Not enough calories?

[alsace]

First, I've heeded everyone's advice and I'm on my way back up to 1500-1800 cal/day which I'll maintain for at least a month before attempting to diet again (and this time it will be far less aggressive!).

You should also remember that the 'heart' is a muscle.Muscle once lost cannot be replaced. The remaining muscle can be bulked up, but not replaced..

Can you explain that a little further, please? If I were to lift weights, causing my muscles to grow bigger, doesn't that mean I've got more muscle tissue? And wouldn't that mean I'm replacing muscle (supposing I once had large muscles, then stopped lifting and let them go)?

 

[saintjilly]

Working out targeting specific groups of muscles enlarges them..but to do that serious weightlifters consume MORE calories from the protein & carbs food groups..not less..you cannot build muscle mass whilst on reduced calories..its impossible. Sadly when 'wasting' its often the major body organs such as the heart which suffer first..the body needs calories and they have to come from somewhere...its too complicated to go into in detail but to metabolise 'fat' you need a combination of protein & carbs...our bodies are amazing..so why abuse them (guilty of that myself sadly as a generous helping hand with the portions!!)

If you stop exercising & put on weight the muscle remains as muscle but loses its tone & bulk.ie flabiness....but does not go away as it does once wasted.

 

[Trevor10]

sorry to say this but at only 500 calories a day, i guarantee most of your loss on the scale is due to muscle loss....there is absolutely no way you kept your muscles and burned all fat on 500...that or you didn't actually stay at 500 and ate more.

im not trying to be an ass, im just letting you know eating that low is not a good idea

 

[Blancita]

First, I've heeded everyone's advice and I'm on my way back up to 1500-1800 cal/day which I'll maintain for at least a month before attempting to diet again (and this time it will be far less aggressive!).

Well you are really good natured in response to our criticism . That is a nice trait of yours.

You should recognize that 1500-1800 is actually considered dieting for someone your size. So you may gain a bit at first as you start to eat again, but if you keep that up for a while hopefully the weight will start to come off again. If I ate 1500 a day maybe I'd manage to reach my goal, but I dont have your discipline and frankly, I get hungry a lot. Keep in mind that I'm only 5'2" and when I started I weighed a lot less than you and I managed to lose .8 lbs per week on 1850 calories per day.

Did you ever figure out how many cals you were eating before your diet? That's the number I'd be looking at as that number kept you gaining or maintaining a high weight. So you need to cut from there, not cut out all calories.

Thanks again for not taking our comments to heart .

 

[saintjilly]

Well you are really good natured in response to our criticism . That is a nice trait of yours.

You should recognize that 1500-1800 is actually considered dieting for someone your size. So you may gain a bit at first as you start to eat again, but if you keep that up for a while hopefully the weight will start to come off again. If I ate 1500 a day maybe I'd manage to reach my goal, but I dont have your discipline and frankly, I get hungry a lot. Keep in mind that I'm only 5'2" and when I started I weighed a lot less than you and I managed to lose .8 lbs per week on 1850 calories per day.

Did you ever figure out how many cals you were eating before your diet? That's the number I'd be looking at as that number kept you gaining or maintaining a high weight. So you need to cut from there, not cut out all calories.

Thanks again for not taking our comments to heart .

Good point well made...its refreshing to see someone accept critical advice in a good natured way and accept it for what it is well meant!! Good Luck OP with your fitness.

 

[alsace]

Well you are really good natured in response to our criticism . .... Thanks again for not taking our comments to heart .

Absolutely! I came here for advice and help, so who am I to scoff at everyone's suggestions? I've learned a lot from this thread and it made me re-evaluate my diet, which is more than I could have asked for.

Did you ever figure out how many cals you were eating before your diet? That's the number I'd be looking at as that number kept you gaining or maintaining a high weight. So you need to cut from there, not cut out all calories.

Unfortunately, I did not keep track. I just ate whatever crossed my path that looked good without regard for its healthiness -- "live for the moment", and all that. When I started my diet I knew that 2000 cal/day was a rough estimate (based on the Food Pyramid and nutrition info labels), but since then I've found the BMR calculators and I have a much better feel for it.


To those who've commented on my discipline: it's just part of my personality. I've tried to "eat better" many times in the past, but that always starts out as "I'll have a salad" and degenerates to "I'll have a pile of croutons and dressing with a token lettuce leaf at the bottom." So this time, "the time that I'm really REALLY going to lose weight, I swear!" I had to set strict black-and-white limits. It's easy to judge whether or not you're sticking to the diet when you've got hard and fast rules like "only eat twice a day" and "no fried foods". Either you're within the limits or you're breaking the rules, it's simple. When I got hungry I just thought too bad, it's not time for dinner yet. I took a growling stomach as an indication that I was making progress (my body wants food, but I'm not feeding it, so any moment now it's gonna start burning those reserves of fat!). When I totaled up my calories at SparkPeople I vowed to top myself the next day by eating even fewer.

And yes, I am aware that just about all of the rules I've listed in that last paragraph are false/unhealthy/bad, and I'm not following them anymore. The one good attitude that I developed was that junk food will be there when I'm done losing weight and that this isn't the last time my friends are ever going out to eat. I can eat bacon cheeseburgers and banana splits and meat lover's pizza again, just not right now, not while I'm on my way down. Those things will still be there.

Thanks everyone for the help!

 

[Blancita]

Again said with the best of intentions, but you may be slightly missing the point of a lifestyle change vs. diet, and why diets dont work in the long run unless certain changes are made forever. Yes, once you've lost your weight you can eat more, at your maintenance level rather than in a calorie deficit. But I'm hoping you realize that if you go back to all your prior habits once you drop the weight then you'll be right back to square one. The majority of people who lose weight regain it because they simply go back to what they did before. And surprise! The weight comes right back. So yes, eating out once in a while or eating pizza or junk here and there will be fine. But if you do that to the extent that you did before, you will not keep the weight off long term. That's why severely cutting cals short term doesn't teach you anything about developing healthy habits for the long run.

 

[Trevor M.]

sorry to say this but at only 500 calories a day, i guarantee most of your loss on the scale is due to muscle loss....there is absolutely no way you kept your muscles and burned all fat on 500...that or you didn't actually stay at 500 and ate more.

im not trying to be an ass, im just letting you know eating that low is not a good idea

Your right. It is a poor idea in most situations to eat so little on a daily basis. However, never will the body call on protein as a greater substrate for energy demands than it does lipids. The ratio of muscle to fat loss may be greater than it would on a more reasonable deficient, but, never does it exceed fat use.

The real danger to extreme skeletal muscle protein catabolism becomes more likely with longer term dieting(4-5weeks+). The starting muscle loss is generally only around 3-5%. It can increase in later weeks/months upwards of 10%-20%, though. Large deficients, little physical activity, and poor diets are what allow this percentage to skyrocket.

Just a helpful FYI, Trev.

 

[Trevor M.]

Working out targeting specific groups of muscles enlarges them..but to do that serious weightlifters consume MORE calories from the protein & carbs food groups...

You do not want to neglect dietary fats on a diet. Doing so will only award yourself with reduced testosterone levels.

 

[alsace]

Again said with the best of intentions, but you may be slightly missing the point of a lifestyle change vs. diet, and why diets dont work in the long run unless certain changes are made forever. ...

No, I understand the difference. My point in mentioning certain foods was that I can eat them again. I won't eat them in the same quantities or with the same frequency, but I don't have to say good bye to them forever (a common misconception to someone about to begin dieting, I think). I know that technically I could eat them now while I'm on my diet, but it just wouldn't be worth juggling around everything else I eat to fit that in (to make sure I don't get too many calories, fat, enough protein, etc.). It was simply a way of mentally preparing myself for the diet and lifestyle change -- in the past I failed because I didn't want to give up certain things.

I have learned a lot about moderation, simple substitutes, and when it's okay to eat poorly. My old habits won't be coming back.

 

[Caterpillar1]

sorry to say this but at only 500 calories a day, i guarantee most of your loss on the scale is due to muscle loss....there is absolutely no way you kept your muscles and burned all fat on 500...that or you didn't actually stay at 500 and ate more.

im not trying to be an ass, im just letting you know eating that low is not a good idea

Why do so many people seem to think that when you're starving most of the weight loss is from muscle? Actually most of the weight loss will be fat. There will be protein loss, and most of the protein loss will be from muscle rather than other sources; but of the weight lost, a far greater proportion will be fom fat than protein. Typical protein loss for someone who had starved for 5 weeks would be about 3kg, and fat loss over the same period would be about 10kg (figures read off a graph showing the effect of starvation on the food stores of the body in "textbook of medical physiology" by Guyton and Hall)

 

[alsace]

Without having any science or research to back up my guess, I'd be shocked if I lost more muscle than fat. I didn't have much muscle before I started (i.e. wasn't lifting weights or anything) but now I do, yet a lot of excess fat has disappeared.

 

[saintjilly]

Why do so many people seem to think that when you're starving most of the weight loss is from muscle? Actually most of the weight loss will be fat. There will be protein loss, and most of the protein loss will be from muscle rather than other sources; but of the weight lost, a far greater proportion will be fom fat than protein. Typical protein loss for someone who had starved for 5 weeks would be about 3kg, and fat loss over the same period would be about 10kg (figures read off a graph showing the effect of starvation on the food stores of the body in "textbook of medical physiology" by Guyton and Hall)

OK OK pick us up on our Grammar or terminology if you like...the 'greater loss' might be from fat not muscle..but ANY muscle loss from starvation is bad and at 33% muscle loss to fat that is very detrimental to organ health. Perhaps it would be better to look at the bigger picture in terms of health rather than to score points of someones well meant advice to someone who was adopting an unhealthy if not downright dangerous life choice!!