400 Net Calories for the Day: Scary Behavior

Options
1…5681011

Replies

  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options

    ^^^^^Because so many of these people eating in such a severe deficit turn to the forums for help when they are not seeing the results they want. They ask people to look at their diaries and there it is in black and white - NOT EATING ENOUGH.

    You see NOT EATING ENOUGH in black & white. Others see TOO MUCH SODIUM. Others see NOT ENOUGH VEGGIES. Others see TOO MUCH PROCESSED FOODS. Everyone sees something different.

    What I see in black & white is them screaming PLATEAU because they're over-exercising and they're just too impatient to realize they are not plateaued at all. Which is very human

    Science doesn't ever see NOT EATING ENOUGH as the answer to a plateau. Even if you did manage to slow your metabolism, all you can do is slow your losses, not stop or reverse them. Assuming your food reporting is accurate. Which it virtually never is.
  • kooltray87
    kooltray87 Posts: 501 Member
    Options
    I will admit that I'm one of those people who ends up with a net under 1000 cals, but this is because I'm not looking at calories. I'm paying more attention to the carbs, fat, and protein. If I reach/exceed goals in other non-calorie categories is it ok to fall way below in my caloric intake? Also I take a lot of vitamins so that should make up for it right? (I'm so confused)
  • Bobby_Clerici
    Bobby_Clerici Posts: 1,828 Member
    Options
    While the chest thumping is certainly entertaining, what you don't seem to understand is that if you're losing at 3000 calories/day, you're burning more than that. So of course 1200 would feel overly restrictive to you.

    Some of us burn half or less what you burn. We can't eat 3000 or 2000 and lose and that's ok because if we ate that much we would be stuffed beyond comfort because our smaller bodies and appetites don't require that much. 1200 is fine for many of us. It's not a Sausage McMuffin with cheese and hash browns and then 23 hours of starvation. It's a nice spread of healthy, filling food.

    I agree that the White Knighting of the poor little starvin', stupid ladies is offensive.
    It becomes tiresome hearing people crow about their starvation diets like it's some sort of virtue.
    And in the same breath, they chest thumb about how they don't eat exercise calories back.
    I am just saying there is a better way.
    MORE FUN - BETTER RESULTS
    Just follow MFP recommendations.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    Here's where I think it's offensive. You define going below 1200 net as "unreasonable", "dangerous", "unacceptable", "depriving their body of health", "short-sighted" and "ultra-low calorie", and surmise people who do it don't understand the math and are not even smart enough to provide themselves enough "energy to carry out basic tasks".

    Where in that post did he mention the magic 1200 number? Or even a net of 1200?

    Oh, that's right... he didn't.
  • Kalraii
    Kalraii Posts: 89
    Options
    WOW. You know what - I haven't paid attention to NET cals but that makes total sense! TY for this enlightenment!! I don't want to slow my metabolism and since I'm trying to be realistic here I'm going to eat if my body is telling me I'm starving. Some deficit wont be the end of the world but I guess eating more can help losing weight faster if you body doesn't think its starving. TY for this.
  • akiss4u2tam
    akiss4u2tam Posts: 50
    Options
    If you are under the care of a physician I can understand. However, I agree that it is not a good idea to under eat. Your metabloism slows and your body will store the fat....
  • cklowery36
    cklowery36 Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Its pretty shameful to say someone eating that low is "trying to be anorexic". You have no idea what these people are doing or what their Drs are telling them to eat. My calories for the day are set at 800 and guess what? Thats Dr ordered. Something else you people should keep in mind is that in my case I had WLS. You cant eat anything close to 1200 after that. I have met a TON of WLS people on here. You need to worry about yourself and thats it.

    I'm not judging or paying attention to anyone's diary, but I've got to say thank you for that! I never thought about WLS people having to really keep track of what they're eating. And you're right, I knew someone who had WLS and had so little food, that while she was satisfied and couldn't eat another bite, I was hungry just looking at her plate! lol. It's so good to know that there are all types of wonderful people on here taking charge of their health one plate at a time. Thanks!
  • wavedancer123
    wavedancer123 Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    I am following Lighter Life Lite, all has been agreed by my Doctor the first two weeks I was on 4 packets a day, and now have 3 packets a day along with a good generous portion protein 150g- 250g and lots of veg, 1/2 pt skim milk, oil per day. Approx. cals: - 800-1000. I t works for me, plus I have loads of engery. I have to visit the Doctor again text week, with out this being confirmed by Doctor, Light Life won't let you do it or carry on.
  • AMC4x4
    AMC4x4 Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Thank you for this. I just started the Power 90 and MFP and using the tools here I was ending up about 400-500 calories under what MFP said should be my "target."

    Four days into this, I was just tired all the time, and my mindset took a turn for the worse as well, where I had been so enthused and energetic about this change before I started.

    Yesterday and today I decided to get as close to that target as I could, so I added a shake in the morning, and a few more calories in my recovery drink at night.

    So far so good. Feeling a bit better today. Have decided that I can live even with 1lb a week, as long as I am eating so much more healthy than I was and exercising consistently (six days a week for me).

    I want to do this right for my body. I have read other comments like yours that convinced me to stick closer to the target, and hope that will do the trick for me.
  • Kymaaa3
    Kymaaa3 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    What's MFP? :smile:
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    While the chest thumping is certainly entertaining, what you don't seem to understand is that if you're losing at 3000 calories/day, you're burning more than that. So of course 1200 would feel overly restrictive to you.

    Some of us burn half or less what you burn. We can't eat 3000 or 2000 and lose and that's ok because if we ate that much we would be stuffed beyond comfort because our smaller bodies and appetites don't require that much. 1200 is fine for many of us. It's not a Sausage McMuffin with cheese and hash browns and then 23 hours of starvation. It's a nice spread of healthy, filling food.

    I agree that the White Knighting of the poor little starvin', stupid ladies is offensive.
    It becomes tiresome hearing people crow about their starvation diets like it's some sort of virtue.
    And in the same breath, they chest thumb about how they don't eat exercise calories back.
    I am just saying there is a better way.
    MORE FUN - BETTER RESULTS
    Just follow MFP recommendations.

    I guess that's what it boils down to. MFP was written by a young man who assumes 1200 is starvation. The forum is full of young, large men who think 1200 is starvation. When you're not so young, large or male and you run your own numbers you clearly see that 1200 is no big deficit. In fact, it's conservative. And that's why no recognized diet plan considers it terribly aggressive, much less starvation.

    I'm not saying to do this extreme diet (below) but please just read the science. It'll show you that 1200 is nothing to worry about (especially when you burn 1700). Net, gross, whatever.

    http://www.files.failedmiserably.com/data/aironz/The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook.pdf
  • erica426
    erica426 Posts: 3
    Options
    My fitness Pal
  • quixoteQ
    quixoteQ Posts: 484
    Options
    My fitness Pal

    +1.
  • ghgs13
    ghgs13 Posts: 27
    Options
    I'm not doing it intentionally, how do I increase my intake healthily? Will I start to feel hungrier over time when I adapt to my exercise routine, or am I going to have to eat when I'm not hungry?
  • ChelseaGoneAwry
    ChelseaGoneAwry Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    Personally, I burn a lot of calories through exercise. And even though I'm supposed to be eating 1200 calories a day, AND eating back what I burned, I just can't do it. I've been eating low cal for 2 months now, and at this point if someone spread out a buffet table of delicious foods in front of me and said "Eat 2,000 calories worth of this food today." I wouldn't be able to! My stomach is getting smaller, and I'm not going to eat myself sick just so that my Net at the end of the day will be higher.
  • paygep
    paygep Posts: 401 Member
    Options

    I guess that's what it boils down to. MFP was written by a young man who assumes 1200 is starvation. The forum is full of young, large men who think 1200 is starvation. When you're not so young, large or male and you run your own numbers you clearly see that 1200 is no big deficit. In fact, it's conservative. And that's why no recognized diet plan considers it terribly aggressive, much less starvation.

    I'm not saying to do this extreme diet (below) but please just read the science. It'll show you that 1200 is nothing to worry about (especially when you burn 1700). Net, gross, whatever.

    http://www.files.failedmiserably.com/data/aironz/The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook.pdf

    thanks for a great link
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    I'm a small-ish (135 pounds, size 4) 40 year old woman. I had a hell of a time trying to lose when I ate less than 1000 calories a day, but it was so effortless this time, eating an average total of 1600-2000 calories a day. (1350-1600 plus exercise calories).

    I'm just glad when I came to MFP, I was here to improve my fitness more than for weight loss. And that was because I was positive I wouldn't lose weight. Nothing worked before... why should this?! So I ate what was recommended and... I'll be dipped if the weight didn't come off just as predicted!!! :happy: If I came here with the mindset that I had to eat very little to lose, I would have had a hard time again. And I probably would have quit long before I reached my goal.

    I've been maintaining about the same weight for over a year now.
  • Ayeshat
    Ayeshat Posts: 209
    Options
    Personally I think its really confusing because theres a lot of conflicting info out there and people stating opinion as fact etc etc.. I'm still not 100% on the whole concept of net calories and exercise and having a deficit in order to loose weight.. so you need to have a calorie deficit in comparison to your old diet or.......
  • Cristofori44
    Cristofori44 Posts: 201
    Options
    While the chest thumping is certainly entertaining, what you don't seem to understand is that if you're losing at 3000 calories/day, you're burning more than that. So of course 1200 would feel overly restrictive to you.

    Some of us burn half or less what you burn. We can't eat 3000 or 2000 and lose and that's ok because if we ate that much we would be stuffed beyond comfort because our smaller bodies and appetites don't require that much. 1200 is fine for many of us. It's not a Sausage McMuffin with cheese and hash browns and then 23 hours of starvation. It's a nice spread of healthy, filling food.

    I agree that the White Knighting of the poor little starvin', stupid ladies is offensive.
    It becomes tiresome hearing people crow about their starvation diets like it's some sort of virtue.
    And in the same breath, they chest thumb about how they don't eat exercise calories back.
    I am just saying there is a better way.
    MORE FUN - BETTER RESULTS
    Just follow MFP recommendations.

    I guess that's what it boils down to. MFP was written by a young man who assumes 1200 is starvation. The forum is full of young, large men who think 1200 is starvation. When you're not so young, large or male and you run your own numbers you clearly see that 1200 is no big deficit. In fact, it's conservative. And that's why no recognized diet plan considers it terribly aggressive, much less starvation.

    I'm not saying to do this extreme diet (below) but please just read the science. It'll show you that 1200 is nothing to worry about (especially when you burn 1700). Net, gross, whatever.

    http://www.files.failedmiserably.com/data/aironz/The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook.pdf

    That's not my issue--burning 1,700 through daily energy expenditure and coming out with 1,200. That theoretically would be totally healthy and equate with a 500-calorie deficit 1 lb. loss per week, depending on if BMR was set correctly.

    What I am talking about are people who burn 1,700 or 2,000 naturally--the app doesn't give you this maintenance number, only a net calorie number. Some of these individuals are eating 1,000 or 1,200---their net or below--then subtracting vigorous exercise for a net calorie intake of a few hundred. They are well below the suggested calorie deficit of 500 to 1,000 per day, and the recommended 1-2 lb. loss per week, and with so little consumed and so much burned, there's a chance of health complications from simply not having enough nutrients.

    And stop painting this as some kind of sexist issue. There are plenty of men who have fallen into this trap and plenty of women who have recognized that severe under-eating and vigorous amounts of exercise are not a wise path.
  • xsabrinalynn
    xsabrinalynn Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    It really depends on the individual person. My goal is 1250 and most days I dont eat that many calories. Adding my exercise, my usual net is like 500-800 cals. Sometimes lower on the good exercise days.
    It's not like I actively try to keep my numbers there, it's actually the opposite. Some days I have to pretty much force myself to have a snack to get over 1000. I've heard a bazillion times I need to eat more but realized that I need to just listen to what my body tells me.
    When I get hungry, I eat. When I eat, I eat until I'm not hungry anymore. I never go to bed hungry, energy levels are better than ever, losing weight...what's the problem here?

    ^ I agree. MFP made my goal 1360 and I rarely make that and with my exercise, sometimes I net 400-800. I'm not purposely eating to stay that low. I eat when I'm hungry. I eat at all times of the day. I'm not going to stuff myself to the point where I feel so full just to get exactly on my calories or eat all my exercise calories back. I think different things work for different people.

    Maybe some people do it for the "burn more than you take in" concept?

Categories