Why eating too little calories is a bad idea.....
tinkerbellang83
Posts: 9,129 Member
I have been on MFP since 2011 but only used it properly and the forums for the last 6 months, the number of posts I see (mostly) from women eating 1000 calories and under or netting less per day when they could lose by eating a higher and healthier intake is heart-breaking. When I used MFP in the past and was a serial starter, I have eaten quite low calories (Around 1300) because I hadn't really a clue what I was doing so I hope this post goes some way to educating those who think that the only way to lose weight is to starve yourself and it will save me typing out the same response repeatedly 
What is a healthy weight for you and what rate of loss is healthy?
The BMI range is a good place to start. You can calculate your BMI here http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx
US & UK departments of health* recommend a steady weight loss of 1-2lb per week for those who are obese. If you have any medical concerns it's best to consult with your doctor.
The science behind weight loss/maintenance/gain
If you're new to MFP you may or may not have heard the term CICO being thrown around.
CICO is an energy balance of Calories In & Calories Out.
To lose weight your CALORIES IN must be less than your CALORIES OUT (CI<CO)
To maintain weight your CALORIES IN must be the same as your CALORIES OUT (CI=CO)
To gain weight your CALORIES IN must be more than your CALORIES OUT (CI>CO)
Understanding how your calorie allowance is calculated
Eating low calorie but still not losing weight
There are many posts already on this subject but in summary, those who are eating low calorie and not losing weight, for the most, this is down to logging inaccuracies either in underestimating calories in or overestimating calories out. Using measuring cups or estimating/eyeballing portion sizes are very inaccurate ways of calculating the calorie content of meals. Using the MFP database/Machine Readings/Non-HR fitness trackers for calorie burns can also be an inaccurate method of determining burns.
Net Calories and Eating Exercise Calories Back
Your initial calorie allowance is essentially a net figure - the way MFP is set up you are intended to eat back your calories burned as they are not accounted for in the calculations to acquire the figure. If you ate none of your exercise calories you are putting yourself in a larger deficit than you have set yourself in MFP. This may be ok if you're set at lower rate of weight loss, however if you're already at 2lb per week loss (1000 calorie deficit) then you could be getting less food than you need to fuel your body sufficiently. Going back to "Mildred" above if she didn't eat any of her calories back she would be netting under 850 calories on her active days and this would no doubt impact her energy levels and her running performance.
The Negative Effect on Weight Loss from Undereating
Some people may well be able to stick at a 1000+ calorie deficit for long periods of time, however for a lot of us what actually happens when you are being overly restrictive is that we can only manage it for a short while because it's too drastic and we are simply hungry so we decide to pack it in and go back to the way we were eating before and end up in a vicious cycle of binge and restrict that doesn't actually achieve anything.
The Short & Long Term Effects of Undereating Without Medical Supervision
In the short term undereating can have the following effect (this is by no means an exhaustive list):
In the long term it can have far more negative effects, such as:
Other useful posts that can be read in conjunction with this one:
Accurate Logging
Weight Loss is Not Linear
Why am I not losing weight?
*https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html *http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/should-you-lose-weight-fast.aspx
What is a healthy weight for you and what rate of loss is healthy?
The BMI range is a good place to start. You can calculate your BMI here http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx
US & UK departments of health* recommend a steady weight loss of 1-2lb per week for those who are obese. If you have any medical concerns it's best to consult with your doctor.
The science behind weight loss/maintenance/gain
If you're new to MFP you may or may not have heard the term CICO being thrown around.
CICO is an energy balance of Calories In & Calories Out.
To lose weight your CALORIES IN must be less than your CALORIES OUT (CI<CO)
To maintain weight your CALORIES IN must be the same as your CALORIES OUT (CI=CO)
To gain weight your CALORIES IN must be more than your CALORIES OUT (CI>CO)
Understanding how your calorie allowance is calculated
Eating low calorie but still not losing weight
There are many posts already on this subject but in summary, those who are eating low calorie and not losing weight, for the most, this is down to logging inaccuracies either in underestimating calories in or overestimating calories out. Using measuring cups or estimating/eyeballing portion sizes are very inaccurate ways of calculating the calorie content of meals. Using the MFP database/Machine Readings/Non-HR fitness trackers for calorie burns can also be an inaccurate method of determining burns.
Net Calories and Eating Exercise Calories Back
Your initial calorie allowance is essentially a net figure - the way MFP is set up you are intended to eat back your calories burned as they are not accounted for in the calculations to acquire the figure. If you ate none of your exercise calories you are putting yourself in a larger deficit than you have set yourself in MFP. This may be ok if you're set at lower rate of weight loss, however if you're already at 2lb per week loss (1000 calorie deficit) then you could be getting less food than you need to fuel your body sufficiently. Going back to "Mildred" above if she didn't eat any of her calories back she would be netting under 850 calories on her active days and this would no doubt impact her energy levels and her running performance.
The Negative Effect on Weight Loss from Undereating
Some people may well be able to stick at a 1000+ calorie deficit for long periods of time, however for a lot of us what actually happens when you are being overly restrictive is that we can only manage it for a short while because it's too drastic and we are simply hungry so we decide to pack it in and go back to the way we were eating before and end up in a vicious cycle of binge and restrict that doesn't actually achieve anything.
The Short & Long Term Effects of Undereating Without Medical Supervision
In the short term undereating can have the following effect (this is by no means an exhaustive list):
- Mood Swings
- Fatigue
- Constipation
- Hair Loss
- Menstrual Irregularities
- Dizziness
- Brittle Nails
- Poor Skin Condition
- Headaches
In the long term it can have far more negative effects, such as:
- muscle loss
- gallstones
- electrolyte imbalances
- organ damage
- bone density loss
- vitamin/mineral deficiencies
Other useful posts that can be read in conjunction with this one:
Accurate Logging
Weight Loss is Not Linear
Why am I not losing weight?
*https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html *http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/should-you-lose-weight-fast.aspx
289
Replies
-
I think you did a great job with this, when I started on MFP a few months ago I was sooo confused, and I feel like im just starting to get a handle on it. I think this will help alot of people get a better understanding of how this works and why not to under eat.28
-
Good info. Hopefully some will heed it and benefit from your experience.
12 -
Thank you. This must be stickied.
15 -
11
-
From your mouth...nicely done.
I guess I'm just too trusting. I started on here in 2007. I was precariously close to morbidly obese (if not actually there - don't remember.)
I entered my stats and was as honest as possible. I mean, who was I helping/hurting by fudging the numbers? I logged religiously. I entered and ate my "earned" exercise calories. Every. Single. One. I lost exactly as projected.
When I started feeling off and tired and grumpy, I read around the forums and started eating 300 calories a day more. It kept working. From then on I listened to my body.
I didn't have (they hadn't been invented) a fitbit or tracking device. I didn't buy a food scale until I got to within twenty pounds of my weight loss goal. Things got more difficult at that point, and it was important to tighten up my logging.
Weight loss shouldn't be miserable and you don't have to lose hair or have brittle nails. Pro-tip: if that is happening, there is an equal amount of damage being done internally.74 -
cmriverside wrote: »From your mouth...nicely done.
I guess I'm just too trusting. I started on here in 2007. I was precariously close to morbidly obese (if not actually there - don't remember.)
I entered my stats and was as honest as possible. I mean, who was I helping/hurting by fudging the numbers? I logged religiously. I entered and ate my "earned" exercise calories. Every. Single. One. I lost exactly as projected.
When I started feeling off and tired and grumpy, I read around the forums and started eating 300 calories a day more. It kept working. From then on I listened to my body.
I didn't have (they hadn't been invented) a fitbit or tracking device. I didn't buy a food scale until I got to within twenty pounds of my weight loss goal. Things got more difficult at that point, and it was important to tighten up my logging.
Weight loss shouldn't be miserable and you don't have to lose hair or have brittle nails. Pro-tip: if that is happening, there is an equal amount of damage being done internally.
Based on my own experience, I must have serial started repeatedly and all because I didn't know the basics. I assumed my TDEE would be not too far off the average, but didn't take into account that the average TDEE is based on someone who is a healthy weight for their height. My TDEE at my start weight and with my activity level is 400-700 higher than the "average" 2000 calories per day so it's not surprising I would be cranky and starving trying to eat 1500 calories on an active day. That's why I think it's so important to understand the numbers.17 -
Yeah, mine too. I eat at a level that is one full "activity level" above the stated parameters. I have the same issue. The best thing people can do is to track/log every single day and use their own data to set their eating level.
Unfortunately so many people just wrestle their body into submission. When doing that, the mind overcomes the body and then it's a downward spiral/control issue.12 -
Great post!! this should be one of the Stickies on here
5 -
21 -
I just wanted to add that I experienced the binge/restrict reaction to trying to have a deficit that was too aggressive and have learned my lesson the hard way.
I am slowly coming out of that now and am currently eating at a 250 calorie deficit and my desire to binge is greatly curbed.
It's been a long road, part of that involved getting my settings right between MFP and Fitbit, part of it involved finding the right macro balance for me, and part of it has involved changing my meal timing. However, the biggest factor was just stopping the rush to the finish line (stupid last 5 pounds!).
Well, that last 5 pounds is now 10, and I'm not in any rush. In the real world, I'm not a fast runner, I don't know what made me think I could be a sprinter in the dieting world!49 -
now i understand why my original calorie goal was increased automatically when i put my stats recently. I loved your post. very helpful. Thanks so much!!6
-
This should be a sticky, and it should be required that people read stickies before they ever post on the forums. Sadly, I don't think very many people read stickies, judging by the multiple threads about the same thing, multiple times a day.18
-
musicfan68 wrote: »This should be a sticky, and it should be required that people read stickies before they ever post on the forums. Sadly, I don't think very many people read stickies, judging by the multiple threads about the same thing, multiple times a day.
Agreed. I think a lot of that stems from people not having used forums before, which is unfortunate because there is some fantastic information in there.10 -
What's frustrating for some of us is that in order to lose the last 5 lbs we have to create a deficit by working out every single day, which is also not a good thing. The body (or at least mine) needs at least one rest day per week. MFP had it set so that my goal should be to eat just over 1300 calories a day. Very annoying because on my rest days I go way over. Fortunately I swim and do Aqua Zumba, so I burn about 500 cals on my exercise days to make up for it.9
-
LauraInTheWater wrote: »What's frustrating for some of us is that in order to lose the last 5 lbs we have to create a deficit by working out every single day, which is also not a good thing. The body (or at least mine) needs at least one rest day per week. MFP had it set so that my goal should be to eat just over 1300 calories a day. Very annoying because on my rest days I go way over. Fortunately I swim and do Aqua Zumba, so I burn about 500 cals on my exercise days to make up for it.
@LauraInTheWater Have you reviewed your calorie goal as you got closer to target? when you're down to the last few pounds you should only really be aiming to lose 0.5lb per week which will increase your calorie allowance.17 -
I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...4
-
LauraInTheWater wrote: »What's frustrating for some of us is that in order to lose the last 5 lbs we have to create a deficit by working out every single day, which is also not a good thing. The body (or at least mine) needs at least one rest day per week. MFP had it set so that my goal should be to eat just over 1300 calories a day. Very annoying because on my rest days I go way over. Fortunately I swim and do Aqua Zumba, so I burn about 500 cals on my exercise days to make up for it.
You don't have to work out every day. That's an arbitrary thing you have in your head. Set a reasonable weight loss goal (0.5 lb per week at your point) and work out 3-5 times a week. Will it drop off in a month? No. Is exercise good for you? Yes. Doesn't mean 1300 is the right number. It may be, and if it is, then you'll have choices to make food-wise that will keep you feeling satisfied. Even so, 1800 is a completely reasonable goal. No reason you can't spread out those exercise calories to non-exercise days. So eat 1600 and exercise for five. :shrug:16 -
Great post, and another vote for it to be stickied. I think the part about net calories and exercise is perhaps the most important point. We see multiple posts per day from people who don't understand eating back exercise calories. If you eat 1500 calories and burn 500, you only took in a net 1000 calories that day.
I wish there was a MFP "starter kit" page/FAQ for newbies who don't read the stickies. It would show up automatically at the top of your diary after you started MFP.19 -
I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...
Yes! It's so frustrating for us shorties! My TDEE is only about 1510, so even 0.5 lb/week would mean a calorie intake of 1260 ... personally, I opt to eat at 1300 because any lower and I get cranky! The rate of loss is sooo frustratingly slow.24 -
brianneangell08 wrote: »I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...
Yes! It's so frustrating for us shorties! My TDEE is only about 1510, so even 0.5 lb/week would mean a calorie intake of 1260 ... personally, I opt to eat at 1300 because any lower and I get cranky! The rate of loss is sooo frustratingly slow.
I think this is something that isn't acknowledged on MFP a lot.
Not everyone is tall (or even average height) and not everyone is able to or chooses to work out. For some, even a 0.5 lb a week deficit puts them at 1200-1300 calories a week. Not everyone eating at 1200-1300 calories is 'starving themselves' it's just what they have to eat in order to lose weight even at a very slow pace.61 -
brianneangell08 wrote: »I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...
Yes! It's so frustrating for us shorties! My TDEE is only about 1510, so even 0.5 lb/week would mean a calorie intake of 1260 ... personally, I opt to eat at 1300 because any lower and I get cranky! The rate of loss is sooo frustratingly slow.
I think this is something that isn't acknowledged on MFP a lot.
Not everyone is tall (or even average height) and not everyone is able to or chooses to work out. For some, even a 0.5 lb a week deficit puts them at 1200-1300 calories a week. Not everyone eating at 1200-1300 calories is 'starving themselves' it's just what they have to eat in order to lose weight even at a very slow pace.
This would be me. I've been trying to hit 1260 a day, and that was set for lightly active, 1 lb a week loss. I finally backed it down to .5 so I can get closer to 1500 calories a day.9 -
I'm voting for this to be stickied as well. Great info!!!
Sort of in line with this, something I've always wondered because it's been preached in various diets and programs I've tried (or friends have tried)...is "starvation mode" a real thing? Meaning you eat so few calories (or your calorie deficit is so massive) that your body hangs on to weight and fat instead of shedding it?
I'm not not really asking for myself as I make sure to eat almost all the calories I'm allotted daily (I love food! Haha) but I've always been curious and never found a definitive yes or no on the web.8 -
I'm voting for this to be stickied as well. Great info!!!
Sort of in line with this, something I've always wondered because it's been preached in various diets and programs I've tried (or friends have tried)...is "starvation mode" a real thing? Meaning you eat so few calories (or your calorie deficit is so massive) that your body hangs on to weight and fat instead of shedding it?
I'm not not really asking for myself as I make sure to eat almost all the calories I'm allotted daily (I love food! Haha) but I've always been curious and never found a definitive yes or no on the web.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/8 -
I'm voting for this to be stickied as well. Great info!!!
Sort of in line with this, something I've always wondered because it's been preached in various diets and programs I've tried (or friends have tried)...is "starvation mode" a real thing? Meaning you eat so few calories (or your calorie deficit is so massive) that your body hangs on to weight and fat instead of shedding it?
I'm not not really asking for myself as I sure to eat almost all the calories I'm allotted daily (I love food! Haha) but I've always been curious and never found a definitive yes or no on the web.
Use the search function on this site - search "starvation mode". This has been discussed every single day ad nauseum.6 -
Thanks! I knew it couldn't be a real thing1
-
iam 71.5 kg....want to b 65...my calorie recommendation is 1200...i stay around it almost from a month....and my calorie registered is saying ur I do same for 5 weeks I ll weigh 66kg ...it's been a month iam 71.5....where iam wrong1
-
fatima4997 wrote: »iam 71.5 kg....want to b 65...my calorie recommendation is 1200...i stay around it almost from a month....and my calorie registered is saying ur I do same for 5 weeks I ll weigh 66kg ...it's been a month iam 71.5....where iam wrong
I just worked out that if you were a 60 year old woman at 4ft 5 inches tall, you would have still lost weight after a month. Not much weight mind but thats not the point :P
Are you 100% sure that you are not consuming more than you realise?
Even so much as a little more sugar and milk in a coffee can add up if you drink them regularly throughout the day.4 -
brianneangell08 wrote: »I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...
Yes! It's so frustrating for us shorties! My TDEE is only about 1510, so even 0.5 lb/week would mean a calorie intake of 1260 ... personally, I opt to eat at 1300 because any lower and I get cranky! The rate of loss is sooo frustratingly slow.
I think this is something that isn't acknowledged on MFP a lot.
Not everyone is tall (or even average height) and not everyone is able to or chooses to work out. For some, even a 0.5 lb a week deficit puts them at 1200-1300 calories a week. Not everyone eating at 1200-1300 calories is 'starving themselves' it's just what they have to eat in order to lose weight even at a very slow pace.
This is why I'm stopping at a higher weight and recomping. More food!
Thanks, OP. I get so annoyed seeing people eat so little. I've even been defriended for my advice of not having such a large deficit (and cutting out every delicious food) in order to stop binge eating. If you post that I will respond with a reasonable idea.16 -
Good post.
Just adding here that the body is very smart. If one wants to undereat and does it consistently, the body will respond by LOWERING METABOLIC RATE to compensate for the calories taken in. That could mean VERY LITTLE weight loss over a long period of time. Also known as ADAPTIVE THERMOGENISIS.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
46 -
princeofmind wrote: »fatima4997 wrote: »iam 71.5 kg....want to b 65...my calorie recommendation is 1200...i stay around it almost from a month....and my calorie registered is saying ur I do same for 5 weeks I ll weigh 66kg ...it's been a month iam 71.5....where iam wrong
I just worked out that if you were a 60 year old woman at 4ft 5 inches tall, you would have still lost weight after a month. Not much weight mind but thats not the point :P
Are you 100% sure that you are not consuming more than you realise?
Even so much as a little more sugar and milk in a coffee can add up if you drink them regularly throughout the day.
Yes that's true but unless we keep bomb calorimeters in our homes to verify intake or university level VO2 max meters to verify caloric output we will never have the level of caloric surgical precision that some people suggest is necessary to be successful on MFP. So where does one draw the line? My .5 lb loss a week is 1330 and my maintenance is 1500 cuz I'm short and getting older. And though the advice given makes good sense, I won't eat back ALL exercise calories to cover for any errors.
And we can't all be doing it wrong.15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions