not eating all my calorieess

nikki4ever

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to? I find this so hard to believe, but i've heard it before. I am supposed to be eating 1,200 to lose the 15 lbs i want to lose, but i find it sooo hard. I barely make it to 700. COuld this be the reason I'm not losing it? THANKSSSS

nikki4ever

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to? I find this so hard to believe, but i've heard it before. I am supposed to be eating 1,200 to lose the 15 lbs i want to lose, but i find it sooo hard. I barely make it to 700. COuld this be the reason I'm not losing it? THANKSSSS

awestfall

Yes it is very possible because your body needs a crtain amoutn of calories a day just to function and 700 seems ay to low.

kellya

yup hon, you need to eat at least 1200/DAY. you could be putting your body into starvation mode....and if you exercise, you can choose to eat back those exercise calories or not, everyone is different on that one.

i say, eat every 2-3 hrs, like snacking or small meals...and drink 6-8 glasses of water, planning your days meals will help you stayed focused and comitted to your new lifestyle

good luck....

amymeenieminymo

700 calories is defintely not enough and that is absolutely the reason you are not losing (though it could be among other things too). When your body doesn't get enough food, it starts to shut down so it can conserve the fat it does have.

What does your daily meals look like at only 700 for the whole day? Also, 15 pounds is a relatively low amount to lose, and the less you need to lose, the harder it can be and the slower the process.

SHBoss1673

read this, it should shed some light for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

MacMadame

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to?

No, it's not possible. If it were true that not eating caused you to not lose weight then no one would ever starve to death. Yet people do all the time (unfortunately).

If you have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories, then you lose a lb of body weight, either from fat, from your muscles, your organs, but you lose it.

It's much more likely you aren't reporting your food and exercise accurately.

It's also possible that not eating very much is causing you to lower your calorie expenditure -- for example by taking more naps, by walking slower, sitting more, etc. But it's unlikely that you wouldn't lose anything if you truly were only eat 700 calories a day.

After my vertical gastrectomy, I was only able to eat about 450 calories a day at first because my stomach was swollen. I assure you that I was losing weight just fine. I was losing 4-5 lb. a week, in fact. Now that I can eat more and am up to 900-1000 a day, I am only losing 2-3 lb. a week. Which is exactly as you'd expect if calorie expenditure remains the same -- I doubled my calories and halved my weight loss.

There are plenty of reasons not to eat 700 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision, but not losing weight isn't one of them. Being malnourished and having no energy are the main reasons.

MTGirl

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to?

No, it's not possible. If it were true that not eating caused you to not lose weight then no one would ever starve to death. Yet people do all the time (unfortunately).

If you have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories, then you lose a lb of body weight, either from fat, from your muscles, your organs, but you lose it.

It's much more likely you aren't reporting your food and exercise accurately.

It's also possible that not eating very much is causing you to lower your calorie expenditure -- for example by taking more naps, by walking slower, sitting more, etc. But it's unlikely that you wouldn't lose anything if you truly were only eat 700 calories a day.

After my vertical gastrectomy, I was only able to eat about 450 calories a day at first because my stomach was swollen. I assure you that I was losing weight just fine. I was losing 4-5 lb. a week, in fact. Now that I can eat more and am up to 900-1000 a day, I am only losing 2-3 lb. a week. Which is exactly as you'd expect if calorie expenditure remains the same -- I doubled my calories and halved my weight loss.

There are plenty of reasons not to eat 700 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision, but not losing weight isn't one of them. Being malnourished and having no energy are the main reasons.

I respectfully disagree with the blanket statement. If you read the post that SHBoss responded with you will see that it is possible to eat too little and stall out your weight loss. Congratulations to you on your accomplishment - but if you eat too little for an extended period of time, you body does slow it's metabolism enough to stall out weight loss for a period of time. Of course, this doesn't last forever, but it will not be healthy weight loss at that point. You need fuel for your body in order for it to function properly and for you not to regain weight just as fast as you lost it.

kerrilucko

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to?

No, it's not possible. If it were true that not eating caused you to not lose weight then no one would ever starve to death. Yet people do all the time (unfortunately).

If you have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories, then you lose a lb of body weight, either from fat, from your muscles, your organs, but you lose it.

It's much more likely you aren't reporting your food and exercise accurately.

It's also possible that not eating very much is causing you to lower your calorie expenditure -- for example by taking more naps, by walking slower, sitting more, etc. But it's unlikely that you wouldn't lose anything if you truly were only eat 700 calories a day.

After my vertical gastrectomy, I was only able to eat about 450 calories a day at first because my stomach was swollen. I assure you that I was losing weight just fine. I was losing 4-5 lb. a week, in fact. Now that I can eat more and am up to 900-1000 a day, I am only losing 2-3 lb. a week. Which is exactly as you'd expect if calorie expenditure remains the same -- I doubled my calories and halved my weight loss.

There are plenty of reasons not to eat 700 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision, but not losing weight isn't one of them. Being malnourished and having no energy are the main reasons.

I respectfully disagree with the blanket statement. If you read the post that SHBoss responded with you will see that it is possible to eat too little and stall out your weight loss. Congratulations to you on your accomplishment - but if you eat too little for an extended period of time, you body does slow it's metabolism enough to stall out weight loss for a period of time. Of course, this doesn't last forever, but it will not be healthy weight loss at that point. You need fuel for your body in order for it to function properly and for you not to regain weight just as fast as you lost it.

I also disagree... pretty strongly. If you eat very few calories you will lose weight, that part is true. But that weight losee will slow down and leave you "stuck" for a period of time. When you eat very little your body actually learns to operate on very little by slowing your metabolism to a crawl.

Aside from making weight loss difficult, 700 calories a day is extremely unhealthy. How on earth do you expect your organs to function when you are not fueling them? And I'm sure you are exercising too... wow, not losing any weight is the least of your problems.

If you only have 15 lbs to lose, you shouldn't even be eating 1200. you should be up around 1400 at least... and I mean NET calories, that means eating back your exercise calories too.

I highly recommend you speak to a nutritionist.

hmo4

is it possible i'm not losing any weight because i don't eat the calories i'm supposed to?

No, it's not possible. If it were true that not eating caused you to not lose weight then no one would ever starve to death. Yet people do all the time (unfortunately).

If you have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories, then you lose a lb of body weight, either from fat, from your muscles, your organs, but you lose it.

It's much more likely you aren't reporting your food and exercise accurately.

It's also possible that not eating very much is causing you to lower your calorie expenditure -- for example by taking more naps, by walking slower, sitting more, etc. But it's unlikely that you wouldn't lose anything if you truly were only eat 700 calories a day.

After my vertical gastrectomy, I was only able to eat about 450 calories a day at first because my stomach was swollen. I assure you that I was losing weight just fine. I was losing 4-5 lb. a week, in fact. Now that I can eat more and am up to 900-1000 a day, I am only losing 2-3 lb. a week. Which is exactly as you'd expect if calorie expenditure remains the same -- I doubled my calories and halved my weight loss.

There are plenty of reasons not to eat 700 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision, but not losing weight isn't one of them. Being malnourished and having no energy are the main reasons.

I respectfully disagree with the blanket statement. If you read the post that SHBoss responded with you will see that it is possible to eat too little and stall out your weight loss. Congratulations to you on your accomplishment - but if you eat too little for an extended period of time, you body does slow it's metabolism enough to stall out weight loss for a period of time. Of course, this doesn't last forever, but it will not be healthy weight loss at that point. You need fuel for your body in order for it to function properly and for you not to regain weight just as fast as you lost it.

I also disagree... pretty strongly. If you eat very few calories you will lose weight, that part is true. But that weight losee will slow down and leave you "stuck" for a period of time. When you eat very little your body actually learns to operate on very little by slowing your metabolism to a crawl.

Aside from making weight loss difficult, 700 calories a day is extremely unhealthy. How on earth do you expect your organs to function when you are not fueling them? And I'm sure you are exercising too... wow, not losing any weight is the least of your problems.

If you only have 15 lbs to lose, you shouldn't even be eating 1200. you should be up around 1400 at least... and I mean NET calories, that means eating back your exercise calories too.

I highly recommend you speak to a nutritionist.

and you're messing up your metabolism bigtime!:noway:

MacMadame

if you eat too little for an extended period of time, you body does slow it's metabolism enough to stall out weight loss for a period of time.

I have not been able to find any clincial data to support that statement. Do you have some?

How on earth do you expect your organs to function when you are not fueling them?

You are fueling them. You are fueling them from your fat stores. Fueling your organs isn't the problem with eating so few calories. The problem is possible malnutrition.

and you're messing up your metabolism bigtime!:noway:

Again, I'd like to see some clinical data to support that statement. Generally, what messes up our metabolism are medical conditions such as insulin resistence and hypothyroidism and also years of yo-yo dieting -- even sensible dieting according to "the rules."

I constantly see people go on about "starvation mode" but I've never seen any data to back it up. When I've researched it, I have found studies do not support the idea that eating a starvation diet will stop weight loss; I have not found any clinical data to support the idea that a starvation diet stalls weight loss.

Again, I'm not saying that eating 700 calories for a long period of time when not under a doctor's supervision is healthy. I'm saying that if you really eat that little and you really exercise, you will lose weight.

This is physics. Calories In - Calories Out = Calorie Deficit / 3500 = pounds lost.

awestfall

if you eat too little for an extended period of time, you body does slow it's metabolism enough to stall out weight loss for a period of time.

I have not been able to find any clincial data to support that statement. Do you have some?

How on earth do you expect your organs to function when you are not fueling them?

You are fueling them. You are fueling them from your fat stores. Fueling your organs isn't the problem with eating so few calories. The problem is possible malnutrition.

and you're messing up your metabolism bigtime!:noway:

Again, I'd like to see some clinical data to support that statement. Generally, what messes up our metabolism are medical conditions such as insulin resistence and hypothyroidism and also years of yo-yo dieting -- even sensible dieting according to "the rules."

I constantly see people go on about "starvation mode" but I've never seen any data to back it up. When I've researched it, I have found studies do not support the idea that eating a starvation diet will stop weight loss; I have not found any clinical data to support the idea that a starvation diet stalls weight loss.

Again, I'm not saying that eating 700 calories for a long period of time when not under a doctor's supervision is healthy. I'm saying that if you really eat that little and you really exercise, you will lose weight.

This is physics. Calories In - Calories Out = Calorie Deficit / 3500 = pounds lost.

I have to agree with you on this where is the clinical proof.:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: Because when I had surgery on my stomach last year I lost weight because I couldn't eat anything and I didn't gain it back either after I lost it.which was about 20 pounds in 1 month.

SHBoss1673

to your first comment:

Well, the definitive proof is the World Health Organization's Vast study on human nutrition, but if you need more proof here is some studies:

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Long-term-effects-of-dieting-on-resting-metabolic-rate-in-obese-outpatients.html
Notice, patients on vlcd had a 30% reduction in Lean tissue, vs 10 percent reduction by the 1200 calorie group. AND this was done on obese women, not women with relatively low fat to muscle ratios, where fat stores are already low enough to kick burning muscle tissue into high gear in the absence of dietary calories.


and this one shows an RMR drop of 14% over a 10 day period when using a very low calorie diet.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/258S?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=metabolic+affects+of+vlcd&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

to your second:
you are NOT fueling them from fat stores in her case, you are fueling them from some fat, and a lot of muscle.

to your 3rd:

see the studies noted above.
There's just a few of the many many studies I found. Go to the www.ajcn.org and do some keyword searches, you'll find studies galore on this.

songbyrdsweet

MacMadame, your organs need more than fat to perform. They need protein, and protein can't be formed from triglycerides without the presence of excess nitrogen, which comes from diet. Enzymes are how the body functions, and without enzymatic action, you have death.

Physics and physiology are not the same thing. Yes, a calorie is a unit of energy, and that's physics. But hormones regulate bodily processes, and if you can't produce the hormones due to a lack of proteins, you don't have proper regulation of those processes. That is physiology.

MacMadame

songbyrdsweet, I eat over 100 g of protein a day, per my surgeon's orders. I'm not worried about my lean muscle mass and all these muscles in my legs and arms that I didn't use to have show he knows what he's talking about.

I have also been eating less than 1200 calories a day for the past six months while exercising and have never stalled. My 3 month labs were awesome, better than my pre-op labs.

The advice to never go below 1200 is very "one size fits all" and it doesn't really work for everyone. There are people for whom 1200 is way too little and people for whom it's very close to maintenance level. It depends on your particular situation -- your age, your height, your weight, your gender, your health, your activity level, etc.

It's also not true that going below 1200 is automatically dangerous. It *can* be dangerous, which is why it's not recommended to the general public, but many doctor-supervised plans have people on 800 for 6 months or longer without ill effects.

Well, the definitive proof is the World Health Organization's Vast study on human nutrition, but if you need more proof here is some studies:

SHBoss1673, those studies show that our metabolism goes down when we diet. I already said that the Minnesota diet showed the same thing. However, they do not show that weight loss *stops* when on a starvation diet.

I don't understand why the only credible threat to get people to not do something unhealthy (i.e., starve themselves) has to be "you won't lose weight." Why can't you just say it's not healthy to eat so little unless under a doctor's supervision and orders? This whole "starvation mode" myth is a big boogeyman, IMO.

to your second:
you are NOT fueling them from fat stores in her case, you are fueling them from some fat, and a lot of muscle.

You can't know that definitively about anyone unless you test them.

SHBoss1673

Well first, we are talking about a girl with 18 lbs to lose, not someone who is obese. Let me just get that out there first. She doesn't have a whole lot of adipose fat to begin with to use as energy.

Secondly, Every study I mentioned talks about the nutritional affect of eating too few calories. BUT those studies also state that the metabolism slows down by a range of 14% to around 22% if you eat too few calories. Also take special note that this was with obese people with copious fat stores to pull from, and they were still losing muscle tissue, the logical conclusion to that is someone with less accessible fat stores will burn even more muscle on a percentage basis as that is the only other fuel source the body recognizes other then body fat and dietary calories. Having a lowered RMR means you are using less calories to sustain the same weight, they also state the fact that the body starts canabalizing muscle tissue during these phases to the tune of 30% of weight loss is in lean tissue, as opposed to 10% for people on a normal, nutritionally sufficient diet over the same time period. Which means you are using muscle to suppliment your energy requirements. Which means you have less muscle to feed, which means you're burning less energy at all times, which means a lower RMR, which means a lower metabolism.
I'm not sure what other proof you need. You asked for studies, I gave you some, and I gave you the location to find more.

As to the last statement, well, unless her metabolism reacts differently from all the people tested in that, and other studies, and unless her body produces too few or too many of certain hormones, then I CAN know that with a very high degree of certainty. Until and unless she get's tested we can't say we have irrefutable proof by way of observation, but that's not what we are offering. We are offering advice based on research, empirical evidence, and studies.

I'm not sure why you are so against this. It's not like we're pulling facts out of the air. We are giving solid facts based on reams of medical testing and clinical trials, backed by sound anatomy and human physiology.

I don't know why you went from this being Ilovejen2009's issue to using yourself as an example, but I'm not, I'm talking about her case, and in her case, IMHO, she is eating far to few calories, and most likely has a slowed, stunted metabolic rate, and is starving herself for no good reason other then she thought it was the best way to lose weight.

Falcon

songbyrdsweet, I eat over 100 g of protein a day, per my surgeon's orders. I'm not worried about my lean muscle mass and all these muscles in my legs and arms that I didn't use to have show he knows what he's talking about.

I have also been eating less than 1200 calories a day for the past six months while exercising and have never stalled. My 3 month labs were awesome, better than my pre-op labs.

The advice to never go below 1200 is very "one size fits all" and it doesn't really work for everyone. There are people for whom 1200 is way too little and people for whom it's very close to maintenance level. It depends on your particular situation -- your age, your height, your weight, your gender, your health, your activity level, etc.

It's also not true that going below 1200 is automatically dangerous. It *can* be dangerous, which is why it's not recommended to the general public, but many doctor-supervised plans have people on 800 for 6 months or longer without ill effects.

Well, the definitive proof is the World Health Organization's Vast study on human nutrition, but if you need more proof here is some studies:

SHBoss1673, those studies show that our metabolism goes down when we diet. I already said that the Minnesota diet showed the same thing. However, they do not show that weight loss *stops* when on a starvation diet.

I don't understand why the only credible threat to get people to not do something unhealthy (i.e., starve themselves) has to be "you won't lose weight." Why can't you just say it's not healthy to eat so little unless under a doctor's supervision and orders? This whole "starvation mode" myth is a big boogeyman, IMO.

to your second:
you are NOT fueling them from fat stores in her case, you are fueling them from some fat, and a lot of muscle.

You can't know that definitively about anyone unless you test them.

It sounds like you were supervised by a nutrition specialist at the time, by the sounds of it the girl is not. It is dangerous to be consuming very little calories. The body will hold onto the fat and eat the muscle instead. I mean look at people who are bulimic, they have no muscle left. Where do you think they got this idea from in the first place? If you ever seen what the people looked like coming out of the holocost, it should be obvious that they have no muscle with very little fat on them. Looked like walking skeletons.

kerrilucko

Well first, we are talking about a girl with 18 lbs to lose, not someone who is obese. Let me just get that out there first. She doesn't have a whole lot of adipose fat to begin with to use as energy.

Secondly, Every study I mentioned talks about the nutritional affect of eating too few calories. BUT those studies also state that the metabolism slows down by a range of 14% to around 22% if you eat too few calories. Also take special note that this was with obese people with copious fat stores to pull from, and they were still losing muscle tissue, the logical conclusion to that is someone with less accessible fat stores will burn even more muscle on a percentage basis as that is the only other fuel source the body recognizes other then body fat and dietary calories. Having a lowered RMR means you are using less calories to sustain the same weight, they also state the fact that the body starts canabalizing muscle tissue during these phases to the tune of 30% of weight loss is in lean tissue, as opposed to 10% for people on a normal, nutritionally sufficient diet over the same time period. Which means you are using muscle to suppliment your energy requirements. Which means you have less muscle to feed, which means you're burning less energy at all times, which means a lower RMR, which means a lower metabolism.
I'm not sure what other proof you need. You asked for studies, I gave you some, and I gave you the location to find more.

As to the last statement, well, unless her metabolism reacts differently from all the people tested in that, and other studies, and unless her body produces too few or too many of certain hormones, then I CAN know that with a very high degree of certainty. Until and unless she get's tested we can't say we have irrefutable proof by way of observation, but that's not what we are offering. We are offering advice based on research, empirical evidence, and studies.

I'm not sure why you are so against this. It's not like we're pulling facts out of the air. We are giving solid facts based on reams of medical testing and clinical trials, backed by sound anatomy and human physiology.

I don't know why you went from this being Ilovejen2009's issue to using yourself as an example, but I'm not, I'm talking about her case, and in her case, IMHO, she is eating far to few calories, and most likely has a slowed, stunted metabolic rate, and is starving herself for no good reason other then she thought it was the best way to lose weight.

gotta say it again Banks... so GLAD you are back!

SHBoss1673

gotta say it again Banks... so GLAD you are back!

LOL, thanks Kerri. Sometimes I'm not so sure. This stuff is HARD to think about all the time! I don't know how SongByrd does it daily.

It can get frustrating sometimes. The nature of these boards doesn't lead to sustained knowledge, with the way posts drop out, and the limited search functionality, things are repeated over and over and over and over.... :sick:

kerrilucko

I know but there are people that read your posts (and her posts and sometimes even my posts) and walk away with a better understanding and go on to lose weight in a healthy way so your point is being taken in. by some anyway.

songbyrdsweet

songbyrdsweet, I eat over 100 g of protein a day, per my surgeon's orders. I'm not worried about my lean muscle mass and all these muscles in my legs and arms that I didn't use to have show he knows what he's talking about.

I have also been eating less than 1200 calories a day for the past six months while exercising and have never stalled. My 3 month labs were awesome, better than my pre-op labs.

The advice to never go below 1200 is very "one size fits all" and it doesn't really work for everyone. There are people for whom 1200 is way too little and people for whom it's very close to maintenance level. It depends on your particular situation -- your age, your height, your weight, your gender, your health, your activity level, etc.

It's also not true that going below 1200 is automatically dangerous. It *can* be dangerous, which is why it's not recommended to the general public, but many doctor-supervised plans have people on 800 for 6 months or longer without ill effects.

Well, the definitive proof is the World Health Organization's Vast study on human nutrition, but if you need more proof here is some studies:

SHBoss1673, those studies show that our metabolism goes down when we diet. I already said that the Minnesota diet showed the same thing. However, they do not show that weight loss *stops* when on a starvation diet.

I don't understand why the only credible threat to get people to not do something unhealthy (i.e., starve themselves) has to be "you won't lose weight." Why can't you just say it's not healthy to eat so little unless under a doctor's supervision and orders? This whole "starvation mode" myth is a big boogeyman, IMO.

to your second:
you are NOT fueling them from fat stores in her case, you are fueling them from some fat, and a lot of muscle.

You can't know that definitively about anyone unless you test them.

I think you may have missed the point of what I was saying about protein. It's not just for muscle mass. Enzymes and amino acid based hormones require protein. You could have had that same amount of muscle mass all along and you're just now seeing it because your body fat is lower. Just eating over 100g of protein isn't going to guarantee that you have enough to support your health in the long term, because much of it will be used for gluconeogenesis if you're taking in insufficient carbohydrates for your activity. Or if you happen to be in ketosis due to your caloric restriction, it'll be used to form ketones as well.

Starvation mode is a misnomer, but it's not a myth. You don't have to be starving to lose muscle mass and see a decrease in your BMR, and you won't experience a total halt in fat loss. But cell activity will slow dramatically and the body will catabolize its own tissues to produce ATP. It's why anorexics become very, very skinny before they finally die from an MI because they've actually catabolized cardiac tissue for the amino acids.