Not eating enough calories

Lot's of good posts here but I thought I would chip in with some personal experience.

About ten years ago I lost weight cutting calories and some exercise. I didn't really follow any advice I was just doing my own thing. I was successful but I found I would have to keep cutting to carry on losing weight. I got to 144lbs, I'm 5'10" and this looked terrible on me. I was also eating around 600-700 calories a day max, if I was eating at all this went on for a couple of years. My body shut down and I could barely function, I was bed bound for 6 months, diagnosed with CFS.

When I started to eat a little more I gained weight, I was eating around 1000-1200 calories a day. This led to years of yo-yoing, weekdays I would eat around 1000 calories a day sometimes less, weekends I would go up to 2500 calories. This still isn't that much extra but I just kept gaining.

You need to look at the long run, if you are planning to cut calories severely, lose weight quickly and then go back to eating normally then it won't work. It's best to follow the guidance. I've been poorly and unable to exercise, actually housebound since last October instead of panicking and cutting calories I actually decided to raise my calories to maintenance for a while, I now have a slight cut but my main goal is to get better. I haven't gained any weight though.

I just think for long term loss and health it is best to have a sensible diet with a bit of what you fancy.

Eating fewer calories will slow down your metabolism. Your body is smart. After a few weeks of low cals it will adjust your metabolism accordingly and you'll have to adjust even lower to continue weight loss. See the two links below for a better explanation and steps to lose fat without causing metabolic damage. There's some less than stellar language in the video, but she totally makes sense

http://fueledfitness.ca/fat-loss-the-right-way/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVn05eBYvno

So what do you do when you've reached goal?

If you are taking in1600-1800 calories and burning 1500-2000 in exercise, you are starving yourself.

Was I? See I always wondered about that, I find it quite curious. I ate massive amounts of veggies, fish, chicken and small amounts of nuts and oil. I NEVER felt hungry, weak, ill, etc. In fact I'd never felt better. The fact that someone could say to me "you are starving yourself" would have completely confounded me. If it weren't for MFP and my being aware of my daily net calories, I am sure I would have felt like I was netting 1500-2k.

So I guess my question is, what exactly is "starving yourself?" why was I always full of energy and never physically hungry? And I kept track of my vitamin and mineral intake, eating tons of healthy veggies, getting way more nutrients than the average SAD.

Was I still damaging myself? Shed some light, brother!

You were burning off all of the calories you ate. Your body still needed additional calories to function. There is only so much fat that your body will burn off and you will burn LBM. Unless you were overestimating calorie burns...


So what do you do when you've reached your goal?

Ohhh, I get it. I was going to ask how it was possible that I felt so good and yet was starving myself. You make a good point, it was because my body still had fat to burn. So that's not necessarily a bad thing, because I did eat loads of protein to preserve LBM. what you're saying is it's dangerous once I get to the point where my body has to start eating away at my LBM. I guess I never really thought about that, and luckily, I never had to. The work is seasonal and only lasts 2-3 months, so I never got to that point.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention though. This spring when I go back treeplanting I will be much more careful about getting enough calories once I reach goal. I can definitely add more fats because last year I really limited my fats (still of the serial dieter mentality that fats are Satan!)

Thanks again, your logic is so simple that it makes me feel a bit foolish for not understanding what I was doing before! I know all this stuff, I'm not sure why I couldn't piece it together myself


Edit: I think it is different than not eating/exercising because I'm still giving my body it's required vitamins and minerals, and exercising keeps your metabolism going. I was definitely doing something right because honestly that was the best I've ever felt in my life, and I was stronger and leaner than ever before. I won arm wrestles against men! Haha

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?

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'

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?

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.

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'

What do you mean? I've seen several "definitions" of reverse dieting... not sure how you mean it.

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.

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)

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'

What do you mean? I've seen several "definitions" of reverse dieting... not sure how you mean it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

bump....

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.

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.