So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?

AmyRhubarb

Your diary for the last week shows you eating 1300 - 1600 calories per day. It looks like you are not doing an extreme diet. I believe the "bad stuff" happens when you restrict calories BELOW what is healthy for that individual. You know, the people that are netting 300 - 600 calories a day.

I have been at 1500 - 1600 calories - give or take - for 2 and 1/2 years. I'm fine too. Because I meet my macros, meet my calories. So, what is the point of this post?

The OP wrote that she has been at , "...a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time." Negative net. You don't think that's extreme?

That is extreme, though looking at her diary, if she's not weighing her food, then she's eating more than she things. Also, pretty sure those burns are estimates that come from MFP - which we all now are incredibly high. So while OP thinks she's been on an extreme diet, she probably hasn't really been.

I am weighing my foods/liquids and am getting a close to accurate burn number.

I was questioning the diary entries too - lots of entries showing "8 almonds" or "10 blueberries", etc, rather than by weight in grams or ounces. Also agree that MFP calorie burn estimates can be high, so with those factors, consumed cals may be higher and burned cals may be lower than you think, and your deficit may not be a large as you estimate it is.

But even if it is all accurate, why on earth would you want to come in with negative net cals? Negative net = out of fuel. The fact that you say you're still feeling strong and energetic is what makes me think you're eating more and burning less than you think. To be at negative net or super low cals for so long without wearing down doesn't make sense.

BoxerBrawler

The entire idea of weight loss is fraught with inaccurate estimates and guesses. I'm in the same boat as the OP, doing the best I can with the data I have. I bike for 2-7 hours a day but the calorie burns are over the top high so report them as if I were a 150 lbs rider instead of a 230 lbs rider and that seems to get them a bit closer to reality.

I weigh the food I eat at home but tend to grab some fast food when out for a long ride so that could be plus or minus a whole bunch at the discretion of whoever put together my sandwich.

If I were to follow the MFP suggestions I would be losing weight much more slowly or not at all due to overestimated calorie burns and underestimated food consumption. So I just do the best I can and most days I end up with pretty close to a reported negative net caloric intake (except maybe yesterday, I was starving from a 100 mile bike ride the day before).

Personally I just try to eat a healthy amount of food, normally between 1700-1900 calories for me and then get as much exercise as I can enjoy everyday. So far that averages out to about a half pound a day lost but I am sure that will slow down as I get fitter and don't have a ready supply of fat to fuel my long endeavors.

Just my two cents.

Yay for another well said and thoughtful comment. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, I appreciate it!
Yes I too find that MFP tends to tell me things that are not exactly accurate.

BoxerBrawler

Your diary for the last week shows you eating 1300 - 1600 calories per day. It looks like you are not doing an extreme diet. I believe the "bad stuff" happens when you restrict calories BELOW what is healthy for that individual. You know, the people that are netting 300 - 600 calories a day.

I have been at 1500 - 1600 calories - give or take - for 2 and 1/2 years. I'm fine too. Because I meet my macros, meet my calories. So, what is the point of this post?

The OP wrote that she has been at , "...a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time." Negative net. You don't think that's extreme?

That is extreme, though looking at her diary, if she's not weighing her food, then she's eating more than she things. Also, pretty sure those burns are estimates that come from MFP - which we all now are incredibly high. So while OP thinks she's been on an extreme diet, she probably hasn't really been.

I am weighing my foods/liquids and am getting a close to accurate burn number.

I was questioning the diary entries too - lots of entries showing "8 almonds" or "10 blueberries", etc, rather than by weight in grams or ounces. Also agree that MFP calorie burn estimates can be high, so with those factors, consumed cals may be higher and burned cals may be lower than you think, and your deficit may not be a large as you estimate it is.

But even if it is all accurate, why on earth would you want to come in with negative net cals? Negative net = out of fuel. The fact that you say you're still feeling strong and energetic is what makes me think you're eating more and burning less than you think. To be at negative net or super low cals for so long without wearing down doesn't make sense.

You're right it doesn't makes sense. Exactly why I am posing the question.

As far as logging things like 8 almonds, etc. I do weigh them and I know how many calories are in one almond (within a percent or two based on the weight). I tend to pick the item in the list that seems reasonable and stick with it. If I am over estimating that's cool. If I am under estimating the calories then I'll also under estimate my calorie burn.

jofjltncb6

Do you weigh all of your foods?

How do you know you're burning 1000 calories with exercise? MFP calorie burns or heart rate monitor?

(I peaked your food/exercise diary). Personally, your burns seem high and if you are not weighing your foods then you are eating more than you think. So your deficit probably isn't as high as you think it may be.

I'm putting my money on this^ explanation.

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are some revelations in the four pages not yet read.

jofjltncb6

The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.

Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.

Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.

If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.

When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?

Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927

Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.

Ooh, yes...please run that calculator. I use that to see the trend of my own TDEE and how it is affected by certain deficits and surpluses. It's fascinating (if you're into that kind of thing).

3dogsrunning

The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.

Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.

Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.

If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.

When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?

Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927

Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.

All of this...


Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand how much your metabolism has been effected unless you have test done before and after. Your TDEE will drop, as will your RMR and BMR. It's a natural process throughout weight loss. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that I am working with a women who did 4 rounds of HCG and only loses about .5 lb per week at 1400 calories, which exercising 6 hours a week (mix of NROLFW and HIIT) and no medical conditions. From a ton of other people I have worked with, similar people her size average about .8-1 lb per week at 1700-1900 calories. So while most people lose at 1700, she is maintaining at that much. Our plan is to start a bulk once she gets to a low enough body fat %. Oh and I have been working with her over a 1 year period at this point.

OP, any thought on this?

I'm quoting myself to add an element - if you do run that analysis - it pretty much does so by ignoring your posted exercise calories and focusing on reported diary and weight loss - it might help to give you an idea of your own actual TDEE (based on your logging method, quality and content) and it;'s evolution.

BoxerBrawler

The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.

Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.

Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.

If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.

When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?

Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927

Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.

All of this...


Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand how much your metabolism has been effected unless you have test done before and after. Your TDEE will drop, as will your RMR and BMR. It's a natural process throughout weight loss. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that I am working with a women who did 4 rounds of HCG and only loses about .5 lb per week at 1400 calories, which exercising 6 hours a week (mix of NROLFW and HIIT) and no medical conditions. From a ton of other people I have worked with, similar people her size average about .8-1 lb per week at 1700-1900 calories. So while most people lose at 1700, she is maintaining at that much. Our plan is to start a bulk once she gets to a low enough body fat %. Oh and I have been working with her over a 1 year period at this point.

OP, any thought on this?

I'm quoting myself to add an element - if you do run that analysis - it pretty much does so by ignoring your posted exercise calories and focusing on reported diary and weight loss - it might help to give you an idea of your own actual TDEE (based on your logging method, quality and content) and it;'s evolution.

Yes, I am going to run through this later. Thank you for the thoughts, information and links!

rsclause

I went way under once thinking I am gonna really lose weight now. Big mistake, I felt really bad and took two days to recover. I just went for the slow and steady after that. Worst part was I didn't even lose a pound.

UpEarly

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

Wow three years is a long time. Did it begin slowly or come on all of a sudden? Thanks for sharing... I am so happy that you're back to health and doing well.

It happened slowly and it took me some time to realize that it was my DIET that was making me sick. I thought I was so healthy. I had a lot of pride in my low-calorie, low-fat lifestyle. I thought I was doing good things for my body, but it turned out to be just the opposite over the long haul.

I was stunned when my doctor gave me all the bad news in a complete physical.

jofjltncb6

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

segovm

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

randomtai

I would say that the bad stuff started happening right about the time you said, "Hey! I have a great idea for a forum post!"

QFT!

UpEarly

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet. I stuck with the VLCD for years because my body got used to it and it seemed normal and healthy to me. I was never underweight - just malnourished and I lost the weight WAY too quickly.

segovm

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet.

I was never underweight.

Appreciate you clearing that up. Thought you got down way low to have the negative side effects you mentioned. I guess my next question would be were you eating low calories or netting low calories? I suspect that most of the negative stuff comes from eating too little as I have never heard of anyone having problems from just netting too few calories.

WalkingAlong

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet. I stuck with the VLCD for years because my body got used to it and it seemed normal and healthy to me. I was never underweight - just malnourished and I lost the weight WAY too quickly.

How low were your calories? It seems odd that you could eat at a VLCD for years and not lose more weight. Or are we talking about 'net calories'?

UpEarly

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet.

I was never underweight.

Appreciate you clearing that up. Thought you got down way low to have the negative side effects you mentioned. I guess my next question would be were you eating low calories or netting low calories? I suspect that most of the negative stuff comes from eating too little as I have never heard of anyone having problems from just netting too few calories.

It was the early 1990's - no one talked about 'net calories' then. The trends were very low-fat and fat free. Step aerobics was the workout du jour. Carbs were the focal point of every popular diet. I ate 1000-1200 calories a day - so I'm sure I was eating too little and netting too little.

I'm not sure I understand why you're making a distinction between eating too little and netting too little. In my book, they're the same thing in that you're not providing enough fuel to sustain your body's activities.

My doctor said the patulous ear drum issue came simply from losing weight too fast. The other issues I had... I'm really not sure - I think a person's body can only stay in significant deficit so long before there are consequences. My weight stabilized on 1200 calories a day. I stalled at 142 and never lost another pound despite sticking with the 1200 calories a day. But, cumulatively, 1200 calories a day was not enough to provide me the nutrition I needed over the long haul.

Ironically, my current weight is lower now (135) and I got to that point eating over 2,000 calories a day. It's been much easier to keep off this time, too.

WalkingAlong

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

UpEarly

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

It's been 20 years since I followed anything that could remotely be considered 'low calorie'. All I remember is my doctor saying 'You need to stop this very low calorie diet you're following, or you'll continue to become sicker and weaker.'

So, even if it didn't meet the clinical definition of a VLCD - it was still a very low calorie diet for my age, height, weight and activity level.

segovm

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

That's kind of the distinction I have been making. I eat between 1700-1900 calories a day but burn more than that most days. I don't feel malnourished and keep getting better faster stronger so I'm going with it for now.

I think the people that end up suffering are the ones who eat too little and especially those that eat too little without the proper nutrients. I don't think the whole "net calories" thing is a factor in the whole VLCD thing and certainly haven't found anything yet that would support that idea.

rosebette

I think when "the bad stuff" happens depends on your caloric needs based on size, activity, etc. OP's diary does not show someone who is eating a VLCD. Also, I don't know her height, but if her current weight is what she says it is in her profile, she's a smaller person; she also says she's over 40, which affects metabolism and requires fewer calories than say, a 25-year-old. I'm small myself and older and maintaining on between 1100 and 1200 calories, eating back exercise calories. So far, I feel pretty good.