Is 900 cals a day okay or not?
camilaaacmeneghetti
Posts: 1 Member
Some ppl tell me it’s enough to keep u healthy but some tell me it’s very unsafe so idk
2
Replies
-
No, it's not at all healthy, safe, or sustainable.8
-
1200 calories is the minimum amount of calories a person should be eating a day, if that person is very petite, sedentary, elderly...
Anyone who is larger, younger, and/or more active can usually eat even more than that.6 -
absolutely not.4
-
Nope. Not at all.
1200 is a bare minimum and the vast majority of people need more than that. Put your info into MFP, choose to lose 1 lb a week see how many calories it gives you. Start there.4 -
Just type your stats in the MFP web site, set for 1lb loss (if you're trying to lose weight) and go with that. It's reasonably accurate.4
-
Unless those people are doctors and carefully watching your vitamin levels and vitals, ignore those people who are telling you 900 is OK.
It isn't. Unless you're 4 feet tall maybe.9 -
NopeNopeNope, not safe, unless under very close medical and nutritional supervision by qualified medical professionals.
Heck, I'm sedentary, old (64), not that big (5'5", so average), and eating 900 calories daily would put me in the hospital within a span of weeks . . . if I stuck to it, which I wouldn't in the first place, and probably couldn't in the 2nd place.
Whoever those "some people" are, who say 900 is fine for any adult of anything remotely like normal size, stop taking their advice.6 -
Personally, I find most generic peoples weight loss advice to be pretty much useless..
900 calories is a stupid amount to eat for anyone.
There are a lot of people who have got a piece of stupid generic advice they picked up at the second hand weight loss store, while they were shopping for their fad diets over the years.
I just try to tune it all out.
9 -
I ate 800-900 cal a day for about 3 months. I was young and dumb. Did I lose weight? Yup. Did I gain it back? All plus a lot more. I lost weight but I also lost: the ability to work out because I’d get dizzy, the ability to keep up with my kids because I was so tired, my sex drive, and hair.16
-
Agree with all the comments here. You need to eat in a way that is sustainable for the rest of your life. Eating 900 calories a day - I would be miserable, have constant cravings, feel exhausted and unable to exercise. At some point I would just throw in the towel and go on a huge binge and be much worse off physically and emotionally than when I started. Speaking to my own experience, I’m a 5’5 female and have been successful in losing 30 pounds over 4 months eating about 1600 calories daily and incorporating physical activity (strength training, walking, and enough aerobic activity to get my heart rate up for my cardiovascular health)4
-
Not.2
-
The only way that this would be recommended is under strict supervision of a doctor and a dietitian and typically to jump start a weight loss in the morbidly obese or reinitiating eating after a weight loss surgery. You have what’s called your BMR - basal metabolic rate, the amount of energy (calories) your body needs when at rest. This is the amount of calories required to keep your heart pumping, your lungs functioning, your blood flowing, etc. There is a nice long equation that we use (I work as a dietitian) to calculate this but unless you are under 5 feet tall, weigh less than 100lbs and are older, you will need at least 1200 calories for the day. If you don’t eat enough to meet your BMR, your body will go into starvation mode and everything you eat it will store. Also, your BMR becomes significantly higher when you throw exercise into the equation as well. That low of a caloric intake will also likely put you at risk for vitamin and mineral deficiencies since you are unlikely to meet your needs through diet. Just giving my two cents, not trying to preach at you, but please reconsider your daily intake.0
-
complicateme86 wrote: »The only way that this would be recommended is under strict supervision of a doctor and a dietitian and typically to jump start a weight loss in the morbidly obese or reinitiating eating after a weight loss surgery. You have what’s called your BMR - basal metabolic rate, the amount of energy (calories) your body needs when at rest. This is the amount of calories required to keep your heart pumping, your lungs functioning, your blood flowing, etc. There is a nice long equation that we use (I work as a dietitian) to calculate this but unless you are under 5 feet tall, weigh less than 100lbs and are older, you will need at least 1200 calories for the day. If you don’t eat enough to meet your BMR, your body will go into starvation mode and everything you eat it will store. Also, your BMR becomes significantly higher when you throw exercise into the equation as well. That low of a caloric intake will also likely put you at risk for vitamin and mineral deficiencies since you are unlikely to meet your needs through diet. Just giving my two cents, not trying to preach at you, but please reconsider your daily intake.
As a professional dietician, could you explain these two bolded statements? What happens in the body that it decides to store food energy as fat instead of using it to run the organs and keep itself alive if calories are too low? Wouldn't the body die then?
And what is the process that significantly increases BMR from exercising?12 -
complicateme86 wrote: »The only way that this would be recommended is under strict supervision of a doctor and a dietitian and typically to jump start a weight loss in the morbidly obese or reinitiating eating after a weight loss surgery. You have what’s called your BMR - basal metabolic rate, the amount of energy (calories) your body needs when at rest. This is the amount of calories required to keep your heart pumping, your lungs functioning, your blood flowing, etc. There is a nice long equation that we use (I work as a dietitian) to calculate this but unless you are under 5 feet tall, weigh less than 100lbs and are older, you will need at least 1200 calories for the day. If you don’t eat enough to meet your BMR, your body will go into starvation mode and everything you eat it will store. Also, your BMR becomes significantly higher when you throw exercise into the equation as well. That low of a caloric intake will also likely put you at risk for vitamin and mineral deficiencies since you are unlikely to meet your needs through diet. Just giving my two cents, not trying to preach at you, but please reconsider your daily intake.
Also... bmr is the body in a coma, without digestion, RMR is the body at rest, also, starvation mode is a myth, the body doesnt store fat just because you're under eating, the body continues to burn what's available to you... if you feed it 900 calories, it burns those 900 plus whatever is available, lean muscle, etc, your heart and body dont just stop requiring calories because you're under eating and the body holds it as fat and stops providing your vitals with calories to function7 -
Averaging 900 calories can possibly okay for the average healthy normal height person only in one situation: if you're a small toddler.3
-
Why would you even want to drop your calories to that low? What advantage would 900 be over say 1200 or even 1400 for you? Even if it was some benefit how do you sustain your weight loss in the long term?3
-
My body, my word. YMMV. :flowerforyou: I'm proud to be old, strong, active, energetic, capable.
There's (stealing another MFPers term) a "tyranny of low expectations" in our culture around the idea of "old", and I hate that.
IMO "Old" is pretty excellent. Consider the actual alternative for an individual: It isn't "young", it's "dead", something that's completely vivid to me as a stage III cancer survivor and cancer widow (and he was only 45 at the time).
Apologies for the digression, OP! :drinker:9 -
Not0
-
My body, my word. YMMV. :flowerforyou: I'm proud to be old, strong, active, energetic, capable.
There's (stealing another MFPers term) a "tyranny of low expectations" in our culture around the idea of "old", and I hate that.
IMO "Old" is pretty excellent. Consider the actual alternative for an individual: It isn't "young", it's "dead", something that's completely vivid to me as a stage III cancer survivor and cancer widow (and he was only 45 at the time).
Apologies for the digression, OP! :drinker:
My apologies to both. I was making a little light/humor of the remarks, and also wasn't trying to hijack the thread. @annpt77, sorry, I had forgotten your history (you've mentioned it from time to time elsewhere). I agree on the "tyranny of low expectations" and such. In my own life, I have my own assortment of med issues -- mostly age- and lifestyle-derived, and have been happy and partially successful in turning back or holding still some of the onrush of the clock to improve my life. My daughters don't like it when I call myself, "the old guy," because they aren't seeing it as much anymore//they think it is a "defeatist" remark.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions