The Consequences of a Very Low Calorie Diet (aka Starvation
Options
Replies
-
What about someone who eats 1200 calories a day, but burns 800 calories a day??
I eat 1200 cal a day, and burn around 800 cal a day.
I`am 5`1 and 142 lb.
When i calculated my BMR it is only : 1,236 calories/day.
So im guessing thats the calorie i need if im not doing anything, but then how can i lose weight, if i dont burn more in order to reach 1.5 lb a week..
I love food, i wish i can just eat more, it takes all my strenght to just walk away and not to eat.
I still dont know how much calorie i need a day, when i only get to the point that i want to maintain my weight..
Is the BMR number 1236 what we need to maintain?
Can anyone please help with this..
To get your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure), you must multiply your BMR by your activity level. Each activity level has a corresponding amount.
Sedentary (little or no exercise) = 1.2
Lightly active (light exercise, 1-3 days a week) = 1.375
Moderately Active (moderate exercise, 3-5 days a week) = 1.55
Very Active (hard exercise, 6-7 days a week) = 1.725
Extremely Active (very hard exercise/ training, 6-7 days a week) = 1.9
For example if you're sedentary, you multiply 1,236 x 1.2 = 1,483.2 cals (this will be your TDEE to maintain your weight). To lose 1 lb. per week, you must subtract 250 from that figure then burn an add'l 250 to create a 500 calorie deficit which will equate to 3,500 cals/wk. that is equal to 1 lb lost.
So in this figure it will be 1483.2 - 250 = 1,233.2 cals. Then burn an additional 250 cals & you will get a 500 deficit for the day. Since your BMR is very low & you should not eat below your BMR, so the best thing to do is to increase your physical activity to increase your TDEE. Also once you gain muscles, you will be needing more calories for your muscle to sustain itself.
Hope this helps
) 0 -
What about someone who eats 1200 calories a day, but burns 800 calories a day??
I eat 1200 cal a day, and burn around 800 cal a day.
I`am 5`1 and 142 lb.
When i calculated my BMR it is only : 1,236 calories/day.
So im guessing thats the calorie i need if im not doing anything, but then how can i lose weight, if i dont burn more in order to reach 1.5 lb a week..
I love food, i wish i can just eat more, it takes all my strenght to just walk away and not to eat.
I still dont know how much calorie i need a day, when i only get to the point that i want to maintain my weight..
Is the BMR number 1236 what we need to maintain?
Can anyone please help with this..
To get your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure), you must multiply your BMR by your activity level. Each activity level has a corresponding amount.
Sedentary (little or no exercise) = 1.2
Lightly active (light exercise, 1-3 days a week) = 1.375
Moderately Active (moderate exercise, 3-5 days a week) = 1.55
Very Active (hard exercise, 6-7 days a week) = 1.725
Extremely Active (very hard exercise/ training, 6-7 days a week) = 1.9
For example if you're sedentary, you multiply 1,236 x 1.2 = 1,483.2 cals (this will be your TDEE to maintain your weight). To lose 1 lb. per week, you must subtract 250 from that figure then burn an add'l 250 to create a 500 calorie deficit which will equate to 3,500 cals/wk. that is equal to 1 lb lost.
So in this figure it will be 1483.2 - 250 = 1,233.2 cals. Then burn an additional 250 cals & you will get a 500 deficit for the day. Since your BMR is very low & you should not eat below your BMR, so the best thing to do is to increase your physical activity to increase your TDEE. Also once you gain muscles, you will be needing more calories for your muscle to sustain itself.
Hope this helps)
Thanks for your post, it was a huge help..0 -
I'm on a 500-800 calorie diet and exercise three times a week and I haven't lost any muscle. I've lost pure fat.
I'm quite enegetic and function normally through out the day. I think everyone is just overreacts when the numbers go bellow 1200, because the body CAN function on less. This is a diet so obviously this can not be long term.
How do you know you have lost 'pure fat' and not muscle?
PRESUMING BY MESURING HER BMI?????
if you dont understand what BMI is, you probably shouldnt post about it....0 -
The fat loss truth is: starvation diets can actually make you fatter-
The whole article is ruined by this line. If you started binge eating because you were hungry it would kind of be true, but you would get fat from binge eating not starvation.
Have you ever seen a starving person? They are not worried about how much weight they are gaining, your metabolism can only drop so much. It has to keep going to keep you alive, even if you don't eat.
I can agree with some of the studies that say low calorie diets are bad. Of course they are, but people post these articles then somebody gets on and asks "I ate 1100 calories today and I'm not hungry but the website says I need to eat more or I will go into starvation mode. What should I do?"
Then 10 people reply telling the person to eat some peanut butter or other high calorie foods! It's absolutely ridiculous! If you aren't hungry (and you have ate at least around 1000 calories) don't eat!!!0 -
1. Avoid very low calorie diets.
Before going on any diet, look at the recommended calories first. You'll discover that most of them require you to slash your food intake to the level of "semi-starvation." 1200 calories or less for women and 1800 or less for men are dangerously low levels and yet this is exactly what most popular diets recommend... and why most fail.
I think this overstates the calories that are considered "too low." I have a sedentary job and basically burn around 2300 calories a day. If I ate only 1800 calories as this post erroneously suggests, I would have about a 500 calorie deficit which would result in 1 lb loss a week. Almost all advice I've seen suggests that its medically acceptable to lose 2 lbs a week, i.e. 1000 calorie deficit a day.
Therefore, despite the arbitrary 1800 calorie limitation of this post, I really don't think its unhealthy to eat say 1550 calories and burn 250 calories a day, thus aiming for 2 lbs a week.
Everyone has there own way of doing things, but for me if I am losing a tiny amount of weight every week (say half a pound), I tend to lose patience. Additionally, the longer I am "on a diet" the more likely I am to start deviating, so I don't think, for example, I could ever go the 120 weeks (2+ years) necessary to lose the 60 lbs I wanted to lose when I got started with mfp.
If others are more successful following a mild diet with little calorie deficit and a resulting very slow weight loss, more power to them. Its just not for me.0 -
Bump0
-
the girl eating 500 calories is either anorexic or trolling would be my guess. Read her profile before you start defending her choice as rational. Under reasons to get fit she wants to see some of her ribs and her hip bones... and her goal weight is 87 pounds. The weight of a child. Of course you can lose weight on 500 calories and at 87 pounds I am pretty sure you wouldn't lose any muscle mass... because there wouldn't be any. Starvation mode or not, the results of this are... um long term? Death.
Kudos to you!!! I am scared for this girl. She seriously needs professional help.0 -
bump:)0
-
Bump0
-
Thanks for posting!0
-
On the other hand, there seem to be a number of benefits to calorie restriction, if one takes care to strive for optimal nutritional value:ScienceDaily (May 31, 2006) — The researchers also found that calorie restriction (CR) decreases the circulating concentration of a powerful inflammatory molecule called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF). They say the combination of lower T3 levels and reduced inflammation may slow the aging process by reducing the body's metabolic rate as well as oxidative damage to cells and tissues and lower the concentration of a powerful inflammatory molecule called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF). They say the combination of lower T3 levels and reduced inflammation may slow the aging process by reducing the body's metabolic rate as well as oxidative damage to cells and tissues.
Previous research on mice and rats has shown that both calorie restriction and endurance exercise protect them against many chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer. However, the research has shown that only CR increases the animals' maximum lifespan by up to 50 percent. These animal studies suggest that leanness is a key factor in the prevention of age-associated disease, but reducing caloric intake is needed to slow down aging.
For the new study, researchers examined 28 members of the Calorie Restriction Society who had been eating a CR diet for an average of six years. Although the CR group consumed fewer calories -- averaging only about 1,800 per day -- they consumed at least 100 percent of the recommended daily amounts of protein and micronutrients. A second group of 28 study subjects was sedentary, and they ate a standard Western diet. A third group in the study ate a standard Western diet -- approximately 2,700 calories per day -- but also did endurance training. The researchers found reduced T3 levels -- similar to those seen in animals whose rate of aging is reduced by CR -- only in the people on CR diets.
But their serum concentrations of two other hormones -- thyroxin (T4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) -- were normal, indicating that those on CR were not suffering from the thyroid disease of clinical hypothyroidism. The findings are published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Interestingly, body fat levels did not affect serum T3 concentrations. The people in the CR group and the endurance athletes had similar amounts and composition of body fat. But although the CR group had lower T3 levels, the exercise group had T3 levels closer to those seen in the sedentary people who ate a standard Western diet.
"The difference in T3 levels between the CR group and the exercise group is exciting because it suggests that CR has some specific anti-aging effects that are due to lower energy intake, rather than to leanness," says first author Luigi Fontana, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis and an investigator at the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy. "These findings suggest that although exercise helps prevent problems that can cut life short -- such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease -- only CR appears also to have an impact on primary aging."
Primary aging determines maximal length of life. Secondary aging, on the other hand, refers to diseases that can keep a person or an animal from reaching that expected lifespan. Eliminating factors related to secondary aging allows more people to reach their projected length of life. By slowing primary aging, CR may increase maximal lifespan.
In a related study in 1997, co-investigator John O. Holloszy, M.D., professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine, reported in the Journal of Applied Physiology that in rats, CR extended life longer than exercise.
"Sedentary rats who ate a standard diet had the shortest average life-spans," Holloszy says. "Those who exercised by running on a wheel lived longer, but animals on calorie restriction lived even longer."
Earlier this year, Fontana's group reported that CR seemed to prevent or delay primary aging in the heart. Ultrasound examinations showed that the hearts of people on calorie restriction were more elastic than those of age- and gender-matched control subjects. Their hearts were able to relax between beats in a way similar to the hearts of younger people.
This latest study targeted another marker of primary aging. The thyroid gland produces critical hormones that play an indispensable role in cell growth and development as well as in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. T4 is the main product secreted by the cells of the thyroid gland, but most actions of thyroid hormone are initiated by T3. Fontana says T3 controls body temperature, cellular metabolism and to some extent, it also appears to be involved with production of free radicals, unstable molecules that can damage cells. All are important aspects of aging and longevity. In fact, a 2002 study in Science magazine from researchers at the National Institute on Aging observed that men with lower body temperatures tended to live longer those with higher body temperatures.
Fontana says lower levels of T3, cholesterol and the inflammatory molecules TNF and C-reactive protein, combined with evidence of "younger" hearts in people on calorie restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same adaptive responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by CR.
Holloszy and Fontana are getting ready to launch a 2-year study to look at the effects of calorie restriction. Later this year, they will begin recruiting volunteers between the ages of 25 and 45 who are willing to go on a CR diet for 24 months.
Called the Comprehensive Assessment of the Long Term effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) study, the goal is to get some clues about whether putting a normal weight person on calorie restriction will lower their levels of inflammation and their serum concentrations of T3, improve their heart function and change other markers of aging, as Fontana and Holloszy have observed in members of the Calorie Restriction Society.
"We want to learn whether calorie restriction can reverse some of these markers of aging in healthy people," Holloszy says. "It's going to be many years before we know whether calorie restriction really lengthens life, but if we can demonstrate that it changes these markers of aging, such as oxidative damage and inflammation, we'll have a pretty good idea that it's influencing aging in the same way that CR slows aging in experimental animals."
Reference: Fontana L, Keline S, Holloszy JO, Premachandra BN. Effect of long-term calorie restriction with adequate protein and micronutrients on thyroid hormones. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, first published ahead of print May 23, 2006 as doi: 10.1210/jc 2006-0328.
This research was supported by was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060531164818.htm0 -
1. Avoid very low calorie diets.
Before going on any diet, look at the recommended calories first. You'll discover that most of them require you to slash your food intake to the level of "semi-starvation." 1200 calories or less for women and 1800 or less for men are dangerously low levels and yet this is exactly what most popular diets recommend... and why most fail.
I think this overstates the calories that are considered "too low." I have a sedentary job and basically burn around 2300 calories a day. If I ate only 1800 calories as this post erroneously suggests, I would have about a 500 calorie deficit which would result in 1 lb loss a week. Almost all advice I've seen suggests that its medically acceptable to lose 2 lbs a week, i.e. 1000 calorie deficit a day.
Therefore, despite the arbitrary 1800 calorie limitation of this post, I really don't think its unhealthy to eat say 1550 calories and burn 250 calories a day, thus aiming for 2 lbs a week.
Everyone has there own way of doing things, but for me if I am losing a tiny amount of weight every week (say half a pound), I tend to lose patience. Additionally, the longer I am "on a diet" the more likely I am to start deviating, so I don't think, for example, I could ever go the 120 weeks (2+ years) necessary to lose the 60 lbs I wanted to lose when I got started with mfp.
If others are more successful following a mild diet with little calorie deficit and a resulting very slow weight loss, more power to them. Its just not for me.
You still do not have the right mindset. You still do not get it. You will probably gain your weight back when you stop ''Dieting'' and this is sad since you are working so very hard.
Good luck to you0 -
Bump for later. What I read was interesting...0
-
On the other hand, there seem to be a number of benefits to calorie restriction, if one takes care to strive for optimal nutritional value:ScienceDaily (May 31, 2006) — The researchers also found that calorie restriction (CR) decreases the circulating concentration of a powerful inflammatory molecule called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF). They say the combination of lower T3 levels and reduced inflammation may slow the aging process by reducing the body's metabolic rate as well as oxidative damage to cells and tissues and lower the concentration of a powerful inflammatory molecule called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF). They say the combination of lower T3 levels and reduced inflammation may slow the aging process by reducing the body's metabolic rate as well as oxidative damage to cells and tissues.
Previous research on mice and rats has shown that both calorie restriction and endurance exercise protect them against many chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer. However, the research has shown that only CR increases the animals' maximum lifespan by up to 50 percent. These animal studies suggest that leanness is a key factor in the prevention of age-associated disease, but reducing caloric intake is needed to slow down aging.
For the new study, researchers examined 28 members of the Calorie Restriction Society who had been eating a CR diet for an average of six years. Although the CR group consumed fewer calories -- averaging only about 1,800 per day -- they consumed at least 100 percent of the recommended daily amounts of protein and micronutrients. A second group of 28 study subjects was sedentary, and they ate a standard Western diet. A third group in the study ate a standard Western diet -- approximately 2,700 calories per day -- but also did endurance training. The researchers found reduced T3 levels -- similar to those seen in animals whose rate of aging is reduced by CR -- only in the people on CR diets.
But their serum concentrations of two other hormones -- thyroxin (T4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) -- were normal, indicating that those on CR were not suffering from the thyroid disease of clinical hypothyroidism. The findings are published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Interestingly, body fat levels did not affect serum T3 concentrations. The people in the CR group and the endurance athletes had similar amounts and composition of body fat. But although the CR group had lower T3 levels, the exercise group had T3 levels closer to those seen in the sedentary people who ate a standard Western diet.
"The difference in T3 levels between the CR group and the exercise group is exciting because it suggests that CR has some specific anti-aging effects that are due to lower energy intake, rather than to leanness," says first author Luigi Fontana, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis and an investigator at the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy. "These findings suggest that although exercise helps prevent problems that can cut life short -- such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease -- only CR appears also to have an impact on primary aging."
Primary aging determines maximal length of life. Secondary aging, on the other hand, refers to diseases that can keep a person or an animal from reaching that expected lifespan. Eliminating factors related to secondary aging allows more people to reach their projected length of life. By slowing primary aging, CR may increase maximal lifespan.
In a related study in 1997, co-investigator John O. Holloszy, M.D., professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine, reported in the Journal of Applied Physiology that in rats, CR extended life longer than exercise.
"Sedentary rats who ate a standard diet had the shortest average life-spans," Holloszy says. "Those who exercised by running on a wheel lived longer, but animals on calorie restriction lived even longer."
Earlier this year, Fontana's group reported that CR seemed to prevent or delay primary aging in the heart. Ultrasound examinations showed that the hearts of people on calorie restriction were more elastic than those of age- and gender-matched control subjects. Their hearts were able to relax between beats in a way similar to the hearts of younger people.
This latest study targeted another marker of primary aging. The thyroid gland produces critical hormones that play an indispensable role in cell growth and development as well as in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. T4 is the main product secreted by the cells of the thyroid gland, but most actions of thyroid hormone are initiated by T3. Fontana says T3 controls body temperature, cellular metabolism and to some extent, it also appears to be involved with production of free radicals, unstable molecules that can damage cells. All are important aspects of aging and longevity. In fact, a 2002 study in Science magazine from researchers at the National Institute on Aging observed that men with lower body temperatures tended to live longer those with higher body temperatures.
Fontana says lower levels of T3, cholesterol and the inflammatory molecules TNF and C-reactive protein, combined with evidence of "younger" hearts in people on calorie restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same adaptive responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by CR.
Holloszy and Fontana are getting ready to launch a 2-year study to look at the effects of calorie restriction. Later this year, they will begin recruiting volunteers between the ages of 25 and 45 who are willing to go on a CR diet for 24 months.
Called the Comprehensive Assessment of the Long Term effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) study, the goal is to get some clues about whether putting a normal weight person on calorie restriction will lower their levels of inflammation and their serum concentrations of T3, improve their heart function and change other markers of aging, as Fontana and Holloszy have observed in members of the Calorie Restriction Society.
"We want to learn whether calorie restriction can reverse some of these markers of aging in healthy people," Holloszy says. "It's going to be many years before we know whether calorie restriction really lengthens life, but if we can demonstrate that it changes these markers of aging, such as oxidative damage and inflammation, we'll have a pretty good idea that it's influencing aging in the same way that CR slows aging in experimental animals."
Reference: Fontana L, Keline S, Holloszy JO, Premachandra BN. Effect of long-term calorie restriction with adequate protein and micronutrients on thyroid hormones. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, first published ahead of print May 23, 2006 as doi: 10.1210/jc 2006-0328.
This research was supported by was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060531164818.htm
We all know your agenda. Since you are participating in the study, I would wait too see the long them effects.0 -
Please note that the number of calories that is referred to in this study is 1800. I find your mention of an agenda offensive.0
-
1. Avoid very low calorie diets.
Before going on any diet, look at the recommended calories first. You'll discover that most of them require you to slash your food intake to the level of "semi-starvation." 1200 calories or less for women and 1800 or less for men are dangerously low levels and yet this is exactly what most popular diets recommend... and why most fail.
I think this overstates the calories that are considered "too low." I have a sedentary job and basically burn around 2300 calories a day. If I ate only 1800 calories as this post erroneously suggests, I would have about a 500 calorie deficit which would result in 1 lb loss a week. Almost all advice I've seen suggests that its medically acceptable to lose 2 lbs a week, i.e. 1000 calorie deficit a day.
Therefore, despite the arbitrary 1800 calorie limitation of this post, I really don't think its unhealthy to eat say 1550 calories and burn 250 calories a day, thus aiming for 2 lbs a week.
Everyone has there own way of doing things, but for me if I am losing a tiny amount of weight every week (say half a pound), I tend to lose patience. Additionally, the longer I am "on a diet" the more likely I am to start deviating, so I don't think, for example, I could ever go the 120 weeks (2+ years) necessary to lose the 60 lbs I wanted to lose when I got started with mfp.
If others are more successful following a mild diet with little calorie deficit and a resulting very slow weight loss, more power to them. Its just not for me.
You still do not have the right mindset. You still do not get it. You will probably gain your weight back when you stop ''Dieting'' and this is sad since you are working so very hard.
Good luck to you
Its kind of hard for me to reply to you since you have cited no objective evidence or logic in support of your point that anything less than 1800 calories is "semi-starvation." Good luck with your snail's pace weight loss plan, I hope it will work for you.
As for me, I will continue to abide by the majority of medical professionals who state that losing 1-2 lbs a week is a healthy weight loss pace.0 -
Its kind of hard for me to reply to you since you have cited no objective evidence or logic in support of your point
Self proclaimed as 'french and obnoxious'. Not replying is the best use of your time.0 -
tHANKS FOR POSTING THIS!!
Love Tom Vanuto & the BTFFTM newsletter! He always has awesome advice that makes actual real sense! In fact reading the newsletter week after week is what started me off when I lost my original 60 pounds. I recommend anybody to google "burn the fat feed the muscle', you can buy his e-books but lots of awesome free info through the site & especially the newsletter!:bigsmile: 0 -
BUMP0
-
.
Everyone has there own way of doing things, but for me if I am losing a tiny amount of weight every week (say half a pound), I tend to lose patience. Additionally, the longer I am "on a diet" the more likely I am to start deviating, so I don't think, for example, I could ever go the 120 weeks (2+ years) necessary to lose the 60 lbs I wanted to lose when I got started with mfp.
Its kind of hard for me to reply to you since you have cited no objective evidence or logic in support of your point that anything less than 1800 calories is "semi-starvation." Good luck with your snail's pace weight loss plan, I hope it will work for you.
As for me, I will continue to abide by the majority of medical professionals who state that losing 1-2 lbs a week is a healthy weight loss pace.
I was just pointing to the wording you were using. It suggest a ,middle and end to the ''Diet'' rather than a lifestyle and we all know that it is the best way to gain the weight back. I was not being rude or snarky. I just wanted to maybe give you something to honestly look at. I really wish you the best. It had fnothing to do about your rate of losing weight and if I offended you in anyway, I am really sorry it was not my intention.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions