The myth of low calorie

I met with my new nutritionist today. She works out of my office 1 day per week and is free to see, so I figured why not? 

She is familiar with all types of WLS though doesn't specialize in them but we were talking about calories and stuff.

My surgeon's office has said things such as, "If you can eat 1600 calories you need a fill" and "we expect you to eat 1000-1200 calories a day with the band" but this nutritionist (as well as MANY other people) have said that going below 1200 doesn't give your body enough to function, period.  This nutritionist says she would recommend me stay around 1500-1600 for weight loss but I know for a fact I will not lose weight at that level (I see it happening currently and in my history of dieting.)  Obviously I'm not following her advice and throwing out what my surgeon's office says, I'm just confused because either this is a myth or it's the truth and I don't get how our surgical practices can be so out of line with "common dietary knowledge." 

So...what's with this? What is the truth? How many of you are sincerely following 1200 calories or lower over a long period of time? I am sure it can be done for a week or 2 without much harm but if your body TRULY needed 1200 calories to just function then certainly we couldn't be doing it for years at a time while we're losing with the band.

As a footnote, to those that are following my epic saga of "fill or no fill" - after 3 days of solid good eating by the rules, I am finding that I am actually, factually hungry enough to be in the 1600-1800 calorie range - I'm talking nutritionally sound calories though - so I'm going to ask for a tiny fill on Friday when I visit my surgeon.  If I could say I have been eating junk, sliders, not getting enough protein, or giving into head hunger, I wouldn't, but this has not been the case.  On that note, my new nutritionist definitely advised against getting any amount of fill because she thinks it's unhealthy to be eating below 1500 a day.  Ultimately, my surgeon will get the final say when I talk to him Friday morning.

My surgeon's practice says not true.  I lost 104 lbs on 800 calories a day and felt great!  Today they say that shocking your body is really important so switching it up calorie wise can work too. 

Personally I think that it depends on the individual, how active you are and  the QUALITY of foods you are eating.  1600 calories of real, fresh, dense food is different that 1600 calories in simple carbs, packaged foods, liquid calories, etc.

*****ally knows, but  I just started out doing what I was told and when when my weight loss stalled I switched it up to shock my system. 

Unfortunately there is no one way to do this!

Hang in there!

You'll figure it out and so will I!

Lisa O.

 I think your nutritionist may be right.  Her recommendation is based on BMR (basal metabolic rate), which is the number of calories your body burns just to exist...to keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, your mind thinking, etc.  Here's an online calculator for BMR:

www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Can we lose weight (maybe *more* weight) by eating fewer calories?  Sure.  The body is very efficient at keeping itself fueled.  But, if you eat too few calories, the "fuel" is created by converting muscle to glucose.  That's why so many of us have yo-yo'd so many times.  You starve/diet your weight down, but in the process lose muscle (which burns fat).  Then when you regain, you have less muscle than you started with, so the fat -to-muscle ratio is even worse, and you gain even *more* weight.  

Personally, the only time I go below 1200 calories or so is when I'm trying to "jolt" myself back in line to eat right, so it doesn't last more than a week or so.  

Tami

I am not disagreeing with what she (and you, and the BMR calc, and everyone else on the planet) is saying. I had my BMR measured scientifically in a contraption and it was just over 1500.  So I know that theoretically I should be able to lose plenty of weight at 1600 calories a day. But I don't. And many people with bands are eating well below that and not starving.

So mostly I'm just wondering who is really and truly going into that super low calorie range that our surgeons encourage but most nutritionists and common sense followers tell you is harmful.

 Ahhh!  I get it.  I'm curious, too.  By the way, I may be spouting off currently accepted medical info, I also know that's always changing.  What is "fact" today, may be fiction tomorrow.  As I just said to Lisa O. in another thread, it's interesting for me to see how physician's recommendations have changed since I got the band.

Tami

When I was banded I stayed at 600 calories a day and did 1-2 hours of hard cardio x7 weekly and lost well, never had a true stall, got to goal, and it did not mess with my metabolism.

Fat IS stored energy. We are a different population than normies.

I don't know who is right, I have done the 1200 calorie thing and starved even at a good restriction. I stalled six months ago and was just struggling to maintain what I had lost. I talked to my NUT at my last visit and she told me to go down to 1000 calories. I tried that and NOTHING. So then I started the Atkins induction phase a week ago and am eating approx 1450 calories a day, focusing on protein, fats and eating 20 carbs a day and have lost 3lbs in a week!!! That hasn't happened since I was first banded. Some peoples bodies can have carbs and still lose at a good rate at lower calories...mine does not. So I say do what is right for you, find out what your body does and then stick to that way of eating. I cant help but to think that in the beginning my doc pushed protein protein protein and there was a reason for that, once I deviated from that plan even a little I stalled. Hope that helps but again this is just my experience and every ones body burns and stores calories and fat differently that's probably why there is so much confusion.

~Jen

P.S I am no longer starving!!! I get fuller faster, stay fuller longer and the cravings are gone just by going low carb...just good for thought.

I've always wondered about that. My nutrionist said I should never go below 1200 calories a day, based on my activity level and BMR. 

My BMR tests out at 2000, so you would think that by consistantly eating 1400 calories a day I would lose quicker. I agree with MWG -- we are not the same as normies. Our metabolisms are probably totally fried.

 

In the UK we are always told by all our professional advisory bodies that eating under 1200 means that, without supplements, we cannnot get enough nutrients. I know that that is not what you are asking - but IMO it is important!

But as for the starvation mdoe theory, I beleive that it is part myth, part true. We can lose by going very low cal but our bodies will get used to it and when we return as we must some day to a higher intake, regain will be faster.

Kate