Tell me why? Only serious replies please.

joleenl

wow, you guys are really being tough on her for asking a question. I haven't seen a response from her yet that indicates she isn't open to an honest discussion. I think a lot of you are making some unfair assumptions about the OP.

OP - I pretty much agree with your 4 bullets from your first post with a little qualification. There really isn't anything magical about 1200 calories. If I eat 1100 calories am I going to die?! For me personally, 1200 would be very unhealthy. The only thing about 1200 calories that has some thread of validity is from a nutritional standpoint, it gives you enough calories that you can get a decent nutritional value from the diet. Technically, you can go below 1200 calories TEMPORARILY as long as you are really paying attention to nutritional needs. If you stick with it for a week or more, your body will adapt and the weight loss will start to slow (not stop).

I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.

Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.

Thanks for your nice reply. I am netting below 1000 calories but actually eating way more. I would never recommend a low calorie diet. I like food to much. That's why my question was regarding netting 1000 calories not consuming 1000 calories. Maybe I didn't present the information properly?

wareagle8706

Yes, your body will use stored stuff if you net below 1000 calories. It will use fat as well as protein (muscle mass) and will use glucose that your brain needs to function to keep your other vital systems functioning. So you should expect to become weaker and be pretty "foggy" and unable to concentrate as easily. Maybe even have some confusion.

When body builders go extremely low calorie before shows (which isn't below 1000, btw) they KNOW they will lose muscle mass in doing so. That is why body builders "bulk" before they cut, so that they can afford to lose some muscle.

shaleyn

So wait... (sorry OP, just clarifying something for myself)... unless i do intense cardio NOW, that handful of cinnamon teddy grahams I just ate is going straight to my hips??

JingleMuffin

3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!

why?

because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

joleenl

The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?

jonnythan

The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?

The problem is that you're running a very large calorie deficit. The larger the calorie deficit, the more lean mass you will sacrifice, the less likely you are to stick with it, and the more tired/depleted you will feel. If you're fine with all that then go right ahead.

BrianSharpe

3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

A calorie is not a calorie even when it comes to energy.

You eat 300 calories of vegetable or 300 calories of sugar (for example, pasta, or cereal, or bread)

300 calories of cereal get converted into sugar almost instantly. Your body can only use up so much of it, and the rest must be stored as fat. Burning fat is not as easy as burning energy that is glucose in your bloodstream. To start burning fat reserves you need at least 20 minutes of intense cardio (or a certain amount of deficit). It is not a simple process, and your body resists doing it if it does not have to.

Your vegetable calories will be released gradually, giving you more chance to use the energy as it becomes available. (Fruit has complex and simple carbs, so you get instant energy and gradual energy after).

It will also take longer to digest and leave your stomach, thus keeping it fuller longer and your blood sugar more stable.

When you get a massive spike in glucose, such as from processed carbs that our bodies have not adapted to evolutionary, many people's bodies release too much insulin to compensate, and subsequently their glucose levels drop even lower than before they ate. That causes a natural urge to eat more quick energy for that fix, and want for more carbs, and this can become a cycle.

Also, some of the fiber in fruits and veggies does not get digested. So you are actually getting less energy than the entire plant contains. Not the case with simple carbs.

So "calorie is a calorie" is not a correct statement for practical purposes.
Hope this helps.

So, your body doesn't store glycogen? There is, very clearly, an alarming misunderstanding of how insulin works being promulgated......

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/fat-cell2.htm

deksgrl

I only have my trainer for another 5 weeks so I am trying to maximize my results by lowering my %BF in that time span. I will be only netting that low for 4/7 days a week.

Okay this makes more sense, you told the trainer that this was your goal and so she is just trying to get you to that goal in this time frame regardless of whether it is a good plan or sustainable long term.

I think that since you have a high body fat % that it is okay, but not long term of course. What will be your goal/plan after the 5 weeks?

joleenl

The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?

The problem is that you're running a very large calorie deficit. The larger the calorie deficit, the more lean mass you will sacrifice, the less likely you are to stick with it, and the more tired/depleted you will feel. If you're fine with all that then go right ahead.

Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

joleenl

I only have my trainer for another 5 weeks so I am trying to maximize my results by lowering my %BF in that time span. I will be only netting that low for 4/7 days a week.

Okay this makes more sense, you told the trainer that this was your goal and so she is just trying to get you to that goal in this time frame regardless of whether it is a good plan or sustainable long term.

I think that since you have a high body fat % that it is okay, but not long term of course. What will be your goal/plan after the 5 weeks?

My plan is to go back to either TDEE-20% or MFP calories plus eating exercise calories and MOST importantly continue lifting and cardio. Once I get to my goal weight or %BF then I will probably cut back on cardio since I aint a huge fan of it.

jonnythan

Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

With a calorie deficit that big? Yes.

Your body can only generate so many calories a day from fat. The more fat mass you have, the more calories your body can generate per day from fat. That's why we tell people that people with more fat to lose can run larger deficits. That's all well and good, but the fact remains that as you increase the calories your body has to generate from its own mass, you increase the proportion of those calories that come from non-fat mass.

Your method will, necessarily, result in more lean mass loss than the slower more reasonable approach that pretty much everyone recommends. It will also make you feel worse.

johnnlinda

You have a very nice diary. I wish I ate that healthy. I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go. If that is your current picture, I find it hard to believe you have 40% I'm just curious.

MsPudding

I am actually serious people. I like food too. I eat more then 1000 calories everyday. I NET LESS then 1000. I aint doing it for life. I am doing it as temporary cut. Like cycling between cuts and bulks.

The quick answer to this is: is your bodybuilding trainer also a registered dietitian? Or a doctor? If the answer either question is "no", then she doesn't have the relevant knowledge to assure you that netting 1000 calories day after day is medically safe.

So my answer is, go ask a doctor or a dietitian whether what your trainer is telling you to do is either a) safe or b) advisable for you.

brosehemian

To all the people who say that eating under 1200, whatever number of calories is dangerous... what makes 1200 calories the 'magic' number that works for all body types? Couldn't it be dangerous for a huge man to eat less than 1600 or whatever? I'm not disputing that you need to eat enough calories to sustain your body, but I'm so tired of seeing the "at least 1200 calories for everyone!" argument tossed around.

Can you get .82 grams of protein per Lb of body mass, 0.35 - 0.4 grams of dietary fat, and all of your vitamins and minerals through your food eating less than 1200 calories? Please....go shovel your **** elsewhere.

I never said you could or couldn't. I never recommended that anyone eat too little. I'm just saying that everyone who was getting down on her for NETTING 1000 and telling her she needed to eat at least 1200 should maybe consider that those numbers are really unhelpful when being applied so generally. She needs to look at what works for her, keeps her healthy, and makes her feel full of energy and life.

I REALLY don't appreciate your profanity or your negativity and I further ask that if you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, you not comment. Have a great day.

Showcase_Brodown

3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!

why?

because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

Yes, nutrition is important as well and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but the original point had to do with the energy content. In that context, calories are equal. It was even qualified with "in regards to energy, not nutrition."

myofibril

Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

With a calorie deficit that big? Yes.

Your body can only generate so many calories a day from fat. The more fat mass you have, the more calories your body can generate per day from fat. That's why we tell people that people with more fat to lose can run larger deficits. That's all well and good, but the fact remains that as you increase the calories your body has to generate from its own mass, you increase the proportion of those calories that come from non-fat mass.

Your method will, necessarily, result in more lean mass loss than the slower more reasonable approach that pretty much everyone recommends. It will also make you feel worse.

I think this neatly summarises the position.

You theoretically won't lose as great a % of fat free mass to fat mass as a leaner person attempting to use the same deficit but you will lose more than if your deficit had been more conservative. How much more is difficult to gauge.

It's essentially a trade off and whether the benefits outweigh the burdens for you personally.

pluckabee

3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!

why?

because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

Yes, nutrition is important as well and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but the original point had to do with the energy content. In that context, calories are equal. It was even qualified with "in regards to energy, not nutrition."

In that context, calories are completely irrelevant. Of course a calorie is a calorie outside the body, it is a fixed measurement. What use is that if when ingested, it is not the same?

JossFit

I think you should toss out the NET calorie count and just work off of totals.

If you were to tell people that you work out x times per week and eat roughly 1800 calories per day, nobody would bat an eye. I don't think that, given your stats, that is a low number at all.

joleenl

You have a very nice diary. I wish I ate that healthy. I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go. If that is your current picture, I find it hard to believe you have 40% I'm just curious.

Thank you. My body fat was measured by my personal trainer using digital calipers. Appparently I have 107 pounds of lean body mass. My trainer monitors these as I can't afford to lose any more lean body mass. As for my ticker, I just picked a goal weight when entering it. My actual goal is to be at around 25% BF. I am not sure what weight I'll be at so I can't update my ticker.

caly_man

I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go.

was going to say this, but someone else saw the math too

and OP, as far as only have 5 weeks with your trainer, that's great. what you'll learn in those 5 weeks you can continue on your own without having to net so little cals. you shouldn't rush your body into giving up the fat

and btw, congrats on losing 35 lbs, that's a nice accomplishment