Confused.

So whilst perusing a different site I read a post where someone was frustrated that she keeps getting different instructions from her surgeon and her nutritionist. She is a few months out and her nut is suggesting she eat 1000 cal per day, whereas her surgeon is happy with her eating 600-700.

Someone else then responded and said her nut was right and she wanted to get to 1000 cal a day ASAP so " you aren't stuck eating under 1000 calories forever".

So my question is: Is that really a thing. Do we set a maintenance caloric intake based on how many calories we eat while in the losing phase. If this is the case, I would think I would still want it to be low because it is much cheaper to eat 600 calories than 1200, but that is just my wallet talking.

If you keep you calories too low, your body goes into starvation mode. It messes up your metabolism and you stop losing weight. So while it may be cheaper to eat 600 calories a day, you'll wind up sick.

Your maintenance number will be provided to you by your team and in conjunction with what you can eat without gaining based upon your activity level. I'm still in the losing phase and I eat about 1,000 calories a day with about 80 grams of protein. I may go slightly higher on big workout days (I fence for 2 hours twice a week). If I go under 1000 now (I'm 8 months out) I get a little cranky. But I pretty much live a normal life - I eat what I prepare for my family. I can eat in restaurants without any problems. If I order something that is too big, I bring it home for lunch or dinner the next day.

Besides, you should be saving a lot of money now versus pre-surgery - because you're eating quite a bit less. But if you did this to save money, you did it for the wrong reason. You can probably eat better now on a smaller budget. You could buy a 3 ounce filet mignon for (on average) $5 at the grocery store versus a $5 combo meal with 2000 calories from some fast food place.

There is no scientific evidence that "starvation mode" exists.

I can't find the source given to me by my bariatric team, but it was made very clear to me that staying at 600 calories had severe health consequences, including heart arrythmia, gallstones and other issues.

Yes, I've seem similar research. An over-restrictive diet can be hard on your organs.

It does NOT, however, permanently screw up your metabolism.

Is there any scientific evidence that it does not screw up the metabolism? I have read this many places before. I would like to see the evidence both ways.

It would be very difficult to design a reliable study that looked at the effect of long-term caloric restriction and make sure things are consistent enough to draw a reliable conclusion.

This article has a very good summary of some of the points in the "starvation mode" and "metabolic damage" debate.

I can't research and link right now. But there is a LOT of research and studies that show it's not VLC diets that screw up our metabolism, but very HIGH calorie diets. Once we adjust to eating 4, 5, 6 or more thousand calories a day, our metabolisms crash if we try to lose weight. The formerly obese need to eat a lot less to lose or maintain as opposed to someone who had never been obese.

And, most studies look at obese folks losing weight without surgery -- not at us. This is METABOLIC surgery, so it helps with that.

The biggest loser study would disagree.

The biggest loser study was not scientifically controlled and relied on a limited number of cases. I would be extremely hesitant to make generalizations based on that small handful of observations.