eating to fuel your body (very long)

SHBoss1673

1200 cals per day will not be enough to meet your micronutrient requirements but it may be enough to just sustain you temporarily until you are eating more. Even a highly concentrated feed with vitamins added is usually only nutritionally complete in 1500cals so I have my doubts that food would be complete in 1200. Also, obese people will actually require more micronutrients than healthy weight people... that was kind of my point. I don't think that a very obese person needs to eat 1200cals per day to lose weight, in fact they could probably eat 2000cals per day and lose weight and I would be all for that.

Exactly.

I"m obese, i'm eating an average of 2000 cal/day and losing weight (over 2 lbs/week). I highly doubt I would meet my micronutrient needs with 1200 calories.

Also I disagree with the whole 1200 calorie thing in general, it is just an arbitrary number. Your calorie and nutrient needs are based on your weight, not just on whether you are female or male.

As I said, 1200 calories was determined to be the average MINIMUM a female could receive to stay out of malnutrition. I didn't say it was generally a healthy way to eat. I agree that most people require more. 1200 isn't arbitrary, but it is a very very generic number. And it assumes you are eating a well balanced diet that has enough micro nutrients to satisfy the major needs of the body. I'm not saying you'll be in great health by staying at that level for a long period of time, I'm only saying it will sustain you for a period. And even then, only when you have enough additional calories to make up the difference (however you have them, be it fat, or food). I'm not saying it will inhibit starvation mode, I'm not saying it's good for you, and I'm definitely not recommending it as a way to eat for anyone, All I've said is that it was determined as a very generic baseline minimum to stave off malnutrition.

Someone's height, genetics, and age will determine their micro nutrient needs. Weight plays a lesser roll, especially with high % of body fat, as body fat is metabolically inactive (for the most part) it doesn't require much in the way of micro nutrients, therefore someone who is obese, can survive on a similar micro nutrient count as someone else with similar lean tissue amounts and same height and age, even if you weight 30 or 40 or 50 lbs more (fat weight).

hiddensecant

Incidentally, for males the average was 1800 as a minimum average.

It freaks me out when I see men trying to go on a 1200 calorie diet. That's like these women going on 800-1000 calorie diets.

I"m obese, i'm eating an average of 2000 cal/day and losing weight (over 2 lbs/week). I highly doubt I would meet my micronutrient needs with 1200 calories.

When obese people are placed on these very low calorie diets, it's often by a doctor who feels that they are in a more immediate danger of serious health problems if they don't lose weight very quickly. And they would only be on it for a relatively short period of time.

Banks definitely wasn't saying that they should be on those diets. Actually, he only mentioned that they can get away with not eating their exercise calories.

cbirdso

Required reading for newbies to this site.

recipe4success

I disagree with the way 1200 calories was determined to be the minimum for females. Once again, that assumes all females have a similar build. And yes, you and I and a handful others understand that the 1200 is only for some females, but the majority of the time it is taken as gospel that any female can eat 1200 calories and be fine, which is simply untrue. This is why I totally disagree with those studies.

Someone who is overweight also gains more muscle mass, to support the extra body fat and strain on their joints. So as you gain weight, it does affect your nutrient needs. In addition, body fat can inhibit the absorption of certain nutrients, and thus you actually need more as an obese person than you would normally.

recipe4success

I"m obese, i'm eating an average of 2000 cal/day and losing weight (over 2 lbs/week). I highly doubt I would meet my micronutrient needs with 1200 calories.

When obese people are placed on these very low calorie diets, it's often by a doctor who feels that they are in a more immediate danger of serious health problems if they don't lose weight very quickly. And they would only be on it for a relatively short period of time.

Banks definitely wasn't saying that they should be on those diets. Actually, he only mentioned that they can get away with not eating their exercise calories.

I was replying to lilmissy (sorry if I got your name wrong).

cc_campbell81

bump

SHBoss1673

I disagree with the way 1200 calories was determined to be the minimum for females. Once again, that assumes all females have a similar build. And yes, you and I and a handful others understand that the 1200 is only for some females, but the majority of the time it is taken as gospel that any female can eat 1200 calories and be fine, which is simply untrue. This is why I totally disagree with those studies.

Someone who is overweight also gains more muscle mass, to support the extra body fat and strain on their joints. So as you gain weight, it does affect your nutrient needs. In addition, body fat can inhibit the absorption of certain nutrients, and thus you actually need more as an obese person than you would normally.

again, I'll say it a 3rd time. 1200 calories was the average MINIMUM to stave off malnutrition. I.E. on average of all the women surveyed, it was what was found to be needed, on average, in order to not be considered in a starving state. Please note that doesn't mean it's the minimum for everyone, and also please note that the minimum means the lowest possible point you could sustain without slowly starving yourself to death. And also please note I said starvation, not starvation mode (just preempting the person whom I know is out there which will try to equate the two).

Shy, there's nothing to disagree with, unless you are saying that the WHO used bad data. Which I'm not in a position to say. It was a quantitative analysis of numbers, not an opinion. All the WHO said was based on the input, their is an average number of calories needed, they didn't split it up into body types or ages, or other categories. That's why I always say that 1200 is an extremely generic number that people should not usually follow as it may or may not be anything close to what your body needs. I've been saying that for over 2 years. I don't know why this is being debated. We're all on the same side.

recipe4success

Shy, there's nothing to disagree with, unless you are saying that the WHO used bad data.

Precisely. This is what I keep on saying, I disagree with how the study was performed.

And yes, we are on the same side. I was simply commenting that I don't agree with that particular study. I know that we understand its downfalls, but most don't.

arewethereyet

TOPIC: eating to fuel your body (very long) :huh: no really?

:laugh: :laugh:

SHBoss1673

Shy, there's nothing to disagree with, unless you are saying that the WHO used bad data.

Precisely. This is what I keep on saying, I disagree with how the study was performed.

And yes, we are on the same side. I was simply commenting that I don't agree with that particular study. I know that we understand its downfalls, but most don't.

That's fine, but until someone comes out with better data (and nobody has) I'll keep referencing it. Which part exactly did you disagree with? It's a long read, and their practices were remedial, but when I read it, I didn't find anything specifically wrong with their conclusions, besides them being very generic.

recipe4success

Shy, there's nothing to disagree with, unless you are saying that the WHO used bad data.

Precisely. This is what I keep on saying, I disagree with how the study was performed.

And yes, we are on the same side. I was simply commenting that I don't agree with that particular study. I know that we understand its downfalls, but most don't.

That's fine, but until someone comes out with better data (and nobody has) I'll keep referencing it. Which part exactly did you disagree with? It's a long read, and their practices were remedial, but when I read it, I didn't find anything specifically wrong with their conclusions, besides them being very generic.

The entire design of the study is flawed. There are too many anthropometric differences between women (or men) to determine a base level of calories which is a minimum requirement.

In any case, we are on the same side, and all in all I agree with what you said.

itsmenatalie

Great post and all of it rings very true for my personal experiences. I started off with 30 lbs to lose and at 36% body fat. I ate nearly all of my exercise calories and still lost all 30 lbs inside of 6 months. I also felt great and had plenty of energy.

lilmissy2

Banks, sorry you seem to be getting a tad frustrated by this but I feel that while your original post does not say you necessarily should eat 1200cals per day it does very much imply that bigger people are less at risk by eating less than smaller people and this is absolutely the opposite of what is true.

I don't think the WHO data is necessarily flawed, I do however think (like with all nutrition studies) that it has limitations. For example, malnutrition is pretty much impossible to measure. Sure there are some markers but each marker will only show up in each individual at certain levels of malnutrition, making comparing levels of malnutrition very difficult.

Also, you do actually require more micronutrients if you are overweight because of the extra muscular use carrying such heavy loads around and especially if you are losing weight because you require them for a lot of the processes which break down fat to use as energy.

I have to add that people seem to forget (in their haste to cut things out) that you also have macronutrient requirements. Cutting fats, proteins and carbs too low can cause loads of problems both in the short term and the long term. For an obese person, you are not going to be able to meet basic macronutrient needs on a low calorie diet.

On the flip side, somebody mentioned Drs recommending very low calorie diets and I would certainly support this approach done over the 4-8 weeks it is usually recommended for before return to higher cals (but still sufficient reduction for weight loss) if it were deemed absolutely necessary for comorbidities. The problem I have is that many people use MFP as their 'healthy way' and do it for many months and I don't think that it is a good idea for a very obese person to eat such a small amount for such a long time.

SHBoss1673

Banks, sorry you seem to be getting a tad frustrated by this but I feel that while your original post does not say you necessarily should eat 1200cals per day it does very much imply that bigger people are less at risk by eating less than smaller people and this is absolutely the opposite of what is true.

I don't think the WHO data is necessarily flawed, I do however think (like with all nutrition studies) that it has limitations. For example, malnutrition is pretty much impossible to measure. Sure there are some markers but each marker will only show up in each individual at certain levels of malnutrition, making comparing levels of malnutrition very difficult.

Also, you do actually require more micronutrients if you are overweight because of the extra muscular use carrying such heavy loads around and especially if you are losing weight because you require them for a lot of the processes which break down fat to use as energy.

I have to add that people seem to forget (in their haste to cut things out) that you also have macronutrient requirements. Cutting fats, proteins and carbs too low can cause loads of problems both in the short term and the long term. For an obese person, you are not going to be able to meet basic macronutrient needs on a low calorie diet.

On the flip side, somebody mentioned Drs recommending very low calorie diets and I would certainly support this approach done over the 4-8 weeks it is usually recommended for before return to higher cals (but still sufficient reduction for weight loss) if it were deemed absolutely necessary for comorbidities. The problem I have is that many people use MFP as their 'healthy way' and do it for many months and I don't think that it is a good idea for a very obese person to eat such a small amount for such a long time.

While there is a small MACRO nutrient increase needed with carrying extra fat, it's small. The other thing is you're confusing a larger deficit with a larger overall need for calories. I never said obese people can survive on less calories (or even the same calories) as someone who has a normal amount of fat, I said that they can successfully lose weight utilizing a larger deficit than can someone with less fat.
Micro nutrients generally aren't affected by fat stores, other than the small increase of calcium needs to activate the actin myosin bridge and a few other minor activities, I haven't read any studies that confirm the need for more micro nutrients for two people who are otherwise of the same physical attributes other than body fat %. Macro nutrients, yes, not micro nutrients.

EDIT: I will agree that obese people who are dieting are at higher risk for micro nutrient deficiencies. Those same "diets" that obese people tend to go on tend to cut out many of the higher calorie foods that also contain the really power packed foods that fulfill much of our dietary requirements for micro nutrients. Simply cutting back on calories isn't a great way to go about it, much notice should also be given to the types of foods eaten, especially when at a high deficit.

lilmissy2

It doesn't make any sense at all that you would have higher macronutrient requirements and not higher micronutrient requirements... because micronutrients are required to process the macronutrients. I don't need to read an article (although I've read plenty) to tell me that, I just need to think about it logically.

I don't understand how you claim that the macronutrients requirements are only slightly increased when they are calculated in grams per kilogram.... if you are then 25-50% overweight then your requirements for macros are going to increase in that same proportion. Maybe I am just the most naive dietitian in the world but I think 25-50% is a lot!

SHBoss1673

It doesn't make any sense at all that you would have higher macronutrient requirements and not higher micronutrient requirements... because micronutrients are required to process the macronutrients. I don't need to read an article (although I've read plenty) to tell me that, I just need to think about it logically.

I don't understand how you claim that the macronutrients requirements are only slightly increased when they are calculated in grams per kilogram.... if you are then 25-50% overweight then your requirements for macros are going to increase in that same proportion. Maybe I am just the most naive dietitian in the world but I think 25-50% is a lot!

Look at it this way, if I gain 20% fat, my calories don't go up by 20%, they go up by about 8 or 9% and that's only because it's assumed that some of that gain is muscle mass. It's not proportional.

If I weight 185 now, and put on 37 lbs of fat (20% increase in weight), my calories don't go up by 20 %, I.E. I don't go from 2650 to 3180 (20% increase in calories), they go up to about 2850. By your calculations, I would have to eat 3180 to maintain, and thats incorrect.

flyingspatulas

This is great info, thanks for sharing!

lilmissy2

No, I said macronutrients, not calories! Your macronutrient requirements (as opposed to recommendations which are percentages of calorie intake) are not related to the amount of calories you require.

Edited to add: in case it wasn't clear, your macronutrient requirements are a minimum and do not provide your full caloric requirements.

SHBoss1673

No, I said macronutrients, not calories! Your macronutrient requirements (as opposed to recommendations which are percentages of calorie intake) are not related to the amount of calories you require.

Edited to add: in case it wasn't clear, your macronutrient requirements are a minimum and do not provide your full caloric requirements.

ok so I guess we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about macro nutrients as in fats, carbohydrates, and proteins that's it. I.E. chemical energy required by the body.

I.E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients

(first one I found)

Maybe it's an across the pond thing. not sure.

SHBoss1673

as opposed to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronutrients

recipe4success

Protein requirement = 0.8 g x kg body weight (for adults)

If I weigh 175 lbs (79 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 g x 79 = 63.2 g/day

If I weight 270 lbs (122 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 x 122 = 97.6 g/day

So that is a significant increase in protein requirement in grams, which is different than calorie intake.

HOpefully that helps explain it.

SHBoss1673

Protein requirement = 0.8 g x kg body weight (for adults)

If I weigh 175 lbs (79 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 g x 79 = 63.2 g/day

If I weight 270 lbs (122 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 x 122 = 97.6 g/day

So that is a significant increase in protein requirement in grams, which is different than calorie intake.

HOpefully that helps explain it.

that's what? 140 calories difference. That's not that big in my book. Not when you're talking about a 270 lb person.

recipe4success

Protein requirement = 0.8 g x kg body weight (for adults)

If I weigh 175 lbs (79 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 g x 79 = 63.2 g/day

If I weight 270 lbs (122 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 x 122 = 97.6 g/day

So that is a significant increase in protein requirement in grams, which is different than calorie intake.

HOpefully that helps explain it.

that's what? 140 calories difference. That's not that big in my book. Not when you're talking about a 270 lb person.

Its nothing to do with calories, it is to do with protein requirement. Protein can come from many different sources and be of varied calorie content for the same gram amount.

leavinglasvegas

:flowerforyou:

SHBoss1673

Protein requirement = 0.8 g x kg body weight (for adults)

If I weigh 175 lbs (79 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 g x 79 = 63.2 g/day

If I weight 270 lbs (122 kg), my protein requirement = 0.8 x 122 = 97.6 g/day

So that is a significant increase in protein requirement in grams, which is different than calorie intake.

HOpefully that helps explain it.

that's what? 140 calories difference. That's not that big in my book. Not when you're talking about a 270 lb person.

Its nothing to do with calories, it is to do with protein requirement. Protein can come from many different sources and be of varied calorie content for the same gram amount.

What? Protein is approximately 4 calories per gram (rounded), there's no variation that I've ever heard of.

recipe4success

What? Protein is approximately 4 calories per gram (rounded), there's no variation that I've ever heard of.

It definitely is. However, how would you propose just eating pure protein (which would equal the 120 calories as you stated)? In all likelihood it corresponds to eating more calories than that to get the necessary addition to protein.

missjo113

bump

SHBoss1673

What? Protein is approximately 4 calories per gram (rounded), there's no variation that I've ever heard of.

It definitely is. However, how would you propose just eating pure protein (which would equal the 120 calories as you stated)? In all likelihood it corresponds to eating more calories than that to get the necessary addition to protein.

What are you talking about? You were the one who brought up protein, I already said there would be small rise in calories. And that's only assuming that for someone who gained 95 lbs gained at least some muscle. This is pointless, I feel like you're bringing up points just to be argumentative. This isn't even relevant to the initial discussion anymore, I'm done with this discussion, it's fruitless and just making me disgruntled. Please stop posting about it.

recipe4success

What? Protein is approximately 4 calories per gram (rounded), there's no variation that I've ever heard of.

It definitely is. However, how would you propose just eating pure protein (which would equal the 120 calories as you stated)? In all likelihood it corresponds to eating more calories than that to get the necessary addition to protein.

What are you talking about? You were the one who brought up protein, I already said there would be small rise in calories. And that's only assuming that for someone who gained 95 lbs gained at least some muscle. This is pointless, I feel like you're bringing up points just to be argumentative. This isn't even relevant to the initial discussion anymore, I'm done with this discussion, it's fruitless and just making me disgruntled. Please stop posting about it.

You don't seem to be understanding that there is a difference between caloric requirement and macronutrient requirements. I suggest reading up about it, since you do not want to believe what I am posting here. I am not trying to be argumentative, just stating facts.

lilmissy2

Sigh... Thanks shygal for explaining what I was trying to say with the protein requirements. There are similar calculations for other macronutrients.

Banks, I'm a little insulted that you are implying that as a registered dietitian that I don't know the difference between macro and micronutrients :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Things aren't THAT different across the pond!!

Yes, protein has 4cal/g but this has nothing to do with calories! The problem is that when you try to eat a lower amount of calories you tend to cut things out (typically carbs but it varies) and yes, people will sometimes cut to below their requirements (which again, I remind you are not the same as the 'recommendations' for % of calories.

Lets go to your and shygals example - so she requires extra protein which you say is 150cals/day. Very few foods are pure protein so you would actually need a lot more cals to meet that amount of protein. But again, this isn't about calories, I'm just trying to explain it that way since that's what you keep relating it back to.