Can you eat too little if you're eating whole foods?

neandermagnon

Sometimes I get to the end of the day and only have eaten 1000 calories even though I've gone through a lot of food. I eat a lot of rice and stuff like that, which is low on the calories, but very filling. If I feel like I've eaten a lot of food and have gotten my nutrition, should I force myself to eat more (So I don't get that note warning me that I'm eating too little) or just be satisfied with what I've done for the day?

1,000 calories is not enough food to fuel your body. In fact, I doubt ti would barely give you half a tank of fuel.

That said, my guess is you are eating more than 1,000 calories per day, especially with rice and "stuff like that." What is "stuff like that," anyway?

1 cup of rice generally has 216-300 calories, depending on the type of rice. That's not low in calories, even though its darn delicious and can be worked into any eating plan.

You don't need enough calories to fuel your day - that's what your body fat is for. So long as you're getting enough nutrients, fat, protein, etc. you actually don't need any calories at all. They've done studies where they inject people with their full day's worth of nutrients, and then the person doesn't eat or drink anything (except possibly water, I now don't remember) and they were perfectly healthy just burning their own body fat for well over a year I believe. I don't remember now where to find that study, but MFP's idea of needing a set amount of calories to fuel your day is wrong. It's just nutrients you actually need so long as you have body fat to burn.

re the bit in bold... you know that fat and protein contain calories, right? So you can't possibly get enough fat and protein, while not getting any calories at all. You can meet all your calorie requirements without taking in any carbs, by getting them from fat and protein. That's doable, although you may suffer from "brain fog" or being unable to exercise at your usual intensity due to the lack of carbs in your system, but you won't die or become malnourished.

the study sounds bogus (or you totally and utterly misunderstood it), because "a full day's worth of nutrients" includes eating enough calories for the day, because fat, protein and carbs, i.e. the things your body gets calories from *are* nutrients. Sounds like maybe you're confusing calories and carbs. Or the study showed that if people were given all the nutrition they need (which means enough calories for the day) they never got hungry and didn't want to eat. But if they're having all the nutrients their body needs injected into them, they won't be living off their body fat, they'd be living off the nutrients injected into them.

SuperSexyDork

LOL. Bull****.

1/2 cup of rice = 150 calories

So either all you eat is celery, carrots, rice and water, you're underestimating your intake, or you're just not eating anything.

Either way, 1000 calories is a joke.

I'm out.

Are you always this angry? May I suggest some yoga?

neandermagnon

LOL. Bull****.

1/2 cup of rice = 150 calories

So either all you eat is celery, carrots, rice and water, you're underestimating your intake, or you're just not eating anything.

Either way, 1000 calories is a joke.

I'm out.

Man. Someone seriously has some anger issues in all her replies. Meow.

Really? I don't perceive any anger issues in that reply.

In fact, 1,000 calories a day does not afford a person much more than carrots, rice, water, and very little rice.

I'm inclined to suggest that if someone is struggling to eat 1000 cals a day while eating a lot of rice and saying that rice is a low calorie food, then perhaps they're using an inaccurate measure of how many calories are in the rice, e.g. confusing cooked and raw rice, or an inaccurate database entry (there's a lot of them), so as a result they're actually consuming a lot more than 1000 cals, and really are eating a lot of rice.

This may not be the explanation, but it is something the OP should check.

OP: firstly, are you confusing rice between raw and cooked rice? there's a big difference in calories per grams between raw and cooked, as cooked rice absorbs a lot of water? Secondly, have you double checked the calorie values for rice that you're logging? It could be that you're actually getting quite a few more calories from rice than you think, and you're not really eating only 1000 cals, which would explain why you feel full and can't eat more than that...

FixIngMe13

1/2 a cup of Almonds (360 calories) and a glass (2 measured cups worth) of chocolate milk (300 calories) = 660 calories and is barely a snack in my opinion.... and Rice (1 cup is 200 calories) last time I checking is pretty calorie dense as well.... So between the almonds, milk, and a cup of rice you would be looking at 860 calories....... I just find it hard to believe anyone would have a problem eating 1000 calories a day..... You need to eat more calorie dense food if you can't make up your calories... I have been in maintenance for the past year at 4000 calories a day and have no problem hitting that mark daily..... Best of Luck....

^^^ This. And if there was anyone I would follow advice from on here, it would be him.

FixIngMe13

LOL. Bull****.

1/2 cup of rice = 150 calories

So either all you eat is celery, carrots, rice and water, you're underestimating your intake, or you're just not eating anything.

Either way, 1000 calories is a joke.

I'm out.

Are you always this angry? May I suggest some yoga?

I'm sorry, but this made me LOL. And out of curiosity, does Yoga help with anger?

Cindyinpg

I'm sorry, but this made me LOL. And out of curiosity, does Yoga help with anger?

It wouldn't work for me. Yoga just peeves me right off, because I am too uncoordinated to do it properly. :laugh:

SuperSexyDork

LOL. Bull****.

1/2 cup of rice = 150 calories

So either all you eat is celery, carrots, rice and water, you're underestimating your intake, or you're just not eating anything.

Either way, 1000 calories is a joke.

I'm out.

Are you always this angry? May I suggest some yoga?

I'm sorry, but this made me LOL. And out of curiosity, does Yoga help with anger?

Traditionally yoga is a spiritual thing. It seems to help a lot of people relax as well.

When I Googled yoga and anger I found this: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Yoga-for-Anger-Management

mmapags

Sometimes I get to the end of the day and only have eaten 1000 calories even though I've gone through a lot of food. I eat a lot of rice and stuff like that, which is low on the calories, but very filling. If I feel like I've eaten a lot of food and have gotten my nutrition, should I force myself to eat more (So I don't get that note warning me that I'm eating too little) or just be satisfied with what I've done for the day?

1,000 calories is not enough food to fuel your body. In fact, I doubt ti would barely give you half a tank of fuel.

That said, my guess is you are eating more than 1,000 calories per day, especially with rice and "stuff like that." What is "stuff like that," anyway?

1 cup of rice generally has 216-300 calories, depending on the type of rice. That's not low in calories, even though its darn delicious and can be worked into any eating plan.

You don't need enough calories to fuel your day - that's what your body fat is for. So long as you're getting enough nutrients, fat, protein, etc. you actually don't need any calories at all. They've done studies where they inject people with their full day's worth of nutrients, and then the person doesn't eat or drink anything (except possibly water, I now don't remember) and they were perfectly healthy just burning their own body fat for well over a year I believe. I don't remember now where to find that study, but MFP's idea of needing a set amount of calories to fuel your day is wrong. It's just nutrients you actually need so long as you have body fat to burn.

With all due respect, this is the worst advice posted here and just plain bad info.

MagicalLeopleurodon

I am flabberghasted at 1000 calories. I had 923 at breakfast.

cwolfman13

There is such a thing as calorie dense whole foods. You need more than fruit and veg for proper nutrition. It is pretty much impossible to actually get proper nutrition on that low of calories. Eat some nuts and nut butter...eggs...avocado...get your protein and fats and you will get your calories up.

cwolfman13

You don't need enough calories to fuel your day - that's what your body fat is for. So long as you're getting enough nutrients, fat, protein, etc. you actually don't need any calories at all.

I feel dumber for actually having read this comment...just about the most ignorant statement I've ever heard in my entire life. Soooo stupid. The last time I checked, the human body does require energy...i.e. calories....just not enough face palms in the world for this comment.

magerum

I find rice to be the opposite of "very low calorie and filling". Eat more.

darkangel45422

I specifically said in my post that you need a full complement of nutrients, including fat and protein - obviously for just about every single person on the planet that means eating food, and thus ingesting calories. I wasn't suggesting otherwise; I was simply saying that it's not the calorie itself you need. Calories are a unit of energy, and if you don't ingest calories, your body will simply used stored body fat for its energy instead - that's the entire purpose OF storing body fat.

I understand and completely agree that it's very difficult to reach your nutritional requirements on a low calorie diet because quite simply it takes a lot of food or kinds of food to get the nutrients you need, especially protein and fat. I'm just pointing out that focusing on calories for calories' sake is the wrong way to go about it; if the OP IS managing to get all of the nutrition she needs on 1000 calories (and I'm not saying she is or isn't) then she shouldn't try to eat more food just to eat more calories unless she doesn't need to lose any more body fat, because any additional fuel requirements her body would have would come from burning body fat.

If I find the study again I'll post it but just to be clear, this was a very specific study taking someone (I believe it was a man) who was extremely obese, and providing him the nutrients (fats, proteins, minerals, vitamins, etc.) that the human body needs to be healthy, and otherwise he ate no food and thus ingested no other calories. This is NOT the same as what's done with babies, or the same as tube feeding, or anything else like that - it was a scientific study whose entire purpose, if I recall, was to see if the human body would use its own fat stores for fuel, and it did - for over a year if I recall, and the man was in perfect health (he was monitored by doctors).

This is hardly the only one of its kind either; it's not the one I read originally but very similar:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

A very obese man fasts for 1 year and 17 days (aka, eats absolutely nothing) without any problems (or at least none are reported). He's given multivitamins and is closely monitored by doctors. This is more news article than an actual formal study though there might be one out there about this case, but it does explain precisely what I was saying - after 2-3 days of fasting (not eating), you'd get a small amount of your energy from breaking down your muscles (preventable if you're using them in say, resistance training) and the bulk from burning your body fat.


So just to be clear and reiterate, I'm saying the calories themselves don't matter, but normal people will get their nutrients from foods and thus obviously ingest calories as well.

callie006

You don't need enough calories to fuel your day - that's what your body fat is for. So long as you're getting enough nutrients, fat, protein, etc. you actually don't need any calories at all.

I feel dumber for actually having read this comment...just about the most ignorant statement I've ever heard in my entire life. Soooo stupid. The last time I checked, the human body does require energy...i.e. calories....just not enough face palms in the world for this comment.

Also, last time I checked fat and protein actually contain calories, you know, by definition.

mmapags

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Savyna

I think its better to have more than 1000 calories a day. if you work and move around etc you're burning anywhere near 200 or more calories a day leaving your body with less than 600 calories to use as fuel over time, although you might feel alright it's not good to do that in the long run to your system (in my opinion and how I've felt personally). if you can't eat the calories, maybe just drink them (healthily) like take some milk and a little bit of oats and maybe a tbsp or so of peanut butter and blend it and that's about 400 calories right there.

cwolfman13

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Well yeah, there's that....

darkangel45422

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat?

Also, AGAIN, I have SPECIFICALLY stated that you obviously need to ingest calories if you're eating food to get your nutrients, and that I can't comment on exactly how many calories you'll need because obviously it'll depend on what foods you're using to get those nutrients.

I'll boil it down even further for those of you who don't seem to be understanding my point - focus on nutrients, not calories; the first is what you're really eating the food for (assuming you're trying to lose body fat). Once you're in maintenance you'd obviously need to ingest enough calories to fuel your body as well but if you're trying to lose, then focus on nutritional intake and don't focus on the calories.

Savyna

maybe that poster was talking about when your body begins eating itself (muscles - protein) and your own body fat. unless as your body is disintegrating that has calories too haha.

mmapags

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat[/b}?

They don't! They lose muscle mass, bone mass, hair and other tissue. Why are you recommending starvation as a viable fat loss method? Please educate yourself before giving any more advice. You shouldn't be giving advice, you should be seeking some!

darkangel45422

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat[/b}?

They don't! They lose muscle mass, bone mass, hair and other tissue. Why are you recommending starvation as a viable fat loss method? Please educate yourself before giving any more advice. You shouldn't be giving advice, you should be seeking some!

Seriously, did you even READ my post? I SPECIFICALLY stated, MULTIPLE times, that you need to ingest calories when eating a normal food based diet in order to get the nutrients your body needs, such as vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, etc. That is EXTREMELY different from "recommending starvation as a viable fat loss method". I'm not even sure HOW you got that out of any of posts.

I used the example of studies of people going on extended fasts to illustrate the point that calories themselves aren't necessary since you can burn body fat for fuel instead, but then specifically stated that that was simply to back up my main and original point that nutrition rather than calories should be our main focus. Instead of focusing only on hitting your 1200 (or however many) calories a day, focus instead on making sure you're getting all the nutrition your body needs. If you manage to somehow hit those requirements at less calories than MFP or any other tool is telling you you need, as the OP was saying, then I was saying I personally wouldn't worry about it. It just means more of a deficit for you, and those fuel needs will come out of your body fat or the other mechanisms your body uses to fuel itself when you're not eating.

As the article I posted before showed, a man survived over a year without any of those negatives you pointed out (or at least they didn't report any, which is something they likely would have). Those side effects come primarily from nutritional imbalances if I recall - NOT calorie deficiencies. That's what happens when you don't eat AND you don't find other means of ingesting nutrients. It's not due to lacking calories.

Mr_Knight

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat?

If by "survive" you mean coming out the other end looking like a Holocaust survivor - yeah, this is a *great* plan.

mmapags

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat[/b}?

They don't! They lose muscle mass, bone mass, hair and other tissue. Why are you recommending starvation as a viable fat loss method? Please educate yourself before giving any more advice. You shouldn't be giving advice, you should be seeking some!

Those side effects come primarily from nutritional imbalances if I recall - NOT calorie deficiencies. That's what happens when you don't eat AND you don't find other means of ingesting nutrients. It's not due to lacking calories.

Exactly what other means of ingesting nutrients without calories are there in your view?? Or is this just theoretical mental *kitten*? And no, lean body mass and tissue loses don't come from nutritional imbalances. They happen when inadequate nutrients are ingested. The fact that you do not recognize such a basic fact is astonishing really.

SLLRunner

LOL. Bull****.

1/2 cup of rice = 150 calories

So either all you eat is celery, carrots, rice and water, you're underestimating your intake, or you're just not eating anything.

Either way, 1000 calories is a joke.

I'm out.

Are you always this angry? May I suggest some yoga?

I'm sorry, but this made me LOL. And out of curiosity, does Yoga help with anger?

I'm with you on this one. :bigsmile:

I just don't know how two people are perceiving anger. :noway:

darkangel45422

The body can only utilize a limited amount of fat for energy in a 24 hour period. If intake is too low, you will catabolize muscle. Additionally, the minimum calorie recommendation is based on a somewhat balanced diet and the minimum way to get adequate nutrients. Your premise is just plain wrong.

Then how can people survive for more than a year off of just their body fat[/b}?

They don't! They lose muscle mass, bone mass, hair and other tissue. Why are you recommending starvation as a viable fat loss method? Please educate yourself before giving any more advice. You shouldn't be giving advice, you should be seeking some!

Those side effects come primarily from nutritional imbalances if I recall - NOT calorie deficiencies. That's what happens when you don't eat AND you don't find other means of ingesting nutrients. It's not due to lacking calories.

Exactly what other means of ingesting nutrients without calories are there in your view?? Or is this just theoretical mental *kitten*? And no, lean body mass and tissue loses don't come from nutritional imbalances. They happen when inadequate nutrients are ingested. The fact that you do not recognize such a basic fact is astonishing really.

Maybe you came into the conversation later on, but the point I was making about getting your nutrients without eating any food was about studies that have been performed where people take pills/injections to get all their necessary nutrients and then burn just their body fat for fuel, proving that calories are unnecessary in and of themselves. It's no theoretical, but it is obviously impractical for most people who actually want to eat food - it was just to back up my point that we shouldn't focus on calories, but rather nutrition.

Also...inadequate nutrients IS a nutritional imbalance, obviously. Those negative side effects that you're talking about come from not getting enough of or the right kinds of nutrients, NOT from not ingesting enough calories. Do people who eat food to get their nutrients obviously need to ingest calories in order to get that nutrition? Yes, and I've never argued the opposite. So please, before you start ripping into people, at least read all of the discussion rather than select bits. I don't think we actually disagree on anything - you just cherry picked parts of my posts to comment on without taking the rest in.

links_slayer

Maybe you came into the conversation later on, but the point I was making about getting your nutrients without eating any food was about studies that have been performed where people take pills/injections to get all their necessary nutrients and then burn just their body fat for fuel, proving that calories are unnecessary in and of themselves. It's no theoretical, but it is obviously impractical for most people who actually want to eat food - it was just to back up my point that we shouldn't focus on calories, but rather nutrition.

Also...inadequate nutrients IS a nutritional imbalance, obviously. Those negative side effects that you're talking about come from not getting enough of or the right kinds of nutrients, NOT from not ingesting enough calories. Do people who eat food to get their nutrients obviously need to ingest calories in order to get that nutrition? Yes, and I've never argued the opposite. So please, before you start ripping into people, at least read all of the discussion rather than select bits. I don't think we actually disagree on anything - you just cherry picked parts of my posts to comment on without taking the rest in.

DatMurse

if you are feeling ful that is fine.

dont worry, you dont need to eat past that. your body will autoregulate itself somehow. (IE you may be eating more the next day or you had a big meal the day prior)