As many of you know, I have struggled and struggled with my weight. Ups and downs, health issues, etc... So I have been doing some thinking and I am wondering, Do you think a select few bodies are so precisely made that 800-1000 cals is enough? I know as a general rule that this is not safe because of the starvation mode. And I understand that. I also do not advocate ANYONE doing it. However, no two bodies or metabolisms are alike. Couldn't it be possible that someone might only lose weight eating below that mark because their body doesn't NEED 1200 cals?

Thoughts?

I think you should talk to your doctor about it. They have gone that low on The BL before, but it is closely monitored. I would check out what your BMR is and adjust it for how much exercise you are doing. Good luck!

Although it might be true that for some that's what it takes to lose weight. However, I'd say that it's people with very little to lose who are VERY inactive. I sometimes think that people eating that low might be eyeballing their portions, and not being as precise.

To give you an example, there's a show on here in Canada - "The Last 10 pounds Bootcamp". The aim is to get women to drop somewhere around 10 pounds in 4 weeks. These are women who probably only need to lose 10 pounds, although a few are probably not finished with the 10. They usually give them a 1400-1500 calorie a day diet, with 90 minutes of exercise 6 days a week. The exercise will vary but it's usually 30 mins cardio, 30 mins strength, 30 mins core work (although I've seen some variation).

The problem with dropping calories so low (ie. the 800-1000 you mention) is that unless you can drop the weight quickly, your body is going to adjust to that calorie level. Assuming you can drop the weight you need, it would be harder to maintain your weight loss. I'm not even talking about starvation mode, but your body getting used to lower calories.

My mum usually eats around 900-1100 calories per day but she has a small frame, is only 5 foot 2 and doesn't exercise. She's been dieting for 2 years and lost around 70lbs this way. It seems to be enough for her and says she's never hungry. I think what works for you will depend upon various factors but the main thing is to ensure you stay healthy, are eating a diet rich in the bodies daily requirements and to make sure it's a sustainable way to eat. If you went down to 1000 cals and were wandering around starving and lightheaded all the time then you wouldn't be doing yourself any favours.

Looking at your sig you seem to be losing already so whatever you are doing seems to be working? Try not to rush things if it's going in the right direction, it took a while to put the weight on so it will take a while for it to come off and you've done great so far

Agreed. And even though I wasn't thinking about doing it myself, it is always good advice to check with a doctor! I didn't know BL sometimes did that. Thanks for your thoughts!

Here is another example of what I mean.... a normal body temp is 98.6..... I however am normal at 97.8. So my norm is different from the suggested norm. And again, I'm not necessarily speaking of myself, just of weight loss in general.

Depends, as lower body temp can be a sign that you're not eating enough (ie. depressed metabolism). When I'm cutting calories I generally have a lower body temperature. If I'm eating at maintenance levels it goes up. I did track waking temps for a while and I'd even see 96.? now and then in the mornings. I'd raise my calories and it would be 98.?, so calories did seem to make a difference.

Heather

My BFF is seeing a dietician and is on a very low calorie diet (800-1000 cals) and she has dropped almost 50 pounds since April. I was weary when she told me how little she is eating, but she says she isn't hungry. She's closing in on her goal, so she will be moving up to a maintainance level soon.

I do agree with you though, that not everyone is the same and some people do not require as many calories as others.

I don't think everyone's body is the same.

I do think the 1200 calorie rule is there for nutrition. It is VERY hard to get all of your vitamins and minerals with less than 1200 calories. I believe it's more about optimum health than weight loss.

I think alot of people make excuses as to why they should eat such a low amount of calories, and it's unhealthy. Then they wonder why they binge on the weekends, or why they gain weight back so quickly if they stray for a short amount of time. Their body really IS starving. Some people just don't want to see it, because they think it's "working."

Hypothetically? Sure, it's possible. Likely? Not in my opinion.

I agree with Free Spirit and Realcdn. I also think that you're more likely to regret going that low if you screw up your metabolism. I think it's more likely that a body that needs that little to lose weight might have a "set point range" of a healthy weight that is above the norm. So on the one hand, it sucks bc it's harder to lose, but on the other, it's good because you can be healthy even at a higher weight. I just read that graphing BMI and morbidity results in a U-curve, where the extremes have the highest correlation with morbidity; the bottom of the U, correlated most highly with longevity, is between BMI 23 and 29.

But as you said, everyone is different and everyone's "normal" and "healthy" are different as well. I hope you find yours.

Anne- That is really interesting! I never thought of calories affecting your waking temp. Although I've been at 97.8 since childhood as a baseline, I really find it interesting that there is a direct correlation between the two.

Nella- I have also heard of people on similar, doctor controlled diets seeing success. I bet if you did further investigating, you find that she also includes a variety of supplements in her diet as well as whole, nutritional foods to make sure she is getting proper nutrients daily.

FreeSpirit- I totally agree that optimum health is more important than fast weight loss. And, I also agree that people who try a restrictive diet do end up binging or gaining back quickly.... but in my opinion..... those are people who SHOULD NOT BE DOING IT. Do you think that anyone could fall into that category? Do you think its possible for a certain body to just not need 1200?

I'm loving all of the polite discussion! Its nice to be able to bounce ideas off of each other!

Yes, I do think that are people who only need 1200, I'm not sure about less but our bodies are all different. It's likely best for someone with a very small body frame. Short, and fairly thin already. KWIM?

The problem with that is it's sooo hard to test. Start at 1800 calories and decrease each week until you find a good place. Most people don't allow for that initial "trial and error" and go straight for the good and end up hurting themselves in the long run. One of the most important things about weight loss, IMO, is trial and error. Knowing how your body functions and paying attention to cues it's giving you so that you can adjust your calories appropriately. I know 1200 is too low for me right now. I can only go 3 or 4 days without binging when I go that low. I don't sleep well, and I'm pretty cranky. OTOH at 1450 calories I feel fabulous. I don't think people realise how small amounts of calories really DO make a difference.

One more thing! I think it's more about NET calories than total calories consumed. If you're already eating 1200 calories, and exercising away 500, that's like you only ate 700 calories... which we all know is not safe at all. My rule is that if I burn more than 250 calories, I MUST have something else to eat. Usually for me it's a luna bar. I don't want to get too low with my calories. It's not necessary. Exercise is to help your body get stronger but netting so low with your calories is counter-productive.

I think I'm done now.

I'm doing a (generally) 1200 kcal/ day and wondering if that's too low. I eat every 2-3 hours and not hungry as long I eat. Often I eat 1400+ when exercising-- I use Daily Plate and they subtract exercise from food, and still aim for 1200.

Is there a way to find out whether my body is starving or not? : \

Let me say this and I really really dont recomend doing what I did. When I lost 80 pounds I was 18 220lbs and a male (still am the male part). I lost the weight in 4 months, I was eating probably 1000 calories a day and and doing 90 minutes of cardio a day. To accomplish this I was skipping lunch and barely eating dinner. I never once ran into a "plateu" (maybe that is why I don't believe in plateus") and never had starvation mode problem.

Again I seriously don't suggest you do what I did. What I did was extermely dangerous and could have screwed up my life. Just posting that it is possible some people don't hit starvation mode and less than 1200 calories is technincially possilbe.

Just because you couldn't see the effects of your body starving, doesn't mean that it wasn't. Neither of us are doctors I'm sure, but to lose weight that fast IS unhealthy and it is starving, IMO. It's healthy to lose about 1% of your body weight per week. Did you gain any of that weight back? How are your muscles afterwards? Because guaranteed you lost some muscle mass, which is another reason why the slower the better. The slower you lose the weight the more muscle mass you'll keep (generally speaking).