I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?

Your fat reserves might be able to supply say 600 cals a day, so if you use 2000 and eat 800 there's a deficiency which may be met by something slowing down. That may be OK for a day or two but probably not a month.

The 1200 minimum is supposed to ensure adequate nutrition, not just energy (calories) ie 1200 cals of varied food is likely to meet your needs.

Your calorie goal already has a deficit built in. If you ate the 1200 and didn't exercise you would still lose.

Starvation mode is a myth, but by eating a small amount and exercising may cause other damage in the long run, such as more muscle loss, bone density loss, hair loss, brittle nails and fatigue. You need to be eating more to make sure that your body is getting the fuel that it needs to run and get the nutrients that it needs.

http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/

This article has a good description of the dangers of eating too few calories.

Yes, you can eat too little. It isn't safe to eat less than 1200 for more than a few days. Since you are also working out, you should also be eating to fuel your workouts as well. That might put you at an even higher number, depending on length and intensity of your workouts.

However, eating less than 1200 will not cause your body to retain weight because it is trying hold onto it. The only way for the body to retain weight when you are eating at a deficit is for it to die, and even then it doesn't retain it very well.

Ultimately, goals will determine this. If you body comp goals (body vat vs lean body mass/muscle), then yes... eating too little is something to think about. If you only care about scale weight, then no, not really. At least not over reasonably short periods of time. If you tried to sustain yourself on 500 cals for months and years, then you may run into issues. But doing it for a few weeks to a few months to lose some weight isn't a big deal.

Note: we're only talking about calories here, not nutrition, though the 2 do go hand in hand to some degree.


As far as not losing if you eat more... that might be purely psychological. Inaccurate logging/estimating might also play a role... as could patience, or a lack there of.

Ultimately, to lose weight you need to provide your body fewer calories than it needs. As long as you do that, you'll lose weight. The greater the discrepancy, the faster you'll lose, but you'll still lose.

Naw, 115 still within an appropriate range running by just the BMI scale. Dancer-thin, yes. Personal preference? No. But within an appropriately healthy range.

(Not that I like BMI over body fat percentage, but it was the only measurement I could use based on the info given)

kerimanuel wrote: »

So, is it possible to meet your nutrition requirements by eating the "right foods" and still being in a calorie deficit?

Certainly. The size of the deficit may play a role, but speaking generally it's absolutely possible.

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

Sinistrous wrote: »

To bluntly put it, google pictures of "Starving children" and then google why their bodies end up looking the way they do, then answer that for yourself.

Yes, you can eat too little. Do not do it.
Good luck!

If you're referring to people who are starving with distended stomachs, that is usually the result of kwashiorkor, a malnutrition specific to a lack of protein in the diet. You can be eating a sustainable amount of calories but go without protein long enough and kwashiorkor is the result. The distended stomach is from the body holding on to too much liquid (edema). But this is incredibly rare in any first world nation with the food supplies we have.

All that is to say there is no point in "starving yourself" when it comes to dieting, but saying "look at the starving children, that could be you" is an extreme comparison and I think a little over the top when compared to someone trying to lose weight.

One of the biggest hiccups you'll encounter eating consistently too little is eventually your body might send you on a binge. If I end up stretching too long between meals I will eat more when I do finally sit down and eat. People experiencing famine don't have this option. Although it's a negative thing in our eyes because we're trying to lose weight, it's your body trying to self-correct itself thinking food is scarce.

So take it easy on your body and get the fuel you need to last throughout the day. If you are honestly eating 800-1000 calories per day and are full of energy, not tired or irritable, and feel great, fine. But you should also make sure you're counting calories correctly. Get a cheap food scale and weigh some of your favorite foods just to make sure you're getting the right serving. A lot of "serving suggestions" by volume are off compared to weight, and things like meat and other non measurable items you are just eyeballing. It's hard to believe someone of your height (I am also 5'4", and would go nuts if I ate that little) can sustain their body on so little food and not notice any negative side effects. But this is why I think investing in a scale to REALLY make sure you're eating what you think you're eating.

kerimanuel wrote: »

This is what I thought too, but I'm hearing others say it's unhealthy. I don't want to be unhealthy. I want to be thin, fit, toned and healthy.

Healthy, fit, and "toned" people eat to support their activity. You can't be fit and toned when you lose muscle mass running huge energy deficits.

I'm Healthy, fit, and "toned"...I ride about 80 miles per week on average and lift 3x weekly...plus I do some hiking, swimming, and I'm just generally active chasing around a 2 and 4 y.o. With all of that activity, I maintain my weight at right around 2800 - 3000 calories per day...sure, I could crash my diet and just eat 1800 (which is what MFP gives me BEFORE exercise)...but I would generally feel like *kitten* in pretty short order. Not to mention, hitting the gym would be a waste of time because there's no way I'd be able to hold on to my muscle mass with that kind of energy deficit. I'd also run into performance issues as well as exercise recovery issues and I would increase my risk of injury. So when I want to lose weight I just eat around 2400 calories per day...no need to "starve" myself. This provides me with a deficit of energy to lose weight (2800 - 2300 = 500 calorie deficit) but provides me with adequate energy and nutrition to support my fitness and other activities.

You are pretty petite so if you feel ok eating that much I'm sure it's fine.

The 1200 calorie thing came from studying someone in a coma? How big was this person? Was it a male or female? How old were they? Everyone is different, and I honestly don't think 1200 calorie rule applies to everyone.

kace_kay wrote: »

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

MFP estimates are a bit low. Figure out your BMR and TDEE and go from there.

My guess is that her estimate is low because she picked a weekly weight loss goal that was too aggressive for the amount that she has to lose.