1. Have you installed the new JSF Mobile app? Check out all the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. One account & one avatar for all of JSF. Unified login and profile. Forum alerts on the main site, and more. Check out the details here: Forum & main site unified account feature is live!
    Dismiss Notice

Yahoo health article...seems like bad info to me

Discussion in 'Fat Loss/Cutting' started by sabre, May 18, 2006.

  1. sabre

    sabre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. hammerman1975

    hammerman1975 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would definitely be a skinny fat person after doing that diet!! 1,400 cal is way to low.
     
  3. Skoorb

    Skoorb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those calorie recommendations are silly.
     
  4. bradh

    bradh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,088
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. RTE

    RTE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    4
    I weigh 215lbs at 5'11". My Internist has recommended 1500-1600 to me for a diet. Look in medical books, the 500-1000 calorie diets are still there.

    The fitness community goes one route but others don't neccessarily agree. The best and most complete book on Nutrition, I have seen - Nutrition Concepts and Contoversies by Sizer and Whitney used as a text in many colleges says to eat 500-1000 calories less than your intake now. This should be for the average person 1200-1700 calories assuming the average person eats 2200 calories as they said in 2000. Someone may argue with that the average person eats more than 2200 calories but I don't have any figures to show that.

    I think the quicker a cut is over with the better you are. You don't have to go lower than 1200 and probally shouldn't. Lift weights and stay active. Try not to stay on a diet for more than 90 days. Cycle the amount of calories up and down during a diet. Change amount every two weeks like 1500/1400/1300/1400/1500/1400/1300. You could do that with three 400 calorie meals and change two mini meals from 300 to 100 calories.

    A good rule for life might be - Don't exceed 500 calories at any meal or snack.
     
  6. Skoorb

    Skoorb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've bolded the crux. From a health and longevity standpoint, losing slowly is the best approach. Instead of 500-1000/day, go for 200...take time at it. Muscle loss will not be significant, if evident at all, the person won't feel very restricted, and they may be psychologically more apt to keep the weight off later.

    On the other hand, people do want results quicker and quick results are action-affirming. I personally aim to lose weight at a pretty good clip...500 cal/deficit/day (1000 being too much). My metabolism allows me to do that on vastly more calories than mentioned above. I think 1000/day short is too much for anyone and not necessary or healthful. 500 is better, unless a person is really small, in which case it would be overkill, but I think most people could get a 500 loss on more than the calories mentioned above, especially if exercise is introduced. The ranges are silly, though...150 lb man doesn't need the same cal as a 250 lb man!

    --

    FWIW, some medical professionals--physicians--are even promoting super-low cal diets. I heard of a quite obese fellow, maybe 300 lbs, who was on a plan by his doctor at about 1000 cal/day which in my non-medical opinion is ludicrous.
     
  7. guava

    guava Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    12,604
    Likes Received:
    19
    I like the quick method. (I think Tom Venuto recommends this one.)

    To lose weight, eat 10 to 14 times your body weight in calories. To maintain, eat about 15 times your body weight. To bulk, eat 16 to 20 times your body weight.

    I believe that the longer it takes to lose the weight, the longer it will stay off.
     
  8. karatetricker

    karatetricker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    My thoughts exactly.

    Terrible recommendations from the article, IMO. Of course, it does mention to consult a professional. I still think too many people would read that and starve themselves.

    The faster it comes off, the faster it goes back on...
     
  9. sabre

    sabre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    10 to 14 times your body weight would mean a 120-140lb person should follow this diet structure. Not a 250+.

    I pointed out the fact that the calories they recommend were un healthy. i think we all agree.(for the most part)
     
  10. iceweaselsarecool

    iceweaselsarecool Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is the sort of shinola that turns people off to diet and fitness. "I have to do WHAT to lose weight? Not worth it." I use to use that sort of thinking as an excuse. "Well if I have to bust my ass and starve myself to be in shape, forget it."
     
  11. zenpharaohs

    zenpharaohs Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    14
    For a lot of people, I agree completely.

    I think there are emergency cases though, like those guys that weigh 700 pounds and can't move - they have to lose a lot fast or die.

    But for people that have normal excess weight - slower is better for a lot of reasons.
     
  12. wh0rume

    wh0rume Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    10,915
    Likes Received:
    10
    wait, so you're going to tell a doctor from the mayo clinic that their recommendations are unhealthy?
    it's not like you can just graduate highschool and get a job there - they seem to know stuff about the human body.

    Its not unhealthy, it just goes against what bodybuilding articles say.
     
  13. featherz

    featherz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did much better sticking to 1500 cals/day, minimum - and I was STARVING and grumpy the entire time. I am guessing that's based on people who have sedentary jobs and don't do any exercise.

    Maintaining now at about 2200-2300/day.
     
  14. marysson

    marysson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to go against the traditional wisdom but I wasn't seeing results until I got 1800 or less...and I'm pretty big.

    Of course, I don't move at all during the day except when I workout for an hour.
     
  15. BreakingPoint

    BreakingPoint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was losing near 2 pounds a week eating 2,300 calories a day, the only thing I did was lift weights 4 times a week.. and I weighed only 165 at the time.

    Weird how different our bodies work. I refuse to drop below 1,900 (I try to keep it close to 2,000) calories.
     
  16. RTE

    RTE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes, we do differ. An active 165lb teenager and a not so active 247 lb 40+ would response differently to things. There seems to be 3 measurements that always play a role - Age, Height and Weight.

    Notice we can't control two of the above factors. Weight becomes the factor we can control. Calories are the biggest determinate of that factor. Lower calories, lower weight as Mayo Clinic suggest.:tucool:
     
  17. Skoorb

    Skoorb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    One doesn't need a medical degree to disagree with a physician--and be right. If all physicians agreed with this approach, it may have more merit, but they don't all agree with it. Some will tout lower calories and others a more gradual approach. A degree alone doesn't mean a doc is omniscient regarding the body.
     
  18. stormbringer

    stormbringer Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget the Dr's that are making the recomendation are not the ones in the field.

    They base their information on lab results. Depending on the duration, they may not be seeing the full picture.

    For almost 2 dacades, I was on a very low cal diet, eating twice a day, and ranging from 1200-1500 calories with the occasional chinese buffet. Sedantery lifestyle. I was eating less than my wife. I went from 185 to 266 lbs doing that.

    now I'm eating double that ammount and my weight is going the other way.

    on the flip side doesn't the FDA recommend double that? where did they get their numbers?
     
  19. phitness

    phitness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just to chime in here, I'm also in the minority. I currently weigh 237 and am about 25% body fat, so I still have quite a ways to go.

    For me, I can be churning along at 2300-2600 calories a day and burning 1.5-2 pounds of fat a week and suddenly stop flat and need to lower them drastically (to around 1600-1800) for a copule of weeks or three to get my body suprised and ready for higher caloric intake again.

    Maybe it's my weird body, my lifting routine, my cardio routine, or my nutrition, but I benefit from lowering them big time for a while. My calculations tell me that I've lost about 63 pounds of fat and around 6-7 pounds of lean/muscle - so I can't complain about that and seem to be now putting back on muscle I may have lost. For 9 months of my efforts, I'll take it.

    You'd never catch me trying to eat that low for months on end though...
     

Share This Page