Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad - backed by science
Options
Replies
-
You do realize the study shows no significant change in TDEE for either the reduced calorie group (-25%) or the low calorie group (890 calories) at month six, right? The only way to get to statistical signficance is to combine the results for those groups, which isn't really great science. It would be like a drug manufacturer sending their data to the FDA saying, "Well, there isn't any significant benefit shown by the 100mg dose or the 200mg dose, but if you combine the data for the doses, the results are significant."
I happen to think they are on to something here, but that's just my own personal belief. Anyone who thinks this is a definitive study probably doesn't understand clinical studies very well.0 -
Yup...
True, but in a very selective manner mostly using fat reserves - it's called losing weightAll eating 1200 calories per day will accomplish is breaking down your body.
Wow, great job!!!
Thanks. I do have a little bit of the "skinny fat" thing going on (that small spare and some belly fat still hanging on) but toning up while eating at near maintenance levels should get that under control. This is not for everyone; it was really hard to do and sometimes I did feel quite hungry and pushed through it without giving in. But I do think it is wrong to say it is bad and that no one should do it. If you are in reasonably good health other than being overweight and have the discipline, this approach will work.0 -
Just wanted to add one bit of explanation to that. I did/do not feel quite hungry every day. Sometimes I would try a different meal or maybe my workout was more intense or ??? - sometimes there is no apparent reason. That sort of thing happened to me at normal eating levels also and giving in to it then is what got me into trouble. If I eat lunch and I am hungry in two hours, I make a note not to have that as my lunch again but still wait until dinner to eat again.This is not for everyone; it was really hard to do and sometimes I did feel quite hungry and pushed through it without giving in. But I do think it is wrong to say it is bad and that no one should do it. If you are in reasonably good health other than being overweight and have the discipline, this approach will work.0 -
-How can I gain muscle but make sure I don't put any fat on?
1) Impossible. If you are gaining weight, you are gaining fat. You can make sure you are gaining as much muscle as possible in relation to fat by gaining slowly and weightlifting.
Um... what?
Yes, please explain. If you are gaining weight, you could be gaining muscle, not fat.
He's right.
Whilst it would be terrific if all the excess calories / nutrients above your normal TDEE were all shunted towards muscle growth unfortunately the body doesn't work that way. Some inevitably finds its way to fat storage.
There are certain things you can do to ensure a greater % goes towards muscle but really the biggest determinant of this will be genetics.
In short: when you gain it will always be a mix of fat and muscle, just the same as when you lose.
Ah. Ok. That makes sense. Thanks.0 -
-How can I gain muscle but make sure I don't put any fat on?
1) Impossible. If you are gaining weight, you are gaining fat. You can make sure you are gaining as much muscle as possible in relation to fat by gaining slowly and weightlifting.
Um... what?
Yes, please explain. If you are gaining weight, you could be gaining muscle, not fat.
If you are gaining weight, at least some of the mass you are gaining will be fat. Yes, some may be muscle.
However, there's no way to gain weight without some of it being fat mass.0 -
Bit like a reading comprehension test this. Did anyone pass ?Analyzed separately, however, actual TDEE was significantly lower than predicted values only at M3 (CR: −371±75; LCD: −496±68, kcal/d). At M6, the differential between the observed and predicted values for TDEE remained negative however did not reach statistical significance for either group (Table 2).The reduction in PAL was no longer evident with further weight loss at M6 in CR or weight loss maintenance in LCD.
It's like watching two bald men fight over a comb. LOL0 -
As we all know, BMR is the amount of calories our bodies need just to function if we were in a coma. If I get up and walk to the restroom, I've burned more than 1500 calories that day. So, there's absolutely NO reason you should eat below your BMR unless you're completely sedentary. It's simply illogical.
But (luckily) we are not in a coma
BMR = TDEE when activity is zero
It is NOT the minimum food intake you need to stay alive unless you have no stored fat.
You do NOT go into multiple organ failure and die if you eat below your BMR.
It is simply the same as eating below your TDEE when you are active - you start to use stored glycogen and fat reserves to supplement your food intake to supply your body with its energy requirements (TDEE). As soon as you eat below your TDEE you are in fact, by definition, eating less than your body needs to function, hence weight loss occurs as your body uses stored glycogen and then fat.
Thank you--you put into words what I've been far too lazy to argue myself. (We don't need to wait until we've eaten our BMR calories before we can exercise and "eat back" our calories. If BMR calories really needed to be achieved each day, what would happen when we exercised prior to doing so? Bad news. Of course, if you have little fat to spare, eating below BMR is not such a great idea.)0 -
So on top of it not being about 1200 (contrary to the title) it isn't even conclusive? But the way the internet works, a lot of people will just read the initial post, believe the conclusions and move on.Such is life...Bit like a reading comprehension test this. Did anyone pass ?Analyzed separately, however, actual TDEE was significantly lower than predicted values only at M3 (CR: −371±75; LCD: −496±68, kcal/d). At M6, the differential between the observed and predicted values for TDEE remained negative however did not reach statistical significance for either group (Table 2).The reduction in PAL was no longer evident with further weight loss at M6 in CR or weight loss maintenance in LCD.
It's like watching two bald men fight over a comb. LOL
My ticker just dropped into the range where I will stop eating at this level and begin eating more to lose the last few slowly, but I truly believe it was the best choice for me to start this way. Too many failed "attempts" at making minor adjustments, not because that doesn't work but because I needed to see this sort of progress to stick to it. I think lots of others are that way too.0 -
My BMR is 1186. If I was Sedentary, that would be all I needed right?
I was eating at 1200 plus eating back my exercise calories and did not have a problem..... If I was a BIG STRONG MAN like you it would obviously be different.
1,000 is obviously not enough although I have had days I have ate that dut to not feeling well.0 -
So on top of it not being about 1200 (contrary to the title) it isn't even conclusive? But the way the internet works, a lot of people will just read the initial post, believe the conclusions and move on.Such is life...
It's worse than that Jim. The study referenced clearly demonstrates that a VLC diet of <900 calories a day delivers the best fat loss at both 3 and 6 months. The VLC protocol was to get to a certain weight loss and maintain, so at 3 months the VLC people were at goal waiting for the CR and the even slower CR+EX people to catch up.
The science cited clearly demonstrates that 1000/1200 or lower calorie diets deliver the best fat loss results !!! It is conclusive, with the opposite conclusion to that the OP was claiming. #fail
Goebbels would have loved the internet. Make a lie big enough and everyone will believe it.0 -
We are a nation of dashboard dogs; it doesn't take much at all to get our heads nodding in agreement. I have been as guilty of it as anyone else at times; you hear stuff that is true used to suggest another possible truth and then it is used like a fact to lead into the next point ... it only takes connecting a few dots like that and you can be so far off the mark with conjecture it isn't funny. This isn't always a bad thing; scientists do it and then invite debate, but they actually pay attention when data doesn't support it.0
-
It's hard for me to believe tests like this.
Anyone else remember when eggs were bad for you? I get the same vibe out of this, simply based on the fact that I have been doing a low cal diet and have been successful and healthy, and I'll go with my doctors word before I go with the word of some guy on the internet that did a study.0 -
I know this thread is super long and I don't want to get caught up in all the craziness. I'm curious though. All the calculations I've done put me at that caloric range to lose weight. I'm a 120lb female and would ideally like to be closer to 110. (And before I get trampled all over about wanting to lose that weight, that's the lower end of my "safe range"). Am I way off? The calculations I've done put me at about 1600-1700 for maintenance and a 500 calorie deficit would put me in the range you're talking about. Is that really unsafe for me?0
-
I know this thread is super long and I don't want to get caught up in all the craziness. I'm curious though. All the calculations I've done put me at that caloric range to lose weight. I'm a 120lb female and would ideally like to be closer to 110. (And before I get trampled all over about wanting to lose that weight, that's the lower end of my "safe range"). Am I way off? The calculations I've done put me at about 1600-1700 for maintenance and a 500 calorie deficit would put me in the range you're talking about. Is that really unsafe for me?
It may not be effective, whether it is "unsafe" depends on how long you do it for and whether you pay attention to eating essential proteins and fats along with necessary minerals and vitamins. A 200-300 deficit and a bit of patience may be better ?
You should really start a thread in the Weight Loss forum, where you'll start a small bonfire ;-)0 -
We are a nation of dashboard dogs; it doesn't take much at all to get our heads nodding in agreement.
Nation ? World, surely :-)
Once I knew about "confirmation bias", I saw it everywhere.0 -
I know this thread is super long and I don't want to get caught up in all the craziness. I'm curious though. All the calculations I've done put me at that caloric range to lose weight. I'm a 120lb female and would ideally like to be closer to 110. (And before I get trampled all over about wanting to lose that weight, that's the lower end of my "safe range"). Am I way off? The calculations I've done put me at about 1600-1700 for maintenance and a 500 calorie deficit would put me in the range you're talking about. Is that really unsafe for me?
It may not be effective, whether it is "unsafe" depends on how long you do it for and whether you pay attention to eating essential proteins and fats along with necessary minerals and vitamins. A 200-300 deficit and a bit of patience may be better ?
You should really start a thread in the Weight Loss forum, where you'll start a small bonfire ;-)
But it has been effective.0 -
But it has been effective.
Good, you didn't say. I covered it with "may".
As you lose weight you have less fat stores to supply the deficit and generally speaking you need to reduce the calorie deficit.
If 500 is working now that's fine, but expect to back it off as each pound of fat can turn out about 30 calories/day to fuel the deficit.0 -
I know this thread is super long and I don't want to get caught up in all the craziness. I'm curious though. All the calculations I've done put me at that caloric range to lose weight. I'm a 120lb female and would ideally like to be closer to 110. (And before I get trampled all over about wanting to lose that weight, that's the lower end of my "safe range"). Am I way off? The calculations I've done put me at about 1600-1700 for maintenance and a 500 calorie deficit would put me in the range you're talking about. Is that really unsafe for me?
That 1600-1700 for maintenance is, presumably, before exercise. A 500 calorie deficit will put your target in the 1100-1200 calorie range, which is fine..... if you eat back exercise calories. If you don't eat back exercise calories, you will be running a larger calorie deficit than that.
For example, if you burn 300 calories on a treadmill you that means you'll be burning 2000 calories that day. If you only eat 1200 that's an 800 calorie deficit and that's too large.0 -
Once I knew about "confirmation bias", I saw it everywhere.
Heh heh.
What you did there...I see it.0 -
I guess I have one question and one statement. I've dropped to 1500 calories, but don't plan going below that. Are any of the dynamics listed for the 1000-1200 calorie diet observed as high (or low) as 1500? My statement was that you're not considering people that are overweight to the extent that physical exercise is damaging- knees, heart, etc. and it may be necessary to focus on stomach reduction, portion control and changing eating habit in order to get to a point that physical exercise is more practical and safe.
Samiamy2kTaken from - http://www.mattmetzgar.com/2013/06/what-happens-when-you-eat-1000-calories-a-day.html
“For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels.”
This is something that doesn't get mentioned much with low-calorie diets.
So here are three things that will happen when you eat a 1,000 calorie diet (represented by LCD (low-calorie diet) in this study):
Your metabolic rate will slow.
The paper discusses this in some detail. (There was no real slowing in the CR+EX group though. In this group, it was a relatively minor calorie restriction of 12.5%, combined with an activity increase of 12.5%.)
You will lose both fat mass and fat-free mass.
You will move less.
It doesn’t seem like calorie restriction goes along with the “Let’s Move” campaign by Michelle Obama!
So here’s a question: how is moving less on a daily basis healthy? It’s not. Yes physical activity fell in all groups except those who were required to move via their study group (CR + EX). And this decreased movement was a direct result of calorie restriction!
To me, this study shows that giving a 1,000 calorie a day diet to a sedentary person is a recipe for disaster. They will end up with a lowered metabolic rate (independent of lean mass), loss of lean mass, and they will actually move less.
Ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/191986470
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions