Mountain Impulse wrote:There is a body of medical literature pointing to the proposition that significant calorie restriction (I would say under a thousand calories for most adults is significant) increases longevity. However, most people, especially in fast food nations like the US of A, could come nowhere near tolerating such calorie restriction. Naturally, great calorie restriction will limit the physical activity you can do comfortably or at all. No Iron Man triathlons on 950 calories per day!

Having a reduced calorie intake has been shown to increase longevity as long as it is not to the point where it disrupts the hormonal and immune system. Saying that a significant portion of the USA needs such restrictions is a misnomer. Although 33%+ of the US is recognized as obese or morbidly obese by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and has resulted in a spike in diabetes, we can not forget the significant fraction of the female population, and climbers, runners, high school and collegiate wrestlers, gymnists who have eating disorders, both bulemia and anorexia. Both disorders is significant and have resulted in deaths from heart failure and heart attacks (metabolic ion imbalances is very disruptive to cardiac function)- (check how many <35yr old actresses have died recently due to heart attacks)

Mountain Impulse wrote:There is a body of medical literature pointing to the proposition that significant calorie restriction (I would say under a thousand calories for most adults is significant) increases longevity. However, most people, especially in fast food nations like the US of A, could come nowhere near tolerating such calorie restriction. Naturally, great calorie restriction will limit the physical activity you can do comfortably or at all. No Iron Man triathlons on 950 calories per day!

Although this is certainly a true and very intriguing observation, I just want to emphasize that it is by no means an established fact or knowledge. A lot of research is going on in this area currently.

(I most certainly don't have an eating disorder. I could well do with losing a few pounds, but since I don't lose them eating as I do, I assume I'm rather stuck with them.
I tend to believe it's individual, how much one needs. )

Seeing how extremely old people have lived, I do also believe that a too soft life isn't good for humans. We're not made for having access to so much food, and especially not to so much junk food.
Carbonated soft drinks are a menace to mankind.

Mountain Impulse wrote:No Iron Man triathlons on 950 calories per day!

Thank god! I hate running.

To estimate how many calories you need, calculate this for women:
655+ (4.3 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)


if you sit around & do nothing- add bmr x 20%
slightly active - BMR x 30%
moderate active - "" x 40%
very active - "" x 50%
extra active - "" x 60%

ADD this number to your BMR

The result is the number of calories you can eat every day and maintain your current weight

I stole this from about.com

SoCalHiker wrote:
Although this is certainly a true and very intriguing observation, I just want to emphasize that it is by no means an established fact or knowledge. A lot of research is going on in this area currently.

I realize nothing is conclusive so far. And much of the evidence involves increasing the longevity of rats by calorie restriction. As if we need to increase the life spans of rats!!!

tigerlilly
to maintain my weight, I could (should?) eat three times as much as I do...
no way.

I'd end up obese... rolling sidewise, as I walk down the street.

Lolli wrote:

Mountain Impulse wrote:No Iron Man triathlons on 950 calories per day!

Thank god! I hate running.

Like Fred says - he swims when he falls in and runs when he sees a bear!

I also agree about the soft drinks - I do not drink pop , except perhaps for the occasional (diet) Coke and rum!

Lolli,

I think that these calculations are pretty standard. This info is based on a publication by the CDC, so I think you can safely rely on it. (unless there is a typo in there somewhere! I'll doublecheck my numbers! Wouldn't that be funny?' ha ha ha)

I'm thinking that you posted this, because your concerned that your not eating enough. Is that true? Has your weight stayed the same or is it going down? How do you feel? How do you look? Are you way thinner than everyone else? I do not know your age, your weight, what your eating, etc, so I'm at a bit of a loss here.

Without knowing any details, one thought I'm having is that you could be hypothyroid. If your metabolism is really slow, you can eat very little and maintain your weight.
We need more info to help you answer this question. (BTW, when is the last time you spoke/saw your physician? ) -TL

tigerlilly,
you're perfectly right in that I posted it because I'm concerned about not eating enough. Haven't thought about it before, but comments, and then I filled in this chart for an activity at work, and frankly it shook me, when I saw it...

I eat well, much lean food, am neither thin nor fat/wouldn't mind losing a kilo or two, quite healthy (I believe) and except emergencyrooms I haven't seen a physician the last 16 years.
I'm a bit worn out at the moment, so I'm tired, but it's work related.
Now I make a determined effort to eat more.

And I look good.


The red is what I eat, the green is metabolism, and blue is what I walk in a normal day. (Today is only half filled in.)

I don't mean to offend; but is there a chance that you are underestimating the Calories in your portions?

MoapaPk wrote:I don't mean to offend; but is there a chance that you are underestimating the Calories in your portions?

Generally speaking, most people underestimate or undercalculate their calorie intake. E.g. some people are not aware that on most food items it says "calories per serving" but eating the whole bag gives you several servings

MoapaPk wrote:I don't mean to offend; but is there a chance that you are underestimating the Calories in your portions?

No offence taken, because I thought of that too. As I knew I eat little, I aimed for the opposite, in order to make it look good.
But even though I eat healthy, as I said earlier, I don't maintain a healthy lifestyle otherwise. And therefore it's not odd that I have a slow metabolism, even though I hadn't realised how little I ate, and it shocked me to find out.

I'm not really looking for advice or solutions to how to live or eat, I just wonder where does the limit go for what's dangerous?

OK.

Lolli, you need to go see a doctor for a normal physical. I don't know your age or your lifestyle. But, you are posting here which concerns me and other people have mentioned how little you eat and your saying that you think your metabolism is slow. You could be fine, but we can't help you, unless we know more. It's odd to me that your not losing weight, (given what little we know).

The Dr. check your Vit D, thyroid levels, etc. simple tests that give you more info and a baseline.

Most likely they'll say your fine and shoo you on your way. If something is amiss, you will be smart for having caught it.

Let us know...I'm going to bug you until you do......

tigerlilly, you're a darling, but I have a very high probabililty answer as to WHY my metabolism is slow. So high it's certain. Don't you worry none. That's not my question, as to why it is slow.

My question is simply - when does it become dangerous, (and how much do I need to eat in order to not be there) ?