What's the big deal about 1,200?
Options
Replies
-
What I don't get is the wiggle room. Can someone tell me objectively what is "old", what is "short", what is "close to goal" and "sedentary" (that I think I got - you figure your activity level minus exercise daily, right - e.g. sitting all day, office job). I'm at 1200 cuz I'm 5'3, 52, sedentary and want to lose 15 lbs to be at 123. I put my goal for .5 a week and at 1260 calories per day - assuming i calculated correctly.0
-
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »What I don't get is the wiggle room. Can someone tell me objectively what is "old", what is "short", what is "close to goal" and "sedentary" (that I think I got - you figure your activity level minus exercise daily, right - e.g. sitting all day, office job). I'm at 1200 cuz I'm 5'3, 52, sedentary and want to lose 15 lbs to be at 123. I put my goal for .5 a week and at 1260 calories per day - assuming i calculated correctly.
Since I'm turning 38 this year, I'm not going to speculate on what "old" is (although I'm sure someone will be able to answer the question for you), but I would say that 5'3 and a goal of 15 pounds would make you both "short" and "close to goal."
That sounds pretty reasonable for a calorie goal. If you are doing exercise, I would consider eating back at least some of the calories burned. And, as always, the best proof is in your results. If you are hitting that goal and losing faster than you would expect, you can always increase your calories.4 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »What I don't get is the wiggle room. Can someone tell me objectively what is "old", what is "short", what is "close to goal" and "sedentary" (that I think I got - you figure your activity level minus exercise daily, right - e.g. sitting all day, office job). I'm at 1200 cuz I'm 5'3, 52, sedentary and want to lose 15 lbs to be at 123. I put my goal for .5 a week and at 1260 calories per day - assuming i calculated correctly.
There really is no wiggle room. The only subjectivity is the activity level. I always use sedentary no matter what and then just log my activity as I do it. That helps me be more accurate.
As for old and short, what they are really referring to is that you input your age and height as variables into the BMR estimation equations. As you age (according to the equations) your BMR decreases due to losses in muscle mass and not growing anymore. As such, the shorter you are, the smaller your frame and the less calories you get.
2 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.
ok... but, solely from an energy standpoint, as long as you have fat stores available... wouldn't you have the energy you need for your BMR functions?0 -
Your body needs certain amount of nutrients and macro nutrients to function.. so yes I think it should be a minimum and if you're not getting that amount you need to get more calorie dense foods.1
-
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.
ok... but, solely from an energy standpoint, as long as you have fat stores available... wouldn't you have the energy you need for your BMR functions?
Sure for awhile you would dig into fat stores along with lean muscle mass but eventually you would starve. You seem to be implying that starvation can't happen until your body has no fat left to use at all. That isn't true. As someone recovered from an eating disorder I am personaly very aware of what happens when you don't eat enough to fuel basic function. I suffered gallstones, kidney issues, muscle loss, fainting spells, blood pressure issues, and hair loss. These health risks are very real if you are not eating enough to support proper basic body function.
Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.5 -
I wonder if me being 256lbs was more of a health risk than eating 1200-1300 calories for what will probably amount to 9 months to a year. I'm going to anecdotally say I am going to be better off for it in the long run as long as I have a good transition plan to maintenance. I feel like I have the know-how and the resources with MFP and others.2
-
Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.
There's a health risk from undereating, but it isn't about BMR as people often claim (that's a myth--your body can't tell if you are under or over BMR unless you are actually immobile) or eating 1200 for a period of time. I think that's all GauchoMark is pointing out.
On the other hand:fitoverfortymom wrote: »I wonder if me being 256lbs was more of a health risk than eating 1200-1300 calories for what will probably amount to 9 months to a year. I'm going to anecdotally say I am going to be better off for it in the long run as long as I have a good transition plan to maintenance. I feel like I have the know-how and the resources with MFP and others.
I think both 256 could be more of a health risk AND 1200-1300 is unnecessary as a way to combat that health risk. It's not an either/or.
Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with eating 1200-1300 when obese (I certainly did, although once I figured out it was supposed to be net I did net, and think that was a much more sensible deficit). But an obese person can lose on more, certainly if they add in activity (which I think is healthier, if that's the main concern), and as one gets closer to goal normally the desirable deficit will be less for lots of reasons (including preservation of muscle mass which to me is a huge concern as I get older).
I also like the diet break idea that some others have mentioned.
But yeah, that's different from saying it's going to hurt you to stay at 1200 long-term with weight to lose. I'd mostly be concerned (in addition to muscle mass) that it might lead to avoidable metabolic adaptation (greater than otherwise).1 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »What I don't get is the wiggle room. Can someone tell me objectively what is "old", what is "short", what is "close to goal" and "sedentary" (that I think I got - you figure your activity level minus exercise daily, right - e.g. sitting all day, office job). I'm at 1200 cuz I'm 5'3, 52, sedentary and want to lose 15 lbs to be at 123. I put my goal for .5 a week and at 1260 calories per day - assuming i calculated correctly.
Seconding what others have said (with a twist): For someone like you, the wiggle room comes in after you have some experience with your actual weight loss rate. (For 250+ pound 20 year-olds, the wiggle room is potentially in the loss rate, and whether they believe their higher-than-1200 MFP target.)
But everyone should use his/her own data:
You may lose a larger amount in the first couple of weeks. If you feel fine, ignore those first couple of weeks.
Continue for another 2-4 weeks, depending on where you are in your monthly cycle (some women gain large amounts of water weight and lose it again; it differs by person & seemingly can happen any time from ovulation through the menstrual period).
If you have any significant negative symptoms during that next 2-4 weeks (fatigue, weakness, irritability, etc.), you may be getting feedback that your deficit is too extreme, and may wish to consider eating a bit more. (For you personally at 0.5/week, with your demographics, that extreme effect seems less likely.)
If and when you figure out that you're losing materially faster than your target rate, adjust eating (or exercise) to hit the healthy target.
The wiggle room is otherwise somewhat unpredictable - unless you have a decent idea of how many calories you were eating to maintain your pre-loss weight, in which case you have enough data to estimate your own calorie goals.
Part of the problem (and benefit
) is that the calculators (like MFP's) are based on population averages. The bell curve is pretty tall & narrow (small standard deviation), but any one person may still be out toward one end of the bell curve or other, able to eat significantly more or less than estimated from averages.
I'm 61, 5'5", and started losing weight at 183 (joined MFP in the 150s). My maintenance calories when I joined MFP should've been somewhere around 1600. MFP assigned me 1200, which should've been reasonable loss in practice. Nope - 2 pounds a week, maybe more, got weak, got fatigued, upped my eating fast when I realized this. Lost the rest of my weight handily eating 1400-1600 and above.
I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
Some people think of their personal results, and use that to advise others to eat more (or less). I don't. Other people's experiences can suggest something about the bell curve's dimensions, but they tell you nothing about your own place on it.
Only your own data holds the real answer. Use MFP calculations as a starting point. You're (specifc you) are already at 0.5 lbs/week. People who'd like to lose fast might benefit from setting a modest rate for a month or so to see where they stand, and gradually ease into lower calorie eating.1 -
I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
If I had to guess, I'd go with a combination of higher-than-typical NEAT and really accurate (or possibly really cynical - i.e. overestimating) food tracking. I'm the same way - and it all made sense when I got a FitBit and saw how insanely many steps I take in a day without actually trying.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
If I had to guess, I'd go with a combination of higher-than-typical NEAT and really accurate (or possibly really cynical - i.e. overestimating) food tracking. I'm the same way - and it all made sense when I got a FitBit and saw how insanely many steps I take in a day without actually trying.
I have a similar N=1 situation, I'm 5'2 and work at a desk job, yet my TDEE is 2200, based on FitBit and actual results. When I mention this in threads where someone says "I'm short so I have to eat 1200 or less if I want to lose" then I get comments about how I must be an anomaly. Turns out, I am just very active, outside of my purposeful exercise - my NEAT is high so the exercise bumps it up even higher. I just try not to sit down, other than when I have to - I'm constantly moving. As a result, I get to eat more food. Yeah food!
2 -
There is no 'one size fits all' calorie limit #.2
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
If I had to guess, I'd go with a combination of higher-than-typical NEAT and really accurate (or possibly really cynical - i.e. overestimating) food tracking. I'm the same way - and it all made sense when I got a FitBit and saw how insanely many steps I take in a day without actually trying.
My food tracking was very accurate - when I was losing, anyway: As accurate as I could make it. I probably overestimate restaurant meals, but only ate out a couple of times a week.
My NEAT has no reason to be high: I have a bad knee, and tend to minimize walking. I'm retired. My non-exercise hobbies are sedentary. I'm dead lazy about household chores. I spend scary amounts of time online. I even asked my closest, most honest friends if I'm twitchy, since that can account for a number (up to low hundreds) of calories daily. I'm not twitchy (though they did say I make large gestures when I talk - since I live alone, that's not generating a lot of calorie burn. ).
I have other speculations, but they're of the "50 calories here or there" nature. Maybe they add up. Maybe I'm just at a lucky spot on the curve. Doesn't really matter. Pretty sure it's not activity, though.
If you assume that the calorie burn data (to maintain, say) has a normal distribution (in the statistical sense), 68.27% of people are within 1 standard deviation of the mean, (in either direction), and 95.45% within 2 standard deviations. That still leaves nearly 5% of the population hanging out on the edges beyond 2 standard deviations . . . for whatever reason.
According to at least one source, one standard deviation (in one direction) is about 160 calories, if calculated on a mean of 2000. (It's proportionately similar for other values of mean calories; I just think it's clearer to use an example in calories instead of percents of calorie goals). That implies that if the mean for someone's demographics is 2000 calories, then almost 5% of people will maintain either below 1680, or above 2320. (https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ ).
So, it's unlikely for any of us to be an outlier, but it's pretty likely on MFP that we'll meet some.3 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.
ok... but, solely from an energy standpoint, as long as you have fat stores available... wouldn't you have the energy you need for your BMR functions?
Sure for awhile you would dig into fat stores along with lean muscle mass but eventually you would starve. You seem to be implying that starvation can't happen until your body has no fat left to use at all. That isn't true. As someone recovered from an eating disorder I am personaly very aware of what happens when you don't eat enough to fuel basic function. I suffered gallstones, kidney issues, muscle loss, fainting spells, blood pressure issues, and hair loss. These health risks are very real if you are not eating enough to support proper basic body function.
Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.
I'll agree with that statement. The fat will make up the remaining energy, which is what I have been saying. If you are getting adequate nutrients and some exercise, you really won't even lose that much lean mass while you are overweight. Once you get VERY lean (<5% for men and 13% for females), is where the issues you described become very real. Most people in a weight loss forum don't have to worry much about that for quite a while.
I can definitely see where someone with your background would have a different perspective and be sensitive to the subject, but I would also bet that when you were dealing with your eating disorder that, not only were you not getting enough energy, but you also were not getting proper nutrients. That is the entire point I am trying to make, which is what the OP originally asked (Where does that 1200 number come from?) - the number comes from it is the number of calories the food contains that an average person eating a BALANCED diet needs to get proper nutrients. Once you calculate the calories of the protein minimums, fat minimums, and tag along carbs, it comes out to about 1200 calories for most people. Energy has very little to do with it until you get very lean; aka have plenty of available fat stores.
Finally, for the record, I'm not trying to prove that VLCD's are healthy. In fact, in almost every post I have said that I don't recommend them. I was simply answering the question that was asked and I asked you for clarification/supporting info on your statement.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.
There's a health risk from undereating, but it isn't about BMR as people often claim (that's a myth--your body can't tell if you are under or over BMR unless you are actually immobile) or eating 1200 for a period of time. I think that's all GauchoMark is pointing out.
Thanks, that is more or less the point. The 1200 calories has little to do with BMR and more to do with nutritional needs.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
If I had to guess, I'd go with a combination of higher-than-typical NEAT and really accurate (or possibly really cynical - i.e. overestimating) food tracking. I'm the same way - and it all made sense when I got a FitBit and saw how insanely many steps I take in a day without actually trying.
My food tracking was very accurate - when I was losing, anyway: As accurate as I could make it. I probably overestimate restaurant meals, but only ate out a couple of times a week.
My NEAT has no reason to be high: I have a bad knee, and tend to minimize walking. I'm retired. My non-exercise hobbies are sedentary. I'm dead lazy about household chores. I spend scary amounts of time online. I even asked my closest, most honest friends if I'm twitchy, since that can account for a number (up to low hundreds) of calories daily. I'm not twitchy (though they did say I make large gestures when I talk - since I live alone, that's not generating a lot of calorie burn. ).
I have other speculations, but they're of the "50 calories here or there" nature. Maybe they add up. Maybe I'm just at a lucky spot on the curve. Doesn't really matter. Pretty sure it's not activity, though.
If you assume that the calorie burn data (to maintain, say) has a normal distribution (in the statistical sense), 68.27% of people are within 1 standard deviation of the mean, (in either direction), and 95.45% within 2 standard deviations. That still leaves nearly 5% of the population hanging out on the edges beyond 2 standard deviations . . . for whatever reason.
According to at least one source, one standard deviation (in one direction) is about 160 calories, if calculated on a mean of 2000. (It's proportionately similar for other values of mean calories; I just think it's clearer to use an example in calories instead of percents of calorie goals). That implies that if the mean for someone's demographics is 2000 calories, then almost 5% of people will maintain either below 1680, or above 2320. (https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ ).
So, it's unlikely for any of us to be an outlier, but it's pretty likely on MFP that we'll meet some.
Did you just use sigma levels to prove your point?!
1 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.
ok... but, solely from an energy standpoint, as long as you have fat stores available... wouldn't you have the energy you need for your BMR functions?
Sure for awhile you would dig into fat stores along with lean muscle mass but eventually you would starve. You seem to be implying that starvation can't happen until your body has no fat left to use at all. That isn't true. As someone recovered from an eating disorder I am personaly very aware of what happens when you don't eat enough to fuel basic function. I suffered gallstones, kidney issues, muscle loss, fainting spells, blood pressure issues, and hair loss. These health risks are very real if you are not eating enough to support proper basic body function.
Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.
I'll agree with that statement. The fat will make up the remaining energy, which is what I have been saying. If you are getting adequate nutrients and some exercise, you really won't even lose that much lean mass while you are overweight. Once you get VERY lean (<5% for men and 13% for females), is where the issues you described become very real. Most people in a weight loss forum don't have to worry much about that for quite a while.
I can definitely see where someone with your background would have a different perspective and be sensitive to the subject, but I would also bet that when you were dealing with your eating disorder that, not only were you not getting enough energy, but you also were not getting proper nutrients. That is the entire point I am trying to make, which is what the OP originally asked (Where does that 1200 number come from?) - the number comes from it is the number of calories the food contains that an average person eating a BALANCED diet needs to get proper nutrients. Once you calculate the calories of the protein minimums, fat minimums, and tag along carbs, it comes out to about 1200 calories for most people. Energy has very little to do with it until you get very lean; aka have plenty of available fat stores.
Finally, for the record, I'm not trying to prove that VLCD's are healthy. In fact, in almost every post I have said that I don't recommend them. I was simply answering the question that was asked and I asked you for clarification/supporting info on your statement.
I actually was 23%bf when hospitalized so you don't need to be all that small to see negative health affects but at this point I'm so done defending the fact that long term eating below BMR is not healtht and poses risks. It's just the truth and doesn't need defending.
Still confused as to why you took a response about health and being healthy and turned it into a fat burn debate. In the future please keep me out of your personal agendas.0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »I'm now maintaining my weight in the 120s. Calculators suggested I'd maintain, before exercise, if sedentary (which I am) somewhere around 1500. In reality, I maintain at somewhere in the 2000-2200 range before exercise. Why? Dunno. More muscular than most 60 y/o women is one thing, but not enough to account for that big a gap. Just lucky, I guess.
If I had to guess, I'd go with a combination of higher-than-typical NEAT and really accurate (or possibly really cynical - i.e. overestimating) food tracking. I'm the same way - and it all made sense when I got a FitBit and saw how insanely many steps I take in a day without actually trying.
My food tracking was very accurate - when I was losing, anyway: As accurate as I could make it. I probably overestimate restaurant meals, but only ate out a couple of times a week.
My NEAT has no reason to be high: I have a bad knee, and tend to minimize walking. I'm retired. My non-exercise hobbies are sedentary. I'm dead lazy about household chores. I spend scary amounts of time online. I even asked my closest, most honest friends if I'm twitchy, since that can account for a number (up to low hundreds) of calories daily. I'm not twitchy (though they did say I make large gestures when I talk - since I live alone, that's not generating a lot of calorie burn. ).
I have other speculations, but they're of the "50 calories here or there" nature. Maybe they add up. Maybe I'm just at a lucky spot on the curve. Doesn't really matter. Pretty sure it's not activity, though.
If you assume that the calorie burn data (to maintain, say) has a normal distribution (in the statistical sense), 68.27% of people are within 1 standard deviation of the mean, (in either direction), and 95.45% within 2 standard deviations. That still leaves nearly 5% of the population hanging out on the edges beyond 2 standard deviations . . . for whatever reason.
According to at least one source, one standard deviation (in one direction) is about 160 calories, if calculated on a mean of 2000. (It's proportionately similar for other values of mean calories; I just think it's clearer to use an example in calories instead of percents of calorie goals). That implies that if the mean for someone's demographics is 2000 calories, then almost 5% of people will maintain either below 1680, or above 2320. (https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ ).
So, it's unlikely for any of us to be an outlier, but it's pretty likely on MFP that we'll meet some.
Did you just use sigma levels to prove your point?!
We didn't call 'em that much when I took stats back in the stone age. But I know the term from QI/SPC in b-school and work.
And I wouldn't say "prove", I'd say "argue", maybe "illustrate" or "justify". Because I'm just that kind of pedant. 2 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.
The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.GauchoMark wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.
Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.
While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.
Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.
While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)
After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.
A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.
ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.
For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.
So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.
Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
You misinterperted as I never mentioned fat stores or weight at all in regards to BMR. What I said was its not healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is the amount your body requires for basic function; breathing, heart beat, etc. You need to give you body adequate fuel to stay alive regardless of weight or weight goals.
ok... but, solely from an energy standpoint, as long as you have fat stores available... wouldn't you have the energy you need for your BMR functions?
Sure for awhile you would dig into fat stores along with lean muscle mass but eventually you would starve. You seem to be implying that starvation can't happen until your body has no fat left to use at all. That isn't true. As someone recovered from an eating disorder I am personaly very aware of what happens when you don't eat enough to fuel basic function. I suffered gallstones, kidney issues, muscle loss, fainting spells, blood pressure issues, and hair loss. These health risks are very real if you are not eating enough to support proper basic body function.
Why are you so dead set on proving that eating below BMR long term is healthy? Since my sole point originally was the health risk and you continue to argue it I have to assume that you believe there isn't a health risk there. It's concerning.
I'll agree with that statement. The fat will make up the remaining energy, which is what I have been saying. If you are getting adequate nutrients and some exercise, you really won't even lose that much lean mass while you are overweight. Once you get VERY lean (<5% for men and 13% for females), is where the issues you described become very real. Most people in a weight loss forum don't have to worry much about that for quite a while.
I can definitely see where someone with your background would have a different perspective and be sensitive to the subject, but I would also bet that when you were dealing with your eating disorder that, not only were you not getting enough energy, but you also were not getting proper nutrients. That is the entire point I am trying to make, which is what the OP originally asked (Where does that 1200 number come from?) - the number comes from it is the number of calories the food contains that an average person eating a BALANCED diet needs to get proper nutrients. Once you calculate the calories of the protein minimums, fat minimums, and tag along carbs, it comes out to about 1200 calories for most people. Energy has very little to do with it until you get very lean; aka have plenty of available fat stores.
Finally, for the record, I'm not trying to prove that VLCD's are healthy. In fact, in almost every post I have said that I don't recommend them. I was simply answering the question that was asked and I asked you for clarification/supporting info on your statement.
I actually was 23%bf when hospitalized so you don't need to be all that small to see negative health affects but at this point I'm so done defending the fact that long term eating below BMR is not healtht and poses risks. It's just the truth and doesn't need defending.
Still confused as to why you took a response about health and being healthy and turned it into a fat burn debate. In the future please keep me out of your personal agendas.
really? I have no agenda. In the original post that I responded to you all I asked is where your info came from and why you thought that. It's taken you several posts and you still can't give me a reason other than your ED experience, which is not really applicable since it is doubtful that you were eating properly. Many of the symptoms you describe are actually protein deficiency symptoms.
How about this - in the future, be willing to act as an adult and debate a topic in a civil manner. If you post an answer, you should be able to support it in some way.
I am here to pass knowledge along as well as to learn - it is a 2-way street. My original response to you was genuinely curious where that info came from as it may have been something I had not thought of. AnnPT77 posted a helpful article and I went and read it and learned something new.
Asking questions and being open minded to new ideas can be helpful2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions