Not eating enough calories
Options
Replies
-
This article explains it well:
http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/
<snip>Your goal should be to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight. You always want to start high and then come down with your calorie intake. It’s much easier to do this than come up in calories after your weight loss has stalled and you’ve lost all your motivation.
^^ This is my favorite part. I can never understand people who reverse this process and start off with 500 or 100 calories a day.
Agreed. This is my biggest argument against 1200 calories for most people not 'starvation mode'. You have little room to cut if you start out at the bottom.
But if you're already at the bottom, why would you need to cut? Sure you need to realize that as you lose weight your calorie needs will likely lessen, so the size of your deficit will decrease and your progress will slow, but some might argue that's the point. And isn't that why some people like to base their daily intakes on their goal weight, so that when they hit their goal they will already be at maintenance?
Guess I never really looked at it that way. Just when I stall, I have room to drop a little bit more which often works.
I haven't looked at the method where people eat at their maintenance.0 -
What do you mean? I've seen several "definitions" of reverse dieting... not sure how you mean it.This article explains it well:
http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/
<snip>Your goal should be to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight. You always want to start high and then come down with your calorie intake. It’s much easier to do this than come up in calories after your weight loss has stalled and you’ve lost all your motivation.
^^ This is my favorite part. I can never understand people who reverse this process and start off with 500 or 100 calories a day.
Agreed. This is my biggest argument against 1200 calories for most people not 'starvation mode'. You have little room to cut if you start out at the bottom.
But if you're already at the bottom, why would you need to cut? Sure you need to realize that as you lose weight your calorie needs will likely lessen, so the size of your deficit will decrease and your progress will slow, but some might argue that's the point. And isn't that why some people like to base their daily intakes on their goal weight, so that when they hit their goal they will already be at maintenance?
i think people on MFP talk too much about dieting and not enough about 'reverse dieting'
once you reach a certain goal, or have metabolic slowdown to where you cant cut any more calories that you need to increase it VERY slowly in order to heal the metabolism
ultimately have a higher metabolic rate with consuming more calories than you were eating at the start of your diet at a lower body fat%0 -
What do you mean? I've seen several "definitions" of reverse dieting... not sure how you mean it.This article explains it well:
http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/
<snip>Your goal should be to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight. You always want to start high and then come down with your calorie intake. It’s much easier to do this than come up in calories after your weight loss has stalled and you’ve lost all your motivation.
^^ This is my favorite part. I can never understand people who reverse this process and start off with 500 or 100 calories a day.
Agreed. This is my biggest argument against 1200 calories for most people not 'starvation mode'. You have little room to cut if you start out at the bottom.
But if you're already at the bottom, why would you need to cut? Sure you need to realize that as you lose weight your calorie needs will likely lessen, so the size of your deficit will decrease and your progress will slow, but some might argue that's the point. And isn't that why some people like to base their daily intakes on their goal weight, so that when they hit their goal they will already be at maintenance?
i think people on MFP talk too much about dieting and not enough about 'reverse dieting'
once you reach a certain goal, or have metabolic slowdown to where you cant cut any more calories that you need to increase it VERY slowly in order to heal the metabolism
ultimately have a higher metabolic rate with consuming more calories than you were eating at the start of your diet at a lower body fat%
Gotcha. I don't know enough about this to talk intelligently, but my gut is that people scream about metabolic damage way to often, and that it takes much lower calorie intakes for much longer than people think/realize to actually happen.
OMG, you've been eating 1000 cals for 2 weeks? You've killed your metabolism.
Um, no.0 -
It's basic biothermal dynamics -- your body is like a furnace. If you feed it less coal, it will eventually begin to slow down and less energy will be produced. It will begin to hold onto whatever scrap pieces of coal is left, in order to keep from burning out.
However, if you feed it more coal and fan the flames (healthy food and exercise), your furnace will begin to burn the fuel more efficiently, using MORE of the fuel you give it to burn. That's weight loss.
By the way, just to eliminate any further confusion: a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same, but take up different volumes. And fat NEVER can turn into muscle. They are two separate things. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
This is an awesome analogy and such a great way to think about your metabolism. It seems so counterintuitive after years of severe calorie restriction diets, but the sooner you think of it this way, the sooner you'll have that AH-HA! moment.0 -
This article explains it well:
http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/
<snip>Your goal should be to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight. You always want to start high and then come down with your calorie intake. It’s much easier to do this than come up in calories after your weight loss has stalled and you’ve lost all your motivation.
^^ This is my favorite part. I can never understand people who reverse this process and start off with 500 or 100 calories a day.
Agreed. This is my biggest argument against 1200 calories for most people not 'starvation mode'. You have little room to cut if you start out at the bottom.
But if you're already at the bottom, why would you need to cut? Sure you need to realize that as you lose weight your calorie needs will likely lessen, so the size of your deficit will decrease and your progress will slow, but some might argue that's the point. And isn't that why some people like to base their daily intakes on their goal weight, so that when they hit their goal they will already be at maintenance?
Guess I never really looked at it that way. Just when I stall, I have room to drop a little bit more which often works.
I haven't looked at the method where people eat at their maintenance.
But if you're stalled, then how are you at your bottom? Assuming all the estimates are correct (food intakes, cals burned, TDEE, etc etc)0 -
Gotcha. I don't know enough about this to talk intelligently, but my gut is that people scream about metabolic damage way to often, and that it takes much lower calorie intakes for much longer than people think/realize to actually happen.
OMG, you've been eating 1000 cals for 2 weeks? You've killed your metabolism.
Um, no.
I agree with that, but I don't' encourage people to do it.0 -
What do you mean? I've seen several "definitions" of reverse dieting... not sure how you mean it.This article explains it well:
http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/
<snip>Your goal should be to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight. You always want to start high and then come down with your calorie intake. It’s much easier to do this than come up in calories after your weight loss has stalled and you’ve lost all your motivation.
^^ This is my favorite part. I can never understand people who reverse this process and start off with 500 or 100 calories a day.
Agreed. This is my biggest argument against 1200 calories for most people not 'starvation mode'. You have little room to cut if you start out at the bottom.
But if you're already at the bottom, why would you need to cut? Sure you need to realize that as you lose weight your calorie needs will likely lessen, so the size of your deficit will decrease and your progress will slow, but some might argue that's the point. And isn't that why some people like to base their daily intakes on their goal weight, so that when they hit their goal they will already be at maintenance?
i think people on MFP talk too much about dieting and not enough about 'reverse dieting'
once you reach a certain goal, or have metabolic slowdown to where you cant cut any more calories that you need to increase it VERY slowly in order to heal the metabolism
ultimately have a higher metabolic rate with consuming more calories than you were eating at the start of your diet at a lower body fat%
Gotcha. I don't know enough about this to talk intelligently, but my gut is that people scream about metabolic damage way to often, and that it takes much lower calorie intakes for much longer than people think/realize to actually happen.
OMG, you've been eating 1000 cals for 2 weeks? You've killed your metabolism.
Um, no.
haha naw more like if you diet for 12 weeks it will take about 12 weeks to get your metabolism to be back to normal and if you reverse diet correctly it can enable you to get back to higher calories at lower body weight, lower body fat% than before and in the end be able to get even leaner when you decide you want to diet again... much like bodybuilding protocol.
the difficulty with doing this is that its very psychologically dificult having to eat more calories and knowing you arent going to see progress in the mirror for a long time and telling yourself to eat more food but at an extremely slow rate.0 -
But if you're stalled, then how are you at your bottom? Assuming all the estimates are correct (food intakes, cals burned, TDEE, etc etc)
I'm not at bottom, but I'm am maintaining a modest deficit. When I stall out I drop down a bit. I am able to eat more food and still lose weight.
I think I am not explaining my point right.
0 -
Gotcha. I don't know enough about this to talk intelligently, but my gut is that people scream about metabolic damage way to often, and that it takes much lower calorie intakes for much longer than people think/realize to actually happen.
OMG, you've been eating 1000 cals for 2 weeks? You've killed your metabolism.
Um, no.
I agree with that, but I don't' encourage people to do it.
Agreed. On a site full of people with lousy eating habits, recommending anything even bordering on a VLCD is probably a bad idea.
But when someone posts asking why they aren't seeing progress, I don't think it's safe to jump to the "you're not eating enough" response as the reason for lack of results the second you see them mention 1200 calories. (not directed at you specifically... meant more generally across the site).
Not eating enough may have other health issues, but I don't think it's the reason for lack of progress nearly as often as people claim it is.0 -
However, if you feed it more coal and fan the flames (healthy food and exercise), your furnace will begin to burn the fuel more efficiently, using MORE of the fuel you give it to burn. That's weight loss.
BINGO!!!!0 -
But if you're stalled, then how are you at your bottom? Assuming all the estimates are correct (food intakes, cals burned, TDEE, etc etc)
I'm not at bottom, but I'm am maintaining a modest deficit. When I stall out I drop down a bit. I am able to eat more food and still lose weight.
I think I am not explaining my point right.
Right. What you do is maintain a modest deficit based on your current TDEE. As your TDEE gets lower, you have to adjust your daily intake accordingly to maintain that same deficit. So you see steady progress as long as you keep adjusting your intake relative to your changing TDEE.
People who "start at the bottom" don't need to do that. They start out with a relatively large deficit, then as they progress and their TDEE drops, the size of their deficit also drops. They continue to see progress, the progress just slows as their TDEE gets closer to their fixed calorie intake. At some point the 2 meet and they are at their goal weight and at maintenance (clearly this is really idealistic, but on paper it works).
My point was simply that someone starting at "the bottom" doesn't need to adjust because they are already at the bottom of their caloric need.0 -
bump for later0
-
Oh this is so hard to understand.
I think the people who are all fit and lovely and tonned and muscly think/know it's important that they eat enough calories to meet there exercising?
I think there is an unsaid doubt that people either don't work out there energy used on exercise or calories consumed right, and therefore are "cheating" in some way.
The Tree planter story is one I would go along with, as I work seasonally and always loose weight in the Spring, put it on in the Winter. No enough though.
How does this relate to the 5:2 fasting approach then, when it's only a day here or there, with exercise you could be having a couple of minus 500 days, then a couple of 1200 days, Q: Would this be considered "starving yourself""???
Thanks for the posts, it really helps as this is something that I have been wondering about.
Interestingly though for me, my biggest change is reducing alcohol, I shudder to think, but it was at least 1200 calories a day, I eat around 1500, and with working outside I could "need" 3500 (big fat chap) so I would still loose weight. Now I stopped drinking I will eat the 1500 and still burn the 3500, plus a couple or three times a week I restrict this down to 600 calories.
I have lost 4lb and 3 lb in the two weeks, are we saying that this isn't going to last?? I think we are...... Thanks though.0 -
No. Your body will not get fatter by not eating enough calories. Losing body fat and being healthy are not always the same thing. To stay healthy and lose weight it is a good idea to get proper nutrition and that is why people tell you to eat more and lose weight at a slower rate. Many things change scale weight, undigested food, water retention from excessive exercise or more carbohydrates or more sodium just to name a few.0
-
bump....0
-
So, what is a good defecit to shoot for?? Everyone says "modest" defecit...but what is modest?
Personally, with the help of a monitor, I know I burn anywhere from 1,600 to 2,300 calories in a day....so, of course, the amount of calories I eat varies.
But what is a good defecit range for fat loss?0 -
One thing you might want to consider: the percent of your daily food that comes from fat.
If you eat enough calories and keep your fats no higher than 25% of your total calories, you will lose weight.
Here's how to calculate: Take your total fat grams, multiply by 9, and then divide by the total number of calories.
An example: If I ate 1500 calories and the total number of fat grams was 25, then 15% of my calories came from fat.
Perfectly respectable number.
Try it - see how it works.0 -
Most dieticians recommend TDEE - 20% for safe, effective weight loss.So, what is a good defecit to shoot for?? Everyone says "modest" defecit...but what is modest?
Personally, with the help of a monitor, I know I burn anywhere from 1,600 to 2,300 calories in a day....so, of course, the amount of calories I eat varies.
But what is a good defecit range for fat loss?0 -
So, what is a good defecit to shoot for?? Everyone says "modest" defecit...but what is modest?
Personally, with the help of a monitor, I know I burn anywhere from 1,600 to 2,300 calories in a day....so, of course, the amount of calories I eat varies.
But what is a good defecit range for fat loss?
Depends on how overweight you are.
People who are already pretty lean have much less leeway than someone who is obese. Have you seen the posts where people suggest rates of weight loss based on how much weight you want to lose? That gets at the crux of your question.
I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so take this with a grain of salt (I'll see if I can find the exact numbers later)...
< 25lbs to lose should aim for .5lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~1750 cals weekly or about 250 cals per day.
25 - 50lbs to lose should aim for 1lb per week, which is a deficit of ~3500 cals weekly or about 500 cals per day.
50 - 100lbs to lose should aim for 1.5lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~5250 cals weekly or about 750 cals per day
> 100lbs to lose should aim for 2lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~7000 cals weekly or about 1000 cals per day.
Again, I don't know if those are the right weight ranges, but it should be close. I'll double check later this afternoon.0 -
Depends on how overweight you are.
People who are already pretty lean have much less leeway than someone who is obese. Have you seen the posts where people suggest rates of weight loss based on how much weight you want to lose? That gets at the crux of your question.
I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so take this with a grain of salt (I'll see if I can find the exact numbers later)...
< 25lbs to lose should aim for .5lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~1750 cals weekly or about 250 cals per day.
25 - 50lbs to lose should aim for 1lb per week, which is a deficit of ~3500 cals weekly or about 500 cals per day.
50 - 100lbs to lose should aim for 1.5lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~5250 cals weekly or about 750 cals per day
> 100lbs to lose should aim for 2lbs per week, which is a deficit of ~7000 cals weekly or about 1000 cals per day.
Again, I don't know if those are the right weight ranges, but it should be close. I'll double check later this afternoon.
I have never came across this info - good to know - thank you0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions