What can low calories do to your weight loss?

Triplesget
Triplesget Posts: 66
in Health and Weight Loss
Just curious--if to maintain your weight you need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this, what can be the result? Can having a low calorie intake stunt your weight loss rather than speed it up as many would have you believe?

Replies

  • Kel1677
    Kel1677 Posts: 76 Member
    That's a great question! Can't wait to hear some answers
  • WhyLime113
    WhyLime113 Posts: 104 Member
    The example I generally use is 1000 calories (someone eating at 2000 will probably be fine, but I see your point).
    The issue with eating so little is less what it does do your weight loss, and more what it does to your health. A slight calorie deficit is normal and healthy, but if it's too large, it can result in various health concerns. Eating too little is a sign of disordered eating, and if not kept in check may lead to binging, anorexia, bulimia, etc. It can make you lethargic, more prone to illness, liver failure, heart failure, etc. In regards to the effects on weight loss, I've seen it reported by some that it more quickly results in a plateau, will make weight come on faster when you return to a more reasonable amount, and can result in retaining water weight. Some say that it can reduce fat loss and muscle gain (some say that it can even result in muscle loss, though that's questionable). Personally, however, I'd be concerned that it would result in TOO MUCH weight loss too fast, once you get over the plateau.
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    I decided that I was going to really kick my weight in the *kitten* and go very low on calories. Big mistake, I almost got sick, couldn't exercise and didn't lose a damn pound. I felt so bad I decided to eat just under my goal. When i did that I lost big weight. Go for the slight deficit and slow steady progress, it works!
  • Kel1677
    Kel1677 Posts: 76 Member
    Some days I am under my goal but I walk so much at work my fitbit flex gives me extra calories to eat and I eat them. I think maybe I should only eat a quater or half of them. Or maybe just up my activity level to active from slightly after this hip flexor muscle heals. Not sure which would be better. I think upping the activity would be less guess work and just don't eat back the exercise calories. Any suggestions? FYI I average anywhere fron 17000 - 20000 steps per day
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Just curious--if to maintain your weight you need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this, what can be the result? Can having a low calorie intake stunt your weight loss rather than speed it up as many would have you believe?

    Ask the emancipated people all around the world starving to death if eating at a severe deficit "stunts your weight loss".

    I'm sure all of them, and the millions who have died from starvation, looking like flesh painted skeletons, wish all this starvation mode crap was true. World hunger wouldn't exist if the human body stunted weight loss when in a severe deficit.

    What will happen if you "need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this"? You're going to lose a lot of weight.
  • LumberJacck
    LumberJacck Posts: 559 Member
    You just need to watch Survivor. Most people end up losing weight on that show. You can also find out about specific weight losses during the show, by going to youtube and searching "ponderosa", they show the person being weighed, and state how much was lost.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Wut
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Just curious--if to maintain your weight you need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this, what can be the result? Can having a low calorie intake stunt your weight loss rather than speed it up as many would have you believe?

    Ask the emancipated people all around the world starving to death if eating at a severe deficit "stunts your weight loss".

    I'm sure all of them, and the millions who have died from starvation, looking like flesh painted skeletons, wish all this starvation mode crap was true. World hunger wouldn't exist if the human body stunted weight loss when in a severe deficit.

    What will happen if you "need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this"? You're going to lose a lot of weight.

    no

    plus emancipated =/= emaciated

    lol
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Just curious--if to maintain your weight you need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this, what can be the result? Can having a low calorie intake stunt your weight loss rather than speed it up as many would have you believe?

    Ask the emancipated people all around the world starving to death if eating at a severe deficit "stunts your weight loss".

    I'm sure all of them, and the millions who have died from starvation, looking like flesh painted skeletons, wish all this starvation mode crap was true. World hunger wouldn't exist if the human body stunted weight loss when in a severe deficit.

    What will happen if you "need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this"? You're going to lose a lot of weight.

    no

    plus emancipated =/= emaciated

    lol
    Despite word usage, yes.
  • csy108
    csy108 Posts: 58 Member
    Of course eating a severe calorie deficit will result in rapid, unhealthy weight loss. That's what happens when a person starves. Don't do it.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    What is considered 'rapid and unhealthy' here is very different from what is out in the world. The usual standard is that it's healthy to lose up to 2 lbs/week (more if you're very obese or new to a diet). So a 1000 calorie/day deficit is generally considered healthy and exercise is always considered healthy.

    What is virtually always ignored here is that there are huge benefits to losing weight at paces other than 'snail'. It's motivating and keeps people complying and it gets people out of dangerous BMI levels faster. The 'loss of lean body mass' fear is exaggerated and the 'starvation mode' fear is huuuuuuuugely exaggerated.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    What is considered 'rapid and unhealthy' here is very different from what is out in the world. The usual standard is that it's healthy to lose up to 2 lbs/week (more if you're very obese or new to a diet). So a 1000 calorie/day deficit is generally considered healthy and exercise is always considered healthy.

    What is virtually always ignored here is that there are huge benefits to losing weight at paces other than 'snail'. It's motivating and keeps people complying and it gets people out of dangerous BMI levels faster. The 'loss of lean body mass' fear is exaggerated and the 'starvation mode' fear is huuuuuuuugely exaggerated.
    This is how I see it as well.

    The "standard" weight loss goals cited here would have me taking two years to lose my hundred or so pounds. I have no desire whatsoever to eat at a deficit for two years. I've already dropped out of Obese II (granted, I wasn't very far into it) and am over halfway through Obese I. I'm hoping to be "only" overweight by the end of August. My goal is to lose the weight in half the "ideal" rate, if not sooner.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Just curious--if to maintain your weight you need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this, what can be the result? Can having a low calorie intake stunt your weight loss rather than speed it up as many would have you believe?

    Ask the emancipated people all around the world starving to death if eating at a severe deficit "stunts your weight loss".

    I'm sure all of them, and the millions who have died from starvation, looking like flesh painted skeletons, wish all this starvation mode crap was true. World hunger wouldn't exist if the human body stunted weight loss when in a severe deficit.

    What will happen if you "need 3000, but your intake is 2000 and you workout alongside this"? You're going to lose a lot of weight.

    no

    plus emancipated =/= emaciated

    lol
    Despite word usage, yes.

    *shrugs* It was 6:30 in the morning and I was nodding off. Sue me.

    Regardless, I am correct about the concept. Unless you don't believe people can actually starve to death?

Categories