anyone on 800 calories diet?

:explode: LOL

it's not healthy. It is better to lose around 1 pound per week - you are more likely to keep it off that way. Net calories for that should be no less than 1500 to still be able to get all the nutrients that your body needs to stay healthy

I'm on an 800 calorie diet where I eat 800 calories, and then I eat 700 more. It's worked great for me.

This is the quote of the day in my book - kudos to you :drinker: !

Plus it made me laugh too!

I have a sincere question...

If 'starvation mode' really exists, why do anorexics continue to get thinner and thinner? Now, I know they're not healthy...I am asking strictly from a weight-loss perspective. (For that matter, being fat is obviously not healthy either...) Anyway, I'm asking in all sincerity - and I'm not pushing for eating disorders, but when someone eats fewer and fewer calories (as in anorexia,) why does their body not hold onto fat like you guys are saying? Why does their weight loss not stop? It doesn't; they wither away...But according to the 'starvation mode' mentality, people with anorexia should be fat...

Seriously, why???

Yes, and failed every time.

I have a sincere question...

If 'starvation mode' really exists, why do anorexics continue to get thinner and thinner? Now, I know they're not healthy...I am asking strictly from a weight-loss perspective. (For that matter, being fat is obviously not healthy either...) Anyway, I'm asking in all sincerity - and I'm not pushing for eating disorders, but when someone eats fewer and fewer calories (as in anorexia,) why does their body not hold onto fat like you guys are saying? Why does their weight loss not stop? It doesn't; they wither away...But according to the 'starvation mode' mentality, people with anorexia should be fat...

Seriously, why???

When you eat it signals specific hormones to peak and specific hormones to lower.
those hormones signal the brain its okay to release fat stores as energy because the body has food.
Then they purge.
It takes time for the hormones to regulate.
Its a cycle.

All weight loss is is regulation of specific hormones.
You can lose excess fat eating slightly below TDEE for 5 days then binging on weekends as long as your activity is in check.
Look up Silverhydras cheat mode.
Look at chrisdavey who eats at a slight deficit with lower carbs during the week then hits a couple 5k high carb days on the weekend.
Its science and you simply have to wrap your brain around the physiology of it.

OK, I understand that you believe that you have scientific/hormonal evidence...what I'm asking is, "How do you reconcile the fact that the anorexic's practical experience does not bear out the theory?"

I know it's difficult (if not impossible) to judge my tone, but please know that I am not being contentious...

hahahhahahahhahahahahaahahhaha

OK, I understand that you believe that you have scientific/hormonal evidence...what I'm asking is, "How do you reconcile the fact that the anorexic's practical experience does not bear out the theory?"

I know it's difficult (if not impossible) to judge my tone, but please know that I am not being contentious...

research it.

Well, the question was "How do YOU...?"
...since "you" have had so much to say against my way of doing things...I sincerely wanted to know how "you" would reconcile the aforementioned question, precisely because I don't believe it *can* be reconciled, and apparently, "you" do!
???

I have a sincere question...

If 'starvation mode' really exists, why do anorexics continue to get thinner and thinner? Now, I know they're not healthy...I am asking strictly from a weight-loss perspective. (For that matter, being fat is obviously not healthy either...) Anyway, I'm asking in all sincerity - and I'm not pushing for eating disorders, but when someone eats fewer and fewer calories (as in anorexia,) why does their body not hold onto fat like you guys are saying? Why does their weight loss not stop? It doesn't; they wither away...But according to the 'starvation mode' mentality, people with anorexia should be fat...

Seriously, why???

When you eat it signals specific hormones to peak and specific hormones to lower.
those hormones signal the brain its okay to release fat stores as energy because the body has food.
Then they purge.
It takes time for the hormones to regulate.
Its a cycle.

All weight loss is is regulation of specific hormones.
You can lose excess fat eating slightly below TDEE for 5 days then binging on weekends as long as your activity is in check.
Look up Silverhydras cheat mode.
Look at chrisdavey who eats at a slight deficit with lower carbs during the week then hits a couple 5k high carb days on the weekend.
Its science and you simply have to wrap your brain around the physiology of it.

Dan's last line, "Its science..." may explain why we're having a disconnect here. By definition, it most defnitely is NOT science!!! "Science is a branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of OBSERVABLE FACTS." (emphasis mine.) *quoted from a general science textbook* My whole point is that when one observes an anorexic patient, the "observable facts" (being continued weight loss) do not line up with the theory of "metabolic slow down." (Dan's term) The first step in the famed 'scientific method' is observation, so if you're going to attempt to call this "science," I would think you should be able to answer a simple question about why the observable facts do NOT support your theory! (Technically, it's not even a "theory," but only a "hypothesis," because there are observable facts to disprove it ...just sayin')
So, the fact that an anorexic's reduced calorie diet results in dramatic weight loss disproves the hypothesis of "metabolic slow down."
So...sincere question addressed to anybody: If you believe that last statement is wrong, could you please explain why?

You do realize that in Auschwitz, the prisoners were starving and emaciated on calorie counts between 1250-1400 calories?

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/auschwitzbasics.html

Of this I am skeptical. I have read several accounts from holocaust survivors, and in most they stated that on the average day they were given a small chunk of bread for breakfast and "soup" for lunch&supper that basically was some water with a few veggies thrown in. Probably a hundred cals less than 1250.

I have a sincere question...

If 'starvation mode' really exists, why do anorexics continue to get thinner and thinner? Now, I know they're not healthy...I am asking strictly from a weight-loss perspective. (For that matter, being fat is obviously not healthy either...) Anyway, I'm asking in all sincerity - and I'm not pushing for eating disorders, but when someone eats fewer and fewer calories (as in anorexia,) why does their body not hold onto fat like you guys are saying? Why does their weight loss not stop? It doesn't; they wither away...But according to the 'starvation mode' mentality, people with anorexia should be fat...

Seriously, why???

When you eat it signals specific hormones to peak and specific hormones to lower.
those hormones signal the brain its okay to release fat stores as energy because the body has food.
Then they purge.
It takes time for the hormones to regulate.
Its a cycle.

All weight loss is is regulation of specific hormones.
You can lose excess fat eating slightly below TDEE for 5 days then binging on weekends as long as your activity is in check.
Look up Silverhydras cheat mode.
Look at chrisdavey who eats at a slight deficit with lower carbs during the week then hits a couple 5k high carb days on the weekend.
Its science and you simply have to wrap your brain around the physiology of it.

Dan's last line, "Its science..." may explain why we're having a disconnect here. By definition, it most defnitely is NOT science!!! "Science is a branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of OBSERVABLE FACTS." (emphasis mine.) *quoted from a general science textbook* My whole point is that when one observes an anorexic patient, the "observable facts" (being continued weight loss) do not line up with the theory of "metabolic slow down." (Dan's term) The first step in the famed 'scientific method' is observation, so if you're going to attempt to call this "science," I would think you should be able to answer a simple question about why the observable facts do NOT support your theory! (Technically, it's not even a "theory," but only a "hypothesis," because there are observable facts to disprove it ...just sayin')
So, the fact that an anorexic's reduced calorie diet results in dramatic weight loss disproves the hypothesis of "metabolic slow down."
So...sincere question addressed to anybody: If you believe that last statement is wrong, could you please explain why?

Why are we having this conversation?
I have 100s losing weight with my help.
I spent hours setting up numbers for people and helping them understand in simple terms why it works.
Who are you helping with this conversation?

Heres my take on 800cal diets and 1200cal diets etc....

Why give your greatest machine that youll every own the absolute minimum to operate and try to call that optimal?
The 4 major biological functions of fat tissue are
(1) energy storage
(2) toxin storage
(3) protection against insulin resistance, and
(4) protection against estrogen decline in women.
Eliminate the functions of fat tissue also eliminates the reasons for its existence.

Most folk have a TDEE of about 2k so.....
In what universe do you think eating at 50% or less of your TDEE would you be fostering an environment NOT to have fat?
Yes youll lose it but when you eat above any given TDEE for any given day chances are your p-ratio will swing those nutrients into energy storage.
You choose smart *kitten* kentucky science loving woman.
You eat that far below TDEE and come see me in a year.
I've watched women like you step up and then disappear from this site.
I'll still be here helping people lose weight.

I have a sincere question...

If 'starvation mode' really exists, why do anorexics continue to get thinner and thinner? Now, I know they're not healthy...I am asking strictly from a weight-loss perspective. (For that matter, being fat is obviously not healthy either...) Anyway, I'm asking in all sincerity - and I'm not pushing for eating disorders, but when someone eats fewer and fewer calories (as in anorexia,) why does their body not hold onto fat like you guys are saying? Why does their weight loss not stop? It doesn't; they wither away...But according to the 'starvation mode' mentality, people with anorexia should be fat...

Seriously, why???

When you eat it signals specific hormones to peak and specific hormones to lower.
those hormones signal the brain its okay to release fat stores as energy because the body has food.
Then they purge.
It takes time for the hormones to regulate.
Its a cycle.

All weight loss is is regulation of specific hormones.
You can lose excess fat eating slightly below TDEE for 5 days then binging on weekends as long as your activity is in check.
Look up Silverhydras cheat mode.
Look at chrisdavey who eats at a slight deficit with lower carbs during the week then hits a couple 5k high carb days on the weekend.
Its science and you simply have to wrap your brain around the physiology of it.

Dan's last line, "Its science..." may explain why we're having a disconnect here. By definition, it most defnitely is NOT science!!! "Science is a branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of OBSERVABLE FACTS." (emphasis mine.) *quoted from a general science textbook* My whole point is that when one observes an anorexic patient, the "observable facts" (being continued weight loss) do not line up with the theory of "metabolic slow down." (Dan's term) The first step in the famed 'scientific method' is observation, so if you're going to attempt to call this "science," I would think you should be able to answer a simple question about why the observable facts do NOT support your theory! (Technically, it's not even a "theory," but only a "hypothesis," because there are observable facts to disprove it ...just sayin')
So, the fact that an anorexic's reduced calorie diet results in dramatic weight loss disproves the hypothesis of "metabolic slow down."
So...sincere question addressed to anybody: If you believe that last statement is wrong, could you please explain why?

Why are we having this conversation?
I have 100s losing weight with my help.
I spent hours setting up numbers for people and helping them understand in simple terms why it works.
Who are you helping with this conversation?

Heres my take on 800cal diets and 1200cal diets etc....

Why give your greatest machine that youll every own the absolute minimum to operate and try to call that optimal?
The 4 major biological functions of fat tissue are
(1) energy storage
(2) toxin storage
(3) protection against insulin resistance, and
(4) protection against estrogen decline in women.
Eliminate the functions of fat tissue also eliminates the reasons for its existence.

Most folk have a TDEE of about 2k so.....
In what universe do you think eating at 50% or less of your TDEE would you be fostering an environment NOT to have fat?
Yes youll lose it but when you eat above any given TDEE for any given day chances are your p-ratio will swing those nutrients into energy storage.
You choose smart *kitten* kentucky science loving woman.
You eat that far below TDEE and come see me in a year.
I've watched women like you step up and then disappear from this site.
I'll still be here helping people lose weight.

OK, this, and I'm done...
YOU arbitrarily label something as "science," and then when I point out that it's not (with a simple grade-school definition,) you bristle up and resort to calling me names - "smart *kitten* kentucky science loving woman." (This,again, proves how little you know about me...I *hate* science...I *love* truth...all I did was to give a definition of science...sorry if that was too much for you!)
Folks who can't explain "observable facts" that conclusively disprove their opinions always either run away from a debate or resort to personal attacks!
And you asked, "Why are we having this conversation?"
Simple...because a host of *uninvited* people responded to this thread. The thread title asked specifically for "anyone on 800 calories diet," which, by extension, I took to apply to LOW-calorie diets. She was obviously seeking like-minded individuals; she did *not* (NOT) ask for sarcasm, naysayers, and definitely not for instruction. So, if some people had not intruded into a conversation where they were not invited, this entire exchange would never have happened!

And back to the thread...OP, yesterday I topped out at 831! I'm feeling GREAT...yesterday was also my weigh-in day. I've lost 10 pounds in the last five weeks, and my body fat has dropped over two percent! (That's according to a body fat scale, which I don't believe is entirely accurate for measuring the exact percentage, but should be useful for gauging a relative rise or fall.)

This topic has been locked for two reasons.

First, this topic should never have gone beyond the first post as the thread is in violation of guideline #3, which states:

3. No Promotion of Unsafe Weight-Loss Techniques or Eating Disorders

a) Posts intended to promote potentially unsafe or controversial weight loss products or procedures, including non-medically prescribed supplements or MLM products will be removed without warning.
b) Profiles, groups, messages, posts, or wall comments that encourage anorexia, bulimia, or very low calorie diets of any kind will be removed, and may be grounds for account deletion. This includes positive references to ana/mia, purging, or self-starving. Our goal is to provide users with the tools to achieve their weight management goals at a steady, sustainable rate. Use of the site to promote or glamorize dangerously low levels of eating is not permitted.
c) Photos intended to glamorize extreme thinness will be deleted.
d) Those seeking support in their recovery from eating disorders are welcome at MyFitnessPal.

Secondly, the personal attacks and bullying in this thread are unacceptable. Yes this post should of been locked a long time ago, and yes you may disagree with OP's opinions, but there are ways to do this constructively and without attacking OP or anyone else for that matter. Attack the message, not the person. The guidelines state:

1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation

a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about why this thread has been locked.

Regards,
Scott
MyFitnessPal Staff