Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-23-2009, 05:35 PM   #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
MotoXMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 67

Default What happens with too FEW calories?

Hi everyone!

I am a new calorie counter... And I have roughly 130 pounds to lose.

I really wanted to start myself out at 1200 calories. But I keep reading that at my weight I should start somewhere between 1500 and 1800.

So what will happen if I am eating too few calories?

I know this is all going to take a lot of getting used to, physically and emotionally, no matter what number I end up going with, since I'm currently consuming enormous amounts of calories that are horrible for my body.

So is there really a "magic" number? Is there a formula to this that I don't know? And is there somewhere to find out what are the BEST FOODS to be eating to keep my body GOING during this change? I really don't want to get into and poop out after a week because I just can't physically handle it... again.

I'm just not sure how to get started here...

Thanks! I can't wait to get started and really get to know some people here!
MotoXMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 05:53 PM   #2  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

There really isn't a "magic number," but there are a couple reasons not to go "too low."

Your metabolism may drop. There's really some question as to whether everyone experiences this or experiences this to the same degree, and there may be several causes. If you cut calories very low, you may find yourself (without even realizing it) sleeping more, being more tired and therefore being less active and moving less (even while sitting in a chair, you may figit less or in may other ways "conserve" energy). Your body may become more efficient in ways you're not even aware of (using fewer calories or expending fewer calories in body processes from temperature control to digestion).

For example, my normal body temperature is below normal (or at least I thought so), but I recently found out that what I eat, and how much affects the body temperature. The more carbs and fewer calories I eat, the more likely my temperature to be quite low. When I eat fruits, veggies, and lean meats my body temp is a couple degrees higher and I can eat more calories and yet lose the same or more weight than if I eat a high starch diet. This may not be true for everyone (but I've read that it'ss fairly typical for people with thyroid and blood sugar issues).

Probably more common than metabolism drop (at least I suspect) is the deprivation/hunger factor. If you cut calories too low, you're increasing your chance of rebound hunger - getting so hungry that a binge becomes almost inevitable.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:09 PM   #3  
Senior Member
 
bargoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Davis, Ca
Posts: 23,149

S/C/G: 204/114/120

Height: 5'

Default

If you cut calories too low you will be depriving your body of needed nutrition.
bargoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:14 PM   #4  
Soul Cyster
 
beerab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 4,487

S/C/G: 235/seeticker/135

Height: 5'3"

Default

I just go with this old formula I was given:

Weight x 10 = # of calories to maintain.

You are 284 so that's 2840 calories a day to maintain.

Now eating 75% of that is usually enough to get you to lose weight- so that's 2840 x .75 = 2130 calories.

This was given to me by my old trainer and it worked for quite some time (I do south beach now). Every 10 lbs you re-calculate for your new weight.

I wouldn't drastically lower your calories to 1200- you'll be hungry, lethargic, and so on. If you don't want to eat 2130 calories a day for now- I suggest going no lower than 1800 at the current moment.

Good luck.
beerab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:26 PM   #5  
Back in Action
 
Lori Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: A Nebraska Farm
Posts: 3,107

S/C/G: 213/197/140

Height: 5'6"

Default

This is a tricky question. Every year thousands of Doctors preform bariatric surgery on hundreds of patients each. (In the US alone) Patients are put on extremely low calorie diets before and after the surgery, and for some reason these people lose massive amounts of weight. Seems to me that if a low calorie diet was so terrible for a person, that all those Bariatric surgeons would be getting sued out the ying-yang. It also would seem that WLS would be totally unsuccessful if eating too few calories caused people to binge, and stall and go into starvation mode, and all the other things I hear people say about a 1200 calorie diet. But, for some reason each year the number of WLS patients dramatically increases. I wonder why that is?

I also realize that the reality show, "The Biggest Loser" is a lot of hoopla, but the contestants (Some up to 400 pounds +) are all put on a 1200 calorie/day diet, while exercising hours and hours a day...and they continue to lose weight. They all leave looking great and healthy.

Okay to answer your question...I'd talk to your doctor. She/HE can help you decide. No Internet web site, or forum stranger knows you like your doctor. It really is worth the visit! Good luck.
Lori Bell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:26 PM   #6  
Anne
 
RealCdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,631

S/C/G: 407/358-Dec2007/tracker/125

Height: 5'4"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beerab View Post
I just go with this old formula I was given:

Weight x 10 = # of calories to maintain.

You are 284 so that's 2840 calories a day to maintain.

Now eating 75% of that is usually enough to get you to lose weight- so that's 2840 x .75 = 2130 calories.
I like that as a good starting point for those with a lot to lose. That weight x 10 may be too low for maintenance for those with less to lose though.

When you've got a lot of weight to lose, it's important to start out at a higher level. You need somewhere to go if/when that weight gets harder to lose. As other posters said, lower calories may make you less active. If you're less active you're going to stop losing weight. I love eating higher calories (using the above numbers I should be eating about 1700 calories, but I do eat more). It gives me tons of energy which lets me do more things. Today, just for fun, I got dropped off about 4 miles from my place and walked back to it. I couldn't imagine at 1200 calories I would ever consider that. And when I got home I had a swim, watered the garden, etc. In other words, that walk hadn't sapped every ounce of energy.

Oh, and if your body isn't getting enough proper nutrition you can have thinning hair, skin problems, and can be more prone to colds/flu, etc.
RealCdn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:31 PM   #7  
Anne
 
RealCdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,631

S/C/G: 407/358-Dec2007/tracker/125

Height: 5'4"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori Bell View Post
But, for some reason each year the number of WLS patients dramatically increases. I wonder why that is?
Because they think it's the only way? Or they believe it's the only way they won't gain it all back? I wonder myself when people lose weight prior to surgery why they would go through with it. My guess is that it's not sustainable for most of them. That they're only willing to commit to it for short periods of time.

I'd love to ask some in the WLS forum, but I understand that's not allowed.

Oh, and most WLS surgeons consider losing 50% of your excess weight is a success. And sadly, a number of people going through WLS will gain it back as well.
RealCdn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:41 PM   #8  
Senior Member
 
harrismm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,344

Default

I was actually going to say the same thing regarding WLS,,,then saw Loris post.Yeah...kinda of hard to say low calorie is not successful and reasonable when thousands of people are doing the same thing by having WLS.
harrismm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 07:34 PM   #9  
Anne
 
RealCdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,631

S/C/G: 407/358-Dec2007/tracker/125

Height: 5'4"

Default

If I'm not mistaken, those who have gone through (and waiting for) WLS generally take supplements very specific to their situation. That's really the biggest problem with lower calories diets. It's hard to get in enough vitamins, minerals and good fats that your body needs.
RealCdn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 08:30 PM   #10  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori Bell View Post
This is a tricky question. Every year thousands of Doctors preform bariatric surgery on hundreds of patients each. (In the US alone) Patients are put on extremely low calorie diets before and after the surgery, and for some reason these people lose massive amounts of weight. Seems to me that if a low calorie diet was so terrible for a person, that all those Bariatric surgeons would be getting sued out the ying-yang. It also would seem that WLS would be totally unsuccessful if eating too few calories caused people to binge, and stall and go into starvation mode, and all the other things I hear people say about a 1200 calorie diet. But, for some reason each year the number of WLS patients dramatically increases. I wonder why that is?

I would argue that the wls statistics actually confirm compromised metabolism. By most estimations at least 50 to 60% of wls patients eventually regain to their prior weight or HIGHER. If metabolism weren't affected this shouldn't be possible - at least not unless the person were to eat significantly more than they ever did before the surgery. For surgeries in which a good bit of the digestive system is either removed or bypassed, "logically" even if the person didn't change their eating or exercising habits at all, they should see a dramatic weight loss, just from the effects of rerouting the digestive system - but that's not what happens.

From what I've read (and people I've talked to), the folks who regained all or most of the weight, say that they must eat far less than they did before the surgery (though certainly more than they were able to imediately after surgery). Again, if their metabolism hadn't been reduced, they should have maintained at least some of their loss by the just by the effects of the bypass itself.

Very low calorie diets "work," (in that they produce weight loss) even WITH metabolism decline, because while metabolism can be SLOWED, but it can't be stopped. You will always be able to lose weight if you cut calories far enough, because your metabolism can never reach zero.

However, if you can lose all of your weight by gradually reducing your calorie count, and end up (just for argument's sake) being able to maintain your weight on 1800 calories, it would be better (by most people's definition) than losing all your weight on 1000 calories, and end up having to eat fewer than 1500 calories to maintain your weight.

There's a good deal of evidence that metabolism CAN be reduced by low calorie dieting (especially very low calorie dieting - under 1200 calories), and also repeated gain/loss or yoyo dieting. What isn't so clear, is whether the effect is inevitable, who may be more or less likely to experience metabolism decline, and whether the changes are permanent or what factors can minimize the effects or change the course.

I've read some research that suggests that metabolism can rebound by increasing muscle ratio through exercise (though it can be difficult to exercise on very low calorie levels). Very low calorie diets also increase the risk of dieting-related complications (some dangerous, some just unpleasant) such as pulmonary hypertension, mitrovalve prolapse, cardiac arrythmia, water intoxication and other electrolyte imbalances, mild to dangerous low blood sugar drops, blood pressure changes, gallstones and other gallbladder issues, hair loss, vitamin and mineral deficiencies or malabsorption problems).

There may be others, but those are all the ones I can remember.

The best reason against very low calorie diets, is that there's a great deal of research support for them being the least effective (at least without weight loss surgery that removes or bypasses a good deal of the digestive system).

There was just a recent study that I believe found that the most effective dieters in the groups tested only reduced their daily calorie level by about 250 from their maintenance level (I haven't read the actual article yet, so I may be wrong here, though there's a good deal of other research that has found "in general" that gradual changes often are more successful than drastic ones).

Last edited by kaplods; 09-24-2009 at 02:56 AM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 09:34 PM   #11  
Just Yr Everyday Chick
 
JayEll's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,852

S/C/G: Lost 50 lbs, regained some

Height: 5'3"

Default

Well sure. If you drop calories low enough, your body will not be able to adjust. It can only lower metabolism so far to conserve--and beyond that, yeah, you're starving, and yeah, your weight will drop. You'll be losing lean body mass as well as fat because it's easier for the body to break down protein (muscle) to make glucose, rather than fats. (The body must keep blood glucose within a proper range to feed the brain. That is the first priority.)

The only tissue that routinely burns fat for energy is muscle tissue. So, if you lose muscle from a very low calorie diet, you lower your body's ability to burn fats.

Exercise helps prevent muscle loss, but only if you are eating enough, and especially enough protein, to support the muscle. If you're not eating enough and still exercising, you are just starving even faster.

The diets people go on for WLS are medically supervised--that is the one main difference.

Jay
JayEll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 10:01 PM   #12  
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 281

S/C/G: 222/136/?

Height: 5'10

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beerab View Post
I just go with this old formula I was given:

Weight x 10 = # of calories to maintain.

You are 284 so that's 2840 calories a day to maintain.

Now eating 75% of that is usually enough to get you to lose weight- so that's 2840 x .75 = 2130 calories.

This was given to me by my old trainer and it worked for quite some time (I do south beach now). Every 10 lbs you re-calculate for your new weight.

I wouldn't drastically lower your calories to 1200- you'll be hungry, lethargic, and so on. If you don't want to eat 2130 calories a day for now- I suggest going no lower than 1800 at the current moment.

Good luck.
Sorry but I really don't agree with that formula. I weight 132lbs and I'm a 24 year old male. According to your formula I should eat 1320 calories to maintain?? No way, I'd be losing 2lbs a week at that calorie level.
benchmarkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 10:15 PM   #13  
Senior Member
 
JulieJ08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: California
Posts: 7,097

S/C/G: 197/135/?

Height: 5'7"

Default

Yeah, I'm female, and I definitely maintain 140# on a lot more than 1400 calories a day. 75% of that would be 1050 calories per day to lose! To me, that's just shocking.
JulieJ08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 03:09 AM   #14  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

I've been reading and using those formulas since I was 10 or 12. One (and probably the only) good thing that did come out of childhood dieting is the boost it gave my math skills. I can owe my advanced math placement skills to learning to calorie count by 8.

I've seen so many variations on those maintenance calorie formula estimations (everything from 10 to 20 or more calories per pound, depending upon gender and lifestyle), and all I can say is that my own personal formual seems to be shrinking, and the math becomes less accurate. When I was dieting in my late teens and early 20's the prevailing wisdom was that maintenance calories were approximately 15 calories per pound for a moderately active (which I was) woman. Those numbers worked fairly well for me, but became less and less accurate over time and with each new diet.

Now, my maintenance calories are probably around 10 calories per pound (fewer if I'm not carb-conscious). Which in essence means that when I was 25 and around 320 lbs, I was eating 1500 calories more than I am eating now just to maintain my weight - and I'd estimate that those numbers are fairly accurate. I ate insane amounts of food when I was younger. I didn't eat 5000 calories every day, I'd go many days without eating or eating very little and then would binge on huge amounts of food.

What I wouldn't give to have my "old" metabolism and activity level back along with my "new" eating habits - oh that would be so awesome! (But it ain't happening, so I'd better get used to it - but I will not go on another vlc diet again, because I can't afford to let my metabolism get any lower).

Last edited by kaplods; 09-24-2009 at 03:09 AM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 09:03 AM   #15  
No description available.
 
midwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 6,915

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoXMama View Post
Hi everyone!

I am a new calorie counter... And I have roughly 130 pounds to lose.

I really wanted to start myself out at 1200 calories. But I keep reading that at my weight I should start somewhere between 1500 and 1800.

So what will happen if I am eating too few calories?

I know this is all going to take a lot of getting used to, physically and emotionally, no matter what number I end up going with, since I'm currently consuming enormous amounts of calories that are horrible for my body.

So is there really a "magic" number? Is there a formula to this that I don't know? And is there somewhere to find out what are the BEST FOODS to be eating to keep my body GOING during this change? I really don't want to get into and poop out after a week because I just can't physically handle it... again.

I'm just not sure how to get started here...

Thanks! I can't wait to get started and really get to know some people here!
Hi Moto!!

I might approach this situation a little differently. Someone around here used to have a signature that read, "My diet plan is eating as much as I can and still lose weight" or something like that. It sounds like you are eating quite a few calories at this time. Math-wise, 3500 calories = 1 lb of fat. Now our bodies aren't perfect calculators, but in general decreasing intake by 500 calories a day below maintenance level would (in theory) allow for 1 lb a week. Of course there are lots of reasons that this is not exactly so, but bear with me.

Maybe the only thing you should do for a few days is record what you are currently eating. If you currently eat 3500, then, theoretically, you could drop it to 2500 and lose 2 lbs of fat a week.

People who start out at higher weights tend to lose more than 2 lbs a week to start, but even if it "slows down" to 2 lbs a week, that is a fine rate of loss.

You are worried that you might poop out after a week. But what if that week is full of yummy healthy foods (and enough of them!) that you are satisfied but also at a reasonable calorie level. Why not try 2500 calories for a week or two? If you're losing, it is a good amount. Why starve if you can lose eating more? Some people really need to eat 1200 to lose, but I bet you can lose at a higher intake.
midwife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.