6 ms·

If he’s not exercising and is largely sedentary then 1400 calories for an adult male is a serious deficit, but not extreme. If he added in an hour of high inten

If he’s not exercising and is largely sedentary then 1400 calories for an adult male is a serious deficit, but not extreme. If he added in an hour of high intensity interval training or something that would be extreme and potentially hazardous.

kasey_junk 4y ago
Someone who is 6'2" would need to weigh 195 lbs to be considered at all overweight. The BMR for a median 55 year old male is around 1800 calories, and thats for someone just marginally overweight.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  I don't believe these BMR calculators are reliable at all. I am 45 and 6'1" and 1800 a day keeps me locked at 240.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    I don’t think they are particularly accurate either and I know self reported calorie counts aren’t accurate either. The important thing here is that a 1200 calorie diet for someone that big is an extreme outlier and I’d like to know what the actual protocol was. If there wasn’t a lot of consideration about actual composition of diet or if this was a longer term protocol I’d be extra leery of it. You can be healthy with a zero calorie diet if done correctly and for the proper time period, but you should be consulting an expert if you do. And for anecdata I’m 6’0, 215 and 45. 1700 calories is a crash diet for me.
    - nsxwolf 4y ago
      Yeah, I don't weigh my food, so I am just making educated guesses. The only time I knew for certain how much I was eating was when I ate about 0 calories for an entire month - due to advanced gallbladder disease and a hilarious series of diagnostic missteps. I lost 20 pounds. Gained it all back almost immediately after my surgery.
  - wut-wut 4y ago
    same
arcticbull 4y ago
The problem with severe caloric restriction is that your metabolism slows down. This isn't true of water fasting up to 4-5 days at a time where your metabolism increases ~10-15%, and your body produces significant quantities of HGH which help you burn fat while preserving muscle. Severe caloric restriction diets are actually not particularly effective if your goal is to permanently lose significant quantities of weight and keep it off - once you plateau it really sucks. Of course I mean if you power through and keep at it you will, but IME, periodic fasting is a much easier way to lose weight and keep it off. Not hazardous, really, as you point out. The whole point of stored fat is to be used. Citations available on request, I have NCBI links for each of my points but it takes a while to dig up.
- strken 4y ago
  What's severe caloric restriction mean, here? From memory I've read that 750kcal and even 1000kcal under TDEE are effective. A TDEE of 2400kcal would be normal for a young 6'2" male who does a bit of light cardio, and 2150kcal wouldn't be unusual for someone who's sedentary.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Some studies, including one that followed The Biggest Loser contestants [1] showed that your basal metabolic rate goes down as much as 23% as a result of significant caloric restriction and remains lower for at least the 6 years of the study - even if the weight is regained. For these contestants the restriction was very significant, though I'm not sure if it's quantified in the study. Here's another interesting one. Check out the Energy Expenditure section of [2]. > The gross BMR decreased in all the subjects during semistarvation, the average decline being 17.1% after 19 days (54) and 21.4% after 13 days (55). [3] Based on this data, I would expect your BMR to go down by 20% over a period of three weeks, and remain there for the rest of your life were you to continue this for a while. So you'd have to, as an 'average' person, reduce intake by 500kcal to account for metabolic adaptation, then another 500kcal to lose 1lb per week. That aligns with your suggestion that 750kcal-1000kcal reduction should show results for most people. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/ [3] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.12.2.230 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.1...

kasey_junk 4y ago

Someone who is 6'2" would need to weigh 195 lbs to be considered at all overweight. The BMR for a median 55 year old male is around 1800 calories, and thats for someone just marginally overweight.

nsxwolf 4y ago
I don't believe these BMR calculators are reliable at all. I am 45 and 6'1" and 1800 a day keeps me locked at 240.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  I don’t think they are particularly accurate either and I know self reported calorie counts aren’t accurate either. The important thing here is that a 1200 calorie diet for someone that big is an extreme outlier and I’d like to know what the actual protocol was. If there wasn’t a lot of consideration about actual composition of diet or if this was a longer term protocol I’d be extra leery of it. You can be healthy with a zero calorie diet if done correctly and for the proper time period, but you should be consulting an expert if you do. And for anecdata I’m 6’0, 215 and 45. 1700 calories is a crash diet for me.
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    Yeah, I don't weigh my food, so I am just making educated guesses. The only time I knew for certain how much I was eating was when I ate about 0 calories for an entire month - due to advanced gallbladder disease and a hilarious series of diagnostic missteps. I lost 20 pounds. Gained it all back almost immediately after my surgery.
- wut-wut 4y ago
  same

arcticbull 4y ago

The problem with severe caloric restriction is that your metabolism slows down. This isn't true of water fasting up to 4-5 days at a time where your metabolism increases ~10-15%, and your body produces significant quantities of HGH which help you burn fat while preserving muscle. Severe caloric restriction diets are actually not particularly effective if your goal is to permanently lose significant quantities of weight and keep it off - once you plateau it really sucks. Of course I mean if you power through and keep at it you will, but IME, periodic fasting is a much easier way to lose weight and keep it off. Not hazardous, really, as you point out. The whole point of stored fat is to be used. Citations available on request, I have NCBI links for each of my points but it takes a while to dig up.

strken 4y ago
What's severe caloric restriction mean, here? From memory I've read that 750kcal and even 1000kcal under TDEE are effective. A TDEE of 2400kcal would be normal for a young 6'2" male who does a bit of light cardio, and 2150kcal wouldn't be unusual for someone who's sedentary.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Some studies, including one that followed The Biggest Loser contestants [1] showed that your basal metabolic rate goes down as much as 23% as a result of significant caloric restriction and remains lower for at least the 6 years of the study - even if the weight is regained. For these contestants the restriction was very significant, though I'm not sure if it's quantified in the study. Here's another interesting one. Check out the Energy Expenditure section of [2]. > The gross BMR decreased in all the subjects during semistarvation, the average decline being 17.1% after 19 days (54) and 21.4% after 13 days (55). [3] Based on this data, I would expect your BMR to go down by 20% over a period of three weeks, and remain there for the rest of your life were you to continue this for a while. So you'd have to, as an 'average' person, reduce intake by 500kcal to account for metabolic adaptation, then another 500kcal to lose 1lb per week. That aligns with your suggestion that 750kcal-1000kcal reduction should show results for most people. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/ [3] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.12.2.230 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.1...