What's wrong with eating under 1200?
foxygirl14
Posts: 158 Member
Since starvation mode doesn't exist, what's wrong with eating less than 1200 calories a day? The only downside I can see is that a person would be hungry, but it will only help with weight loss so why are so many adamant about not eating less than that number?
1
Replies
-
Nutrition is important and losing weight faster is not really better.11
-
Because it is nearly impossible to get all of the nutrients that the body needs consuming less than 1,200 calories per day.14
-
A slew of health problems including hair loss. Also losing too fast means you lose more muscle in addition to your fat, so you'll get to your goal weight faster but your body composition will suffer.13
-
Uhhhh...getting requisite nutrition maybe? Being healthy maybe? I can assure you the fit and healthy people eat...they don't starve their bodies of nutrition.
Do a search and see how many threads you can find with people losing their hair...brittle nails...loss of menstrual cycle, etc....why? Malnutrition.
It's difficult to get your requisite nutrition at even 1200...
Plus, yeah...starvation mode as it is used here is a myth...but very aggressive calorie restrictions will result in the loss of lean mass (muscles and organs) and is also a stress on the body which raises cortisol levels which will in fact slow your metabolism.17 -
A slew of health problems including hair loss. Also losing too fast means you lose more muscle in addition to your fat, so you'll get to your goal weight faster but your body composition will suffer.
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
The real reason to not lose weight too fast: you'll be thin and pretty MINUS the pretty. (grey translucent skin, bland thin hair, weak broken nails, icky teeth and possibly breath, fatigue, possibly depression). Basically all the stuff anorexics suffer from depending on how low you go.8 -
This.michelle172415 wrote: »Because it is nearly impossible to get all of the nutrients that the body needs consuming less than 1,200 calories per day.
Now I did alternate day IF for the weight loss phase and I did do very low calorie days (under 500), BUT-every other day I ate at maintenance level calories, so I was still getting the nutrients my body needed. Factored out over a week's time I was still eating at a deficit that was healthy. Same with 5:2IF-you offset the 2 very low calorie days with 5 higher calorie days.
There's no way doing vlcds back to back, over a long period of time would be healthy.1 -
Oh, and if you suffer at all from even the mildest of acne, poor nutrition by eating too little will make it way way worse due to the drastic hormonal changes your body will undergo from not getting adequate nutrition and energy:)
I experienced that one first hand in my days of starving myself followed by binge eating.2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »A slew of health problems including hair loss. Also losing too fast means you lose more muscle in addition to your fat, so you'll get to your goal weight faster but your body composition will suffer.
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
The real reason to not lose weight too fast: you'll be thin and pretty MINUS the pretty. (grey translucent skin, bland thin hair, weak broken nails, icky teeth and possibly breath, fatigue, possibly depression). Basically all the stuff anorexics suffer from depending on how low you go.
Exactly. I'll never forget the one woman who posted about how she kept eating 800 calories and still hated the fat on her body. She'd keep going through binge and restrict cycles for years. People thought the "fat" was in her head and she finally posted photos; she honestly looked like 120+ pounds even though she was 108 pounds and around 5'1". That's how bad it was.6 -
I agree with what ppl have posted. There is nothing wrong if let's say "I'm not hungry today" (and actually not hungry rather than just telling yourself that) and not eating much. But combine that with a day-in/day-out practice of not eating enough? Yea, your body will suffer and you will eventually find that you have no energy, are sick more easily because you have no immunity and sure, eventually you'll be thin, but for what? The cost is just not worth it to most people.
And typically, people can lose weight fairly fast, but it doesn't typically stay off. Then after they buy new clothes etc, they're only more down on themselves when they gain the weight back and then some.
Also, if you really are interested in becoming a nutritionist, please don't take this approach with teaching anything. Its simply not a healthy, sustainable approach for anyone.0 -
OP, I think you should do some serious research if you want to be a nutritionist some day. It would be extremely bad practice to recommend so few calories to anyone unless they were being medically supervised.1
-
That being said, if your goal is 1200 a day and occasionally you're just not hungry enough to make that, that's not the end of the world. You're not gonna get gross and die. It's a LONG TERM way-too-low calorie intake that does all these bad things to you.
And to be fair to all our members, some of them are on doctor-prescribed and monitored VLCD's and some others have rare medical conditions that require lower calorie counts, also prescribed by the doctor monitoring that condition. The key words there are DOCTOR and MONITORED. Because a doctor knows that low is dangerous and she needs to watch her patient carefully to ensure no damage is being done.2 -
I remember years ago they used to say if you did note eat enough your metabolism would slow down. Does that still sound correct?0
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »A slew of health problems including hair loss. Also losing too fast means you lose more muscle in addition to your fat, so you'll get to your goal weight faster but your body composition will suffer.
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
The real reason to not lose weight too fast: you'll be thin and pretty MINUS the pretty. (grey translucent skin, bland thin hair, weak broken nails, icky teeth and possibly breath, fatigue, possibly depression). Basically all the stuff anorexics suffer from depending on how low you go.
Exactly. I'll never forget the one woman who posted about how she kept eating 800 calories and still hated the fat on her body. She'd keep going through binge and restrict cycles for years. People thought the "fat" was in her head and she finally posted photos; she honestly looked like 120+ pounds even though she was 108 pounds and around 5'1". That's how bad it was.
Geez... there but for the grace of god go I. Thank heavens for MFP.1 -
If you eat less your body will start to store fat as energy for your body and that's how you'll end up gaining weight not losing weight0
-
maggiesue0215 wrote: »I remember years ago they used to say if you did note eat enough your metabolism would slow down. Does that still sound correct?
What you're referring to is adaptive thermogenesis, and in starvation trials in one of the M states (possibly Minnesota) in the 50's they starved a bunch of guys for a LONG time and those guys metabolisms slowed down up to a maximum of 40% (though this number is ONLY applicable to horrifyingly low calories mind you, not low as OP is probably thinking) and as soon as they got these guys fed up properly again, their metabolisms returned to normal. You can't permanently damage your metabolism without some SERIOUS *kitten* going on.
ETA: The researchers also made those same guys, while starving them, do hard labor because the whole point of the experiment was to learn how to "fix" people who had undergone this same treatment in concentration camps, where low food intake was paired with hard labor.
ETA2: that 40% number is also heavily disputed because the manner in which they arrived at that number ignored a lot of variables, like the fact that these guys were subconsciously moving less and using less effort in general and that lowers their caloric burns. So take that with a heaping portion of salt.2 -
-
If you eat less your body will start to store fat as energy for your body and that's how you'll end up gaining weight not losing weight
This is not accurate. When you aren't getting enough food, you will move less (sometimes subconsciously without your being conscious of doing it) and that slows weight loss because you aren't moving as much. And even if you ate so little that didn't matter, it would just make your body burn whatever it could to survive. Like organ and muscle tissue. If what you were saying were accurate, no one would starve to death, because the body would "hold onto" fat. It can't do that because the laws of thermodynamics prove that energy can't come from nowhere. Your body gets it by converting matter to energy, that matter is fat and muscle and other tissue. You would cease to produce energy (death) if your body stopped converting it's own mass into energy.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »Since starvation mode doesn't exist, what's wrong with eating less than 1200 calories a day? The only downside I can see is that a person would be hungry, but it will only help with weight loss so why are so many adamant about not eating less than that number?
This is relevant to your size, so a 4"2 person could probably get away with eating less then 1200 calories a day.
Stop asking everyone what they think and *kitten* try it. You're not going to die from eating 1200 calories for a week. You'll probably feel like *kitten*, hormones will be all out of wack ... lethargic... tons of things could happen... find out for yourself and come back and let everyone know. I know a guy that eats like 1000 calories a day but he has no muscle mass and weighs like 150-160 lbs and he feels fine.0 -
Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?0
-
Everyone else has already said it, but the key word is malnutrition. Anemia, calcium deficiencies, protein deficiencies- as others mentioned, hair falling out, fingernails getting brittle, exhaustion, hunger, mood swings, acne, skin dry and cracking- all those things come from malnutrition. For the average woman, less than 1200 calories a day is simply not sustainable for health. Sure, you can survive for a long time on 900 calories a day, and if you were stranded in an airplane crash in the Andes Mountains, that would probably look like a feast. But if you're an average woman living in the modern age with plenty of access to clean water and healthy food, it would be silly to deliberately put yourself at risk for malnutrition for the sake of losing a few pounds.
4 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?
a poster here once showed me how it is possible to just meet these needs on 1200...just meet them....and that was very very careful planning.
and that was just the RDA minimum amounts...0 -
For someone who is supposedly interested in becoming a nutritionist (as OP's profile states), this kind of question is simply ridiculous...0
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »maggiesue0215 wrote: »I remember years ago they used to say if you did note eat enough your metabolism would slow down. Does that still sound correct?
What you're referring to is adaptive thermogenesis, and in starvation trials in one of the M states (possibly Minnesota) in the 50's they starved a bunch of guys for a LONG time and those guys metabolisms slowed down up to a maximum of 40% (though this number is ONLY applicable to horrifyingly low calories mind you, not low as OP is probably thinking) and as soon as they got these guys fed up properly again, their metabolisms returned to normal. You can't permanently damage your metabolism without some SERIOUS *kitten* going on.
ETA: The researchers also made those same guys, while starving them, do hard labor because the whole point of the experiment was to learn how to "fix" people who had undergone this same treatment in concentration camps, where low food intake was paired with hard labor.
ETA2: that 40% number is also heavily disputed because the manner in which they arrived at that number ignored a lot of variables, like the fact that these guys were subconsciously moving less and using less effort in general and that lowers their caloric burns. So take that with a heaping portion of salt.
You have the state correct (Minnesota). It's a fairly interesting study if the OP wants to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_ExperimentAmong the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.1 -
For someone who is supposedly interested in becoming a nutritionist (as OP's profile states), this kind of question is simply ridiculous...
Asking questions is how most people learn. There is nothing wrong with the OP asking a question as long as she reads the responses and learns from it (which it looks like she has). Hopefully the OP will learn from the mature users of this site and will be a better nutritionist in the future for it!17 -
For someone who is supposedly interested in becoming a nutritionist (as OP's profile states), this kind of question is simply ridiculous...
Asking questions is how most people learn. There is nothing wrong with the OP asking a question as long as she reads the responses and learns from it (which it looks like she has). Hopefully the OP will learn from the mature users of this site and will be a better nutritionist in the future for it!
esp considering a nutritionist is not a registered dietician...
I can become a nutritionist online in a very short period of time.1 -
Asking questions is how most people learn. There is nothing wrong with the OP asking a question as long as she reads the responses and learns from it (which it looks like she has). Hopefully the OP will learn from the mature users of this site and will be a better nutritionist in the future for it!
Actually reading and researching, and then asking questions is how most people learn. And I don't think that she has done any reading or researching before posting this question. Either she is not serious about it (no blame there - interests change over time), or if she is... well, stating that the worst that might come from malnutrition is to make a person hungry... I wouldn't go to Africa if I were her. lol1 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?
The main point of eating is fuel. What we eat and drink provides the macro and micronutrients our bodies need to do all the amazing processes they do every day. As far as I'm concerned, I want to eat as much as I can while maintaining a healthy weight so I can get as much fuel and nutrition as possible. I want a strong immune system, healthy skin and hair, efficient digestion, a strong heart and lungs, I want my brain getting everything it needs and more, I want to be able to work out hard so my muscles can develop, etc etc etc
So I don't want to know the minimum I can eat and still get the minimum nutrition I require. I want to know the maximum I can eat so I can get plenty of everything!
It is possible that a woman who is very short or a senior who hasn't kept up their muscle mass might need to eat less than 1200 to maintain weight, but they will have to be super careful to get enough nutrition. I honestly don't know how difficult it would be and exactly where the cutoff point is, and I have no intention of finding out!2 -
Well, for one, I'd like the $900 back that it cost me to have my doctor tell me that my extreme hair loss was just a reaction to me dieting at approx. 1100 calories (lost 40lbs in 4 months)... Plus of course gaining it all back bc I restricted too much. That is why I am here again. I am so much happier this time around, eating about 1400-1500 on non-exercise days and 1600-1800 on exercise days. I barely feel restricted except for having to watch alcohol, desserts, and fried foods. Sure, it will take a lot longer, but I suspect it has a higher chance of actually working this time and I won't be as likely to regain the loss. I have lost 21lbs in 4 months.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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