So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?
Replies
-
Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.
Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.
I don't necessarily think it is intake as much as deficit and/or net calories. I think you can be at or above what would be considered a minimal intake (1200 cal) and still create health problems if the deficit is too large or you push your net calories into vlc territory.
Perhaps. I was just taking issue with the "VLCD is defined as 800 calories so if >800 calorie no problem" assertion. I don't think it's that simple...whether that 800 is gross or net, it still isn't some kind of magic minimum threshold for not having any problems at all.
ETA: For example, the post right above mine.0 -
I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.
I'll tell you what happened in my experience, since people seem to think there's a lack of it with some of the replies here. I tested this theory myself in February. I switched to the TDEE method with having a gross intake of around 1690 calories. Some days were higher, but usually I was in the general area. I exercised my butt off. I hiked 3x a week for 2 to 2.5 hours. I also walked 4 miles every Saturday & Sunday (which I still do). I took, in general, 1 rest day a week.
I made a list on notepad to record what my burns from my HRM were and subtracted it from my TDEE-20% to see what my net was. This is what happened for 2 months:
2/4 1766-347=1419
2/5 1714-311=1403
2/6 1735-338=1397
2/7 1732-647=1085
2/8 1766-379=1387
2/9 2139-356=1783
2/10 1705-257=1448
2/11 1727-387=1340
2/12 1765-636=1129
2/13 1705-203=1502
2/14 1752-319=1433
2/15 1622
2/16 1690-414=1276
2/17 1690-494=1196
2/18 1697-599=1098
2/19 1682-593=1089
2/20 1664
2/21 1646-697=949
2/22 1689
2/23 1671-267=1404
2/24 1674-554=1120
2/25 1614-398=1216
2/26 1685-569=1116
2/27 1698
2/28 1678-786=892
3/1 1687-400=1287
3/2 1680-459=1221
3/3 1637-362=1275
3/4 1681-321=1360
3/5 1636-538=1098
3/6 1706
3/7 1682-601=1081
3/8 1517-310=1207
3/9 1652-435=1217
3/10 2056-746=1310
3/11 2046-358=1688
3/12 1610-535=1075
3/13 1516
3/14 1685-518=1167
3/15 1696-347=1349
3/16 1589-327=1262
3/17 1672-273=1399
3/18 1639-355=1284
3/19 1676-486=1190
3/20 1685
3/21 1693-756=937
3/22 1678-347=1331
3/23 1667-387=1280
3/24 1689-383=1306
3/25 1648-390=1258
3/26 1642-678=964
3/27 1687
3/28 1692-786=906
3/29 1694-422=1272
3/30 1669-478=1191
3/31 1670-435=1235
You see all those nets below 1200 calories? There were alot of them. Did I lose weight? Yes. Was I eating a decent amount of calories? Yes. But I was NETTING pretty low. Do you know what happened? My hair started falling out. And it was falling out pretty badly. As a woman, I thought I might spend my life bald if it continued. I was feeling tired all the time, but I kept up with my schedule. I didn't really have much choice, I exercised at the gym or hiked near the gym, because that's where my daughter went to preschool. If she went to school, I had to find something to do for the next 3 hours, so what did I do? I went hiking or did Zumba.
Obviously I did not keep this up. It was a personal temporary experiment. And the results from just 2 months of doing it was enough for me to know it was not something worth doing or continuing.
So there's the experience and the consequences... just with short term. Imagine keeping it up long term, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's what. Sure, you lose weight, but you're sacrificing your health in favor of hitting a goal weigh a little faster. That's why people around here say it's better to lose it slow and steady.... so you don't experience the negative side effects. And really, what is the rush? You have to live your life anyway, so do it sensibly.
Just to put it in perspective I've been doing the same thing for over two months and feel great and still have all my hair. I felt so good the other day I went for a nearly eight hour bike ride.
Everyone is different. I would never do anything that makes me miserable or unhealthy, I'm glad you stopped when you did. Doesn't sound safe for you.0 -
I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.
I'll tell you what happened in my experience, since people seem to think there's a lack of it with some of the replies here. I tested this theory myself in February. I switched to the TDEE method with having a gross intake of around 1690 calories. Some days were higher, but usually I was in the general area. I exercised my butt off. I hiked 3x a week for 2 to 2.5 hours. I also walked 4 miles every Saturday & Sunday (which I still do). I took, in general, 1 rest day a week.
I made a list on notepad to record what my burns from my HRM were and subtracted it from my TDEE-20% to see what my net was. This is what happened for 2 months:
2/4 1766-347=1419
2/5 1714-311=1403
2/6 1735-338=1397
2/7 1732-647=1085
2/8 1766-379=1387
2/9 2139-356=1783
2/10 1705-257=1448
2/11 1727-387=1340
2/12 1765-636=1129
2/13 1705-203=1502
2/14 1752-319=1433
2/15 1622
2/16 1690-414=1276
2/17 1690-494=1196
2/18 1697-599=1098
2/19 1682-593=1089
2/20 1664
2/21 1646-697=949
2/22 1689
2/23 1671-267=1404
2/24 1674-554=1120
2/25 1614-398=1216
2/26 1685-569=1116
2/27 1698
2/28 1678-786=892
3/1 1687-400=1287
3/2 1680-459=1221
3/3 1637-362=1275
3/4 1681-321=1360
3/5 1636-538=1098
3/6 1706
3/7 1682-601=1081
3/8 1517-310=1207
3/9 1652-435=1217
3/10 2056-746=1310
3/11 2046-358=1688
3/12 1610-535=1075
3/13 1516
3/14 1685-518=1167
3/15 1696-347=1349
3/16 1589-327=1262
3/17 1672-273=1399
3/18 1639-355=1284
3/19 1676-486=1190
3/20 1685
3/21 1693-756=937
3/22 1678-347=1331
3/23 1667-387=1280
3/24 1689-383=1306
3/25 1648-390=1258
3/26 1642-678=964
3/27 1687
3/28 1692-786=906
3/29 1694-422=1272
3/30 1669-478=1191
3/31 1670-435=1235
You see all those nets below 1200 calories? There were alot of them. Did I lose weight? Yes. Was I eating a decent amount of calories? Yes. But I was NETTING pretty low. Do you know what happened? My hair started falling out. And it was falling out pretty badly. As a woman, I thought I might spend my life bald if it continued. I was feeling tired all the time, but I kept up with my schedule. I didn't really have much choice, I exercised at the gym or hiked near the gym, because that's where my daughter went to preschool. If she went to school, I had to find something to do for the next 3 hours, so what did I do? I went hiking or did Zumba.
Obviously I did not keep this up. It was a personal temporary experiment. And the results from just 2 months of doing it was enough for me to know it was not something worth doing or continuing.
So there's the experience and the consequences... just with short term. Imagine keeping it up long term, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's what. Sure, you lose weight, but you're sacrificing your health in favor of hitting a goal weigh a little faster. That's why people around here say it's better to lose it slow and steady.... so you don't experience the negative side effects. And really, what is the rush? You have to live your life anyway, so do it sensibly.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience and numbers. This is along the lines of what I was hoping for. A conversation with folks who have experienced this. So basically you went full steam ahead for a full two months before you started feeling any physical effects?0 -
But again, the OP isn't doing an VLCD really.
And there's one of the big problems with this thread. The OP thinks she's doing a VLCD (even believes she has regular negative net days) and made a thread to extol the benefits of VLCDs. Then, a slight picking at the scab of her story and it turns out that it's actually a moderate calorie deficit.
While she's happy to accept congratulations on her moderate weight loss plan and success, this thread still sits out there claiming that VLCDs are awesome, even as it turns out that no actual VLCDs were harmed the creation of this thread.
Sends the wrong message, imo
I never made any such claim about my deficit and I never advocated VLCD in any of my comments. But thanks for the input.0 -
You see all those nets below 1200 calories? There were alot of them. Did I lose weight? Yes. Was I eating a decent amount of calories? Yes. But I was NETTING pretty low. Do you know what happened? My hair started falling out. And it was falling out pretty badly. As a woman, I thought I might spend my life bald if it continued. I was feeling tired all the time, but I kept up with my schedule. I didn't really have much choice, I exercised at the gym or hiked near the gym, because that's where my daughter went to preschool. If she went to school, I had to find something to do for the next 3 hours, so what did I do? I went hiking or did Zumba.
Obviously I did not keep this up. It was a personal temporary experiment. And the results from just 2 months of doing it was enough for me to know it was not something worth doing or continuing.
So there's the experience and the consequences... just with short term. Imagine keeping it up long term, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's what. Sure, you lose weight, but you're sacrificing your health in favor of hitting a goal weigh a little faster. That's why people around here say it's better to lose it slow and steady.... so you don't experience the negative side effects. And really, what is the rush? You have to live your life anyway, so do it sensibly.Thank you for sharing your personal experience and numbers. This is along the lines of what I was hoping for. A conversation with folks who have experienced this. So basically you went full steam ahead for a full two months before you started feeling any physical effects?
I started getting them about 4 weeks into it. I felt great and fine at first and then it started going downhill.0 -
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.
I also think that net calories being too low is at least a different thing than overall calories being too low, setting aside the question if both are bad. If your overall calories are too low, it's likely you are missing essential micronutrients, protein, fat, etc. If your net are too low, then you are having to burn more from your store to fuel yourself, but you are doing that anyway, if eating at a deficit. So the question is whether the size of the deficit can be too big for this to occur adequately, even if you are substantially overweight or obese, whether you will be burning more muscle and less fat as a percentage than otherwise, or if your metabolism will fall more than it would otherwise. AND, if it makes a different whether the increased deficit comes from exercise or just eating fewer calories. I haven't yet seen a lot of studies that really help sort this out.
On the huge burns that make calories way below goal or even negative, though, I'm still curious whether the people experiencing them, according to their calculations, are losing at rates consistent with that high a deficit. If the argument is that you can increase your deficit through exercise beyond the usual 2 lb or so over a long period of time without being morbidly obese or suffering negative effects, the first issue is whether that's actually being done and to what extent.
For the record, my own experience with large biking burns is that I'm skeptical of them, and think they may be overstated due to double-counting the calories which would be burned anyway, something that makes a bigger difference when talking about multiple hours of exercise.0 -
I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.
I'll tell you what happened in my experience, since people seem to think there's a lack of it with some of the replies here. I tested this theory myself in February. I switched to the TDEE method with having a gross intake of around 1690 calories. Some days were higher, but usually I was in the general area. I exercised my butt off. I hiked 3x a week for 2 to 2.5 hours. I also walked 4 miles every Saturday & Sunday (which I still do). I took, in general, 1 rest day a week.
I made a list on notepad to record what my burns from my HRM were and subtracted it from my TDEE-20% to see what my net was. This is what happened for 2 months:
2/4 1766-347=1419
2/5 1714-311=1403
2/6 1735-338=1397
2/7 1732-647=1085
2/8 1766-379=1387
2/9 2139-356=1783
2/10 1705-257=1448
2/11 1727-387=1340
2/12 1765-636=1129
2/13 1705-203=1502
2/14 1752-319=1433
2/15 1622
2/16 1690-414=1276
2/17 1690-494=1196
2/18 1697-599=1098
2/19 1682-593=1089
2/20 1664
2/21 1646-697=949
2/22 1689
2/23 1671-267=1404
2/24 1674-554=1120
2/25 1614-398=1216
2/26 1685-569=1116
2/27 1698
2/28 1678-786=892
3/1 1687-400=1287
3/2 1680-459=1221
3/3 1637-362=1275
3/4 1681-321=1360
3/5 1636-538=1098
3/6 1706
3/7 1682-601=1081
3/8 1517-310=1207
3/9 1652-435=1217
3/10 2056-746=1310
3/11 2046-358=1688
3/12 1610-535=1075
3/13 1516
3/14 1685-518=1167
3/15 1696-347=1349
3/16 1589-327=1262
3/17 1672-273=1399
3/18 1639-355=1284
3/19 1676-486=1190
3/20 1685
3/21 1693-756=937
3/22 1678-347=1331
3/23 1667-387=1280
3/24 1689-383=1306
3/25 1648-390=1258
3/26 1642-678=964
3/27 1687
3/28 1692-786=906
3/29 1694-422=1272
3/30 1669-478=1191
3/31 1670-435=1235
You see all those nets below 1200 calories? There were alot of them. Did I lose weight? Yes. Was I eating a decent amount of calories? Yes. But I was NETTING pretty low. Do you know what happened? My hair started falling out. And it was falling out pretty badly. As a woman, I thought I might spend my life bald if it continued. I was feeling tired all the time, but I kept up with my schedule. I didn't really have much choice, I exercised at the gym or hiked near the gym, because that's where my daughter went to preschool. If she went to school, I had to find something to do for the next 3 hours, so what did I do? I went hiking or did Zumba.
Obviously I did not keep this up. It was a personal temporary experiment. And the results from just 2 months of doing it was enough for me to know it was not something worth doing or continuing.
So there's the experience and the consequences... just with short term. Imagine keeping it up long term, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's what. Sure, you lose weight, but you're sacrificing your health in favor of hitting a goal weigh a little faster. That's why people around here say it's better to lose it slow and steady.... so you don't experience the negative side effects. And really, what is the rush? You have to live your life anyway, so do it sensibly.
Just to put it in perspective I've been doing the same thing for over two months and feel great and still have all my hair. I felt so good the other day I went for a nearly eight hour bike ride.
Everyone is different. I would never do anything that makes me miserable or unhealthy, I'm glad you stopped when you did. Doesn't sound safe for you.
Yes.... ditto0 -
Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.
Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.
I don't necessarily think it is intake as much as deficit and/or net calories. I think you can be at or above what would be considered a minimal intake (1200 cal) and still create health problems if the deficit is too large or you push your net calories into vlc territory.
Perhaps. I was just taking issue with the "VLCD is defined as 800 calories so if >800 calorie no problem" assertion. I don't think it's that simple...whether that 800 is gross or net, it still isn't some kind of magic minimum threshold for not having any problems at all.
ETA: For example, the post right above mine.
I take issue with the "number" as well...800 is low but I feel faint on 1195 and suffer for days so that is low for me. It only took me one day to figure that out...took 3 days to recover from it...
In order to decide if it's a danger there are more factors...
To the OP regardless of your diet and exercise VLCD are hard on a body...I have recently watched a 60min segment on YouTube in regards to this...a woman (in England or NZ or Aust) is 88lbs...she is dying due to complications from her VLCD...it has taken just over 10 years I believe but she is dying...her organs are failing, she is growing the fine hair all over her body....she is dying...and she knows it...
Another video showed a very healthy young man who had a heart attack after being on a VLCD after 6months... he was an athlete trying to make weight....it killed him.
If you really want a time line you can't get one..it's all dependent on the individaul...but the bad stuff does happen.0 -
Not worth it, it's a trap.
I swear I read this with Admiral Ackbar's voice LOL0 -
I also want to stress I have been under doctor supervision from Day 1 of cutting calories.... even with having a smaller deficit. I really believe anyone wanting to lose weight should do so under a doctor's supervision. I had blood panels and checkups regularly throughout the entire past year of cutting. I'm now pregnant, so I'm in no way actively trying to lose weight, I'm working on maintaining/gaining appropriately. But again, everything I did was with a doctor's watchful eye.0
-
So I am wondering when all the bad stuff that I keep hearing about e.g., ruined metabolism, muscle loss, starvation mode, etc. is supposed to happen? I have been going strong for a year and three months, still solid with a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time. I have not experienced any of the scary stuff people like to talk about. Honestly, I just continue to feel better and stronger with more energy and endurance...
Anyone else experience this? Anyone experience a "Real" crash and burn? Could it be that everyone is just different and some can tolerate and/or even thrive on extreme low calorie and hard work and others can't? I would love to understand this because many folks took great pains in 'warning' me of the dangers. Well, I am in deep waters and there are no dangers as far as the eye can see. Is there a magical time-frame like two years in? I know that a body can take a lot of abuse for a long time before breaking down, but how long exactly? Could it also be true that a body will actually learn to adapt to it's new environment when given no other choice?
I am not being sarcastic here, I really would like to hear some stories and opinions on all of this. And I don't mean opinions or nastiness toward me and please no lectures and no opinions on my own health and nutrition plan.
Just personal experience, personal perspective based on what we have heard, read, etc.
There is so much conflicting information!
I'd love to hear some real life experiences.
Thanks!
I'm not going to read all the responses and just give you my experience. When I started I was eating 1200 calories, got a HRM almost immediately and did not eat my exercise calories back because I didn't know I was supposed to.
It took about 6 weeks for my hair to start falling out, my nails to become brittle, any and all energy reserves to empty out, I was lethargic and grumpy, almost passed out when I would exercise (which was daily), my skin was pekid looking, my face was sunken in even though it was still fat, I wasn't sleeping, got depressed, was really really grumpy, and I lost my appetite so I struggled to eat. During this time I started running and I work two jobs, one is manual labor, plus I ride horses. I struggled at everything.
Even yesterday I forgot to take a protein rich snack with me and almost passed out at the barn after my run and ride when I was finishing my chores.
So apparently I have some issues when I don't eat enough.
But I started reading the forums and learned about TDEE, BMR, etc., and after messaging a really nice member figured out what amount I should be eating. Since then the only stalls I've had were due to a surgery and change in exercise routines where my body needed to adjust. I eat at only a slight deficit now because I'm trying to maintain the muscle I have left and I'm starting back at the gym this Friday finally. It really sucks that I have to take supplements to help restore my hair and nails though, and I still bruise when I think about bumping into something and the doctor monitors my weight loss to make sure I don't lose more than 4 lbs a month at this point but I'm glad she's involved.
For me things were almost immediate and rather dramatic. I hope that never happens to you.0 -
I also want to stress I have been under doctor supervision from Day 1 of cutting calories.... even with having a smaller deficit. I really believe anyone wanting to lose weight should do so under a doctor's supervision. I had blood panels and checkups regularly throughout the entire past year of cutting. I'm now pregnant, so I'm in no way actively trying to lose weight, I'm working on maintaining/gaining appropriately. But again, everything I did was with a doctor's watchful eye.
Good advice. And congratulations on the pregnancy!
0 -
Obviously, steep deficits are tough on someone without excess body fat to spare. I think that's a whole other scenario.Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.
Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.
Oh, like the Minnesota starvation experiment?0 -
So I am wondering when all the bad stuff that I keep hearing about e.g., ruined metabolism, muscle loss, starvation mode, etc. is supposed to happen? I have been going strong for a year and three months, still solid with a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time. I have not experienced any of the scary stuff people like to talk about. Honestly, I just continue to feel better and stronger with more energy and endurance...
Anyone else experience this? Anyone experience a "Real" crash and burn? Could it be that everyone is just different and some can tolerate and/or even thrive on extreme low calorie and hard work and others can't? I would love to understand this because many folks took great pains in 'warning' me of the dangers. Well, I am in deep waters and there are no dangers as far as the eye can see. Is there a magical time-frame like two years in? I know that a body can take a lot of abuse for a long time before breaking down, but how long exactly? Could it also be true that a body will actually learn to adapt to it's new environment when given no other choice?
I am not being sarcastic here, I really would like to hear some stories and opinions on all of this. And I don't mean opinions or nastiness toward me and please no lectures and no opinions on my own health and nutrition plan.
Just personal experience, personal perspective based on what we have heard, read, etc.
There is so much conflicting information!
I'd love to hear some real life experiences.
Thanks!
I'm not going to read all the responses and just give you my experience. When I started I was eating 1200 calories, got a HRM almost immediately and did not eat my exercise calories back because I didn't know I was supposed to.
It took about 6 weeks for my hair to start falling out, my nails to become brittle, any and all energy reserves to empty out, I was lethargic and grumpy, almost passed out when I would exercise (which was daily), my skin was pekid looking, my face was sunken in even though it was still fat, I wasn't sleeping, got depressed, was really really grumpy, and I lost my appetite so I struggled to eat. During this time I started running and I work two jobs, one is manual labor, plus I ride horses. I struggled at everything.
Even yesterday I forgot to take a protein rich snack with me and almost passed out at the barn after my run and ride when I was finishing my chores.
So apparently I have some issues when I don't eat enough.
But I started reading the forums and learned about TDEE, BMR, etc., and after messaging a really nice member figured out what amount I should be eating. Since then the only stalls I've had were due to a surgery and change in exercise routines where my body needed to adjust. I eat at only a slight deficit now because I'm trying to maintain the muscle I have left and I'm starting back at the gym this Friday finally. It really sucks that I have to take supplements to help restore my hair and nails though, and I still bruise when I think about bumping into something and the doctor monitors my weight loss to make sure I don't lose more than 4 lbs a month at this point but I'm glad she's involved.
For me things were almost immediate and rather dramatic. I hope that never happens to you.
Thank you for the response. It seems that this all happened with you very quickly. I am glad you are on the road to recovery. What is your calorie target now?0 -
Not sure what you are expecting? Exercise helps reduce muscle loss, you will never be able to feel or notice it perceptually unless you are lifting near your true maximum, which almost nobody in the world is ever...except those rare cases of housewives lifting cars off of their children in an emergency... But I don't think you ever really had a huge deficit likely to cause much loss in the first place.
Probably you are not measuring food and exercise calories accurately, like 99.99% don't. This includes myself, I find errors all the time and I have no reason to lie or bone to pick, I just retrospectively analyze and review my info at times, maybe it makes me more able to find my own errors? I find a forgotten portion or spoon or mis-measuement all the time. I know through both my hunger triggers with experience that some of the massive burns I get are not really as high as they seem so I just don't eat all those calories back either...as you are doing without knowing its really self-log corrective.
Next the fitbit...you have very large corrections I have noticed, there is a high probability this is not very accurate in the first place, and yours can also have errors registering more activity due to placement or other issues, causing "adjustments" of "more calories burned" than you actually did.
All in all, it really looks like you are doing a great job moderating the weight loss even though its possible some of it is "by mistake" since you perceive yourself breaking the rules. You appear to be close to "perfect" for a long term reasonably paced weightloss (80 lbs in 12 mo+ is really next to "perfectly managed"). I really don't think you should expect any problems at all.0 -
The bad stuff you're talking about is what happens when you starve yourself and don't exercise. You are DEFINITELY not starving yourself. And you are DEFINITELY exercising. A lot.
MFP is a great tool, but you have to realize that so many people out there, for better or worse, don't eat back exercise cals. The difference with those people is that they set a higher calorie limit for themselves. Now, if you're adding 1,000 calories to your diet every day because of exercise, and you're at a deficit, that's a different story than, say, being allotted 1,200 calories per day (as many MFP users are) and only eating 1,000. In that case, even a 200 calorie deficit, which might not seem like a lot, can be life-threatening.
See the difference?0 -
I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.
I can eat up to 1200 or more per day but my net will still be too low or even a negative number due to the multiple exercise calories. I am not sure that I trust the net number.
You don't trust the net number?
To be fair, I don't trust your gross number or your exercise number either. Mostly because your calculated weight loss over a fairly long period of time would lead me to believe your numbers are wrong.
I hear what you are saying but even when I put my stats and levels into various systems e.g., MFP, Fitbit and IIFYM I always round up the calories, round down the burn and set my activity as sedentary or at most, working out two or three times per week which is false. I work out everyday, a couple of times a day. In April of 2013 I weighed around 178 - 180 lbs. Today I am at 120. My weight varies between 115-120. The lowest I had it was 113 which was impossible to sustain due to my level of activity. I am 5'5" and 45 years old. TDEE based upon my stats and working out 3 times per week is 1638 and 1310 for for a 25% cut. I am generally averaging 1200-1300 calories (gross). If you are talking net I am getting anywhere between 200 to 600 per day. I have MFP set at 1200 with about the same level of activity and set to lose .8 lbs per week. I eat all day long and sometime snack at night and yeah, sometimes I go up to 1600 a day. From things I have read and from what folks have told me, I am not eating enough to sustain life let alone lose anymore weight. Yes... since I am trying to lose a few vanity pounds my weight loss is really slow and I have to double my effort to get a maximum burn. I still eat low fat or no fat and try to keep my carbs in check just because my body feels good with that plan. So I am starting to think that a body can just adapt. I know different things work for different people depending upon their lifestyle, activities, etc. So I'm going to just assume that some folks can live on under a thousand a day and continue to be healthy while others need a lot more. It is not an exact science but I don't see where my numbers could be terribly wrong. Off here and there? sure... The other day I did an hour of zumba wearing my Nano which only counts the steps and calories burned according to that. It indicated I burned 380 calories. I assumed around 40 minutes to account for small breaks in-between (which I don't take... I'll jog in place or whatever).
Genuinely curious, are you trying to make us believe you are on a VLCD? Do you think that being on one is a good thing?
If you are only 95% sure you #s are right, that 5% could be a lot more than you think it is.
If you were really netting that low you'd lose weight. A lot of it. Mostly muscle, and that muscle could come from your heart. Your body is amazing at adapting, but it can only go so far. So if you are not giving it the nutrition it needs, it will pull muscle from anywhere it can, it'll pull calcium from your bones, etc. Another poster has explained what happened in her experience.0 -
OK so I reviewed some of your exercise information, since it seems you are receptive to info by your posts and dont take it personally, I'll go over it since I think its a great example others might learn from!
Maybe you measure all your food correctly (I have no idea), but lets assume you do, the perceived difference in what your net numbers are and reality can probably be all explained by your exercise numbers, which is way off in review. I am certain your exercise estimates are very high, and I used myself as a comparison at a point where I was about double your current weight, since it fits very nicely. What I find is your burns are high for ME comparatively. Now somewhere you said you are 120lbs right? Recent info shows you burning 50 calories/6min on elliptical (500 cals/hr), 160 cals/hr lifting weights, 50 cals/10mins walking, somewhere around 490 cals/hr zumba.
Now I know through experience my 850-900 cal/hr burn rate on elliptical, while out pacing everyone in the gym near me is STILL high when I was at around (235/120=) 1.958x your weight. If we divide my rate by our weight difference = 459 cal/hr, WITH an over estimate. As you can see, this is less than your 500 cal/hr burn rate and this is compared to a HIGH OVERESTIMATE value. So you are overestimating even more than my overestimation.
Next, I burn 294 cals/hr weight training vs your 160. Face value with only this fact one might think this is reasonable, even when we apply the 1.958 factor and come up with a "true" 150 cal burn for you. But, I'm going to be pretty certain you are doing less than half the work that I do, since its unlikely a female your size does half of my 385lb shrugs, 420lb dips, 965lb leg presses, 300+lb benches, etc etc. etc. So, I dont know what the factor is, but I'm going to guess maybe about 1/3 what I do? Now this one is interesting though, because I am pretty certain it is a slight UNDER estimate for me, but I like to keep it that way. I'm going to tend to say it makes your burn more close to a slightly overestimated REAL burn here. But we can use this activity comparison for your other exercises, your burn rate for other exercises like zumba is way over my burn here, about 170% or so. I'm going to guess you do not burn that much more than a guy lifting as much as I do in an hour of zumba, when your bodyweight is about half mine. Maybe I'm only lifting 1/3 of the actual time, but since the load I'm pushing is around 3x your body weight on many lifts and you are not constantly lifting your entire bodyweight in zumba...those zumba burns have got to be very off logically.
Next walking. I'm not sure how, but you have an estimate of 50 cals burned in 10mins, thats 300 cal/hr. I am about twice your weight but my recorded burn for the same pace is 324 cal/hr. Obviously, moving almost twice your weight is going to be closer to twice as many calories as you, not close to equal, and I'm pretty certain about my walking burn rates as I do this one most consistently every single day over the past 1.5 yrs. Definitely, your walking burn is extremely overestimated.
Lastly, even after these high burn rates, your fitbit comes in and gives you extra calorie burns, many times almost doubling the entire burn from your added exercises for the day! And this exercise it adds to is already an over estimate in every exercise I showed above! Its definitely too high, maybe consider eliminating it totally or finding the error source from it somehow. No wonder you are confused, who wouldn't be!0 -
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.
Why bother weighing something if you aren't going to pick an entry that lets you track the weight of it... You don't "know" how many calories are in one almond, as each almond weighs differently than the next (sure, only within a certain margin.. that you claim to account for) but if they are consistently heavier than your percent then you are consistently eating more than you think. And by your logic, wouldn't you always have to underestimate your calorie burn since you can never seem to be sure if you are over or under estimating your calories?
At the end of the day it seems you are just winging it by only doing it by your vague estimations (logging some things, not logging other things, accounting for "more" here, accounting for "less" there). You can sit here and state otherwise, but until you show (in a manner that is clear and obvious to others, not in your "I delete my fitbit burns as the day goes along" when it shows you haven't) that your data is accurate, then the evidence supports you are in fact eating more than you think and not netting negative numbers.0 -
sorry for hijacking the threa, but I do have a question on "logging". OK I do use food scale and measure. but I also find it sometimes difficult to get the corresponging data entry in MFP DB, often so many things are measured with "cup", "piece" and "spoon". So what should I do? thank you~0
-
300 calories per hour for walking sounds reasonable. 3mph is a slow amble and 100 calories per mile is feasible (gross). At least Fitbit runs around there. It's probably more like 75-80 for 120lbs. but you could also cover closer to 4 miles.
None of her burns look ridiculous to me, and I'm closer to her size. But double-counting any of that is going to show a skewed picture, for sure.
You guys realize that you don't need to weigh almonds to get enough accuracy, right? And that even when you do weigh your almonds, it's an estimate. Your scale is estimating the weight. The database value is average calories for almonds. Your almond is not necessarily average. It doesn't matter. We don't need pinpoint accuracy. I wouldn't eyeball a cup of peanut butter but I also wouldn't weigh 4 almonds.0 -
sorry for hijacking the threa, but I do have a question on "logging". OK I do use food scale and measure. but I also find it sometimes difficult to get the corresponging data entry in MFP DB, often so many things are measured with "cup", "piece" and "spoon". So what should I do? thank you~
I, personally, like this thread/explanation...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide0 -
I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.
soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?0 -
You guys realize that you don't need to weigh almonds to get enough accuracy, right? And that even when you do weigh your almonds, it's an estimate. Your scale is estimating the weight. The database value is average calories for almonds. Your almond is not necessarily average. It doesn't matter. We don't need pinpoint accuracy. I wouldn't eyeball a cup of peanut butter but I also wouldn't weigh 4 almonds.
I don't know what kind of scale you use, but my kitchen scale is calibrated and accurate to .1 grams. Quality, functional kitchen scales do not 'estimate'... they actually measure.0 -
Everyone is different. But if you go into the process ready to make a change, educated and determined: it doesn't have to be so complicated. I've had parts of the equation down over the years, but lacked I think in determination. Now feel like I'm on the home stretch. Being a tiny bit obsessed can help too!0
-
Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.
soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one? 0 -
Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.
soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?
So you don't believe people who have said "my hair fell out", that actually experienced this. You don't believe them?
If you don't believe anything from MFP Forums and only what you read in books and journals, then why participate in them?0 -
I don't believe everything. That doesn't mean I don't believe anything.0
-
Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.
soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?
THEN WHY DID YOU BOTHER TO COMMENT THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T SHARE STORIES? so that you could call them liars to their faces?
Why are you even here?0 -
300 calories per hour for walking sounds reasonable. 3mph is a slow amble and 100 calories per mile is feasible (gross). At least Fitbit runs around there. It's probably more like 75-80 for 120lbs. but you could also cover closer to 4 miles.
None of her burns look ridiculous to me, and I'm closer to her size. But double-counting any of that is going to show a skewed picture, for sure.
I understand it doesn't look that way to you. Can we analyze this neutrally without you thinking I'm attacking you? I'll do it the way I analyze just by checking against other sources here. So, if I postulate you are right, this means all my burns are UNDER estimates by a lot since I am double her weight. So if you are correct, I am burning upwards of 300-600 calories more per day than I think, but I just dont see that with my weight loss. Or, I am eating HUGELY over what I say, even though I measure and already detect errors in my measurements. Both of these are unlikely. Next, I check online, it takes me a couple minutes to test several website calorie estimators, they show around 195 calories/hr for a 130lb woman, 300 for a 205lb man. Next, I check MFP data, which says 328 for me at about 220lbs I think it was, put in a 3mph walk for your weight and see what MFP comes up with, I bet its not in the 300's.
Now lets also check another possible error source: your perception and estimation. 3mph is a slow amble??? Well I'm about 6' and this is not categorized as a slow for me unless I'm walking a flat road maybe. So, unless you are very tall or walk exceedingly fast, I'd think its more than likely you are over-estimating what speed you think you walk at. Have you actually taken a 3 mi stretch of road and walked it to see how long you took? I have, 3mph I dont even quite reach when walking my dogs all the time, I even thought I was walking 3.5mph at times and found that to be wrong too. Thus I corrected my speed downwards, it was embarrasing. Granted I do have to stop here and there for the dogs, but I am at no time "slowly ambling". I'd categorize 2mph as a slow amble after actually measuring how long its taken me to reach measured walks and hikes of 3 and 2 miles 100s of times now.
So really if we analyze for errors, your "hunch" goes against all these points, logically you need to show all the sources wrong to be right, correct? It also appears to be that either you mis-estimate the actual walking speed of 3mph, or are very tall or an exceedingly fast walker. So the next tests would be to find a 3mi stretch and see how long it takes you to walk it. I bet your burn is also high. Its very common, most people over estimate!
I find all her burns to be grossly overestimated, and her fitbit compounds the problem, more than doubling her over-burns.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions