loss in activity driven through weight gain, etc...) change the process cost in ways not driven by evolutionary needs. So either that 200-400 calorie differential hysteresis effect has not been such that it drives evolutionary selection or it is a rate limiting element that can't be avoided.
In any case, hysteresis is clearly documented, your feelings of skepticism don't change that.1 -
Back to the topic question - in my opinion, starvation is a chronic OR acute deficit in basic nutritional needs which can include calories AND/OR specific nutrients. I consider that someone can be starving in the nutritional sense while overeating calories. Rabbit starvation - when eating too much protein without sufficient fats is an example of this.
Or you can say I'm totally wrong and just talking about nutritional deficiencies. Fine - I'll take that. These types of deficiencies are highly important in that we read about people experiencing them all the time on MFP - from hair loss, to depression, to hypothyroidism these outcomes are sometimes driven by this type of "starvation".
There are plenty of examples of people starving themselves on restrictive diets like vegetarianism (note this doesn't mean one can't eat properly as a vegetarian), etc. when no attention is paid to nutrition.
The lower limits of calories that one can sustain during dieting without seeing dietary deficiencies that are long term harmful is somewhere in the 600-700 cals but requires strict supplementation, important focus on nutrient partitioning and little exercise activity. Hence the recommendations of 1200 cals in general.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I'm always vastly skeptical of these claims. Of the reviews that state this, I often find they all get the number based on a specific study that involved not 20% decrease in TDEE, but actually a decrease in energy used to pedal a bike at low levels. This same study also only found it for low speed, and only in individuals that lost weight without any resistance training - they even avoided letting the people have much physical movement in the facility where they were studied.
I'm generally skeptical of them in that they clash with evolution. Why would the body bother waiting for the first famine event to alter calorie use? Evolution involves constant selection for organisms that produce the most offspring per calorie count, and most of human evolution has been a story of feast-famine cycles. Again, why wait for the first time a person hits a famine to reduce their calorie use if the body has access to a power saver mode?
Consider something like muscular coordination - with training, muscles fiber recruitment becomes more efficient and uses less energy in exercise; any cardiovascular fitness program focused on driving an improved response in oxygen utilisation. Why aren't we always at the top of our muscular recruitment and cardiovascular form? Because these processes are driven by other things than evolutionary cost.
The same thing occurs with weight gain - functional efficiencies and costs (from creating fat cells, vascularisation, liver weight, muscle loss in activity driven through weight gain, etc...) change the process cost in ways not driven by evolutionary needs. So either that 200-400 calorie differential hysteresis effect has not been such that it drives evolutionary selection or it is a rate limiting element that can't be avoided.
In any case, hysteresis is clearly documented, your feelings of skepticism don't change that.
I don't find that number well documented at all. It stems mainly from Rosenbaum repeating his own research in reviews. He also touts the 90% regain in that review, even though that number is more repeated adage than based on substance.
And avoiding calorie expenditure to produce mute offspring is pretty cut throat in evolution. Upright human posture seems to have evolved to save around 4 calories to the walking km. Having 300 to 400 spare metabolic capacity seems incredulous in comparison to an extent that raises my skepticism not just as a feeling, but as points they don't coincide without better explanatory mechanisms.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Back to the topic question - in my opinion, starvation is a chronic OR acute deficit in basic nutritional needs which can include calories AND/OR specific nutrients. I consider that someone can be starving in the nutritional sense while overeating calories. Rabbit starvation - when eating too much protein without sufficient fats is an example of this.
Or you can say I'm totally wrong and just talking about nutritional deficiencies. Fine - I'll take that. These types of deficiencies are highly important in that we read about people experiencing them all the time on MFP - from hair loss, to depression, to hypothyroidism these outcomes are sometimes driven by this type of "starvation".
There are plenty of examples of people starving themselves on restrictive diets like vegetarianism (note this doesn't mean one can't eat properly as a vegetarian), etc. when no attention is paid to nutrition.
The lower limits of calories that one can sustain during dieting without seeing dietary deficiencies that are long term harmful is somewhere in the 600-700 cals but requires strict supplementation, important focus on nutrient partitioning and little exercise activity. Hence the recommendations of 1200 cals in general.
You're basically in line with the official definition with the exception of severity, FWIW. If a nutritional deficiency can be lived with, it's not considered starvation.
"Starvation is the result of a severe or total lack of nutrients needed for the maintenance of life."
- Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed. | 2006 | Polsdorfer, J.; Frey, Rebecca; COPYRIGHT 2006 Thomson Gale.
ETA: Notice time scale is not mentioned.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions