daily calorie intake--puzzled

meltedsno

I've been reading various topics on this board...enjoying them all... but am puzzled about something. I read a lot about how not taking in enough calories everyday could result in no weight loss or even a weight gain and that you should increase your calorie intake to break the no-weight-loss routine.

So, how come someone who has had a gastric bypass or other weight loss operation, loses weight afterwards by intaking a very limited amount of calories? Also, how about the people who are following a very low calorie diet consisting of drinking shakes while under a doctors care... they lose weight consistently. I know they are under a doctor's care during this process, but unless the doctor has a magic wand that he waves over these individuals, shouldn't they stop losing weight because of a low calorie intake?

I KNOW that very low calorie diets are not healthy and a good percentage of those dieters will ultimately gain their weight back (including the ones who have had the gastric bypass... I personally know who a few who went that route and are now heavier than before)...so please no lectures on the perils of very low calorie diets....

....just trying to understand why I keep reading that eating too few calories results in no weight loss when in fact, those under doctors' care seem to lose quickly and consistently...

SideSteel

The following is my current opinion.

I've been reading various topics on this board...enjoying them all... but am puzzled about something. I read a lot about how not taking in enough calories everyday could result in no weight loss or even a weight gain

Unlikely to be true in most circumstances/contexts.

and that you should increase your calorie intake to break the no-weight-loss routine.

This is sort of blanket advice that gets handed out without considering context. In my opinion it is wrong far more often than it is right.

So, how come someone who has had a gastric bypass or other weight loss operation, loses weight afterwards by intaking a very limited amount of calories?

Because that's how it works and the previous things you heard are likely not how it works in most situations/contexts.

Also, how about the people who are following a very low calorie diet consisting of drinking shakes while under a doctors care... they lose weight consistently.

Same answer as above.

I know they are under a doctor's care during this process, but unless the doctor has a magic wand that he waves over these individuals, shouldn't they stop losing weight because of a low calorie intake?

Nope. And that's the interesting part. When calorie intake is actually tightly monitored, calorie deficits result in weight loss.

....just trying to understand why I keep reading that eating too few calories results in no weight loss when in fact, those under doctors' care seem to lose quickly and consistently...

I'm under the belief that attempts to create large calorie deficits tend to result in remarkably poor adherence and inaccurate logging. Now having said that, I also think there's merit to the idea that energy intake can effect energy output, and reducing calories quite low could in theory result in lower energy expenditure whether that's due to involuntary or voluntary activity changes.

Now, in some cases there may be merit to attempt to gradually increase energy intake over long periods of time to attempt to upregulate hormones (either through a straight-up diet break or in some cases a long reverse diet). Anecdotally, I'm seeing a slightly higher maintenance intake after a successful reverse myself -- but I think context needs to be considered.

What you tend to see on MFP forums is lack of context, and people throwing out "eat more" without first looking at the individuals stats, whether or not they use a food scale, how accurate they log things, whether they've already lost a bunch of weight (adaptive thermogenesis), leanness, duration of caloric deficit, etc, etc,

So you have to consider these things before throwing that out there. My general observation is that it seems like more often than not, the answer is not to raise intake. TYPICALLY I see tracking errors and failure to measure properly resulting in energy intakes being significantly higher than what they assume -- although once again context is everything and the real take away is to gather that context before dishing out what could be absolutely awful advice.

TheDoctorDana

I have wondered the same thing but I think the problem is, like you said, the risk of gaining the weight back and more on top of it due to losing too fast. I think you will lose the weight fast by lowering your calories like that but you will have a tendency to binge eat when you stop because it's not sustainable. I am just guessing though.

seena511

i can't remember the exact post but if someone could point OP to it, that'd be great...it was by sidesteel, heybales or sara i believe...

but it explains the difference between semi starvation and starvation mode. what a lot of people refer to on here as "starvation" mode is really semi-starvation mode. you're eating below your BMI, but still enough calories to survive, so your weight loss stalls.

full starvation mode is what people on VLCDs (very low calorie diets, like those who have undergone gastric bypass surgery) are experiencing. the are barely eating enough to keep their bodies going, for a limited period of time and under a doctor's supervision. (if it's not for a limited time or under a doctor's supervision, it's usually referred to as anorexia).

the reason that people who have stalled weight loss after eating, say, 1200 calories a day for a long time, are being recommended to eat more is because their body has gotten used to using the energy it gets from food very efficiently and therefore is unwilling to waste any of it. by increasing your caloric intake, you're reassuring your body that it's OK to expend some of that energy less efficiently (weight loss) because you're not going to die.

anyone chime in and correct me if i'm wrong.

ETA i just realized sidesteel already responded and you should probably listen to him :-P

Amitysk

The mal-absorbtive part of the gastric bypass (coupled with a greatly reduced stomach) is what makes it work. If weight regain happens it's usually because 1. the body has begun to absorb nutrients again and/or 2. the patient goes back to previous habits, or new ones and the weight sneaks back up on them. The whole point of the surgery is that it's a tool that should help get you on track with a healthy lifestyle. Those that think it's an easy fix and that they don't have to work for it are delusional. It's hard, it takes work...forever.

As far as those on the restricted dr supervised diets, its because they have not only VLCD but major accountability with check ins with their doctor.

matyoung125

Eating too few calories you will loose weight ( think of starving people or POWs) but you're metabolism will be affected. Basically the body will loose muscle first as that has the biggest energy requirement. ~This will slow weight loss. Eventually the body will use the fat it has stored. When dieting to loose weight it's more sustainable and better for you to eat enough not maintain muscle and loose the weight slow. You'll look better for one.

People having a gastric band consume little food but have large amounts of fat which provide the calories they require each day hence they loose weight as the fat is metabolised. As weight is reduced so is the calorie requirement. Over time the affects of the surgery are reduced meaning patients can eat more,. Eventually they should have lost the weight but be able to eat enough calories to maintain.

Nutrient deficiency is a real problem on the low calorie intake. Many supplements are taken and the patient is monitored closely.

phoo513

You have partially answered your own question. The magic words are "under a doctor's care". I have had a RnY gastric by-pass surgery, so I am speaking from experience. After surgery, if you have a competent doctor, you are required to continue visits w/ that doctor, take part in an ongoing support group w/ other patients, take B12 shots, use protein powders, and take a list of vitamins & supplements to keep your body functioning at a healthy level. The support groups are to help you deal with the emotional and behavioral aspects of the rapid weight loss and significant changes needed in your life style. It is a major undertaking. Even with all of that, at some point in time, your body figures out how to pull extra calories out of the food, and the weight loss does slow down. And, if the behavioral changes are not maintained, weight can be regained- usually slowly, but regained. That is exactly what happened to me. I regained 75 of the 140+ pounds that I had lost, and am now using MFP to help me with developing a new life style. Gastric Bypass surgery is not an easy-fix, nor is it a permanent fix-without-work. I am grateful it allowed me the first large loss because it gave me many tools that are also helping me this time. We all need to realize that no matter which path of this journey we take, it will require hard work, diligence, and lots & lots of help along the way! Good Luck, my Friend.

Mokey41

IMHO, the whole eat more to weigh less theory is total bunk perpetrated by those who wish to eat more. I totally agree eating VLCD's for long term will probably lead to problems with nutrition but not no weight loss. It's not some kind of miracle that some people will lose and others will gain.

I've spent time in Africa and the people we met will guarantee you that a 500 calorie a day diet will peel weight off you and keep it off. My work in nursing homes tells me the same thing.

Sarauk2sf

The following is my current opinion.

I've been reading various topics on this board...enjoying them all... but am puzzled about something. I read a lot about how not taking in enough calories everyday could result in no weight loss or even a weight gain

Unlikely to be true in most circumstances/contexts.

and that you should increase your calorie intake to break the no-weight-loss routine.

This is sort of blanket advice that gets handed out without considering context. In my opinion it is wrong far more often than it is right.

So, how come someone who has had a gastric bypass or other weight loss operation, loses weight afterwards by intaking a very limited amount of calories?

Because that's how it works and the previous things you heard are likely not how it works in most situations/contexts.

Also, how about the people who are following a very low calorie diet consisting of drinking shakes while under a doctors care... they lose weight consistently.

Same answer as above.

I know they are under a doctor's care during this process, but unless the doctor has a magic wand that he waves over these individuals, shouldn't they stop losing weight because of a low calorie intake?

Nope. And that's the interesting part. When calorie intake is actually tightly monitored, calorie deficits result in weight loss.

....just trying to understand why I keep reading that eating too few calories results in no weight loss when in fact, those under doctors' care seem to lose quickly and consistently...

I'm under the belief that attempts to create large calorie deficits tend to result in remarkably poor adherence and inaccurate logging. Now having said that, I also think there's merit to the idea that energy intake can effect energy output, and reducing calories quite low could in theory result in lower energy expenditure whether that's due to involuntary or voluntary activity changes.

Now, in some cases there may be merit to attempt to gradually increase energy intake over long periods of time to attempt to upregulate hormones (either through a straight-up diet break or in some cases a long reverse diet). Anecdotally, I'm seeing a slightly higher maintenance intake after a successful reverse myself -- but I think context needs to be considered.

What you tend to see on MFP forums is lack of context, and people throwing out "eat more" without first looking at the individuals stats, whether or not they use a food scale, how accurate they log things, whether they've already lost a bunch of weight (adaptive thermogenesis), leanness, duration of caloric deficit, etc, etc,

So you have to consider these things before throwing that out there. My general observation is that it seems like more often than not, the answer is not to raise intake. TYPICALLY I see tracking errors and failure to measure properly resulting in energy intakes being significantly higher than what they assume -- although once again context is everything and the real take away is to gather that context before dishing out what could be absolutely awful advice.

Totally agree with all this. There will be some apparent 'stalls' with actual weight loss with high deficits as they can create more stress which leads to more water retention. The weight loss is also not 'efficient' as energy expenditure is reduced more than with a smaller deficit and the weight loss is likely to be more muscle loss than with a smaller deficit (context is also relevant here, for example the amount BF that someone has). That is not to say large deficits are a good idea in the majority of cases. But in the many of cases, people are not actually on a large deficit - they are eating more than they think and burning less than they think.

meltedsno

Great responses to my question... I tend to think of things in as simple terms as possible...so, am I correct, then, that the concept of not eating enough calories = not losing weight is incorrect and could very well be a lame excuse for someone wanting to eat more?

Matyyoung125 said that people who have a gastric band consume little food but have large amounts of fat which provides the calories they require each day, thus losing weight as the fat is metabolized... That makes sense to me... so it only makes sense to me that if someone has a lot of fat, they can eat a VLCD and lose weight with or without the surgery or doctors' care. That doesn't mean, however, that it is nutritionally sound...

I suspect for the people who say they are only eating X amount of calories, not losing any weight, and confused as to why not... are really eating XXX amount of calories and are not being honest with themselves.

So... this "starvation mode"... when does one enter "starvation"? after one day? one week? one month? Wouldn't it make sense to say that once the body has depleted all its resources to feed itself, it has then entered "starvation mode"? So if someone has 100 pounds of fat on their bodies, how could they be in starvation mode when the body has fat resources to feed itself?

My apologies if this all sounds stupid... it's just something I've been pondering for a long time and am wondering if some people use the "starvation mode" theory as a cop out when in reality, they aren't being as honest about their food intake/exercise as they should be...

notdebby

I don't know all the ins and outs but I just recently had an interesting experience regarding this. I recently cut out most processed and "junk" food from my diet because, even though I wasn't eating a lot of calories (generally around 1500 to 1600 a day), the junky type food coupled with the fact that I wasn't getting enough exercise made me gain a fairly steady 3/4 of a pound a month over the course of several years.

My husband was put on a low carb diet under a doctor's supervision to get metabolic syndrome under control which was the impetus behind removing the processed stuff in the first place. His diet is also high fat so I decided to try it as well. I did lose weight but found out that high fat does not work for me as it causes a lot of depression and I'm not talking low carb flu, I'm talking clinical/suicidal depression.

So I cut out the fat which made my calorie count fall to 750 a day. I started feeling much better but the doctor (I'm also under his care) had a hissy, and rightly so because 750 just isn't enough. The other thing that happened on 750 calories a day is that my weight loss stalled for an entire month. My doctor has told me that he wants me to be at at least 1350 a day so I've started adding low GL carbs instead of fat and trying my best to be at 1350 or greater each day and I've lost 1 1/2 pounds this week. So I think Sidesteel's explanation of starvation vs semi-starvation mode makes a lot of sense.

cwolfman13

Great responses to my question... I tend to think of things in as simple terms as possible...so, am I correct, then, that the concept of not eating enough calories = not losing weight is incorrect and could very well be a lame excuse for someone wanting to eat more?

I actually believe this whole "myth" started with misunderstanding of eat more, lose more. The idea behind that is that you don't have to starve yourself to lose weight...you can actually eat quite a bit and still lose...and people who follow that tend to be more successful because their "diet" is more sustainable. For me, it made a huge difference in adherence to my deficit eating 1900 net calories (usually around 2100-2200 gross) vs my initial deficit goal of 1400 net calories. It was night and day...I struggled with the low calories because I was always hungry and had low energy...so I'd cheat myself and sneak little treats here and there which resulted in little to no weight loss...but I told everyone that "I was doing everything right." When I increased my calories I had a much easier time sticking with things and didn't feel deprived and hungry...the Lbs melted off pretty consistently.

I suspect for the people who say they are only eating X amount of calories, not losing any weight, and confused as to why not... are really eating XXX amount of calories and are not being honest with themselves.

Exactly...nine times out of ten they are underestimating consumption and/or overestimating their burn. A lot of people fail to measure and weigh food properly and...I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30% error when people eyeball portions and such. People also cheat themselves all of the time...as I did early on.

So... this "starvation mode"... when does one enter "starvation"? after one day? one week? one month? Wouldn't it make sense to say that once the body has depleted all its resources to feed itself, it has then entered "starvation mode"? So if someone has 100 pounds of fat on their bodies, how could they be in starvation mode when the body has fat resources to feed itself?

"Starvation Mode" is widely missunderstood and people use that term way too much. It is true that there is metabolic adaptation and VLCD do result in much more loss of muscle and LBM, but that's not what "starvation" mode is. I will say that it is next to impossible without professional assistance to get ones requisite nutrition (vitamins and minerals, protein, and essential dietary fat) with a VLCD. In that sense, people are "starving" there bodies of nutrients.

I would also add that VLCD do result in metabolic damage. If you've ever watched an anorexic go through metabolic repair then you know what I mean...it's holy hell.