Stop the Low-Cal Insanity!
Replies
-
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
No one controls your choices. You are free to choose whatever you want. All choices have consequences. Some good. Some not. The wise person, seeks the counsel of many and chooses wisely based on good counsel.
Yes, I agree with this, thank you for your insight.
I think that one problem of VLCDs is the fact that a lot of people jump in to them without evaluating risks and benefits properly.
In my opinion, any person beginning a diet like this should be properly informed of ALL the risks. That includes psychological AND physical. Of course, no one under 18 should attempt, because if you haven't stopped growing, you could develop improperly!
I have seen quite a few people (not the majority) instantly assume that anyone who partakes in this sort of diet is uninformed, or doesn't understand, or is even stupid. The truth is, most people ARE informed, and just choose this pathway as a lifestyle.
As to calling us stupid, well... that doesn't help with anyone's self esteem. Certainly not mine.
I don't think you're stupid at all, a vlcd will result in weight loss. Will it work long term? No. But once you've lost a decent amount your body will usually be able to adjust to more calories and carbs. I believe obesity causes the problems, not the diet.
Come on people, of course low calorie will result in weight loss.0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
people genuinely don't want you to fail.
they want to make sure you are not setting yourself up for failure without realizing it.
if you understand all of the arguments against it and still choose to do it, then more power to you. we'll still all want you to be successful. it's just that the odds are better for long term success if you eat at a moderate deficit and not an extreme deficit.
if you're 5'2" and 130lbs and 1200 calories turns out to be a moderate deficit for you based on the science/math, you'll get no grief from me.
that's all. nothing more than that. it's not about being right or being wrong. i just want to help you maximize your chance of success and long term maintainability. 0 -
I eat back my exercise calories, so I don't count them in my TDEE. My workouts burn about 250 calories each, sometimes up to 300. On those days, yes, I can eat up to 1,500. On days where I'm doing nothing, I can eat up to 1,200. I only look at my NET calories for the day. So no, I don't eat 1200 on a daily basis. It depends on how much I burned exercising.
I second this entirely.and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
I'm sedentary. My TDEE is 1700. My net goal is 1200 because I would like to lose a pound a week (notice I said NET. On days I work out, I'm allowed to eat up to 1500 - IF I'm hungry for it). I don't see why I would force myself to eat MORE than I feel like eating, so that I could lose LESS than I want to lose. It makes no sense.
I'm not overweight, besides my 30 minute workouts 5x a week and walking to classes 3 times a week, I basically sit around all day, AND on top of that I'm short, so of course I can do this without detrimental effects to my body. Stop assuming everyone is the same because they're not.
You're sedentary, but workout 5X a week and walk to class 3X a week? .................. that's not sedentary.
Less calories =/= more weight loss. Slight deficits equal weight loss. It's science.
Actually, everyone IS pretty much the same. It's basic science, barring a medical condition. In fact, I used to think everyone was not the same and that I was the exception who would gain back a million if I ate more than 1200, just like you. But every time I 1) could not maintain that level of calories, so would binge, 2) my body had slowed to a plateau and wouldn't let go of any more, and 3) even if I did get to my goal weight, I gained it back..... THREE TIMES. Been there, done that. It doesn't work. And I'm not the only one with a story like that.
I guess come back in 3 months and compare where you are with someone who's eating more than you and trying to lose weight. Then in a year. Then evaluate whether or not it's working for you....
It isn't difficult for me to maintain, in fact some days I don't even come close to eating as much as I'm allowed, and I've been doing this for 5 weeks now pretty much painlessly. When I make the right food choices, its easy for me to get full.
And walking to class at a 3mph pace for 20 minutes or so each day for a mere 3 days out of the week probably doesn't even equal up to 200 extra calories burned total. I can't possibly count that tiny amount of activity as me being "moderately active" instead of sedentary.
& finally no, everyone is not the same. A girl who is 5'8 and 200 pounds can lose weight netting 1,800 calories a day. I can not. Your body's calorie needs vary according to your size and weight.0 -
Bump0
-
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Okay, I love this post, but please help me here. Are we actually supposed to get 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight? Because when I multiply 0.4 x 140, I get 56 grams of fat. Which equates to 504 calories from fat. Is this correct, or did I just forget how to math?0 -
Lately, there’ve been a lot of posts here from folks on very low calorie diets. Usually, the MFP veterans jump in and quickly point out the danger of these diets. Often, the original poster will counter with, “But I’m not hungry, and I have loads of energy.” The vets try to explain how such low calorie diets can’t provide your body with the nutrition it needs, regardless of satiety, but this often falls on deaf ears. I’m going to try to provide a realistic explanation of why these diets are dangerous.
Let’s assume our happy dieter is a 200-pound woman. She wants to lose weight down to 140 pounds. She’s reasonably active, and participates in a weight lifting and cardio program. She hopes to lose body fat and “tone” her muscles. (Don’t get me started on that, but whatever.) For this example, we’re going to assume she’s 30% bodyfat. That means she has 60 pounds of fat, and 140 pounds of lean body mass (everything that’s not fat – organs, bones, muscles, connective tissue, etc.) How many calories does she need just to maintain her muscle mass and get the right amount of carbs, protein, and fat to fuel her body? Let’s find out.
We’ll assume she needs 1 gram of protein for every pound of lean body mass. Some experts recommend more, some less, but it’s a good middle number to work with. She has 140 pounds of LBM, so she needs 140 grams of protein. Eat too much less than this, and you risk losing muscle. Not good. Since 1 gram of protein is 4 calories, she needs 560 calories of protein every day.
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Now I don’t care how low-carb your diet is. Everybody needs some carbs just to function. Even if we assume a pretty low carb level – let’s say 50 grams a day – at 4 calories a gram, that’s a minimum of 200 extra calories needed for carbs – your fruits, veggies, all that good stuff. So now we’re up to 1480 calories minimum for this lady. Take about 20% off of that, and that gives you a daily goal around 1200. And that’s a minimum number, folks, not a maximum.
I’ve simplified this quite a bit, and done an end run around computing TDEE and going from there, but you get the point. Anyone eating 700 or 900 calories can’t possibly be getting enough fuel unless you’re 3 feet tall and weigh 75 pounds or something. If you want a more detailed explanation of how all this works, I highly recommend the following article from our own Steve Troutman:
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/
I hope this clears up the whole low-cal insanity a bit. Best of luck, and stay strong!
how about you eat what you want to eat, and i will eat what i want to eat.0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
800 Cals a day is an eating disorder unless you are supervised by a doctor and/or have had some sort of surgery for that. People aren't meaning to attack - just help. Google Auschwitz + calories. Non-labor prisoners ate 1200-1300 calories. Light work was about 1700 calories, and strenuous work was 2100. These numbers are well documented along with testimony from survivors. I really don't think people are trying to be malicious here, just concerned. But hey - it's your body. Some of us that eat more have possibly walked a mile in your shoes. Just sayin'
I definitely wouldnt say I have an eating disorder... In the last 3 days I have ranged between 538-920. Simple fact is I am not hungry alot of the time. I would hate to see what my body fat % would be. At a guess I would say 20%0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
800 Cals a day is an eating disorder unless you are supervised by a doctor and/or have had some sort of surgery for that. People aren't meaning to attack - just help. Google Auschwitz + calories. Non-labor prisoners ate 1200-1300 calories. Light work was about 1700 calories, and strenuous work was 2100. These numbers are well documented along with testimony from survivors. I really don't think people are trying to be malicious here, just concerned. But hey - it's your body. Some of us that eat more have possibly walked a mile in your shoes. Just sayin'
I definitely wouldnt say I have an eating disorder... In the last 3 days I have ranged between 538-920. Simple fact is I am not hungry alot of the time. I would hate to see what my body fat % would be. At a guess I would say 20%
0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
800 Cals a day is an eating disorder unless you are supervised by a doctor and/or have had some sort of surgery for that. People aren't meaning to attack - just help. Google Auschwitz + calories. Non-labor prisoners ate 1200-1300 calories. Light work was about 1700 calories, and strenuous work was 2100. These numbers are well documented along with testimony from survivors. I really don't think people are trying to be malicious here, just concerned. But hey - it's your body. Some of us that eat more have possibly walked a mile in your shoes. Just sayin'
I definitely wouldnt say I have an eating disorder... In the last 3 days I have ranged between 538-920. Simple fact is I am not hungry alot of the time. I would hate to see what my body fat % would be. At a guess I would say 20%
I'm the same Just proves that everyone is different. 0 -
Hmmm... Low-cal ... sounds like the 1200 debate once again...
That is an interesting example the OP gave, 140lbs of LBM. My DXA scan shows I have a little less then 104 lbs, which means my BMR is around 1380.
There is no one size fits all. There is way to much judging of others on this site.
1200 is such a stupid number to get stuck on. What you need to eat for a deficit is relative to your RMR. If you are short you really don't have much room for up compared to the 1200. If you are taller you will have a higher RMR and can go up or down and still be in a deficit (way above 1200) so you can lose no matter what. All that matters is a calorie deficit.
To tell everyone eat more is wrong.
To tell everyone to eat less is wrong.
To find the exact amount of calories for you to be in a sustainable calorie deficit is correct. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others. Some people have emotional eating disorders and it comes into play. Even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such and everyone is different.
You just need to find the correct calories for YOU to be healthy and sustainable and still lose weight. It might require some experimentation and tremendous patience. You can always notch up and down by 100 until you find what is sustainable and still allows you to lose weight.
Too many changes at once can be hard on some people. I've always eaten healthy so it easy for me to simply eat less. Eating at a calorie deficit is hard on people; even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such. Everyone is different. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others, this is not right or wrong, it just is. Stress in your life affects your hunger hormones; lack of sleep, fatigue, job stress, family stress, financial stress, etc. Add in emotional eating issues and it gets even more complicated. Most people can only handle so much change/stress at once, they try to do too much and fail. Sometimes it might be a better strategy to eat at maintenance and make some small changes first, it really depends on how much stress you are taking in at the moment.
If you have emotional eating issues than you are not going to be able to handle such a deep deficit and if you eat to low it will backfire. A better strategy is to eat at a shallower deficit, and sometimes give yourself a break from the deficit and eat at maintenance. This is not going backwards, but eating to low and then binging because you can't sustain it is going backwards. It's better to stay forwards even if it is slower. The tortoise wins this race in the end.
There is no mystery to weight loss, everyone thinks something is wrong, their metabolism is broken, they have low thyroid, they have menopause or whatever issue, they are as unique as a snowflake, whatever. I thought a lot of these things once too but once the doctor helped resolve the health issues for me I learned there is still no magic pill. Most people eat more than they need to and are not at good at estimating calories as they think they are. Most people have a lower BMR than they think they do. The only way to know for sure is to go to a lab and have it tested. It doesn't seem fair to have to eat less and feel a little hunger. It's hard to face the truth of it, very hard. It's not fun. It's drudgery at times. But if you learn to enjoy your smaller amounts of food (necessary to lose weight, since the reason we got fat in the first place was eating too much whether we knew it or not), and rejoice in your victories it can be done.0 -
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Okay, I love this post, but please help me here. Are we actually supposed to get 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight? Because when I multiply 0.4 x 140, I get 56 grams of fat. Which equates to 504 calories from fat. Is this correct, or did I just forget how to math?
The general recommendation is between about 0.3 and 0.4g per lb of total body weight. I split the difference and go for 0.35g. Your math is correct. However, I have never seen it expressed as target body weight - just actual (current) body weight.0 -
I would recommend getting your leptin concentration levels checked by an endocrinologist twice, a few months apart, if you've been eating that little and you are strictly using hunger to determine if you are meeting your energy needs. I'm willing to bet those levels are far lower than your optimal baseline which is causing you to falsely believe you are full when you truly are not. You should never use hunger when assuming a chronic calorie deficit or else you will feel full on less and less over time and will not be meeting your energy needs.I definitely wouldnt say I have an eating disorder... In the last 3 days I have ranged between 538-920. Simple fact is I am not hungry alot of the time. I would hate to see what my body fat % would be. At a guess I would say 20%0 -
Hmmm... Low-cal ... sounds like the 1200 debate once again...
That is an interesting example the OP gave, 140lbs of LBM. My DXA scan shows I have a little less then 104 lbs, which means my BMR is around 1380.
There is no one size fits all. There is way to much judging of others on this site.
1200 is such a stupid number to get stuck on. What you need to eat for a deficit is relative to your RMR. If you are short you really don't have much room for up compared to the 1200. If you are taller you will have a higher RMR and can go up or down and still be in a deficit (way above 1200) so you can lose no matter what. All that matters is a calorie deficit.
To tell everyone eat more is wrong.
To tell everyone to eat less is wrong.
To find the exact amount of calories for you to be in a sustainable calorie deficit is correct. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others. Some people have emotional eating disorders and it comes into play. Even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such and everyone is different.
You just need to find the correct calories for YOU to be healthy and sustainable and still lose weight. It might require some experimentation and tremendous patience. You can always notch up and down by 100 until you find what is sustainable and still allows you to lose weight.
Too many changes at once can be hard on some people. I've always eaten healthy so it easy for me to simply eat less. Eating at a calorie deficit is hard on people; even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such. Everyone is different. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others, this is not right or wrong, it just is. Stress in your life affects your hunger hormones; lack of sleep, fatigue, job stress, family stress, financial stress, etc. Add in emotional eating issues and it gets even more complicated. Most people can only handle so much change/stress at once, they try to do too much and fail. Sometimes it might be a better strategy to eat at maintenance and make some small changes first, it really depends on how much stress you are taking in at the moment.
If you have emotional eating issues than you are not going to be able to handle such a deep deficit and if you eat to low it will backfire. A better strategy is to eat at a shallower deficit, and sometimes give yourself a break from the deficit and eat at maintenance. This is not going backwards, but eating to low and then binging because you can't sustain it is going backwards. It's better to stay forwards even if it is slower. The tortoise wins this race in the end.
There is no mystery to weight loss, everyone thinks something is wrong, their metabolism is broken, they have low thyroid, they have menopause or whatever issue, they are as unique as a snowflake, whatever. I thought a lot of these things once too but once the doctor helped resolve the health issues for me I learned there is still no magic pill. Most people eat more than they need to and are not at good at estimating calories as they think they are. Most people have a lower BMR than they think they do. The only way to know for sure is to go to a lab and have it tested. It doesn't seem fair to have to eat less and feel a little hunger. It's hard to face the truth of it, very hard. It's not fun. It's drudgery at times. But if you learn to enjoy your smaller amounts of food (necessary to lose weight, since the reason we got fat in the first place was eating too much whether we knew it or not), and rejoice in your victories it can be done.
If I listened to my doctor, I would be on a no carbs, sugar or fat diet. She never stopped to ask what kind of foods I eat. I have always been a solid girl.. I learnt to embrace that and began weight training My healthy weight for me at 155cms (5"1) is 60kgs. I have spent 16 years training in martial arts and weight training and have large muscle mass. I trained 2-3 times a day and was not eating much more than I do now so I would assume I was eating around 1200 - 1500 calories a day.
Due to life and injuries I only train now 3-4 a week. I have been told it could be a thyroid problem or diabetes (Its not I have this checked). Then I was told my metabolism is used to being at a peak level, now I am not training as much it is not working at it's peak as before. I am not eating between 600 and 900 calories a day. I have no idea what else I can do to help lose weight.0 -
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Okay, I love this post, but please help me here. Are we actually supposed to get 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight? Because when I multiply 0.4 x 140, I get 56 grams of fat. Which equates to 504 calories from fat. Is this correct, or did I just forget how to math?
The general recommendation is between about 0.3 and 0.4g per lb of total body weight. I split the difference and go for 0.35g. Your math is correct. However, I have never seen it expressed as target body weight - just actual (current) body weight.
Oh yes! I bet she meant TOTAL body weight. Thanks for clearing that up!0 -
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Okay, I love this post, but please help me here. Are we actually supposed to get 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight? Because when I multiply 0.4 x 140, I get 56 grams of fat. Which equates to 504 calories from fat. Is this correct, or did I just forget how to math?
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! You are correct - I DID make a math error. Good catch. My apologies for that. So let's fix it:
She already had 560 cals of protein. Add in the 504 fat cals, and she's up to 1064. That's STILL more than the 700-900 cals she's eating, and she STILL hasn't eaten any carbs. She should eat 34 grams of carbs, minimum, if she wants to hit the magic 1200 cal requirement. But regardless of whether you put any stock in the 1200 cal requirement, she still needs to eat more than she's eating. How much more is, obviously as seen here, open to much debate, but more nonetheless.
ETA: Steve's article recommends 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight, so that's what I used.0 -
the problem here is that when someone posts that they eat 1200 calor everyone immediately jump on to say that's not enough withou everyone immediately jump on to say that's not enough without knowing their body mass index, heigjt, weight, or their activity level. Most importantly very few people ask what the posters goals are. we are not all trying for the same thing.0
-
Honestly, upping my calorie intake was the best decision, I ate at 1200 calroies for about 3 weeks, sometimes even less because I didn't eat back exercise calories, I did lose weight, but I was feeling crankier and moodier.
I've upped my intake by 400 after finding out my TDEE and bmr, and I'm eating back my exercise calories, I'm hardly ever hungry (and when I am I eat,haha) and I'm still loosing weight! I cannot comprehend how I used to live off merely 1200.0 -
I thought these threads would have died already, but they have not....
Low cal diet? GOOD FOR YOU
High cal diet? GOOD FOR YOU
Is the amount of calories some one across the country eats really affecting you?
No, no it is not.0 -
Perhaps half of the confusion is with the MFP calorie estimator. It's ridiculously low!
Perhaps it is more accurate for some ranges than others. I'm ~220, 5'8", female, "lightly active" and it put me at 1820 calories a day for slow weightloss. And, to be frank, if I leave the desserts out of my normal diet, I come in under 1820 easily, so that seems to be a very good estimate for me. (I find I'm cutting out the breads/pastas/potatoes so I can still have the occasional dessert!)
Now, I admit, I don't understand why so many people (including males taller and heavier than I) seem to have a daily calorie limit so much lower than mine!0 -
Perhaps half of the confusion is with the MFP calorie estimator. It's ridiculously low!
Perhaps it is more accurate for some ranges than others. I'm ~220, 5'8", female, "lightly active" and it put me at 1820 calories a day for slow weightloss. And, to be frank, if I leave the desserts out of my normal diet, I come in under 1820 easily, so that seems to be a very good estimate for me. (I find I'm cutting out the breads/pastas/potatoes so I can still have the occasional dessert!)
Now, I admit, I don't understand why so many people (including males taller and heavier than I) seem to have a daily calorie limit so much lower than mine!
No matter what you punch in for your activity level or age or weight etc, If you put down that you would like to lose 2 pounds a week, MFP sets 1200 as your calories intake0 -
No matter what you punch in for your activity level or age or weight etc, If you put down that you would like to lose 2 pounds a week, MFP sets 1200 as your calories intake
u joking? this isnt true0 -
and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
Totally agree, i get tired of hearing from all the "experts" that tell me what works for my body. I don't knock anyone that eats a lot if that works for them. I choose to do what works for me, not what works for someone else!! Why would anyone get annoyed because someone does what works for them. Everyone is different.0 -
I'm afraid it's not a one size fits all approach. I'm eating 1300 and I'm 5'10- 94kg BUT my BMR is very low compared to what all the online calculators say. Because of this I was eating too much and not losing. I am now listening to the advice of my dietician. So to the OP just get on losing your weight and leave those on lower cals to travel their own road.0
-
:flowerforyou:and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
:flowerforyou:0 -
So many people here have chronically restricted calories for so long their adjusted RMR and TDEE is so far from baseline. Then when they make use of prediction formulas, their decreased energy needs are so far off they start to believe that their current intake is what they truly need. Although it's true those formulas may be inaccurate, by people sabotaging their endocrine system, they're making it unnecessarily more difficult and stressful than needed.0
-
In order for it to be a reasonable deficit from TDEE youd have to be very small, old, little activity or post GBS.Did you read the whole article? There is nothing wrong with a 1200 calorie diet if that is a reasonable deficit from your DEE.
Quote from the article:
*Remember that 1,200 calories would be a large deficit for an obese person. Lighter folks have much lower daily energy costs, all things constant, and for some, 1,200 calories would not be unreasonable.
It's a great article.
I've done 100s of numbers and only came across 1 person who fits this.
A sedentary old woman whos about 4'11".......
That's interesting. Who do you typically train? Keep in mind when I wrote what I wrote in the article, I had the outliers of lean women trying to get leaner that I've worked with in mind. I've handled the training and diets for a number of figure competitors and models.
In my time doing what I do for a living, I definitely haven't found it as rare as you... which is why I'm curious about your typical client... if you don't mind.
I mean, using very rough estimates and generalities, 14-16 cals/lb is a ball park for maintenance/tdee for exercising folks who aren't obese.
Take a 120 lb woman.
This would put her at around 1800 for maintenance.
A reasonable deficit might be 35% off of maintenance. In fact, the sweet spot for most of my clients for fat loss tends to fall around 10 cals/lb. So in this hypothetical example, she'd be at around 1200 for fat loss. Granted, if she was doing mass amounts of cardio, I'd up the cal intake. But if she was training under me... she wouldn't be doing that. In addition, her plan would be much more involved than worrying about solely calories. Nutrient breakdown and timing would be heavily focused on as well.
I'll also say that I'm generally an advocate of eating as much energy as possible while still maintaining a reasonable rate of fat loss... so I'm by no means promoting low calorie diets. It's a simple fact though... the smaller folks are, the lower their energy allotments are.0 -
So many people here have chronically restricted calories for so long their adjusted RMR and TDEE is so far from baseline. Then when they make use of prediction formulas, their decreased energy needs are so far off they start to believe that their current intake is what they truly need. Although it's true those formulas may be inaccurate, by people sabotaging their endocrine system, they're making it unnecessarily more difficult and stressful than needed.
I never ate low before i ate anywhere from 1500 to 1900 cals so your theory is not correct in my case. I also have bradycardia ( low resting heartrate 38-40 due to medication.
So again there are reasons for people eating low and it really should not be of anyone elses concern.0 -
I've always heard that the lowest one should ever go unless fasting for spiritual purposes is 1200 calories. This is the minimum ammt of calories that the body needs to survive. I know a lot of people who do the HCG and starve themselves half to death, WELL DUH, if you don't eat you will lose weight but as soon as you eat again where does it go, back on your gut or your tush (sometimes both).0
-
Also, losing weight should be about feeling better, not about quantum mechanics and higher level math. Keep it simple, what works for you works for you. If you can survive on 1200 cal, great. I cannot, i get all moody and mean. 1650 seems to be a good place for me unless I'm on an extreme hungry day.0
-
Then exclude yourself from the conversation and exit.So many people here have chronically restricted calories for so long their adjusted RMR and TDEE is so far from baseline. Then when they make use of prediction formulas, their decreased energy needs are so far off they start to believe that their current intake is what they truly need. Although it's true those formulas may be inaccurate, by people sabotaging their endocrine system, they're making it unnecessarily more difficult and stressful than needed.
I never ate low before i ate anywhere from 1500 to 1900 cals so your theory is not correct in my case. I also have bradycardia ( low resting heartrate 38-40 due to medication.
So again there are reasons for people eating low and it really should not be of anyone elses concern.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions