More calories when sick?
Options
Replies
-
Humans reducing calories by 15% got 2 years - "The study found that calorie restriction decreased systemic oxidative stress, which has been tied to age-related neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as cancer, diabetes, and others."
This is important to me. Reducing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as cancer and diabetes....VERY important but of course, YMMV. In 2001 I had a severe traumatic brain injury and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Subsequently, I was diagnosed with Narcolepsy. My resting heart rate is very slow, it feels like my entire body is slowed bc I'm constantly tired. I'm hypothyroid. I'm short, 5'3. Narcolepsy is thought to slow metabolism, which makes me twice as likely to be obese. Besides being more likely to be obese, having such a severe traumatic brain injury makes me much more likely to develop neurological diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Additionally, I had gestational diabetes in 2 of my 3 pregnancies which puts me at a much increased risk of developing diabetes someday.
4 -
I felt that I was responded to with hostility. And as mentioned before, I do eat back half my exercise calories.
Cool. I hadn't seen that post when I posted, but obviously I was not expressing an opinion on how many cals you should or should not eat. Like everyone else, I noted some considerations (and also noted that I concluded that 1200 + exercise was reasonable for me at one time), and did not tell you what you should do. I continue to have no opinion on what you should do, as I don't know your stats, etc.
However, here's the post that you initially responded to (IMO with hostility), and which provoked my post:kshama2001 wrote: »Also, unless you are very very short, reconsider 1200 calories in the first place: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
I do not think your response was fair.
Nor do I think anyone was treating you with hostility or telling you how many cals to eat. They were speaking from experience with MFP and how certain inputs always get 1200 even when it might not be appropriate and suggesting you might want to consider whether it is for you.
I apologize for seeming rude but this certainly isn't there first time that I've been lectured on the pitfalls of 1200 calories. It's annoying and wasn't my question. Sometimes things aren't so black and white.1 -
Wow, so many opinions! I appreciate everyone's helpful and not so helpful advice. If I could *possibly* live longer and reduce diseases like cancer while also losing weight on 1200 calories, I'm all about it. You are welcome to eat however many calories your body chooses. It's ok if we have different opinions! I'm going to the doctor in a few weeks. I will ask him about eating 1200 to lose weight but can almost guarantee that he will be good with it. Unless you are a medical doctor or have other relevant licensure, I am not going to take your word over professionals. My best friend was recently on the HMR diet and on 800 calories per day under the care of a medical doctor. Everyone is different!
With respect, a doctor receives almost no training in nutrition, and for most of them that training happened a decade ago.
Not to mention, there are licensed professionals out there recommending every possible type of garbage. My mom’s licensed professional doctor gave her heart problems by prescribing fen phen!
Many of the people you are aggressively rebutting have the credential that they lost a large amount of weight and have maintained that weight loss over a period of years. You could do far worse than consider what they have to say.7 -
Perhaps, but they aren't familiar with my health history like my doctor.1
-
Humans reducing calories by 15% got 2 years - "The study found that calorie restriction decreased systemic oxidative stress, which has been tied to age-related neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as cancer, diabetes, and others."
This is important to me. Reducing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as cancer and diabetes....VERY important but of course, YMMV. In 2001 I had a severe traumatic brain injury and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Subsequently, I was diagnosed with Narcolepsy. My resting heart rate is very slow, it feels like my entire body is slowed bc I'm constantly tired. I'm hypothyroid. I'm short, 5'3. Narcolepsy is thought to slow metabolism, which makes me twice as likely to be obese. Besides being more likely to be obese, having such a severe traumatic brain injury makes me much more likely to develop neurological diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Additionally, I had gestational diabetes in 2 of my 3 pregnancies which puts me at a much increased risk of developing diabetes someday.
Reducing your calories by 15%-20% of TDEE is what is typically recommended for safe and healthy weight loss. If you consistently stayed at a 15% deficit from TDEE, you would ultimately wither away and die...so I think there needs to be some context there.
Let's also say your TDEE is a mere 1800 calories which would be about average for a sedentary female but unlikely for someone very overweight or obese...a 15% cut would be 270 calories giving you a target of 1,530 calories. A 20% cut would be a 360 calorie reduction which would give you a target of 1,440 calories. This is why people are questioning whether 1200 is really appropriate...namely it is the lowest default for a women selecting sedentary on MFP and 1.5-2 Lbs per week weight loss target which is a pretty aggressive target. Nobody is saying 1200 calories is wrong in all instances, but it is often overly aggressive and has you starting at the floor of what is considered to be minimum calories for a sedentary female not under medical supervision. A lot of the responses you are getting are from people who've had a lot of success and have a lot of experience using MFP.6 -
I felt that I was responded to with hostility. And as mentioned before, I do eat back half my exercise calories.
Cool. I hadn't seen that post when I posted, but obviously I was not expressing an opinion on how many cals you should or should not eat. Like everyone else, I noted some considerations (and also noted that I concluded that 1200 + exercise was reasonable for me at one time), and did not tell you what you should do. I continue to have no opinion on what you should do, as I don't know your stats, etc.
However, here's the post that you initially responded to (IMO with hostility), and which provoked my post:kshama2001 wrote: »Also, unless you are very very short, reconsider 1200 calories in the first place: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
I do not think your response was fair.
Nor do I think anyone was treating you with hostility or telling you how many cals to eat. They were speaking from experience with MFP and how certain inputs always get 1200 even when it might not be appropriate and suggesting you might want to consider whether it is for you.
I apologize for seeming rude but this certainly isn't there first time that I've been lectured on the pitfalls of 1200 calories. It's annoying and wasn't my question. Sometimes things aren't so black and white.
In the future you might just want to say that you feel sure 1200 is your number instead of inviting debate by suggesting a linked article is improperly sourced/reviewed. You do not have to defend your choices but if you do then people will assume you want to discuss it.6 -
Humans reducing calories by 15% got 2 years - "The study found that calorie restriction decreased systemic oxidative stress, which has been tied to age-related neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as cancer, diabetes, and others."
This is important to me. Reducing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as cancer and diabetes....VERY important but of course, YMMV. In 2001 I had a severe traumatic brain injury and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Subsequently, I was diagnosed with Narcolepsy. My resting heart rate is very slow, it feels like my entire body is slowed bc I'm constantly tired. I'm hypothyroid. I'm short, 5'3. Narcolepsy is thought to slow metabolism, which makes me twice as likely to be obese. Besides being more likely to be obese, having such a severe traumatic brain injury makes me much more likely to develop neurological diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Additionally, I had gestational diabetes in 2 of my 3 pregnancies which puts me at a much increased risk of developing diabetes someday.
the study included only data from 50 ppl overall in 2 conditions - so i wouldn't use that as a basis for forming any specific guidance2 -
Sure, a larger study needs to be conducted but considering my risk factors, if something that I'm already comfortable with could potentially help, why not?0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Humans reducing calories by 15% got 2 years - "The study found that calorie restriction decreased systemic oxidative stress, which has been tied to age-related neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as cancer, diabetes, and others."
This is important to me. Reducing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as cancer and diabetes....VERY important but of course, YMMV. In 2001 I had a severe traumatic brain injury and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Subsequently, I was diagnosed with Narcolepsy. My resting heart rate is very slow, it feels like my entire body is slowed bc I'm constantly tired. I'm hypothyroid. I'm short, 5'3. Narcolepsy is thought to slow metabolism, which makes me twice as likely to be obese. Besides being more likely to be obese, having such a severe traumatic brain injury makes me much more likely to develop neurological diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Additionally, I had gestational diabetes in 2 of my 3 pregnancies which puts me at a much increased risk of developing diabetes someday.
Reducing your calories by 15%-20% of TDEE is what is typically recommended for safe and healthy weight loss. If you consistently stayed at a 15% deficit from TDEE, you would ultimately wither away and die...so I think there needs to be some context there.
Let's also say your TDEE is a mere 1800 calories which would be about average for a sedentary female but unlikely for someone very overweight or obese...a 15% cut would be 270 calories giving you a target of 1,530 calories. A 20% cut would be a 360 calorie reduction which would give you a target of 1,440 calories. This is why people are questioning whether 1200 is really appropriate...namely it is the lowest default for a women selecting sedentary on MFP and 1.5-2 Lbs per week weight loss target which is a pretty aggressive target. Nobody is saying 1200 calories is wrong in all instances, but it is often overly aggressive and has you starting at the floor of what is considered to be minimum calories for a sedentary female not under medical supervision. A lot of the responses you are getting are from people who've had a lot of success and have a lot of experience using MFP.
Apparently you did not read the post about my health. My metabolism is already low. My TDEE is not an average TDEE0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Humans reducing calories by 15% got 2 years - "The study found that calorie restriction decreased systemic oxidative stress, which has been tied to age-related neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as cancer, diabetes, and others."
This is important to me. Reducing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as cancer and diabetes....VERY important but of course, YMMV. In 2001 I had a severe traumatic brain injury and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Subsequently, I was diagnosed with Narcolepsy. My resting heart rate is very slow, it feels like my entire body is slowed bc I'm constantly tired. I'm hypothyroid. I'm short, 5'3. Narcolepsy is thought to slow metabolism, which makes me twice as likely to be obese. Besides being more likely to be obese, having such a severe traumatic brain injury makes me much more likely to develop neurological diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Additionally, I had gestational diabetes in 2 of my 3 pregnancies which puts me at a much increased risk of developing diabetes someday.
Reducing your calories by 15%-20% of TDEE is what is typically recommended for safe and healthy weight loss. If you consistently stayed at a 15% deficit from TDEE, you would ultimately wither away and die...so I think there needs to be some context there.
Let's also say your TDEE is a mere 1800 calories which would be about average for a sedentary female but unlikely for someone very overweight or obese...a 15% cut would be 270 calories giving you a target of 1,530 calories. A 20% cut would be a 360 calorie reduction which would give you a target of 1,440 calories. This is why people are questioning whether 1200 is really appropriate...namely it is the lowest default for a women selecting sedentary on MFP and 1.5-2 Lbs per week weight loss target which is a pretty aggressive target. Nobody is saying 1200 calories is wrong in all instances, but it is often overly aggressive and has you starting at the floor of what is considered to be minimum calories for a sedentary female not under medical supervision. A lot of the responses you are getting are from people who've had a lot of success and have a lot of experience using MFP.
Apparently you did not read the post about my health. My metabolism is already low. My TDEE is not an average TDEE
I did read it...you are assuming your metabolism is slow...maybe have it tested to find out. Most people who do find that in fact, there metabolisms aren't that far either way from average, particularly if things like hypothyroid are properly treated.
People are just looking out...you're being incredibly defensive...good luck with your stuff and have a nice day. You probably shouldn't bother with the forums if all you want to hear is what you want to hear.13 -
I offered my calories originally bc I thought that was relevant info when answering my original question of whether I should increase my calories while sick. I'm not defensive, I just wish people had stuck more to the topic at hand.1
-
I'm planning on having my metabolism tested soon. I hope you are right and it isn't low but at least it will give me something more definitive.2
-
I'm planning on having my metabolism tested soon. I hope you are right and it isn't low but at least it will give me something more definitive.
The probability of your basal metabolic rate being particularly varied is low. 96% of the population (2 standard deviations) follows within 10 to 16% of the average BMR, and I believe that is even before factoring in for common components like sex, weight, and height, or even more detailed things like actual lean tissue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
For your original question:
For injury and illness there is a common use of "stress factor" as a multiplier on TDEE or BMR when determining calories.
It seems Todovoric and Micklewritght (2004 A Pocket Guide to Clinical Nutrition) put infection at a 25-45% increase for infection.
http://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Predicting_Energy_Requirements_WA_2010.pdf5 -
Perhaps, but they aren't familiar with my health history like my doctor.
When you do get the referral, make sure you sign the HIPAA waiver which with then allow the RD to access the same health information your doctor has (assuming you are in the US. Other countries may have some kind of similar waiver so health information can be shared).6 -
I'm planning on having my metabolism tested soon. I hope you are right and it isn't low but at least it will give me something more definitive.
Probably a good idea. Keep in mind, the average female BMR is around 1300 calories...but those are the calories you burn merely existing...you would burn them in a coma. Those would be your basal calories and I would wager your test wouldn't show a substantial difference from that either way. People often confuse BMR with TDEE and think BMR is what they need to cut from to lose weight...you expend additional calories just going about life and then more with regular exercise. You mentioned spinning in another thread...spinning is hard work and burns quite a few calories, especially if you can keep your watts up.0 -
Duly noted. My base cals are set to 1200 but I eat back approx half my "exercise" cals (even when I don't exercise, Fitbit counts steps/increased in hr as exercise)0
-
Duly noted. My base cals are set to 1200 but I eat back approx half my "exercise" cals (even when I don't exercise, Fitbit counts steps/increased in hr as exercise)
FitBit is an activity tracker, and for many of us, a darned accurate one. It estimates your total calories burned from all activity, NEAT and purposeful exercise alike. This is an estimate of your TDEE and if you have it synced with MFP and are seeing large adjustments, it’s an indication that you are more active and burning more calories than the calculations that MFP derived from your inputs would indicate.
2 -
You know, maybe that's what people are missing. I set my activity to sedentary but I wear a Fitbit and eat back half my exercise calories. I set my activity that way bc my activities are different each day.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Duly noted. My base cals are set to 1200 but I eat back approx half my "exercise" cals (even when I don't exercise, Fitbit counts steps/increased in hr as exercise)
FitBit is an activity tracker, and for many of us, a darned accurate one. It estimates your total calories burned from all activity, NEAT and purposeful exercise alike. This is an estimate of your TDEE and if you have it synced with MFP and are seeing large adjustments, it’s an indication that you are more active and burning more calories than the calculations that MFP derived from your inputs would indicate.
I've found that my Fitbit tends to estimate my cardio lower (seemingly more accurately?) than my Polar chest strap? Everyone says the chest strap is more accurate but I'm not so sure anymore. Anyone have this experience? Maybe I should make this it's own discussion lol1 -
You know, maybe that's what people are missing. I set my activity to sedentary but I wear a Fitbit and eat back half my exercise calories. I set my activity that way bc my activities are different each day.
That is important information to share, yes, and helps mitigate significantly undereating. What it doesn’t address is if 1200 is the right goal for you in the first place. Its good you are eating back some of those exercise cals, but if you don’t mind sharing - how much weight are you trying to lose, and what rate of loss did you select? And more importantly, are you logging accurately and are your results aligned with your goal rate of loss? Why did you choose to only eat back half the exercise adjustment?
I use a FitBit and my activity varies daily as well, but the baseline for sedentary is less than 4000 steps/day. Are there really days where you aren’t moving that much? Sometimes having an activity level that is more aligned with your actual movement helps build confidence in the numbers you see because they don’t seem so outrageous.
You seem partial to that 1200 calorie target but you said it’s because you think you have a slow metabolism. But what does your FitBit tell you that your average calories burned are?5
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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions