Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   Diet and Nutrition
TOPIC:  

Stupid Calorie Question...



Click here to read our frequently asked Diet and Nutrition questions.

 
 
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
      Share
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


LIFTWTLOSEWT
SparkPoints: (115)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 33
9/11/12 4:31 P

Unident,
1- my post isn't just about understanding the numbers. I give some details regarding how the body responds to a calorie level too low.

2- Knowing your BMI (numbers) is important as a jumping off point. It helps you know if you need to alter something. Either the work out of food intake...

3- I didn't state "I think the better response is" that's your statement. I am sharing what I know. I stand behind my original post. You are sharing what you know. The person who posted this questions originally will read both and be able to gather some info they didn't know originally, from one or both posts.

We are saying the same thing. That the calories are too low. We just said it differently, perhaps, which is good as it give the same message in different formats, if the poster doesn't understand one they will get the other + the other backs it up.




Edited by: LIFTWTLOSEWT at: 9/11/2012 (16:41)


UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
9/11/12 3:55 P

Care to expand on why?

My solution addresses both the stated actual question and the assumption of what the person wants. Yours addresses only the assumption. Why do you consider that a "better" response? How does that help the person more than confirming their understanding of the numbers?

Note that I'm not the only one in this thread that found your response strange and confusing.



LIFTWTLOSEWT
SparkPoints: (115)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 33
9/11/12 3:45 P

disagree Unident,
I stand by my original post!




UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
9/11/12 2:42 P

I think in those sorts of cases it's best to reply as I did, rather than as you did. "Yes, your numbers work, but they're impossibly unrealistic and here's why" rather than "That person is going to lose weight". It is much more helpful both to the person literally only trying to understand the maths, and also to the person seeking to justify the 1000 calorie intake, rather than making assumptions about what a person may have meant by their post.



LIFTWTLOSEWT
SparkPoints: (115)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 33
9/11/12 2:08 P

AM_MORRIS87
I know the original poster said its hypothetical, the numbers are just an example
however, I have heard this sort of question in the past + in every case the people asking were just trying to get an agreement with a bad idea.

Why would the person want to get a hypothetical question, why not work with the real numbers that pertain to them.

If they are trying to learn how the body functions with regards to calorie intake and deficit (which I hope they are) than my answer stands.



LIFTWTLOSEWT
SparkPoints: (115)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 33
9/11/12 1:52 P

Unident, you said it yourself, this Hypothetical person does not exist therefore a 1000 cal requirement doesn't exist! So there is no way a 1000 cal diet is more food than what an adult needs!

The BMI for a person 5 foot tall is 1,243.82 calories per day (Harris-Benedict formula)
If a person 5 feet tall follows this 1000 calorie diet my original answer stands!



Edited by: LIFTWTLOSEWT at: 9/11/2012 (13:54)


AM_MORRIS87
Posts: 703
9/10/12 5:28 P

Lmao! Omg, people are clueless.



UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
9/10/12 4:07 P

Why would you think anyone eating more food than their body requires is going to lose muscle and weight?



LIFTWTLOSEWT
SparkPoints: (115)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 33
9/10/12 12:54 P

You didn't mention the height of this hypothetical person, but aside from that, this is what will happen.

A- this person will lose weight - in the beginning as they are losing muscle mass!
The body thinks its in starvation so it starts to protect itself + gets rid of muscle so the calorie requirements are lowered as much as possible. When we lose muscle mass we lose the water that is in that tissue type. This fools a lot of people, they think they are dropping fat, but they are dropping muscle. This lowers their metabolism, the very thing we don't want to do!

B- This person will start to maintain weight after about 2 wks or a month as there is no more muscle in the extremities that can be sacrificed. The heart + lungs are muscles, they get compromised slowly. Staying on this for a length of time will reduce those muscles + cause shortness of breath, development of heart murmurers + other health problems.

C- This person will continue to gain weight as their metabolism will reset to the lower calorie intake. They will not have anymore muscle gain, they will gain fat. They will always be sort of drained of energy, have headaches + experience health major problems down the road.

I have seen this happen so many times + seen the results in the hospitals + nursing homes I have worked in! Not a good idea for weight loss.



AM_MORRIS87
Posts: 703
9/10/12 11:28 A

^Right. They said their body only requires 1000 calories.

Also, the poster said this was purely hypothetical. Not saying that someone's body would really only require 1000 calories. They were just using these numbers as an example.



UNIDENT
Posts: 33,498
9/10/12 2:35 A

Well, the statement was "their body only requires 1000 calories", not "their BMR is 1000 calories".

So yes, this person would hypothetically gain weight, more slowly than they had been at 2,000 calories.

HOWEVER, this hypothetical person can't exist. Nobody has a BMR so low that by the time you include daily activity (and let's assume no exercise at all) they're only burning 1000 calories per day. Nobody's that small. Maybe actual Little People, but not your average healthy adult.

So the figures are unrealistic, but in terms of understanding the math, yes she'd gain.

This is why it bugs me when I see things like "Eat 500 calories less than you were before to lose a pound a week". Um no. If you were gaining 2 pounds a week, you'd still gain 1 pound a week by eating 500 calories less. You need to eat less than *you need* not less than *you were*.

To be more realistic, take a person who was eating 2,000 calories and maintaining their overweight frame.

If their BMR is 1600 and they did on average 700 calories per week in exercise, they would daily burn 2000 calories. That's why they're maintaining weight right now.

But if they up the exercise to 1400 calories weekly plus eat 1600 calories instead of 2000, they are now creating a 500 calorie daily deficit (400 less calories in, plus 100 extra calories out) and would lose a pound a week. On average.



DRAGONCHILDE
SparkPoints: (56,157)
Fitness Minutes: (14,204)
Posts: 9,569
9/9/12 10:13 P

No, they would not gain weight, because their BMR only accounts for NO activity. Supposing your BMR was actually 1,000 (which is very uncommon, and only usually found in very, very, very slight women (under 5 feet) close to their goal weights) that doesn't include a daily activity multiplier. This would be the calories you need to move around, do light house work, go to the store. Your base BMR is just what you burn lying in bed.

If you're sedentary, that would be 1.2 - so 1,000 X 1.2 is 1200.

They would likely maintain. Anyone over 200 pounds though will have much higher calorie needs, though.

Here's how calorie ranges are calculated: www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calorie_calcu
lation101.asp


Edited by: DRAGONCHILDE at: 9/9/2012 (22:15)


FUNICELLO
SparkPoints: (1,729)
Fitness Minutes: (1,422)
Posts: 84
9/9/12 9:53 P

Thanks. That is what I was thinking too. I just needed another brain to hash it out.



AM_MORRIS87
Posts: 703
9/9/12 9:30 P

I'm assuming the person would continue to gain weight, but just at a much slower rate. This is only due to the reason that they are still exceeding how many calories their body requires. Whether or not they are sedentary, and how many calories they were eating before vs. how many they are eating now won't really matter if they are still intaking more calories than they burn each day.


Edited by: AM_MORRIS87 at: 9/9/2012 (21:31)


FUNICELLO
SparkPoints: (1,729)
Fitness Minutes: (1,422)
Posts: 84
9/9/12 9:22 P

Hypothetically speaking...

If a sedentary person started out eating 2000 calories then reduced their intake to 1200 calories but their bodies only required 1000 calories, would they:

A. Lose Weight
B. Maintain Weight
C. Continue to Gain Weight

This is a hypothetical question to help me understand the calorie equation.



 
Page: 1 of (1)  
Search  



Share


 
Diet Resources: chi chai | chai tea lattes | chai recipes