What's wrong with eating under 1200?
Options
Replies
-
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
-
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?
Nutrition, feuling your body properly, less weight regain, less possibility of health problems
Starvation mode keeping someone from losing weight is a myth. Starvation and malnutrition are very real if you eat too little calories and nutrients over time. It is difficult to meet all your body's needs below 1200 calories.
Very Low Calorie diets should be done only under a doctor's supervision and short term. http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/very-low-calorie-diets/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx
2 -
Right?! I don't think we should give people a hard time for asking a valid question, it's not that ridiculous. She's learning.10 -
-
Metabolism! Your body will automatically slow down your metabolism as it thinks it is STARVING and this in the long run sets your body up for all kinds of screwy physical sxs as everyone is talking about above. Better to stick the 1200 calories and ensure you are staying active and creating a deficit between what take you in and what you burn off.0
-
It depends on what you're eating to compose those calories AND who is the person eating it.
For some people, eating below 1200 calories COULD be fine, depending on their size, activity, goals, and diet composition.2 -
In addition to my previous reply, the lower you bring calories, the less opportunity you have to cover nutrient needs. So you introduce a greater possibility of nutrient deficiencies.
The larger your caloric deficit, you COULD also increase the likelihood that you will not preserve skeletal muscle during the diet, although this is obviously heavily influenced by training stimulus as well.
Lower calorie diets have a tendency to be harder to stick to for most people, and so you increase the likelihood that the individual can't stick to the diet and so you may essentially lose the benefit of the low calorie diet to begin with (weight loss).0 -
Malnutrition. That's what's wrong... Also, why torture yourself with hunger. Hunger SUCKS!!! Also, do you want to be the hangry one at parties?
If you don't mind decreasing the quality of your hair skin and nails, and having out-of-whack hormones, less than 1200 will do the job.0 -
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?
That's part of the consensus. The other part is purely that if you eat too few calories - create a calorie deficit larger than the fairly modest amount of stored fat your body can metabolize in a day - your body will fill the energy gap by- making you lethargic/fatigued so you won't feel like moving around as much (and will feel generally crappy),
- slowing down or stopping normal growth/maintenance functions, so your hair will weaken & start falling out, your nails will weaken and become brittle/break (though it will take some time to see the latter, since it starts at the base of the nail),
- *starting to burn other kinds of tissue, like lean muscle (note: your heart is a muscle), and weaken your bones,
- you may get sick because of impaired immune function and other nasty effects. cv
It just isn't healthy. Lose weight at a reasonable rate. If you're eager to lose quickly for the sake of your appearance, note that your appearance will suffer if you lose too fast.5 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
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.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
8 -
Undereating can also trigger binges, and chucking your weight loss goals out the window, and gaining back all the weight you lost.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions