Strange question about caloric deficits
Nov3mberMistt
Posts: 25 Member
I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
0
Replies
-
Yeah, but you'd be losing a lot more than just fat at that deficit. There's a limit to how many calories your body can get from each pound of fat per day -- iirc it's just over 30 cal/pound/day.0
-
You're right, it is unhealthy thinking. You body needs more than that to function on, especially with calorie burns like that (which I'm pretty sure your body would give out before accomplishing). You'd probably end up in the hospital before long for malnourishment.0
-
You're not supposed to NET under 1200 cals. So if you eat 1200 and burn 4700 or whatever, you need to eat the exercised cals back.0
-
Does a car run when it doesn't have any petrol?
You should be eating 1200 calories at a minimum. If you exercise and your "net" (cals eaten - cals exercised) goes below 1200, you need to eat enough to bring it back to 1200.
You don't just burn calories exercising, you burn them merely being alive. And if you don't eat enough fuel to maintain those vital functions, they slow down, stop being efficient and, in extreme cases, stop.
If you exercise off all the calories you eat, you leave nothing to fuel breathing, heart beating, healing, vital organ function, growing, digesting, regeneration of cells, brain functions...0 -
curious how one would burn 4700 calories in one day??????0
-
so you would be negative 3500 for the day? in theory yes that is one pound loss so it should work ….although you are going to burn through a lot of muscle mass doing that ...0
-
Does a car run when it doesn't have any petrol?
You should be eating 1200 calories at a minimum. If you exercise and your "net" (cals eaten - cals exercised) goes below 1200, you need to eat enough to bring it back to 1200.
You don't just burn calories exercising, you burn them merely being alive. And if you don't eat enough fuel to maintain those vital functions, they slow down, stop being efficient and, in extreme cases, stop.
If you exercise off all the calories you eat, you leave nothing to fuel breathing, heart beating, healing, vital organ function, growing, digesting, regeneration of cells, brain functions...
That's not entirely true. You would still be able to pull energy from the fat stores on your body. The ones you're trying to deplete. I think, at that point, you'd basically be eating more for the non-caloric nutrients and minerals in food. Vitamins, minerals, that sort of thing, and relying on extra body fat to supply the energy for basic functions.0 -
Does a car run when it doesn't have any petrol?
You should be eating 1200 calories at a minimum. If you exercise and your "net" (cals eaten - cals exercised) goes below 1200, you need to eat enough to bring it back to 1200.
You don't just burn calories exercising, you burn them merely being alive. And if you don't eat enough fuel to maintain those vital functions, they slow down, stop being efficient and, in extreme cases, stop.
If you exercise off all the calories you eat, you leave nothing to fuel breathing, heart beating, healing, vital organ function, growing, digesting, regeneration of cells, brain functions...
That's not entirely true. You would still be able to pull energy from the fat stores on your body. The ones you're trying to deplete. I think, at that point, you'd basically be eating more for the non-caloric nutrients and minerals in food. Vitamins, minerals, that sort of thing, and relying on extra body fat to supply the energy for basic functions.
True, I oversimplified. Your body will pull all that energy but it will be no better than blanket starvation and you will lose muscle mass etc etc.0 -
curious how one would burn 4700 calories in one day??????
Mini trampoline. .. I keed I keed.
Okay, you would never want to do that. Because this isn't about losing weight, right? Technically, this is about losing fat. And to achieve this, you have to do it at a reasonable pace. You can lose weight as fast as you want but you're probably not going like the end results as much racing0 -
Think about whether your weight or your body fat% is your real goal...
Also consider that if you are losing "weight" just as a number, many of the pounds you will drop with that kind of eating will be from muscle and possibly other tissue, not just fat.
Think about your health and how many more calories you could be burning with healthy muscles.
Aaannnd while, yes, in theory, the number will go down, consider the cost and if the loss of muscle and health and energy and bone mass and hair is worth it to you. I guess for some people it might be, but there are a lot of good reasons to be patient and lose weight the slower, healthier way.
It might be good to keep in mind that people who lose weight more slowly are more likely to develop the habits to keep the weight off in the long term and not send their bodies into shock.0 -
Does a car run when it doesn't have any petrol?
You should be eating 1200 calories at a minimum. If you exercise and your "net" (cals eaten - cals exercised) goes below 1200, you need to eat enough to bring it back to 1200.
You don't just burn calories exercising, you burn them merely being alive. And if you don't eat enough fuel to maintain those vital functions, they slow down, stop being efficient and, in extreme cases, stop.
If you exercise off all the calories you eat, you leave nothing to fuel breathing, heart beating, healing, vital organ function, growing, digesting, regeneration of cells, brain functions...
That's not entirely true. You would still be able to pull energy from the fat stores on your body. The ones you're trying to deplete. I think, at that point, you'd basically be eating more for the non-caloric nutrients and minerals in food. Vitamins, minerals, that sort of thing, and relying on extra body fat to supply the energy for basic functions.
True, I oversimplified. Your body will pull all that energy but it will be no better than blanket starvation and you will lose muscle mass etc etc.
I think the blanket starvation would be easier than trying to burn 4700 cals on only 1200 cals of input.
And actually the only way to lose 1 pound of weight consistently has be discussed and is against Galactic Law.0 -
curious how one would burn 4700 calories in one day??????
Mini trampoline. .. I keed I keed.
Okay, you would never want to do that. Because this isn't about losing weight, right? Technically, this is about losing fat. And to achieve this, you have to do it at a reasonable pace. You can lose weight as fast as you want but you're probably not going like the end results as much racing
i guess the mini tramp would do it ….0 -
True, I oversimplified. Your body will pull all that energy but it will be no better than blanket starvation and you will lose muscle mass etc etc.
See, not sure if that's necessarily true either. You'd still be getting non-caloric nutrients, and you'd even still be getting protein, fat, and carbohydrates - the part of the meal that supplies energy. Muscle mass would most likely decrease, that's true, but I don't think it would be quite the same as blanket starvation. Because with blanket starvation you're not getting any nutrients or outside energy at all, and the flip side of starvation would be consuming nothing but straight glucose. Possible, but not a good idea, because you would be malnourished. You wouldn't be getting any vitamins or minerals, but you would have the necessary energy to survive. It'd be more similar to trying to subsist off body fat and vitamin/mineral supplements. Maybe some amino acid supplements (are those a thing? they seem like they'd be a thing).
Again, this is all theoretical. I'm so not trying to do this, XD I'm not completely insane,
0 -
Think about whether your weight or your body fat% is your real goal...
Also consider that if you are losing "weight" just as a number, many of the pounds you will drop with that kind of eating will be from muscle and possibly other tissue, not just fat.
Think about your health and how many more calories you could be burning with healthy muscles.
Aaannnd while, yes, in theory, the number will go down, consider the cost and if the loss of muscle and health and energy and bone mass and hair is worth it to you. I guess for some people it might be, but there are a lot of good reasons to be patient and lose weight the slower, healthier way.
It might be good to keep in mind that people who lose weight more slowly are more likely to develop the habits to keep the weight off in the long term and not send their bodies into shock.
I appreciate the concern, but as I've stated, this is purely theoretical. I'm not looking at it in a serious manner, just a "wonder if it's possible" kind of manner. It would be an interesting experiment, I think, but not one I'm interesting in running on myself.
Also, the idea was more along the lines of still getting the nutrition of eating, just not getting all the energy. Relying on the fat stores for the energy, but still getting necessary non-caloric nutrition, which would combat the various other tissue losses, though not necessarily muscle loss, because muscle building relies on protein. Sorry that wasn't very clear.0 -
I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
Yes, but there is a maximum amount of fat the body can oxidize (use) per day, as determined mostly by how much fat you already have. Chances are only about half of that pound would come from fat.
The rest would come from:
Muscle
Bone
Organ mass
Brittle bones, weakness, no muscle tone, and actual loss of heart muscle, liver volume, skin, etc. \
Sound pleasant? No?
Then stick to reasonable, 1-2 lbs/week.0 -
Think about whether your weight or your body fat% is your real goal...
Also consider that if you are losing "weight" just as a number, many of the pounds you will drop with that kind of eating will be from muscle and possibly other tissue, not just fat.
Think about your health and how many more calories you could be burning with healthy muscles.
Aaannnd while, yes, in theory, the number will go down, consider the cost and if the loss of muscle and health and energy and bone mass and hair is worth it to you. I guess for some people it might be, but there are a lot of good reasons to be patient and lose weight the slower, healthier way.
It might be good to keep in mind that people who lose weight more slowly are more likely to develop the habits to keep the weight off in the long term and not send their bodies into shock.
I appreciate the concern, but as I've stated, this is purely theoretical. I'm not looking at it in a serious manner, just a "wonder if it's possible" kind of manner. It would be an interesting experiment, I think, but not one I'm interesting in running on myself.
Also, the idea was more along the lines of still getting the nutrition of eating, just not getting all the energy. Relying on the fat stores for the energy, but still getting necessary non-caloric nutrition, which would combat the various other tissue losses, though not necessarily muscle loss, because muscle building relies on protein. Sorry that wasn't very clear.
Okay, you're theory is to NET -3500 calories, correct? That's not getting proper nutrition. Having a negative calorie amount isn't getting proper nutrition. Even if you hit your micro and macro targets at a 1200 calorie range, you're NEGATING it all by over exercising. Protein, Carbs, Fat, and Fiber have a caloric value. Your body will not be getting the nutrients it needs. So, yes you would be sacrificing overall health to achieve it. Though, let's be fair...eating at 1200 calories a person would probably pass out long before they managed to burn 4700 calories. Or at least end up in the hospital. I would at least, because about halfway through that I'd be raiding any place that had food for peanut butter and crackers and gnashing at people who tried to touch me from being so hangry.0 -
I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
Yes, but there is a maximum amount of fat the body can oxidize (use) per day, as determined mostly by how much fat you already have. Chances are only about half of that pound would come from fat.
The rest would come from:
Muscle
Bone
Organ mass
Brittle bones, weakness, no muscle tone, and actual loss of heart muscle, liver volume, skin, etc. \
Sound pleasant? No?
Then stick to reasonable, 1-2 lbs/week.
I think you missed the part that says IN THEORY as in, i'm not actually doing this, not thinking of doing it, it's completely theoretical, and in my head. Not real. Also, I think it's fairly obvious you didn't read any of the other replies, because the theory has been refined through the topic.
0 -
I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
Yes, but there is a maximum amount of fat the body can oxidize (use) per day, as determined mostly by how much fat you already have. Chances are only about half of that pound would come from fat.
The rest would come from:
Muscle
Bone
Organ mass
Brittle bones, weakness, no muscle tone, and actual loss of heart muscle, liver volume, skin, etc. \
Sound pleasant? No?
Then stick to reasonable, 1-2 lbs/week.
I think you missed the part that says IN THEORY as in, i'm not actually doing this, not thinking of doing it, it's completely theoretical, and in my head. Not real. Also, I think it's fairly obvious you didn't read any of the other replies, because the theory has been refined through the topic.
I saw the part that said in theory. I also read the whole thread. I provided information that no one else had: that there is a maximim amount of fat that can be utilized by the body in a given day, and I was specific about where the extra mass loss would come from.
My post still stands as posted. If you did this, a large portion of the mass loss would be muscle, bone, and organ mass instead of fat mass.
I apologize if you don't like it, but those are the facts. I don't really care if you're thinking of doing this or not. In theory, those are the effects you would experience if you did.0 -
this is a theoretically horrible idea…
/end thread0 -
Thankfully, I think the human body would rebel and not allow a deficit like that to continue for long. In theory.In theory, those are the effects you would experience if you did.0 -
Okay, you're theory is to NET -3500 calories, correct? That's not getting proper nutrition. Having a negative calorie amount isn't getting proper nutrition. Even if you hit your micro and macro targets at a 1200 calorie range, you're NEGATING it all by over exercising. Protein, Carbs, Fat, and Fiber have a caloric value. Your body will not be getting the nutrients it needs. So, yes you would be sacrificing overall health to achieve it. Though, let's be fair...eating at 1200 calories a person would probably pass out long before they managed to burn 4700 calories. Or at least end up in the hospital. I would at least, because about halfway through that I'd be raiding any place that had food for peanut butter and crackers and gnashing at people who tried to touch me from being so hangry.
Not entirely sure I follow. Protein, Carbs (I include fibre with carbs), and fat have caloric value. But your vitamins and minerals do not. You don't get energy from Vitamins, or from iron, manganese, zinc, potassium, calcium, etc. So if you're eating and meeting your vitamin and mineral needs, but not the energy needs, it's a completely different ballgame. You would still have the vitamins and minerals needed for maintaining bone and other tissue. You wouldn't expend those vitamins or minerals through exercising, and your body can only absorb a certain amount of each of these anyway, so even if you eat back the calories, you would only be getting the energy from them, and none of the other nutrients. The only nutrient you would be depleting is protein.
You could be right about the hospital thing though. I think it would depend on the size and weight of the person, since larger people burn more calories easier, and generally have more fat to burn.0 -
I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.
IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?
Yes, but there is a maximum amount of fat the body can oxidize (use) per day, as determined mostly by how much fat you already have. Chances are only about half of that pound would come from fat.
The rest would come from:
Muscle
Bone
Organ mass
Brittle bones, weakness, no muscle tone, and actual loss of heart muscle, liver volume, skin, etc. \
Sound pleasant? No?
Then stick to reasonable, 1-2 lbs/week.
I think you missed the part that says IN THEORY as in, i'm not actually doing this, not thinking of doing it, it's completely theoretical, and in my head. Not real. Also, I think it's fairly obvious you didn't read any of the other replies, because the theory has been refined through the topic.
the problem with that...
is that someone could very well come here, looking for help with losing weight... read the first part of this thread and just do it. REGARDLESS whether it's a good idea or not.
So while it's theoretical, you're putting out information that someone might put into use. That's why so many folks are out here trying to squash threads like this with science and good information, hoping that the general MFP user that's looking for a quick fix will just keep moving on.0 -
Okay, you're theory is to NET -3500 calories, correct? That's not getting proper nutrition. Having a negative calorie amount isn't getting proper nutrition. Even if you hit your micro and macro targets at a 1200 calorie range, you're NEGATING it all by over exercising. Protein, Carbs, Fat, and Fiber have a caloric value. Your body will not be getting the nutrients it needs. So, yes you would be sacrificing overall health to achieve it. Though, let's be fair...eating at 1200 calories a person would probably pass out long before they managed to burn 4700 calories. Or at least end up in the hospital. I would at least, because about halfway through that I'd be raiding any place that had food for peanut butter and crackers and gnashing at people who tried to touch me from being so hangry.
Not entirely sure I follow. Protein, Carbs (I include fibre with carbs), and fat have caloric value. But your vitamins and minerals do not. You don't get energy from Vitamins, or from iron, manganese, zinc, potassium, calcium, etc. So if you're eating and meeting your vitamin and mineral needs, but not the energy needs, it's a completely different ballgame. You would still have the vitamins and minerals needed for maintaining bone and other tissue. You wouldn't expend those vitamins or minerals through exercising, and your body can only absorb a certain amount of each of these anyway, so even if you eat back the calories, you would only be getting the energy from them, and none of the other nutrients. The only nutrient you would be depleting is protein.
You could be right about the hospital thing though. I think it would depend on the size and weight of the person, since larger people burn more calories easier, and generally have more fat to burn.
Micronutrients don't get used in a vacuum. They're part of metabolism. Burning energy uses a lot of those micronutrients, and vitamin and mineral needs to up with increased activity.
You are flat-out wrong when you say "the only nutrient you would be depleting is protein." That doesn't even make sense.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. If you did manage to actually run a 3500 calorie deficit in a day, your body will break down any tissue it can find to harvest calories. You would end up in the hospital before very long.
What's your question, exactly? It seems unclear.0 -
I'm not sure why you are getting annoyed with people who are trying to help you chase through the details of your idea. I mean, if you didn't want more data on the matter, why ask? And if you aren't going to completely think something through, why even bother? Even as just a thought exercise, it's worthless if you ignore the actual very real aspects of human biology that would cause it to fail.0
-
I don't believe the body necessarily loses one pound for every so many calories (3500 or whatever a particular article sites) burned. Weight loss isn't linear.0
-
I saw the part that said in theory. I also read the whole thread. I provided information that no one else had: that there is a maximim amount of fat that can be utilized by the body in a given day, and I was specific about where the extra mass loss would come from.
My post still stands as posted. If you did this, a large portion of the mass loss would be muscle, bone, and organ mass instead of fat mass.
I apologize if you don't like it, but those are the facts. I don't really care if you're thinking of doing this or not. In theory, those are the effects you would experience if you did.
It's not that I don't like it, it's just that i'm not entirely sure that's true. I've been looking and I can't find anything that says your body can only oxidize so much fat per day. Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time. They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons. I'm more or less probing into the science behind it.0 -
I don't believe the body necessarily loses one pound for every so many calories (3500 or whatever a particular article sites) burned. Weight loss isn't linear.
That's true too, more or less.
The body will get a fairly exact number of calories from breaking down x grams of muscle, and a different number from breaking down x grams of fat, bone, etc. The 3500 is a (very rough) approximation borne mostly from experience. It's generally pretty close to true, give or take.
The fact that weight loss isn't linear is partly to do with that, partly due to the inherent difficulty in estimating calorie burn, and partly to do with the huge variability of water storage by the body's tissues depending on what they're currently up to.0 -
Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time.
Why do you believe that to be true?They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons.
In which, essentially, the risks from the crash diet outweigh the huge risk of their current condition. It doesn't mean that there are no grave risks.0 -
It's not that I don't like it, it's just that i'm not entirely sure that's true. I've been looking and I can't find anything that says your body can only oxidize so much fat per day. Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time. They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons. I'm more or less probing into the science behind it.
You're not sure it's true? What do you mean? Based on what?
On what basis do you claim you'd have to be doing it for a ridiculous amount of time?
Are you under the impression that, when losing weight, all the weight you lose is fat? You couldn't be further from the truth.
You're not probing into the science behind it. Frankly, you appear to be attempting to justify having a go at it. You're flat-out rejecting the science behind it and have clearly done zero independent research into the subject.0 -
meh. the lack of imagination and consideration bores me. I think it would be easier to appreciate the opinions and input of others if they weren't so condescending. le sigh.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions