So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?
Replies
-
Hopefully for the last time... I never claimed to be on a VLC diet. I only suggested that my net number is very low on some days and in the negative on some days.
You know the L in VLC stands for low right?0 -
Hopefully for the last time... I never claimed to be on a VLC diet. I only suggested that my net number is very low on some days and in the negative on some days.
You know the L in VLC stands for low right?
Yes, I know that.
My "very low" numbers are not consistent... some days they are low, other days not. So no, I don't consider myself on a vlc diet.0 -
I always go on low-calorie diets. I am on 700 now. I believe that long slow dieting impairs metabolism. I lose weight as quickly as ever at age 61. But I have been very sedentary my entire life. I suspect that people who experience negative effects from VLC diets are combining their diet with exercise.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?
My calorie target depends on my activity. I know my BMR is around 1400 after a Bodpod test so I net at least that every day. Generally I eat between 1700-2200 calories a day.0 -
Hopefully for the last time... I never claimed to be on a VLC diet. I only suggested that my net number is very low on some days and in the negative on some days.
You know the L in VLC stands for low right?
Yes, I know that.
My "very low" numbers are not consistent... some days they are low, other days not. So no, I don't consider myself on a vlc diet.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...0 -
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.
To add additional perspective. Someone who is lean or a normal weight will see malnutrition a lot quicker than those that are overweight and obese.0 -
My biggest problem is with net calories is, it's very difficult to figure out how many calories you truly burn. HRM's and calculators are pure estimates. It doesn't account for any adaptation in exercise. I can't tell you how many people think they burn 500-1000 calories during exercise, but then have an RMR test and realize it's actually a fraction of that.
And in terms of logging accuracy.. i went back 2 weeks and there was 1 day not fully filled out and 2 days not filled out at all. So there shouldn't even be a discussion of logging accuracy or consistency.
There are some scientific facts... adaptive thermogenesis will occur, muscle loss will occur... to what extend depends on how large of a "actual" deficit, your macro breakdown, the length of calorie suppression, and the type of training.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?
yes, context matters.
OP is not obese but closer to those participants in weight (that ate 1560, btw and still had issues)0 -
I always go on low-calorie diets. I am on 700 now. I believe that long slow dieting impairs metabolism. I lose weight as quickly as ever at age 61. But I have been very sedentary my entire life. I suspect that people who experience negative effects from VLC diets are combining their diet with exercise.
If as you say you want to restore your youthful appearance, I would refer you to the CRON program, which by the way, doesn't recommend you go below 1000 calories and also requires you to meticulously track your micronutrients so that the calories consumed are nutrient dense. Otherwise, you will end up as a malnourished 61-year-old. Also, some exercise is essential to overall health, especially as we age, or bone and muscle loss will occur.0 -
But I think she's referring to using low 'net calories' to get to her goal weight, not past it. Those men didn't have weight to lose, or if they did at the start, they didn't long before the end. Their body fat %s must've been very, very low.
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?
yes, context matters.
OP is not obese but closer to those participants in weight (that ate 1560, btw and still had issues)
I can't speak for OP but I'm also a 40-something female 10 lbs. overweight and my body fat % is probably in the mid-30s still. I could safely do a 'low net calorie' plan for quite a while without being anything like those men, physically.0 -
But I think she's referring to using low 'net calories' to get to her goal weight, not past it. Those men didn't have weight to lose, or if they did at the start, they didn't long before the end. Their body fat %s must've been very, very low.
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?
yes, context matters.
OP is not obese but closer to those participants in weight (that ate 1560, btw and still had issues)
I can't speak for OP but I'm also a 40-something female 10 lbs. overweight and my body fat % is probably in the mid-30s still. I could safely do a 'low net calorie' plan for quite a while without being anything like those men, physically.
Yes... I can never get my 'Net" calories up to my calorie target of 1200. Most days it is under 500, some days it is a negative number. I keep going and going and going with little to no negative effects so far.0 -
ETA: Posted before I was made aware of your cal. burns. Not sure how you are measuring those, but that changes my answer. You do you. Good luck.
"You do you." This.0 -
Hopefully for the last time... I never claimed to be on a VLC diet. I only suggested that my net number is very low on some days and in the negative on some days.
You know the L in VLC stands for low right?
Yes, I know that.
My "very low" numbers are not consistent... some days they are low, other days not. So no, I don't consider myself on a vlc diet.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...
would you stop it with your FACTS?!?! we're not here for that.0 -
accident
nothing to see here. 0 -
Hopefully for the last time... I never claimed to be on a VLC diet. I only suggested that my net number is very low on some days and in the negative on some days.
You know the L in VLC stands for low right?
Yes, I know that.
My "very low" numbers are not consistent... some days they are low, other days not. So no, I don't consider myself on a vlc diet.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...
I think this sums up what this thread is all about so far.0 -
But I think she's referring to using low 'net calories' to get to her goal weight, not past it. Those men didn't have weight to lose, or if they did at the start, they didn't long before the end. Their body fat %s must've been very, very low.
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?
yes, context matters.
OP is not obese but closer to those participants in weight (that ate 1560, btw and still had issues)
I can't speak for OP but I'm also a 40-something female 10 lbs. overweight and my body fat % is probably in the mid-30s still. I could safely do a 'low net calorie' plan for quite a while without being anything like those men, physically.
Yes... I can never get my 'Net" calories up to my calorie target of 1200. Most days it is under 500, some days it is a negative number. I keep going and going and going with little to no negative effects so far.
I keep going and going and going with little to no negative effects so far.
*sigh*
Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.0 -
BTW, the "cronometer" is a free download and it is interesting to plug in what you eat to see not only macros, but also vitamin and mineral intake.
http://www.cronometer.com0 -
I always go on low-calorie diets. I am on 700 now. I believe that long slow dieting impairs metabolism. I lose weight as quickly as ever at age 61. But I have been very sedentary my entire life. I suspect that people who experience negative effects from VLC diets are combining their diet with exercise.
and yet, you'll never understand that your yo-yo dieting over the years is why you have to eat 700 calories a day to lose weight at the same rate I did eating more than double that (and I'm smaller than you)0 -
BTW, the "cronometer" is a free download and it is interesting to plug in what you eat to see not only macros, but also vitamin and mineral intake.
http://www.cronometer.com
i'm betting that there are no pesky popups if i consume less than 1200 while tracking on the CRonometer thing. Hell, I'm betting there's no annoying warnings if i consistently eat 500 per day while doing 2 hours of elliptical per day while following the CRon plan.
how convenient0 -
I always go on low-calorie diets. I am on 700 now. I believe that long slow dieting impairs metabolism. I lose weight as quickly as ever at age 61. But I have been very sedentary my entire life. I suspect that people who experience negative effects from VLC diets are combining their diet with exercise.
and yet, you'll never understand that your yo-yo dieting over the years is why you have to eat 700 calories a day to lose weight at the same rate I did eating more than double that (and I'm smaller than you)
You...I like you.0 -
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.0 -
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.
Which time?0 -
She's predicting -500 to 500 'net calories'. Are you guys saying you think she's off by 800-1300 per day? That's a lot, though I guess not totally impossible.Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.0 -
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.
Which time?
I took it 1.642 times.
But its popped up about 17 times after that.
So I am not really sure? :ohwell:0 -
BTW, the "cronometer" is a free download and it is interesting to plug in what you eat to see not only macros, but also vitamin and mineral intake.
http://www.cronometer.com
i'm betting that there are no pesky popups if i consume less than 1200 while tracking on the CRonometer thing. Hell, I'm betting there's no annoying warnings if i consistently eat 500 per day while doing 2 hours of elliptical per day while following the CRon plan.
how convenient
No, it subtracts exercise calories from your calories eaten, so it has the same 'net" type effect as MFP. Because MFP is a forum rather than just an app, I think the hosts/moderators feel a responsibility to warn people who may be damaging their health, especially since there are a lot of people in ED recovery posting. I actually find it kind of annoying to get the starvation mode warning if I eat 1195 calories instead of 1200, as if not consuming those 5 calories on one day will kill me. When I first used that term ignorantly in a forum, I was told by a number of posters that "starvation mode" doesn't even exist. I like MFP because it has a wider range of foods, but I like the cronometer because it tracks micros. For instance, today I'm low on vitamin C, protein, and calcium, so I know how I need to plan my eating for the rest of my day and also if I might need to take a supplement if I can't get to those targets.0 -
No, it subtracts exercise calories from your calories eaten, so it has the same 'net" type effect as MFP. Because MFP is a forum rather than just an app, I think the hosts/moderators feel a responsibility to warn people who may be damaging their health, especially since there are a lot of people in ED recovery posting. I actually find it kind of annoying to get the starvation mode warning if I eat 1195 calories instead of 1200, as if not consuming those 5 calories on one day will kill me. When I first used that term ignorantly in a forum, I was told by a number of posters that "starvation mode" doesn't even exist. I like MFP because it has a wider range of foods, but I like the cronometer because it tracks micros. For instance, today I'm low on vitamin C, protein, and calcium, so I know how I need to plan my eating for the rest of my day and also if I might need to take a supplement if I can't get to those targets.
:huh:
You can track micros with MFP, too.0 -
How can you do that? I've only been able to track macros, and not all of them. You have to choose which ones you want displayed. The cronometer displays everything automatically, even vitamins and minerals I've never heard of. Right now, I'm using both MFP and the cronometer. I also like MFP for the community. I made one post on CR and all they sent me was a bunch of text files with their program.0
-
Glad you posted that, I couldn't understand how you got 300 calories/hr. 210 calories for 154lbs is actually lower burn than MFP is giving me: 228 for 150lbs. If I had ever seen Solong be wrong on anything I may have questioned what he said, but I figured there must be a calculator error somewhere. Seems he was right on the 300 being high, thanks!
Hmm, I thought the discussion was about whether 300 must be wrong for the OP's burn, not what MFP gave for that calculation. Don't most people generally prefer HRM or Fitbit or the like, if available? (I know not everyone trusts Fitbit, but it's been remarkably accurate for me.) 300 seems not unreasonable to me for an hour walk (assuming average speed of 3 mph, which is a moderate walking speed, slower than I usually walk personally, and the rough rule of about 100 calories per mile unless one is really large or small). I know it's similar to what Fitbit gives me (I don't log walking ever, so have no clue what MFP would give, but I know it gives me (at 162) slightly above 100 calories per mile for running and that's generally consistent with my Fitbit and my HRM and, most significantly, I generally eat back running calories and haven't experienced lower than expected losses while doing so.
In fact, to follow up I Lift Heavy Acrylic's post, I also have found that MFP does not seem to overestimate certain kinds of workout calories, although I do think it does for others (like the elliptical) and other things--like strength and circuit training--are simply going to have such a wide variation that it seems silly to take any estimate by MFP that seriously. But for cycling calories, for example, MFP estimates lower than MapMyRide, IME. MMR also has a reputation for overestimating, so I checked it with my HRM assuming the result would be way off, and the HRM was pretty similar but higher. I think this is because I (a) often ride with wind that makes the ride harder, not easier, and (b) ride a mountain bike, not a road bike, so these are reasons the actual workout could be harder than MFP says. Thus, if the OP is using a HRM or some such, I don't think walking calories are likely to be the smoking gun.
All that aside, I, like most everyone else, believe that the results and the estimated numbers don't seem to match up and if they did they would suggest that there has been a negative effect on metabolism. Of course, the best way to check this would be for the OP to post her results per month and estimated deficits. We don't really know the precise time period over which she's lost the bulk of her weight currently, I don't think.0 -
She's predicting -500 to 500 'net calories'. Are you guys saying you think she's off by 800-1300 per day? That's a lot, though I guess not totally impossible.Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.
Use today as an example. As of right now...
Calorie goal - 1300
Calories consumed - 1165
Calories burned - 657 (afternoon workout plus Fitbit adjustment)
Net - 508
However... I have about 80 minutes of boot camp at 6 pm following by boxing for another 20 minutes. Even if those two activities burned as little as 300 calories, which they don't... they burn more. That would leave me with a net of 208 for the day assuming I don't eat dinner. Which I will but...
80 minutes of calisthenics on MFP gives me 581 calories burned. I will round that down to 400.
20 minutes of boxing on MFP gives me 181 calories burned. I will round that down to 100.
Still leaves me with a net of 8 (eight) for the day. Say my dinner is around 300 calories. So I end the day with a net of 308 calories.
The information that I have in the diary for what I've eaten today is accurate.0 -
One problem with tracking at least certain micros with MFP is that the underlying nutrition information in the database doesn't have a lot of them (one reason why people tend to fear they are low on potassium when they probably are not). How does the cronometer solve that?
I suppose I could just go look, even though I'm not interested in low calories for longevity as a thing. ;-)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions