Stop the Low-Cal Insanity!

arlenem1974

I eat 1200- 1250 a day feel better and have more energy then when I was eating 2300 per day. I want to weigh 115 LBS. I'm only 5'1. My cravings are gone and I sometimes have to force myself to eat just to get to the 1200. In 2 months I have lost 17 LBS.

barbiek999

bump to read later - looks very interesting

geebusuk

I eat 1200- 1250 a day feel better and have more energy then when I was eating 2300 per day. I want to weigh 115 LBS. I'm only 5'1. My cravings are gone and I sometimes have to force myself to eat just to get to the 1200. In 2 months I have lost 17 LBS.

And this is the great thing about anecdotal evidence, especially in regards to something as variable as the human body's workings - generally people will be able to show that most approaches can work for some people.

Sadly so many focus on the way that works for them alone.

Helloitsdan

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.

In order for it to be a reasonable deficit from TDEE youd have to be very small, old, little activity or post GBS.
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.

I understand where you are coming from and can see that you are experienced in the field, however I cannot accept that its just about weight and a multiplier.
Of course you will get results when putting the body in a state that requires change.
The formulas I tend to use adds in Age, height, weight, body fat and activity.

If I did simple multiplier for myself id be eating small children at work and I think thats where this conversation started.
Its about finding that reasonable deficit.
you take 120lb woman whos lifting 3x a week giving her a moderate activity level shes probably going to need more food.

I'll do a few examples for us:

SuzyQ is 20, 5'1" 120lbs works out 3x a week 25%BF has a calculated TDEE of 1943
Angela is 32 5'5" 120lbs works out 3x a week 17% body fat has a calculated TDEE of 2089
Henrietta is 72 4'11" 120lbs works out 3x a week 30% body fat has a calculated TDEE of 1852

Henrietta is the one who I can see eating the least while Angela is eating the most.

Your multiplier of 10*body weight is flawed for people who are underweight but skinny fat as well.
You take someone whos 5'5" 18 110lbs BF 30% (we see a lot of skinny fat people on here) and tell them to multiply their body weight by 10 to get their cut cals to lose the fat.
Theyd look like Gollem from Lord of the Rings!

Age
Height
Weight
Body fat%
Activity

These should always determine the number eaten daily.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

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.

This. When I got here I was maintaining on 900 cals. I didn't realize it had gotten that low. Now almost 2 years later I'm up to maintaining at 1700-1800. Just because you're maintaining on very low calories it doesn't mean it has to be that way, although it has taken patience to get to where I am.

Also if this doesn't work for you because of a medical condition or medication then that's understandable, but you can't necessarily extrapolate that the formula isn't correct because it doesn't work for you. I believe the formula is assuming normal health.

ChristineEaton7210

Bump

3foldchord

Sadly so many focus on the way that works for them alone.

Why is that sad? Why should I focus on the way that does NOT work for me??

geebusuk

Why is that sad? Why should I focus on the way that does NOT work for me??

Because often it doesn't work the same for way for other people; so advice given to only do what they do is bad advice.

Further; personally I think it's always worth considering other options even if what you're doing is working ok - it may be you can get even better results, spend less time etc.

Perhaps I should have clarified "when offering advice to others" - which was the general topic of discussion I thought .

TheFairyJester

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.

this i agree with, I think to many people get on sites like this and then begin over thinking things.

deksgrl

Take a 120 lb woman.

This would put her at around 1800 for maintenance.

A reasonable deficit might be 35% off of maintenance.

This makes no sense. Unless this 120 woman wants to lose like 50 pounds, why the hell would she be on a 35% off maintenance deficit? Insane.

Crazy_Diet_Mom

bumping to research more when I have time

veganbaum

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.

This does nothing to prove everyone is different. We are not very different at all. Intraspecies variations create the need to make only *small* adjustments when it comes to figuring out a healthy calorie deficit *unless* there is a genuine medical issue creating a larger difference. And those adjustments need to come from figuring body fat percentage and actual BMR/RMR and TDEE.

I was losing weight and then maintaining on 800-900 calories a day for a while. This was quite unknowingly on my part (this was pre-MFP). I ate the same things daily, with only small variations, which is how I know I was eating that much. I *never* felt hungry. Unfortunately, our bodies become accustomed to the amount of food we eat and, in lay terms, adjust our hunger signals accordingly. (If someone wants to they can come in and explain the hormonal response/suppression involved in this in scientific terms. I think someone may have already mentioned leptin at some point). It's great to say "I'm not starving"/"I'm never hungry"/"I only eat when I'm hungry," but for those of us who have been under-eating or over-eating for a while, we are having a communication issue with our bodies. Sure, some of us might be able to relearn how to eat that way, but a lot of us may not. Malnutrition can take a while to manifest itself in symptoms that people will notice, so why wait to see if you get any symptoms you'll notice? Just give your body what it needs by eating an adequate amount of nutritious food, even if you don't hear it telling you that it needs more than 1000 calories a day. I say this particularly to you, poster Moosycakes, at 18 years old, and consistently eating *under* 1000 calories a day with a personal goal of only 800 calories a day.

TrailNurse

[/quote]

Quote: True! Could not eat lettuce all day...actually at all really....but you have to remember that some people have a more limited range of options due to allergies or intolerances. I have had gastrointestinal issues since i was young which has left me with a number of serious allergies and intolerances (such as rices, mushrooms, tomatoes, potatoes, dairy, pomegranates etc) which adds extra difficulty in food choices, and also means constant watch of food packets ... it can admittedly make you a but disallusioned a lot of the time and hesitant to try new foods
[/quote]



You bring up a great point. I have Hemochromatosis (iron overload) so I can't eat a lot of foods "fortified" with iron so that means cereal, bread, rice, beans, beef, venison, etc are a no no. My diet HAS to consist of eggs, vegetables, chicken, fish, protein shakes, fruit and other low iron foods. Pretty much anything in a box is going to be fortified with iron so I stick to whole foods. People don't take personal health issues into consideration when they are giving advice.

mgrunk

Just curious, I was eating a healthy diet - 90% homemade, non-processed food (I love cooking) - the rest was eating out - but I did have starches / carbs frequently. I couldn't lose weight - was stuck at 200lbs. I did weight watchers religiously weighing measuring everything at 1200 calories a day and still didn't lose weight after 6 months (and no, I didn't go nuts w/ fruit since I don't particularly like them, just had 2 servings a day). I started w/ a personal trainer for another 6 months and didn't lose. I had to quit when I blew out my knees and needed PT and rehab.

Finally had a Resting Metabolic Rate test at the hospital, and my RMR is 1100 - way under what my endo expected. I kept telling him I wasn't eating 3000 calories a day, but he insisted that I must be to maintain that weight. I had a body fat measurement done and it came back at something like 70% but it was an impedance device not hospital based. My scale at home shows 54% body fat to begin with and is now down to 42%.

I wasn't exercising because I have moderate to severe arthritis in l4/l5 and my SI joints so cardio exercise except for swimming is really painful, even standing for more than 5 minutes is painful. So, I know I have lost muscle mass over the past 3 years.

Does this even make sense?

I just lost 25 pounds on HCG (40 day protocol). I'm in my 2nd week of phase 3 - 1500-2000 calories a day and maintaining the weight so far. I'm fairly happy w/ the food choices - I got rid of my sugar / starch cravings. My diet is even more clean than before because I've added many more vegetables on a daily basis.

Don't castigate me - I've never heard of the concept all of you are talking about - eating many more calories than I would have expected to lose weight. Just curious as to what calorie range I would be looking at to lose 25 pounds more without doing another HCG round.

DebbieLyn63

Just curious, I was eating a healthy diet - 90% homemade, non-processed food (I love cooking) - the rest was eating out - but I did have starches / carbs frequently. I couldn't lose weight - was stuck at 200lbs. I did weight watchers religiously weighing measuring everything at 1200 calories a day and still didn't lose weight after 6 months (and no, I didn't go nuts w/ fruit since I don't particularly like them, just had 2 servings a day). I started w/ a personal trainer for another 6 months and didn't lose. I had to quit when I blew out my knees and needed PT and rehab.

Finally had a Resting Metabolic Rate test at the hospital, and my RMR is 1100 - way under what my endo expected. I kept telling him I wasn't eating 3000 calories a day, but he insisted that I must be to maintain that weight. I had a body fat measurement done and it came back at something like 70% but it was an impedance device not hospital based. My scale at home shows 54% body fat to begin with and is now down to 42%.

I wasn't exercising because I have moderate to severe arthritis in l4/l5 and my SI joints so cardio exercise except for swimming is really painful, even standing for more than 5 minutes is painful. So, I know I have lost muscle mass over the past 3 years.

Does this even make sense?

I just lost 25 pounds on HCG (40 day protocol). I'm in my 2nd week of phase 3 - 1500-2000 calories a day and maintaining the weight so far. I'm fairly happy w/ the food choices - I got rid of my sugar / starch cravings. My diet is even more clean than before because I've added many more vegetables on a daily basis.

Don't castigate me - I've never heard of the concept all of you are talking about - eating many more calories than I would have expected to lose weight. Just curious as to what calorie range I would be looking at to lose 25 pounds more without doing another HCG round.

If you are now maintaining at an average of 1750 cals, try lowering it to 1500 and see if you lose. In theory, you should lose 1/2 pound per week if you do that.

And continue eating healthy like you are. You don't have to do the HCG again to lose. Just take it slow and easy and make these changes for life.

arelkade

Very sensible comments!

BehindBlueEyes988

Very sensible comments!

Agreed. I'm not low-carb on purpose. I'm no gluten, which naturally cuts out a lot of pasta and bread options. I get carbs in the form of veggies, fruit and my amazing almond crackers. I guess I'm not "low-carb" per say, but compared to the average person I suppose I am. I do it only because pasta and bread were causing me so much pain.

mandafay923

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.

I'm confused....

I recently learned in a nutrition class that the RDA for protein in an average person is 0.8 grams per KILOGRAM and 1 to 1.5 grams per KILOGRAM for an athlete, so where is the 1 gram for every POUND coming from? Multiplying by pounds leads to a protein intake of more than twice the RDA. Calculating using the RDA guidelines, that gives a 140 pound "average" person a protein range of 50 to 95 grams daily (dividing 140 by 2.2 to get 63 kg and multiplying that times 0.8 and 1.5). So a 140 pound woman doesn't NEED 140 grams and 560 calories of protein daily..... Can anyone clarify what I'm missing here????

ironanimal

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.

I'm confused....

I recently learned in a nutrition class that the RDA for protein in an average person is 0.8 grams per KILOGRAM and 1 to 1.5 grams per KILOGRAM for an athlete, so where is the 1 gram for every POUND coming from? Multiplying by pounds leads to a protein intake of more than twice the RDA. Calculating using the RDA guidelines, that gives a 140 pound "average" person a protein range of 50 to 95 grams daily (dividing 140 by 2.2 to get 63 kg and multiplying that times 0.8 and 1.5). So a 140 pound woman doesn't NEED 140 grams and 560 calories of protein daily..... Can anyone clarify what I'm missing here????

Don't have time to read properly and I'm tired so I may be mistaken - she said per lb of lean mass rather per lb of total weight.

cuffs_r

I am currently on a 1200 cal diet and no I dont eat rabbit food, and no Im not hungry. I dont judge anyone out there and how they chose to do their diets. I dont know whats going on in anyone elses life, as well as noone knows anythnig about mine. So if someone wants to be too quick to judge and delete me as a friend, then it would be their loss not mine. If they cared enough to be supportive they would stay around and find out that I cant work out and am under a doctors care for the last 8 months, and am waiting for surgery. Please dont judge someone just based off their calorie intake.

BoatReadyBody

I am currently on a 1200 cal diet and no I dont eat rabbit food, and no Im not hungry. I dont judge anyone out there and how they chose to do their diets. I dont know whats going on in anyone elses life, as well as noone knows anythnig about mine. So if someone wants to be too quick to judge and delete me as a friend, then it would be their loss not mine. If they cared enough to be supportive they would stay around and find out that I cant work out and am under a doctors care for the last 8 months, and am waiting for surgery. Please dont judge someone just based off their calorie intake.

Amen to that.. I think some should mind their own untill asked for advice. I mean A lot of mfps get on to others for their low cal diets. Call it a eating disorder and make quick judegments but is not a high cal diet which got most of us here a e.d? Just the other way. So please be easy when casting stones.

JoniBologna

Life of an MPF'er:

1. Sign up
2. Eat as little as possible while posting a thread asking if it's ok to eat as little as possible.
3. Get miserable and stop losing weight.
4. Actually read the forums and decide to up calories to a reasonable level.
5. Start losing weight.
6. Comment on similar threads in forums to try and stop newbies eating as little as possible.

Too true. Every single person who is getting defensive about this is A) Probably eating too few calories and/or A newbie.

mgobluetx12

I am currently on a 1200 cal diet and no I dont eat rabbit food, and no Im not hungry. I dont judge anyone out there and how they chose to do their diets. I dont know whats going on in anyone elses life, as well as noone knows anythnig about mine. So if someone wants to be too quick to judge and delete me as a friend, then it would be their loss not mine. If they cared enough to be supportive they would stay around and find out that I cant work out and am under a doctors care for the last 8 months, and am waiting for surgery. Please dont judge someone just based off their calorie intake.

^This. I'm eating at TDEE- 50%. It's working for me and I'm not hungry and I have the energy to work out 4-5 times a week. If I stop losing, I'll increase my cals and then take it from there. Point is...It's working for me and my doctor approves this. Why does anyone else care?

Lilphoenix

I don't understand the low cal craze either. I'm 5'3" tall and just over 200 and my calorie target is 1660. Why would anyone want to eat half of that?

I think it has to do with impatience more than anything. Most people just starting out want all the fat gone NOW, and they don't think about what they're doing to get there.

I would agree that for some people, that's true. For myself, it's a mental obstacle. A lot of people, men and women, have an issue of control over food, and it's not impatience, it's fear-driven. I still panic when I hit over the 1000 during the day, and have to take a moment to chill and get over it before I hit the gym too much or stop eating. It's definitely not a choice, I mean, I've been eating near 1400 for the past couple days, and I have WAY more energy then when I was at 700-800 a day. But I definitely see what point your making, I just wanted to add my two cents that it's not the same for some

catrinawaters

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 absolutely agree. Let's not criticize one another, but support each other on our weight loss quest. What works well for one may not work as well for somebody else.

ChildrenCryinNCoffee

BUMP---saving this! Great post--thanks! :0)

JanaCanada

Here is the danger of all the Eat More people telling everyone what they should do.

There are numerous people struggling to lose weight on here. They are told that their BMR is like 1800 and their TDEE is like 2500 so they should be eating like 2200 per day.
Other people tell them that they MUST eat back their exercise calories.
So they ride their stationary bike for an hour and MFP tells them they burned 700 calories. Yippee! They now have 2900 calories they can eat per day! They think that sounds like way too many calories, so they only eat 2400 calories per day. That should give them an extra 1 pound loss per week, right??
After the first week or 2 of extra water weight they lose, they stop losing and even start gaining. People tell them they need to add weight training, so they go to the gym a couple days a week and lift a few weights. Ok, now when they gain weight, people can tell them that it isn't fat they are gaining, it is muscle. That is a good thing.
Other people tell them that since they are 'exercising' so much, that they now need to eat even more. So they do. And they continue to gain 'muscle'. Meanwhile, 3 months have passed and they have not lost 1 pound of the 80 pounds of fat they needed to lose.

They now get discouraged and decide that 'diets don't work for them' and quit altogether.

But hey, they have at least taught themselves how to eat 3000 calories per day so they won't go into 'starvation mode' and lose all their LBM!


Good job Gurus, good job!

So perhaps that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but hopefully you see my point. Seriously, right now I am watching several women who are getting so discouraged because they are eating around 1700-1800 cals per day and not losing any weight at all. The BMR calculators give them way too high of a number to start with and are convinced they have a TDEE of 2500. Then the MFP exercise calculators give them a number two times the number of calories they are actually burning, so they can't understand why they aren't losing weight. Now they have people 20 years younger than they are, who spend hours a day in the gym, telling them that they just need to eat more, don't worry you are gaining muscle not fat, just wait, give it more time and you will start losing, etc.
I feel horrible for these people because I understand their frustration.

If someone has 50 pounds of fat to lose, losing at 1-2 pounds per week is completely safe and healthy. Whatever calorie level puts you losing at that amount, and you are getting the right amount of nutrients where you are not starving all day and have zero energy, then eat at that amount. There is no magic number. Whatever number is working for you, is the right number. If after the first 2 weeks you stop losing and don't lose for a month, then you are eating too many calories.
PLEASE note that I am not directing this towards someone already at a healthy weight. This is for those who have a lot to lose. I also do not condone calories lower than 800 per day for anyone, long term. The CDC states that 800 is the minimum calories for most women and 900 for most men, to get in the proper nutrients and lose weight safely. AGAIN, I am not saying that everyone should eat at that low of a level, but if an overweight person is eating that low for the purpose of treating obesity, then leave them alone and let them and their doctor worry about it.

That is a bit of an exaggeration.

1. The outcome of the person "rage-quitting" because they gained all this muscle in the process of all this exercise they are doing is a billion times better than the person "rage-quitting" after spending months conditioning their body to get used to excessively low calories with some potential permanent impact to their metabolism because their body has started eating away at muscle.
2. Your body can only "chip away" at fat so fast, especially when you start losing weight and you don't have much more fat left to lose. It might work well to start off with, but it will all come crashing down eventually.

Excessively low calorie diets are absolute madness, because once you stop "losing", it is a difficult process to get your metabolism to actually "fire up" again. As another poster pointed out earlier - if she eats at 1500 calories, she gains weight - this is a sure sign of a metabolism that has slowed down (probably due to prolonged periods on low calorie diets). That's why people can be "skinny fat" - high % body fat with low weight, because of lack of LBM. THAT's what low cal diets cause. Less muscle means slower metabolism.

Another major problem with these low calorie diets is that once people have lost the weight, what then? How do you suddenly survive - the moment you start eating what a "normal" person should eat, you will simply balloon again and you are forever trapped in this vicious cycle. Low calorie diets are almost like self-fulfilling prophecies - the less you eat, the less your body can burn, the less you should eat, therefore proving that low cal diets "work". But it's just an endless trap that's really difficult to get out of.

^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

skygoddess86

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.

Then exclude yourself from the conversation and exit.

Why so rude?

jeleclekat

I 100% agree and see your point...but when you have lived for a very long time on a low calorie diet it can be very difficult to adjust to eating more than you're used to. Especially if you dont feel hungry, which i guess is a result of your body being used ot getting the amounts that it does. Just like some people find it difficult adjusting to diets that have less calories than they are used to, it can similarly be as hard the opposite way

I am not by any means saying that very low calories diets are healthy though, or right for everybody

I have to agree with you although I understand the op advice. My MFP calorie target is 1650. I usually get in 1100 to 1400. I'm just not hungry and don't want to stuff myself just to get the 1650. If I do, I feel miserable.

rawhidenadz

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.

I'm confused....

I recently learned in a nutrition class that the RDA for protein in an average person is 0.8 grams per KILOGRAM and 1 to 1.5 grams per KILOGRAM for an athlete, so where is the 1 gram for every POUND coming from? Multiplying by pounds leads to a protein intake of more than twice the RDA. Calculating using the RDA guidelines, that gives a 140 pound "average" person a protein range of 50 to 95 grams daily (dividing 140 by 2.2 to get 63 kg and multiplying that times 0.8 and 1.5). So a 140 pound woman doesn't NEED 140 grams and 560 calories of protein daily..... Can anyone clarify what I'm missing here????

If you're eating at a deficit you need more protein than if you're maintaining.

Edit: and people who are exercising regularly need even more than that.