I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?
Replies
-
brianpperkins wrote: »
So you're on a VLCD that promotion of violates the guidelines of the site?
Hei guys I don't want to get in trouble with MFP actually I didn't know that it was a violation, normally I don't engage in chats I always read and not post...in any case my sincere apologies for having posted...
But just to clear the air it's a doctor's drawn programme, took bloods and all that and we do routine check ups. Am also not comfortable with it and we have agreed to up the intake after a certain milestone.. well the app has been helping me stay focused and I do intend to use it even at maintainance. .. it's a great app. And NO you can't do it without a Doc's approval.. I hope it's clear my sincere apologies for the confusion. It is important that u don't deprive your body nor starve it... take care of those bodies for they will take care of u when u older. Chaow and all the best.
The entire tone of this conversation is different if you include you're on a MEDICALLY ORDERED AND SUPERVISED low calorie diet. Without that important detail it reads as though you self selected a VLCD and then basically promoted it versus a doctor's order and supervision. It's a similar distinction between doctor's supervised and prescribed use of opiates for pain control and somebody buying and using them from a street dealer. The need for medical supervision during such diets is because they are inherently dangerous without a doctor.0 -
So you're eating under a 1000 calories a day and working out. You're body is not getting the nutrients it needs. Sure you'll lose that 14 pounds you need to and probably pretty quickly, but will it be sustainable?0
-
A dietician answers this question on the MFP blog today....... http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-should-i-eat-back-my-exercise-calories/?utm_source=mfp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly20150112&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoku6rBZKXonjHpfsX64+otUKexgokz2EFye+LIHETpodcMTsJmMK+TFAwTG5toziV8R7DBLM153N8QXRTg0
-
Thanks for sharing GulfcoastAL
0 -
GulfcoastAL wrote: »A dietician answers this question on the MFP blog today....... http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-should-i-eat-back-my-exercise-calories/?utm_source=mfp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly20150112&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoku6rBZKXonjHpfsX64+otUKexgokz2EFye+LIHETpodcMTsJmMK+TFAwTG5toziV8R7DBLM153N8QXRTg
Not to knock anyone for linking to this, but I think it's a horrible blog. Their reason for telling you not to eat back exercise calories is that they assume you are counting your calories incorrectly. That's just...dumb, IMO. Why not write a blog about how to tell if you're counting wrong and how to fix it? But what do you expect from a blog that advocates 5 minutes workouts.. </rant>.0 -
I think we need to get a bit of perspective here. Some of the folks posting here have been on VLCD diets or diets at 1000 or less because they have been extremely overweight, even obese, and under a doctor's supervision. Because these individuals have a lot of body fat reserve, they can go that low without compromising their health. But OP is an active person who is already normal weight striving to get to the lower end of her BMI. At some point, eating 800-1000 and essentially "netting" around 500 (because of her exercise) is going to cause some damage because she doesn't have that much reserve to work with. I'm 10 years older than OP and a little shorter, but fairly active (work out 5 X a week), I very seldom eat below 1200 or net below 1000. And my weight when I'm on track is 120, only 5 lbs. above OP's goal. The point -- she can reach her goal without the kind of extreme calorie restrictions being proposed.0
-
GulfcoastAL wrote: »A dietician answers this question on the MFP blog today....... http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-should-i-eat-back-my-exercise-calories/?utm_source=mfp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly20150112&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoku6rBZKXonjHpfsX64+otUKexgokz2EFye+LIHETpodcMTsJmMK+TFAwTG5toziV8R7DBLM153N8QXRTg
Not to knock anyone for linking to this, but I think it's a horrible blog. Their reason for telling you not to eat back exercise calories is that they assume you are counting your calories incorrectly. That's just...dumb, IMO. Why not write a blog about how to tell if you're counting wrong and how to fix it? But what do you expect from a blog that advocates 5 minutes workouts.. </rant>.
Indeed what a horrible blog post.
So like me ( i am on a 1200 calories a day and yes it is monitored!), should not eat anything more, and this while i train 6 times a week ( cardio) and 3 times a week light lifting?
So my body has enough energy to do that? Totally *kitten*!
Of course i know my HRM overestimate. I know that too. But i use my brains, read up and found out that a couple of sites said around the 25% overestimation for the Polar HT7.
Now when i burn 400 ( just to take an easy number) calories i eat about 25% back so a hundred. Not as bonus or that i can eat more. But because my body need the nutrition/fuel to keep up the work.
So this blog post is a very bad one. And should have indeed gone more into details what is wrong and how to fix it.
0 -
I think we need to get a bit of perspective here. Some of the folks posting here have been on VLCD diets or diets at 1000 or less because they have been extremely overweight, even obese, and under a doctor's supervision. Because these individuals have a lot of body fat reserve, they can go that low without compromising their health. But OP is an active person who is already normal weight striving to get to the lower end of her BMI. At some point, eating 800-1000 and essentially "netting" around 500 (because of her exercise) is going to cause some damage because she doesn't have that much reserve to work with. I'm 10 years older than OP and a little shorter, but fairly active (work out 5 X a week), I very seldom eat below 1200 or net below 1000. And my weight when I'm on track is 120, only 5 lbs. above OP's goal. The point -- she can reach her goal without the kind of extreme calorie restrictions being proposed.
^^^This. I am frightened at how many people, whose situations are not at all similar to the OP, are saying, "I did this because my doctor told me to and it worked for me". That's fine, but the OP has less than 15 lbs to lose (and I think even that is now debatable since she has acknowledged that maybe her goal is more about body recomp than a number on the scale.
OP - read this, as well as all the links embedded within.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
For context - I am 5'2 and lose 0.5 lbs/week (which is what the OP should be aiming for) at 1650 NET calories/day. I eat more like 1800-2000 cals/day.
0 -
I know. Who wants to listen to a dietician (and the My Fitness Pal Food & Nutrition Editor to boot!) when we have allllllllll these experts on the forums.
I adore 5 minute workouts, by the way.-1 -
"It’s easy, and fairly common to overestimate calorie burn (both from everyday activity and from exercise) and underestimate calorie consumption." ... so accurate logging undermines that entire blog ... but why read what is actually in it?0
-
It is possible to eat too little, but the main concerns of it are a) not eating enough to get minimum nutrient requirements such as protein and vitamins and b) degeneration of organs and bodily functions. B in particular is the health concern of starving - losing weight isn't starving, degeneration of your body's base systems due to lack of food is. Losing weight is just losing fat and maybe a little muscle to make up for the calories you didn't eat.
I would regard starvation scares and the magical number "1200" with skepticism. It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.0 -
GulfcoastAL wrote: »A dietician answers this question on the MFP blog today....... http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-should-i-eat-back-my-exercise-calories/?utm_source=mfp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly20150112&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoku6rBZKXonjHpfsX64+otUKexgokz2EFye+LIHETpodcMTsJmMK+TFAwTG5toziV8R7DBLM153N8QXRTg
0 -
But we can get 31 calories per pound of fat per day, roughly, studies show. So if she's 22% BF that'd mean she could fund a 900 calories deficit per day, from fat. That's quite a bit. And since she'd lose her 12 lbs. in 6-8 weeks at that level, there would be little lean mass to lose even if she was dipping into it....But OP is an active person who is already normal weight striving to get to the lower end of her BMI. At some point, eating 800-1000 and essentially "netting" around 500 (because of her exercise) is going to cause some damage because she doesn't have that much reserve to work with. ...
0 -
I applaud MFP for that blog post. I totally agree with her.GulfcoastAL wrote: »I know. Who wants to listen to a dietician (and the My Fitness Pal Food & Nutrition Editor to boot!) when we have allllllllll these experts on the forums.
I adore 5 minute workouts, by the way.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Foreverblessedx3 wrote: »depends if your nutrition needs are being met. I eat 700 calories a day, but I drink 400 calories of 60 grams of protein, and I take supplements for iron, and vitamins, especially extra C, D and B12. I drink one supplement of magnesium, calcium, potassium and VitD. I get the remainder of my protein from food and average 75 grams a day. I've lost 25lbs since Dec 1st. Weight loss has slowed down the last week, but I just look at it as a lull, and look for it to speed back up since I will be going to the gym.
I don't see why you can't eat fewer calories if you are making sure you are meeting your nutrition needs through plenty of supplements.
Is your LCD medically supervised or are you simply assuming that your 4 pound per week loss in somehow done in a healthy manner?
Medically supervised0 -
laurelobrien wrote: »It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.
Truth. Right here lies truth.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
But we can get 31 calories per pound of fat per day, roughly, studies show. So if she's 22% BF that'd mean she could fund a 900 calories deficit per day, from fat. That's quite a bit. And since she'd lose her 12 lbs. in 6-8 weeks at that level, there would be little lean mass to lose even if she was dipping into it....But OP is an active person who is already normal weight striving to get to the lower end of her BMI. At some point, eating 800-1000 and essentially "netting" around 500 (because of her exercise) is going to cause some damage because she doesn't have that much reserve to work with. ...
That is an ideal amout you can access. You would need adequate protein and progressive overloading strenth training. and even if you can access that much fat you will also breakdown some mucsle. Otherwise bodybuilders would not lose as much mucsle as they do when cutting for a comp. and they are on 'roids which helps retain mucsle.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »laurelobrien wrote: »It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.
Truth. Right here lies truth.
Yip and in odr to survive non-life sustaining things go by the wayside (energy levels, hair and nail growth, healthy skin, etc) the body ensures you lower your energy output in order to keep organs functioning... the body is an amazing thing!0 -
I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.
They should if they want to look better naked (or in a bathing suit...whichever you prefer). It's also nice to have more muscle to help your core strength as you age.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Eating too little is just generally not healthy. It puts a lot of stress on the body and raises cortisol levels (which hinders weightloss). Eating too little for a long time also has a negative impact on your metabolism. You also lose a greater ratio of muscle and other lean mass to fat than you otherwise would.
It's not so much that you're going to hold onto everything you eat because you're "starving" yourself...it's just that you're jacking up your hormones and metabolism and actually making it more difficult to lose. Not to mention, it's just not necessary.
^This...
It's a cortisol trifecta...
Dieting raises cortisol, cardio raises cortisol and mental stress raises cortisol.
0 -
laurelobrien wrote: »It is possible to eat too little, but the main concerns of it are a) not eating enough to get minimum nutrient requirements such as protein and vitamins and b) degeneration of organs and bodily functions. B in particular is the health concern of starving - losing weight isn't starving, degeneration of your body's base systems due to lack of food is. Losing weight is just losing fat and maybe a little muscle to make up for the calories you didn't eat.
I would regard starvation scares and the magical number "1200" with skepticism. It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.
Amen! #FirstWorldProblems for sure. OMG, "chubby, nervous first world people" gave me a good chuckle. Thank you so much.
This forum would be a lot better if people would stop assuming the worst about when people post. I'm assuming the OP is reasonably able to read over the stickies with pertinent information on her own. Although it is likely going to take more than "one to two days" unlike what "there is no excuse" Brian Perkins suggested.....LMAO. Nice support there, Brian!
These threads are soooo predictable: Original poster posts pertinent question, thinking she's going to get supportive advice. There has been very good advice given, but a good bit is coming from the strident, rude, accusatory replies of "OMG-you are starving yourself!", then "OMG-you are aiming for too thin, model thin!", "OMG, you are likely suffering from anorexia or at the very LEAST, body dismorphia!" "OMG, are you speaking of a Very Low Calorie Diet!?!? Then a POX UPON YOU!". Then moves on to attack anyone with the reasonable, normal, supportive postings about real menopause/pre menopause issues, cardio girls, people with doctor's orders, and now the My Fitness Pal Food and Nutrition Editor's posting on the My Fitness Pal's very own blog!
Going back to the My Fitness Pal friend feed, where the normal, nice, supportive people are! Bye now!
-1 -
Don't go. Things change the more people stick around and speak up.GulfcoastAL wrote: »
Going back to the My Fitness Pal friend feed, where the normal, nice, supportive people are! Bye now!laurelobrien wrote: »It is possible to eat too little, but the main concerns of it are a) not eating enough to get minimum nutrient requirements such as protein and vitamins and b) degeneration of organs and bodily functions. B in particular is the health concern of starving - losing weight isn't starving, degeneration of your body's base systems due to lack of food is. Losing weight is just losing fat and maybe a little muscle to make up for the calories you didn't eat.
I would regard starvation scares and the magical number "1200" with skepticism. It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Don't go. Things change the more people stick around and speak up.GulfcoastAL wrote: »
Going back to the My Fitness Pal friend feed, where the normal, nice, supportive people are! Bye now!laurelobrien wrote: »It is possible to eat too little, but the main concerns of it are a) not eating enough to get minimum nutrient requirements such as protein and vitamins and b) degeneration of organs and bodily functions. B in particular is the health concern of starving - losing weight isn't starving, degeneration of your body's base systems due to lack of food is. Losing weight is just losing fat and maybe a little muscle to make up for the calories you didn't eat.
I would regard starvation scares and the magical number "1200" with skepticism. It is a lot harder to damage the human body and metabolism with food reduction than chubby, nervous first-world people seem to think. Your body is a hardy thing. If you're truly concerned, talk to a doctor.
You are, of course, right!
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Eating too little is just generally not healthy. It puts a lot of stress on the body and raises cortisol levels (which hinders weightloss). Eating too little for a long time also has a negative impact on your metabolism. You also lose a greater ratio of muscle and other lean mass to fat than you otherwise would.
It's not so much that you're going to hold onto everything you eat because you're "starving" yourself...it's just that you're jacking up your hormones and metabolism and actually making it more difficult to lose. Not to mention, it's just not necessary.
^This...
It's a cortisol trifecta...
Dieting raises cortisol, cardio raises cortisol and mental stress raises cortisol.
Some people may find that cardio is raising their cortisol and may find they will enjoy lifting better; others, like myself, find that running reduces cortisol and is much needed. I find I personally get great results from it. I personally don't have these cortisol ill effects from cardio. Others find they get better results from lifting. Find what best works out for your body and, most importantly ,what you enjoy. It's not a one size fits all for everyone.
0 -
I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
0 -
GulfcoastAL wrote: »I know. Who wants to listen to a dietician (and the My Fitness Pal Food & Nutrition Editor to boot!) when we have allllllllll these experts on the forums.
I adore 5 minute workouts, by the way.
What does a dietician know about how I calculate my calories in or out?
I learned all about relying on some website's joke "experts" from financial websites, thankyouverymuch. Use a little common sense.
0 -
I am really not sure what you are talking about as far as financial websites.
I guess I don't have any common sense. I am sure you are right. Bye now. I wish you well on your loss.0 -
GulfcoastAL wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Eating too little is just generally not healthy. It puts a lot of stress on the body and raises cortisol levels (which hinders weightloss). Eating too little for a long time also has a negative impact on your metabolism. You also lose a greater ratio of muscle and other lean mass to fat than you otherwise would.
It's not so much that you're going to hold onto everything you eat because you're "starving" yourself...it's just that you're jacking up your hormones and metabolism and actually making it more difficult to lose. Not to mention, it's just not necessary.
^This...
It's a cortisol trifecta...
Dieting raises cortisol, cardio raises cortisol and mental stress raises cortisol.
Some people may find that cardio is raising their cortisol and may find they will enjoy lifting better; others, like myself, find that running reduces cortisol and is much needed. I find I personally get great results from it. I personally don't have these cortisol ill effects from cardio. Others find they get better results from lifting. Find what best works out for your body and, most importantly ,what you enjoy. It's not a one size fits all for everyone.
Absolutely!
It's the combo of the three that is problematic. Chronic dieting, chronic cardio and chronic stressing... IMO of course.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
Retaining what muscle you already have is much easier than building new, especially for a woman that does not have the testosterone level of a man. And you will gain fat when gaining muscle back, so if you want to be lean and not have to gain fat back it is easier to retain what you have and have a lower BF% at your goal weight.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions