Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?

Options
1234568

Replies

  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    f4123d0afc7dca19101d1a38a463d6dd.jpg
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Sadness

    Indeed.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    OP, this is all just... very frustrating to discuss with you, because you came in with a fixed notion of what to do and wanted validation for it.

    You are a 5'4" 40 year old woman weighing approximately 40 pounds. Doing a deficit of 30% is far, far too aggressive for those stats.

    You won't discuss your food intake without changing the subject to your exercise burns, which you say you don't count anyway... and saying that... with the amount you exercise, there is absolutely NO way you have a TDEE of 1400 something.

    You either have an undiagnosed medical problem, are not properly recording the food you eat.

    Or you're eating in your sleep and you don't remember it.

    I have nothing else at this point.
  • Tessaishere
    Tessaishere Posts: 7
    Options
    I love fasting and just feel better in general when I do it, thats my personal experience
  • kfayr
    kfayr Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    I couldn't read through the multitude of responses but I'm assuming someone has pointed out that constantly restricting calories to a ridiculous level will put your metabolish into starvation mode and cause you to hold on to your fat. My two cents :)
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Options
    JAT74 wrote: »
    Mr night and as I've just said, ignore the amount I ate yesterday ie. 1700 because my weekly average was still only 1350 taking into account my fast days.

    I don't count calorie burns from exercise anyway so even if they are way overestimated every single day and are only 50% of what I think they are that still leaves me with a deficit of 500 per day as an absolute minimum.

    JAT74: So bear with me when I explain a conversation between a PT and a gym member. I'm standing talking with the PT and a woman, younger then you, maybe about 2 inches taller and 135 pounds walks up. She asks to speak with the PM. She explains her workout, her diet(4:30PM and she has had less then 750 calories, already burned 400 calories for the day) and asks if she only eats the 450 remaining why isn't she losing? PT "You ought to eat more on days you exercise" then she adds she'll swim and burn another 200 calories today, PT"You should probably eat more"; 4 times he repeats this and she just keeps going. After she walks away he says to me "WTF? What do you call that?" Me:"MFP IRL" So, sometimes we have a goal and just do not hear what others are saying. And sometimes we do not understand the advice we are being provided. Last, if you eat out you have less chance for accuracy. If you estimate you have less chance to consistently know your calories. If you use a fitbit for NEAT and an HRM for EAT and you get confused by your numbers maybe reassess the goals, review the numbers and calculations(meaning go to iffy.com and read the calculation methods) or read the stickies on MFP to better understand what you are doing. Hope this helps.
  • GWehsling
    GWehsling Posts: 120 Member
    Options
    http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/how-fasting-might-make-our-cells-more-resilient-stress

    I saw this on the weekend and it promotes a similar lifestyle, with a scientific view. As somebody who fasts occasionally, I am happy to be redeemed by this as fasting works for me in times of stress or anxiety and I can see that it would work for somebody looking to control their weight.

    Of course, the usual disclaimers go here about how we are all different in every way; please don't fast without a medical opinion.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    kfayr wrote: »
    I couldn't read through the multitude of responses but I'm assuming someone has pointed out that constantly restricting calories to a ridiculous level will put your metabolish into starvation mode and cause you to hold on to your fat. My two cents :)

    No.

    Dieting for a long time leads to metabolic adaptation, but that can be adjusted through eating slowly back to maintenance levels for a while, and then you can readjust your calorie levels back down to a deficit to continue losing weight.

    None of what you said applies to the OP, she's only been dieting for three months.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Just reading the sunday paper, and there's a snippet about a 117 year old woman. Her secret.... "lots of sleep and sushi" :stuck_out_tongue:
    I often read that getting enough sleep is so important when trying to lose weight. That's me stuffed then :disappointed: Because my sleeping, or lack thereof, has been terrible over the past 12mths!
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    @‌kfayr

    Have a read of this:
    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    Options
    I admit I skipped some pages in the middle, so I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm confused if the OP is asking about VLC diets (severe calorie restriction) or IF (intermittent fasting.) Those are very different things.

    VLC diet obviously does not mean losing your appetite because of a cold for a few days...it means severely limiting calories for an extended period. It should NEVER be attempted without direct supervision by a qualified medical professional. The side effects can be severe and the patient should therefore have a condition serious enough to warrant attempting the VLC diet and should be consistently monitored.

    IF, on the other hand, can be a good way for some people to create a calorie deficit. As long as you are consistently average a reasonable number of calories for the week, you're fine. In fact, recent studies have shown that fasting for 2-4 days can have a very positive impact on your immune system. This has been shown in lab mice and in a small human study which examined the impact of a fast on cancer patients, showing a protective effect against chemotherapy. Obviously, these studies are small and more research is needed, but it's compelling enough, and the possible side effects are minimal enough, that it is well worth exploring the occasional fast.

    In fact, I'm considering a 3 day fast for this reason. I've always scoffed at the "cleanse" and "detox" juicers, and still believe whole-heartedly that my kidneys and liver are functioning and need no help from a juicer. But I would like to see if I can feel a difference after 3 days. I'm trying to find a copy of the original paper published on the human trial to see what the parameters were that they used....whether there was only water, or water plus juice, clear liquids, or what.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Just reading the sunday paper, and there's a snippet about a 117 year old woman. Her secret.... "lots of sleep and sushi" :stuck_out_tongue:
    I often read that getting enough sleep is so important when trying to lose weight. That's me stuffed then :disappointed: Because my sleeping, or lack thereof, has been terrible over the past 12mths!

    I don't know about the claim that lack of sleep interferes with weight loss because cortisol, but IME a lack of sleep makes it FAR harder to stick to a deficit--I have no will power and am constantly wanting to eat to wake myself up (and much more likely to want refined carbs for the same reason). I can usually sub caffeine, but when I dropped caffeine earlier this year I was going over my calories constantly until I caught up on sleep again somewhat.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Just reading the sunday paper, and there's a snippet about a 117 year old woman. Her secret.... "lots of sleep and sushi" :stuck_out_tongue:
    I often read that getting enough sleep is so important when trying to lose weight. That's me stuffed then :disappointed: Because my sleeping, or lack thereof, has been terrible over the past 12mths!

    I don't know about the claim that lack of sleep interferes with weight loss because cortisol, but IME a lack of sleep makes it FAR harder to stick to a deficit--I have no will power and am constantly wanting to eat to wake myself up (and much more likely to want refined carbs for the same reason). I can usually sub caffeine, but when I dropped caffeine earlier this year I was going over my calories constantly until I caught up on sleep again somewhat.

    Thanks. That makes sense :smile:
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,021 Member
    Options
    In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though. ;)



  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though. ;)



    Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,021 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though. ;)



    Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.
    I didn't say deficit.

  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though. ;)



    Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.
    I didn't say deficit.

    calorie restriction generally means deficit (around here).
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,021 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though. ;)



    Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.
    I didn't say deficit.

    calorie restriction generally means deficit (around here).
    Okinawa isn't around here, nor would they need to be.

  • marlanaperry
    marlanaperry Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    And then there are the people who live to 100 and claim they drank a can of dr. pepper every day. My husband's grandma eats horribly (large portions and high-fat meals) and drinks soda, but she's 88, has all of her mental facilities, and plays tennis in the Texas heat. I don't think we can peg down one proper way to eat and live to be 100. I figure, if you're miserable because you're restricting calories, what's the point of living to 100? I'd rather enjoy my life and maybe not live as long. That's not to say we should throw health out the window, but I know few people who eat that little and enjoy their life.

    Still, I have heard that the fasting diet is good for you as long as you are making it up at some other points. I think it depends on your goals and making sure that you are being healthy (and everyone's version of healthy is different!) I do feel like some people on MFP get judgmental and think their way is the only way to lose weight healthily, but we're all different. If you feel weak and fatigued, you're not being healthy, but if you can restrict your calories two days a week and feel great while doing it, don't let anyone judge you for your healthy living.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    The lady I mentioned in my post lives in Japan... A lot of the long lived people seem to come from there.

Categories