Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelsae  That's so depressing... Ugh. What do you think is a good response to that (besides upping activity) calorie restriction? |
That pretty much sums it up...eat less and move more. Some people wouldn't have to spend as much time in 'dedicated exercise' if they simply wore a pedometer and aimed for 10,000 steps per day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelsae There are a lot of opinions out there that say they have never been healthier at around 800 cals per day of nutrient dense food. |
It's entirely possible...just not advisable without being under medical supervision. And probably not if you're doing high degrees of high intensity exercise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelsae Then there are some that say 1500 at least to even function and not go into "starvation mode" (which the jury is still out on in the other articles). |
The jury is
not out on 'starvation mode'. The science is
very clear. People who are literally '
starving' lose weight. (note: I'm not advocating 'starvation' as a method of weight loss...simply speaking in terms of cause and effect.)
Most people can
absolutely function on a 1500 calories...even 1200 calories of healthy food - and have all of their nutritional needs met (and then some). (The same number of 'junk' calories might be a problem, however.)
The problem is that when you ask those people who say they can 'barely function' on 1500 calories what they're actually eating, it's rarely 'chock full off' 5-9 servings of vegetables, good fats, lean protein, etc...
1500 calories can actually be a large volume of food if you 'spend' your calories on low density/high nutrient food. Many of us, however, are used to eating high density/low nutrient food which also has low volume.
See here for more on high volume/low density foods:
Volumetrics Eating Plan: What It Is http://www.webmd.com/diet/volumetrics-what-it-is