"You are not eating enough"

Options
124»

Replies

  • nelinelineli
    nelinelineli Posts: 330 Member
    Options
    Basically you have a BMR - the amount of calories a day your body needs to live. If you consume less than your BMR, your body will start conserving energy thus lowering your BMR (and damaging your body in the process). At that point, the same calories you were consuming becomes less of a defict and can actually become a positive number.

    In a nutshell.

    I'm sticking this on my fridge...keep it simple....! :happy:
    don't put this on your fridge, it is false information. There is a lot of false information in this thread. Your BMR is *not* the number of calories you need to eat in a day to live. Consuming more or less than this number will absolutely not damage your body. This is a perfect example of how real, good advice gets bastardized into "I thought that's what I read somewhere so I'll repeat it as fact".

    Your BMR is the number of calories your body will burn on a completely sedentary day. It does not mean anything more than that. If you do not eat enough calories, your body will consume its energy stores. Fat, LBM, etc. If you burn more calories than your BMR in a day (almost everyone trying to lose weight will), then it will do the exact same thing for those extra needed calories. The number of calories you consume in a day should be based on your nutritional needs, not your BMR. They are two completely separate and unrelated things.

    QFT
  • shadus
    shadus Posts: 424 Member
    Options
    People on a 1200 calorie diets often feel like "I can't gain weight" and often do really stupid things like "eyeball portions" where people on higher calorie diets are paranoid and double check everything... that is often the difference between gaining and losing (Fun Fact: The higher your calorie deficit, the less ability you have to accurately judge portion sizes studies have shown.)

    1) IF YOU ARE NOT WEIGHING YOUR FOOD YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF YOUR ACCURATE CALORIE CONSUMPTION EVEN IF YOU LOOK UP THE INFORMATION ON THE PACKAGE.
    1a) Example: Potatoes, Serving: 1 medium potato (148g), 110 calories. My bag had NONE less than 190... meaning the smallest potato in the entire bag was: 141 calories... and some ranged up to 300 calories.

    2) THE MACHINES/HRM/ETC OFTEN LIE ABOUT HOW MANY CALORIES YOU BURN.
    2a) Unless you are 150-170 lbs, doing steady state cardio, and raising your heart rate significantly... they over estimate massively... typically around 50-70% of the listed value is the real value, but it varies by formula and machine.

    3) IF YOU USE TDEE DO NOT EAT YOUR CALORIES BACK
    3a) That's double dipping and a sure ticket to weight gain.

    4) IF IT PASSES YOUR MOUTH COUNT IT.
    4a) This means: Sauces, spices, pop/drinks, candy, oils you cook with, dressings on salad, all veggies, rice, meats, cheese, bacon, gum, EVERYTHING.

    5) IF IT SAYS IT HAS ZERO CALORIES... COUNT IT AS 5.
    5a) Because the FDA food labeling regulations let them count many low calorie items as 0 on the label... and that is the road to disaster. Good example, "I can't believe it's not butter pump spray", 0 calories per serving... but has 20 calories per 25 sprays per mfg.

    There are OCCASIONAL cases where someone's metabolism is hindering their weight loss significantly, but it's ~really~ rare and more often than being adaptive thermogenesis it's thyroid... and the vast majority of the time it's not thyroid either and it's one of the above reasons.

    The difference in bmr in adaptive thermogenesis in humans vs a normal bmr is usually far less than 10% of total bmr (150-170 calories typically) unless they've been starved to the level of someone in a concentration camp (eg: skin and bones, no fat left.) A difference of 150-170 calories is NOT going to take the average person on a 1200 calorie diet below the point of not losing weight unless they're 4'6" and 95lbs. The more significant effects are honestly the mental changes that effect your eating and unconscious physical movements for months and years in the future even after returning to a 'normal' diet.

    Long and short, people want to attribute things like "not measuring food", "eating to much back", and "inaccurate activity level estimates" to "starvation mode" so they don't have to accept responsibility for them... it can happen, but it's far more rare than you would believe by the posts here... before you even vaguely ponder the potential of it... accurately measure everything you do without bias and 99.99% of the time that will resolve your weight loss issue...

    You are NOT a special snowflake in how your body works. You're just like everyone else.
  • bird
    bird Posts: 19
    Options
    .
  • SteviMcEwan
    SteviMcEwan Posts: 79
    Options
    1) IF YOU ARE NOT WEIGHING YOUR FOOD YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF YOUR ACCURATE CALORIE CONSUMPTION EVEN IF YOU LOOK UP THE INFORMATION ON THE PACKAGE.
    1a) Example: Potatoes, Serving: 1 medium potato (148g), 110 calories. My bag had NONE less than 190... meaning the smallest potato in the entire bag was: 141 calories... and some ranged up to 300 calories.

    ^THIS! I meticulously weigh every single think I eat. It's why I hate eating out cause I can only guesstimate how much I have had. I usually go for the half portions or light bite portions then overestimate how much was there to cover myself. I know a lot of people don't like weighing their food all the time - heaven knows I was one of them when I started out on my weight loss journey - but it really REALLY is the best way to keep track of your food intake. :) x
  • gdburk1
    gdburk1 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Just love these kinds of threads, so I'll throw in my two cents also. Everyone has an opinion and it is based on what works for them. Everyone is different. I know someone who has lost over 50 pounds and maintained it for a couple of years and never weighs or measured anything. It wouldn't work for me. But I have been finding that when I am not losing weight I try something different. I know for me that if I let my calories go too low I feel fatigued and am more likely to be on the couch and thus not getting enough activity. If my carbs are too low or too high I feel hungry all the time. I guess my philosophy is 'find your sweet spot'. And what works today may not work a month from now. Listen to your body. My other rule for myself is 'Be reasonable' We all have brains and can discern what could be helpful to us and what could be dangerous. Is giving up wheat for a few weeks to see if it helps going to harm you - No. Is eating nothing but cabbage and grapefruit for a month going to be harmful - very likely. So, if eating more calories helps your weight loss so be it. The why of it may be hard to pinpoint but if it's working it's working.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Just love these kinds of threads, so I'll throw in my two cents also. Everyone has an opinion and it is based on what works for them. Everyone is different. I know someone who has lost over 50 pounds and maintained it for a couple of years and never weighs or measured anything. It wouldn't work for me. But I have been finding that when I am not losing weight I try something different. I know for me that if I let my calories go too low I feel fatigued and am more likely to be on the couch and thus not getting enough activity. If my carbs are too low or too high I feel hungry all the time. I guess my philosophy is 'find your sweet spot'. And what works today may not work a month from now. Listen to your body. My other rule for myself is 'Be reasonable' We all have brains and can discern what could be helpful to us and what could be dangerous. Is giving up wheat for a few weeks to see if it helps going to harm you - No. Is eating nothing but cabbage and grapefruit for a month going to be harmful - very likely. So, if eating more calories helps your weight loss so be it. The why of it may be hard to pinpoint but if it's working it's working.

    Just to be clear... the method is different for everyone. The science is the same. No one is going to lose weight eating a calorie surplus. But how you chose to create a calorie deficit will vary widely.
  • lafoto13
    lafoto13 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    My personal experience with this is that it can certainly happen that you gain weight on 1200 calories. It happened to me. I had limited my intake of calories to somewhere around 1200 (sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less) for over 6 years. I maintained on that amount of calories while doing Zumba 3 days per week, weighlifting and walking (I live in the mountains so not easy walking) 5 days per week. I am in my 50s and in 2006 I lost 54 pounds in 6 months. Anyway, recently I fell off a cliff so to speak and realized that I could no longer exist the way I had been and I came back here and asked for the amount of calories I should need to maintain my current weight. When I got that number, which is about 1700 calories on the days I don't exercise, I starting eating that many. After 2 weeks, my jeans are all loose and my energy level is through the roof. I still have to force myself to add extra calories on the days I work out but I am telling you, it is worth it for me!

    It makes no sense/a lot of sense to me. I have been blogging about it on my page. I no longer go to bed feeling guilty about a cracker or a jelly bean - berating myself for a glass of wine at dinner (even though I was still under my 1200 calories!) or any of the other horrible side effects of slow starvation and I now go to Zumba with a bounce in my step, a smile on my face and my body feeling happy.

    So, yes, you can be eating too little to lose weight.

    Thanks for sharing! After recently upping my cals a few weeks ago, I am starting to see good changes (I think!). I hope I have a similar experience!!
  • Hezzietiger1
    Hezzietiger1 Posts: 1,256 Member
    Options
    I eat 1100-1200 calories everyday. Lift heavy 3 days a week. Crossfit 5 days a week. Do additional cardio 3-5 days a week to everything I mentioned. I have plenty of energy to do those workouts and to do my job everyday-on my feet, moving around weights,demonstrating exercises. Today.. after 5 months at these calories set Pr's on my deadlift at 205, mile time at 7:55, and I did 21 full burpees in 1 minute. I think low calories have their place. My body fat will be under 18% and I will be strong and fast and rock hard. I don't see the issue at all. LOL
  • Hezzietiger1
    Hezzietiger1 Posts: 1,256 Member
    Options
    Basically you have a BMR - the amount of calories a day your body needs to live. If you consume less than your BMR, your body will start conserving energy thus lowering your BMR (and damaging your body in the process). At that point, the same calories you were consuming becomes less of a defict and can actually become a positive number.

    In a nutshell.

    I'm sticking this on my fridge...keep it simple....! :happy:
    don't put this on your fridge, it is false information. There is a lot of false information in this thread. Your BMR is *not* the number of calories you need to eat in a day to live. Consuming more or less than this number will absolutely not damage your body. This is a perfect example of how real, good advice gets bastardized into "I thought that's what I read somewhere so I'll repeat it as fact".

    Your BMR is the number of calories your body will burn on a completely sedentary day. It does not mean anything more than that. If you do not eat enough calories, your body will consume its energy stores. Fat, LBM, etc. If you burn more calories than your BMR in a day (almost everyone trying to lose weight will), then it will do the exact same thing for those extra needed calories. The number of calories you consume in a day should be based on your nutritional needs, not your BMR. They are two completely separate and unrelated things.

    Thank you for TRUTH. Geesh. I get so frustrated. We are on the same page.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    another thing which is MFP based only is that people say they are on a 1200 cal diet but then when you eat the exercise cals back are actually eating much more.

    http://cdnutritionandfitness.com/what-is-starvation-mode-a-k-a-adaptive-thermogenesis/
    That may help also.
  • peachcats
    peachcats Posts: 99
    Options
    I'd be interested in finding some quality sources of "starvation mode" actually existing beyond repeating what they've read, as there's many sources to the contrary.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/
  • Rogsman
    Rogsman Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    Found this a bit ago: http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

    See footnotes on the bottom.
  • Tonnenator
    Tonnenator Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    Eating too little messes with your metabolism and your thyroid. It tricks your amygdala in your brain into thinking that you are in a famine, and your body goes into starvation mode and starts holding on to calories and banking them as fat so that you can survive. Basic science. :) Hope that helped!
  • Tonnenator
    Tonnenator Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    ....this is why you see the little kids from Africa on those commercials with skinny arms and legs and their bellies popping out. You get a big belly from starving yourself. And not everybody who does that is in denial or incorrectly logging their food. Some people really do believe that you have to starve yourself to lose weight. You don't. In fact, if you are diabetic or have health problems like me, (I'm diabetic and on chemo) then you CAN'T do that to yourself, you can actually make yourself very, very sick.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    Is this truly a symptom of not eating enough?.. you GAIN weight? I guess I cant wrap my head around it.

    It's a symptom of LONG TERM undereating. Your metabolic rate will slow so because it's not getting enough calories to run at the level it was. People refer to this as "starvation mode" but "survival mode" might be a better term. Your body is leanring to survive on too few calories.

    IF this has happened, you should expect to gain weight when you eat more until your body has readjusted your metabolic rate.

    The problem comes from people saying silly things like "your deficit is too large for weight loss" or "you are gaining because you are eating below your BMR". And, obviously, those things are impossible. If, indeed, you have really been eating too little, your body has adjusted your BMR because you were eating too little is what really happened.

    But, as someone above said, often it is overeating. Either by not logging correctly, or neglecting to log the 8000 calorie weekend binge.

    THIS.

    The vast majority completely misunderstand, or are totally clueless, to what starvation/survival mode really are. This woman has summed it up very nicely.

    The original study that lead to our current understanding of "starvation mode" has been completely misrepresented. This thread here is a wealth of info on the myths and realities of "starvation mode":

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

    If the current popular definition of starvation mode, as a means to GAIN weight, were true 3rd world and starving people would be the fattest people around.
  • toaster6
    toaster6 Posts: 703 Member
    Options
    If you take in less calories than you burn, you will not gain weight. Even if you actually starve yourself, you won't gain weight. It's true that starving yourself wrecks your metabolism (in addition to a host of other serious problems, so you know, don't starve yourself) but it doesn't matter-- metabolism can not slow down enough to prevent weight loss, never mind cause weight gain.
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    Eating too little messes with your metabolism and your thyroid. It tricks your amygdala in your brain into thinking that you are in a famine, and your body goes into starvation mode and starts holding on to calories and banking them as fat so that you can survive. Basic science. :) Hope that helped!
    I'm sorry, but... no.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    ....this is why you see the little kids from Africa on those commercials with skinny arms and legs and their bellies popping out. You get a big belly from starving yourself. And not everybody who does that is in denial or incorrectly logging their food. Some people really do believe that you have to starve yourself to lose weight. You don't. In fact, if you are diabetic or have health problems like me, (I'm diabetic and on chemo) then you CAN'T do that to yourself, you can actually make yourself very, very sick.

    Good grief. Just stop. The bloated bellies of those starving children are a result of malnutrition due to a severe lack of protein. It has nothing to do with "starvation mode", fat, or even undernourishment. Their bellies are swollen due to a buildup of waste from the lymphatic system and, in some cases, an enlarged liver.
  • Hezzietiger1
    Hezzietiger1 Posts: 1,256 Member
    Options
    Eating too little messes with your metabolism and your thyroid. It tricks your amygdala in your brain into thinking that you are in a famine, and your body goes into starvation mode and starts holding on to calories and banking them as fat so that you can survive. Basic science. :) Hope that helped!

    This has nothing at all to do with science... literally shaking my head.
  • MzzFaith
    MzzFaith Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    Everyone is different, My calorie intake is based on what my stomach can hold,

Categories