General chatter - You know how people say not to go under 1000 calories a day?




GotothegymOKAY
04-17-2012, 03:56 PM
^^ Well I don't believe that anymore.

I observe my naturally thin (and completely healthy) roommates and friends whose minds don't revolve around food. If I add up what they eat from morning to night, there's no way it even hits 900 calories. They seem healthy, energetic, and don't have sunken cheeks or protruding bones LOL. I feel like that's people's secret to staying thin, and they don't even realize they are doing it.

Can I get some thoughts on this? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I'm just saying what I've noticed. Thanks!! :D


ICUwishing
04-17-2012, 04:18 PM
I've seen far too many exceptions to that rule - and even a couple that go the other way, as in morbidly obese people who *maintain* on less than 1000 per day. Seems to me that if you're meeting your energy needs with what you're eating and you're not absolutely miserable ... try it and see what happens. One of our superstar maintainers used to say "We are all an experiment of 1". There are basic formulas that can get almost everybody headed down the right path, but experience says that there is nothing out there that will work for everybody, forever. Nothing seems to drive long-time maintainers crazier than needing to drop a few gained pounds, and discovering that the old formula doesn't work any more.

cherrypie
04-17-2012, 04:19 PM
is it possible they are eating things you don't see?


juliana77
04-17-2012, 04:21 PM
But I am sure they go out drinking or out to dinner and have a high day, so their average will be higher than that. Your body doesn't reset at midnight :)

pixelllate
04-17-2012, 04:23 PM
I agree. Thats why I think that eating at maintenance creates taht woosh-its probably water weight. Sometimes I wonder if I should just "hold out" and just see if I get a (huge) woosh later by just sticking with the diet, or try eating at maintenance so I can see my "true" non water weight.
(edit-I mean there are extremities and exceptions to the rule, but I read somewhere that "fast" or "slow" metabolisms are rarer than we think-not saying its impossible, just less common than thought. I find that the very active thin people I know eat a lot, but they prob burn it off, and the less active thin people just feel like eating less and they might eat a lot when they eat out, but not when they get home etc etc, i know for me i just ate a ton all the time)

From leangains
The hypothesis has credibility if we look at the hormonal response to starvation diets. "Starvation diets" in this context simply mean any diet approach that results in a very high weekly caloric deficit created through diet and/or exercise. This is perceived as a significant stress to the body, to which it responds with chronically raised levels of cortisol. Some cortisol is great, but too much of it is very bad; and studies suggest that cortisol increases in a dose-dependent manner related to the calorie deficit. Prolonged elevations of cortisol can lead to massive water retention. If you've ever been treated with hydrocortisone, a pharmaceutical form of cortisol, you know what I mean.

* The above makes me wonder if the myth of "starvation mode" is actually perpetuated by extreme dieters who find themselves not losing any weight on starvation-level caloric intake (due to severe water retention obscuring weight loss). While some metabolic slowdown occurs during any diet, it's never so profound that it completely negates a substantial calorie deficit. For example, during The Minnesota Experiment the researchers noted a 15-20% reduction in basal metabolic rate at the end of the study (it was actually 40% compared to the start of the study, but this was due to a higher body weight; a large percentage of the drop could be explained by the simple fact that they weighed less and not due to any hormonal impact).

imnotperfect24
04-17-2012, 04:24 PM
I've tired going under 1000 and for me it didnt work. I felt like I was starving. LOL

Some people can do it and some cant it just depends on your body and energy level.

sontaikle
04-17-2012, 04:27 PM
Do they eat like that EVERY SINGLE DAY at EVERY MOMENT?

Probably not. It likely averages out over time.

thundahthighs
04-17-2012, 04:35 PM
I have always, always advocated that if you have done the math, the calorie math, and you SWEAR you are only eating THAT MUCH and you are still not losing, firstly, stop lying about the three bites of brownie you snuck and didn't count, and secondly, start measuring your portions.

As far as your friends, and how much they eat, we really can't know for certain unless, of course, you start following them for a week at a time and measuring their food before they eat it. Which, I, um, cannot advise.

But I do advise that you get really strict about your food - measure your portions and don't sneak bites of anything -and get really strict about eating really clean, and I think you will see weight start to come off at higher calorie counts than you previously thought possible.

:hug: :)

pixelllate
04-17-2012, 04:35 PM
I've tired going under 1000 and for me it didnt work. I felt like I was starving. LOL

Some people can do it and some cant it just depends on your body and energy level.

Yah I think that in a way that low-cal hypothesis is dependent on the condition that you will maintain activity level no matter how you feel (so all the variables are constant other than cal level), which may or may not work for people in the real world, depending on how much you are willing to go through. Its all good-whatever works for anyone, but I just find it all fascinating lol.
You know what kind of boggles my mind sometimes? How even though I am eating at a cal deficit, I ate more nutrients than I ever did at 4000+ cal a day when i was a huge binger-because my diet was just comprised of 2 things-Nutella and lots and lots of cheap bread. Despite the huge quanitites, in a way, I was more "malnourished"(mal-nutritioned? whatever it is haha) than now lol.

freelancemomma
04-17-2012, 04:48 PM
I agree.I mean there are extremities and exceptions to the rule, but I read somewhere that "fast" or "slow" metabolisms are rarer than we think-not saying its impossible, just less common than thought. I find that the very active thin people I know eat a lot, but they prob burn it off, and the less active thin people just feel like eating less and they might eat a lot when they eat out, but not when they get home etc etc, i know for me i just ate a ton all the time

My reading and observations have led me to the same conclusions.

F.

LockItUp
04-17-2012, 05:18 PM
Would you mind sharing their diet for the day you observed?

If I had to guess, I'd think their average weekly calories end up a little higher.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a 900 calorie day here and there either way.

Nadya
04-17-2012, 05:23 PM
is it possible they are eating things you don't see?

I was wondering the exact same thing. How does the OP know what these people are eating from sun up to sun down? :mag:

GotothegymOKAY
04-17-2012, 05:31 PM
I was wondering the exact same thing. How does the OP know what these people are eating from sun up to sun down? :mag:

Sometimes my roommates and I will spend an entire Sat and Sunday together, for example. While I'll be constantly snacking and eating meals, they barely get up for lunch and something tiny for dinner and practically forget to eat snacks in between. I was serious when I said this happens right in front of my face lol!

Arctic Mama
04-17-2012, 06:16 PM
A lot of 'naturally' thin folks end up calorie cycling in the long run. They eat a big meal and eat lighter the next day, or save their calories for spends like holidays or weekends, date night, etc, and maintain the rest of the time. And some very small people just don't take a lot of energy in, especially as they age they eat more lightly.

There are no rules, only general guidelines by which you start and adjust from there ;)

Kahokkuri
04-17-2012, 08:51 PM
I observe my naturally thin (and completely healthy) roommates and friends whose minds don't revolve around food.
A lot of people responding to this post are responding directly to your question about <1000kcal, but this is what stuck out most to me. In my Psych of Language class (of all places) we watched a video that touched on the way young children think about food. Some are naturally programmed to ignore food when they're not hungry (i.e., right after a meal) while others will eat a snack immediately after lunch if it's placed in front of them, even if it's during play time when they're focusing on other tasks.

Of course, plenty of other factors will be introduced in time–parents' eating habits and exercise are probably just the beginning–but I think there is a fundamental difference between the way people think about food, and it may not even be a dichotomy like the one mentioned in the video.

Whether your naturally thin friends are eating 900kcal or 1500 or 2200, it sounds like they aren't obsessed with food. Maybe they're the type who don't think about food if their body isn't actively asking for it and that allows them to avoid extraneous calories.

QuarterLife88
04-17-2012, 08:54 PM
I feel like that's people's secret to staying thin, and they don't even realize they are doing it.

That's exactly what it is. They eat according to when their bodies tell them, not the clock or the newest fad diet.

They may eat lightly one day and a lot more the next. Like someone else said, it averages itself out over the week.

I've noticed that the more thought people give to food, (i.e., worrying about their dinner while they are still eating breakfast!!) the more likely they are to have a persistent weight problem v people who give food little thought, eat when they are hungry, and move on with life. Food is not a pedestal for them.

It's not natural to think of food 24/7 - unless of course you are literally starving.:hun:

pixelllate
04-17-2012, 08:56 PM
A lot of people responding to this post are responding directly to your question about <1000kcal, but this is what stuck out most to me. In my Psych of Language class (of all places) we watched a video that touched on the way young children think about food. Some are naturally programmed to ignore food when they're not hungry (i.e., right after a meal) while others will eat a snack immediately after lunch if it's placed in front of them, even if it's during play time when they're focusing on other tasks.

Of course, plenty of other factors will be introduced in time–parents' eating habits and exercise are probably just the beginning–but I think there is a fundamental difference between the way people think about food, and it may not even be a dichotomy like the one mentioned in the video.

Whether your naturally thin friends are eating 900kcal or 1500 or 2200, it sounds like they aren't obsessed with food. Maybe they're the type who don't think about food if their body isn't actively asking for it and that allows them to avoid extraneous calories.

I kind of wonder if thats the reason why a lot of diets have a several meals a day vs a few bigger meals a day. Maybe some of those diets are created with people who lost a lot of weight but are obsessed with food, so for them its calming for them to frequently eat (but still remain at a deficit because the meals are so small)

Justwant2Bhealthy
04-17-2012, 08:57 PM
I found a few of my friends ate little during the day, but when they did, it wasn't healthy stuff, like a bag of chips & a cola, or chocolate bars for lunch and dinner at home with family. OR, they only drank coffee all day but then had a big mac & fries & a milkshake for dinner -- that has a lot of calories in it.

OR, a half a pizza for dinner; and ya, don't forget the booze calories -- that can add up fast. OR, they graze over the whole evening: chips, nuts, pizza, booze, etc. Some eat only a little while with their friends, but eat more when they are not around. A lot of teens & young people eat a lot of munchies, which are high in calories: one bag can have 1000-1500 calories.

A couple of very little ones -- ate very little, but they didn't expend much energy either; they only went to school or just bumbed around all day after sleeping in til noon. But then, how much food does a 4'11" - 100 lb girl need to maintain, who doesn't work or do any strenuous exercise other than lifting a ciggie to her mouth ... ;)

Yes, there are probably a few small girls who eat less, but there are just as many who eat normal or even a lot, and just don't gain -- until they get older, that is. :lol:

Demosthenes
04-17-2012, 09:08 PM
^^ Well I don't believe that anymore.

I observe my naturally thin (and completely healthy) roommates and friends whose minds don't revolve around food. If I add up what they eat from morning to night, there's no way it even hits 900 calories. They seem healthy, energetic, and don't have sunken cheeks or protruding bones LOL. I feel like that's people's secret to staying thin, and they don't even realize they are doing it.

Can I get some thoughts on this? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I'm just saying what I've noticed. Thanks!! :D

How many people have you been monitoring for 24 hours? It seems like "thin" people don't eat much, but they do eat enough to support their body weight. There is nothing magical about how your body works. Your body is a very complex machine. <900 calories is insufficient for the vast majority of adults to live on. Plus, if what you said is true (and you picked up on it after only monitoring your friends for a little bit) don't you think that scientists/doctors would have figured this out? Don't let watching your thin friends become an excuse for sabotaging yourself.

GotothegymOKAY
04-18-2012, 11:09 PM
Don't let watching your thin friends become an excuse for sabotaging yourself.

I completely understand, and I know I should be happy that I'm practically at goal! I guess it's just that when you are roommates/best friends with someone for 2 years, chances are you're probably pretty accurate on their overall eating habits/patterns.

And if it sounds like I'm jealous that food is always the farthest thing from her mind and she barely has the urge to eat all day- it's because I am. :^: There's no denying that one! But that's "naturally skinny-thinking" for ya!

Aside from being [perhaps irrationally :) ] A tad annoyed/jealous, I'm also 100% genuinely fascinated. While I spent all my life always eating constantly throughout the day and thinking about food non-stop, I never cease to be amazed at my friends who I am around for hours on a daily basis who have such a healthy, eat-for-fuel-only, relationship with food.

indiblue
04-19-2012, 02:58 AM
1. There is no way you know how many calories they eat without weighing their food. The difference between 200 calories worth of peanut butter or salad dressing is a few grams. You cannot possibly tell this by eyeballing what is on someone else's plate. (Not to mention you are not watching that individual 24 hours a day.)

2. There is nothing wrong with eating fewer than 1000 calories a day every now and then. The important number is the long-run average. In the long run, is the individual getting enough nutrients, fat, protein, and calories to support his/her body? I sometimes eat around 800 calories a day (right after my period or when I am inactive) and sometimes 2000 calories a day (two weeks before my period, or when I am very active). The body doesn't need the exact same number of calories every day. Hormones, activity level, etc impact how hungry or satiated a person feels each day. It will be different. The body does not run on a 24-hour cycle like we do. It's the long-term average that is important.

indiblue
04-19-2012, 03:04 AM
While I spent all my life always eating constantly throughout the day and thinking about food non-stop, I never cease to be amazed at my friends who I am around for hours on a daily basis who have such a healthy, eat-for-fuel-only, relationship with food.

Sorry, had to comment on this as well. I think the idea of the eat-for-fuel-only relationship with food is not normal. Food has always been one of the most important components of society-- it is one of the most valued means of building relationships with each other, forming a family unit, developing traditions, passing along cultures, etc.

I have lived most of the past few years in developing countries and travel extensively. I have NEVER seen this idea of food-for-fuel, except in modern day diet-obsessed America. Trying to distance food from emotions 100% is like relegating sex to completely functional purposes. Food is highly cultural and emotional.

Rather than removing all joy, pleasure, feelings of inclusiveness/belonging, tradition from food, I think our society needs to work more on building a healthy, normal relationship. Turkey and cranberry sauce reminds us of Thanksgiving, Dad's homemade beef stew bring us feelings of comfort and family, and apple pie can make us feel patriotic in its own funny way. Eating pizza with kids once a semester to celebrate good grades is what our parents did with us, it's a family tradition. We shouldn't be ashamed of these feelings, and we shouldn't try to suppress them.

Of course, using food extensively for comfort, extensive reward, or during times of depression is also not healthy. There's a balance to be struck. One extreme or the other is not the way to go.

fitwayoflife
04-19-2012, 05:21 AM
Sometimes my roommates and I will spend an entire Sat and Sunday together, for example. While I'll be constantly snacking and eating meals, they barely get up for lunch and something tiny for dinner and practically forget to eat snacks in between. I was serious when I said this happens right in front of my face lol!

I wonder how healthy they are though? They're probably missing a bunch of nutrients. I love feeding myself three meals a day and some snacks. I love fueling my body on a consistent schedule.

krampus
04-19-2012, 12:00 PM
Sorry, had to comment on this as well. I think the idea of the eat-for-fuel-only relationship with food is not normal. Food has always been one of the most important components of society-- it is one of the most valued means of building relationships with each other, forming a family unit, developing traditions, passing along cultures, etc.

I have lived most of the past few years in developing countries and travel extensively. I have NEVER seen this idea of food-for-fuel, except in modern day diet-obsessed America. Trying to distance food from emotions 100% is like relegating sex to completely functional purposes. Food is highly cultural and emotional.

Rather than removing all joy, pleasure, feelings of inclusiveness/belonging, tradition from food, I think our society needs to work more on building a healthy, normal relationship. Turkey and cranberry sauce reminds us of Thanksgiving, Dad's homemade beef stew bring us feelings of comfort and family, and apple pie can make us feel patriotic in its own funny way. Eating pizza with kids once a semester to celebrate good grades is what our parents did with us, it's a family tradition. We shouldn't be ashamed of these feelings, and we shouldn't try to suppress them.

Of course, using food extensively for comfort, extensive reward, or during times of depression is also not healthy. There's a balance to be struck. One extreme or the other is not the way to go.

Nodding my head enthusiastically to all of this. Well said, indiblue!

Rainbowgirl
04-20-2012, 07:12 AM
nevermind it's probably not very popular.