Question about calories being too low and not losing weight
Buckeyebabe7l7
Posts: 603 Member
So, I have been reading many posts about people not being able to lose weight or not lose weight in a long while and wanting to know why. Usually when asked about their calorie intake and deficit I see many people who reply suggest the calorie intake is too low.
My question is how can someone not lose weight and be eating too few calories at the same time? This is a serious question.
Thanks!
My question is how can someone not lose weight and be eating too few calories at the same time? This is a serious question.
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
One, if they aren't getting a healthy amount of calories and macros, they should stop that activity asap for health reasons.
Two, the body tries to adapt to reduced CI by reducing CO, e.g. less NEAT, you'll have less energy to do things, etc. It would be wise to take a diet break for two weeks.1 -
Lol, ask people in concentration camps why they’re so thin. Seriously though, no, calories too low will always cause weight loss. Calories too low with no loss usually means they are greatly miscounting their calories and the calories are much higher than they’re reporting.
Too low of calories can cause lower activity however usually not enough to cause no Fatloss.8 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »One, if they aren't getting a healthy amount of calories and macros, they should stop that activity asap for health reasons.
Two, the body tries to adapt to reduced CI by reducing CO, e.g. less NEAT, you'll have less energy to do things, etc. It would be wise to take a diet break for two weeks.
I am not trying to suggest or promote anyone should eat too few calories, just wanted to make that clear.
Thank you for responding. So, you are saying that when someone eats too few calories they end up saving the energy by not moving as much? And they are sabotaging their plan by making it too hard for their body to keep up with the calorie deficit?2 -
This is not about me. I have always been successful with lowering my calories and being able to lose weight. I just didn't understand why that doesn't work for everyone and why the suggestion that too few calories might be the reason for a stall or no weight loss.
I know this might seem ignorant to some but I really don't know and want to understand.0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol, ask people in concentration camps why they’re so thin. Seriously though, no, calories too low will always cause weight loss. Calories too low with no loss usually means they are greatly miscounting their calories and the calories are much higher than they’re reporting.
Too low of calories can cause lower activity however usually not enough to cause no Fatloss.
Ok so you're saying what I thought the first posted suggested. I do get that many times people don't count calories quite right, either because they are guesstimating or because they want to plug in numbers they know look good and not being honest with what they are really consuming.
But I guess what I am hearing is if you are honest and you lower your calories and still can maintain an active lifestyle you will lose weight. Is that right?0 -
whenever you are taking in fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight.Buckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol, ask people in concentration camps why they’re so thin. Seriously though, no, calories too low will always cause weight loss. Calories too low with no loss usually means they are greatly miscounting their calories and the calories are much higher than they’re reporting.
Too low of calories can cause lower activity however usually not enough to cause no Fatloss.
Ok so you're saying what I thought the first posted suggested. I do get that many times people don't count calories quite right, either because they are guesstimating or because they want to plug in numbers they know look good and not being honest with what they are really consuming.
But I guess what I am hearing is if you are honest and you lower your calories and still can maintain an active lifestyle you will lose weight. Is that right?
1 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »whenever you are taking in fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Thank you. That is what I thought. So, when I am reading these replies people are just trying to get to the bottom of what is happening with these individuals.0 -
Take a person with terminal cancer who cannot eat and process food internally. They are at a much reduced and emaciated stage. Starving their body is breaking down their muscle and organ proteins. But they may well be at a weight plateau for a few weeks. Or with ascites even show increased weight. While starving to death. In actual fact.
Don't try to imitate them as your method of losing weight.
Eating the closest you can to maintenance while gradually meeting your goals is a more winning and long term play*
(*yes, you still do have to eat below current maintenance to lose weight but there quite likely exists some dynamic adjustment range to your Calories out which can make loss easier or harder)1 -
I will say this helps me understand what happens when people lower their calories to a point they stall or won't lose any weight. I know this sounds dumb on my part but I never considered people who just slowed down to that point where the weight stalled. So thanks!0
-
Take a person with terminal cancer who cannot eat and process food internally. They are at a much reduced and emaciated stage. Starving their body is breaking down their muscle and organ proteins. But they may well be at a weight plateau for a few weeks. Or with ascites even show increased weight. While starving to death. In actual fact.
Don't try to imitate them as your method of losing weight.
Yes, I agree. I was going to say basic anorexia....but that is not quite right. But I do agree and think I have more understanding.
0 -
definitely not a good planBuckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »Take a person with terminal cancer who cannot eat and process food internally. They are at a much reduced and emaciated stage. Starving their body is breaking down their muscle and organ proteins. But they may well be at a weight plateau for a few weeks. Or with ascites even show increased weight. While starving to death. In actual fact.
Don't try to imitate them as your method of losing weight.
Yes, I agree. I was going to say basic anorexia....but that is not quite right. But I do agree and think I have more understanding.
1 -
And yet people regularly attempt 50+% cuts to their TDEE.
1200 and none of the exercise calories.
What was the % cut for the Minnesota semi starvation study?
Yes, yes, the participants were within normal weight range and there is more elasticity when obese. Doesn't make it a great idea to repeat though. In my opinion0 -
And yet people regularly attempt 50+% cuts to their TDEE.
1200 and none of the exercise calories.
What was the % cut for the Minnesota semi starvation study?
Yes, yes, the participants were within normal weight range and there is more elasticity when obese. Doesn't make it a great idea to repeat though. In my opinion
I have no idea of what you are speaking about. Pretend, for a moment, I am a baby...lol What are you saying....in layman's terms? I mean it. Speak plainly. If there is something more I need to consider then please explain.0 -
Nah. It's OK. I'm obviously not in a great mood.
The answer is that basically and always in my opinion people try to over-do things. And that generally doesn't end well. Even/especially for the extremely few who successfully double down and push through instead of peeling off on the regain train when the overdoing backfires. Now some do adjust and there is success there. Adjusting is good.
The full reference to the original Ancel Keys experiment is actually difficult to find (or my google foo sucks). But in general Minnessota (semi) starvation and Ancel Keys will bring up references.
However the crux of the matter is that the 24 week semi-starvation period included exercise of 22 miles of walking a week (so just over 3 miles a day) and 40% reduction in Calories to 1600 to 1800 a day for men.
And again I ask how many people here go to 1200 and no exercise calories for females or 1500 and no exercise calories for males where for many of them this represents a >50% reduction.
1 -
Nah. It's OK. I'm obviously not in a great mood.
The answer is that basically and always in my opinion people try to over-do things. And that generally doesn't end well. Even/especially for the extremely few who successfully double down and push through instead of peeling off on the regain train when the overdoing backfires. Now some do adjust and there is success there. Adjusting is good.
The full reference to the original Ancel Keys experiment is actually difficult to find (or my google foo sucks). But in general Minnessota (semi) starvation and Ancel Keys will bring up references.
However the crux of the matter is that the 24 week semi-starvation period included exercise of 22 miles of walking a week (so just over 3 miles a day) and 40% reduction in Calories to 1600 to 1800 a day for men.
And again I ask how many people here go to 1200 and no exercise calories for females or 1500 and no exercise calories for males where for many of them this represents a >50% reduction.
Yep, that would be overdoing and I agree adjusting is always very good. But aren't you saying the same thing? In the end, it is a calorie deficit within reasonable parameters that equals weight loss? Aren't you just pointing out how they might be overdoing and setting themselves up for a downfall? That's what I was getting at in my hopeful understanding...that when posters questioned the calories they were really trying to get at the root. It's not really that you can have too few calories and still not lose weight. It is that you are overdoing and causing your body to adjust to a point that you simply have to go along with and submit to it, thereby making the calorie deficit moot. Or am I not getting your point at all? I admit that might be the case and I am sorry if I am not helping your mood. But thank you for being patient.
I really do appreciate your response and I am trying to understand what you are saying. If I have completely misunderstood then I apologize and ask you try to explain again. I might be a slow learner but I am willing to learn.1 -
I'd say it's more like there's a calorie sweet spot for healthy and satisfying weight loss.
If a person eats below that range, fatigue (subtle and/or obvious) can reduce their all-day calorie expenditure materially, so that they're losing fat weight more slowly than expected at that calorie level. At the same time, the stress of what they're doing to their body can increase water retention.
That's not fat, but it can hide fat loss on the scale for a time. Through some combination of those, the scale drop may stop or even reverse. It may truly be that for a time they "stop losing weight" (scale weight), but they haven't stopped losing fat (and maybe some lean body tissue besides). The scale is stalled. Impatience can be a factor in how they think of the situation, as can denial (about restriction-triggered binges, for example), and of course others are right that logging can be off in the first place.
If you find the Minnesota Starvation Experiment details, I think you'll find that the participants reached an extreme point where weight loss did slow (and some other weird things happened). That was not truly a starvation experiment, though. They had food, just not anything like enough. People who are truly starving will keep losing weight, possibly not at a steady rate throughout, but it will happen, and they won't be fat when they die.
But going back to the fortunate developed-world dieters of today who foolishly eat so little their body acts self-protectively as if they're in a famine: If they eat few enough calories, for sure they'll lose fat (and maybe lean mass), and eventually the scale will drop. But in that zone of eating less than is sensibly healthy, that loss can be slower than they expect, and maybe appear to be slower than it is.
Also, under-eating is simply not a path of thriving good health. It's a bad plan. Energy drops. Access to nutrition is limited by the low intake. Simply from the extreme low calories, there can be health risks, from minor (hair loss, say) to major (heart issues), and many things in between (reduced immune function, slow healing from minor or major injuries, gallbladder problems, etc.).
Some of those people will find that if they eat a little more, but still at a deficit, their energy level will perk up and some stress-related water retention will drop off. Poof, they are "losing weight at higher calories". In my framing of it, they're back in the calorie sweet-spot range for weight loss: Fat loss happening, energy level holding up reasonably, adequate nutrition possible supporting energy and health, etc.
The above is oversimplified. This is a good thread with lots more (and less oversimplified) information about real effects, complete with links to the science of it (read the first few posts in the thread, the ones by that thread's OP):
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p13 -
I'd say it's more like there's a calorie sweet spot for healthy and satisfying weight loss.
If a person eats below that range, fatigue (subtle and/or obvious) can reduce their all-day calorie expenditure materially, so that they're losing fat weight more slowly than expected at that calorie level. At the same time, the stress of what they're doing to their body can increase water retention.
That's not fat, but it can hide fat loss on the scale for a time. Through some combination of those, the scale drop may stop or even reverse. It may truly be that for a time they "stop losing weight" (scale weight), but they haven't stopped losing fat (and maybe some lean body tissue besides). The scale is stalled. Impatience can be a factor in how they think of the situation, as can denial (about restriction-triggered binges, for example), and of course others are right that logging can be off in the first place.
If you find the Minnesota Starvation Experiment details, I think you'll find that the participants reached an extreme point where weight loss did slow (and some other weird things happened). That was not truly a starvation experiment, though. They had food, just not anything like enough. People who are truly starving will keep losing weight, possibly not at a steady rate throughout, but it will happen, and they won't be fat when they die.
But going back to the fortunate developed-world dieters of today who foolishly eat so little their body acts self-protectively as if they're in a famine: If they eat few enough calories, for sure they'll lose fat (and maybe lean mass), and eventually the scale will drop. But in that zone of eating less than is sensibly healthy, that loss can be slower than they expect, and maybe appear to be slower than it is.
Also, under-eating is simply not a path of thriving good health. It's a bad plan. Energy drops. Access to nutrition is limited by the low intake. Simply from the extreme low calories, there can be health risks, from minor (hair loss, say) to major (heart issues), and many things in between (reduced immune function, slow healing from minor or major injuries, gallbladder problems, etc.).
Some of those people will find that if they eat a little more, but still at a deficit, their energy level will perk up and some stress-related water retention will drop off. Poof, they are "losing weight at higher calories". In my framing of it, they're back in the calorie sweet-spot range for weight loss: Fat loss happening, energy level holding up reasonably, adequate nutrition possible supporting energy and health, etc.
The above is oversimplified. This is a good thread with lots more (and less oversimplified) information about real effects, complete with links to the science of it (read the first few posts in the thread, the ones by that thread's OP):
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Thank you. I will read the link.
I think what you are linking to would suggest the same thing that I have come to understand. Some people overdo calorie deficit to the point of starvation....like anorexia....just not the disease. Although, I guess it could lead to that.1 -
@AnnPT77 Thank you again. A lot of info. I think the info on taking "breaks" is really interesting. So much more to read.0
-
There exists a refeed and diet break thread.
My personal general advice would be to try for a meaningful and appropriate deficit generally defined as one that would lead to 0.25% to 1% of body weight loss per week with greater sustainability found near the 0.5% as opposed to 1% range while creating deficits that do not exceed 25% of actual daily expenditure if appropriately classified as obese (and 20% if appropriately classified as mid point overweight or lower). While eating an appropriate amount of protein (generally 0.8 to 1g per lb body weight at the lower of either current or BMI 25 weight--and yes that's more than the rdi for protein, just about double. You can reference examine.com protein requirements.
plus even normal gender recommendations for fiber. plus healthy fats (Ann is it 0.3g per lb? I'm dictating while walking the 🐶 so no reference checking 😂🤷♂️).
Generally speaking a whole food based diet with even more than 5x 85g portions of vegetables and fruits --some additional benefits seen by going up to 8 to 10 portions) plus general everyday movement. Throw in some moderate exercise and some strength training.... Bob's your uncle!!!!👍
Time is not a target if you're exploring a permanent lifestyle. And for the sake of baby kittens do use a weight trend app or web site!!!1 -
@PAV8888 Thank you so much for your insight and help.1
-
It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.
My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.
But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.
In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.1 -
sarabushby wrote: »It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.
My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.
But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.
In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.
Thank you for your response.
I did address that in an earlier comment. I am sure you missed it. That is a common occurrence and a valid concern.
0 -
Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.1
-
Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.
That is true. But I was speaking to the posts where people have been on a longer duration of little to no weight loss and posters were suggesting too low calorie deficit. But thank you for your input.0 -
Lordy, I feel like a complete dummy because I finally saw the link I was provided was there all the time in the "must read" section of Health and Weight Loss. I will say I find this site a bit hard to navigate but I am getting older and I know what that does because I have seen it. I guess I have graduated from middle age to old. Although, it was tucked into a lot of other topics...does that count?
1 -
Yeah, I think the participants in Keys Minnesota study were men only of healthy body and weight, which makes a difference, a big difference in this context where any complications are manifested pretty much from the beginning.
Apparently the Minnesota participants ate 1600-1800 calories a day after an introductory period of consuming 3000 calories for 12 weeks. They were also committed to 22 miles of walking or running a week and that period was for 24 weeks. Their RMR resting metabolic rate was reduced by 40%.
https://dieteticallyspeaking.com/the-minnesota-starvation-experiment/
Anyway, if we look at the biggest losers who were over 300lbs when they started they still had a reduction in their resting metabolic rate close to 25% and that was an average so many were higher. Exercise was in the 4 to 6 hours a day range and it was pretty intensive with less than a hour of weights, so mostly cardio. Can't remember how many calories they were eating but it was around 1200 and very low fat, I think around 10%. Most of the participants have never regained all of their metabolism back after all this time.
0 -
Also, I think sometimes people who are new on this site may just have trouble with all the shorthand we use and/or they may mix up the terms we use. For instance, I don't really think this means what you think it means:Buckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.
That is true. But I was speaking to the posts where people have been on a longer duration of little to no weight loss and posters were suggesting too low calorie deficit. But thank you for your input.
So in general, read through the answers in a thread (all of them) and the "advice" is pretty standard unless there are people who still believe in diet myths. I mean, there are always new members who jump in with their misguided beliefs about starvation mode.
Ya have to kind of learn to separate the chaff from the grain. There are a core group of regular posters and you'll get reasonable answers from all of them, but it is a forum with lots of new people on their phones giving one-sentence replies that are out of left field.
1 -
oh, and here's the Refeed and Diet Breaks thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
You'll see that linked a lot, because weight loss stalls during long-duration weight loss are so common. The first thing people think to do is eat less, and that's almost never the answer. We kind of go down a check list of questions when they have this problem, and then try to troubleshoot with them.1 -
sarabushby wrote: »It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.
My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.
But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.
In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.
Yes, we do see many posts here like that - low calories most of the week and one cheat day or meal (often not logged.)
Here's another scenario:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
And another one from the same page:
That last is why I always want to look at someone's food diary before offering advice. The problem is often found in the food diary.
0 -
Two of the common posts around here are:
1) "I'm in a deficit of X, I'm not losing, what the hell?" Usually a new poster, they are informed they are not in a deficit, their tracking is way off, and they are typically never heard from again.
2) "Been doing this a long time, down to 1200, not losing any more."
These ones I give the benefit of the doubt to and assume they are tracking correctly. It's certainly possible they are not.
What next, go to 1,000? 900? That's absurd. It's physically and mentally draining. It's potentially harmful, and definitely unsustainable. They shouldn't need to be this low to get results. What's probably happening is similar to that Biggest Loser study, which is probably an extreme example of body adaptation, where e.g. one guy was found to require consuming 800 fewer daily calories than people his weight would be expected to maintain at, just to avoid gaining fat.
The best thing therefore is take a break. If they've been doing this for a few months, take a two week diet break back to where maintenance should be. Or start reverse dieting if needed to get back to maintenance at a slower pace. Most weight gain in this process should be water, and that's fine. Then they'll be in a much better position to resume dieting.4
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
- 424 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