Isn't the minimum calorie limit different for everybody?

Options
2

Replies

  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    I am exactly 5'2" and 120 lbs, just like your fictitious original example person, and I would be a big cranky starving headachey B!tch if I ate less than 1000 ever. I can go as low as 1000ish occasionally because sometimes I am just NOT hungry, but it is rare, and the next day I am usually starving and eat like 2000 so it all evens out.
    It really is mainly about getting adequate nutrition, unless you eat the most perfect combination of super nutrition, you can't be healthy consistently hitting just 1000. I honestly think it is difficult even at 1200.
    Also, someone else mentioned, the heavier person in your example has excess weight to lose and SHOULD be at a deficit, the person at 120 and 5'2" should be eating maintenance or a slight deficit, no need for anything more than a 300 cal deficit a day at all even if they WERE still trying to lose a couple of vanity pounds...
  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    Options

    So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.

    I would imagine a smaller person would have smaller nutrient needs

    Perhaps, but the question is really, "Are those nutrient needs still met by the 800 calorie diet or not?" The smaller person likely has fewer nutrient needs, but is it enough to maintain the same calorie deficit as the larger person without sacrificing health and risking malnutrition? I suspect that it's not. There is a certain minimum level of nutrition that is needed by a person, and 800 calories is extremely limiting even for a small person.

    I'd be interested to see if anyone has really looked at this as well, scientifically.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Yes... this topic is answered and completed. NEXT. Just listen to what the egg says, as he agrees with SideSteel.....

    ADRiz.gif
    agreed....and omg that's golden...and it's even better because I've seen egg talkers before XD I'll never look at an egg the same again...
  • Vonwarr
    Vonwarr Posts: 390 Member
    Options
    If you look at it percentage wise... using your example, the larger woman is eating at a 35% deficit... the smaller woman in your example is eating at a 50% deficit. Similarly, losing 2 lbs a week is a smaller percentage of remaining body mass for the larger woman than the smaller one.

    I do think that 1200 is somewhat arbitrary... eating something like 1150 isn't an immediate death sentence. However, attempting to lose 2 lbs a week is also somewhat arbitrary. And a lot of the people that are the most vocal about eating under the 1200 are looking for excuses to support unhealthy eating habits.

    Also, for the people who say they get "too full" trying to eat a minimum amount of calories: STOP EATING "LOW FAT/SKIM/NO FAT" FOOD. :grumble:
  • soapyj28
    soapyj28 Posts: 11
    Options
    I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682138-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12?page=12
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    You've been arguing for this on every thread I've seen you on. Being short doesn't automatically mean you HAVE to eat 1200 or less. I'm 5'3 and I lose steadily at 1600. Everyone is different.

    I don't get why 1200 is the minimum, either. I think the minimum number for most women should be 1500, no matter what their height is, and for men it should be 1700 or so. But that's just my opinion. Eating less than 1200 is NOT okay because no matter what you're eating, you're essentially starving your body. Why would you want to do that when you can eat more and lose?

    Seriously! OP if you want to do it go ahead--but don't try to get justification for it and take others with you. It's unnecessary and unhealthy--a smaller person also has LESS TO LOSE--so why would they be attempting the same rate of weight loss as someone much larger?
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    Also-it's very fallacious to say well since the deficit is the same then they're equally valid--would you spend the same amount of money on a car as someone who makes 2x your salary? No. You buy a car proportionate to your budget. Similarly, you have a deficit proportionate to your TDEE. This is why 15% is a great target--the more you burn the greater your deficit and the greater your rate of loss.
  • katevarner
    katevarner Posts: 884 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks

    Depends on how much you are eating and where you get your numbers. Are you eating the calories that MFP tells you to eat? If so, then yes, you should be eating your exercise calories back--that's the way MFP is set up. If you are using TDEE or TDEE-x, then no, exercise should already be figured in. Additionally, if you are using MFP to calculate your exercise calories, you may not want to eat them all back--MFP is high on some of it's calories burned estimates.
  • brenda4life
    brenda4life Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682138-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12?page=12


    Absolutely LOVE this. I was going to post it so I am glad you did. It really opened my eyes to what I should be doing.
  • Nerdy_Rose
    Nerdy_Rose Posts: 1,277 Member
    Options
    I'm liking the financial budgeting analogies.
  • jessienmiller
    jessienmiller Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    I have always heard the 1200 minimum too , But sometimes i cant help but wondered though about back in the indian and pilgram days they all ate natural and home grown food and they all looked fine , The main reason they would get sick was beacuse of the lack od docterine and medicines. I mean even when my grandmother (who is 90) when she was a young woman she looked really healthy and has lived a long life she didnt eat but maybe a meal or two a day because of all the work that needed to be done and the amount of children there were then. So where does the actual number of calories come from > It prob all started by word of mouth and people have fed on it. I agree that we shouldnt under eat in an effort to lose weight. And in different countries like China the majority of people are thin and fit and i doubt that they all go by the 12oo cal min. I dont know i am just curious.
  • shamr0ck
    shamr0ck Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/starvation_mode_2
    http://www.eatstopeat.com/New-Research-Supports-Eat-Stop-Eat.html
    http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/57428962.html
    http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    Options
    u just dont go under 1200... cuz thats like barely any food. maybe if you were female and under 5' tall then maybe 1000 but thats it yo.
  • jessienmiller
    jessienmiller Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    Well i normally stay between 1200-1300 but today i cut out bread because of some gluten issues and i ate healthy stuff had 2 meals and I only got to 500-600 not taking out my workouts . I am going to have to go in there and find a snack or something just to bring it up on my cals.
    Here is what I have eaten so far
    Lunch- 2 Tbs of creamy peanut butter, 20 grapes
    Dinner-1 med baked potatoe (skinles), 1/2 corn, 1/2 green beans
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    Well i normally stay between 1200-1300 but today i cut out bread because of some gluten issues and i ate healthy stuff had 2 meals and I only got to 500-600 not taking out my workouts . I am going to have to go in there and find a snack or something just to bring it up on my cals.
    Here is what I have eaten so far
    Lunch- 2 Tbs of creamy peanut butter, 20 grapes
    Dinner-1 med baked potatoe (skinles), 1/2 corn, 1/2 green beans

    That's starvation. Literally. You worked out and ate enough for a single meal.
  • jessienmiller
    jessienmiller Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    You say it is starvation but I felt perfectly fine after lunch i didnt feel hungry still and I was full after dinner my dinner alone was about 3 cups of food thats alot of food. Just because what i ate was low in calories you tell me its starvation but the corn and the green beans barely have calories. I know that i have not eaten enough calories today which is why i said i need to go in here to find a snack to bring it up. But what i am saying is that when you tend to eat healthy or cut out bread your calories go way down. Trust me if i ate what i normally would which would have been a sandwich for lunch and pasta or pizza or some kind of bread the calories would have been way more than that.
  • garmon123456
    garmon123456 Posts: 1
    Options
    There's been quite a few studies for this subject over the years, you are right, it's different to every body, it's relative to how much fat you have in your body. As far as I remember, for every pound of fat you have, you're able to burn approximately 25 calories per pound of fat you have, so if you're 250 pounds, 30% BF, then that would be 75 pounds, which is 1875 calorie deficit - this is the absolute limit before your body starts using lean mass for energy. I'm not saying you should operate on a 1875 calorie deficit, but you shouldn't worry about eating too little/exercising too much if you go below 1200, as long as it's sustainable

    -->>> Alpert SS. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13
    A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290 ? 25) kJ/kg d. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted.
  • jessienmiller
    jessienmiller Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    See thats what i thought , even if you are under as long as you are eating the right foods you should be fine. You have to get all of the right nutrients though. I ate a snack and am now up to about 800 cals , i hate eating this late but i knew that i needed more seeing as how i burned over 300 cals in exrecise today! Tomorrow my cals will prob be closer to normal as i will have to pick up food from a resturaunt because of time issues with the kids trick or treating!
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    There's been quite a few studies for this subject over the years, you are right, it's different to every body, it's relative to how much fat you have in your body. As far as I remember, for every pound of fat you have, you're able to burn approximately 25 calories per pound of fat you have, so if you're 250 pounds, 30% BF, then that would be 75 pounds, which is 1875 calorie deficit - this is the absolute limit before your body starts using lean mass for energy. I'm not saying you should operate on a 1875 calorie deficit, but you shouldn't worry about eating too little/exercising too much if you go below 1200, as long as it's sustainable

    -->>> Alpert SS. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13
    A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290 ? 25) kJ/kg d. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted.

    ^ I believe this is only concerning maximal amount of fat that can be lost per day and not general nutrient sufficiency.

Categories