Morbidly obese... Do I need to eat more? LoL

Blue801

I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds...

You could literally eat nothing but mineral and vitamin supplements for six months (under doctor supervision, of course) and you'd be just fine. Fat stores are there explicitly for times of no food. The human body is designed to run without food - that's why it stores fat in the first place!

Bottom line: the fatter a person is, the less they need to eat.

But...but! That doesn't sound yummy at all!

parkscs

I appreciate your perspective and I do think that people have a tendency to oversimplify this discussion. But, while people may be able to tolerate VLCDs and initially lose weight, the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.

I'll never understand why people criticize certain diets as having a poor long-term success rate, when the overall long-term success rate of people who lose a significant amount of weight is something like 20% (which is the highest of the figures I've seen, and the others are much more bleak). Suggesting that VLCDs have an "extremely poor" success rate seems to imply that IIFYM and basic calorie counting have a high rate of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence is simply not there to back up such statements. If you want to talk numbers, 4 in 5 people who actually manage to lose a significant amount of weight will fail at keeping that weight off in the long-term, and even more people will fail to lose a significant amount of weight to begin with.

In short, a poor chance of long-term success is not a valid critique of a VLCD, because all significant weight loss has a poor chance of long-term success.

Annie_01

IMO...at least for me...there is more to this than the type of food we eat...counting calories...getting fit...it is about facing why I let this happen to me to begin with and resolving those issues.

"When it all began" will be the hard part for me...eating less...not so much...exercising...well besides a few sore muscles I enjoy it.

The last half of my journey however is more about resolving those other issues which is where it all began for me.

Karen_LM

Just double checking with the more experienced folks on here, is there a reason I should be trying to eat all of my target calories daily? I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds, am just starting exercising again very lightly, and was thinking unless I'm feeling deprived or tempted to binge there wasn't much reason to eat all those calories? But my sister was concerned so I thought I'd ask.

First of all, make sure you have set your calorie goals on MFP correctly, so it is giving you a realistic goal.

Second, you might consider simply tracking your actual food habits for a week or two. If your actual habit is 3 or 4 or more thousand, then an immediate drop to 1650 may be so stressful you give up. If you are also adding calorie burn to your habits, the combination could leave you feeling miserable and ill. You might want to incorporate the multiple new habits in stages: set your goal for what will be your someday maintenance level while you get into the habit of logging, and figure out what you want to eat/fit into your lifestyle/cooking skills and get into your exercise habit. If you are in the habit of overeating, that still may result in some weight loss.

After a week or so, when have your logging, and food choices and methods, and workout habit sorted, then drop to diet level.

At either stage, you can eat some of your earned calories, but of course, eating it all back will slow your weight loss. Still, it allows you to deal when life throws a high calorie situation at you. It also allows you to plan ahead, if you know a high calorie event is going to happen, you can workout that bit more that morning (or the day before after) to allow for it.

Dont forget, if you are adding muscle, your weight loss may be hidden at first. If you are improving your time/distance/resistance at exercise, and your clothes are looser, go with that evidence even if the scale isn't reassuring.

Blue801

I appreciate your perspective and I do think that people have a tendency to oversimplify this discussion. But, while people may be able to tolerate VLCDs and initially lose weight, the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.

I'll never understand why people criticize certain diets as having a poor long-term success rate, when the overall long-term success rate of people who lose a significant amount of weight is something like 20% (which is the highest of the figures I've seen, and the others are much more bleak). Suggesting that VLCDs have an "extremely poor" success rate seems to imply that IIFYM and basic calorie counting have a high rate of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence is simply not there to back up such statements. If you want to talk numbers, 4 in 5 people who actually manage to lose a significant amount of weight will fail at keeping that weight off in the long-term, and even more people will fail to lose a significant amount of weight to begin with.

In short, a poor chance of long-term success is not a valid critique of a VLCD, because all significant weight loss has a poor chance of long-term success.

This made me cry. A lot.

Breizier

I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.

My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.

She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.

Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.

Cool! You don't happen to know at what point she was advised to eat more calories do you? Was it once goal was reached? Or within a certain poundage away from goal?

Don't follow this advice please. The key words here are bariatric surgery. What this poster is not saying is that their sister will be on a lifetime cocktail of drugs to ensure she gets the nutrients that eating way under her daily TDEE inhibits.

My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.

parkscs

This made me cry. A lot.

I hope that's not the case as that wasn't my intent to upset anyone when I posted it. I'm simply saying that it's not valid to criticize a particular type of diet based on long-term success rates.

It's also worth noting that statistics regarding long-term success are just numbers, and you can make the change you want if you have the desire and willpower to stick to it. Personally, I think it's helpful to understand to know that so many people aren't successful, because it gets you thinking about why they aren't successful and it reminds you that you can't just rest on your laurels once you reach your desired weight. In other words, don't adopt the mentality that you will just "diet for a year" and then resume your normal behavior. Instead, keep your focus on the long-term and mentally plan for how you're going to handle your maintenance phase.

parkscs

My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.

Why would you have to reduce below 1200 calories when you weigh 200 lbs...? It doesn't work that way.

Blue801

I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.

My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.

She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.

Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.

Cool! You don't happen to know at what point she was advised to eat more calories do you? Was it once goal was reached? Or within a certain poundage away from goal?

Don't follow this advice please. The key words here are bariatric surgery. What this poster is not saying is that their sister will be on a lifetime cocktail of drugs to ensure she gets the nutrients that eating way under her daily TDEE inhibits.

My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.

What about eating closer to a maintenance intake for my goal weight? Sure weight loss will get much slower as an ideal weight is approached, but the whole time I'd be getting used to a more appropriate daily quantity of food for my height? Not going to try this for now, just an idea for later.

What you wrote makes it sound like I'll need to continually lower my calorie intake as I lose, but would weight loss just slow as long as there is still a calorie deficit, just a shrinking deficit?

Ajjf

A morbidly obese person can cut calories far below the typical 500 deficit, still get plenty of food and nutrients, while initially losing a lot of weight fast. That's my point. At that size he does not need to do modest and conservative deficits.

I would know, I WAS that size.

I completely second this. Don't take weight loss advice from people who A.) Haven't been that size and lost the weight. or B.) Don't have significant experience assisting those who are and were morbidly obese.

The rules are different, and these people telling you to force yourself to hit your "suggested caloric goal based on a 500 calorie blah blah blah...." Have NO clue.

RhonndaJ

I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.

My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.

She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.

Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.

The key word in all this is 'doctors'.

shirleygirl910

Everyone is different. What works for one may not work for another. I was 314 lbs. I know the feeling of failure and despiration that hits when you gain or don't lose what you think you should have. What I learned was, learn how to eat. As corny as they are the "Eat this not that" books are a good start. I eat things now I never thought I would. I exercise now like I never thought I would. My journey only started 3 years ago, and it hasn't been easy. I still have head hunger, but I'm still working on it. It's a learning process to find out how you need to eat or how your body works.

One of my biggest motivators is CyberEd312. Check out his journey. http://www.gettingfit4life.com/

neanderthin

Personally, calculating more calories to be consumed just for the extra fat someone is carrying doesn't make sense, why would we need too.

Iwishyouwell

Don't follow this advice please. The key words here are bariatric surgery. What this poster is not saying is that their sister will be on a lifetime cocktail of drugs to ensure she gets the nutrients that eating way under her daily TDEE inhibits.

You know my sister personally? She's not on a "cocktail of drugs". But nice try.

Doctors were subscribing low calorie diets to obese patients LONG before bariatric surgery.

Nobody told this man to go on a 500 calorie diet. But if he can sustain just fine at around 1400-1500, and still get all his nutrients, he'll be fine. He has a TON of fat to lose, and a ton of fat to support his energy. What do you people think fat is there for? An extra squishy pillow?

parkscs

Personally, calculating more calories to be consumed just for the extra fat someone is carrying doesn't make sense, why would we need too.

There are a few reasons. For one, you burn more calories carrying around more weight each day. Take your average 150 pound woman who burns, let's say, 1600-1700 calories per day on average. Now give her a 100 pound sack to carry around on her shoulder all day long (let's assume she can lift it) - now how many calories do you think she's going to burn? Another reason is because most people who are carrying around a lot of weight are used to eating a lot of calories each day. If you suddenly tell them they need to restrict themselves to 1200 calories or less, you're likely to find at least some people that feel miserable making such a drastic change and aren't likely to stick with their diet for the long-term.

But, do you NEED to follow a 10-20% caloric deficit when you're massively overweight? No, "need" is too strong of a word. Some people may find though that slow and steady weight loss is what is sustainable for them though, and that's ultimately what matters. Other people may find they can be satiated by fewer calories and are motivated by the more rapid weight loss. People just need to find a plan that works for them.

fatbitt

I'm sure this is not going to go over well, but being someone who started very close to the OP size, I think that a high calorie restriction is what someone who has that much weight to lose needs.

Here's where you're all going to disagree, in theory a person who weighs 200 lbs walks into MFP and says she wants to lose 2 pounds a week, we all agree that's healthy. Well, someone who weighs exponentially more than this person should by comparison ratio be able to lose a bit more than 2 pounds a week, say 4 lbs a week, and be equally as healthful in losing that weight.

I am not advocating a VLCD, but a 1200 calorie nutrient filled filling diet to kick off someone who needs to lose quite a bit of weight is not unhealthy or crazy, at all.

Iwishyouwell

I'm sure this is not going to go over well, but being someone who started very close to the OP size, I think that a high calorie restriction is what someone who has that much weight to lose needs.

Here's where you're all going to disagree, in theory a person who weighs 200 lbs walks into MFP and says she wants to lose 2 pounds a week, we all agree that's healthy. Well, someone who weighs exponentially more than this person should by comparison ratio be able to lose a bit more than 2 pounds a week, say 4 lbs a week, and be equally as healthful in losing that weight.

I am not advocating a VLCD, but a 1200 calorie nutrient filled filling diet to kick off someone who needs to lose quite a bit of weight is not unhealthy or crazy, at all.

This, this, all of this.

parkscs

I'm sure this is not going to go over well, but being someone who started very close to the OP size, I think that a high calorie restriction is what someone who has that much weight to lose needs.

Here's where you're all going to disagree, in theory a person who weighs 200 lbs walks into MFP and says she wants to lose 2 pounds a week, we all agree that's healthy. Well, someone who weighs exponentially more than this person should by comparison ratio be able to lose a bit more than 2 pounds a week, say 4 lbs a week, and be equally as healthful in losing that weight.

I am not advocating a VLCD, but a 1200 calorie nutrient filled filling diet to kick off someone who needs to lose quite a bit of weight is not unhealthy or crazy, at all.

The only issue I'd take with your comments is that you're telling people what they "need" and that's too strong of a word. If someone goes from eating 4000 calories/day to 1200 calories per day, feels miserable and quits after 2 months, you've done them a disservice by telling them they "need" to lose weight that quickly. Can they safely lose weight this fast? In all likelihood, yes. Do they need to? No, they don't. If a less aggressive caloric deficit is sustainable for them, then a less aggressive caloric deficit is what they should follow.

In short, the problem with your comments is that they ignore reality and that there's more to weight loss than what is a healthy amount of weight to lose. If putting someone on a pittance of calories per day makes them miserable and is too drastic of a change, you're just setting them up for failure in the short-term. Just because a diet is potentially "safe" to do doesn't mean you need to follow that diet.

Blue801

unless I'm feeling deprived or tempted to binge there wasn't much reason to eat all those calories?

Short answer seems to be "no", unless it will help me stick to the diet

Thanks guys!

And for the record... I am not, nor have I ever been (to my knowledge) a man.
:noway:

Stripeness

OP, here are two articles relevant to your situation:

1. Peer-reviewed medical journal. Gist - it may not make sense for you to rely on "feeling hungry."
http://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences//retrieve/pii/S0166223613000064?cc=y#MainText

For some people, hunger is a very reliable signal. For others, not so much. HUGE YMMV, whether or not you have an eating disorder.

2. Multi-part article written specifically for obese folks, with in-depth discussion of metabolism and references to multiple peer-reviewed studies.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner.html

Our numbers won't be exactly the same, as I am working on rehabbing my metabolism (medically measured RMR = 1100). However, I've been inching my daily net calories steadily upward from 1200 towards the "Scooby-calculated" 1587. Not by forcing myself to eat when I *don't* want to, but by not waiting until I'm hungry. And btw, having your doc measure your RMR is a smart thing to do - simple & non-invasive. That way you know YOUR actual number, not some gadget or online calculator's guess.

Me? I'm still morbidly obese, but getting less so: consistent 2.5 lbs/week, and ~17 lbs in 46 days. I think it's working just fine, and the best part: sustainably. My diary & blog are open, so you can see this isn't clean or extreme eating. It's an improvement over how I was eating, and it's *reasonable* amounts of exercise.

You CAN be successful with a really restrictive approach, but I'd encourage a long-term (lifetime) view. Not even bariatric surgeons pretend that VLCD is the best thing for your metabolism. VLCD is a necessity due to restricted post-surgery stomach volume, and the assorted surgical procedures which do help some folks, are not trivial at all. Like back surgery - great stuff as a last resort.

Blue801

There's a lot of VLCD referencing going on for a thread questioning a diet averaging over 1200 cal/day weekly. Are some folks thinking that because I'm so fat under 1500 counts as VLCD or something? Or are we just off on a "VLCD diets are evil" tangent?

I do agree they are evil, simply because I can't fit my pot pies and cookies in properly with so few calories!
:drinker:

parkscs

There's a lot of VLCD referencing going on for a thread questioning a diet averaging over 1200 cal/day weekly. Are some folks thinking that because I'm so fat under 1500 counts as VLCD or something? Or are we just off on a "VLCD diets are evil" tangent?

I do agree they are evil, simply because I can't fit my pot pies and cookies in properly with so few calories!
:drinker:

I think people are simply making the point that VLCDs (when properly administered) can be safe for people that are very overweight, and so 1200 or 1500 calories (around double the amount of calories consumed on a typical VLCD) should definitely be safe.

neanderthin

Personally, calculating more calories to be consumed just for the extra fat someone is carrying doesn't make sense, why would we need too.

There are a few reasons. For one, you burn more calories carrying around more weight each day. Take your average 150 pound woman who burns, let's say, 1600-1700 calories per day on average. Now give her a 100 pound sack to carry around on her shoulder all day long (let's assume she can lift it) - now how many calories do you think she's going to burn? Another reason is because most people who are carrying around a lot of weight are used to eating a lot of calories each day. If you suddenly tell them they need to restrict themselves to 1200 calories or less, you're likely to find at least some people that feel miserable making such a drastic change and aren't likely to stick with their diet for the long-term.

But, do you NEED to follow a 10-20% caloric deficit when you're massively overweight? No, "need" is too strong of a word. Some people may find though that slow and steady weight loss is what is sustainable for them though, and that's ultimately what matters. Other people may find they can be satiated by fewer calories and are motivated by the more rapid weight loss. People just need to find a plan that works for them.

I'm really not referring to how much of a deficit is needed or what a sustainable deficit is, I'm referring to the difference in BMR and the suggest extra calories that the extra fat needs to support someones TDEE. Basically is around an extra 550 calories when you compare it to someone that's around 175 lbs and needs to lose weight to someone that's 300lbs. There's plenty of extra body fat to support 550 calories.......

Stripeness

There's a lot of VLCD referencing going on for a thread questioning a diet averaging over 1200 cal/day weekly. Are some folks thinking that because I'm so fat under 1500 counts as VLCD or something? Or are we just off on a "VLCD diets are evil" tangent?

I do agree they are evil, simply because I can't fit my pot pies and cookies in properly with so few calories!
:drinker:

Nope - most of my reply was about anything BUT. Just mentioned VLCD @ end since it had been in thread. Not evil, just not (imo) the first thing to do.

*raises spoon of Ben & Jerry's in salute*

brookielaw

Talk to your doctor. A bunch of strangers on the internet can't possibly have all of the relevant information that your medical professional does. Generally speaking we all have anecdata. I told my doctor about my efforts, showed her my mfp stats, settings, and recommendations and she gave me a bit of additional guidance. (Not much, unfortunately just a whole lot of "keep up what you're doing and come see me in 3 months" but I think it is important to not neglect the importance of medical guidance when undertaking major changes to your life and body).

Just a thought.

Blue801

There's a lot of VLCD referencing going on for a thread questioning a diet averaging over 1200 cal/day weekly. Are some folks thinking that because I'm so fat under 1500 counts as VLCD or something? Or are we just off on a "VLCD diets are evil" tangent?

I do agree they are evil, simply because I can't fit my pot pies and cookies in properly with so few calories!
:drinker:

I think people are simply making the point that VLCDs (when properly administered) can be safe for people that are very overweight, and so 1200 or 1500 calories (around double the amount of calories consumed on a typical VLCD) should definitely be safe.

Oh yes. I see now. Indeed. "Safe" but no fun at all. Got it!
:bigsmile:

thesupremeforce

1200 is definitely low for someone that weighs 300. What does mfp suggest you eat daily?

My mfp limit for a 2 lb weekly loss is 1620.

This sounds completely reasonable to me.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

First of all, I am just going to echo how important it is to be eating the *right* foods. I was EXACTLY where you are right now. As soon as I had made my mind up that I wasn't going to keep hurting myself and really watched what I was putting into my body, it started melting off. I've really noticed that when I have a week where I eat closer to my recommended caloric intake, it's a lot slower coming off. If I cut it back a bit, it makes a huge difference. That said, I can only suggest actually eating more. LOL By that I mean smaller portions and more often. And have a cut off time. I don't know how many people I've heard/read/seen saying that "it doesn't matter - your body isn't on a clock" and I wanna smack them. As much as possible, I make sure I'm eating dinner no later than 7 pm, and really try not to be snacking after 8. When I stick to it, I really see results.

Well then I guess you will have to smack me, lol cause I personally took a snack to bed every night and lost a few pounds in the process, OP I am in the camp of meal frequency will have no bearing whatsoever on weight loss as long as you are eating in a calorie deficit and hitting your macro's. On the original question I do not agree with running a large deficit just because you are obese. Faster isn't always better, I was off the charts at 560 lbs. and never once did we sit my weight loss goals any faster then losing 1 to 2 lbs. a week... I lost the vast majority of my weight eating over 3000 calories a day so I read stuff like these severe low calorie diets and just shake my head, if you make this a lifestyle change and just commit to it then what difference does it make if it takes you a little longer to get to your goal.? Atleast by taking it slow and steady by the time you reach your goals you will have established a plan that is sustainable for the long term and there would be no reason to worry about any relaspes in my opinion...... Best of Luck to you..........

If I were in your situation OP, this is the advice I would take.

Blue801

Talk to your doctor. A bunch of strangers on the internet can't possibly have all of the relevant information that your medical professional does. Generally speaking we all have anecdata. I told my doctor about my efforts, showed her my mfp stats, settings, and recommendations and she gave me a bit of additional guidance. (Not much, unfortunately just a whole lot of "keep up what you're doing and come see me in 3 months" but I think it is important to not neglect the importance of medical guidance when undertaking major changes to your life and body).

Just a thought.

Yeah... My doctor told me to eat 500 calories a day to lose weight. I said "(:/!,$&?;;.??... Seriously? No."

She was not pleased. Didn't send me a Christmas card this past year either.
:sad:

titanium96

Eat less, exercise more! Don't get carried away with the science....everyone has a different opinion. Keep It Simple!