Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Calorie Deficit vs Starving Yourself
pie_eyes
Posts: 12,964 Member
in Debate Club
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
0
Replies
-
Well a calorie deficit (all diets which achieve weight loss in reality) is a form of starvation in that you are not providing your body which sufficient calories / nutrients to maintain its current state.
The greater the deficit the greater the possible adverse effects (leading to the conclusion that a moderate to low deficit would suit most, but not all, scenarios better than a steep one.)
Balanced against this are the health risks of carrying excess weight over the long term.
Pick your poison.3 -
Well a calorie deficit (all diets which achieve weight loss in reality) is a form of starvation in that you are not providing your body which sufficient calories / nutrients to maintain its current state.
The greater the deficit the greater the possible adverse effects (leading to the conclusion that a moderate to low deficit would suit most, but not all, scenarios better than a steep one.)
Balanced against this are the health risks of carrying excess weight over the long term.
Pick your poison.
Calories and nutrients are not the same thing, thou.4 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Well a calorie deficit (all diets which achieve weight loss in reality) is a form of starvation in that you are not providing your body which sufficient calories / nutrients to maintain its current state.
The greater the deficit the greater the possible adverse effects (leading to the conclusion that a moderate to low deficit would suit most, but not all, scenarios better than a steep one.)
Balanced against this are the health risks of carrying excess weight over the long term.
Pick your poison.
Calories and nutrients are not the same thing, thou.
Fair point and perhaps I should have left out the nutrient part.0 -
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
You hear about morbidly obese patients losing weight on 800 calories a day. This is with MEDICAL help (injections & so on). There is something about having lots and lots of weight to lose, that protects existing lean muscle.
But, fast weight loss is not the same for all sizes. When we get closer to goal we become more at risk for losing existing lean muscle. Losing body fat (just body fat) lowers our overall body fat %. Reducing our body fat % is healthy. Reducing our body fat % gives us a lean look, not a doughy (but smaller) one.
We are not all nutritionists. If I (a total amateur) tried to meet all my nutritional needs on 1000 calories a day, I would fail more often than not. 1200 gives me a much better shot. 1200 for women, 1500 for men.
Google weight loss and hair loss. This is just one example of what crash diets can do for you.0 -
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
You hear about morbidly obese patients losing weight on 800 calories a day. This is with MEDICAL help (injections & so on). There is something about having lots and lots of weight to lose, that protects existing lean muscle.
But, fast weight loss is not the same for all sizes. When we get closer to goal we become more at risk for losing existing lean muscle. Losing body fat (just body fat) lowers our overall body fat %. Reducing our body fat % is healthy. Reducing our body fat % gives us a lean look, not a doughy (but smaller) one.
We are not all nutritionists. If I (a total amateur) tried to meet all my nutritional needs on 1000 calories a day, I would fail more often than not. 1200 gives me a much better shot. 1200 for women, 1500 for men.
Google weight loss and hair loss. This is just one example of what crash diets can do for you.
Actually, in most states in the US, and many other regions outside the US, you're a nutritionist if you choose to call yourself one.
Dietitian is a legally protected term, but you can call yourself a nutritionist.
Harvard actually has a 1200 calorie sample plan that meets all the nutrient requirements for an average woman.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet0 -
I am in a calorie deficit at anything less than 3000 calories. The biggest difference is going to be the results. Many very low calorie diets (especially not under the care of a doctor) will increase muscle loss, increase metabolic adaptation, and depending on the protocols, can lead to hair loss, skin issues, or even hospitalization if you aren't getting the right nutrients.1
-
I have been losing weight since 12/14/2015 and have currently lost 34.4 pounds from the 270 starting weight. It includes a very calorie restrictive diet, and counting calories consistently. While some say it is not good to cut calories as severely as I have, if you look up the diet of a person with gastric bypass, they drop to 600 per day...for months before that can even hope to get back to 1,100 calories per day.
So I decided to take their approach. ..I have not eaten large amounts for years, but always seemed to stay in the same weight range. Although over the last 26 years I went from 220 up to 270...
Even 1,200 will add weight currently, so I'm tying to work out a balance, as I continue to lose weight. But under 1,000 I hold or still lose slowly, over 1,000 seems to be the tipping point where I gain.7 -
I have been losing weight since 12/14/2015 and have currently lost 34.4 pounds from the 270 starting weight. It includes a very calorie restrictive diet, and counting calories consistently. While some say it is not good to cut calories as severely as I have, if you look up the diet of a person with gastric bypass, they drop to 600 per day...for months before that can even hope to get back to 1,100 calories per day.
So I decided to take their approach. ..I have not eaten large amounts for years, but always seemed to stay in the same weight range. Although over the last 26 years I went from 220 up to 270...
Even 1,200 will add weight currently, so I'm tying to work out a balance, as I continue to lose weight. But under 1,000 I hold or still lose slowly, over 1,000 seems to be the tipping point where I gain.
See a doctor. Honestly, if you gain at anything more than 1,000 calories you have a medical issue (or you are a very petite senior WOMAN). Gaining at anything over 1,000 is not normal, especially for a man. It's more likely you are underestimating what you are eating. Do you weigh your food?
Gastric bypass PATIENTS have medical support to reach nutritional needs. These are not do-it-yourself projects.
There's a good reason MFP recommends a minimum of 1,500 calories for men.5 -
-
I have been losing weight since 12/14/2015 and have currently lost 34.4 pounds from the 270 starting weight. It includes a very calorie restrictive diet, and counting calories consistently. While some say it is not good to cut calories as severely as I have, if you look up the diet of a person with gastric bypass, they drop to 600 per day...for months before that can even hope to get back to 1,100 calories per day.
So I decided to take their approach. ..I have not eaten large amounts for years, but always seemed to stay in the same weight range. Although over the last 26 years I went from 220 up to 270...
Even 1,200 will add weight currently, so I'm tying to work out a balance, as I continue to lose weight. But under 1,000 I hold or still lose slowly, over 1,000 seems to be the tipping point where I gain.
It is mathematically impossible to lose weight at 1100 calories but gain weight at 1200. The biggest issue, people eat more than what they actually think.1 -
A calorie deficit just means you're taking in less energy than you are expending...I expend about 2,800ish calories per day...if I eat 2,300 calories per day I would have a 500 calorie deficit.
Pretty sure I'd be pretty much starving my body of required nutrients and energy with anything less than about 1,500 calories...and I've never even approached that.1 -
I don't think this was a debate on what calorie intake should be but on the semantics between "deficit for weight loss" and "starvation." That's just what it is, semantics, although with starvation I consider it more along the path to death with a weight loss deficit having a pre-death end point in mind, so to speak. The 1,000 calorie line is arbitrary in a sense, but also good sense. You CAN survive on less than that, at least to a certain point. After all, there are people in the world doing just that. Your health can and generally will be compromised, and the 1000-1200 calorie lower limit is probably chosen based on likelihood to get adequate minimum nutrition.0
-
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
I think starvation is when you are not consuming enough calories to support your basic body functions and fuel your activities. Starvation is technically a calorie deficit but an extreme unhealthy one. You will lose weight and be unhealthy/die depending on how long you do it.
A healthy calorie deficit to me means eating enough calories to support your body. You do eat fewer calories than you burn but enough to fuel your body. You lose weight, remain healthy and alive.2 -
I read that your body doesn't go into starvation mode unless you don't eat for 3 days6
-
I read that your body doesn't go into starvation mode unless you don't eat for 3 days
It takes 72 hours of zero calories to have any down turns in metabolic processes. And no, starvation mode does not exist. What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).2 -
I read that your body doesn't go into starvation mode unless you don't eat for 3 days
It takes 72 hours of zero calories to have any down turns in metabolic processes. And no, starvation mode does not exist. What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
Interesting0 -
[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?1 -
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
Everyone's caloric needs are different. Some people can't lose weight unless they eat less than 1,000 calories. No matter who you are it takes weeks and weeks of extremely low calorie eating to actually starve yourself.
https://examine.com/faq/how-do-i-stay-out-of-starvation-mode/2 -
The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!2
-
The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
You were hungry at 1500. That does not equate to starving.4 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
You were hungry at 1500. That does not equate to starving.
Yeah, I was going to say I don't think anyone here knows what it really feels like to be "starving". Slightly peckish or a bit hungry maybe...
When I think of someone starving, i think of those little African kids etc etc2 -
It's all relative. The was one documented case that I know about of a Scottish man in 1965 that did not eat anything for a year (except for vitamins I think). He was able to survive off of his fat. I'll google that for you...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
So after reading this, I came to the conclusion that while eating at a severe deficit can be detrimental to many, for those with very substantial fat stores, it may not need be so feared.
0 -
Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.1
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
You were hungry at 1500. That does not equate to starving.
Oh I know.....I was using "starving" in a melodramatic way. The very true part there is that I couldn't stick to it. A calorie deficit is only useful if a person can actually stick to it.2 -
[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I am not sure if it does, since those are minimum recommendations for sedentary people and are statistical averages based on some level of data collected; no different than calories being based on a 2000 calorie diet.0 -
Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.
Males should not be cutting at 1250-1350 calories, especially when they are exercising (outside of highly trained people cutting for composition and short periods of time under doctor supervision). You may wont to reconsider your calorie and macronutrient levels based on long term goals and training.1 -
Agreed, this is not a good long term plan...Good post. Thanks there is some good information and conversation. I've lost 40 pounds since Jan 1 2016 22 pounds the first two weeks but then I started reading up because of the headache and irritability. That led me to this website 35 days ago. it is a big help. I confess that I still push the envelope but I make sure to hit around 1250 - 1350 minimum but I also try to hit my macro balance on nutrition. Result is I feel good but am still losing 2 or more weekly. I enter everything religiously even a breath mint. That's the only way I can get a plan and develop a habit for lifestyle. My rule is simple.. I NEVER eat my exercise burn. I don't have time and am still too weak to do huge long sessions everyday so I just burn but try my best not to eat into it. Works for me so far. I did plateau last couple of weeks but a marathon of yard work Saturday got me another 2.2 pounds for mon morning weigh-in. Thanks Guys and Gals.
Males should not be cutting at 1250-1350 calories, especially when they are exercising (outside of highly trained people cutting for composition and short periods of time under doctor supervision). You may wont to reconsider your calorie and macronutrient levels based on long term goals and training.
0 -
The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
Me too. I'm always hungry, especially between lunch and dinner, even with a snack. And after my dinner, im still hungry, by the time I go to bed, I'm very uncomfortable (even after an attempt to fill up on an after dinner 8pm salad) and I get cold and have a difficult time going to sleep. Maybe I need more calories.0 -
TamzFit777 wrote: »The difference depends on What your metabolic rate is. I thought 1500 calories a day would be okay for me for weight loss, but I felt like I was starving all the time and would then overeat. I got my resting metabolic rate tested and it turned out that my metabolism is 35% higher than other women my height and weight. I need about 1800-2000 calories a day to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week. Therefore, 1500 was starving for ME. Or at least it felt like it, and I certainly couldn't stick to it!
Me too. I'm always hungry, especially between lunch and dinner, even with a snack. And after my dinner, im still hungry, by the time I go to bed, I'm very uncomfortable (even after an attempt to fill up on an after dinner 8pm salad) and I get cold and have a difficult time going to sleep. Maybe I need more calories.
Possibly, but you might benefit from altering the foods you eat to incorporate greater volume: veggies, egg whites, oatmeal, low sugar fruits, and lean proteins like chicken/turkey. Even at 2400 calories, I still have to do this. I eat loads of volume.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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