Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad - backed by science

« Prev 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
« Prev 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
June 12, 2013 10:25 AM
Taken from - http://www.mattmetzgar.com/2013/06/what-happens-when-you-eat-1000-calories-a-day.html

“For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels.”

This is something that doesn't get mentioned much with low-calorie diets.

So here are three things that will happen when you eat a 1,000 calorie diet (represented by LCD (low-calorie diet) in this study):

Your metabolic rate will slow.
The paper discusses this in some detail. (There was no real slowing in the CR+EX group though. In this group, it was a relatively minor calorie restriction of 12.5%, combined with an activity increase of 12.5%.)

You will lose both fat mass and fat-free mass.

Image not displayed

You will move less.

Image not displayed

It doesn’t seem like calorie restriction goes along with the “Let’s Move” campaign by Michelle Obama!

So here’s a question: how is moving less on a daily basis healthy? It’s not. Yes physical activity fell in all groups except those who were required to move via their study group (CR + EX). And this decreased movement was a direct result of calorie restriction!

To me, this study shows that giving a 1,000 calorie a day diet to a sedentary person is a recipe for disaster. They will end up with a lowered metabolic rate (independent of lean mass), loss of lean mass, and they will actually move less.

Ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19198647
  15809555
June 12, 2013 10:27 AM
That explained 1000-calorie diets, but not 1200. I've been doing 1200 for more than a year now and am doing fine.
June 12, 2013 10:33 AM
If you think 200 calories make a significant difference then carry on doing what you are doing.

EDIT

Have you not made goal in over a year?
Edited by Matt_Wild On June 12, 2013 10:42 AM
  15809555
June 12, 2013 10:39 AM
wouldn't this be relative to the person?
June 12, 2013 10:40 AM
QUOTE:

wouldn't this be relative to the person?


Look at the study. It has all your answers found within.
  15809555
June 12, 2013 10:42 AM
CR was TDEE - 25% and LCD was 890 calories/day.
  6438378
June 12, 2013 10:47 AM
Looks confusing to me. I guess I'll just stick with my 1270 calories a day that I have been doing for 6 months and have 5 more pounds to reach goal. But thanks for the science class.
  33831784
June 12, 2013 10:48 AM
QUOTE:

Looks confusing to me. I guess I'll just stick with my 1270 calories a day that I have been doing for 6 months and have 5 more pounds to reach goal. But thanks for the science class.


It means that if you eat a very large calorie deficit, bad things happen.
Edited by jonnythan On June 12, 2013 10:48 AM
  6438378
June 12, 2013 10:52 AM
I've been eating 1300-1400 cals per day and eating my exercise cals back as well... exercise is a combination of strength 3 days per week with cardio (usually swimming), and another 2 days a week just cardio... my goal right now is to decrease fat while maintaining as much lean body mass as I can in the process... once I get my bmi down to a healthy range, I'll up my cals and start working towards the more fit look... hoping this is a good process lol, its working so far it seems :)
June 12, 2013 10:53 AM
Just looking at quickly there seems to have been a similar effect with calorie restriction (TDEE - 25%) as with LCD, just not to the same degree. Maybe it's just "dose-related".

It does make sense that activity would naturally go down if you eat less, because there seems to be a drive to "maintain".
  22334493
June 12, 2013 10:53 AM
in...for the oncoming sh$t storm and show!
June 12, 2013 10:54 AM
QUOTE:

I've been eating 1300-1400 cals per day and eating my exercise cals back as well... exercise is a combination of strength 3 days per week with cardio (usually swimming), and another 2 days a week just cardio... my goal right now is to decrease fat while maintaining as much lean body mass as I can in the process... once I get my bmi down to a healthy range, I'll up my cals and start working towards the more fit look... hoping this is a good process lol, its working so far it seems :)


I would ditch BMI ...according to BMI I am "obese" but have 13% body fat..how does that work..???
June 12, 2013 10:54 AM
QUOTE:

in...for the oncoming sh$t storm and show!


^^ this
  19459490
June 12, 2013 10:56 AM
In for "Science doesn't apply to me."
  2303387
June 12, 2013 10:56 AM
QUOTE:

Just looking at quickly there seems to have been a similar effect with calorie restriction (TDEE - 25%) as with LCD, just not to the same degree. Maybe it's just "dose-related".

It does make sense that activity would naturally go down if you eat less, because there seems to be a drive to "maintain".


That's true. However, there was a big difference between LCD/CR and CR+exercise.

The lesson here is that significant metabolic adaptation can occur if you lose weight without exercising. In other words, your BMR can drop significantly if you lose weight without exercise.
  6438378
June 12, 2013 10:58 AM
well this is going to be entertaining.......
June 12, 2013 11:00 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

wouldn't this be relative to the person?


Look at the study. It has all your answers found within.


Ok. so 12.5% caloric restriction and 12.5% increase from exercise is the best route to go. it only talks about 25% but this doesnt talk about people who enter LCD+EX. Their protein was also at 15%

Only reason why I am challenging this is cause I personally ran my own 50% deficit but I knew what I was doing. I cannot do that now at how much leaner I am. Obviously I would never recommend it to any beginner. Unless they were a ex-weightlifter(at the time) like me who gained a bunch of weight)

Yea her "let's move" campaign would definitely require people to actually stay active. Saw that crap with her meat reccomendations
June 12, 2013 11:03 AM
You can say what you want but I have been surviving on a 1200 calorie diet, as recommended by my dietician, since December. It is the first time I have been successful at losing weight. I have tried dieting with higher calories allotments and with as much exercise as I am doing now...but with no results. ABSOLUTELY NONE. As I said, this is the FIRST TIME that I have been successful at losing weight in a very long time.

I also know that, as I continue on this journey of mine, my exercise is increasing not decreasing. I am moving more than ever, and loving it.

I believe everyone is different and there is no exact science to weight loss. My diet is working, better than I ever hoped it would, and I am sticking with it. It is balanced, thus providing me with all of the nutrients I need, and I can do this. No charts and graphs are going to change my mind. Thanks for trying, though. wink
  6405187
June 12, 2013 11:06 AM
QUOTE:

You can say what you want but I have been surviving on a 1200 calorie diet, as recommended by my dietician, since December. It is the first time I have been successful at losing weight. I have tried dieting with higher calories allotments and with as much exercise as I am doing now...but with no results. ABSOLUTELY NONE. As I said, this is the FIRST TIME that I have been successful at losing weight in a very long time.

I also know that, as I continue on this journey of mine, my exercise is increasing not decreasing. I am moving more than ever, and loving it.

I believe everyone is different and there is no exact science to weight loss. My diet is working, better than I ever hoped it would, and I am sticking with it. It is balanced, thus providing me with all of the nutrients I need, and I can do this. No charts and graphs are going to change my mind. Thanks for trying, though. wink

There is an exact science to weight loss. you do not defy the laws of energy
well did you confirm not having hypothyroidism?
Did you weigh all your food out?
Did you have a diary?
June 12, 2013 11:07 AM
I don't know much about the science of that study. I do however know that I was maintaining a 1600 calorie diet and after getting a metabolic test, I'm under eating by 600 cals a day. Without factoring in my excersice. I had this test done at Kaiser and it turns out my metabolism is faster than normal. For each person I'm sure that right number of calories depends on their resting burn. 1200 is a average, which means there are going to be outliers.
  33227549
June 12, 2013 11:09 AM
they are NOT BAD,,,, and you get back it any way you want.
  18764101
June 12, 2013 11:14 AM
Title should say: Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad FOR SOME PEOPLE - backed by BAD science.
June 12, 2013 11:24 AM
QUOTE:

Title should say: Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad FOR SOME PEOPLE - backed by BAD science.


It should really be "why losing weight while exercising is much better than losing weight without exercising."
  6438378
June 12, 2013 11:31 AM
QUOTE:

they are NOT BAD,,,, and you get back it any way you want.


ehhh?
June 12, 2013 11:41 AM
Redacted.

Broscience: it's completely unquestionable and 100% reliable! XD
Edited by PepperWorm On June 12, 2013 11:43 AM
  41905005

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.