if you eat at a deficit for a long enough time...
Options
GretaGirl8
Posts: 274 Member
A bit of a strange (and perhaps silly) question...
Take a woman weighing 150, who is 5'5'', who ate 1200 calories (not trying to engage in the 1200 calorie debate) for a long period of time...let's say 5 years. In that time, that person should have lost down to 100 pounds (1200 calories is still a deficit for a sedentary woman of 5'5' at 100 pounds). Am i correct in this thinking?
It seems logical, but it seems like it doesn't play out that way. i seems that i hear women stay at 1200 calories forever and still have a few pounds to lose.
not advocating this at all. it is just a theoretical question.
edit: the 5 years is somewhat arbitrary. i didn't do the math. but in 5 years eating at a deficit--this hypothetical woman would probably weigh less than 100 (or whatever weight 1200 calories a day is maintenance for).
Take a woman weighing 150, who is 5'5'', who ate 1200 calories (not trying to engage in the 1200 calorie debate) for a long period of time...let's say 5 years. In that time, that person should have lost down to 100 pounds (1200 calories is still a deficit for a sedentary woman of 5'5' at 100 pounds). Am i correct in this thinking?
It seems logical, but it seems like it doesn't play out that way. i seems that i hear women stay at 1200 calories forever and still have a few pounds to lose.
not advocating this at all. it is just a theoretical question.
edit: the 5 years is somewhat arbitrary. i didn't do the math. but in 5 years eating at a deficit--this hypothetical woman would probably weigh less than 100 (or whatever weight 1200 calories a day is maintenance for).
0
Replies
-
No, because adaptive thermogenesis.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/not-starving-but-metabolic-adaptation-and-weight-loss-5675460 -
No, because adaptive thermogenesis.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/not-starving-but-metabolic-adaptation-and-weight-loss-567546
^ x1000 -
But wouldn't someone still lose since they are still at a deficit...it would just take longer due to AT? I never heard that AT would be an all out stop to weight loss before.0
-
A bit of a strange (and perhaps silly) question...
Take a woman weighing 150, who is 5'5'', who ate 1200 calories (not trying to engage in the 1200 calorie debate) for a long period of time...let's say 5 years. In that time, that person should have lost down to 100 pounds (1200 calories is still a deficit for a sedentary woman of 5'5' at 100 pounds). Am i correct in this thinking?
It seems logical, but it seems like it doesn't play out that way. i seems that i hear women stay at 1200 calories forever and still have a few pounds to lose.
not advocating this at all. it is just a theoretical question.
Agreed with PPs but also have to add -
there is a huge difference between saying they are eating 1200 calories and actually eating 1200 calories. People tend to underestimate how much they eat. I do it myself.0 -
I have never heard of anyone hitting AT on a 1200 calorie diet.
pls people....0 -
A bit of a strange (and perhaps silly) question...
Take a woman weighing 150, who is 5'5'', who ate 1200 calories (not trying to engage in the 1200 calorie debate) for a long period of time...let's say 5 years. In that time, that person should have lost down to 100 pounds (1200 calories is still a deficit for a sedentary woman of 5'5' at 100 pounds). Am i correct in this thinking?
It seems logical, but it seems like it doesn't play out that way. i seems that i hear women stay at 1200 calories forever and still have a few pounds to lose.
not advocating this at all. it is just a theoretical question.
Agreed with PPs but also have to add -
there is a huge difference between saying they are eating 1200 calories and actually eating 1200 calories. People tend to underestimate how much they eat. I do it myself.
Right, this is assuming that 1200 calories is actual calories consumed.0 -
But wouldn't someone still lose since they are still at a deficit...it would just take longer due to AT? I never heard that AT would be an all out stop to weight loss before.
I think you are correct because I would think that this is how weight loss surgery works, they can only eat very few calories and that is why they actually lose huge amounts of weight in a short amount of time. People who do not have such restrictions on how much they can eat do not actually lose it that quickly because they CAN and DO eat more than 1200 calories, they just claim or "think" they are eating 1200 calories.0 -
I have never heard of anyone hitting AT on a 1200 calorie diet.
pls people....
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't just occur at very low calorie amounts. Ask anyone who's ever tried to bulk.0 -
But wouldn't someone still lose since they are still at a deficit...it would just take longer due to AT? I never heard that AT would be an all out stop to weight loss before.
Your question was whether someone would lose at the same rate over five years.
No, they would not.0 -
I have never heard of anyone hitting AT on a 1200 calorie diet.
pls people....
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't just occur at very low calorie amounts. Ask anyone who's ever tried to bulk.
Oh sweet baby Jesus. I need to leave this forum.0 -
A bit of a strange (and perhaps silly) question...
Take a woman weighing 150, who is 5'5'', who ate 1200 calories (not trying to engage in the 1200 calorie debate) for a long period of time...let's say 5 years. In that time, that person should have lost down to 100 pounds (1200 calories is still a deficit for a sedentary woman of 5'5' at 100 pounds). Am i correct in this thinking?
It seems logical, but it seems like it doesn't play out that way. i seems that i hear women stay at 1200 calories forever and still have a few pounds to lose.
not advocating this at all. it is just a theoretical question.
Agreed with PPs but also have to add -
there is a huge difference between saying they are eating 1200 calories and actually eating 1200 calories. People tend to underestimate how much they eat. I do it myself.
Right, this is assuming that 1200 calories is actual calories consumed.
Given the example the way it was presented I couldn't just assume that. But I get what you are asking.0 -
Oh sweet baby Jesus. I need to leave this forum.
There are so many great statements made on here each day. It's awesome.0 -
there is a huge difference between saying they are eating 1200 calories and actually eating 1200 calories. People tend to underestimate how much they eat. I do it myself.
i was thinking the same thing. I see a lot of people eating a 1200 calorie diet but binging on weekends or slipping up often and not recording it in their food log OR they get tired of their restrictive "diet" and go back to their old habits, gain the weight back and start on a 1200 calorie diet all over again.0 -
I have never heard of anyone hitting AT on a 1200 calorie diet.
pls people....
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't just occur at very low calorie amounts. Ask anyone who's ever tried to bulk.
Oh sweet baby Jesus. I need to leave this forum.
Here is some science for you
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss0 -
But wouldn't someone still lose since they are still at a deficit...it would just take longer due to AT? I never heard that AT would be an all out stop to weight loss before.
Your question was whether someone would lose at the same rate over five years.
No, they would not.
sorry if my phrasing was confusing. I realize they wouldn't lose at the same rate...but they would still lose until their "maintenance calories" = 1200? at which point, they would maintain on 1200.0 -
Now spreading to the gaining weight forum:
Guys I am eating 1000 calorie a day surplus and I will not gain weight. Am I in Stuffed mode?
Adaptive thermogenesis must be it!0 -
I have never heard of anyone hitting AT on a 1200 calorie diet.
pls people....
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't just occur at very low calorie amounts. Ask anyone who's ever tried to bulk.
Oh sweet baby Jesus. I need to leave this forum.
Here is some science for you
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
There is plenty of science introduced on adaptive thermogenesis in this forum on a daily basis. The most recent being from Vismus or however you spell his name. Unless you quoted the wrong person of course...0 -
But wouldn't someone still lose since they are still at a deficit...it would just take longer due to AT? I never heard that AT would be an all out stop to weight loss before.
NO!
When someone eats at a deficit its to eat at a BMR or TDEE of their GOAL WEIGHT. For someone to be 150lbs and eat 1200 calories a day they will never get to lose 100lbs. In order to lose 100lbs they will have to eat nothing and run a marathon in a blizzard naked every day for a year. And by the time they even lose that 100 lbs, they would be dead before that.
For an age 30 Female who is sedentary, doesnt exercise is 5' 5" and 150lbs their BMR is around 1400 (depending which calculator is used). 200 cal deficit per day for 5 years? It wouldnt even get that far. In less than 3 years that same woman would get to 110lbs where she will be 33 and her BMR will now be around 1200 cals and she will be in Maintenance.0 -
People lie about what they eat.
..and there is no way to lose down to 50 pounds without dying.0 -
also because most people who claim to have been eating X calories for Y time have been underestimating their consumption0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions