Is a 1000 calorie diet harmful?
Options
Replies
-
Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
All joking aside. It can be easy when getting advice from people who don't know to think they are on the attack. Especially on the internet where you can't see body language or read tone. Even the best of us completely open to criticism can get defensive.
But it worth taking a step back and coming back to read things through again. it can give us a little time to mull things over and get a better perspective on what has been said.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
I thought 5'4 was average. As a 5'3 person, I consider myself within the average range. If 5'5 is "little," what am I, child-sized? ;-)5 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »
I don't understand why people are being rude. I just asked a question. This is the help section and it's very discouraging. I probably will never ask a question on here again.MysteriousLeigh wrote: »
My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
I thought 5'4 was average. As a 5'3 person, I consider myself within the average range. If 5'5 is "little," what am I, child-sized? ;-)
I got my threads mixed up and thought she was 5'2 lol! Though at 5'4 I usually feel like a short person, maybe I just hang with giants
2 -
I find it so odd that some people are so invested in the fact that some guidelines say the minimum isn't 1200 cals, it's 1000 cals. That's the "minimum". It doesn't change the fact that it's inappropriate for the vast majority of people. And just because it won't "kill you" doesn't mean it's optimal.
These are the same people who have (very erroneously) said that a BMI of 20 is underweight. There are people here who don't support weight loss unless it's within their own particular very narrow frame of what is allowable, and you'll see them pop up often when anyone doesn't fit within the tiny box that they've decided is the One Right Way.3 -
Oh I love irony...15
-
Traveler120 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »
I don't understand why people are being rude. I just asked a question. This is the help section and it's very discouraging. I probably will never ask a question on here again.MysteriousLeigh wrote: »
My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
There are some difficulties in meeting nutritional needs with a lower calorie limit. From personal experience, to have a fully balanced day, I need about 1550 calories. Could it be done on less, probably, but I can lose just fine on 1600, so why mess with it.
Can you see a registered dietician to help you set up a meal plan that will be balanced and help you reach your goals in a healthy manner? There's really only so much people here can do for you. Mostly it's going to be conjecture because we aren't there living it. Seek some help from professionals closer to you.
As for people supporting the sub 1200, I really don't understand how that is helpful in any situation where we don't have the complete picture. It's not appropriate for the vast majority of the population
Edited: getting my threads mixed up3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
I thought 5'4 was average. As a 5'3 person, I consider myself within the average range. If 5'5 is "little," what am I, child-sized? ;-)
Im 5ft 1.8......... im fun sized!4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
I thought 5'4 was average. As a 5'3 person, I consider myself within the average range. If 5'5 is "little," what am I, child-sized? ;-)
I hope not, because I'm five feet even! At that height, depending on activity, I'll average between 1200 and 1500 per day. In maintenance for going on two years now at this level - I find my weight creeping up toward 110, though, which is heading toward dangerous territory for me, so I'll be narrowing things down a bit.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
Same here, except I'm 5'4! I keep telling my husband that's average and he keeps patting me on the head and saying 'It's so cute that you think that.' The fact that both of our boys outgrew me at roughly 11.5 years old isn't helping
1 -
I don't get a warning and can complete my diary provided I meet 1000 (but I never do go that low-just hit it by accident on my phone). Are you sure OP is infringing the rules?
Eta: sorry, didn't notice the multiple pages. This has doubtless been covered.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
As someone that isn't even 5 foot I think 5'5 is positively tall. I'd also say that guidelines which say a minimum of 1000 would only be for those of my height and less, close to goal weight, where our BMI is less than 1200 and our NEAT isn't much over 1200 to begin with. Even then I lost weight eating at a minimum of 1200, I did it by only eating back half of my exercise calories. I'd hate to only have 1000 calories to work with a day.
4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »
I don't understand why people are being rude. I just asked a question. This is the help section and it's very discouraging. I probably will never ask a question on here again.MysteriousLeigh wrote: »
My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
There are some difficulties in meeting nutritional needs with a lower calorie limit. From personal experience, to have a fully balanced day, I need about 1550 calories. Could it be done on less, probably, but I can lose just fine on 1600, so why mess with it........
Just because YOU do it one way doesn't mean it can't be done any other way. A person can pack a lot of vitamins and minerals in 1000 calories if they're clever about food choices such as nutrient dense fruits and veggies with very little processed foods, added oils etc. And you don't need a dietician to tell you if your diet is providing essential vitamins and minerals, one can just use cronometer.com for that.. It's not that complicated.
If they eat that way, they can end up with a significant volume of food as well which means they'll avoid hunger. That in turn will make it more sustainable until they lose the excess weight. So, no, eating a given # of calories doesn't guarantee that it meets nutritional needs. Eating nutrient dense whole foods in the right amounts and verifying on a proper tracker (not mfp), does.
3 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Hello. I'm 5'5 154lbs. I have been eating 1000 calories net. I always meet my protein and carb goal. I don't always meet the fat goal. I eat really healthy and get lots of vitamins. I also take a vitamin tablet just in case. I also don't binge on junk to gain everything back. Is this diet okay or harmful?
Unless you have been directed to undergo such a calorie-restricted diet by a qualified medical professional, yes. It is dangerous. It actually borders on the level of restriction that would put someone at-risk for an eating disorder. Your body will not function properly on 1,000 calories every single day.1 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Well now I feel like my life has been a lie, is 5'5 considered little!? I thought I was average!
As someone that isn't even 5 foot I think 5'5 is positively tall. I'd also say that guidelines which say a minimum of 1000 would only be for those of my height and less, close to goal weight, where our BMI is less than 1200 and our NEAT isn't much over 1200 to begin with. Even then I lost weight eating at a minimum of 1200, I did it by only eating back half of my exercise calories. I'd hate to only have 1000 calories to work with a day.
Haha I'm 5"8 and 5'5 or below is little to me. My 25 year old daughter is around 5'2 and hugging her feels like hugging a small child lol
I've always wanted to be short and petite, but then i read about the low calories some of these women have to eat, and i change my mind. But if i didn't have to worry about calories and was naturally slim, i would love to be a few inches shorter.0 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »[]
Actually according to this upon complete information a diary entry on mfp...
NIH says 1000-1200 is the minimum for women...
Wow, this is new. Men can go down to 1200? I've done that a couple of times and I wanted to eat the world the next day, whether it was living or already cooked.
Part of the reason they keep lowering the recommendations is that there's evidence that the vast majority of people can't accurately count calories. So, most people who *think* they're eating 1200 are actually eating more. Canada Food Guide's current "recommended calories" for women would be weight loss calories for almost any woman who could accurately count, but they build in "wiggle room" to account for the expected underestimation. Which, of course, completely messes up anyone who actually can count accurately.
Frankly, having a hard minimum that's the same for everyone is silly anyway. A tall woman and a short woman will have different nutritional needs, and there's no meaningful difference between eating 1199 and eating 1200. But we humans like our rules, I guess. (And our round numbers. There's a reason all the calorie recommendations are multiples of 100 and all the BMI ranges cut off at a multiple of 5. The only exception is 18.5, and that used to be 20 before they realized that classified perfectly healthy short fine-boned women as "underweight".)5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
Best advice here.1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
Best advice here.
Listening to their body and it lying to you is the reason most people are here in the first place...28 -
stevencloser wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
Best advice here.
Listening to their body and it lying to you is the reason most people are here in the first place...
QFT.3 -
Traveler120 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »
I don't understand why people are being rude. I just asked a question. This is the help section and it's very discouraging. I probably will never ask a question on here again.MysteriousLeigh wrote: »
My advice is to listen to your body, not random people on the internet. All you need to ask yourself is -Are you losing at a reasonable rate? How does your body feel? What do your lab tests show? etc. If all is well, then all is well, regardless of what people say here.
Plus, you said 1000 NET, which to me means you're subtracting exercise from your TOTAL intake. Regardless, I think if someone is eating and feeling full, it doesn't matter what the calorie amount is. There's no reason to eat more if you're not hungry. Your body will tell you what's up. If you're hungry, eat some more. If you're not, don't. That's how people who don't count calories yet are at healthy weight do it.
There are some difficulties in meeting nutritional needs with a lower calorie limit. From personal experience, to have a fully balanced day, I need about 1550 calories. Could it be done on less, probably, but I can lose just fine on 1600, so why mess with it........
Just because YOU do it one way doesn't mean it can't be done any other way. A person can pack a lot of vitamins and minerals in 1000 calories if they're clever about food choices such as nutrient dense fruits and veggies with very little processed foods, added oils etc. And you don't need a dietician to tell you if your diet is providing essential vitamins and minerals, one can just use cronometer.com for that.. It's not that complicated.
If they eat that way, they can end up with a significant volume of food as well which means they'll avoid hunger. That in turn will make it more sustainable until they lose the excess weight. So, no, eating a given # of calories doesn't guarantee that it meets nutritional needs. Eating nutrient dense whole foods in the right amounts and verifying on a proper tracker (not mfp), does.
I said that it was possible that balance could be achieved on less. And just as much as more calories doesn't mean balance will be reached, the chances are certainly reduced with a lower limit.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions