Is too few calories possible???

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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

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.



.

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

I've been at it for 2 months and don't eat more than 1200. Feel good. losing weight, blood pressure down, skin and hair look good, brain function is high, and full of energy. gastric Bypass patients don't usually eat much more than 1000 and probably eat a lot less than that. (not that i've had gastric bypass, but I have friends who have).

10 years ago, I lost around 100 lbs in a year by eating 900-1100 calories per day.

I've been eating under my cals for awhile,I have experienced a lot of weight loss and i am still keeping it off!

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"

But the myth keeps getting posted day after day

True Story:

My mom, who has a very physically demanding job, started eating one meal a day. For 6 months to a year, she lost lost lost. She went from a size 18 to a size 12 She is 5'7 and was down to 180lbs. Now, another year later, she hasn't changed anything, still demanding job, same eating habits, and she is back up to a size 16, and 204lbs. So, yes, you will loose, and eventually, after your body is getting enough nutrients it will take whatever you put into it and store it as fat, and you will gain.

Unless you are with your mother 24/7, we don't really know if that's a true story. Not that I think you or your mother is lying, but study after study demonstrates that most people underestimate what they eat or forget items if they aren't tracking them. I'm very conscious of what I eat, and I find that if I don't log at the beginning and follow that plan, I will be tracking and thinking I'm done and then doh! Remember. Doh! Remember that too. Tomorrow--doh! Forgot that yesterday! This is also why I take the anecdotal evidence cited earlier in this thread about metabolic slowdown with a big chunk of rock salt.

Women also lose muscle mass as they age unless they take specific steps through exercise to prevent that. That can lead to gaining weight on the same calories. But your mother is likely not producing 25 lbs of fat from one meal a day, unless that meal is quite substantial, because before that can go to fat, her organs need to work. I'd be interested to see what her hormones, including stress hormones, are up to if she is truly eating as she says.

That said, eat enough. Too few is possible from a few perspectives, including micro and macros. Some people can eat enough to support their bodies on 1200. Some can't. I don't need as many calories as someone who weighs 100-200 lbs than me, so why would we eat the same number of calories? I believe the 1200 number is a good rough estimate, to account for micronutrients at least. But we should remember--people can be obese and malnourished. Someone eating 1,800 calories is not necessarily doing better in the micro or macro nutrient department than someone on 1200.

I've never experienced starvation mode at 1200 calories. (To be fair, take that anecdotal bit with a big chunk of rock salt.) I'm not suffering or miserable. I believe that it's not a good number for everyone, but it is so often automatically assumed to be wrong here, even without any information about the person in question.

True Story:

My mom, who has a very physically demanding job, started eating one meal a day. For 6 months to a year, she lost lost lost. She went from a size 18 to a size 12 She is 5'7 and was down to 180lbs. Now, another year later, she hasn't changed anything, still demanding job, same eating habits, and she is back up to a size 16, and 204lbs. So, yes, you will loose, and eventually, after your body is getting enough nutrients it will take whatever you put into it and store it as fat, and you will gain.

Unless you are with your mother 24/7, we don't really know if that's a true story. Not that I think you or your mother is lying, but study after study demonstrates that most people underestimate what they eat or forget items if they aren't tracking them. I'm very conscious of what I eat, and I find that if I don't log at the beginning and follow that plan, I will be tracking and thinking I'm done and then doh! Remember. Doh! Remember that too. Tomorrow--doh! Forgot that yesterday! This is also why I take the anecdotal evidence cited earlier in this thread about metabolic slowdown with a big chunk of rock salt.

Women also lose muscle mass as they age unless they take specific steps through exercise to prevent that. That can lead to gaining weight on the same calories. But your mother is likely not producing 25 lbs of fat from one meal a day, unless that meal is quite substantial, because before that can go to fat, her organs need to work. I'd be interested to see what her hormones, including stress hormones, are up to if she is truly eating as she says.

That said, eat enough. Too few is possible from a few perspectives, including micro and macros. Some people can eat enough to support their bodies on 1200. Some can't. I don't need as many calories as someone who weighs 100-200 lbs than me, so why would we eat the same number of calories? I believe the 1200 number is a good rough estimate, to account for micronutrients at least. But we should remember--people can be obese and malnourished. Someone eating 1,800 calories is not necessarily doing better in the micro or macro nutrient department than someone on 1200.

I've never experienced starvation mode at 1200 calories. (To be fair, take that anecdotal bit with a big chunk of rock salt.) I'm not suffering or miserable. I believe that it's not a good number for everyone, but it is so often automatically assumed to be wrong here, even without any information about the person in question.

Purely an observation I have made. I wasn't attacking, I didn't specify calories, not really sure why you decided to tell me I am all wrong. There is no magic number. If the OP is that worried about it she can talk to a dietician or her doctor.