Weight loss surgery and the 1,200 calorie stigma

I don't know where the stigma or recommendation came from, but anorexia is a serious disease and people die from that. Personally I'm at zero risk of ever getting this disease. I love food a bit too much - duh

As for getting your blood drawn every two months and being monitored by a doctor who knows you're eating that little, personally I'd say that's fine. Me, I see my doc once a year possibly once every two years if that's the frequency she says. And I haven't had any blood drawn at a doctors office in years. I suspect a typical person wouldn't monitor their blood and other stats that often and doing so specifically for your diet would put a person in the doctor monitored diet category

I have two friends on lap bands and neither of them was told to eat so few calories. They were both given appropriate diets for the body size. One was on 1700 and the other about 1500 cals. The idea that lap bands only let you eat 500 odd cals is totally wrong. All it does is stop you eating so fast, you cannot stuff your face with food and blow your target in 5 mins. You can however easily eat thousands of calories a day just a lot slower.

ggirard27 wrote: »

I'm a 5'11", 172lbs starting weight 23 year old male that has been eating 800-1300 cal (usually around 1000-1100) a day for 30 days so far. I weigh everything solid, measure everything liquid. I don't underestimate my food intake.

I do 60 push ups 4 days a week, 60 sit ups 4 days a week. Otherwise I'm a couch potato. I eat pretty much the same thing everyday, although there are some variations. My macros target is 40% proteins, 35% fat, 25% carbohydrates. I usually don't hit those targets, I'm more around 3X/3X/3X.

I focus on eating less at supper, which was the meal on which I feasted the most. My typical dinners used to top 1000 calories easily.

I've never felt better. I don't feel tired, although I sleep better than ever. I don't have headaches. I don't have problems concentrating at work.

I'm not advocating that everybody eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.

I now weigh ~159lbs, some weight I've lost could very well be lean mass, I know. I'm targeting 150lbs. Target date is December 21st. Afterwards, I will increase to 1600 for 2 weeks, then 2000 for 2 weeks, then tune up 100 cal a week until I find my maintenance daily intake. That way, When I'm back at maintenance, I should still be around 150lbs.

I'm a long-time lurker of these forums, and I think I know the typical user well enough to know that I will receive hate-mail. I don't mind, don't even bother, your words are wasted on me.

PLEASE READ:
I am not a dietician, doctor, or voodoo shaman.
I am aware of food disorders.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.

You don't encourage rapid weight loss, yet you've lose more than 2 pounds a week at an already healthy weight?

What stigma? Outside of this board, nobody is going to know or care how much you eat. There is no stigma.

Even if there was some kind of stigma, what is more important: your health or this stigma?

Do what the doctors tell you.

Kalikel wrote: »

What stigma? Outside of this board, nobody is going to know or care how much you eat. There is no stigma.

Even if there was some kind of stigma, what is more important: your health or this stigma?

Do what the doctors tell you.

I tend to agree.

Though WebMD does suggest 1200 as a minimum for men and 1000 for women.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diet
General recommendations for a low-calorie diet include:
Reducing calorie intake to 1,200 to 1,500 calories per day for women and 1,500 to 1,800 calories per day for men. Women should not restrict themselves to fewer than 1,000 calories per day and men to fewer than 1,200 calories per day without medical supervision.

Here's one fitness authority's comment on the 1200 thing:
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

thedarkwombat wrote: »

This is more of a hypothetical question.

I see a lot of talk on here and the internet regarding the "dangers" of going below 1,200 calories. That topic in of itself has been done to death. I am not taking the position of suggesting anyone go below that amount.

At the same time though, I question it's genesis. We see people having LapBand and gastric bypass surgery and can barely eat 600 to 800 calories a day. Now, yes they are in a "doctor monitored" diet. But hypothetically, if someone was overweight and was able to eat 800 calories a day, saw their doctor once a month, got their blood and numbers ran every couple months and got enough protein and water, whats makes then so different from someone who had the surgery?

Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died? Even on these websites if you try to calculate super low calories information they REFUSE to go below a certain "healthy" amount of food and warn you of the "dangers". Is this just an obligation of responsibility so some moron doesn't starve to death?

So I guess my question is, where did this 1,200 calorie stigma start?

Not only are those people being monitored by medical professionals, they are also given diets by dieticians in order to obtain as optimal nutrition as possible on such low calories. Most people who just arbitrarily sign up for MFP and decide they're going to basically starve themselves don't have a clue about actual nutrition or the nutrients their body's need...and frankly, many of them are young women who have eating disorders and don't have any weight to lose in the first place.

If you search, you will find plenty of posts on this very forum of people eating too few calories and not getting proper nutrition and losing their periods, nails cracking and breaking off, hair falling out, etc....

Most of the "pro-ana crowd" are much kinder and better behaved than many people who frequent these boards. For the most part, those girls are very sweet. He'd on themselves, but very good to others.

These threads you see that sound like anorexics are rarely started by actual anorexics. They're troll threads. Anorexics DO NOT NEED diet tips, lol. If there is one thing they know, it's how to lose weight. They also do not go around advertising their problems, especially in places where they'll be insulted. Their self-esteem is low enough already. They won't ask for insults.

When you see a thread giving textbook descriptions of anorexia and asking for tips on weight loss, know this: the person is trolling.

We see many posts that discuss unhealthy and disordered eating here...but they're always the kind of disordered and unhealthy things that make you fat instead of too thin. Having a disorder that makes you fat doesn't make one better than having one that makes you thin. It makes you their equal.

I just had to say my piece there and am not trying to pick on anyone.

It would be so nice if the overeaters could lop off half their problem and the undereaters could lop off half of theirs and everyone could switch and all would be healthy and happy. As it is, I guess we all have to work on our own issues.

If some anorexic girl reads this and decides to friend me, know this: I will tell you to eat. I will tell you that all the time. Because you should be eating. Everyone deserves to eat and be healthy and YOU are part of everyone. There are precisely two ways out of ana: recovery and death. Guess which one I support? (And guess which one I will encourage you to seek? Uh-huh.) Make no mistake! I support the person. I do not (NOT!) support the starving behavior. So, there's that.

cwolfman13 wrote: »

If you search, you will find plenty of posts on this very forum of people eating too few calories and not getting proper nutrition and losing their periods, nails cracking and breaking off, hair falling out, etc....

Obviously we all read a different subset of threads but the ones I've seen with physical symptoms are amenorrhic due to too low of body fat and too much exercise, not really nutrition issues.

And then way more common is the teen/20-something who is trying their first diet and is thinking they "broke" themselves from undereating for 3 days, mostly from forum misinfo.

I hear a lot about the anorexics here but have not met any. You'd think they'd befriend me, since I defend 1200 as safe. I really think they have pro-ana sites to hang out at.

Anorexia is much more complicated than eating less than a certain amount of calories. It is a control related disorder.

The short of it - anorexia is about control.

Yes, much of pro-Ana items are related to food, but more importantly there is a lot of hiding and not wanting anyone to take away the thing they can control.

The amount of calories one uses to lose weight won't necessarily indicate a disorder and is a highly personal and at times sensitive topic.

The 1,000 or 1,200 threshold, I think has to do with legal liability more than anything. Eating too little over a period of time can be extremely detrimental especially if not closely monitored by a doctor. Most can maintain the necessary nutrients to sustain life at calories over 1,000. Of course there are other factors that factor in, age, height, sex, medical conditions, etc.


Yes, for some long term nutritional deficits would manifest if one were not to get more than those minimum recommended calorie amounts and their body required it. But the human body is pretty darn amazing and will (without a disorder present) make one pretty miserable until they took in enough calories to be healthy.

It is not a myth. It is a known fact that it takes roughly 1200-1500 cal for the average healthy female or male respectively to maintain BMR for the things our bodies do like breathing, digestion, cell function etc... That is if you are just sitting there. If the most inactive people would still use more than that. While it is true that a person who has any type of WLS will eat few calories initially any program worth its weight would not advocate that long term. It is true that you can get the vitamins and minerals needed from supplements (always necessary for RNY because of the nature of the surgery) getting them from food is much better and more satisfying. I had the vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). I am four months out and I currently eat on average 1000-1200 cal a day. I get most of what I need from food, which is how mother nature intended. I have lost more than 100 lbs, 60 of which is post the procedure. What the procedure did for me is allows me to manage my portions which were way out of control. I now get cues that I am full that I have not had in a long time from years of over eating. I feel like I am in control of the food instead of the food being in control of me. It is however possible for every person that has WLS to eat around their tool and many do. Many people know someone who has. I do. Just like all endeavors a person has to be committed to a lifestyle change and that is also true of people who choose to have WLS. I still pick healthy options, avoid sweets, and I exercise 4-6/week.

zarckon wrote:

My question is actually more around "calories eaten" vs "net calories".
... It seems to me that we should make a distinction between "sitting on the couch all day and only ate 1200" and "Ate 1800 and knocked out 600 calories of exercise with a long workout". The second seems far better to me.

Aside from the benefits of exercise, the 2 are exactly equal.
You're going to lose the same amount of weight with both approaches.
Actually, my doctor says to ignore exercise calories, just eat at my goal.