Everyone seems to eat below daily calories??

This is a bit of a broad generalisation, taking yesterday as an example I was under my calorie allowance technically as I had done 1.5 hour of exercise and don't eat all of them back for the usual reasons. No one can see my diary but I suppose if you read my feed it would say I was under.
I would hope my body was catabolising that is the whole purpose of weightloss, with a bit of luck the majority of what was being used to make up for the on purpose deficit was my fat stores. Am I malnourished absolutely not, nutritionally deficient? Nope, setting myself up for gaining it back? I think NOT and the way you have phrased it we might as wel all give up hope of maintaining our losses as it would be impossible. What needs to be realised is that weightloss should NOT be achieved with a diet but should be achieved with a LIFESTYLE CHANGE it isn't a quick fix scenario you can just drop once goal weight is achieved.

If you would have said consistently eating way below the minimum scientifically proven 1200kcal for women and 1500kcal for men than yeah that comes with considerable risks.

If your friends list is people who are consistently way below 1200, that's an issue with your friends, not MFP as a whole. When I first started I ate 1250 and happened to pick up a number of friends who ate at similar levels (many of whom are lovely people and still my friends). I think this was because I was a newbie and responded in a thread about eating 1200-1300 calories. As I went on I gathered friends from other sources, like a couple of challenges and some running and tri threads and a women interested in weights thread and those people typically tended to eat more. As I got more active I also ate well over 1200 typically (once I figured out that you were supposed to eat back exercise calories) and changed my goal to a TDEE-based on of 1600 (and then more at times).

Anyway, I don't think 1200-1300 is a bad goal for a subset of people (including me when not being active), but I wouldn't try to create a group of friends who encouraged staying BELOW 1200 (which I think is a bad idea for most, with exceptions for those on doctor-monitored diets with specific health concerns), and I'd definitely think about getting a group that's maybe more diverse with calorie goals, as it's nice to see that people can lose eating more. It was helpful to me and I know some of my friends said it was helpful to them.

(Full disclosure: I rarely look at people's diaries unless they ask me to, and I haven't been logging here because I've been practicing maintenance and trying out a different site.)

Eating below my daily allowance just means I'm back on a slightly more aggressive goal, still well within the 1% suggested max weight loss rate. Eating above/below that number doesn't make magic happen (like major health problems within days or massive fat gain overnight).

Did you consider that some people set their goals to maintenance and then leave 250-500 calories remaining each day? I hate seeing the red numbers if I need to go over to treat a low blood sugar (and it also gives me the freedom to decide one day that I'm really hungry and want to eat at maintenance). My blood sugar has been running super high today (and don't like eating until I get down to a lower range), so I'll be lucky if I can reach 1000 calories. I'm irritable and have a killer headache from the high, but I'm going to try to enjoy this bacon-fest.

From personal experience, I know I'm facing some of the effects of "starvation diets." For three months, I didn't know that my body was unable to metabolize carbs (and a portion of protein due to certain metabolic pathways -yay, type 1 diabetes ), so despite consuming at least 2000-2500 calories, my body would only be able to generate energy from about 600-700ish; all the other calories were peed out ("sugar in the urine"). I certainly lost a ton of weight super quickly (about 55 pounds in three months), but I also lost a ton of muscle (and have a lower BMR now because of it). I will never remember the look on my mother's face when she realized how much weight I was losing; her exact words to me were "you look skeletal."

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that everybody is starting with the minimum 1200 calories and going below it. When I started, my goal was 1980 plus exercise. I frequently came up a bit short. I don't think that hurt me one bit.

For those at the bottom end of the calorie goals, I do think it makes more sense to set yourself to 1250 or 1300 just to give yourself a buffer. That way you avoid the red numbers in your diary, but you can still be under without going below the 1200 mark.

This.

This week I've eaten under 3 days and over 2 days. I've still averaged right around my goal of 2150.

I admit to pretty much loathe the idea of 90% of 1200ers having that as their goal but don't assume that people coming in under their goals have such a low goal.

abatonfan wrote: »

Did you consider that some people set their goals to maintenance and then leave 250-500 calories remaining each day? I hate seeing the red numbers if I need to go over to treat a low blood sugar (and it also gives me the freedom to decide one day that I'm really hungry and want to eat at maintenance). My blood sugar has been running super high today (and don't like eating until I get down to a lower range), so I'll be lucky if I can reach 1000 calories. I'm irritable and have a killer headache from the high, but I'm going to try to enjoy this bacon-fest.

From personal experience, I know I'm facing some of the effects of "starvation diets." For three months, I didn't know that my body was unable to metabolize carbs (and a portion of protein due to certain metabolic pathways -yay, type 1 diabetes ), so despite consuming at least 2000-2500 calories, my body would only be able to generate energy from about 600-700ish; all the other calories were peed out ("sugar in the urine"). I certainly lost a ton of weight super quickly (about 55 pounds in three months), but I also lost a ton of muscle (and have a lower BMR now because of it). I will never remember the look on my mother's face when she realized how much weight I was losing; her exact words to me were "you look skeletal."

Setting your goal to maintenance and eating 250-500 below is a very interesting idea! I had never thought of that, so thanks for passing that concept along. I don't know whether that would mess with my head too much, but the beauty of MFP is that I can always try that and then go back to the traditional way if it doesn't work!

@HappyCampr1 - That's a good point! I think it might help my brain get used to that long term maintenance number, too, if that makes any sense. Sort of a reminder of the big picture and the fact that in order to maintain my loss, I'll never be able to go back to how I used to eat. I think I'll try it out and see how it goes!

I regularly under eat my calories during the week (4-5 days), but I promise you, I make up for it on the weekends. All while maintaining control of my overall deficit. It is possible to under eat the MFP recommended calories, be healthy and still lose weight without throwing your body into some harmful and damaging process. Everyone that under eats their MFP recommended calories is not necessarily being unhealthy or causing damage.

As insightful as this post is, it fails to take individual differences into account. Everyone's metabolic rate varies, some can lounge around all day & still naturally have a high metabolic rate. Genetics do play a part & everyone is different. For example, I was on a low-calorie diet for a while. At a point, I was eating 500-600 calories a day for a few weeks. It wasn't permanent, it was more like an experience. I wanted to see what results I would yield. I lost quite abit of weight, then I ate recklessly for a straight week (I'm talking 2000+ calories), & I only put on half a pound. People always say you'll gain back the weight fast but it really depends on a plathora of things. You could really maintain weightloss without doing much. It depends.

I don't like being lumped into "everyone". I certainly eat enough everyday.

ruthfmoy wrote: »

When you don"t eat enough calories you become sluggish, develop nutritional deficiencies, and are often highly irritable. If you are lowering your caloric intake for weight reduction, you are actually setting yourself for high weight gain when you do being to eat properly again.

Define "enough." In my first year of weight loss, I had an average calorie deficit of 450 per day. My activities that year included riding my bike nearly 4,000 miles, including a 111-mile ride through the Berkshire Hills, and in general, exercising almost every day. I did not develop any nutritional deficiencies, and I was no more irritable than usual.

As for the final claim, what do you mean by "properly"? I gained weight slowly, over the course of a decade, because I was eating too darn much. My diet was reasonably healthy. I lost weight because I expended more energy than I ate. That's the only way to do it, short of surgery. Now I've been maintaining for 10 months, eating more or less the same diet on which I gained weight, just less of it. Of course, if I went back to eating as much as I used to, I would gain weight back: after all, I was eating enough to put on weight when I weighed over 200 lb., and now I'm at 148. But that's not a question of eating properly. It's a matter of eating the right amount.