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

Options
123468

Replies

  • laurelobrien
    laurelobrien Posts: 156 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jkal1979
    jkal1979 Posts: 1,896 Member
    Options
    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
    iLn7MPTw1xtxO.gif
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    ...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. ...
    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.

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    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.
    I applaud MFP for that blog post. I totally agree with her.

  • Foreverblessedx3
    Foreverblessedx3 Posts: 3
    Options
    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 supervised
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    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.

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    ...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. ...
    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.

    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.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    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!
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.
  • pscarolina
    pscarolina Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    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.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    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.

  • GulfcoastAL
    GulfcoastAL Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    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!
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    GulfcoastAL wrote: »
    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.
    Going back to the My Fitness Pal friend feed, where the normal, nice, supportive people are! Bye now!
    Don't go. Things change the more people stick around and speak up.
  • GulfcoastAL
    GulfcoastAL Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    GulfcoastAL wrote: »
    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.
    Going back to the My Fitness Pal friend feed, where the normal, nice, supportive people are! Bye now!
    Don't go. Things change the more people stick around and speak up.

    You are, of course, right!
  • GulfcoastAL
    GulfcoastAL Posts: 74 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    J72FIT 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.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    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.


  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    Options
    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.

  • GulfcoastAL
    GulfcoastAL Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    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.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    GulfcoastAL wrote: »
    J72FIT 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.



  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories