Drawbacks of eating too few calories??

Options
Jubee13
Jubee13 Posts: 132 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
The last few days, I haven't been very hungry and haven't come close to my calorie goal. Nothing drastic, just eating maybe 200 fewer calories than my minimum target. My question is, are there really any drawbacks to going under? I don't lose very quickly and I'd love to see a good loss this week. I'm fine with eating this amount of calories for now, but I don't want to set myself up for failure later on.
«1

Replies

  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Depends on how little you're eating and how long you're doing it for. Hard to get adequate nutrition if you're severely restricting calories.
  • rockmama72
    rockmama72 Posts: 815 Member
    Options
    Just don't let it become an every day thing. A couple of days a week where you eat less because you're not hungry is NOT a big deal. It gives you wiggle room later in the week.

    I have days where I eat a ton of vegetables and feel full, then I have days where I want a big cheeseburger and ice cream. Look at your weekly average and make sure it's safe, and don't sweat the lows and highs. This is how we learn to moderate.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    Over a few days, I think there will be minimal concern. If it continues on, then yes there are some major health issues that can pop up.
  • daniwilford
    daniwilford Posts: 1,030 Member
    Options
    Over the long term, under eating can cause hair loss, lean muscle loss, menstrual cycle disruptions, and gallstones to name a few. If it isn't a consistent thing then little worries. If you are consistently under eating it is considered a disorder.
  • 85Cardinals
    85Cardinals Posts: 733 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    Our bodies need a minimal amount of nutrients to function properly! Think of our bodies as cars and food as gas/oil, if you will. But you only get 1 car, can't trade it in when it breaks down.
  • ki4eld
    ki4eld Posts: 1,215 Member
    Options
    A couple of days a week of lower calories is fine, especially if you go over on other days. Look at your week as a whole. That's really just banking calories and it's a pretty good way to lose and still have some indulgences. However, if this lasts, you're going to need to eat more calorie-dense foods to ensure you're getting proper nutrition or just suck it up and eat when you don't want to eat. Personally, I'd add calories and stay with less food, but that's me.

    I've been on a doctor-supervised starvation diet for 10 months. It was either let the doctor starve me or die of a heart attack from the weight. Beyond weight loss, there's been muscle loss and severe stress on my kidneys and liver. The accompanying weekly bloodwork is pretty extensive, so I look like a damn drug addict with all the track marks. There's skin damage -it dries, bleeds, and cracks- and some permanent scarring on my neck and face from two of the skin fissures that wouldn't heal. I have nail damage that may or may not be permanent, because they dry and crack too. So far, about 70% of my hair fell out and it looks like I'll have some permanent bald spots.

    Now granted, getting to this point took 3 solid months of starvation. That's less than 500 net calories a day, in my case. Many days, my calorie net was actually negative. However, you don't know what your starvation point will be. You don't know when you'll hit the point when your body freaks out. So don't do it. Stay as far away from it as possible. Stay at your calorie goal on a weekly basis.

    Eat. Seriously. Because you don't want to go down the road I'm on. You don't.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    ki4eld wrote: »
    A couple of days a week of lower calories is fine, especially if you go over on other days. Look at your week as a whole. That's really just banking calories and it's a pretty good way to lose and still have some indulgences. However, if this lasts, you're going to need to eat more calorie-dense foods to ensure you're getting proper nutrition or just suck it up and eat when you don't want to eat. Personally, I'd add calories and stay with less food, but that's me.

    I've been on a doctor-supervised starvation diet for 10 months. It was either let the doctor starve me or die of a heart attack from the weight. Beyond weight loss, there's been muscle loss and severe stress on my kidneys and liver. The accompanying weekly bloodwork is pretty extensive, so I look like a damn drug addict with all the track marks. There's skin damage -it dries, bleeds, and cracks- and some permanent scarring on my neck and face from two of the skin fissures that wouldn't heal. I have nail damage that may or may not be permanent, because they dry and crack too. So far, about 70% of my hair fell out and it looks like I'll have some permanent bald spots.

    Now granted, getting to this point took 3 solid months of starvation. That's less than 500 net calories a day, in my case. Many days, my calorie net was actually negative. However, you don't know what your starvation point will be. You don't know when you'll hit the point when your body freaks out. So don't do it. Stay as far away from it as possible. Stay at your calorie goal on a weekly basis.

    Eat. Seriously. Because you don't want to go down the road I'm on. You don't.

    Thanks for sharing that. I think it's important people see the effects of severe restriction. How long until your doctor says you can increase calories to a normal level?
  • BernieMBurke
    BernieMBurke Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    The "at least 1000 calories" is net calories.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    Jubee13 wrote: »
    The last few days, I haven't been very hungry and haven't come close to my calorie goal. Nothing drastic, just eating maybe 200 fewer calories than my minimum target. My question is, are there really any drawbacks to going under? I don't lose very quickly and I'd love to see a good loss this week. I'm fine with eating this amount of calories for now, but I don't want to set myself up for failure later on.

    If you aren't hungry and are having trouble getting to your calorie goal, try adding in more calorie dense food. Full fat dairy, nuts, nut butters, avocados, etc will all add plenty of calories and won't add so much bulk that you are feeling more full than usual.
    If you're only 200 calories short, eating your normal diet and adding in one serving of peanut butter will get you there.
  • ki4eld
    ki4eld Posts: 1,215 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Thanks for sharing that. I think it's important people see the effects of severe restriction. How long until your doctor says you can increase calories to a normal level?

    There's no glory in losing fast. It's not worth it. Feels good now isn't worth the utter destruction of the only body you have. That's true for becoming obese and it's true for losing.

    February 19th, I can raise my calories to 1200, although I should still stay in the 1000-1200 range to continue losing. Right now, an optimum day is 600-800, although if I go to 1200, that's ok. On the higher days, I have fewer bouts of muscle spasms and cramping, but I have to lose, so those high calorie days are pretty rare. I didn't go into that, but it's a special 20-45 minutes of hell. Imagine a charlie horse all over your entire body. Yep, special.

    I had bariatric surgery, so I don't absorb about 30% of the calories I eat. My levels are still too low for safety without direct supervision, but I'm getting to a healthy place slowly but surely. With luck, I'll be up to 1500 in a year and I can live there safely. I'm 5', mostly sedentary with a small frame, and my goal weight is 106-120lbs. I'm at 175 and things are looking really good. My cardiologist is convinced I'll actually make it to 50. At 43, he wasn't convinced I'd make it to 45. I did and I'm making it to 50 too.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    catscats222 wrote: »
    less than 1,000 calories a day is dangerous

    Where did you get the idea that this OP is going below 1000 calories a day? There's no mention of calorie goal, and OP only says that the day is 200 calories short of the goal.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    Try more calorie dense foods. Nuts, nut butters, avocados etc.
  • PinkPixiexox
    PinkPixiexox Posts: 4,142 Member
    Options
    Honestly? No :)

    Having said that, it's always, always best to eat to your daily allowance. If I happen to eat 100 or so under my daily allowance, I 'bank' those extra calories for the weekend so I can have an indulgence! I may be 'under' my calorie goal that day but if I'm adding it on to another days calories, I'm balancing every thing out. I'd suggest doing it that way if you struggle to meet your daily goal.

    The important thing is - your body needs those calories for fuel. So it's always, always best to give your body the fuel it requires, else - like a car, you'll start lagging.
  • ainarsraciks
    ainarsraciks Posts: 166 Member
    Options
    The drawback is that you will be deficient in many vitamins and minerals. There is very hard to get all the nutrients that your body needs with that little amount of calories unless you are a tiny, 12 year old, midget, fairy. If you can menage that then there are no drawbacks. But it will require very extensive nutrition planning and research and/or tons of supplements. If you don't get all the nutrients your body needs many health problems, including death eventually if you do this for long enough, could happen.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    With only 11 lbs to lose, your deficit should be pretty close to your maintenance calories. If so, a couple of days lower here and there seems really normal, imho. Usually I get hungry enough to go over by the third day, though, lol. If your appetite doesn't go back up soon, I'd add something nutritious and caloric whether you are hungry or not.
  • Jubee13
    Jubee13 Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the replies. The reason I haven't been hungry is because I've been having inner ear problems which makes me feel pretty nauseated. I usually have no problem reaching my calorie goal. Hopefully this will resolve, but I didn't know if going under was ok or if I should make myself eat a little more.
  • ki4eld
    ki4eld Posts: 1,215 Member
    Options
    A little Bonine (OTC) will help with the nausea.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    ainarsraciks wrote: »
    The drawback is that you will be deficient in many vitamins and minerals. There is very hard to get all the nutrients that your body needs with that little amount of calories unless you are a tiny, 12 year old, midget, fairy. If you can menage that then there are no drawbacks. But it will require very extensive nutrition planning and research and/or tons of supplements. If you don't get all the nutrients your body needs many health problems, including death eventually if you do this for long enough, could happen.

    Where are you getting any number of calorie intake to assume that OP isn't getting enough nutrition? She only said she was 200 calories below goal, and never said what her goal is. Verify hard numbers before saying things like this.
  • Jubee13
    Jubee13 Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    ki4eld wrote: »
    A little Bonine (OTC) will help with the nausea.

    Thank you! I'll try that. I have used it for car sickness and it works great!

Categories