Just how low can i go ?

fraser112

Im having real trouble finding info on this topic on here and google.

Before reading further im only looking for an answer to my question so keep the 1200 cal, starvation mode crap out of the thread.



So just how low can i go on my calories and retain most of my muscle mass?
Does anyone have any studies showing just how large a deficit a person can have and retain his lean body mass?

Say someone ate 1000 cals a day and done heavy weight training every other day could they keep the muscle and drop mostly fat?

Im currently about 94kg and 5.11ish so i have about 15 kg to loose

So any sources on this subject? How long its safe to maintain ect ?

Cheers
Fraser

ColorGuardGirl02

...

BrianSharpe

It's largely a function of how much fat you have to lose and how you're approaching it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/630370-protein-gives-better-fat-loss-results-than-carbs

Calorie restriction by itself will almost invariably lead to some minor lean muscle mass loss but there has been some interesting research on minimizing this loss by upping your protein and reducing carbs. The alternative is a combination of calorie restriction and strength training. Personally I advocate a more holistic approach - calorie restriction + cardio + strength

ElizabethRoad

No sources except my own experience. i was down to eating like 600 or 700 calories for like 6 months and working out for AT LEAST a half hour almost every day. Sure i was tired. But i lost a bit of weight each month.

This is generally known as an eating disorder.

ColorGuardGirl02

I havent ever eaten much.

fraser112

No sources except my own experience. i was down to eating like 600 or 700 calories for like 6 months and working out for AT LEAST a half hour almost every day. Sure i was tired. But i lost a bit of weight each month. So i dont really get that whole starvation mode crap either. Oh and i think its safe as long as you dont over do it. Just dont go down that low. 1000 is okay as long as it isnt permanent.

Did you have alot to loose ?



Thanks for all the replys and links guys it shall make some good reading

waffleflavoredtea

"stop the 1200 cal starvation mode crap??"

So you are starting out your post by completely refusing that your body will not work well under your basal metabolic rate? This sounds very ignorant to me, starting out a post and saying you don't want certain answers to your question (especially ones with some truth to them).

You can't gain muscle on that low of a deficit from what I've read by the more qualified posters here. I am on a deficit and my cals are low, and I am certainly 'activating' new muscle as I lift heavy, and my muscles are bigger, but I'm NOT gaining muscle, just making the muscles I do have work hard, which really does look like a 'gain', but technically I haven't grown more muscle.
That being said, if you have low cals but aren't keeping them so low that your hair will fall out in a few months (it happens on vlcd's quite often), you will likely be able to lose fat on any sort of deficit. Your individual body will probably determine how far you can take this. But this is a very unhealthy method to go, and even though you may still lose weight, you will probably start having health complications if you push your body to survive on less than it needs for optimum performance.
Please be careful. Maybe talk to a doctor and get their opinion?

fraser112

"stop the 1200 cal starvation mode crap??"

So you are starting out your post by completely refusing that your body will not work well under your basal metabolic rate? This sounds very ignorant to me, starting out a post and saying you don't want certain answers to your question (especially ones with some truth to them).

You can't gain muscle on that low of a deficit from what I've read by the more qualified posters here. I am on a deficit and my cals are low, and I am certainly 'activating' new muscle as I lift heavy, and my muscles are bigger, but I'm NOT gaining muscle, just making the muscles I do have work hard, which really does look like a 'gain', but technically I haven't grown more muscle.
That being said, if you have low cals but aren't keeping them so low that your hair will fall out in a few months (it happens on vlcd's quite often), you will likely be able to lose fat on any sort of deficit. Your individual body will probably determine how far you can take this. But this is a very unhealthy method to go, and even though you may still lose weight, you will probably start having health complications if you push your body to survive on less than it needs for optimum performance.
Please be careful. Maybe talk to a doctor and get their opinion?

this is why im asking for studies on exactly how low you can go with no problems
Im yet to see any actual proof 1200 cals is a safe min but if you have some studies showing going this low has complications id be happy to read it

that was more for the people who read someone say this is bad and just go and repeat it like some kind well trained parrot
Starvation mode
Low carb is bad for you
Ketsis is as bad as cancer
and the rest of the rubbish people repeat with no basis

waffleflavoredtea

No sources except my own experience. i was down to eating like 600 or 700 calories for like 6 months and working out for AT LEAST a half hour almost every day. Sure i was tired. But i lost a bit of weight each month.

This is generally known as an eating disorder.

This is NOT an eating disorder. A person on the Slimfast plan consumes about this much a day, so this is just NOT true.
I just felt I had to correct this, because whether or not you have an eating disorder depends on the "why's" of why your cals are very low. Quite often if someone knows their cals are under a healthy amount and continues this, it can stem from an eating disorder mentality. But I just wanted to say that just because someone's cals are quite low, does not mean that they have a mental disorder.

Woly

According to this study, starvation mode is basically a myth and going under 1,200 is perfectly safe.
The study had in-shape men eat 1,00-1,200 calories a day and burn upwards of 6,000 for six weeks.
None of them went into starvation mode.

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

seamonkey789

Let me give you my experience going under 1000 for a long time.

For the past year, I've had to go get a needle stuck in my arm every 3 months because my potassium, iron, and vitamin D was low and I just had my gall bladder out today because I lost weight too fast

fraser112

Let me give you my experience going under 1000 for a long time.

For the past year, I've had to go get a needle stuck in my arm every 3 months because my potassium, iron, and vitamin D was low and I just had my gall bladder out today because I lost weight too fast

How long did you manage to go that low for a long time did you not get to a healthy weight?
How was your diet? High protein and fat or high carb?
was it a result of an eating disorder or through trying to get to a healthy weight?



Woly cheers for the link

Moretakitty

I am on a medically supervised plan. I had blood work and tests to start.
I eat between 800-1000 calories a day. My actual goal given to me by my doctor is 1200, but never to go lower then 800.

I eat every 3 hours, high Protein, 1:10 calorie to protein. Try to keep my carbs under 100 for the day, preferably 80.

I take MANY vitamins and supplements each day as prescribed.

In 65 days, I have lost 20 lbs. I work out 4 times a week (EA Active 2.) The rest of the day, I am usually stuck in front of the PC working.

I am petite, only 5' but I was at 180 to start.

So that's me... YMMV

SPNLuver83

Why in the world would you want to go as low as you can??? It's NOT going to speed up your weight loss, but it WILL make you feel hungry and miserable.

BigDaddyBRC

SEEK MEDICAL HELP.

You are going about this completely wrong.

fraser112

Again im just looking for info

Im not looking for warnings unless you have a study to back up your view please keep it to youself

fraser112

Why in the world would you want to go as low as you can??? It's NOT going to speed up your weight loss, but it WILL make you feel hungry and miserable.

Can you back this up ?


What magic would my body use to loose the same amount of weight on less calories

RuthieCass

"Just how low can you go" depends on a lot of factors: your current weight, goal weight, height, diet, exercise routine, and psychological factors. You can generally go a bit lower as long as you keep your protein levels high (1-1.5 g per 1 lb of LBM), your fat levels fixed (.3-.6 g per lb of goal weight), and do weight training a few times per week. Then you'd want to cut your calories from your carb intake. You would have to be pretty strict about your diet and keep up your weight training (3X per week) in order to avoid muscle loss. I think bigger deficits have larger impacts on your metabolism--especially what is referred to as the NEAT portion of your TDEE. So you will feel lazier, you will fidget less, and so on, so many do not end up losing as much as would be expected.

Anyhow, since I am a bit curious about this myself, I worked out an example using my own stats. Feel free to sub in your own to get your "minimum." In terms of calories, we have that one fat gram=9 calories, 1 protein g=4 calories, and 1 carb g=4 calories. So my weight is 150 lbs, my BF% is about 28%, and my goal weight is 135. This means that my lean body mass is 150-0.28X150=108. Taking the lower end of the recommended protein range above, I should eat at least 1X108=108 g of protein. Again using the lower end of the recommended fat range above, I should eat at least 0.3X135=41 g of fat. As for carbs, a practical minimum is said to be 50 g (but this puts you on a ketogenic diet-to avoid ketosis, you would want to eat at least 100 g carbs). So you can add up these figures to get total minimum calories:

-Protein Calories = 4X108 = 432 calories
-Fat Calories = 9X42= 369 calories
-Carb Calories = 4X50 = 200 calories (or 400 to avoid ketosis)
TOTAL Calories: 1001 (or 1201 to avoid ketosis)

So a practical absolute minimum for me would be ~1200 calories (although I personally would take the midpoint of the ranges above to get a more conservative minimum). And one may need to eat some fiber/other supplements on this diet. Of course, a huge factor in this is how good can you deal with this diet psychologically and practically. I know I did not do well on 1200 calories (when I 1st started on here, not knowing any better), especially since I enjoy running & other cardio. I don't think this would be sustainable for most people. Of course, someone who is very obese will likely be able to eat at the very low end, especially since they can lose some LBM.

Here's a nice discussion about the size of deficits: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
And here's a summary on nutrition: http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/
And more discussion of how many carbs one needs: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html

BigDaddyBRC

Again im just looking for info

Im not looking for warnings unless you have a study to back up your view please keep it to youself

You want help...you need it.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets

As a former US Army Medic, I feel confident in my earlier statement. Now, please consider that even the thought of going on a low calorie lifestyle is dangerous and the preset for an ED. You need medical direction, not a bunch of people that post on a forum. So I say again, SEEK MEDICAL HELP.

Oh, and just using Google....I found PLENTY to support my stance.

yarwell

http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf shows a VLC diet used to reverse type II diabetes. Obviously not why you are interested but relevant data never the less. There is more about the diet at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988070 might be of interest.

http://www.ysonut.fr/pdf/Ysodoc/C0401.pdf is another review with plenty of links.

emrys1976

you will likely not find a study to tell you anything exactly. our bodies are all different and are each amazingly complex. there's probably not going to be standard set of numbers or an equation that will tell you what you're wanting to know. weight loss is trial and error and everyone has to work to figure their body's needs. if there is an article out there that gives absolutes, they're probably a bunch of effing liars trying to make a buck. just saying.

fraser112

Thanks ruth amazing info

I shall work my way throught this reading material.

Brandicaloriecountess

I guess people are just concerned for your health.

When I started out I dove head first in totally blind. I did no research and just picked a number, 1000. MFP told me it wasn't enough, people I knew told me it wasn't enough but I was losing about 2.5 pounds a week so I felt ok with it. Until I passed out, out of the blue one day after a workout. I started eating more but still low, about 1200 plus no exercise calories until I found that I wasn't losing and I would just go uncomfortably eat cause my body was like wtf! So I started eating exercise calorie about a year ago, when my losses slowed I ate more.

I now at 1800-1900 and gonna go up again bc I'm training for some races. My thought now is why didn't I know this earlier. I have lost more in the last two month at 1800 than I had when mfp had me at 1200 and even with exercise calorie I was only eating 1500. I always thought it was bc I was close to my goal. Until I upped and started dropping weight about a pound a week. Now I am happy, full and only 5 pounds from my goal. So I guess I wonder why I did it like I did for so long and why anyone would want to. I love to eat, fuel my body and brain and lose weight.

emrys1976

No sources except my own experience. i was down to eating like 600 or 700 calories for like 6 months and working out for AT LEAST a half hour almost every day. Sure i was tired. But i lost a bit of weight each month.

This is generally known as an eating disorder.

This is NOT an eating disorder. A person on the Slimfast plan consumes about this much a day, so this is just NOT true.
I just felt I had to correct this, because whether or not you have an eating disorder depends on the "why's" of why your cals are very low. Quite often if someone knows their cals are under a healthy amount and continues this, it can stem from an eating disorder mentality. But I just wanted to say that just because someone's cals are quite low, does not mean that they have a mental disorder.

If someone diets and exercises to the point of exhausting their body and they are not under a physician's care, it could very well be an eating disorder. Even most doctors don't let people go under 800 calories in one day. And most people have the same "whys" for keeping their calories low - it's weight loss. the difference is that a non-disordered person can more easily put aside unhealthy attitudes towards their bodies and food and lose weight with their sanity at least at arm's length. A disordered person will forfeit all reasonably healthy ideas (like eating enough to provide their body with basic nutritional needs) to see that scale move down.

knk1553

Utilization of very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) for weight loss results in loss of lean body weight (LBW) and a decrease in resting metabolic rate (RMR). The addition of aerobic exercise does not prevent this. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of intensive, high volume resistance training combined with a VLCD on these parameters. The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD.

Bryner, R.W., Ullrich, I.H., Sauers, J., Donley, D., Hornsby, G., Kolar, M., & Yeater, R. (1999). Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 18(2), 115-121.

Its important to not that it only resulted in preservation, not increase of LBW and RMR, and actually if you ate a normal amount of calories and weight trained, you would increase your LBW, RMR, and lose weight. Look up New Rules of Lifting, and Lou Schuler, he can give you a ton more statistics. Besides, you'll start to feel like **** and your body will start breaking down, trust me, this is from someone who spent 2 years on a starvation diet and working out like crazy. If you find studies, read the whole study, read limitations, read if there are follow up studies, look at the journal, is it credible? when was the article published? I really wanted something more recent than 1999 since thats 13 years old, but I honestly don't have time to sit here and search databases for the information. I would say look at some people on here who are jacked, they eat A LOT, women will eat like 2000+ calories a day. Schuler in NROL4W discusses that you should only cut your calories by 300, max, because after that you start to lose LBW and lower your RMR

MoreBean13

Here's some reputable info on VLCDs and who they are appropriate for:

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

They are generally ~800 cals and need to be doctor supervised, and generally consist of meal replacement shakes specifically designed to meet all nutritional needs at that low calorie amount. They can be done with real food, but a VERY strict diet must be followed. Its not a good idea to opt to do this on your own, but I applaud your seeking education about the option.

Jules2Be

start SMASHing things and you can EAT more!!!!!!!!!



and by that i mean LIFT WEIGHTS.

DavPul

My answer to your question is "Maybe, but it depends on what you mean".

In my personal experience, I could lose 25-30 pounds and keep a large portion of my muscle mass, but I'd lose a crapload of muscle strength. So if your only question is about size, then yes, cut calories, keep lifting as heavy as you can, and you should eventually get your result. Just be prepared to lose a very disturbing amount of poundage on all of your major lifts.

To be clear, you will lose some size, but with 30 pounds of mostly fat gone, you'll actually look bigger with your shirt off, but smaller with your shirt on.

And I don't think I'd go so low on the calories. Lifting heavy is a huge drain on your reserves. I'm not talking about starvation mode or whatever. I'm talking about doing fine for several weeks and then just hitting a wall where you are completely drained both mentally and physically. I would bounce back with a few days of higher calories and some time off from the gym, but over time I found it better to eat a bit more and lose at a slower rate. More mass retained and less girlfriends lost from me being a crab *kitten*.

fraser112

Thanks for the advice guys i geuss i can see why a 1200 cal limit is the general safe limit
I can go lower but i better prepare for a less than fun time :laugh:

MoreBean13

Thanks for the advice guys i geuss i can see why a 1200 cal limit is the general safe limit
I can go lower but i better prepare for a less than fun time :laugh:

FTR- 1200 is not really a "safe limit". Let me explain how that number came to be- there are minimum requirements for all the required nutrients, and the ACSM decided to try and figure out how to meet ALL of those minimums with real food (not supplements) and figured out 1200 is the practical minimum to meet all those nutrient minimums FOR WOMEN . The same recommendation for men is 1800 calories. So, 1200 calories of a well planned, varied diet will keep most women from developing deficiencies- it does not imply that they will be healthy, just that they *probably* won't get rickets (for example).

It has very little to do with how many calories a person needs, except that you can get enough macronutrients (and thus calories) with 1200 cals.

RuthieCass

My answer to your question is "Maybe, but it depends on what you mean".

In my personal experience, I could lose 25-30 pounds and keep a large portion of my muscle mass, but I'd lose a crapload of muscle strength. So if your only question is about size, then yes, cut calories, keep lifting as heavy as you can, and you should eventually get your result. Just be prepared to lose a very disturbing amount of poundage on all of your major lifts.

To be clear, you will lose some size, but with 30 pounds of mostly fat gone, you'll actually look bigger with your shirt off, but smaller with your shirt on.

And I don't think I'd go so low on the calories. Lifting heavy is a huge drain on your reserves. I'm not talking about starvation mode or whatever. I'm talking about doing fine for several weeks and then just hitting a wall where you are completely drained both mentally and physically. I would bounce back with a few days of higher calories and some time off from the gym, but over time I found it better to eat a bit more and lose at a slower rate. More mass retained and less girlfriends lost from me being a crab *kitten*.

I agree with this. I tried 1200 for a little while and did not feel good. There were a couple times that I struggled with exercise routines I had no problem with previously. I think that VLCD can be ok for people who are very obese, but I don't think it's a good idea for most people. Plus you have to be very strict with your diet (as I alluded to in my previous post). Hopefully no one took what I wrote earlier as something I was actively considering or endorsing-- just something to think about when you're considering the minimum calories you can eat safely.