Why eating too little calories is a bad idea.....
Replies
-
Bump2
-
Bump2
-
BUMP3
-
Bumpity bump!
2 -
Bump2
-
Bump1
-
Bump1
-
BUMP1
-
Bump in the night ...3
-
Bumpity bump bump!
3 -
Bumpers.4
-
Because if they are little calories you should always eat 3 or more.7
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Because if they are little calories you should always eat 3 or more.
I'd hope to eat a lot more than 3! Nothing I can do about my poor grammatical title from 18 months ago now, it's the content that matters though.
5 -
Bump5
-
When I started trying to lose weight I put my calories way too low and was miserable, then I read something that changed everything and i'm glad I did. It was this "If you can't do what you are doing LONGTERM it's not gonna last" I dunno why it affected me so much, after reading that I turned up my calories and became much happier, now I can safely say I COULD eat like this longterm and YES I am eating in a deficit and its not like I am gonna eat in a deficit forever but I could eat like this for a long time and I feel good day to day. At some point i'll switch over to maintenance eating instead of deficit obviously, but that wasnt my point, my point is find something you can stick with longterm where you wont feel miserable, you dont need to lose all your weight over night, its not like you got to that point over night so it's okay to take it slow and steady.11
-
Absolutely. Because if the weight goes up by more than a few pounds, you just cut back again.
5 -
When I started trying to lose weight I put my calories way too low and was miserable, then I read something that changed everything and i'm glad I did. It was this "If you can't do what you are doing forever it's not gonna last" I dunno why it affected me so much, after reading that I turned up my calories and became much happier, now I can safely say I COULD eat like this forever and YES I am eating in a deficit and its not like I am gonna eat in a deficit forever but I could eat like this for a long time and I feel good day to day. At some point i'll switch over to maintenance eating instead of deficit obviously, but that wasnt my point.
So good to hear somebody make the connection! Better to lose 30 lbs in a year than 100 lbs never
12 -
jacobsl221 wrote: »Absolutely. Because if the weight goes up by more than a few pounds, you just cut back again.
While understanding that there are all kinds of monthly (for women) and weekly and daily weight fluctuations caused by water weight changes that have absolutely nothing to do with calories - in which case no changes are needed.
Weight and more importantly some measurements of what changes first on you is more important.
And having reasonable weight range - not magic number that will rarely be hit exactly.7 -
Bump3
-
BUMP3
-
^^^3
-
Bump while I'm here
3 -
I've seen people post a guideline of what you should set your lb/week to based on how much you have left to lose. I have been looking for it with no luck, I was hoping someone could repost it here for me and clarify whether you should use the chart based on pounds left until goal or pounds left before healthy/normal BMI. Thank you to whoever can help!2
-
gogetemrogue wrote: »I've seen people post a guideline of what you should set your lb/week to based on how much you have left to lose. I have been looking for it with no luck, I was hoping someone could repost it here for me and clarify whether you should use the chart based on pounds left until goal or pounds left before healthy/normal BMI. Thank you to whoever can help!
There is another, more generic, version of this that I think skews a little higher... maybe 0-25, 25-50, 50-75, and 75+.
It's basically based on how much a person needs to lose at a given time to get to a healthy weight, though some may just be trying to shift their weight within a healthy BMI. For example, a person may technically be 50 lbs overweight, but only want to lose 20. They could lose at the higher rate safely (though just because it's safe doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable for a particular person).
Edited several times for clarity. Did it help?
12 -
Thank you, that helps a lot!0
-
bump1
-
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »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):- 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
I wish everyone understood why eating too few calories is a bad idea1 -
Doc and trainer and less than 4’ 10” valid less than 1000 cal, on that note, if warning message for ED reasons, then how come no net carb ( carb - fiber) display and only total carb. Had it not been for an external post about how MFP shows pie chart Marcos and carbs I would have been eating waaayyyyyyy too little. Once post said to consider fiber in your head and use tomorrow to check macros for a food did everything start to go smooth and was able to eat three meals a day instead of one, thank goodness for that e ternary post. So remove preventing a projected weight for folks eating less if profile height is under 4’ 11” please. Also lots of disabled using this, we ARE part of the masses, we may not have as many parts to fuel as “masses”0
-
reachout3444 wrote: »Doc and trainer and less than 4’ 10” valid less than 1000 cal, on that note, if warning message for ED reasons, then how come no net carb ( carb - fiber) display and only total carb. Had it not been for an external post about how MFP shows pie chart Marcos and carbs I would have been eating waaayyyyyyy too little. Once post said to consider fiber in your head and use tomorrow to check macros for a food did everything start to go smooth and was able to eat three meals a day instead of one, thank goodness for that e ternary post. So remove preventing a projected weight for folks eating less if profile height is under 4’ 11” please. Also lots of disabled using this, we ARE part of the masses, we may not have as many parts to fuel as “masses”
It's not just for ED Reasons it's because for the majority of people 1000 calories would be too low, there are still short people and disabled people who it would be too low for.
For example a sedentary 35 year old, 4'10" woman who is just overweight at 130lbs would have a daily burn of approximately 1475 calories and would be at a healthy weight at 115lbs so should only be aiming for half a pound per week loss, which is only a 250 calorie deficit and would put her calorie goal at 1225.
So whilst your doctor and trainer may have ok'd you eating less than 1000 it's not necessarily right for everyone who is the same height as you. Given that it's right to have a warning for the vast majority of users, perhaps you, like anyone who is on a medically supervised VLCD could just ignore the warning and realise that you're an outlier?
9 -
bump1
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