Can you eat too little?
Options
Replies
-
dragon_girl26 wrote: »LeanButNotMean44 wrote: »Micah_Johnson wrote: »Several peer-reviwed studies over the years have found that eating too little can hinder effective weight loss. The suggested explanation is that a drastic and sustained loss of caloric intake sends the body into a 'panic mode' and the body substantially lowers it's metabolism in an attempt to conserve fat stores. One can see how such a reaction could have evolved in a time when a person's next meal (or next several meals) was anything but secured. That being said, if you stop eating, of course you're going to lose weight. That's just simple math. But you will more efficiently lose fat by balancing your caloric intake between "not too much" and "not too little."
Care to provide specifics/links to these studies?
I do remember reading a study where the subjects reported eating little (~1,200 calories a day) yet not losing weight, and the authors drew the "body is storing the calories as fat conclusion". However it was heavily criticized because all the intakes were self-reported. When it comes to self reported intakes, many researcher do not feel people are able to accurately report what they eat and feel all research using self reported intakes is not reliable.
It might take me a minute to find that study.
I think this is another important point. There are many cases where people will come on the boards and report that they are eating very low calories, yet their weight loss has stalled. It isn't because of "starvation mode", but usually because they are underreporting what they are actually eating. That isn't to say they're lying, just that they aren't tracking accurately, or eating larger portions than they should be because they don't weigh their food, etc...
I believe there's a lot of truth to this.
In addition, people will say (I'm not saying on MFP, just in general) that they've been at whatever amount of calories, then later reveal that they really did stick to those calories except maybe a once a week "small cheat" plus their birthday dinner...This isn't because people are liars or lazy, it's because of human nature. We really do feel we've restricted and "been pretty good" if we've done without for a period of time as compared to our previous eating patterns. But it's IMO another issue with self-reporting on studies such as this one.
1 -
I have seen a few posts on here about stalled weight loss and some members suggesting the problem is that the op isn't eating enough.
And then other members saying that this is impossible.
I'm confused.
Can eating too little make you stop losing weight?
If you eat less calories than you burn overall, you will lose weight.
If you eat too many calories than you burn overall, you will gain weight.
If you eat about the same as you burn, you will maintain your weight.
The answer to weight loss stalls is not to eat more (if that were the case there'd be no fat people in the world), it's to find out where your errors are. Many of us have underestimated intake at one time or another, as well as overestimated exercise calories. We have unwittingly chosen in accurate foods from the database, used eyeballs and measuring devices instead of a scale for solids and measuring cups/spoons for liquids, we have forgotten to log food, and the list goes on.
The only way to lose weight is to eat less than you burn (diet type is preference only), unless you have some medical condition causing weight loss, which means you need to go to the doctor.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Micah_Johnson wrote: »Several peer-reviwed studies over the years have found that eating too little can hinder effective weight loss. The suggested explanation is that a drastic and sustained loss of caloric intake sends the body into a 'panic mode' and the body substantially lowers it's metabolism in an attempt to conserve fat stores. One can see how such a reaction could have evolved in a time when a person's next meal (or next several meals) was anything but secured. That being said, if you stop eating, of course you're going to lose weight. That's just simple math. But you will more efficiently lose fat by balancing your caloric intake between "not too much" and "not too little."
You're sort of right. The body does lower its metabolism. And then it starts catabolizing its muscles and organs. Fat stores will be depleted regardless if caloric intake continues to be too low.
OP, the reason people who are stalled on too few calories is usually that they've become non-compliant in some way. People become lax in logging and end up eating more than they think.
The other scenario that presents itself is that people who have been on a sustained drastic deficit experience metabolic adaptation. Their levels of certain key hormones drop as well as their level of spontaneous daily activity. The decrease in activity isn't usually a conscious thing. Even if the person feels they are working out, they're not usually exercising as intensely as usual and probably aren't fidgeting as much as normal either. They're generally more lazy, in other words.
The reason that they are frequently advised to eat a little more is to replenish those hormone levels and give them the energy necessary to raise their daily activity levels.
Overall, the advice to raise calories results in the same net energy balance as what they were doing previously, but with an improved metabolic profile.
This.
A million times over2 -
The research I have read shows that metabolism only slows a little bit under starvation and comes back quickly upon normal caloric intake. This makes sense, because the human body can only optimize so far. The main way it can lower metabolism is by lowering temperature, but it can only lower your temperature a couple degrees or else your biochemical processes will not work properly. Other than a few things like that, your body cannot get around the laws of physics. Your body requires an objective amount of energy every day to simply live.
There are also ways that your body can get rid of calories. One pathway is called uncoupling in the mitochondria membrane. There was actually a drug that did this, and caused massive weight loss, but it's very dangerous because you can suddenly die. The mitochondria essentially waste energy by letting the protons float back through the membrane without creating ATP (hence uncoupling). The proton pumps have to keep pumping protons at a higher rate to maintain the same electrochemical gradient as before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncoupling_protein
However, if you eat too little, you will likely crack and over eat, and you will be miserable. It's just not necessary to eat really low calorie amounts. You should work with your body. Your brain is trying to maintain a certain weight, and it will fight you. The key is to eat in a way that you can sustain over the long term, and slowly taper down.2 -
It's just not necessary to eat really low calorie amounts. You should work with your body. Your brain is trying to maintain a certain weight, and it will fight you. The key is to eat in a way that you can sustain over the long term, and slowly taper down.
This is really encouraging to read after your thread from the other day!
3 -
It depends, if the user is logging everything in that they eat during the day. There is a good chance they're eating more then they think they are and don't realize it.
On the other hand if they are logging correctly and burning 700 cals and the website has them eating 1600 before exercising and they eat 1200. This scenario can cause weight loss to stall because their calorie net is no longer at 1200, it's a huge deficient knocking the net calorie range down to 500 cals for the day. leaving a huge deficient that is considered starving yourself without realizing it.
I think it's depending on whether or not if they're logging correctly. It's time to see what they've been doing and make an adjustment on whether or not they need to drop their calorie intake or raise it.
That decision should be based from person to person.
For me on rest days I eat around 1700. On workout days 1700 doesn't cut it for me and I'm still hungry after eating 1800 and drinking 10 glasses of water. I tend to eat around 2000 on work out days and still lose around 1.5 to 2 pounds a week. I gave up a while back because I stalled at 280 and didn't talk to anyone about it and allowed it to come back. It caused me to start feeling depressed.
I find measuring and weighing food is a good way to see how much you're consuming.
I find the best way to go about weight loss, is find out what works for you.0 -
I have a hunch - no science to back it up - that you are more likely to forget what you have eaten and/or underestimate your portion size if you have undereaten previously. We know that when we are hungry we will tend to take bigger portions. I suspect what we are seeing when people "can't lose weight because they're not eating enough" is that they are subconsciously sneaking food and increasing portion sizes to combat the conscious effort to starve themselves. Your brain and body intend to survive and will fight dirty to do it.0
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I have a hunch - no science to back it up - that you are more likely to forget what you have eaten and/or underestimate your portion size if you have undereaten previously. We know that when we are hungry we will tend to take bigger portions. I suspect what we are seeing when people "can't lose weight because they're not eating enough" is that they are subconsciously sneaking food and increasing portion sizes to combat the conscious effort to starve themselves. Your brain and body intend to survive and will fight dirty to do it.
and yet I've heard people say they started losing weight again after upping their calorie intake by 200 to 300 cals more then what they were originally consuming. It's depending on the person and whether or not they're logging their portions correctly. It can be from not eating enough to eating too much without realizing it.
I really believe it varies from person to person and what works best for them. What works best for one person is not going to work for another person.0 -
I think this issue is multi factorial. Skimming through, I see a lot of it has been mentioned:
- You do get a bit of a true slowdown and metabolic adaptation. Your weight loss doesn't completely stop, but the amount you lose per calorie restricted becomes smaller.
- Your stress hormones go up causing water retention, so your weight loss appears to slow down or even halt, but it doesn't mean it truly stalled. That's why many people see near instant weight loss once they raise their calories.
- Certain mechanisms in the body trigger compensatory behaviors, reducing the NEAT (non-exercise activity) which makes up a big part of what differentiates those who believe they have a slow metabolism and those who believe they have a fast metabolism. You move less, you fidget less, even when you do move you conserve energy by making the movements smaller and slower. You don't usually perceive this change and you think you are moving just the same. Even purposeful exercise does not burn as much as it would properly fueled.
- The feeling of hunger increases the chance for food amnesia and nibbling on random forgotten pieces of food. Because you are hungrier than usual, you tend to forget certain foods you ate because there is little to no satiety feedback to remind you that you've eaten.
- The feeling of hunger increases portion distortion. Because you are hungry, your portions don't feel satisfying and this leads you to perceive them as smaller. I have noticed this more than once weighing my foods. I usually add as much food as I believe is true to my desired portions then weigh it. I have noticed than on hungry days I tend to perceive a spoonful of something smaller than it actually is, and the opposite on days when I have no appetite. A portion of Greek yogurt, for example, turns out to have about 30% more grams while feeling like it's smaller than usual. I have days when I eat 1300 calories and feel like I've been eating and indulging all day, and days when 2000+ calories feel like I have barely eaten anything because I'm hungry. It's pretty weird and mind bending.
- Consuming a low calorie diet can trigger compensatory very high calorie days and food hoarding that can potentially wipe out the deficit. You often consume a lot and forget half of what you've consumed. It's often accompanied with "starting over" mentality, which makes these days feel like they don't count when they clearly do.
I'm sure there are other factors, but the short verdict is that going so low to the point where it isn't sustainable will make the diet feel much harder but can potentially give you nearly the same weight loss (or worse in some cases) of a more tolerable calorie budget. It can basically mean expending more energy on dieting per results achieved.5 -
Micah_Johnson wrote: »Several peer-reviwed studies over the years have found that eating too little can hinder effective weight loss. The suggested explanation is that a drastic and sustained loss of caloric intake sends the body into a 'panic mode' and the body substantially lowers it's metabolism in an attempt to conserve fat stores. One can see how such a reaction could have evolved in a time when a person's next meal (or next several meals) was anything but secured. That being said, if you stop eating, of course you're going to lose weight. That's just simple math. But you will more efficiently lose fat by balancing your caloric intake between "not too much" and "not too little."
Citations needed.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »The short answer is, NO. That is why you don't see obese people starving in third world countries.
It is more complicated than that. When your caloric intake is below your basal metabolic rate--the amount of calories your body burns at rest--your metabolism slows and weight loss can stall. If your caloric intake goes even lower, you can still lose weight, but your body thinks you are starving and will scavenge nutrients from other parts of your body, which can harm your muscles, bones, and organs (which is why truly starving people are not generally buff hardbodies).
If that person doesn't have significant fat stores, yes. However, if you are obese or very overweight, a big nope.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »The short answer is, NO. That is why you don't see obese people starving in third world countries.
It is more complicated than that. When your caloric intake is below your basal metabolic rate--the amount of calories your body burns at rest--your metabolism slows and weight loss can stall. If your caloric intake goes even lower, you can still lose weight, but your body thinks you are starving and will scavenge nutrients from other parts of your body, which can harm your muscles, bones, and organs (which is why truly starving people are not generally buff hardbodies).
I did say " The short answer". Hence why my answer was concise.
Yes metabolic adaptation is real and yes if your deficit is severe you will lose muscle. One additional point to make, there is no way to know BMR. The only measurable thing is TDEE. How can you know if you are eating below BMR if you can't know what BMR is?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions