Is a 1000 calorie diet harmful?
Options
Replies
-
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »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...
I disagree. They are not listening - that's the problem.
Broken hunger signals are a thing.
True, but it seems the OP's hunger signals are functioning normally given she said this:SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I don't binge and I don't like lots of junk food at a time. I'm completely satisfied. It's why I was wondering if it's okay, but thank you for your help.
I say yes, it's okay. For people to tell her it's harmful to eat the amount she's eating and yet she's satisfied eating that amount, is essentially telling her to overide her own body's natural signals and instead eat more according to some arbitrary number of calorie minimum. I find that ridiculous.
Broken hunger signals can go both ways... Not feeling full even though you've eaten a lot and feeling full even though you've barely eaten. Never been sick and barely felt like eating? That, but constantly from bad habits like, oh I dunno, consistently undereating.
If she was consistently undereating she wouldn't be overweight!
Presumably she's eating differently than when she was gaining weight or maintaining a slightly overweight weight.And there's nothing 'broken' about not feeling hungry even though one hasn't eaten much on a given day. That's perfectly normal.
Yes, it is. No one is talking about how one feels on one particular day, but over time.People who have weight to lose especially, should not force themselves to eat when they're not hungry.That makes no sense.
No one is talking about "forcing" yourself to eat. If it requires forcing and she really isn't eating more than 1000, that's problematic too. It really shouldn't be hard for a 5'5, 150 lb young woman to eat more than 1000 on average daily over the course of a few weeks. That kind of change is the sign of a medical or other issue, but here OP didn't suggest she has that problem.
The question is whether "oh, I feel okay, I don't NEED to eat more" is because on a particular day she's eating plenty and is maintaining a sensible overall deficit (taking the week as a whole, say), or if it is because her mind is telling her that she shouldn't eat unless she really feels no energy or miserable or like she has to eat. For many of us, especially in the early stages of weight loss, the mind easily goes into "I'm fine" even with really low calories, and you don't trust yourself so worry that eating more than you absolutely have to is you being weak and that real hunger must be absolutely strong and irresistible so if you don't feel bad you must be eating plenty, no matter what.
There's a huge gray area between when you must force yourself to eat because you'd really had as much as yu can stand and when you feel like you absolutely need food, at least when you've deal with the issues some (by no means all) have with interpreting not feeling full as "need to eat."
This all sounds like a massive overanalysis and overthinking of a simple matter. The girl said she's "completely satisfied" and just wondering if it's harmful to eat 1000/day. If she feels fine, and her food choices are providing essential vitamins and minerals, then the simple answer is NO, even if she did that for say, 4 weeks straight and not just a day here and there.
I agree and most people ignored that I said 1000 calories NET. They kept talking about the fat. I said I have trouble eating the fat some days not every day. Most days I reach everything and I always go over on protein everyday. They also think I'm going to binge everything back. I have no desire to. I have self control. Even if I did binge one day isn't going to make me gain everything back. The only reason I'm overweight is I had a bad back injury and I couldn't workout and even moving at all hurt. Someone else was cooking for me too. I'm going to the doctor for advice and to have my vitamins checked. And my doctor is kind not rude!
Really not sure how I was rude. I ate really low when I first started and so I was talking about personal experience. (I didn't binge either. I think the mentality that it was cool because of course I had self control and could manage and didn't need to eat more is just what I was talking about, and why I'm skeptical of the "I'm perfectly satisfied" thing, but really it's your business -- I figured it out and it didn't hurt me to eat low for a while, I figure most people have to work these things out for themselves.
You said you eat 1000 when you don't exercise but will eat up to 1300 when you do, if memory serves. The poster who said the scale doesn't lie is right, so if you aren't losing super aggressively you are fine. If you are, I think it's ultimately counterproductive to eat that low, but it's your business and if you aren't interested in opinions you probably shouldn't have asked.
If you are having to force yourself to eat more than 1000, I'd mention that to a doctor, as well as whatever your rate of weight loss has been.
That you hit your macros at a goal set at 1000 isn't really that meaningful. You can set macros to anything. Glad you are getting protein, whatever your goal for it is, however.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »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...
I disagree. They are not listening - that's the problem.
Broken hunger signals are a thing.
True, but it seems the OP's hunger signals are functioning normally given she said this:SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I don't binge and I don't like lots of junk food at a time. I'm completely satisfied. It's why I was wondering if it's okay, but thank you for your help.
I say yes, it's okay. For people to tell her it's harmful to eat the amount she's eating and yet she's satisfied eating that amount, is essentially telling her to overide her own body's natural signals and instead eat more according to some arbitrary number of calorie minimum. I find that ridiculous.
Broken hunger signals can go both ways... Not feeling full even though you've eaten a lot and feeling full even though you've barely eaten. Never been sick and barely felt like eating? That, but constantly from bad habits like, oh I dunno, consistently undereating.
If she was consistently undereating she wouldn't be overweight!
Presumably she's eating differently than when she was gaining weight or maintaining a slightly overweight weight.And there's nothing 'broken' about not feeling hungry even though one hasn't eaten much on a given day. That's perfectly normal.
Yes, it is. No one is talking about how one feels on one particular day, but over time.People who have weight to lose especially, should not force themselves to eat when they're not hungry.That makes no sense.
No one is talking about "forcing" yourself to eat. If it requires forcing and she really isn't eating more than 1000, that's problematic too. It really shouldn't be hard for a 5'5, 150 lb young woman to eat more than 1000 on average daily over the course of a few weeks. That kind of change is the sign of a medical or other issue, but here OP didn't suggest she has that problem.
The question is whether "oh, I feel okay, I don't NEED to eat more" is because on a particular day she's eating plenty and is maintaining a sensible overall deficit (taking the week as a whole, say), or if it is because her mind is telling her that she shouldn't eat unless she really feels no energy or miserable or like she has to eat. For many of us, especially in the early stages of weight loss, the mind easily goes into "I'm fine" even with really low calories, and you don't trust yourself so worry that eating more than you absolutely have to is you being weak and that real hunger must be absolutely strong and irresistible so if you don't feel bad you must be eating plenty, no matter what.
There's a huge gray area between when you must force yourself to eat because you'd really had as much as yu can stand and when you feel like you absolutely need food, at least when you've deal with the issues some (by no means all) have with interpreting not feeling full as "need to eat."
This all sounds like a massive overanalysis and overthinking of a simple matter. The girl said she's "completely satisfied" and just wondering if it's harmful to eat 1000/day. If she feels fine, and her food choices are providing essential vitamins and minerals, then the simple answer is NO, even if she did that for say, 4 weeks straight and not just a day here and there.
I agree and most people ignored that I said 1000 calories NET. They kept talking about the fat. I said I have trouble eating the fat some days not every day. Most days I reach everything and I always go over on protein everyday. They also think I'm going to binge everything back. I have no desire to. I have self control. Even if I did binge one day isn't going to make me gain everything back. The only reason I'm overweight is I had a bad back injury and I couldn't workout and even moving at all hurt. Someone else was cooking for me too. I'm going to the doctor for advice and to have my vitamins checked. And my doctor is kind not rude!
Really not sure how I was rude. I ate really low when I first started and so I was talking about personal experience. (I didn't binge either. I think the mentality that it was cool because of course I had self control and could manage and didn't need to eat more is just what I was talking about, and why I'm skeptical of the "I'm perfectly satisfied" thing, but really it's your business -- I figured it out and it didn't hurt me to eat low for a while, I figure most people have to work these things out for themselves.
You said you eat 1000 when you don't exercise but will eat up to 1300 when you do, if memory serves. The poster who said the scale doesn't lie is right, so if you aren't losing super aggressively you are fine. If you are, I think it's ultimately counterproductive to eat that low, but it's your business and if you aren't interested in opinions you probably shouldn't have asked.
If you are having to force yourself to eat more than 1000, I'd mention that to a doctor, as well as whatever your rate of weight loss has been.
That you hit your macros at a goal set at 1000 isn't really that meaningful. You can set macros to anything. Glad you are getting protein, whatever your goal for it is, however.
Hi. I didn't mean you were rude specifically. I stopped reading most of these. I'll go back to read yours. But other people were rude. They weren't helpful and didn't even give any advice.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »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...
I disagree. They are not listening - that's the problem.
Broken hunger signals are a thing.
True, but it seems the OP's hunger signals are functioning normally given she said this:SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I don't binge and I don't like lots of junk food at a time. I'm completely satisfied. It's why I was wondering if it's okay, but thank you for your help.
I say yes, it's okay. For people to tell her it's harmful to eat the amount she's eating and yet she's satisfied eating that amount, is essentially telling her to overide her own body's natural signals and instead eat more according to some arbitrary number of calorie minimum. I find that ridiculous.
Broken hunger signals can go both ways... Not feeling full even though you've eaten a lot and feeling full even though you've barely eaten. Never been sick and barely felt like eating? That, but constantly from bad habits like, oh I dunno, consistently undereating.
If she was consistently undereating she wouldn't be overweight!
Presumably she's eating differently than when she was gaining weight or maintaining a slightly overweight weight.And there's nothing 'broken' about not feeling hungry even though one hasn't eaten much on a given day. That's perfectly normal.
Yes, it is. No one is talking about how one feels on one particular day, but over time.People who have weight to lose especially, should not force themselves to eat when they're not hungry.That makes no sense.
No one is talking about "forcing" yourself to eat. If it requires forcing and she really isn't eating more than 1000, that's problematic too. It really shouldn't be hard for a 5'5, 150 lb young woman to eat more than 1000 on average daily over the course of a few weeks. That kind of change is the sign of a medical or other issue, but here OP didn't suggest she has that problem.
The question is whether "oh, I feel okay, I don't NEED to eat more" is because on a particular day she's eating plenty and is maintaining a sensible overall deficit (taking the week as a whole, say), or if it is because her mind is telling her that she shouldn't eat unless she really feels no energy or miserable or like she has to eat. For many of us, especially in the early stages of weight loss, the mind easily goes into "I'm fine" even with really low calories, and you don't trust yourself so worry that eating more than you absolutely have to is you being weak and that real hunger must be absolutely strong and irresistible so if you don't feel bad you must be eating plenty, no matter what.
There's a huge gray area between when you must force yourself to eat because you'd really had as much as yu can stand and when you feel like you absolutely need food, at least when you've deal with the issues some (by no means all) have with interpreting not feeling full as "need to eat."
This all sounds like a massive overanalysis and overthinking of a simple matter. The girl said she's "completely satisfied" and just wondering if it's harmful to eat 1000/day. If she feels fine, and her food choices are providing essential vitamins and minerals, then the simple answer is NO, even if she did that for say, 4 weeks straight and not just a day here and there.
I'm analyzing the hunger signals thing more generally not OP specifically. I do think it makes more sense than assuming that "I'm perfectly fine" means she would have to force food down to eat more than 1000, and I think it's odd that people assume that forcing would be required. Also, I was fine for a while on 1000, but I certainly wasn't unable to eat more (and like I said I'd consider that more of a warning signal). What was true is that I was confused about whether I should eat more if I could manage on lower calories. I had the idea that it was better to eat less if one could, that it was somehow a sign of strength. Sometimes I think the discussions here play on that notion, which I think was unhealthy, at least it was for me.
But eh, I don't care. I think most people figure it out eventually, in whatever way.0 -
To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...1
-
Eatting less than what the National institutes on Health recommends can be very dangerous if not monitored by a doctor (or licensed healthcare professional that is working with the doctor). I would recommend talking with your PCP about this diet to ensure you are doing it safely0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...
At least you are honest. I was looking for other opinions because I know 1000 calories isn't very much. I just thought there would be more kind people on here. Some people were nice though and I appreciate their help. I also had some nice private messages too.0 -
PerryChristy wrote: »Eatting less than what the National institutes on Health recommends can be very dangerous if not monitored by a doctor (or licensed healthcare professional that is working with the doctor). I would recommend talking with your PCP about this diet to ensure you are doing it safely
All of this is from the National Institutes on Health site.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/recommen.htm
"Key Recommendations"
...
"Low-calorie diets (LCD) for weight loss in overweight and obese persons. Reducing fat as part of an LCD is a practical way to reduce calories.
A diet that is individually planned to help create a deficit of 500 to 1,000 kcal/day should be an intregal part of any program aimed at achieving a weight loss of 1 to 2 pounds per week.
Physical activity should be part of a comprehensive weight loss therapy and weight control program because it (1) modestly contributes to weight loss in overweight and obese adults, (2) may decrease abdominal fat, (3) increases cardiorespiratory fitness, and (4) may help with maintenance of weight loss.
The combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity is recommended, because it produces weight loss that also may result in decreases in abdominal fat and increases in cardiorespiratory fitness."
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/very-low-calorie-diets/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx
"Most people who need to lose weight should not use a VLCD. For many of them, a low-calorie diet (LCD) may work better (see The Low-calorie Diet (LCD)).
The Low-calorie Diet (LCD)
An LCD limits calories, but not as much as a VLCD. A typical LCD may provide
1,000–1,200 calories/day for a woman
1,200–1,600 calories/day for a man
The number of calories may be adjusted based on your age, weight, and how active you are. An LCD usually consists of regular foods, but could also include meal replacements. As a result, you may find this type of diet much easier to follow than a VLCD."2 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...
At least you are honest. I was looking for other opinions because I know 1000 calories isn't very much. I just thought there would be more kind people on here. Some people were nice though and I appreciate their help. I also had some nice private messages too.
So after the feedback you got here, what did you decide to do with your calorie goal and your approach to weight loss?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...
At least you are honest. I was looking for other opinions because I know 1000 calories isn't very much. I just thought there would be more kind people on here. Some people were nice though and I appreciate their help. I also had some nice private messages too.
So after the feedback you got here, what did you decide to do with your calorie goal and your approach to weight loss?
I raised it to see how it goes. I'm going to the doctor too, and I'm going to have my vitamins checked.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?
1000 calories per day is below the minimum recommended amount of 1200.0 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...
At least you are honest. I was looking for other opinions because I know 1000 calories isn't very much. I just thought there would be more kind people on here. Some people were nice though and I appreciate their help. I also had some nice private messages too.
So after the feedback you got here, what did you decide to do with your calorie goal and your approach to weight loss?
I raised it to see how it goes. I'm going to the doctor too, and I'm going to have my vitamins checked.
I think this sounds reasonable. Honestly, I find most people are coming from a place of caring and support. Try reading without attempting to put tone into the words, or use a Daffy Duck voice. It helps.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »There's a lot to be said for not swapping one type of disordered relationship with food for another. So yes, there is merit in making sure you eat enough over time. The odd not hungry day? Not a problem. A perpetual habit over time? Yes, a problem. There are long term health implications that may not even show up until much further down the line. Osteoporosis being one of them.
And let's face it, it's not hard to a couple hundred calories or so to a day without feeling "so stuffed I might throw up", simply by adding a dressing or cooking with oil. Hey presto and it has the added bonus of upping fat intake which I strongly suspect is going to be quite low for someone averaging 1000 calories because there's not much room for fats.
And what's the problem with being low fat? They are essential for nutrient absorption and hormone function.
Can 1000 calories be appropriate for very petite, older, more sedentary women? Sometimes. Is it appropriate for someone who is 5'5 and exercising, even if on some days the intake is closer to 1200? I would suggest no and I don't understand why there is so much resistance to this line of thought. Getting to healthy weight is of course important but it shouldn't be the aim to get there as fast as possible to the potential detriment of health.
Might you come out unscathed? Maybe. Is it worth the risk? Not to me, no.
I just want to expand on this a bit. OP is only 1lb away from a healthy BMI. Now of course I don't know her body fat % but this would indicate that it would be potentially more harmful eating this low. And I reiterate, she has the same stats as I do and can easily lose 1lb per week betting around 1300 calories a day. I don't see any real benefits to losing any faster when their weight being a risk to health is zero but eating too few calories is.3 -
SunflowerDaisey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »SunflowerDaisey wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »To be honest OP, I can not relate to your post, and any reply i have to give will be loaded with a big dose of bias/personal experience. Because i could not imagine ever being full and satisfied on 1000 calories, or even 1300. But we're all different, so there's that...
At least you are honest. I was looking for other opinions because I know 1000 calories isn't very much. I just thought there would be more kind people on here. Some people were nice though and I appreciate their help. I also had some nice private messages too.
So after the feedback you got here, what did you decide to do with your calorie goal and your approach to weight loss?
I raised it to see how it goes. I'm going to the doctor too, and I'm going to have my vitamins checked.
Sounds like a sensible plan. Good luck!
0 -
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?
1000 calories per day is below the minimum recommended amount of 1200.
The NIH doesn't have a problem with a low calorie diet of 1000-1200 calories per day for women as @fitmom4lifemfp already cited.
1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »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...
I disagree. They are not listening - that's the problem.
Broken hunger signals are a thing.
True, but it seems the OP's hunger signals are functioning normally given she said this:SunflowerDaisey wrote: »I don't binge and I don't like lots of junk food at a time. I'm completely satisfied. It's why I was wondering if it's okay, but thank you for your help.
I say yes, it's okay. For people to tell her it's harmful to eat the amount she's eating and yet she's satisfied eating that amount, is essentially telling her to overide her own body's natural signals and instead eat more according to some arbitrary number of calorie minimum. I find that ridiculous.
Broken hunger signals can go both ways... Not feeling full even though you've eaten a lot and feeling full even though you've barely eaten. Never been sick and barely felt like eating? That, but constantly from bad habits like, oh I dunno, consistently undereating.
If she was consistently undereating she wouldn't be overweight!
And there's nothing 'broken' about not feeling hungry even though one hasn't eaten much on a given day. That's perfectly normal. People who have weight to lose especially, should not force themselves to eat when they're not hungry.That makes no sense.
I am always been an undereater. I can function on 1000 calories a day. I ate 1200 friday, saturday and sunday and gained weight. Last week when I was eating 900-1100, I lost weight. Go figure.
I am not overweight from eating. I put on pounds because I got a hormonal ID that caused my body to no longer burn off the many calories of alcohol I was drinking a day... food is not the issue for everyone.0 -
Calories are calories. That you drink calories doesn't mean that they don't count. If you are saying you always consumed 1200 calories plus 600 calories of drink, so your maintenance is 1200 or some such, no, that doesn't make sense. Unless you are teensy and extremely sedentary, you don't gain on 1200 unless something is wrong. (None of this has to do with OP, for the record.)
(Re calories are calories -- of course, alcohol isn't going to have the nutrients many other options would, and is a bad thing to base a diet around, no one is saying otherwise.)2 -
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?
1000 calories per day is below the minimum recommended amount of 1200.
Not according to the National Institute of Health.1 -
Speak with your doctor before doing this. I have some health problems & my doctor told me to stick to a 1200 calorie diet each day. 1200 is the minimum amount of calories you can consume before you start to slow down your metabolism& cause health issues.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are calories. That you drink calories doesn't mean that they don't count. If you are saying you always consumed 1200 calories plus 600 calories of drink, so your maintenance is 1200 or some such, no, that doesn't make sense. Unless you are teensy and extremely sedentary, you don't gain on 1200 unless something is wrong. (None of this has to do with OP, for the record.)
(Re calories are calories -- of course, alcohol isn't going to have the nutrients many other options would, and is a bad thing to base a diet around, no one is saying otherwise.)
If I change my setting to maintaining my current 153 lbs, I am only given 1680 calories a day. I am sure my calories will be substantially less to eventually maintain my goal weight of 124 lbs.
I am only 5'3".
I was pretty sure I needed to choose to drink or choose to eat. I cannot fit both into my daily calorie limit and stay a very small size.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are calories. That you drink calories doesn't mean that they don't count. If you are saying you always consumed 1200 calories plus 600 calories of drink, so your maintenance is 1200 or some such, no, that doesn't make sense. Unless you are teensy and extremely sedentary, you don't gain on 1200 unless something is wrong. (None of this has to do with OP, for the record.)
(Re calories are calories -- of course, alcohol isn't going to have the nutrients many other options would, and is a bad thing to base a diet around, no one is saying otherwise.)
If I change my setting to maintaining my current 153 lbs, I am only given 1680 calories a day. I am sure my calories will be substantially less to eventually maintain my goal weight of 124 lbs.
I am only 5'3".
I was pretty sure I needed to choose to drink or choose to eat. I cannot fit both into my daily calorie limit and stay a very small size.
How much alcohol are we talking? What kind?
As my user name might suggest, I enjoy wine on a fairly regular basis. I started at the exact same weight as you (I'm 5'2) and lost > 30 lbs and i did so eating 1600-1800 cals/day which included a glass of wine each day while losing and now am maintaining just under 120 lbs and still enjoy a couple glasses of wine several times/week - my maintenance calories are 2200.
Just like with anything with calories, moderation is key, maybe even more so with alcohol. If you are forgoing essential calories and nutrients from food in favor of several drinks each day then I wouldn't call that moderation, just like I wouldn't call eating 3 donuts a day moderation either.
None of that changes the fact that for the OP, and I believe for you, and for many others on this thread... eating below 1200 calories is not necessary nor advisable in order to achieve your weight loss goals.
0
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
- 391 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