1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....

EvgeniZyntx

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

Study is unpublished and rather poor methodology (an open web page where anyone can enter anything?).
Moderation in all things, including moderation.

BetterThanExpected

Valid point. It's refreshing to see someone on the MyFitnessPal forums talk sense instead of giving in to the mob mentality of "you have to eat 1800 calories a day or you'll go into starvation mode!11!!!!!!11" ('starvation mode' is complete crap, btw)
Most people on the MFP forums seem to completely disregard height. For instance, if someone who's five feet tall says "I'm 108lbs", everyone jumps on them, "oh no, you weigh too little!" "you're skin and bones!" "you're going to die!" when in reality 108lbs at their height is a BMI of 21.1, which is the equivalent of someone who is 5'6 and 131lbs, or 5'11 and 151lbs.

Jestinia

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

That study has been solidly debunked but why even bring it up? It has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Oops. I didn't realize that. Source?

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Heh. Thanks. That's what I get for being snarky. :laugh:

When I went to your link, I saw it was older than mine, and I thought I was in the clear. But there is a newer one that debunks my source even better:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

perseverance14

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

I am 5' 2", 52 years old and have thyroid disease and a hiatal hernia, and I love lifting weights.

Jestinia

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

Study is unpublished and rather poor methodology (an open web page where anyone can enter anything?).
Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Haha. Yep, someone already busted me for it, too. This is the danger of using source citations in my snarky internet attempts at humor.

Strokingdiction

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

That study has been solidly debunked but why even bring it up? It has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Oops. I didn't realize that. Source?

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Heh. Thanks. That's what I get for being snarky. :laugh:

When I went to your link, I saw it was older than mine, and I thought I was in the clear. But there is a newer one that debunks my source even better:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

np

1princesswarrior

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

obum88

I think people forget that more important than losing the weight is maintaining. Can you maintain at the calories you are taking in for years and years?

EvgeniZyntx

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Thank you. I wasn't challenging your position by asking - pretty much everything has genetic influences, I was truly interested in reading studies one might be reading here. I'm kind of a study geek - and since I'm traveling over the weekend, I like to have some reading material on the plane. The first two have less to do with the genetics of fat distribution but more on BMD.
The third looks like an interesting read - especially as the author goes into some length to look at the phenotype of fat storage.

Aside from the influences of genetics, for all individuals some form of exercise and getting back to a normal weight (whatever that might be for the person) are likely to be greater factors than the genetic hand we get. I understand that you currently have difficulty exercising - I won't belabor the point - just wish you luck in finding a place/situation that is more livable and open to an active life. Consider that perhaps some of the OTC anti-allergy treatments might help (I do suggest the whole doc thing first, but if you can't - and are in an extreme situation where even basic exercise is awful...).

Best of luck, thanks for the links.

Thanks! I couldn't find the specific one I was looking for. It was a mouse study cited in a documentary. It was much more on point, basically if I remember right no matter what you fed the mice, no matter how you exercised or dieted them, some had a genetic tendency to store energy as fat more than the others.

And even so, I absolutely agree with you on exercise, no matter what genetic hand we're dealt. Which is one reason I'm so aggravated with my current issues.

I do take Sudafed, but it's just so-so and the other stuff does nothing. Tried them all. And one reason I don't go pester the doctor for something like an inhaler to stop the wheezing is that the possibility of being put on one of the steroid medications. It scares me. I don't like the side effects list at all!

Long term steroid use does have the potential for some serious side effects but there are many other possible non-steroidals that might help - anti leukotriene class drugs, bronchodialators (beta 2 agonists) ... (full disclosure - I used to market an ant-L, but no longer do, nor am I now involved in any asthma treatment marketing - I am not suggesting self medication of these products, just that there are non-steroidal options that can be discussed with a doctor).

milileitner

Under 5'1 here.

Ate 1200 calories for 8 months. Started off obese. Developed anorexia, heart failure, osteoporosis etc. Weight loss was very efficient @3lb/week average. Nobody on MFP suggested I was under-eating on 1200 cals bc I was short and fat, so clearly I 'needed' it.

Now eat 2500-3500/day. Can squat twice my bodyweight and have lower body fat %. Have gained 40lb @0.5lb/week average.


So FWIW, stats don't tell the whole story either. Using your brain and understanding your body's individual needs tends to work out pretty well in the long run.

You are 24 years old and you developed osteoporosis after eating 1200 calories for only 8 months? Sorry, but I don't believe that because osteoporosis is a very slow process specially in somebody of your age. Since it seems that you were obese, your problem probably started earlier and for another reasons.

Thanks for your medically informed opinion...? Yeah I totally made that up because...uh...hmm. Nope. That's the truth.

Being obese between age 17-22 does not cause osteoporosis. VLCD, causing loss of menstruation, does.

Fortunately, gaining back weight, getting my periods back, heavy lifting and eating properly mean I'm likely to reverse some damage, and I have a bone scan scheduled for next year to find out how things are looking.

AllonsYtotheTardis

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

And when I input your starting stats into scooby...144lbs, 61 inches, 37 and sedentary..wow imagine it gave 1333, TDEE-10% was 1499, and I could snip the screen and go to photobucket and post here but eh...I have DC'd it...maybe you should have.

And if your profile pic is you and your son you are not sedentary...so imagine lightly active goes to 1718.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this...it is common knowledge that the AMA says that in order to get in all your macro/micros you need at least 1200...and the fact you mention starvation mode...really?

After a few months no you wouldn't be hungry, when the body isn't getting enough food it creates a hormone to alter your hunger signals to lower so you aren't in constant agongy...see even your body knows something is wrong

So...1200 is the limit for women regardless of their height...

When someone new writes a post about "is 1200 o.k." don't just jump in and say "you'll die." Say "what are your stats?" Please. Can we stop the misinformation?
<snip>
Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!

Ironic statement is ironic

Oh and stop spreading mis-information....

+1, I cannot understand why some folks want to brag about how little they can eat. Talk about bad info to new mfp'ers.

Seriously, right? I'm 1/2 inch taller than OP. 5 years older. No way was I eating that little.

RGv2

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

RGv2

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

The perceived "snark" is from seeing countless threads from kids in their late teens/early 20's touting "I net 800 calories a day and it works for me, I'm just super tired and not getting the "tone" I want".

There are a lot of "1200 defenders" here missing the forest for the trees. Yes, everyone knows that 1200 can/does work and is adequate for some individuals dependent upon ht, age, and activity, but there are so many individuals that start threads/defend it that are in the demographic from the first paragraph the intake level overall gets a bad rap.

Yes I agree it would not be suitable for people that age and consistently netting under 1200 is not good for anyone.

However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.

Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.

Guess I disagree on that.

Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

Yep, that drives me crazy.

Jestinia

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Thank you. I wasn't challenging your position by asking - pretty much everything has genetic influences, I was truly interested in reading studies one might be reading here. I'm kind of a study geek - and since I'm traveling over the weekend, I like to have some reading material on the plane. The first two have less to do with the genetics of fat distribution but more on BMD.
The third looks like an interesting read - especially as the author goes into some length to look at the phenotype of fat storage.

Aside from the influences of genetics, for all individuals some form of exercise and getting back to a normal weight (whatever that might be for the person) are likely to be greater factors than the genetic hand we get. I understand that you currently have difficulty exercising - I won't belabor the point - just wish you luck in finding a place/situation that is more livable and open to an active life. Consider that perhaps some of the OTC anti-allergy treatments might help (I do suggest the whole doc thing first, but if you can't - and are in an extreme situation where even basic exercise is awful...).

Best of luck, thanks for the links.

Thanks! I couldn't find the specific one I was looking for. It was a mouse study cited in a documentary. It was much more on point, basically if I remember right no matter what you fed the mice, no matter how you exercised or dieted them, some had a genetic tendency to store energy as fat more than the others.

And even so, I absolutely agree with you on exercise, no matter what genetic hand we're dealt. Which is one reason I'm so aggravated with my current issues.

I do take Sudafed, but it's just so-so and the other stuff does nothing. Tried them all. And one reason I don't go pester the doctor for something like an inhaler to stop the wheezing is that the possibility of being put on one of the steroid medications. It scares me. I don't like the side effects list at all!

Long term steroid use does have the potential for some serious side effects but there are many other possible non-steroidals that might help - anti leukotriene class drugs, bronchodialators (beta 2 agonists) ... (full disclosure - I used to market an ant-L, but no longer do, nor am I now involved in any asthma treatment marketing - I am not suggesting self medication of these products, just that there are non-steroidal options that can be discussed with a doctor).

Thanks, I will do some more reading if I truly find either moving out of this pollen-riddled hellhole is impossible or if I move and it doesn't help. It's not that severe...as long as I don't move much and stay inside all day in the filtered air conditioning. But eh, who wants to live like that forever?

Jestinia

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

EvgeniZyntx

Under 5'1 here.

Ate 1200 calories for 8 months. Started off obese. Developed anorexia, heart failure, osteoporosis etc. Weight loss was very efficient @3lb/week average. Nobody on MFP suggested I was under-eating on 1200 cals bc I was short and fat, so clearly I 'needed' it.

Now eat 2500-3500/day. Can squat twice my bodyweight and have lower body fat %. Have gained 40lb @0.5lb/week average.


So FWIW, stats don't tell the whole story either. Using your brain and understanding your body's individual needs tends to work out pretty well in the long run.

You are 24 years old and you developed osteoporosis after eating 1200 calories for only 8 months? Sorry, but I don't believe that because osteoporosis is a very slow process specially in somebody of your age. Since it seems that you were obese, your problem probably started earlier and for another reasons.

Thanks for your medically informed opinion...? Yeah I totally made that up because...uh...hmm. Nope. That's the truth.

Being obese between age 17-22 does not cause osteoporosis. VLCD, causing loss of menstruation, does.

Fortunately, gaining back weight, getting my periods back, heavy lifting and eating properly mean I'm likely to reverse some damage, and I have a bone scan scheduled for next year to find out how things are looking.

Just to confirm that osteopenia and osteoporosis are well documented in some anorexia patients through calcium metabolism changes and significant bone loss may occur in short periods.
Anyone interested in this can google terms like "mineral balance" and "bone turnover" along with anorexia.

RGv2

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

You do understand that you completely missed the point of the OP you quoted first, right???

They weren't saying you should be able to eat 3500 calories and still lose weight. They were talking about people who have a high TDEE, but go to extreme caloric restrictions in order to lose weight when in reality they don't have to. Not the people whom it actually makes sense for.

1princesswarrior

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

Good for you! I also fry in five minutes through clothing I think. I hope the swimming works for you.

Hondo_Man

Every time I see this topic, and it appears weekly at a minimum, I cringe. Literally. Just something to ponder over and I hope someone or sometwo, will take a moment to read the links here.

Consider that you are in hospital (I hope not in reality) and are comatose. This is the single most rest stage anyone can be in. You need to be kept alive and everything needs to function so there is no tissue damage. Hospitals go to great lengths to keep one's organs functioning and repairing in hopes of full recovery. How many calories does one need in such a state? That is where your BMR comes in.

So, consider I am a 49 years-old man, 188cm and 84kg. Most hospitals use Harris-Benedict to determine this. I would need 1847kcal per day. The macronutrients I would need would be very little fats (about 10%) and then it would vary on carbs and proteins depending on length of comatose state and current body mass (fat versus muscle).

Why does this matter here on MFP? Let's say I was released from hospital and after a few months I needed to lose some weight. Would I eat less then 1847 per day? No. I'm not comatose (hence not resting) so I need more calories as I am more active. That 1847 is the bare minimum for my body's function. To know how much I need to eat I'd need to know how active I am or plan to be.

In other words, the point I'm making is perhaps 1100 or 1200 calories per day is way below your BMR. By eating at such a large deficit, you are hurting your body and you might not be aware of how much you are straining your organs.

People here like information that comes from reputable sources:

http://medicina.iztacala.unam.mx/medicina/Nutritional support of the critically ill and.pdf
This pertains to hospitals, comatose and BMR.

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/metabolism.htm
This details metabolism, BMR and TDEE and safe, recommended calorie deficit to lose weight.

Perhaps, again, this might help.