Weight-Loss Eating less, is it really that bad?

[milehighadam]

When I made the commitment to start losing weight I was also incredibly tight on money (this was about mid-april). So, naturally I knew very little about the proper way to go about things at this point (I certainly don't know much now, but more than I did then). I thought to myself, "perfect, I'll save money by spending less on food and lose weight by not eating as much." Ah, yes it made perfect sense. So, for a month or so I fought food pangs until my body just seemed to give up on trying to tell me it was hungry. I certainly wasn't eating healthy at this point, but I didn't eat much. Fast forward to now, about 5 months later, I eat healthy but I still don't eat much. I eat balanced meals and exercise regularly. However, I only eat between 800-1200 calories a day. It's a good day if I can hit close to 1200 calories, more often than not it is in the 800 to 950 range. I try to eat more, but I can't seem to make myself do it... my body doesn't seem to want it. Furthermore, I'm afraid if I try to force it I will just end up falling back into old habits.

I've read all sorts of things telling me this way of going about things is horribly inefficient. These articles say things like starvation mode, muscle loss, no results, etc. However, I've also read things that say it's not such a big deal, it varies depending on the individual, don't focus on it, etc. Which is right? Are either?

I feel like I am in the best shape I have been in for as long as I can remember. I'm stronger, I have more energy, my muscles are bigger and tighter than ever (even when I was working a stocking job for a year where all I did for 8 hours a night was lift 40 lb bags of dog food). I'm not seeing the amount of fat loss I was when I first started, but from what I understand that is to be expected and should not be a deterrent.

So, is there any validity to the claim that I should be taking in more calories? Has my body just adjusted? If it has, is it for the better, worse or does it make no difference?



FYI: I know every time I post it comes out as a wall of text. But, I am eager to learn and lose weight. There is just so much conflicting information available on the internet it is hard to determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Omega]

Log your food through and ensure that you are getting enough of all the nutrients that you need. You need to be sure that you are getting enough protein, fibre, healthy fat, calcium etc. You should be able to find the levels to shoot for in the nutrition section. Your body is malnourished if you do not hit your targets.

Calorie level and indeed weight of food does not indicate how well nourished we are. I believe that I was malnourished when I ate a lot more calories than I do today - because I was not getting enough of the right things. I used to just presume that if I had some protein I was doing ok there etc. Checking whether you are hitting those targets can be very illuminating. It can take more calories than many people think...

 

[bvilleh]

If you are counting calories it may not be the best way to go, if you get to a certain point you will stop eating. But it seems that your body is adapted to the routine you are undergoing at the moment. Mainly going under the 1,200 calories per day mark is said not to be healthy but eat as much as you can (not meaning a force eating habit).
By the sounds of it you seem to use a lot of calories during your day anyways with your metabolism and your job.

It is said that by eating less your body (as you said goes in starvation mode) at for every calorie you consume it stores as energy for you to use. But if during your workout you are not feeling fatigue or powerless then from my point of view it seems okay.

Just make sure the calories that you are consuming has a nutritional benefit not just "empty calories".

 

[KaraCooks]

Eating too few calories is detrimental to your health and it can slow your weight loss. There's a sticky here that has more information about calories and starvation mode: http://weight-loss.fitness.com/topic/9468-starvation-calories-adaptations.html

 

[milehighadam]

Eating too few calories is detrimental to your health and it can slow your weight loss.

How is it detrimental to my health if I have no loss of energy (even more energy than before I started dieting) throughout the day, don't get fatigued during workout sessions, no problems staying awake or functioning all around better than I did this time last year when my calorie intake was 3-4 times higher than it is now?

As one of you said nutritional value of the calories one takes in is important. I don't eat empty calories. I eat completely balanced meals (whole grains, good fats, lean protein, fat-free yogurt from time to time, lots of fresh fruits and veggies, etc.). I just don't eat as much. I don't add crap to any of my meals, unless I eat out which is once a week.

I like the idea of a cyclical diet. Maybe with some research I can sit down and come up with a plan (from an aforementioned article previously in this thread).

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[KaraCooks]

How is it detrimental to my health

Everyone's body needs a certain amount of nutrition to survive. If you reduce your calories below what's considered a healthy level, it's EXTREMELY hard to get that amount of nutrition in. Also if you lower your calories too much for too long a period of time, you will screw up your metabolism and make it harder to maintain a lower weight or to lose weight again.

I don't know why people insist that it's ok to eat extremely low calories. It's not. You may feel ok now, but it will catch up to you eventualy.

 

[alphafemale]

You bring up an interesting point. I have read in New Scientist Magazine that low calorie diets produce notably longer lifespans... apparently there have been extensive studies done in this area. I will try to find the correct issue and post it for you.

Probably 80% of the world eats even less than you do, and still has their teeth, so maybe we're being too North American about it? I don't know. It's when people work out like crazy and eat almost nothing (no good carbs, little protein, and like 600-1000 calories per day) that I get concerned. Have you talked to a GP about it? From what I know (from government public advertising, internet research, and advice from a personal trainer) everything the above posters are saying is true, and it does conflict with how you feel now.

 

[KaraCooks]

You bring up an interesting point. I have read in New Scientist Magazine that low calorie diets produce notably longer lifespans... apparently there have been extensive studies done in this area. I will try to find the correct issue and post it for you.

Probably 80% of the world eats even less than you do, and still has their teeth, so maybe we're being too North American about it?

The studies you're talking about say that LOW calorie diets and calorie restriction can aid in longevity. They don't say that starvation level diets (VLCDs) of below 1000 calories a day are beneficial.

There's a huge difference. I don't normally use Wikipedia as a definitive source, but this article does reference other articles that you can go read and determine for yourself.

Calorie restriction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, keep in mind that the human body can adapt to a lot of things. I don't think using populations that don't have access to a variety of healthy foods is necessarily proof that we're being to "Western" about the issue. Prisoners in concentration camps adapted to some pretty hideous things and survived - doesn't mean what happened to them was healthy.

One thing that I haven't specifically pointed out, but people who die from being on low calorie diets generally don't die of "starvation" in the traditional sense. They die of heart failure - the reason for that is twofold: First is that eating too little usually means people aren't getting enough electrolytes in their system. Second is that the heart is a muscle and when you don't get enough protein in your diet, your body takes nutrients from the muscles - ALL the muscles, including the heart. By the time people have figured out that they're undernourished, they've done permanent damage to their hearts.

 

[milehighadam]

Everyone's body needs a certain amount of nutrition to survive. If you reduce your calories below what's considered a healthy level, it's EXTREMELY hard to get that amount of nutrition in. Also if you lower your calories too much for too long a period of time, you will screw up your metabolism and make it harder to maintain a lower weight or to lose weight again.

I don't know why people insist that it's ok to eat extremely low calories. It's not. You may feel ok now, but it will catch up to you eventualy.

I see, I'd love to see some sort of reputable scientific study that proves that. But, for now let's just assume it's fact. What would be a healthy way to up my calories? It seems to me that if I were to just today to take in 400 or so more calories and sustain that for a while it would just end in me gaining weight back until my metabolism caught back up. One thing that comes to mind is maybe adding an extra serving of vegetables to one meal a day for a week then the next add an extra snack (generally a fruit) to each day and continue that process of add 1 thing a week until I reach a "healthy level". Does this sound effective?

 

[KaraCooks]

I see, I'd love to see some sort of reputable scientific study that proves that.

Do a Google search. There are reputable sites all over the Internet that prove it. And I mean reputable sites - webMB, Johns Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, etc.

But, for now let's just assume it's fact.

It is fact. I don't understand how people are so willing to believe anything they see or hear or read online, but they won't accept something perfectly logical that's been proven time and time again - that eating too little is unhealthy.

What would be a healthy way to up my calories? It seems to me that if I were to just today to take in 400 or so more calories and sustain that for a while it would just end in me gaining weight back until my metabolism caught back up

If you've lowered your metabolism by eating too little, then yes, you probably will gain back some weight when you raise your calories. You can take the tack of adding a little bit back at a time if you are worried about it - 100-150 calories every week or every 2 weeks is probably a good rate.

 

[milehighadam]

...but they won't accept something perfectly logical that's been proven time and time again - that eating too little is unhealthy.

Keep in mind that it is perfectly logical to you because you have, I assume and hope, a much broader base of knowledge on the subject than I do. If I were to try to explain to you fermat's last theorem I couldn't expect you to see the logic in it right away (even though it is purely based on logical thinking), even though it has been proven time and time again you might not have seen it those times or understood it those times.

Also, what is "too" little? Terms like this are completely relative and if we have no basis for comparison how do we know? Is there a universal minimum for people across the board? Does it vary from person to person? Does eating healthy allow you to dip further than eating unhealthy? I would estimate that I should probably be eating somewhere in the 1200 to 1500 range. Does this sound right? I weigh somewhere in the ballpark of 230, I'm 5'11 and I get exercise daily (whether it be cardio, weight lifting or a combo of the 2 on top of all the walking I do).

I know I have little knowledge on the subject of healthy living, but I'm learning. The process by which I learn may be a bit foreign or down right annoying to some, but it works for me. I learn by asking questions and challenging theories or even facts, if my teacher has a good understanding of the subject my questions should be answered with relative ease and my arguments should be soundly and succinctly countered. So, don't take it personally if I challenge something you say on a subject you might feel like an expert on.

Thank you for listing a few reputable sites, it's sometimes very hard to work through the BS on the web to find those 1 or 2 credible sources. And even then, if you know little about the subject you are researching, how do you know what's reputable when you find it.

 

[KaraCooks]

Keep in mind that it is perfectly logical to you because you have, I assume and hope, a much broader base of knowledge on the subject than I do. If I were to try to explain to you fermat's last theorem I couldn't expect you to see the logic in it right away (even though it is purely based on logical thinking), even though it has been proven time and time again you might not have seen it those times or understood it those times.

True. I'll apologize for being a little impatient, then. I think the nature of my impatience to a degree is that this is a subject that's been covered in detail on the board before - and there are even a couple of sticky threads about it - one called "starvation and adaption" is particularly useful.

But I do understand that this is a learning process and I'll work on being more receptive to those types of questions.

 

[milehighadam]

I got a little carried away when typing the reply above and forgot to add in the question on my mind after reading your post:

Also, what is "too" little? Terms like this are completely relative and if we have no basis for comparison how do we know? Is there a universal minimum for people across the board? Does it vary from person to person? Does eating healthy allow you to dip further than eating unhealthy? I would estimate that I should probably be eating somewhere in the 1200 to 1500 range. Does this sound right? I weigh somewhere in the ballpark of 230 (I'm not sure exactly what my percentage of body is but I know I'm a fatty mcfatterson), I'm 5'11 and I get exercise daily (whether it be cardio, weight lifting or a combo of the 2 on top of all the walking I do).

I edited it in, but you had already responded.




I understand the impatience thing, it can get really tiresome and annoying explaining the same things to people time and time again. I have read all the stickies on the forums. So, if I am asking a question that is covered in one of those threads I am looking for clarification and/or more information on the matter. But, I do sympathize with you on that front.

I am a philosophy minor, so I tend to ask a lot of questions and say things like, "Who says?" or "Why?" or "Prove it". A lot of people take this as me being argumentative (which I am to a degree), but I don't intend to come across that way, like I said it's just the way I learn.

By the way, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond and provide me with useful and applicable information.

 

[KaraCooks]

I am a philosophy minor, so I tend to ask a lot of questions and say things like, "Who says?" or "Why?" or "Prove it". A lot of people take this as me being argumentative (which I am to a degree), but I don't intend to come across that way, like I said it's just the way I learn.

Well, I enjoy discussion and debate - and a lot of people see that as argumentative as well. So I can sympathise. Ok, back to your questions.

Also, what is "too" little? Terms like this are completely relative and if we have no basis for comparison how do we know? Is there a universal minimum for people across the board? Does it vary from person to person?

The studies I've read say that anything below 1200 *as a general rule* is too little. It's very difficult to get a proper balance of nutrition and enough protein when eating fewer than 1200 calories. Obviously this is going to vary somewhat from person to person - calories are not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

That's from a nutritional standpoint of course. There are other issues to consider, such as adaptation (which I mentioned above). When you drastically drop your calories below what it takes to maintain your weight, your body adapts by drastically slowing your metabolism. That has a long term affect on your ability to lose fat, and to maintain the loss. It also means you're losing more muscle, since only so much energy can be pulled from fat reserves before your body has to start drawing on muscle.

Most reasonable recommendations say that a 30% reduction in your maintenance calories should be enough to lose weight while not creating such a drastic reduction that you adversely affect your metabolism.

Does eating healthy allow you to dip further than eating unhealthy?

Yes. In fact, there is a diet that Lyle McDonald promotes called the Extreme Fat Loss Diet. It is a VLCD with an emphasis on nutrition and maintaining muscle mass. It tells you how to effectively manage a VLCD by eating protein amounts based on your lean muscle mass, eating lots of vegetables, and taking the appropriate supplements. However he strongly recommends that it NOT be used as a long term diet. It's designed either as a "quick start" diet for people who have a lot of weight to lose and need to see rapid results to stay motivated, or for weight lifters who are looking to lean out and reduce their body fat to somewhat drastic levels (not ones that most average people are looking for).

I would estimate that I should probably be eating somewhere in the 1200 to 1500 range. Does this sound right? I weigh somewhere in the ballpark of 230

A figure that I've found VERY useful for calculating calories is this: 15 calories per pound of body weight to maintain current weight - for moderately active adults. It's based loosely on a figure of 10 calories per pound to reach BMR and then a 1.5 multiplier for a moderately active adult (the Harris-Benedict multiplier). It's an estimate, but it keeps things easy to calculate.

So based on that ... and then based on the 30% reduction I mentioned above, I'd say that your ideal weight loss calorie range would be:
230 * 15 = 3450 to maintain
3450 * 70% = 2415 to lose

Having said that, I'll tell you that I weigh 167 and I currently am losing on 1600 calories a day. So if I, a 5'4" female who weighs a full 60 lbs less than you can lose on 1600, you probably should be eating more.

Btw, this is the actual Harris Benedict formula if you want to run the numbers for yourself:

The Harris Benedict Calorie Needs Formula for Men

* First, calculate your BMI according to this formula:
66 + (13.7 x weight in kilos) + (5 x height in centimetres) - (6.8 x age in years)
* To calculate your total calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity multiplier:

Activity Multiplier
* If you are sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) multiply BMR by 1.2
* If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days per week) multiply your BMR by 1.375
* If you are moderately active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days per week) multiply your BMR by 1.55
* If you take heavy exercise (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days per week) multiply your BMR by 1.725

[Note: 1 inch = 2.54 centimetres. 1 kilo = 2.2 pounds]

Now, having given all of that info, if you've been eating much less than that, then increasing calories will probably cause you to gain back some weight. However, it won't take long for your metabolism to catch up again. You'll be in a better place if you add back in those calories as quickly as you can and then work down again in smaller increments.

Hope that helps.

 

[Garfield67]

I have read in New Scientist Magazine that low calorie diets produce notably longer lifespans...

I am a 'calories restriction for life' adept. Even me think that you are not doing the right thing going so low. 1600-2000 is OK for a man. BTW, nobody on calories restriction for life die from heart for that reason unless they have a crazy BMI like 14. To the contrary, lean people with sufficient nutrition and no addiction have better heart condition, less cancer and pratically zero diabete type 2. American Institute for Cancer Research recommends to be the most lean possible.

Their recommendation #1

1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
....
Aim to be at the lower end of the healthy Body Mass Index (BMI) range.

World Health Organization suggests s to be within 18.5-21. They mention that above 21, from population perspective, chronic diseases appear.

Remember; if losing weight is the goal, make sure that you lose it from quarter to quarter. Taking 1-2 years is not a problem. A maximum weekly loss is irrelevant and just maintains undue anxiety.

 

[SamuelPinn]

Eating too few calories is detrimental to your health and it can slow your weight loss. There's a sticky here that has more information about calories and starvation mode: http://weight-loss.fitness.com/topic/9468-starvation-calories-adaptations.html

I agree with KaraCooks. Eating less can help with weight loss but, eating too less can be counter producrive.

 

[blake76]

Eating less is like starving yourself. Your body might adjust to it but it's definitely not healthy over a long period of time. A much better way to do things would be - go for a diet that is low on carbs and high on proteins. Do a little exercise. This way your body will get what it needs to stay healthy yet you can lose weight. Now ofcourse preparing such diet is not easy so I rely on experts. I use Bistro MD Diet - It is ready made diet food prepared by nutritionists. They deliver it to my door and it tastes good as well.

 

[sharoo]

I'm confused by this whole thread. I think everybody agrees that it is counterproductive and unhealthy to eat "way too little." The question is, is Milehigh doing that?

If he has great energy, feels wonderful, exercises regularly and is getting stronger every day then he is obviously not "eating too little." The confusing thing is that it pretty much defies the laws of physics that 1000 calories a day is "enough" for a man his size, especially one that is getting regular exercise and even building muscle. I see three possibilities:

1) He is actually eating a lot more calories than he thinks he is. Which probably doesn't matter very much as long as what he is doing is working so well. He should either figure out how to count calories more accurately or quit worrying about the calories and just stick with his program.

2) He has developed a serious eating disorder and is deceiving himself about how well he feels and looks. We have all heard about anorexics who see something completely different from reality when they look in the mirror. Usually these anorexics are female and they see themselves as fat even when they are skin and bones. Conceivably it could work the other way and a man who is starving himself into malnutrition might see himself as looking terrific.

3) He's from another planet. Maybe he's taking in nutrition from sunlight or something. If so, that's great. I have nothing against extraterrestrials. But if that's the case, Milehigh, the nutrition advice you get from the people here probably won't help you much.