Hoarding Calories

245

Replies

  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,278 Member
    Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

    I was thinking this too. I used to do this all the time until recently. Then I realized that eating a larger breakfast and lunch, I was actually not nearly as hungry at night so my tendency to eat way too much at night has vanished. :flowerforyou:

    I do it on purpose during times when I am planning a yummy dessert or something.
  • shirleygirl910
    shirleygirl910 Posts: 503 Member
    Let me know how that works out for you with a "Help I have been eating 1000 calories and I am stuck!!! What am I doing Wrong" Thread.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of those threads!!
  • sabinecbauer
    sabinecbauer Posts: 250 Member
    Congratulations! You've now reached a level of understanding metabolic function that nutritional science had achieved 35 years ago. Nutritional science then proceeded to recommend extended, medically supervised fasts for overweight teens, 'cos hey! Your body doesn't think, so if you limit caloric intake to one protein shake a day you're gonna lose weight, right? :bigsmile:

    I'm one of the victims of that bright notion. Result: I lost weight alright. It also boomeranged right back on (bringing a few more pounds for company) when I returned to eating normally. 'Cos guess what? My metabolism had slowed down so dramatically that thyroid function was affected. I know that for a fact because, among other symptoms, I lost my hair by the fistful.

    I've been hypothyroid ever since, and I've been fighting with my weight ever since because my metabolism has remained chronically slow. The only way I can lose weight is by exercising tons to crank up an engine that doesn't really want to work and by eating enough. 1000 calories a day does not qualify as 'enough.'
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    So explain to me why I lose weight at a faster pace eating 1600-1800 calories a day as compared to 1200 calories a day? Hmmm... maybe it's because my brain, which controls my bodily functions, reduces my metabolism when I'm not eating enough to sustain it.

    More likely you move more because you have more fuel and actually have a smaller net.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

    Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.
  • scrttwtt
    scrttwtt Posts: 30
    Ok, reading everyone's responses, I am getting a general feeling that yes, after you do not eat for a very long time, you will go into "starvation mode", which is what I thought in the first place.

    I still do not understand why, however, people consistently post that it is VITAL that people go to bed having hit their metabolic basal rate adjusted for rate of activity - 20% (TDEE-20%), so long as this is not less than 1200 (completely arbitrary number? Maybe), or else you will just not lose weight properly.

    As far as I can tell, the reason that people don't lose weight properly, if they are eating too little (unless done for a long, long time, you are extremely underweight, or you have long-standing deficiencies of vital vitamins/minerals) is a psychological thing, rather than a metabolic thing. Any normal body NEEDS to use a certain amount of fuel to do a task, and so WILL use that amount of fuel up, whether it is from the food you ate that day (easily available sugar), or from fat (sugar stored by the body) or protein (the last resort, the body eating itself..). If I am reasoning correctly, when a person puts a lot of weight back on after starving themselves for a while, it is surely because they go straight back to eating the amount that they used to eat when they had a larger body.

    Larger bodies need more fuel, and smaller bodies need less fuel. This explains why weightloss slows as you lose weight. The number of calories you need lessens as your bodyweight lessens. Unless you are creating muscle, in which case you need a greater number of calories, because muscle cells use more energy even at rest.

    Is this all correct?
  • scrttwtt
    scrttwtt Posts: 30
    Congratulations! You've now reached a level of understanding metabolic function that nutritional science had achieved 35 years ago. Nutritional science then proceeded to recommend extended, medically supervised fasts for overweight teens, 'cos hey! Your body doesn't think, so if you limit caloric intake to one protein shake a day you're gonna lose weight, right? :bigsmile:

    I'm one of the victims of that bright notion. Result: I lost weight alright. It also boomeranged right back on (bringing a few more pounds for company) when I returned to eating normally. 'Cos guess what? My metabolism had slowed down so dramatically that thyroid function was affected. I know that for a fact because, among other symptoms, I lost my hair by the fistful.

    I've been hypothyroid ever since, and I've been fighting with my weight ever since because my metabolism has remained chronically slow. The only way I can lose weight is by exercising tons to crank up an engine that doesn't really want to work and by eating enough. 1000 calories a day does not qualify as 'enough.'

    Oddly, I have only ever lost hair when hyperthyroid. I am hypothyroid now, because my thyroid was killed by two heavy doses of radioactive iodine. I did not know you could kill your thyroid by not eating enough. You should go to a doctor. They will prescribe you some thyroxine and you will be able to manage your symptoms.
  • ken_hogan
    ken_hogan Posts: 854 Member
    Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

    Honestly I was thinking the same... :)
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    So explain to me why I lose weight at a faster pace eating 1600-1800 calories a day as compared to 1200 calories a day? Hmmm... maybe it's because my brain, which controls my bodily functions, reduces my metabolism when I'm not eating enough to sustain it.

    More likely you move more because you have more fuel and actually have a smaller net.

    Actually, I move less now than I did back then.

    So, you were losing slowly through low calories and higher activity, then though "Hey, I'll become more sedentary and eat more" and magically you started losing more. Yeah, that makes sense.
  • Samstan101
    Samstan101 Posts: 699 Member
    Protein isn't the last resort though. My understanding is if you're not putting enough fuel in the tank then they body looks to save energy where it can. Fat takes less energy to maintain than muscle and so the body will use protein ie muscle as an energy source as well as fat (which ie easier for the body to convert to energy which is why it gets used more than protein but the body will use some protein). That's why its important to maintain muscle through strength training as well as cardio when eating at a deficit.
  • elvensnow
    elvensnow Posts: 154 Member
    It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

    Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.

    Why do people always take a generalization, that is meant to apply to the general public, and try to counter it with a blanket outlier case scenario?

    People who have WLS do not apply here. They are medically induced into eating less. Their body adjusts to it, their metabolism gets slower (which btw, means your supposition does not counter the hypothesis that metabolism is reduced due to eating less chronically). The health benefits are from dropping the weight that was killing them. But my grandmother had WLS, as well as my aunt, and now that they are thin they are both suffering from some of the negative effects of WLS - being that they can't eat much, ever.

    While I don't agree with the blanket statement "Never under 1200" (who ever came up with that number anyway? Seems to me it should be "Never under BMR") there certainly are detrimental effects to eating a reduced calorie diet over the long term. Plus, I like eating food, my body likes me eating food, so I shall continue to do so.

    Also, troll title, thanks for that.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    Your BMR is what your body needs if you were laying in a hospital bed in a coma. It is what your body needs to function. If a person consistently eats below their BMR, then their body will reduce their metabolism and therefore reduce their BMR. So a person putting back on a lot of weight could be because they went back to their old eating habits, or it could be that they ate below their BMR for so long that their BMR actually decreased. So even if they continue to eat right and at a maintenance level, they gain the weight back because they have hosed their metabolism.

    How much would someone with plenty of fat stores and who is still exercising regularly expect BMR to be reduced by simply eating less? What functions does the body slow or stop in order to use less energy? Is this like the Starship Enterprise going into life support mode. Oh, but wait, BMR is already life support only mode.

    Why do some lose more with less calories and others claim to lose little or nothing on a deficit? How do anorexics get so skinny?
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,490 Member
    I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...

    Good luck with that.
  • melindasuefritz
    melindasuefritz Posts: 3,509 Member
    if u eat 1000 cals and burn 500
    u ate 500
    and that's too few
    and u will gain from starvation mode
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

    Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.

    Why do people always take a generalization, that is meant to apply to the general public, and try to counter it with a blanket outlier case scenario?

    People who have WLS do not apply here. They are medically induced into eating less. Their body adjusts to it, their metabolism gets slower (which btw, means your supposition does not counter the hypothesis that metabolism is reduced due to eating less chronically). The health benefits are from dropping the weight that was killing them. But my grandmother had WLS, as well as my aunt, and now that they are thin they are both suffering from some of the negative effects of WLS - being that they can't eat much, ever.

    While I don't agree with the blanket statement "Never under 1200" (who ever came up with that number anyway? Seems to me it should be "Never under BMR") there certainly are detrimental effects to eating a reduced calorie diet over the long term. Plus, I like eating food, my body likes me eating food, so I shall continue to do so.

    Also, troll title, thanks for that.

    What you prefer or do is irrelevant. And how do the individual case scenarios of your mother and grandmother = generalization of women that have had weight loss surgery. But women who have experienced health benefits from weight loss surgery doesn't = generalization of women eating VLCD?

    Do you believe that the surgery itself somehow makes the women biologically different than someone that just simply eats the same calories without surgery?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    I don't believe my car needs gas to drive. Therefore I'm going to stop buying gasoline. Makes just as much sense as your statement...

    Good luck with that.

    But your car will drive without a full tank of gas, yes?
  • jennwren77
    jennwren77 Posts: 76 Member
    Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

    Me too
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

    Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.

    Maybe it's because they are being monitored by a doctor and their doctor determined that it was worth the risk of a VLCD for them to lose the weight. A doctor, specifically for their situation. This does not apply to the general public in any way at all.

    Well, duh. The general public doesn't eat a VLCD. But that wasn't my point. These women consistently eat below 1200, below BMR, for long periods of time and experience better health. Sometimes reversal of disease.
  • elyelyse
    elyelyse Posts: 1,477 Member
    how about some other reasons, besides "starvation mode" that I eat more than 600 or 800 or even 1200 calories a day...

    well, first of all, because I'm hungry ffs. but also...

    i don't want...
    ...my hair to fall out
    ...my nails to be brittle
    ...my skin to get even saggier and pale
    ...to get sick often because my immune system is weak
    ...to lose muscle
    ...to binge because OMG I'M SO HUNGRY BECAUSE I'VE BARELY BEEN EATING
    ...to have nowhere to go when I hit a plateau (what am I gonna do, eat even LESS?)
    ...to feel "hangry"
    ...to lack the energy I need to walk up a mountain trail or go for a run


    as others have said, you wont necessarily completely stop losing weight if you severely restrict your calories, but IN THE LONG RUN, yes you will slow your metabolism down, so that in the future it will be very difficult to maintain a healthy weight.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,303 Member
    It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

    Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.

    Maybe it's because they are being monitored by a doctor and their doctor determined that it was worth the risk of a VLCD for them to lose the weight. A doctor, specifically for their situation. This does not apply to the general public in any way at all.

    Well, duh. The general public doesn't eat a VLCD. But that wasn't my point. These women consistently eat below 1200, below BMR, for long periods of time and experience better health. Sometimes reversal of disease.

    The better health and reversal of disease is not due to a VLCD. It is because they lost weight. Period.

    Not necessarily. You should read some of the recent studies.

    But even if true, doesn't that prove that a VLCD can have the same health benefits as losing more slowly?