Seriously...I understand that you are simply unable to eat that much after having surgery, but eventually when the stomach has healed you're expected to only eat 1200 calories? Any nutritionist will tell you that 1200 calories is not enough for the average person (not average as in average = overweight, but average as in what we should be eating). After finding your BMR (basal metabolic rate) which is how many calories your body burns just in the process of lounging about and doing its normal biological functions, you need to figure out how many calories your body expends during your average day. This is why most people should really be eating 1500 - 2000 for their weight-loss programs. Unless you weigh 120 lbs or are just really tiny (like my best friend, one of those naturally tiny people) then 1200 calories isn't really a lot, let alone the less than 1000 that is recommended for the first few months or so. My current worry is that this weight loss is due to malnutrition.

Are there any nutritionists on the forum here? Does anyone else have any data to support the idea that 800 calories is okay? I am now going over the professional literature to see if I can find anything. This just seems potentially scary. I mean, if I am out hiking in the woods (or across Asia which is a hope after graduation) I'm likely going to need more than 2000 let alone 1200...

Thanks!

Seriously...I understand that you are simply unable to eat that much after having surgery, but eventually when the stomach has healed you're expected to only eat 1200 calories? Any nutritionist will tell you that 1200 calories is not enough for the average person (not average as in average = overweight, but average as in what we should be eating). After finding your BMR (basal metabolic rate) which is how many calories your body burns just in the process of lounging about and doing its normal biological functions, you need to figure out how many calories your body expends during your average day. This is why most people should really be eating 1500 - 2000 for their weight-loss programs. Unless you weigh 120 lbs or are just really tiny (like my best friend, one of those naturally tiny people) then 1200 calories isn't really a lot, let alone the less than 1000 that is recommended for the first few months or so. My current worry is that this weight loss is due to malnutrition.

Are there any nutritionists on the forum here? Does anyone else have any data to support the idea that 800 calories is okay? I am now going over the professional literature to see if I can find anything. This just seems potentially scary. I mean, if I am out hiking in the woods (or across Asia which is a hope after graduation) I'm likely going to need more than 2000 let alone 1200...

Thanks!

Hi there, well I don't know what who says but i know what i'm comfortable with and at 1 year out i have anywhere from 850 - 1200 daily. . . i feel good at that amount of calories, i work out without any problems, my body functions normally as it should and i'm quite healthy to boot. . it depends on how you want to handle this surgery. . if you feel you want 2000 calories well go for it, especially if your very active. . . but i really think it's a personal choice don't you?

Well, I am just curious because on all of the boards and at the surgery websites it says the 600-800/1200. And that is just so little. I worry that it's not enough. I also wonder why, if it is okay for the body to have such few calories, why is it okay after the surgery but not before?

Not sure it is just choice in the long run. Our body needs fuel and if we do not provide it fuel we have complications.

Thanks for your reply...I'm still surfing through the literature. I should try and find a local nutritionist who could answer this.

I am with you - it goes against everything that I have ever learned about nutrition - just because I am/was fat doesn't mean I didn't know how the body works.

I am 10 weeks out, and I am at 900 calories. I think one of the big differences is that you first and foremost eat Protein protein protein and did I mention? PROTEIN.

I too feel good on my 900 calories and I am surprised by that. I exercise every evening for about 40 minutes (and this is restricted by time I can spend and not energy). If you plan on hiking and burning an excessive amount of calories, then you should certainly add calories in.

In my mind - and I believe that this is the case for me - is that my BMR is just lower. I have been tracking calories on and off for a few years now and I can tell you for a fact, if I eat 2000 calories a day, I'll blow up like a balloon. 1500 is borderline maintenance for me.

I sometimes feel that they are consistently telling us a little lower calorie goals with the though that "the fatty/ex-fatty is going to cheat" and even if that is not it, I believe even with thorough tracking, there are always some calories that go over. It's just me maybe, but I may not track the Ritz cracker (singular) that I stole from my husband, I don't track the splash of milk I use in my coffee, I don't track the stick of gum or the gummy bear I thoughtlessly stuffed into my mouth so if I am striving for 1200 I am probably getting 1300?

Again, I am with you and wondering myself - I actually posted something to that regard myself in my post surgery phase where I was around 400 calories:

http://www.verticalsleevetalk.com/topic/10573-post-op-diet-not-enough-calories/

Your metabolism will eventually adjust to fewer calories, so you don't waste away. I remember watching a documentary about Japanese Buddhist monks - they only ate about 1000-1200 calories a day at the monastery, and did physical labor for most of the days, as the monastery tends to be almost entirely self-sufficient. None of them were fat, but none were emaciated, either - their BMRs just dropped to sustain them on that amount of food. My greatgreatgrandfather spent 10 years in a hard labor camp doing construction and other tough jobs for 12-14 hours a day in freezing weather, and their meals consisted of one loaf of bread and a bowl of soup a day; some days he'd be able to do extra chores for a 2nd loaf, but that's it. The human body adjusts amazingly.

Honestly, with the sleeve, it is really difficult to get 800 calories (although I am early out). I have been feeling great now that I moved to mushies. I don't feel deprived or hungry. The goal is to utilize the first six months to lose as much weight as possible. You can't do that if you are eating 2,000 calories a day. The sleeve does have a pretty great success rate with pretty rapid weight loss. I am sure the reason is the low calorie aspect, but that is what we wanted it for. : )

There is actually quite a lot of data showing that severe caloric restriction is good for you. The proof is in the pudding so to speak - I got body composition scans pre and post and am losing mostly fat, not muscle.

If you are hiking or something and need more calories, you can eat higher calorie foods such as dried fruits/nuts even if you can't eat huge volumes. You could easily eat 2000 cals if you needed it - but as mentioned, your BMR adjusts.

I run on anywhere between 1200-2000 calories a day. It varies and truly depends what/how many times a day I eat. Some days, I run super low on calories, and honestly I don't feel any different.

I also do not just lounge around every day, all day, but I do little to zero formal exercise. On days, that I do workout, or if I'm going to be running around, volunteering, up and moving, I take beef Jerky with me, and I get in 300-500 calories just from beef jerky.

Most days, I eat 3-4 times per day. Now that my weight has stabilized, I rarely have to eat 5-6 times per day to hit those calories goals of 1500-1800 calories.

I'm still losing inches even though the scale isn't moving downward. It's just kind of weird how the body works.

During my losing stage, I did adhere to the 600-800 calories, and no more than 30gr of carbs, and I never felt better.

Our bodies HAVE fuel... it's the fat, which we want to burn, which is why we have surgery in the first place! "Starvation Mode" is a myth unless a person already has no fat to burn for fuel...then the body will cannibalize itself. But as long as you've got fat to burn, which is the body's first choice, you're fine. No, you won't be getting enough nutrients from food, which is why you'll be taking multivitamins, calcium, and possibly some other supplements.

Wow, I am hearing the wildest things here - severe calorie restriction is GOOD for you, starvation mode is a myth? Anyone to back up their claims with any links or supporting evidence? Yeah, the BMR can adjust, but that should by no means be desirable or even acceptable long term.

I still believe that for many people here, 1200 or a little above is at least initially really the BMR. I believe this is mainly since most of us have yoyo'ed for the last decades and forced our BMR to such low values. (http://books.google.com/books?id=RwMBD5TSMawC&lpg=PA335&ots=aWT6ibnxJd&dq=yoyo%20bmr%20reduced&pg=PA335#v=onepage&q&f=false). In addition, most of us are fairly sedentary which certainly doesn't help. I have an office job and I am probably at the very low range of "natural calorie burning" and do like to supplement this with exercise (well, not like, try to/have to).

Like I said, I don't believe I am much higher than 1200 right now having gone through starvation, grapefruit, and cabbage diets, lemon cleanses and other idiotic things that got me to the point where I needed surgery to help me lose weight. I do hope to get up to a better BMR over time.

I believe the 1200 you have read about may only be a guideline too. As you can see with Tiffikins, who is a fairly petite woman (from what I understand) and she takes in 1200 to 2000 a day and that is what I am hoping for myself.

Our bodies HAVE fuel... it's the fat, which we want to burn, which is why we have surgery in the first place! "Starvation Mode" is a myth unless a person already has no fat to burn for fuel...then the body will cannibalize itself. But as long as you've got fat to burn, which is the body's first choice, you're fine. No, you won't be getting enough nutrients from food, which is why you'll be taking Multivitamins, Calcium, and possibly some other supplements.

This is exactly what I was going to say.....

Wow, I am hearing the wildest things here - severe calorie restriction is GOOD for you, starvation mode is a myth? Anyone to back up their claims with any links or supporting evidence? Yeah, the BMR can adjust, but that should by no means be desirable or even acceptable long term.

I still believe that for many people here, 1200 or a little above is at least initially really the BMR. I believe this is mainly since most of us have yoyo'ed for the last decades and forced our BMR to such low values. (http://books.google....epage&q&f=false). In addition, most of us are fairly sedentary which certainly doesn't help. I have an office job and I am probably at the very low range of "natural calorie burning" and do like to supplement this with exercise (well, not like, try to/have to).

Like I said, I don't believe I am much higher than 1200 right now having gone through starvation, grapefruit, and cabbage diets, lemon cleanses and other idiotic things that got me to the point where I needed surgery to help me lose weight. I do hope to get up to a better BMR over time.

I believe the 1200 you have read about may only be a guideline too. As you can see with Tiffikins, who is a fairly petite woman (from what I understand) and she takes in 1200 to 2000 a day and that is what I am hoping for myself.

There's a lot of articles out there on the BMR and starvation mode myth. I've read both that it's true and false.

During my losing stage, I rarely got in over 800 calories, but for maintenance, I need that amount of calories or I lose weight again and I'm comfy with my 5-7lb bounce around that I seem to be going through for the last few months.

Here's an article I found that has some other studies involved that explains starvation mode, BMR and why obese people on calorie restriction burn fat instead of lean muscle mass.

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

Seriously...I understand that you are simply unable to eat that much after having surgery, but eventually when the stomach has healed you're expected to only eat 1200 calories? Any nutritionist will tell you that 1200 calories is not enough for the average person (not average as in average = overweight, but average as in what we should be eating). After finding your BMR (basal metabolic rate) which is how many calories your body burns just in the process of lounging about and doing its normal biological functions, you need to figure out how many calories your body expends during your average day. This is why most people should really be eating 1500 - 2000 for their weight-loss programs. Unless you weigh 120 lbs or are just really tiny (like my best friend, one of those naturally tiny people) then 1200 calories isn't really a lot, let alone the less than 1000 that is recommended for the first few months or so. My current worry is that this weight loss is due to malnutrition.

Are there any nutritionists on the forum here? Does anyone else have any data to support the idea that 800 calories is okay? I am now going over the professional literature to see if I can find anything. This just seems potentially scary. I mean, if I am out hiking in the woods (or across Asia which is a hope after graduation) I'm likely going to need more than 2000 let alone 1200...

Thanks!

I hate to say this but I am a nutritionist. I did my degree in Medicine, worked in general medicine, then did a Masters in Nutrition and Psychological Sciences. I am not a bariatric nutriotinist but what you are saying is completely true. I stopped trying to give advice and stuff to people on this forum because each surgeon/nutritionist have different guidelines and I respect that. I am working with my bariatric nutritionist and learning a lot. I am 5 1/2 months out now and on 1000-1200 calories a day. On another thread I posted a formula to calculate how many calories you need to lose weight depending on your weight, height, age and gender. To lose weight around 1500 cal should be OK as you mentioned, BUT it isn't as straight forward as it looks. I did a lot of research on starvation and how the body reacts to it. According to my nutritionist I should be upping my calories gradually, until I get to around 1400. When I get to goal, like tiffy said as well I should be having between 1500-2000 cal.

Here's an article I found that has some other studies involved that explains starvation mode, BMR and why obese people on calorie restriction burn fat instead of lean muscle mass.

http://caloriecount....on-mode-ft28742

That is a great article and it explains why going below BMR during weightloss works for the obese. But it also says that "normal" people do burn lean mass when eating too little calories, and I thought that was what the OP was asking - how come most guidelines recommend 1200 calories after reaching goal? According to the article, if you eat 1200 calories at goal, you are losing lean mass which to me means we should eat more (like you do)

Wow, I am hearing the wildest things here - severe calorie restriction is GOOD for you, starvation mode is a myth? Anyone to back up their claims with any links or supporting evidence? Yeah, the BMR can adjust, but that should by no means be desirable or even acceptable long term.

I still believe that for many people here, 1200 or a little above is at least initially really the BMR. I believe this is mainly since most of us have yoyo'ed for the last decades and forced our BMR to such low values. (http://books.google....epage&q&f=false). In addition, most of us are fairly sedentary which certainly doesn't help. I have an office job and I am probably at the very low range of "natural calorie burning" and do like to supplement this with exercise (well, not like, try to/have to).

Like I said, I don't believe I am much higher than 1200 right now having gone through starvation, grapefruit, and cabbage diets, lemon cleanses and other idiotic things that got me to the point where I needed surgery to help me lose weight. I do hope to get up to a better BMR over time.

I believe the 1200 you have read about may only be a guideline too. As you can see with Tiffikins, who is a fairly petite woman (from what I understand) and she takes in 1200 to 2000 a day and that is what I am hoping for myself.

I too am hoping that after getting to goal I'll be able to maintain with 1500-2000 cal, in the past I could have a LOT of calories in a day I am guessing around 3000 a day, and after dieting so much my body would hang onto every single calorie, and well the rest is history...

OK so I found the formula to calculate your Basal metabolic rate.

BMR=655+(4.35xweight in lbs)+(4.7xheight in inches) -(4.7xage)

To maintain your weight( your daily calorie needs) you multiply your BMRx 1.2 (sedentary)

BMRx 1.375 (lightly active)

BMRx 1.55(moderatly active)

BMRx1.725(veryactive)

To lose weight your daily calorie needs minus 500 to 1000 calories

This is just a guideline

www.bmi-calculator.net