If you are on a low calorie diet, READ THIS!!!

thesevolatiletimes

Please understand that this is not just the ramifications of somebody not fueling their body properly: this is a full blown deadly mental illness. This is something whose symptom includes inadequate nutrition and weight loss, but is not defined by it. I appreciate the fact that you took the time and effort to post this, but I just want to make sure that people comprehend the difference between mental illnesses, and drastic weight loss (since the 2 are different entities).

Not all low-calorie diets are bad, because essentially caloric deficits are how you lose weight. Ideally those caloric deficits would remain within healthy limits that allow your body to healthily function (aka, caloric amounts above 1,200 calories since that's the bare minimum your body's organs need to properly function). I mean, for somebody who became obese by consuming 5,000 calories a day, 2,000 calories per day would be considered 'low calorie', would be creating a deficit, and would therefore result in weight loss, due to said deficit.

So, we don't need to become alarmed by low-calorie diets, but only by those that are in the presence of an eating disorder.

geekyjock76

There's no problem with MFP. In fact, it works great if you use it correctly.

Long story short, using the TDEE method or the MFP method should actually give you the same amount of overall calories if you're doing it right. I've calculated it both ways and it gives me the same amount. MFP only gives a too-low goal if you're choosing an unhealthy or unsustainable loss rate. This is the end-users fault, not MFP's.

The only thing I think MFP could be doing better is providing better guidelines around recommend loss rates depending on how much you have to lose. Although now that I think of it, I think it does do that to at least some degree - most people just ignore it and shoot for the moon.

MFP shares some liability by not clarifying the options in choosing a weekly weight loss goal. The lack of this crucial information gives new members a false sense that they can lose any amount of weight per week regardless of their starting weight which is grossly inaccurate and potentially detrimental to ones weight loss effort and even health. If MFP included this, we wouldn't see nearly as many people pursuing unsuitable deficits.

PetulantOne

Bumping for my FL and to keep the thread going.

Hugs to the original author.

jofjltncb6

So, we don't need to become alarmed by low-calorie diets, but only by those that are in the presence of an eating disorder.

I'm not sure I understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Personally, I think people *should* be alarmed by (or at least keenly aware of the potential ramifications of) low-calorie diets (depending, of course, on the definition of "low-calorie") regardless of whether or not there is an actual eating disorder.

ElliottTN

So what will happen to my friend who eats 1150 calories a day?

I won't go into her height, weight, body composition or activity level because that obviously makes no difference to your eating disorder fear mongering.

Did some starvation mode trolls get bored and decide to try a new approach?

init2fitit

Remember that study that showed that people who ate low calore/huge deficit amounts, they began to show the same symptoms of eating disordered people?

Also, the minimum is 1200 for women, and 1800 for men.

inb4 WELL MY FRIEND EATS THIS MANY CALORIES & IS DOING FINE.

ChrisM8971

Remember that study that showed that people who ate low calore/huge deficit amounts, they began to show the same symptoms of eating disordered people?

Also, the minimum is 1200 for women, and 1800 for men.

inb4 WELL MY FRIEND EATS THIS MANY CALORIES & IS DOING FINE.

Not quite in before that it seems lol

ElliottTN

Remember that study that showed that people who ate low calore/huge deficit amounts, they began to show the same symptoms of eating disordered people?

Also, the minimum is 1200 for women, and 1800 for men.

inb4 WELL MY FRIEND EATS THIS MANY CALORIES & IS DOING FINE.

If her BMR is below 1200 than why wouldn't she be doing fine?

init2fitit

50 calories is a negligible difference. It proves nothing.
Also is your friend a midget?
Even my bmr is over 1400...

ElliottTN

50 calories is a negligible difference. It proves nothing.
Also is your friend a midget?
Even my bmr is over 1400...

If 50 calories is a negligible difference than why preach a 1200 absolute min calorie base?

Say a 35 year old woman who is 4'9 and 120 lbs (hardly a midget)

Also, I believe midget is an offensive term btw.

Lichent

Not eating can do as much damage as eating to much , so we were told by our Doctor. Worse thing to do is eat to little food and crash the pounds off. Sooner of later it will all come back on. Me and my buddy we don't want to have lose the same weight over and over and over again. We have been told a slow weight loss even if it is an itty bitty some weeks is the best path to travel Most important is to keep eating clean and healthy. No nasty sweet stuff in our diets now. We took it to the trash bin and thru it out.

init2fitit

Actually, 4'10 and under is the legal height at which one is termed a dwarf. So yeah... She is.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

The question is, why doesn't your friend just eat the extra 50 calories to meet the standard minimum? Like, she could eat an extra teaspoon of jam and be there. Also, she is not what is considered a "normal height" so what she does would not represent even someone of normal height...

This is not a good sample to base caloric intake off of.

ElliottTN

Actually, 4'10 and under is the legal height at which one is termed a dwarf. So yeah... She is.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

The question is, why doesn't your friend just eat the extra 50 calories to meet the standard minimum? Like, she could eat an extra teaspoon of jam and be there. Also, she is not what is considered a "normal height" so what she does would not represent even someone of normal height...

This is not a good sample to base caloric intake off of.

No. That is the problem here. Why would she have to eat 50 calories other than for the sake of meeting this standard min that doesn't even apply to her except according to you? Why would it be the standard min for her? That's the whole issue here. You are saying that THIS IS THE CONCRETE TRUTH without ever taking any specifics of the person into consideration.

So if that really is the concrete truth that you are preaching for EVERYONE than tell me why she wouldn't be doing fine eating above her BMR but under 1200?

Also, there is no legal limit for a coined medical condition and dwarfism is anyone below 4'10, not 4'10 itself.

LiminalAscendance

Actually, 4'10 and under is the legal height at which one is termed a dwarf. So yeah... She is.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

I don't have a dog in this race, but unless your link (which I could care less about looking at) says people with dwarfism are "midgets," you didn't make your point.

Just pointing out a logical fallacy (which may be lost without a kitty gif to back it up).

ChrisM8971

Actually, 4'10 and under is the legal height at which one is termed a dwarf. So yeah... She is.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

The question is, why doesn't your friend just eat the extra 50 calories to meet the standard minimum? Like, she could eat an extra teaspoon of jam and be there. Also, she is not what is considered a "normal height" so what she does would not represent even someone of normal height...

This is not a good sample to base caloric intake off of.

No. That is the problem here. Why would she have to eat 50 calories other than for the sake of meeting this standard min that doesn't even apply to her? Why would it be the standard min for her? That's the whole issue here. You are saying that THIS IS THE CONCRETE TRUTH without ever taking any specifics of the person into consideration.

So if that really is the concrete truth that you are preaching for EVERYONE than tell me why she wouldn't be doing fine eating above her BMR but under 1200?

If 1200 is above BMR then I cannot see an issue with that but I don't think the OP nor the post he was quoting mentioned 1200 calories. I do think an ED is different to a low calorie diet and those trying to lose fast. However there are quite a few who's diaries are set at 700 or sometimes even less and these are the ones that I believe this is aimed at.

Lets be sensible and not argue about the odd 50 or 100 calories nor argue about the people that are of this or that height and weight and think about those this post is really aimed at

init2fitit

You're getting way too engrossed about 50 calories. I told you it's a negligible difference.

1. These numbers are based on average human bodies.
2. Your friend does not have an average human body.
3. You're using someone outside of the average statistical norm, which doesn't prove anything except that your friend is the outlier that she already is because of her height. Her body is different.
4. I don't know if she even exists or is actually doing fine in the first place. She could be fake.
5. I don't even know how accurate this calorie count is. Does she literally weight everything and account for the possible 20% calorie discrepancy. Does she graze and not count those calories? There's literally no way to prove that she is literally eating that many calories because of the nature of calorie reports. It is a negligible amount after all.

But what you want me to say is your friend is a special snowflake who can live off even 900 cals a day and lift a burning building off a toddler. Most of the people on this site aren't under 4'10 so there's no need to bring it up. The average is for the average, not the legal dwarf.

Because quite frankly, I'd be a little concerned if someone that was 6'8 was only eating 1800 calories, though that is the minimum suggested for a man, because being that tall represents significant diet change.

donyellemoniquex3

0_0

ElliottTN

You're getting way too engrossed about 50 calories. I told you it's a negligible difference.

1. These numbers are based on average human bodies.
2. Your friend does not have an average human body.
3. You're using someone outside of the average statistical norm, which doesn't prove anything except that your friend is the outlier that she already is because of her height. Her body is different.
4. I don't know if she even exists or is actually doing fine in the first place. She could be fake.
5. I don't even know how accurate this calorie count is. Does she literally weight everything and account for the possible 20% calorie discrepancy. Does she graze and not count those calories? There's literally no way to prove that she is literally eating that many calories because of the nature of calorie reports. It is a negligible amount after all.

But what you want me to say is your friend is a special snowflake who can live off even 900 cals a day and lift a burning building off a toddler. Most of the people on this site aren't under 4'10 so there's no need to bring it up. The average is for the average, not the legal dwarf.

Because quite frankly, I'd be a little concerned if someone that was 6'8 was only eating 1800 calories, though that is the minimum suggested for a man, because being that tall represents significant diet change.

You are missing the point completely. I don't want you to tell me my friend is a special snowflake. I want you to stop talking because trying to have this conversation with you is the equivalent of just slamming my head against brick wall until I pass out.

kyleekay10

Tagging. Everyone should read this.

delicious_cocktail

You are missing the point completely. I don't want you to tell me my friend is a special snowflake. I want you to stop talking because trying to have this conversation with you is the equivalent of just slamming my head against brick wall until I pass out.

And ladies and gentlemen, above we see the reason for the phrase "consider the source."

You're calling people trolls?? Lawlz.

mbar12

I'm not sure that its true that most people eating less than 1500 cal/day do so only for a short while. I ate approx 1200-1350 calories for 8 months with only very occasional times that I went outside that box. Unfortunately I gained it all back, so I am not sure its a good idea to go that low. Right now I am starting an eating plan of 2 days low carb and 5 days of 1500 calories /wk, and think it is much healthier than eating lower. Anyone care to comment?

ironanimal

People should read this.

init2fitit

You are missing the point completely. I don't want you to tell me my friend is a special snowflake. I want you to stop talking because trying to have this conversation with you is the equivalent of just slamming my head against brick wall until I pass out.

You've done nothing to prove that your friend represents the average population... which is what the calorie min. is aimed at. So why would she do anything but prove the rule that someone of an average weight and height would need this minimum?

Also, semantically, I'm not talking. I'm typing.

init2fitit

You are missing the point completely. I don't want you to tell me my friend is a special snowflake. I want you to stop talking because trying to have this conversation with you is the equivalent of just slamming my head against brick wall until I pass out.

And ladies and gentlemen, above we see the reason for the phrase "consider the source."

You're calling people trolls?? Lawlz.

You have a nice shirt, Mr. delicious_cocktail

geekyjock76

Say a 35 year old woman who is 4'9 and 120 lbs (hardly a midget)

For a person with her stats, it all depends on her actual TDEE and weight loss goal. Regardless of TDEE, if she wanted to lose 20 lbs, ideally a deficit of about 300 calories would suffice. Anything greater would be unnecessary for already having low body fat. Chances are, despite being petite, that her TDEE is a bit higher than 1450 calories - especially if she's exercising.

From my perspective, a person's restrictive intake should be based on their actual TDEE - which ideally is obtained by eating the maximum amount of calories to achieve relative weight homeostasis for a period of several months prior to any weight loss intervention. Unfortunately, most people don't know what their actual TDEE is and use some random approximation instead. Additionally, people should lose weight following a maximal caloric intake approach as opposed to meeting the minimal requirements.

NonnyMary

STARVATION - A slow and painful death.

Thank you for giving us an example of the above.

Fullsterkur_woman

I have some friends that need to see this, so bumping to my FL.

Jaided35

I'm not sure that its true that most people eating less than 1500 cal/day do so only for a short while. I ate approx 1200-1350 calories for 8 months with only very occasional times that I went outside that box. Unfortunately I gained it all back, so I am not sure its a good idea to go that low. Right now I am starting an eating plan of 2 days low carb and 5 days of 1500 calories /wk, and think it is much healthier than eating lower. Anyone care to comment?

I eat no less than 1400 per day. As told to me by my trainer who is fully educated in nutrition etc. I think your way is pretty good.

purple180

Bumping for my friends list...hopefully it will help someone.

Alliwan

Tagging.

Much hugs to the OP and I hope people really take the experience to heart.

agreed