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

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)