Under eating?

Tubsand

I am hoping someone might be able to answer a few queries I have after a discussion with some work mates. I have asked from advice for you guys before and it was very helpful. I have changed my eating habits and use weights and have found I sleep better and feel better in general. So thank you.

Can you undereat, so that you dont lose weight? One girl, doesn't exercise much, maybe a walk twice a week eats 3 times a day. (boiled eggs, yogurts,salads with feta, fruit, veg, stir frys, some chicken and maybe beef the odd day, sometimes a small chocolate bar) And can't seem to lose weight. She is under the impression that because she is eating too few calories that her body is living off what it has.
I went on to a site and we put in her stats, and her calories for the day. Says she needs 1400 a day, and all she is eating is 1100. She has only lost 2 pounds in 5 weeks( and she would have about 2 stone to lose, she says). She says that she is full everyday and couldn't really eat much more.
So what do you think?

Adelie

Tubsand wrote: »

I am hoping someone might be able to answer a few queries I have after a discussion with some work mates. I have asked from advice for you guys before and it was very helpful. I have changed my eating habits and use weights and have found I sleep better and feel better in general. So thank you.

Can you undereat, so that you dont lose weight? One girl, doesn't exercise much, maybe a walk twice a week eats 3 times a day. (boiled eggs, yogurts,salads with feta, fruit, veg, stir frys, some chicken and maybe beef the odd day, sometimes a small chocolate bar) And can't seem to lose weight. She is under the impression that because she is eating too few calories that her body is living off what it has.
I went on to a site and we put in her stats, and her calories for the day. Says she needs 1400 a day, and all she is eating is 1100. She has only lost 2 pounds in 5 weeks( and she would have about 2 stone to lose, she says). She says that she is full everyday and couldn't really eat much more.
So what do you think?

Would be worth going to her GP and getting blood tests done to see if all is OK, if she's really eating that little and not losing weight.

edit: actually she is losing weight, 2lb in 5 weeks isn't bad if she continues losing at that rate

Bottle_of_Smoke

If its not medical the only thing it could be is she is underestimating her calorie intake. If you didn't lose weight from undereating there'd be no such thing as starvation.

Obvious candidates:

Does she drink? if so let her know this must be included in calorie intake, as well as pointing out alcohol is calorie dense

Is she incorrectly calculating calories consumed? ie perhaps eating more pasta/bigger portion sizes than she thinks

SteelyDanJalapeno

If she's under eating a deficit of 300 calories a day, she is roughly losing 0.6 pounds per week,

So 2 lbs is not that far off what she should expect to lose,

Tubsand

Adelie wrote: »

Would be worth going to her GP and getting blood tests done to see if all is OK, if she's really eating that little and not losing weight.

edit: actually she is losing weight, 2lb in 5 weeks isn't bad if she continues losing at that rate

She already did, everything came back clear. (she was convinced it was her thyroid :rolleyes:)
I know I said that it was great loss too but she said she has gone from eating really high fat things like lots of crisps, take aways about 3 or 4 times a week. Stopped eating bread, potatoes etc.
She is very disheartened gone from major eating to eating good food and she feels like its not working.
I work with a group of girls and one of them is in ww, where she says if you don't eat all your points a day, you won't lose. I think that is where she came up with this conclusion.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Horgan wrote: »

If she's under eating a deficit of 300 calories a day, she is roughly losing 0.6 pounds per week,

So 2 lbs is not that far off what she should expect to lose,

Was thinkin that too. On average would have expected a loss of 3lbs by now with that deficit, however, it may be possible other fluctuations such as hydration level at time of weighing is playing a part here

On the other hand isn't it normal that people lose more in the first few weeks and then stablise to a steady weight loss?

SteelyDanJalapeno

1400 sounds very low anyway, as does 1100!

I had about 500 for breakfast!

Red Cortina

If your friend has 2 stone to lose and if she is living on 1100cals/day (which sounds shockingly low to me) and if the weight is not falling off her at a rate faster than 2lbs/5weeks then it sound to me like something else might be going on.

I honestly don't know what that might be but I will say that I think there is more to losing weight than calories in vs calories out. And I would say that rather than aiming to lose a certain amount of weight, that probably a long term goal of being healthier and eating real food would serve your friend better.

An obseity researcher called Stephan Guyenet did a great interview here http://www.bizymoms.com/diet-and-dieting/top-blogger-interviews/health-and-well-being.php where he said that 'Losing weight is not about burning calories. It's about restoring the normal function of body's hormones.' And I think that he is right. He also gives great advice in the article regarding what to eat.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Was thinkin that too. On average would have expected a loss of 3lbs by now with that deficit, however, it may be possible other fluctuations such as hydration level at time of weighing is playing a part here

On the other hand isn't it normal that people lose more in the first few weeks and then stablise to a steady weight loss?

Yeah, depending on what she was eating before hand, as its water weight thats the big loss people see in the 1st week or 2, eating starchy carbs for a few weeks, then cutting them would see this drop in weight for example,

Bottle_of_Smoke

What height/weight is she anyway?

Tubsand

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What height/weight is she anyway?

Im not too sure on her height but she would similar to me, maybe 5 ft 6 or 7, and she weighs 12 stone 13 now after losing the few pounds. She doesn't look that big so I was surprised when she told me. She carries it well.

Adelie

At her height and weight there's no way should she be eating only 1100 a day, even 1400 is probably too low. I don't know if she is counting wrong or if she has some body function issue like Red Cortina suggested, but that really doesn't sound right.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tubsand wrote: »

Im not too sure on her height but she would similar to me, maybe 5 ft 6 or 7, and she weighs 12 stone 13 now after losing the few pounds. She doesn't look that big so I was surprised when she told me. She carries it well.

Something not right there, when you put in the stats what height did you use?

Is she's consuming 1100 cals a day she should have lost 8-9 pounds by now. her calorie deficit is approx 800cals a day

Tubsand

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Something not right there, when you put in the stats what height did you use?

Is she's consuming 1100 cals a day she should have lost 8-9 pounds by now. her calorie deficit is approx 800cals a day

She put it in herself, in inches, and it said to lose 1 to 2 pounds a week she needs 1410 calories. It was my fitnesspal we used. What is the norm calories a woman shoould eat? 800 deficit is a lot:eek:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tubsand wrote: »

She put it in herself, in inches, and it said to lose 1 to 2 pounds a week she needs 1410 calories. It was my fitnesspal we used. What is the norm calories a woman shoould eat? 800 deficit is a lot:eek:

Yeah 1400 cals should make her lose approx 1lb per week.(approx 500cal deficit) but if she's only eating 1100 calories she'd lose approx 1.6lbs per week, which adds up over 5weeks

So some glitch somehwere, seems she's eating more than 1100 calories

corkcomp

If I were to guess Id be almost 100% sure calories in vs calories out doesnt add up to enough deficit i.e. she isnt doing enough exercise and is under estimating food intake... the starvation theory is over thought / used IMO and only really comes into play in extreme cases.

EileenG

This thing of under-eating is a bit of misunderstood science. Yes, there is such a thing as starvation mode where your metabolism slows down and weight loss is slower. But the clue is in the name. Starvation. You have to be eating so little that you are literally starving, and are always hungry, and find it difficult to do ordinary things like work and read and exercise.

Even then, the maximum recorded slow-down is 30% and that was in cases of severe starvation, so that weight loss should still continue, but at a slower rate than you'd expect from the calorie deficit.

I would swear on a stack of bibles that anyone who is eating all that your friend is eating, is not in starvation mode or in any danger of getting there. I'm willing to put a lot of money on her not being too good at counting her calories. Salad and stirfry, for instance, can add up to a lot of calories depending on what you put on them.

For someone who had been dieting for two weeks, starvation mode and metabolism slow down is not an issue. This is a long term problem. For most people the danger of lowering calories below a certain point is not starvation mode, it the likelyhood of binges.