Is a 1000 calorie diet harmful?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I'm meeting the macros guys. Every now and then I don't meet the fat.
You asked if it was harmful. We told you it is. Now you're arguing your point.
Here's a reason: there is a limit to the amount of fat your body can metabolize in a day. Once you reach that limit (which happens quickly when you have a huge deficit), your body will then burn muscle. Not only will this lead to unpleasant physical changes (muscle is what gives our bodies pleasing definition), you *need* muscle. Your heart is a muscle. You really don't want to target your muscles when losing weight.
Also, your body needs a certain amount of fat to function. On a VLCD, it's likely you're not getting sufficient fat to keep your body working well. You already say that you miss the goal some days and it's likely you have custom set your macros to be below what you might optimally need.
Large deficits are associated with low energy, hair loss, and health issues like gall stones. If continued long term, they have the potential to damage your metabolism, resulting in you burning fewer calories than someone of the same weight as you.
I suspect you may reject some or all of this information, but you asked if this is a good idea. It isn't. Those are some of the reasons why.
Thank you. It was very helpful.1 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I'm meeting the macros guys. Every now and then I don't meet the fat.
You asked if it was harmful. We told you it is. Now you're arguing your point.
Here's a reason: there is a limit to the amount of fat your body can metabolize in a day. Once you reach that limit (which happens quickly when you have a huge deficit), your body will then burn muscle. Not only will this lead to unpleasant physical changes (muscle is what gives our bodies pleasing definition), you *need* muscle. Your heart is a muscle. You really don't want to target your muscles when losing weight.
Also, your body needs a certain amount of fat to function. On a VLCD, it's likely you're not getting sufficient fat to keep your body working well. You already say that you miss the goal some days and it's likely you have custom set your macros to be below what you might optimally need.
Large deficits are associated with low energy, hair loss, and health issues like gall stones. If continued long term, they have the potential to damage your metabolism, resulting in you burning fewer calories than someone of the same weight as you.
I suspect you may reject some or all of this information, but you asked if this is a good idea. It isn't. Those are some of the reasons why.
Thank you. It was very helpful.
You're welcome. Good luck!0 -
OP others have already covered why this is not recommended. It's also not necessary, in order to lose with. What is your overall goal, how much weight are you trying to lose? At most you should be aiming for a loss of 1 lb/week, and if only trying to lose 20 or so pounds, then a goal of 0.5 lb/week would be more appropriate. What calorie goal does MFP provide if you put in one of those goals, with your current stats? That's what you should be aiming to NET.
Cutting calories very low, and losing weight rapidly, also can have adverse effects like loss of lean body mass (becoming skinny fat instead of retaining muscle), hair loss, sallow skin, brittle nails and fatigue.0 -
Like others have already mentioned it is too low so I won't add to that point but even at 12-1600cals. The only macro you can really afford to be under on is carbs. Your body needs protein to support muscle recovery and fat to support hormone synthesis but you don't really NEED excess carbs for anything. I eat about 1460 and carbs is really the only macro I can manipulate to create a deficit tbh. I have a 128p and 128c with a 50f goal; so obviously carbs is the only macro that changes for me depending on my goal.2
-
Because eating that low of calories would make me want to punch rabbits in the face! Hanger is REAL! (I am your size BTW)5
-
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I'm meeting the macros guys. Every now and then I don't meet the fat.
You asked if it was harmful. We told you it is. Now you're arguing your point.
Calories are a unit of energy...your body requires energy to function properly...dieting in general isn't optimal...VLCD less than optimal in providing for your body's energy needs. Part of proper nutrition is actually fueling your body, not just macro/micro nutrition.
VLCDs most often result in advancing adaptive thermogenesis...it does this by shutting down "non-essential" functions...things like growing hair and nails, menstraul cycle, etc...effectively your body just slows your metabolism down by shutting things down to be more efficient given the lack of energy coming in...you also lose more lean mass than otherwise, further slowing metabolism...there is a finite amount of fat that can be oxidized to compensate for energy deficiencies...so the body will compensate by other means as necessary.
VLCDs should be under the observation of medial professionals for these and many more reasons.0 -
Actually according to this upon complete information a diary entry on mfp...
NIH says 1000-1200 is the minimum for women...13 -
[]
Actually according to this upon complete information a diary entry on mfp...
NIH says 1000-1200 is the minimum for women...
Wow, this is new. Men can go down to 1200? I've done that a couple of times and I wanted to eat the world the next day, whether it was living or already cooked.
And the OP hasn't answered what her gross calories are. She said she's netting 1000. Isn't that less harmful than if she were only eating 1000 and exercising on top of that? I'm genuinely curious.7 -
Do you exercise? I ask simply because (to me at least) your weight/height doesn't seem excessive and at worse (again IMO) you'd be "curvy".0
-
-
-
-
OP says that's her net intake, so what's her gross?2
-
Your weight/height does not require to go down to 1000 calories. You are not properly fueling your body. You can eat healthy foods to have nutrition and healthy weight loss.
You can check this for healthy weight loss.
http://www.fitgirlway.com/2017/03/13/how-to-lose-weight-fast-5-best-weight-loss-foods/
I hope it helps!0 -
gawd I'm hungry just reading this thread5
-
If you were severely overweight and under doctor supervision that might be acceptable but you're far too close to a healthy weight for such a low calorie intake. No one ever believes this advice until it happens to them, but crash dieting will only lead to regaining the weight in the future because your energy and health WILL decline and eventually you will be eating more to compensate. Just do the right thing and take a more moderate and slow approach.6
-
Using the new NIH calculator the lowest they will go is 1000 calories.
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/index.html
There is also no mention of eating back exercise calories. However they do ask for your activity level.
Side note...I am not endorsing a diet below 1200. I can't last long term on 1200 long as well 1000.4 -
I did a 1200 calorie diet for years with no issues. Yesterday I was way less and felt fine. I have lost 5.2 lbs in 10 days.2
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions