Less than 800 NET calories
Options
Replies
-
delicious - I'll be forced to like you less if you don't stop being troll feed.
If this troll was a pigeon, you'd be bread crumbs. Stahp!0 -
By the way - the poster who is encouraging you? This is what's under the words on his avatar:
Think twice.
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
Darn right the OP should be concerned about looking like that.
We ALL should!!!
(sarcasm.)
Netting 800 calories a day just may do that... if your heart doesn't give out first.
I smell a troll.
Someone else posted the pic, with the caption "Think twice," which seemed to imply the OP (who I believe is over 100 kilos) should be concerned about looking like the pictured individual. There was no mention of heart (or any other physical) problems.
I asked what he meant, but I'm the troll?
I think you must be smelling something else.0 -
By the way - the poster who is encouraging you? This is what's under the words on his avatar:
[images redacted]
Think twice.
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
No. I'm stating that the original poster should think twice before taking advice from a user who uses that as his avatar.
Edited to add: I don't think Lump was calling you a troll.0 -
By the way - the poster who is encouraging you? This is what's under the words on his avatar:
Think twice.
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
Darn right the OP should be concerned about looking like that.
We ALL should!!!
(sarcasm.)
Netting 800 calories a day just may do that... if your heart doesn't give out first.
I smell a troll.
Someone else posted the pic, with the caption "Think twice," which seemed to imply the OP (who I believe is over 100 kilos) should be concerned about looking like the pictured individual. There was no mention of heart (or any other physical) problems.
I asked what he meant, but I'm the troll?
I think you must be smelling something else.
My nose is working quite well, thank you.
Not implying you are the troll.
OP.
Possible troll.0 -
1. Net calories IS a thing. Whoever says it's not has no idea what they're talking about. Calories=energy. Burn more energy, take in more fuel. It's not a hard concept. Try driving your car twice as much and filling up the tank the same as you normally do. Tell me how that works out for you.
2. Yes, 1500 might be how much you'd need if you never moved. You're likely burning more than that each day without touching the gym.
3. If you're only going to listen to the people who make you feel like what you're doing is healthy, what's the point in asking if it's healthy?0 -
1. Net calories IS a thing. Whoever says it's not has no idea what they're talking about. Calories=energy. Burn more energy, take in more fuel. It's not a hard concept. Try driving your car twice as much and filling up the tank the same as you normally do. Tell me how that works out for you.
2. Yes, 1500 might be how much you'd need if you never moved. You're likely burning more than that each day without touching the gym.
3. If you're only going to listen to the people who make you feel like what you're doing is healthy, what's the point in asking if it's healthy?
Because OP wants justification for their unhealthy behavior. They don't want to hear eat more food! That's logical...
By the way...OP...you eat real food...did you once eat fake food or something?0 -
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
And another thing! (:bigsmile: )
The individual in the photograph is Sam Legg. He was a subject in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted in the 1940s by the US Government.
The experiment held four phases - a 12 week control period with 3,200 calories per day, a 24 week "semi-starvation" period, a restricted rehabilitation period lasting 12 weeks to renourish the subjects and an unrestricted rehabilitation period where food could be consumed ad libitum.
The semi-starvation period was the most restrictive. It was described as (emphasis mine):Semi-Starvation Period (24 weeks): During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day. Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni.
So do whatever you want.0 -
Hey there,
If you were netting under 800 calories you wouldn't have gained weight over the last few weeks. That's just not possible.
SO.... (putting my deerstalker on) if you're measuring your food accurately then that MUST mean you're overestimating the calorie loss from your workouts?
Just a case of tweaking the numbers here and there.
0 -
Either up your calories or back off on the workouts so your net is higher. Netting that low is no bueno.
I'm your height, twice your age, and I lose eating 1800-2000 cals a day, with far lower workout burns.
Eat your calories and give it time. Take measurements, too.0 -
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
And another thing! (:bigsmile: )
The individual in the photograph is Sam Legg. He was a subject in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted in the 1940s by the US Government.
The experiment held four phases - a 12 week control period with 3,200 calories per day, a 24 week "semi-starvation" period, a restricted rehabilitation period lasting 12 weeks to renourish the subjects and an unrestricted rehabilitation period where food could be consumed ad libitum.
The semi-starvation period was the most restrictive. It was described as (emphasis mine):Semi-Starvation Period (24 weeks): During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day. Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni.
So do whatever you want.
If I remember correctly, that study did not go well for many of the participants. Also, I believe the focus of that study was not primarily on the "starvation" specifically, but on the rehabilitation or "refeed". This is the concern of many of the "eat more/enough food" people...not only just the "starvation" time, but also the subsequent "refeed" where things can really get dicey.0 -
The pictured participant cut three of his fingers off with a hatchet during the study.
YAY LOST ANOTHER 0.5LBS!0 -
Are you trying to imply that the OP should be concerned about looking like the individual in the pic?
And another thing! (:bigsmile: )
The individual in the photograph is Sam Legg. He was a subject in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted in the 1940s by the US Government.
The experiment held four phases - a 12 week control period with 3,200 calories per day, a 24 week "semi-starvation" period, a restricted rehabilitation period lasting 12 weeks to renourish the subjects and an unrestricted rehabilitation period where food could be consumed ad libitum.
The semi-starvation period was the most restrictive. It was described as (emphasis mine):Semi-Starvation Period (24 weeks): During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day. Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni.
So do whatever you want.
I appreciate this information. I've heard about this experiment, and now I will endeavor to find out more of the specifics (especially with your subsequent addition concerning the self-mutilation).
The thing is, most individuals (excluding those with EDs, of course) that are "starving" will halt the process at (what they consider) a healthy weight.
What I'm interested in, is what are the health effects of "starving" when there's adequate fuel (e.g. fat) for your body to burn?
The first issue that comes to mind would be how much fat can the body metabolize? And if there's a ceiling on this amount, how do we go about finding it?
And if there is a limit on how much fat the body can burn (when there's plenty to go around), what happens when our energy expenditure exceeds that? Dizziness? Constipation? Bad dreams? Death?
I'm not advocating low calorie diets, or decrying "starvation mode." These are just things that I'm genuinely curious about.
(And yes, I could've probably answered all these questions in about 5 minutes on the Net, but I thought of them as I was responding.)
Again, thanks for the info.0 -
Cheers!
I honestly don't know the answer to your question. I have seen some meta-analysis in the forums in the past which convincingly showed that the body does have a ceiling for fat metabolism over time, but I cannot recall the mechanics or math.
I will see if I can dredge it up and will respond.
I do know that, under Doctors' supervision, obese patients can consume what for a normal person would be a dangerously unhealthy pittance of food - but the composition of that minimal amount is certainly fairly carefully controlled, and the health of the patient would be continuously monitored.
I've grown nauseated in the past few years reading and reviewing the effects of extreme underconsumption and anorexia, and I prefer to avoid delving to deeply into those realms of self-abuse. One thing is certain, though, that like is broad and fuzzy between a caloric deficit, a severe caloric deficit, a "very low calorie diet" or VLCD and 'short-term serious life threatening risk.'0 -
A brief bit of research turned up some leads; I don't have the luxury at the moment to become educated on the underlying science nor I fear to have the desire it would take to do so over time.
A few promising pieces:
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/genderdifferences.html
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/757279-maximum-fat-metabolism-and-minimum-calories
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1084424-the-3-metabolic-energy-systems
But what has me most convinced is simply anecdotal evidence. This is not my first account on MFP and I've been on the site for a little over three years. I'm sure that in the time you've been here, you've probably seem a fair amount of redundant discussions.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw a post like this:Under 600 cals a day, still not losing...
5 hours ago by RollingPinkLedWho
So for the past year I've consumed under 600 calories a day (with an occasional binge here and there) and I eat relatively healthy with the occasional chicken wings or something. I've just been maintaing this weight (135) and i've changed my work out routine to make it more intense and actually gained 2 pounds. So what am I doing wrong? I'd like to be able to fit into a size 2 by Christmas (big family get together) and I'm a size 4 now. Any tips, tricks or ideas?
That was just today. People stumble on these problems every day, concluding that dramatic caloric restriction will expedite weight loss; it just doesn't really work that way. To the extent that it does, there are absolutely going to be health consequences. The brain can't function without fats and carbs. Protein is critical to health.
So, establishing that these things are required for survival, we can concur that they cannot be safely eliminated in their entirety. As the body could function, albeit suboptimally and somewhat dangerously, on an otherwise insufficient quantity of these substances, indicates that careless restriction is also contraindicated.
The question then becomes what is a safe level, and I suppose for some, what is the lowest safe level?
If one's objective is to eliminate food, I suppose that's a fair question.
But my own research has been focused on how to most effectively and sustainably decrease body fat %, and I can only really provide competent advice on that topic (ignoring others completely unrelated to this conversation!)
:bigsmile:0 -
A brief bit of research turned up some leads; I don't have the luxury at the moment to become educated on the underlying science nor I fear to have the desire it would take to do so over time.
[snip good stuff]
If I had a nickel for every time I saw a post like this:Under 600 cals a day, still not losing...
5 hours ago by RollingPinkLedWho
So for the past year I've consumed under 600 calories a day (with an occasional binge here and there) and I eat relatively healthy with the occasional chicken wings or something. I've just been maintaing this weight (135) and i've changed my work out routine to make it more intense and actually gained 2 pounds. So what am I doing wrong? I'd like to be able to fit into a size 2 by Christmas (big family get together) and I'm a size 4 now. Any tips, tricks or ideas?
That was just today. People stumble on these problems every day, concluding that dramatic caloric restriction will expedite weight loss; it just doesn't really work that way. To the extent that it does, there are absolutely going to be health consequences. The brain can't function without fats and carbs. Protein is critical to health.
[snip more good stuff]
As far as your example goes (and with all due respect to others that have noted similar situations), I would have to experience this dilemma personally (i.e. it would need to happen to ME) before I would accept "eating more to lose weight." The simple reason is that we're all operating on the honor system here. Many posters present inaccurate information, whether knowingly or not.
The secondary issue is that AS LONG AS THERE ARE FAT STORES, why would your body not use them? I can accept your body trying to hold onto the fat, or dropping your metabolic rate (within reason), but I don't think our race would've made it this far if our body didn't use stored fat (which is kinda its purpose) just because we weren't eating enough!
At most, I can see such a situation causing a plateau (since the body is trying to retain its fat, let's say), but, at some point (unless you drop dead), it needs fuel. It's difficult for me to accept it would start eating your vital organs (which some have stated here) in lieu of fat.
The preceding, is, of course, affected by the whole "how much fat can our body metabolize" issue mentioned earlier, however. So that caveat would affect MY viewpoint (i.e. if there is a finite amount of fat we can utilize, and we exceed that threshold, I can understand the subsequent need for the body to cannibalize itself).
Thanks for your detailed and well-thought response.
I have some Googling to do.0 -
1. Net calories IS a thing. Whoever says it's not has no idea what they're talking about. Calories=energy. Burn more energy, take in more fuel. It's not a hard concept. Try driving your car twice as much and filling up the tank the same as you normally do. Tell me how that works out for you.
2. Yes, 1500 might be how much you'd need if you never moved. You're likely burning more than that each day without touching the gym.
3. If you're only going to listen to the people who make you feel like what you're doing is healthy, what's the point in asking if it's healthy?
I am by no means trying to justify NETTING <800 , simply looking for clarification. Furthermore, I am afraid my metabolism has been damaged because of my prior lack of education on exercise calories, etc. I know I SHOULD be able to eat more for my height and weight, but I'm afraid my body has adapted to a lower calorie level.0 -
Hey there,
If you were netting under 800 calories you wouldn't have gained weight over the last few weeks. That's just not possible.
SO.... (putting my deerstalker on) if you're measuring your food accurately then that MUST mean you're overestimating the calorie loss from your workouts?
Just a case of tweaking the numbers here and there.
Thank you for the positive advice, I'll definitely focus more on accuracy. Thanks for not attacking my questions, I am just truly looking for clarification. Thanks!0 -
My pleasure,
It wasn't difficult to work out, given the information in your initial post. It's usually something simple.
I'm sorry about all the attacks, it's an embarrassment and happens to a lot (all?) of the new people on here, it's not just you so don't worry about it. Just use the 'ignore' button...or use the 'report post' to send any insulting comments made towards you to the moderators. There's actually only about 10 of these users... but thousands of others on here - who you will find to be helpful, friendly and supportive.Thanks for not attacking my questions, I am just truly looking for clarification. Thanks!
if only there was an ignore button in real life!
Have you thought of trying the TDEE-20% method for your weight loss, instead of the MFP settings? If you do it that way it means you don't have to log exercise.
Keep going & feel free to add me! 0 -
A brief bit of research turned up some leads; I don't have the luxury at the moment to become educated on the underlying science nor I fear to have the desire it would take to do so over time.
[snip good stuff]
If I had a nickel for every time I saw a post like this:Under 600 cals a day, still not losing...
5 hours ago by RollingPinkLedWho
So for the past year I've consumed under 600 calories a day (with an occasional binge here and there) and I eat relatively healthy with the occasional chicken wings or something. I've just been maintaing this weight (135) and i've changed my work out routine to make it more intense and actually gained 2 pounds. So what am I doing wrong? I'd like to be able to fit into a size 2 by Christmas (big family get together) and I'm a size 4 now. Any tips, tricks or ideas?
That was just today. People stumble on these problems every day, concluding that dramatic caloric restriction will expedite weight loss; it just doesn't really work that way. To the extent that it does, there are absolutely going to be health consequences. The brain can't function without fats and carbs. Protein is critical to health.
[snip more good stuff]
As far as your example goes (and with all due respect to others that have noted similar situations), I would have to experience this dilemma personally (i.e. it would need to happen to ME) before I would accept "eating more to lose weight." The simple reason is that we're all operating on the honor system here. Many posters present inaccurate information, whether knowingly or not.
The secondary issue is that AS LONG AS THERE ARE FAT STORES, why would your body not use them? I can accept your body trying to hold onto the fat, or dropping your metabolic rate (within reason), but I don't think our race would've made it this far if our body didn't use stored fat (which is kinda its purpose) just because we weren't eating enough!
At most, I can see such a situation causing a plateau (since the body is trying to retain its fat, let's say), but, at some point (unless you drop dead), it needs fuel. It's difficult for me to accept it would start eating your vital organs (which some have stated here) in lieu of fat.
The preceding, is, of course, affected by the whole "how much fat can our body metabolize" issue mentioned earlier, however. So that caveat would affect MY viewpoint (i.e. if there is a finite amount of fat we can utilize, and we exceed that threshold, I can understand the subsequent need for the body to cannibalize itself).
Thanks for your detailed and well-thought response.
I have some Googling to do.
I just wanted to mention something. This entire conversation seems to assume that the body burns fuel put into it, then fat, then other stuff once the fat is all gone. What isn't being mentioned is that the body actually feeds off of muscle as well as fat, and pretty indiscriminately especially when you're closer to goal weight (20lbs overweight as opposed to 120lbs overweight). That's why exercise is important when losing weight. It isn't that it helps you lose more weight, it's that it helps you retain the muscle.
It's also the theory behind eating back exercise calories on a plan like MFP. You are eating at a deficit of X calories to lose weight. You are exercising to protect your muscle. So, you need to fuel that exercise through extra calories, or else you are just increasing the deficit, which will increase the amount of muscle lost as well as fat and defeat the purpose.
And of course, there is the "refeed" issue that was mentioned earlier. You just flat out cannot live on 800 calories a day for the rest of your life. Well, you can, but it will be a shorter one. So, the trick is to find a balance between eating at a large enough deficit to lose weight, but a small enough deficit so that you can easily adjust back to a maintenance diet once you hit your goal weight without stressing your body or gaining the weight back. And THAT is the basis (as I understand it) of the Eat More, Weigh Less ideology.0 -
Hey there,
If you were netting under 800 calories you wouldn't have gained weight over the last few weeks. That's just not possible.
SO.... (putting my deerstalker on) if you're measuring your food accurately then that MUST mean you're overestimating the calorie loss from your workouts?
Just a case of tweaking the numbers here and there.
Thank you for the positive advice, I'll definitely focus more on accuracy. Thanks for not attacking my questions, I am just truly looking for clarification. Thanks!
Hey Sweetie! Could you elaborate more on some of the attacks to which you feel like you were subjected in this thread? That would be really useful in helping to improve my behavior!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions