Thread split: Eating too little is bad

System

This discussion was created from replies split from: Why eating too little calories is a bad idea......

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tinkerbellang83

maxbbbr wrote: »

OP doesn't cite anything to support his claims.

WHO states that humans need 0.8g of protein per kg of body weight. Assuming that you do meet this requirement, and that you do in fact have fat to spare (over 15% BF for a man, and over 25% BF for a woman), I'd like to see some sources supporting claims that being on a very low-calorie diet (half your TDEE, say) is bad for you.

*Her. I've cited several links to the UK health service (NHS) and to the US Dept Health (CDC) which support my post. There is more to nutrition than just protein, you also have minimum requirements for fat, vitamins and minerals, which would be difficult to achieve on a VLCD, which is why it should only be done under medical advice and supervision. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-weight/very-low-calorie-diets/

If you would like more in-depth information, this article has many links to studies on the topic:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/losing-weight-too-fast

It's also not just about physical health but wellbeing too, it's very difficult for most people to sustain fast weight loss long term and rarely results in maintaining. Read through the rest of the threads, you'll see real world examples of people who have tried and have dealt with the aftermath.

Hope this helps! The reason this thread was initially started is because there are hundreds of new MFP members each month who automatically set themselves to Sedentary/2lbs per week, when they are in actual fact not Sedentary and do not have the fat to sustain a 2lb loss per week.

NovusDies

Mentally I do not yet feel prepared to switch from weight loser to weight maintainer. This is okay because I still have a fair amount of weight to lose but racing to the end may mean I don't take all the steps I need to change not just my weight but my habits and the way I think.

I used to read people say that it took them a year to lose their last 10 pounds and I was shocked at how long it was. Now I wonder if I should try to make that happen too.

I feel like it is very important for me to move from obese into overweight as quickly as I can that is both sustainable and healthy. After that I will weigh out my then current health status with how fast to pursue the last amount. Like most people I am motivated to lose a couple of prescriptions but they may already be gone by then.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

NovusDies

maxbbbr wrote: »

@OP

This is from your healthline source: "According to many experts, losing 1–2 pounds (0.45–0.9 kg) per week is a healthy and safe rate"

If you are, say, a 40yo 120lb 25%bf 5'6" woman, your TDEE is 1500kcal. Losing 2lb/week would mean eating only 500 kcal. That's LOWER than what I was talking about.

Their guidelines seem bad. IMO how much you should be OK losing depends on how much fat you got to spare and of course on how big you are overall (lean size).

Common sense tells me that fat from food and fat from your own midsection are roughly interchangeable. If I'm wrong about that I'd like to see solid evidence, not slain strawmen (low-protein dieters who did something silly)

So how do you educate every single person who needs to lose weight how to make this determination for themselves? How often will a physically appropriate rate of loss for a person fail to be mentally sustainable? The latter happens all the time now with fairly easy to follow guidelines.

I am not sure why you are being contentious here. Do you believe people losing faster will result in greater overall success rates both in getting to goal and maintaining it? If not, what is the point in ditching the guideline?

tinkerbellang83

maxbbbr wrote: »

@OP

This is from your healthline source: "According to many experts, losing 1–2 pounds (0.45–0.9 kg) per week is a healthy and safe rate"

If you are, say, a 40yo 120lb 25%bf 5'6" woman, your TDEE is 1500kcal. Losing 2lb/week would mean eating only 500 kcal. That's LOWER than what I was talking about.

Their guidelines seem bad. IMO how much you should be OK losing depends on how much fat you got to spare and of course on how big you are overall (lean size).

Common sense tells me that fat from food and fat from your own midsection are roughly interchangeable. If I'm wrong about that I'd like to see solid evidence, not slain strawmen (low-protein dieters who did something silly)

I am really not sure what it is you are trying to argue here?

A 120lb 5'6" Female would be at the lowest end of the BMI healthy weight range so shouldn't be aiming to lose weight.

One of my links in my OP is to a BMI calculator.

There are three linked references to the quote you've taken from my Healthline reference, one being this NHS healthy weight calculator.

This is the results for Jane Doe per that:

"You are in the healthy weight range, but at the lower end. Keep an eye on your weight and try to stay in the healthy range.

There may be an underlying medical cause for your weight, or your diet may not be providing you with enough calories. We suggest you discuss this with your GP."

So common sense should dictate your Jane Doe shouldn't be aiming for the 2lbs per week that is a suitable rate of loss for someone in the obese range.

Why do you think dietary fat and body fat are interchangeable? Many people lose weight eating higher fat diets such as Keto (not that I would choose to eat Keto myself). Weight loss is down to calorie intake and some people find fat more satiating which helps them stick to a lower calorie intake.

Genetics dictate where you carry your fat, not your macro ratio. I carry very little fat on my midsection even though I am in the obese range, I carry most of my fat in my thighs.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tinkerbellang83

maxbbbr wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Why do you think dietary fat and body fat are interchangeable?

Common sense. If your body can't "eat" its own fat, what's the point of storing it?

Many people lose weight eating higher fat diets such as Keto

Context!

We are talking about low-calorie diets. The context of this discussion is the LACK of fat and other nutrients in your food intake. Can your body replace the lack of fat/calories in your food with the fat from your midsection? That's the question.

Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind on this though. If you can present evidence that the answer to this question is "no", I'd like to see it.

I kinda feel like you're just trolling now?!

Dietary fat and body fat aren't the same thing so the onus is on you really to explain and provide evidence for why you think the body doesn't need dietary fat.

Dietary fat is necessary for absorbing certain vitamins, how would you propose someone on an unsupervised VLCD get vitamins A, D, E & K without it? Given that body fat is not in your digestive system.

If you want to start a thread of your own on the topic feel free to, but you are kind of wandering off from the point of the post and just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

kimny72

maxbbbr wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Why do you think dietary fat and body fat are interchangeable?

Common sense. If your body can't "eat" its own fat, what's the point of storing it?

Many people lose weight eating higher fat diets such as Keto

Context!

We are talking about low-calorie diets. The context of this discussion is the LACK of fat and other nutrients in your food intake. Can your body replace the lack of fat/calories in your food with the fat from your midsection? That's the question.

Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind on this though. If you can present evidence that the answer to this question is "no", I'd like to see it.

Stored body fat is burned for energy. It isn't reabsorbed into your circulatory system to be redistributed.

Your body can replace some lack of calories by burning stored fat, but can only burn so much at a time, just like a fire will take hours to burn through a pile of wood. If you are under eating to the point that your body's need for energy outpaces your body's ability to burn fat, it will burn muscle. Or just not do things it considers non-essential in the short term, like repair skin, muscle, and hair follicle cells.

It's kind of difficult to cite sources on stuff that is basic human physiology info, there aren't modern research papers or health site blogs about it. Like insisting on sources to studies that proved the earth is round.

gatamadriz

I’m 4’11 and 1200 calories a day does nothing for me, losing wise. I have to eat around 900 calories a day to lose one lb a week. I have extensive nerve damage from a traffic accident and I am 60 years old. 900 is what it takes for me to lose. Within that 900 it try and get as close to the prescribed protein/fat/carbohydrate percentages as I can, I just do it with smaller calories, being that I am six inches shorter than the norm. Whatever you do to lose, just be mindful of the balances.

middlehaitch

@gatamadriz, I’m concerned.

At 60yo you would be better losing at a slower rate, 1200 cals would give you a loss of just under 0.5 a week and provide you with the nutrition you need to protect your bones, muscles, and brain function.

Even 1lbs a week isn’t for everyone, one should put health, and nutrition first.

(I lost on 1200 plus exercise cals and rarely lost 1lbs a week, usually it was 0.5 or less.
I’m 66 (5’1)now and have excellent health, good bone density, and above average strength and muscle mass for my age.)

Please take care of yourself.

Cheers, h.

If you are not using a digital food scale consistently, give it a try. You may find you can eat more than you think, or are eating more than you think.