Hoarding Calories
Replies
-
It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.
Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.
Why do people always take a generalization, that is meant to apply to the general public, and try to counter it with a blanket outlier case scenario?
People who have WLS do not apply here. They are medically induced into eating less. Their body adjusts to it, their metabolism gets slower (which btw, means your supposition does not counter the hypothesis that metabolism is reduced due to eating less chronically). The health benefits are from dropping the weight that was killing them. But my grandmother had WLS, as well as my aunt, and now that they are thin they are both suffering from some of the negative effects of WLS - being that they can't eat much, ever.
While I don't agree with the blanket statement "Never under 1200" (who ever came up with that number anyway? Seems to me it should be "Never under BMR") there certainly are detrimental effects to eating a reduced calorie diet over the long term. Plus, I like eating food, my body likes me eating food, so I shall continue to do so.
Also, troll title, thanks for that.0 -
Your BMR is what your body needs if you were laying in a hospital bed in a coma. It is what your body needs to function. If a person consistently eats below their BMR, then their body will reduce their metabolism and therefore reduce their BMR. So a person putting back on a lot of weight could be because they went back to their old eating habits, or it could be that they ate below their BMR for so long that their BMR actually decreased. So even if they continue to eat right and at a maintenance level, they gain the weight back because they have hosed their metabolism.
How much would someone with plenty of fat stores and who is still exercising regularly expect BMR to be reduced by simply eating less? What functions does the body slow or stop in order to use less energy? Is this like the Starship Enterprise going into life support mode. Oh, but wait, BMR is already life support only mode.
Why do some lose more with less calories and others claim to lose little or nothing on a deficit? How do anorexics get so skinny?0 -
I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...
Good luck with that.0 -
if u eat 1000 cals and burn 500
u ate 500
and that's too few
and u will gain from starvation mode0 -
It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.
Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.
Why do people always take a generalization, that is meant to apply to the general public, and try to counter it with a blanket outlier case scenario?
People who have WLS do not apply here. They are medically induced into eating less. Their body adjusts to it, their metabolism gets slower (which btw, means your supposition does not counter the hypothesis that metabolism is reduced due to eating less chronically). The health benefits are from dropping the weight that was killing them. But my grandmother had WLS, as well as my aunt, and now that they are thin they are both suffering from some of the negative effects of WLS - being that they can't eat much, ever.
While I don't agree with the blanket statement "Never under 1200" (who ever came up with that number anyway? Seems to me it should be "Never under BMR") there certainly are detrimental effects to eating a reduced calorie diet over the long term. Plus, I like eating food, my body likes me eating food, so I shall continue to do so.
Also, troll title, thanks for that.
What you prefer or do is irrelevant. And how do the individual case scenarios of your mother and grandmother = generalization of women that have had weight loss surgery. But women who have experienced health benefits from weight loss surgery doesn't = generalization of women eating VLCD?
Do you believe that the surgery itself somehow makes the women biologically different than someone that just simply eats the same calories without surgery?0 -
I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...
Good luck with that.
But your car will drive without a full tank of gas, yes?0 -
Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.
Me too0 -
It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.
Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.
Maybe it's because they are being monitored by a doctor and their doctor determined that it was worth the risk of a VLCD for them to lose the weight. A doctor, specifically for their situation. This does not apply to the general public in any way at all.
Well, duh. The general public doesn't eat a VLCD. But that wasn't my point. These women consistently eat below 1200, below BMR, for long periods of time and experience better health. Sometimes reversal of disease.0 -
how about some other reasons, besides "starvation mode" that I eat more than 600 or 800 or even 1200 calories a day...
well, first of all, because I'm hungry ffs. but also...
i don't want...
...my hair to fall out
...my nails to be brittle
...my skin to get even saggier and pale
...to get sick often because my immune system is weak
...to lose muscle
...to binge because OMG I'M SO HUNGRY BECAUSE I'VE BARELY BEEN EATING
...to have nowhere to go when I hit a plateau (what am I gonna do, eat even LESS?)
...to feel "hangry"
...to lack the energy I need to walk up a mountain trail or go for a run
as others have said, you wont necessarily completely stop losing weight if you severely restrict your calories, but IN THE LONG RUN, yes you will slow your metabolism down, so that in the future it will be very difficult to maintain a healthy weight.0 -
It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.
Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.
Maybe it's because they are being monitored by a doctor and their doctor determined that it was worth the risk of a VLCD for them to lose the weight. A doctor, specifically for their situation. This does not apply to the general public in any way at all.
Well, duh. The general public doesn't eat a VLCD. But that wasn't my point. These women consistently eat below 1200, below BMR, for long periods of time and experience better health. Sometimes reversal of disease.
The better health and reversal of disease is not due to a VLCD. It is because they lost weight. Period.
Not necessarily. You should read some of the recent studies.
But even if true, doesn't that prove that a VLCD can have the same health benefits as losing more slowly?0 -
Your BMR is what your body needs if you were laying in a hospital bed in a coma. It is what your body needs to function. If a person consistently eats below their BMR, then their body will reduce their metabolism and therefore reduce their BMR. So a person putting back on a lot of weight could be because they went back to their old eating habits, or it could be that they ate below their BMR for so long that their BMR actually decreased. So even if they continue to eat right and at a maintenance level, they gain the weight back because they have hosed their metabolism.
How much would someone with plenty of fat stores and who is still exercising regularly expect BMR to be reduced by simply eating less? What functions does the body slow or stop in order to use less energy? Is this like the Starship Enterprise going into life support mode. Oh, but wait, BMR is already life support only mode.
Why do some lose more with less calories and others claim to lose little or nothing on a deficit? How do anorexics get so skinny?
Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919536-get-your-metabolic-rate-tested-my-metabolic-reset-story
Proof that you can actually lower your RMR by not eating enough.
Never said you couldn't. I simply asked questions that no one is answering.0 -
I think someone needs to go eat, by the looks of your diary.
0 -
Yes but for how long?I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...
Good luck with that.
But your car will drive without a full tank of gas, yes?0 -
Yes but for how long?I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...
Good luck with that.
But your car will drive without a full tank of gas, yes?
Exactly0 -
Yes but for how long?I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...
Good luck with that.
But your car will drive without a full tank of gas, yes?
IDK What kind of car do you drive and what type of driving are you doing?
ETA: Actually the car analogy isn't a bad one, since it seems some people can function quite well on less calories than others, just like some cars are more fuel efficient.0 -
Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.
Me too
I do this everyday. It's called intermittent fasting, and it's glorious!! :happy: :happy:0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...0
-
We are all different shapes and sizes. We lose and gain weight differently. Each person, should they have been paying attention and treating it properly, should know what their body is capable of. We can't rely on other people to provide ALL the answers because we have this system that says we should all be "average". For example. I am 4 foot 9 inches, I am told that I should between 100-115lbs, but they are not considering that I have a big butt, wide hips, and big breasted. That I have "dwarf" like features, and that I am oddly shaped in some areas... I am not average... but they are telling me to be. We need to get this idea of "cookie cutter people" out of our society and heads.
I would not consider "starvation mode" on that of someone that is 400lbs and eating around 1000-1500 calories a day, there's plenty of "storage" there for the body to get.Someone of 100lbs, is a little different, though. Yes, eating 300-500 calories a day, there's nothing there to consume, and the body is going to not want to let go of what is there already.0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...
I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.0 -
Ditto.Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...
I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.
Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...
I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.
Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.
The OP said eating 1000.0 -
Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.
Hahaha me too!0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...
I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.
Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.
The OP said eating 1000.
And burning 500. So netting 500. BMR is what your body needs beyond exercise. If she netted 500 cals and her BMR was say around 1400 (pretty average) I'd say that is more than slightly under...0 -
Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.
I thought more like the pantry and fridge are so full and piled up you can't find what your after.
.0 -
Where's the popcorn?0
-
Your BMR is what your body needs if you were laying in a hospital bed in a coma. It is what your body needs to function. If a person consistently eats below their BMR, then their body will reduce their metabolism and therefore reduce their BMR. So a person putting back on a lot of weight could be because they went back to their old eating habits, or it could be that they ate below their BMR for so long that their BMR actually decreased. So even if they continue to eat right and at a maintenance level, they gain the weight back because they have hosed their metabolism.
How much would someone with plenty of fat stores and who is still exercising regularly expect BMR to be reduced by simply eating less? What functions does the body slow or stop in order to use less energy? Is this like the Starship Enterprise going into life support mode. Oh, but wait, BMR is already life support only mode.
Why do some lose more with less calories and others claim to lose little or nothing on a deficit? How do anorexics get so skinny?
Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919536-get-your-metabolic-rate-tested-my-metabolic-reset-story
Proof that you can actually lower your RMR by not eating enough.
Never said you couldn't. I simply asked questions that no one is answering.
Alright in answer to your questions:
Because using fat stores is not the easiest way for a person to gain energy. When you eat, the body will use that energy first before going into fat stores. First it uses what you ate, then it will use glycogen stores, then fat stores and finally muscle. Also your body has a capacity to remember from day to day what type of fuel you are supplying it. So if you are not giving it the proper fuel, it will lower the BMR even if a person does have fat stores. Case in point, I had my sigmoid colon removed. I didn't eat for 6 days. Guess how much weight I lost? Zip, nada, zilch. I actually gained a couple pounds. And believe me, I had plenty of fat stores for my body to work with. It really doesn't take long for your body to realize that you are not fueling it properly. It's only goal in life is to survive and it will do everything it can to survive. No, I'm not claiming that your body is smart, just that the interactions between brain and organs is designed for only one purpose, to survive.How much would someone with plenty of fat stores and who is still exercising regularly expect BMR to be reduced by simply eating less? What functions does the body slow or stop in order to use less energy?Is this like the Starship Enterprise going into life support mode. Oh, but wait, BMR is already life support only mode.
So I take this as saying that BMR is already life support mode and therefore cannot be changed, but then you turn around and say 'Never said you couldn't." in response to my post about BMR being affected with VLCDs. Sorry, makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Probably because those that are losing with less calories have a lower RMR than they think they do. And those that lose with higher caloric intake have a higher RMR. The only way to know for sure is to have RMR tested. Everyone should have their RMR tested.Why do some lose more with less calories and others claim to lose little or nothing on a deficit?
Probably because they've been doing it for so long that their body is using everything it can find for fuel. Your body can't reduce BMR to 0 or you'd be dead, so that's why. There is always going to be a small amount needed for your body to survive, but I guarantee that any anorexic has a very low BMR. Probably as low as the body can go without dying... oh wait, anorexics can actually die from being anorexic, yes?How do anorexics get so skinny?
Lots of "probably there. And too much nonsense. If you want to believe you can have a calorie deficit and not lose, so be it.0 -
Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.
HAHA! Exactly what I was thinking.0 -
I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...
I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.
Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.
The OP said eating 1000.
And burning 500. So netting 500. BMR is what your body needs beyond exercise. If she netted 500 cals and her BMR was say around 1400 (pretty average) I'd say that is more than slightly under...
But the 500 burned through exercise could come from fat stores when not provided though food. That's what fat stores are for.
It's possible to get proper nutrition on 1000 calories, so it's not starvation.0 -
Awww, now the diary is no longer open. I'm always late to these parties..... 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions