So I downloaded an app that if I didn't exercise, I would need to eat 2100 cals to lose 1 lb/week, or 1180 to lose 3 lbs. I'm thinking about just having that as a range that I can eat from, but I'm afraid too many 1200 days may affect my metabolism. What do you think?
Starvation mode is a myth. Worrying about metabolic slowdown is pointless.
-- way to sound like the poster child for anorexia---
this guy does make one good point though-- that you need to find a calorie level that you can sustain for the long term. i really draw the line at 1200 calories, considering the fact that if you calculate your BMR i.e. basal metabolic rate aka the base amount that your body would need to survive if you were in a coma, and it would be more than 1200.
you need to eat fuel in order to burn fuel which means you can diet 1 of 2 ways--
1. you can starve yourself, not exercise which will lead to you feeling not so great and possibly giving up or if you are successful being "skinny fat" or you can
2. eat a little more, like 1300, but make a commitment to exercise and build muscle and get stronger/more fit. there's less of a chance that you will give up, but it will take longer than starving yourself.
Whew.... that's good to know... So I guess I'll shoot for 1200 but if I'm still wanting more food or going out to eat or whatever, then I'd have no problem going to 2100. I'd probably go thru phases. I am planning on adding in exercise (and the calories to go with it) in the future. 1200 cals is actually easier for me to stick to than exercise.
-- way to sound like the poster child for anorexia---
Wow! That was quite a leap you made.
JohnP did not say starve yourself. He said starvation mode is a myth. Which it is. At no point in calorie reduction does the body freeze and say "I am not losing any more weight!" That's helpful for individuals to know how are able to get adequate nutrition and proper energy on lower levels of calorie consumption (1400, 1200 calories). Several 3FC big "losers" have lost and maintained in a very healthy, balanced way on these levels of calories. The OP may be able in fact to do so as well at 1180 calories, which may be a great number at which she can healthily lose. I don't know and I'm not recommending that she does so. I don't think JohnP was either, but rather picking a number that is sustainable and appropriate.
I don't think by providing correct, factual information about the myth around "starvation mode" equates promoting anorexia.
At 4X I'm thinking that 1200 will be very difficult, that is too low, to maintain. Diet "smart" not "hard". Find a site and add in your current stats, height, age, weight, activity level. Request how many calories daily it takes to maintain your current weight. Then, deduct 500 from the daily total. Start with that.
Make changes that are sustainable. Find substitutions that work for you. Move more. Make healthier choices and have less of the rest.
I am currently 176.8 - I eat between 1200 and 1400 daily...leaning towards the 1400. Some days are easier than others.
Basically, don't set a target so low that it isn't sustainable. It also isn't necessary to make it so difficult that its hard to get through.
You may wish to post in the calories counting forum.
JohnP did not say starve yourself. He said starvation mode is a myth.
you see, the first thing i that
when you tell someone that starvation mode is a myth, you're insinuating, then, that there is no such thing as too few calories, are you not? if that is the case, someone who is eager to lose weight would say "hey, if i were able to feel okay on 1180, why not try for 1000 tomorrow? and then tomorrow comes and they ate at 1000 and they think "hey, i'm losing weight, if i eat at 900 tomorrow, i'll lose it faster, and so on..."-- which leads to eating extremely small amounts on purpose(anorexia).
you may know what a healthy and yet small amount of calories may be like something close to 1200 and above, but for someone new to this, they will be tempted to take it to the extreme to get to their goal faster, and telling them that starvation mode is a myth would give them the wrong impression of nutrition.
I am a huge proponent of eating as much as you can to still lose so that you can decrease accordingly. Plus it's not so overwhelming in the beginning that way. I eat 1600-1800 (sometimes even more if I'm hungry) and still lose when I'm doing it consistently, and also when I'm exercising. On days I'm not working out, I can eat less because I'm not that hungry. I am sure that I could be fine with 1400 calories now, but when I started out a few months ago there would be no way I'd stick with that.
Anyway, I don't know what your stats are, but I'd be willing to bet that you'd lose fine at significantly more than 1200 calories. Just try a few different levels out and see where you lose the best and feel most comfortable and in control. Good luck!
when you tell someone that starvation mode is a myth, you're insinuating, then, that there is no such thing as too few calories, are you not? if that is the case, someone who is eager to lose weight would say "hey, if i were able to feel okay on 1180, why not try for 1000 tomorrow? and then tomorrow comes and they ate at 1000 and they think "hey, i'm losing weight, if i eat at 900 tomorrow, i'll lose it faster, and so on..."-- which leads to eating extremely small amounts on purpose(anorexia).
you may know what a healthy and yet small amount of calories may be like something close to 1200 and above, but for someone new to this, they will be tempted to take it to the extreme to get to their goal faster, and telling them that starvation mode is a myth would give them the wrong impression of nutrition.
Saying that starvation mode is a myth and encouraging somebody to eat fewer calories are two completely different things.
At 4X I'm thinking that 1200 will be very difficult, that is too low, to maintain. Diet "smart" not "hard". Find a site and add in your current stats, height, age, weight, activity level. Request how many calories daily it takes to maintain your current weight. Then, deduct 500 from the daily total. Start with that.
Make changes that are sustainable. Find substitutions that work for you. Move more. Make healthier choices and have less of the rest.
I am currently 176.8 - I eat between 1200 and 1400 daily...leaning towards the 1400. Some days are easier than others.
Basically, don't set a target so low that it isn't sustainable. It also isn't necessary to make it so difficult that its hard to get through.
You may wish to post in the calories counting forum.
Good luck.
^^This
I say start with a bigger allowance of calories and slowly cut them out.
IMO doing this will help keep you from binging because you're not feeling deprived, crashing from lack of nutrition, and it will give you an opportunity, as you're logging your calories and portions, to figure out what healthier substitutions you can make in your meals.
when you tell someone that starvation mode is a myth, you're insinuating, then, that there is no such thing as too few calories, are you not?
No. The myth of starvation mode states that at some point your body stops losing weight. This doesn't happen. Explaining to someone that this is untrue does not mean that there is no such things as too few calories. If someone eats 400 calories a day, that is too few calories to sustain their health, but that doesn't mean they will stop losing weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayohwhy
if that is the case, someone who is eager to lose weight would say "hey, if i were able to feel okay on 1180, why not try for 1000 tomorrow? and then tomorrow comes and they ate at 1000 and they think "hey, i'm losing weight, if i eat at 900 tomorrow, i'll lose it faster, and so on..."-- which leads to eating extremely small amounts on purpose(anorexia).
you may know what a healthy and yet small amount of calories may be like something close to 1200 and above, but for someone new to this, they will be tempted to take it to the extreme to get to their goal faster, and telling them that starvation mode is a myth would give them the wrong impression of nutrition.
We are all eager to lose weight. It doesn't take too much brainpower to realize that not eating leads us to lose weight. This isn't a secret. Many of us have friends who have lost weight quickly and they do struggle with disordered eating.
The vast majority of us are balanced in our approach to dieting. Very few of us want to lose weight at all costs. We know that if we don't eat anything, or eat 500 calories a day or 800 calories a day we will do serious damage to our heart, skin, hair, mental functioning, etc.
I understand your concern with someone trying to go too low in their calories. Some people are prone to do that. But you assume that is the default and I'm not sure why. Telling people a myth about weight loss is not going to stop those who have problems with disordered eating from struggling, and it's not helpful for those who don't.
Providing factual information about nutrition and weight loss is critical for people to make important personal decisions about their weight loss process.
It's not a secret that eating nothing or close to nothing every day will lead to fast weight loss.
I don't think perpetuating myths to try to protect people from themselves- especially those who are new at dieting and are the ones most needing factual information- is the right way to do it.
I agree that you should start higher and then gradually decrease until you find what's comfortable for you.
I weigh 115 lbs. If I eat 1,200 calories a day, I am irritable, tired and constantly obsessing about food. During the times I've tried it to "jumpstart" weight loss, I almost always end up binging. Of course, that's just me. And I've got my own binge issues. But I do suggest gradually decreasing calories rather than immediately restricting to find your own personal "sweet spot."
Stick around. I may surprise you and make another good point now and again.
I really have tried hard to read my post and come to the conclusion I was promoting starvation but I am unable to.
For the record - I am not promoting people starve themselves. I am against fasting for more than 24 hours. I believe "clense" diets are worthless and counter productive.
My point simply was, and is, that worrying about metabolic slowdown is a waste of one's time. I can go into quite a bit of detail on this subject if you like but if you are unaware of the science behind this go read up on the minnesota starvation study. In true starvation conditions the bodies adapation of metabolism slowdown was only 10-15% varying by the individual.
So I woke up this morning feeling ravenous.... ate a 500 cal breakfast and 400 cal lunch. Will go home and eat a bowl of cereal, a scoop of full fat ice cream and have a moderate dinner. I'll make it under 2100 cals and I don't feel guilty one bit. I think that should satisfy me enough to put in a 1200 day tomorrow but if I don't feel like it I wont stress. And Saturday I have two events to go to, so I am definitely not doing 1200 that day.'ll just keep fruit and salad with me to help fill me up beforehand and I'll muddle through as best I can. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I can put in a 1200 cal day, I will, but I will also listen to my body and my cravings and if I want the freedom to eat more, I have a range
Last edited by snarkysharky; 10-20-2011 at 04:32 PM.
So I woke up this morning feeling ravenous.... ate a 500 cal breakfast and 400 cal lunch. Will go home and eat a bowl of cereal, a scoop of full fat ice cream and have a moderate dinner. I'll make it under 2100 cals and I don't feel guilty one bit. I think that should satisfy me enough to put in a 1200 day tomorrow but if I don't feel like it I wont stress. And Saturday I have two events to go to, so I am definitely not doing 1200 that day.'ll just keep fruit and salad with me to help fill me up beforehand and I'll muddle through as best I can. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I can put in a 1200 cal day, I will, but I will also listen to my body and my cravings and if I want the freedom to eat more, I have a range
As someone who started off counting calories while eating whatever I wanted as long as it fit into the calorie guidelines I will tell you this:
Some foods are going to be more filling than others and generally speaking the more processed the foods are the more they are going to do very little to satiate your hunger. Though exerimentation I've found I can be signifigantly more satisfied on 1500 calories than 2500 calories and 2000 calories of the wrong foods will leave me feeling like I ate almost nothing all day.
For me (and from what I have read most people are similar) if the bulk of my calories come from veggies, fruits, lean meats and the fat used to cook these items in I will be far more satisfied per calorie than eating prepackaged processed foods.
The most difficult part of this whole thing is first understanding, than accepting, and finally adopting forever a healthy way of eating.
I'm not saying you should never eat ice cream. I'm only suggesting that we all got fat because of whatver way of eating we had and to keep the weight off forever requires a new way of eating forever.
Sorry I'm starting to ramble a bit ... just educate yourself as much as possible because knowledge is power.
How many calories?
