Calories too low??

Reality_Check1

This is just something I was looking for clarification on as it comes up on this forum a lot where someone posts looking for advice particularly for weight loss and the advice given is you need to eat more as your calorie intake is too low.

My question: Is that even possible? Ok consider a diet where you get your protein in @ a minimum of 2g/kg or enough to stop muscle loss does it really matter after that if you have a deficit of 200 cals or 1200 cals? I know from a diet adherence point of view it makes sense but is there any other reason?

TommyKnocker

Yes, You can eat too few calories.

There is a figure called your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), which is the number of calories your body needs each day just to survive. If you lay in bed all day and didn't move your body would burn this amount of calories.

It is quite probable that simply eating 2g/kg of protein would not provide sufficient calories to meet this requirement. This is before you take into consideration the various vitamins, minerals and trace elements your body needs to function, which will only be gotten through a varied, healthy diet consisting of all 3 Macro nutrients (Protein, Fat & Carbs).

As I understand it, you should never eat below your BMR over a prolonged period of time if you want to avoid health issues.

Mellor

If intake was 2g Protein per kg and nothing else. I'd doubt it would be enough to prevent muscle loss.

Reality_Check1

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Yes, You can eat too few calories.

There is a figure called your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), which is the number of calories your body needs each day just to survive. If you lay in bed all day and didn't move your body would burn this amount of calories.

It is quite probable that simply eating 2g/kg of protein would not provide sufficient calories to meet this requirement. This is before you take into consideration the various vitamins, minerals and trace elements your body needs to function, which will only be gotten through a varied, healthy diet consisting of all 3 Macro nutrients (Protein, Fat & Carbs).

As I understand it, you should never eat below your BMR over a prolonged period of time if you want to avoid health issues.

But if you arent hitting your BMR will the body not just break down triglyceride stores for energy whats the difference between coming in 200 cals under this and 1200 cals under?

Assume we are getting enough of all the vitamins and minerals we need just for this discussion

Hanley

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

But if you arent hitting your BMR will the body not just break down triglyceride stores for energy whats the difference between coming in 200 cals under this and 1200 cals under?

Assume we are getting enough of all the vitamins and minerals we need just for this discussion

If you're not hitting BMR, your body will go for the easiest route for its energy needs. Which is most likely conversion of stored protein to glucose via gluconeogenesis.

And to disregard adherence as an excuse is beyond ridiculous. It's the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON why sufficient kcals are important.

Reality_Check1

Hanley wrote: »

If you're not hitting BMR, your body will go for the easiest route for its energy needs. Which is most likely conversion of stored protein to glucose via gluconeogenesis.

And to disregard adherence as an excuse is beyond ridiculous. It's the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON why sufficient kcals are important.

you sure its the easiest route? Most definitely at high intensities but if the body can make ATP by oxidative phosphorolation then it won't use the gluconeogenisis system if it can help avoid it. ANd to be fair if you arent exercising you are more than likely taking in enogh oxygen to burn fat.

I only started the thread because I dont think "calories are too low" is a reason why people arent losing weight and was wondering could someone convince me otherwise

Hanley

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

you sure its the easiest route? Most definitely at high intensities but if the body can make ATP by oxidative phosphorolation then it won't use the gluconeogenisis system if it can help avoid it. ANd to be fair if you arent exercising you are more than likely taking in enogh oxygen to burn fat.

I only started the thread because I dont think "calories are too low" is a reason why people arent losing weight and was wondering could someone convince me otherwise

So your question is, "if you don't exercise, and eat basically nothing, and stay in bed all day, will you lose fat and not muscle?"

Reality_Check1

Hanley wrote: »

So your question is, "if you don't exercise, and eat basically nothing, and stay in bed all day, will you lose fat and not muscle?"

touche sir touche :P

I still think you could go about everyday activities and still be ok. We need to do an experiment

boogle

I'll stay in bed, you guys do the other thing...

S hall

To lose weight you need to burn more calories than you take in. But that does not mean you stop caloric intake in your diet since calories are essential for providing energy. Just lower the intake of your calories.

papu

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

touche sir touche :P

I still think you could go about everyday activities and still be ok. We need to do an experiment

It's called Starvation. Your body has countermeasures to prevent against this. You'll feel hungry and you'll feel like crap and when you do start eating properly again you'll put back on all the weight.