Is An 1100 Daily Calorie Allotment Helpful or Harmful?

apiepenburg97 wrote: »

Hi everyone. As a little bit of background, I'm 5'6" and 176 pounds. I'm also a college student, so I'm not able to work out as much as I would like. My ideal weight is 120 pounds. From doing research in this forum and other resources, I've found that a good way to lose about 1 pound per week is to subtract 500 from your BMR and eat that many calories a day. I calculated my BMR to be 1600, which would leave me with 1100 calories a day. I did some more research, as that seems on the lower end of the spectrum, and found conflicting information. Some people said that they barely lost any weight because their body thought it was starving, and others said it worked wonders. What are your opinions?
There was also a post I read where a woman said she was following a similar plan and working out 2x a day, and wasn't losing any weight. Then she started to eat 1600 calories and work out once a day and the weight dropped quickly. Can someone explain this to me?

1100 is too little unless under the care of a dr. you dont subtract from your BMR(bmr is what your body burns just to keep your organs running,such as your heart beating,lungs functioning,etc),you take 500 from your TDEE. Im 5'6 1/2 and 168 and eating about 1700 calories. MFP gives me 1800+(to lose half a lb a week).. put in your height,weight and your weight loss goals(you should only aim to lose 1-1.5 lbs since you have less than 75lbs to lose).your body isnt going to think its starving unless you are really starving it, but you arent going to stop losing weight because of it. starvation mode when it comes to dieting doesnt exist.

you dont get enough nutrients eating less than MFP recommends which is 1200 net(and thats for an old/sedentary/ or short woman).you dont want a too aggressive goal because once you eat the bare minimum you wont be able to lower your calories when you get closer to goal,(mfp suggests you update your weight and goals with every 10lbs lost). The best thing to do is eat as much as you can while losing weight,and you can do that by putting your stats in and eating to that goal,its easier than it sounds.you dont have to work out. I lost weight and I didnt work out for 2 months straight. its all about CICO(calories in vs calories out)

apiepenburg97 wrote: »

From doing research in this forum and other resources, I've found that a good way to lose about 1 pound per week is to subtract 500 from your BMR and eat that many calories a day. I calculated my BMR to be 1600, which would leave me with 1100 calories a day.

You're mistaken. It is 500 calories from your TDEE NOT your BMR. You should also never go under 1200 a day unless you are extremely small or old. I would start by letting MFP calculate your calorie goal until you understand things better. It is usually quite accurate.

OP others have already addressed the biggest issue with the original post which was thinking that the deficit should be subtracted from BMR, instead of your TDEE.

Sounds like you would benefit from reading a lot of the stickied "Most Helpful Forum Posts" to better understand how MFP works and how to optimize your success using this tool. These are at the top of each forum section but in particular I like:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1235566/so-youre-new-here/p1

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1

and once you've read through those and have other specific questions you might try:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10260499/i-like-old-posts-and-i-cannot-lie/p1


Good luck.

apiepenburg97 wrote: »

Hi everyone. As a little bit of background, I'm 5'6" and 176 pounds. I'm also a college student, so I'm not able to work out as much as I would like. My ideal weight is 120 pounds. From doing research in this forum and other resources, I've found that a good way to lose about 1 pound per week is to subtract 500 from your BMR and eat that many calories a day. I calculated my BMR to be 1600, which would leave me with 1100 calories a day. I did some more research, as that seems on the lower end of the spectrum, and found conflicting information. Some people said that they barely lost any weight because their body thought it was starving, and others said it worked wonders. What are your opinions?
There was also a post I read where a woman said she was following a similar plan and working out 2x a day, and wasn't losing any weight. Then she started to eat 1600 calories and work out once a day and the weight dropped quickly. Can someone explain this to me?

You don't subtract from you BRM (that is what is needed to simply keep you alive even if you didn't move at all during the day) but from your TDEE. BMR is generally the minimum number or calories a person should eat. With your stats you can eat far more that 1100 calories which is below the minimum considered sufficient for a woman to get the nutrition she needs. Since you are young, your nutritional requirements are very important. IN OTHER WORDS, Eat more.

nowine4me wrote: »

Just plug your stats into MFP at lose 1 pound a week and do exactly as it says. Easy peasy -- no math required.

Do this. It doesn't have to be so complicated.
At your stats, you should probably get a number between 1300- 1700 without exercise rather than the minimum recommended calories (1200 for women, 1500 for men) for your goal to lose 1 lb a week. You should not eat less than the recommended minimum. 1100 is not okay.

WinoGelato wrote: »

BeadDiva1 wrote: »

Starvation mode is a myth. Your body will continue to burn fat and muscle if you do not eat. Examples: POWs, models and so on. 1100 is not that low for your size. What's important is hitting your macros. As long as you get enough protein you will not lose muscle and we all know how important muscle is when trying to lose weight. Many people eat below 1000 when doing intermittent fasting. One method is called 5:2 and you eat 500 calories 2 days a week and TDEE all the other days. You don't have to do that but I'm just showing you an example. So like every one said above, subtract the 500 from your TDEE. Track, measure and be honest and consistent and PATIENT. Give it more than 3 weeks before you give up. Calorie deficit is all you need for fat loss. Obviously try to exercise so your not "skinny fat". Good luck!

1100 is absolutely very low for her size. The minimum threshold for women is 1200. Additionally, she was basing that number off of the wrong starting point (BMR) so it is going to be far lower than necessary. Point is this OP can lose weight eating far more than 1100 cals so telling her that doesn't sound too low is not prudent, IMO.

Agreed. If the OPs BMR is 1600, then 1100 is too low. It's likely going to make for a miserable diet.

As for the protein, someone correct me if I'm wrong but: if someone who is sedentary is consuming appropriate levels of protein, but too steep of a deficit overall, I don't see that protecting a whole lot of muscle. Protein in isolation is not going to be particularly effective at protecting muscle.

apiepenburg97 wrote: »

Hi everyone. As a little bit of background, I'm 5'6" and 176 pounds. I'm also a college student, so I'm not able to work out as much as I would like. My ideal weight is 120 pounds. From doing research in this forum and other resources, I've found that a good way to lose about 1 pound per week is to subtract 500 from your BMR and eat that many calories a day. I calculated my BMR to be 1600, which would leave me with 1100 calories a day. I did some more research, as that seems on the lower end of the spectrum, and found conflicting information. Some people said that they barely lost any weight because their body thought it was starving, and others said it worked wonders. What are your opinions?
There was also a post I read where a woman said she was following a similar plan and working out 2x a day, and wasn't losing any weight. Then she started to eat 1600 calories and work out once a day and the weight dropped quickly. Can someone explain this to me?

A few reasons come to mind:

1. Her undereating led to binging, which she didn't log, or otherwise was actually eating more than 1100 calories
2. She was initially retaining water from starting a new exercise program
3. This low amount of calories increased her cortisol levels, which caused her to retain water:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dietary-restraint-and-cortisol-levels-research-review.html/

...a group of women who scored higher on dietary restraint scores showed elevated baseline cortisol levels. By itself this might not be problematic, but as often as not, these types of dieters are drawn to extreme approaches to dieting.
They throw in a lot of intense exercise, try to cut calories very hard (and this often backfires if disinhibition is high; when these folks break they break) and cortisol levels go through the roof. That often causes cortisol mediated water retention (there are other mechanisms for this, mind you, leptin actually inhibits cortisol release and as it drops on a diet, cortisol levels go up further). Weight and fat loss appear to have stopped or at least slowed significantly. This is compounded even further in female dieters due to the vagaries of their menstrual cycle where water balance is changing enormously week to week anyhow.

And invariably, this type of psychology responds to the stall by going even harder. They attempt to cut calories harder, they start doing more activity. The cycle continues and gets worse. Harder dieting means more cortisol means more water retention means more dieting. Which backfires (other problems come in the long-term with this approach but you’ll have to wait for the book to read about that).

When what they should do is take a day or two off (even one day off from training, at least in men, let’s cortisol drop significantly). Raise calories, especially from carbohydrates. This helps cortisol to drop. More than that they need to find a way to freaking chill out. Meditation, yoga, get a massage... Get in the bath, candles, a little Enya, a glass of wine, have some you-time but please just chill.