Why is it Male shouldnt go below 1500/day?
azzeazsaleh5429
Posts: 77 Member
I noticed the mfp states not to go below 1500/day male and 1200/day female? I am trying to figure out why?
1
Replies
-
Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.14 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
13 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
I'm more than willing to bet that there are trans men who don't have [safe] access to testosterone who intentionally try to get amenorrhea via eating too few calories.
A very quick google search says that I'm correct.10 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
Not so far... but I did notice my ovaries are are looking more lean though...
4 -
First week it's likely water weight.
If you really think you can't lose eating more than that your logging is off or you are tiny and haven't given us that information.3 -
MFP has to give some sort of reasonable floor value to avoid suggesting everyone become anorexic due to unrealistic weekly weight loss goals.
At my height, as a male, 1500 is definitely not too low for me. I'm short and sedentary with an office job. I also know I suck at being 100% truthful about portion sizes etc. So, sometimes I put my goal lower and aim for that, knowing that I am actually eating more and really getting my proper target in. Kentucky windage for the diet.
Very Low Calorie Diets are ill advised due to nutrition needs and overall well being.1 -
I am still waiting to meet the average anybody.
Being not so average myself I did have to go below 1500 to meet my weight loss goals and sustained this for six months. No I did not cheat ever nor did I binge.
In maintenance I have been at 1970 calories plus eat back half of my maintenance calories for three months now and am holding at 160lbs +/- 5lbs.
Yes I measure and weigh all my food, both in loss and in maintenance and I am pretty sure my food scale is accurate. I log everything I eat. I even weigh pancake mix on a scale for better accuracy then a measuring cup. And no I don't over estimate my exercise calories, I will log about 240 cals for 58 minutes on bike sweating it out.
That's said I would not start out that low in calories but ended up there during the last six months of a four year journey from 250 to 160.
I started out higher then 1500, targeting about 2 pounds a month, and adjusting calories down only when you have to. At least that's what worked for me.2 -
I am still waiting to meet the average anybody.
Being not so average myself I did have to go below 1500 to meet my weight loss goals and sustained this for six months. No I did not cheat ever nor did I binge.
In maintenance I have been at 1970 calories plus eat back half of my maintenance calories for three months now and am holding at 160lbs +/- 5lbs.
Yes I measure and weigh all my food, both in loss and in maintenance and I am pretty sure my food scale is accurate. I log everything I eat. I even weigh pancake mix on a scale for better accuracy then a measuring cup. And no I don't over estimate my exercise calories, I will log about 240 cals for 58 minutes on bike sweating it out.
That's said I would not start out that low in calories but ended up there during the last six months of a four year journey from 250 to 160.
I started out higher then 1500, targeting about 2 pounds a month, and adjusting calories down only when you have to. At least that's what worked for me.
What was your weekly weight loss goal towards the end? Generally, under 15-20 lbs to go, .5 lb/week is advisable.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
Lol...what I was really getting at is that women in general tend to undereat more than men so you see a lot more threads with various complications that come from undereating from woman than men.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
Lol...what I was really getting at is that women in general tend to undereat more than men so you see a lot more threads with various complications that come from undereating from woman than men.
I used to think that, but was really shocked when I came to MFP and saw so many men posting threads that were eating far less than me, a 5'9", 240 lb (at the time) woman.
But I agree... it's something you hear about more with women.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Because it becomes difficult to get in your required nutrition...this is why VLCDs are typically supervised by medical staff. You typical male is going to maintain on around 2500 calories without much in the way of exercise or increased activity...there's really no reason to go below that. I typical male is going to burn in the neighborhood of 1800 calories just existing...so even at 1500 calories you're not providing your body with the energy it needs just to exist.
You don't see it with males as often, but there are tons of threads with females who were eating under 1200 complaining of loss of menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we don't see more threads with men complaining of loss of menstrual cycle. How about it, guys? Any of you losing your menstrual cycle when you restrict your calories or achieve a low BF% ?
Lol...what I was really getting at is that women in general tend to undereat more than men so you see a lot more threads with various complications that come from undereating from woman than men.
I used to think that, but was really shocked when I came to MFP and saw so many men posting threads that were eating far less than me, a 5'9", 240 lb (at the time) woman.
But I agree... it's something you hear about more with women.
Yeah, for some reason (social perceptions?), it still surprises me more to see posts with men undereating, but clearly it happens a good bit, even though, as you say, there seem to be more such posts from women.0 -
Truly tracking and measuing food for a week can keep you honest.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions