I disagree that fewer than 1200-1400 or whatever calories is insufficient, particularly for someone my size. I think our society is really hung up on "eating enough" and getting "value" for our money. Look at us all, and then look at our food habits. As a society, we eat WAY too much and many people have the crazy idea that if we go a few meals or a few days without food, we'll starve or something. That's garbage. We just don't need as much food as we've been taught to think we do (and I think our bodies provide proof of that). I've gone as much as 30 days on fewer than 400 calories a day (modified fasting for therapeutic purposes) and came out MUCH healthier on the other end of it. I wasn't taking a multivitamin either, just making sure my calories were high-quality calories.

And saying that 2000 calories is required for proper nutrition is silly too, if you consider that eating 4000 calories you could still not get appropriate nutrients by eating bad food. It isn't CALORIES that matter for nutrition, it's food quality. As long as you're eating food which has high nutritional value, you can get by on far fewer calories.

For a 180lb. person, sure, eat plenty of calories to keep going (and I agree, 1200 calories is not going to be nearly enough over the long term for someone that size). For me at roughly 65lbs. less (2/3 of that weight), the same or even a similar caloric intake is just a dumb idea. Then, take into account metabolic rate and body composition, and my own caloric requirements could change as much as 500 calories either way, if not more.

On another note, re: calories out and "negative calorie foods," protein has far fewer net calories than any other macronutrient, because it's just harder for the body to break down and absorb. This may be another part of the advantage of Atkins: a) the protein supports LBM, which in turn raises BMR, and b) digestion of protein significantly lowers the net calories from protein (total calories - calories required for digestion of protein), and eating more protein than many people on other diets ends up being fewer calories than we count anyway. Just a thought, and something I've run across a few times recently, so I thought I might add it.

I've heard caloric levels for "starvation mode" ranging from anywhere between 1000-1600 calories. I believe there is a starvation mechanism in our bodies, but I also believe, since no one seems to know for sure what that level is, that the caloric level for starvation mode is highly individual. Like everything else, I guess.

I don't mean to start/contribute to a calorie war or anything, but I do disagree with a lot of the generalizations that have been made on this thread. Perhaps because they were sweeping generalizations more than because what they said was wrong. It just isn't always right, IMO.

I'm sure you're right, and that there are some people who can go below the 1200 calories per day and do okay, especially if they are small, like you. I just know that for me, doing that stalled me. OTOH, if I started taking in 2800 calories a day on a regular basis, I'd probably stall (or gain), too. Yet, my husband would most likely be able to lose weight at that level.

Just one more note: the more calories we take in, the faster our bodies age. It's just the way of things.

Having said that, I will concede that I think a large part of that aging is caused by non-nutritional calories in excess of requirements for the day. But anyone who takes in lots of calories forces the body to do more work and wears out cells at a faster rate.

Of course, so does exercise. I guess what I'm trying to say here is: everything in moderation. And a lot of the time less is more. Again, just my opinion.

It seems to me that the wording of the poll questions is poorly done.

Much too simplistic, and not taking into account the complex relationships each one of us has to work out in order to have a healthy, sustainable, low carb way of eating.


No. You HAVE to eat 10x your weight to avoid the starvation response.

Much more appropriate, and telling, would be something like this, IMO:

Each person has to learn where his/her starvation trigger point is, and then be sure to eat enough calories to avoid falling below that threshhold.

Yes. At the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie.More have to be used than taken in.

And even more importantly, I would like to see the second choice be worded somewhat like this:

"Yes, calories are a crucial measure while losing fat, and while maintaining a healthy, lean body weight for the rest of my life. Is it necessary that in the long run the intake of calories must be balanced with the outgo of calories, considering both calories burned, and unburned calories expelled through ketosis in the breath, urine and feces?"

And to that second query, I would answer an emphatic yes.

Now you see why all the journalists deal in sound bites, rather than in complete, and complex, statements that deal with real, day to day reality. LOL

LOL W.W. You're right. The question kind of makes it hard to avoid picking nits.

My opinion is that calories matter, but it's almost pointless trying do predict it beyond the generalizations like the 10-12x rule. Our bodies are NOT bunsen burners. Calories in does NOT necessarily mean your body will USE the calories. There are so many factors that influence your metabolism, that the best you can do is observe *yourself* and how different foods, calorie levels, etc affect you. That's why it's such a good idea to either start a journal here or elsewhere; and/or use fitday.

Thanks to those of you who answered the questions, no matter HOW poorly worded they may be... I like to get an idea of what others think. rest assured, I don't see a lot of "sweeping generalizations" OR think anyone's theories are "dumb" or "silly"...

I guess the calorie level for the starvation response would be a HIGHLY individual number. It would also make sense that smaller people need fewer calories in GENERAL than bigger people, depending on the factors being discussed.

I remember right before my Dad had his stomach stapling done. He couldn't have possibly been eating over 1,000 calories a day, yet he continued to gain. OTOH, if I eat 1,000 calories a day (aside from FEELING starved) I lose weight.

I don't think we'll ever have a one-size-fits-all answer!

Calories definitely matter.

Atkins works because the program causes calorie burning.

Fat is satiating (less calories in), and it is also an inefficient fuel source (more calories out). Also, insulin problems are addressed and circulating insulin is normalized in people who previously had insulin-related disorders like insulin resistance/diabetes/pcos/etc. Insulin suppresses metabolic activity in many ways (again, more calories out). Some individuals who are very insulin resistent find they may even gain on a lower-calorie, higher-carb diet! Addressing insulin issues is that important for maintaining/losing weight. Insulin disorders not only cause you to want to take in more calories, but metabolic activity is all but halted.

The recommendation that you have to eat 10xs your body weight is just junk science in my opinion. First of all, we all have very different lifestyles. How is it possible that a bed-bound person's minimum caloric needs is remotely the same as a triathlete of a similar height/weight/gender? It can't be. A one size fits all minimum caloric intake is ridiculous. 1200 calories a day might seem like starvation to someone who runs 5 miles a day, but for me (who sits on my butt all day) it is perfectly doable without feeling hungry.

In my opinion, people should choose nutritious, satiating food and listen to their natural hunger. If you want to lose weight, eat until no longer hungry but not to the point of uncomfortable fullness. This should work for most people.

It irks me that people would force themselves to eat after being full, thinking it would somehow speed up weight loss. There is very little evidence or logic to support the theory that eating beyond your bodies natural desire for food will in any way speed up weight loss. If you are already eating to fullness, eating more than your body is asking for is only going to slow down weight loss. I don't see how any other conclusion is possible. I mean, maybe if you were starving yourself into hypothyroidism eating more to correct this medical disorder would cause a greater caloric deficit than the extra calories from the food. But, very few people are in that state - you would have had to have been starving yourself for a very long time.

I agree, Wooo. But I think that for many of us it can be hard to recognize our natural hunger because for so long we've eaten for other reasons. So in the beginning of a healthy lifestyle, it's sometimes difficult to eat for hunger. Heck, I still eat for comfort from time to time (when I'm sick and it's the worst possible time for me to be eating!).

I had trouble, too, figuring out based on the 10-12x caloric guideline whether that included exercise or not. It's not a very helpful guideline in the long run, even if it's a start. When I'm very active (1.5-2 hrs. of exercise per day), less than 11x my weight leaves me a little weak some days, but 15x is good enough for weight loss.

potatofree--I didn't mean to offend, but to point out some logical inconsistencies I saw in some comments. My own comments weren't directed personally at anyone, but perhaps it seemed that they were (I notice all the offending quotations seem to have come from my post). I confess, I love a good debate and sometimes maybe I'm too free with my opinions. I'll butt out now.

Hi, I just wanted to say I loved your post, and agree with just about everything said.

The only thing I would consider you rethink is the assumption that 1200 calories is very low for all people. I stay around the 1200-1300 calorie range, and this is a very satisfying place for me.

I don't think the number of calories you are eating is as important as the number of calories you are burning. People see the number 1200 and they think "ack, thats almost starvation! I can't do that!". Well, I can. My job involves sitting in front of a computer with very little movement, 5 days a week. I try to get in some physical activity, but I am usually too tired.
Plus I only weigh like 150 pounds now, my BMR is only 1400-1500.

Seeing as my lifestyle burns almost no calories and my BMR is only 1400-1500, 1200-1300 calories puts me at about a 500 calorie per day deficit, which is right on target for a 1 pound a week fat loss.

You are only 120ish pounds, true, however I would bet you live a very active lifestyle or exercise intensely and regularly if you find 1200-1300 calories to be "a complete joke".

So, I am saying that for those of us who can't have the time, or won't make time to live an active lifestyle, the lower calorie ranges aren't necessarily debilitating to metabolism. However, I do agree that it is harder for us sedentary, lower weight people to lose weight while maintaining nutrition (it is VERY important for me to take a multivitamin, as I am usually deficient by 30% in some nutrients). There really is no other alternative for us, though. It is either a) get a job that is more physical or exercise all the time to compensate (not likely ), b) cut back food to create a modest deficit, and live with temporary low nutrition, or c) stay fat.

I bet it does work for most people. I could easily keep my calories down around 1000 a day or less (I did it for about a month unintentionally) now that I'm not bingeing on sugar and getting hungry from the blood sugar crashes. I find that to lose weight, I have to eat a little bit more than I naturally want to. I do not, however, stuff myself. What I do is try to eat a little something every few hours. I think that in addition to getting a few hundred extra calories, that also might be spurring my metabolism on. Plus, if you snack on raw veggies with a fatty dip, it's a great way to get in your needed vegetables.

I'm straddling the fence. A little bit of both for me.

I can eat anywhere between 1400-1600 calories per day and lose well when I am eating low carb whole foods, and I can maintain at about 2000 calories.

If I was eating low-fat and a ton of processed carbage, I would not lose unless I was starving myself at about 1000 calories.

Edit: My vote goes to calories count. I definitely just posted something that should have been in another thread. Oops.

The science around nutrition and obesity is so new that I believe that there is so much we do not know yet. So many factors enter the equation such as hormones, age, genetics, etc. I will be interested to see where this science is 20 years from now.

I have never counted my calories but I am very careful about portion control. I continually practice, and get better at, eating when I am hungry and stopping when I am full. I believe that if I had been able to do that all along, I would never have gotten fat.

I like the saying "eat to live not live to eat". So, I do think calories matter, and listening to our own body signals can adequately guide us if we really learn to hear them. Low-carbing works so well because the fats fill us up faster and we do tend to eat fewer calories as a result. And, getting our insulin under control aids us in losing weight. I want to learn to listen to my body and not depend upon counting calories.

Orchid