Is too few calories possible???

hollyvh88

If I eat fewer calories than I'm supposed to, will I lose weight more slowly or even gain weight? I'm confused about the whole "you have to eat this many calories" thing. If I can go a day eating only 1000 calories and feel ok about myself, why is that bad?

jesz124

Try it for a few months then say you feel ok on 1000 cals a day. :frown:

Getfitmommie

not eating enough calories can cause your body to go into starvation mode and your body stores food so you don't lose.

wahmx3

Personally I don't think you can get enough nutrients for your body at only 1000 calories. While i am not convinced that 1200 is a magic number, to get enough of what our body needs, you need to eat at least that much food and even more if you are active at all.

DanaDark

Undue stress on the body. Excessive calorie deficits will cause slow and steady rises in cortisol and other stress related hormones. These hormones will eventually prevent a good amount of fat from being burnt and increase the need for carbohydrates as the main energy source. From there blood insulin rises to meet the need to get more energy from carbohydrates. In time, this can lead to insulin resistance and type II diabetes.

Prolonged, carbohydrate levels plummet and another energy source is then required to adequately provide energy. With lack of carbohydrates now and the cortisol and other hormones preventing significant fat utilization, the next step is to begin to degrade proteins (muscle and organ) to provide energy for the body.

Other indications that too few calories is possible:

1. Starvation exists
2. Food exists (if too few wasn't possible, why have any at all?)
3. Anorexia and other eating disorders exist

Despite popular belief, most anorexics and bulimics are not super model thin. That is a stereotype perpetuated by movies, TV shows, and other forms of media.

kristen6022

I don't understand why people debate this issue. What's wrong with getting to eat more? Why do people feel that the only way to lose weight is to eat like a rabbit and kill yourself in the gym? Eating less doesn't necessarily mean better or faster weight loss.

hollyvh88

I don't think I was clear. When I said calories, I meant net calories. I eat more than 1200 usually, but when I work out, my net calorie intact is under 1200. I've been told that's bad, but I don't understand. I can understand why eating too few would be harmful to your body, but why does ending the day with fewer net calories because of exercise hurt you? Is that a more clear explanation of what I'm asking? Sorry for the confusion about the earlier post. My bad.

jesz124

I don't understand why people debate this issue. What's wrong with getting to eat more? Why do people feel that the only way to lose weight is to eat like a rabbit and kill yourself in the gym? Eating less doesn't necessarily mean better or faster weight loss.

Exactly, I just do not get it? I think people feel like they have to be miserable and totally restricted to be able to lose weight. Mind set trap.

hollyvh88

I can definitely see why I was misunderstood. Whoops...

kristen6022

I'm only going to express my experience here. Mind you, I'm 5'11 and started this journey at 165, so 1200 calories for me is just silly. Even MFP put me at 1440 when I started. I picked a 1lb a week weight loss because my goal was to get down to 155 and then evaluate. So, I ate my 1440 and 1/2 of my exercise calories (because I didn't wear a HRM, so I didn't really know what I was burning. In 2 weeks I lost 6 pounds. Then the next 3 weeks I stayed the same. After that, and reading forums, I increased to 1550 and still ate 1/2 half of my exercise calories. I dropped the next 4 pounds in the next 4 weeks. So, really I was eating upwards of 1600-1700 on exercise days. Eating less sometimes doesn't mean more weight loss and in my experience the more I can eat the better. Dude, I eat more than my 190 pound 6'2 boyfriend and still maintain a weigh of 145 (at 155 I re-evaluated and thought I'd look better lighter...). I believe it's WHAT you eat, not how much you eat that makes the most difference.

sroberts16

I have been going over my calorie goal for weeks and finally, i am going under it without feeling like I'm starving. I think I'm getting used to reduced calories or maybe it was mind over matter!

AbsoluteNG

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16

The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"

Koldnomore

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16

The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"

There are a ton of people here that have EXPERIENCED a metabolic slow down due to not eating enough. That dude is just here to hock his programs and make money just like all the 'body by VI' and every other advertiser that likes to try to pretend they are interested.

Most people here who have lost a lot of weight and kept it off will tell you that not eating enough is not good for weight loss. Many people here have determined thru their EXPERIENCES that eating above your BMR is a good thing. Can you lose weight not eating enough..of course you can. Will you keep it off if you ever go back to eating 'normal' portions.. not a chance.

You CAN get used to not eating enough, that does not mean it's healthy or sustainable.

Koldnomore

I don't think I was clear. When I said calories, I meant net calories. I eat more than 1200 usually, but when I work out, my net calorie intact is under 1200. I've been told that's bad, but I don't understand. I can understand why eating too few would be harmful to your body, but why does ending the day with fewer net calories because of exercise hurt you? Is that a more clear explanation of what I'm asking? Sorry for the confusion about the earlier post. My bad.

You should not eat below your BMR in NET calories. If you have determined that number to be 1200 then you need to eat until you have at least hit that.

yarwell

You should not eat below your BMR in NET calories.

Why not. Any evidence ? How do Biggest Loser (Australia) participants a) lose weight and b) survive with negative daily net calories ? How did a very obese Scotsman eat nothing for a year and lose a lot of weight which he then kept off for a further 5 years. Why are VLCDs routinely prescribed for obesity ?

Maybe you just made it up, because it doesn't appear to be supported by evidence.

animatorswearbras

I don't think I was clear. When I said calories, I meant net calories. I eat more than 1200 usually, but when I work out, my net calorie intact is under 1200. I've been told that's bad, but I don't understand. I can understand why eating too few would be harmful to your body, but why does ending the day with fewer net calories because of exercise hurt you? Is that a more clear explanation of what I'm asking? Sorry for the confusion about the earlier post. My bad.

Netting under 1200 is not as bad as eating under 1200 because if you're eating over this you should be getting enough nutrients, but maybe not enough calories, the danger with consistently netting below say 1000 is that your body might start burning muscle for fuel as well as fat as it can't maintain the muscle with such little fuel. On days I workout I sometimes net sub 900 (consuming 1500) and don't feel hungry (this usually happens twice a week) however it evens out over the week as on weekends I average about 2500 cals and I'm mostly sedentary.

However I would strongly advise at least eating at BMR or above to get the minimum nutrients you need.

If your concerned though might be worth speaking to a doctor as this is just my unqualified opinion

DanaDark

You should not eat below your BMR in NET calories.

Why not. Any evidence ? How do Biggest Loser (Australia) participants a) lose weight and b) survive with negative daily net calories ? How did a very obese Scotsman eat nothing for a year and lose a lot of weight which he then kept off for a further 5 years. Why are VLCDs routinely prescribed for obesity ?

Maybe you just made it up, because it doesn't appear to be supported by evidence.

Just noting that everything you listed there has absolutely nothing to do with countering not eating below BMR in net calories (regardless if I agree with the statement or not).

I do want to see a link to the scientific study conducted watching a man not eat anything for a whole year and kept off for 5 more. I find that fascinating!

schell81

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

Had to look up this one about the scotsman not eating for a year

ladymiseryali

When I eat at or over 1000 calories, I feel too full and overall uncomfortable. I'm not starving myself either. I eat a hearty breakfast and a decent lunch and dinner. I'm rarely hungry.

AbsoluteNG

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16

The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"

There are a ton of people here that have EXPERIENCED a metabolic slow down due to not eating enough. That dude is just here to hock his programs and make money just like all the 'body by VI' and every other advertiser that likes to try to pretend they are interested.


You CAN get used to not eating enough, that does not mean it's healthy or sustainable.

Why would he promote false information? Wouldn't it be better to give out accurate info to attract a larger following? Do you even know what a registered dietitian does for a living? I'm not sure where Tony is in his career but most dietitians are not the same thing as personal trainers. As in, they do not need to attract a large following to make a career. Registered dietitians have an actual license given out by the state that allows them to work and set food guidelines in a hospital, elementary school, and prison settings.

Most people here who have lost a lot of weight and kept it off will tell you that not eating enough is not good for weight loss. Many people here have determined thru their EXPERIENCES that eating above your BMR is a good thing. Can you lose weight not eating enough..of course you can. Will you keep it off if you ever go back to eating 'normal' portions.. not a chance.

If you want to argue that it is better to learn good eating habits then I can agree with you but lets keep the conversation honest instead of trying to claim that Tony is spreading false information.



.

ipsamet

It can - I hit a plateau and bumping up my calories was the only thing that worked. I need to net over 2,000 calories a day to lose.