Calories - How Low can YOU Go?

Many of us here (including me) stick to the 600-800 calorie a day range.  I know some here also do well at 1000 or a little more.   We often talk about how many calories we can eat and still lose weight at a good pace and feel satisfied.  But, I want to know how few calories you can eat and still feel pretty good.

My average up until recently was about 700 a day.  But the other day I only ate 500.  At 500, I did still get all my protein in, even drank extra water because I wasn't eating as much (so it was easier to drink more), and I didn't feel hungry.   So I think I'm going to aim for 500-600 and see if that helps me lose weight a bit faster.  As long as I get my required protein, water, and take my vitamins - I don't see the harm.  Can you see the harm?  If it doesn't speed up my weight loss, I'll stop... but I thought it was worth experimenting. 

How low can you go with calories?  What is the minimum you require to feel energetic/well/satisfied/etc. ?    Do you strive to eat the minimum calories you need to feel good and hit your requirements, or do you strive to eat different amount? Have you found a correlation between cutting calories and increased weight loss?

I'm very interested to hear people weigh in on this!  Thanks!

 I have noticed with exercising if I eat around 500-600 calories, I don't lose weight. If I eat 600-800 calories while exercising every other day, I lose. I keep my carbs below 40grams a day but have also noticed if I have one day of higher carbs 60-70, I confuse my body and keep losing. I try to only do this every other week. I never have big numbers all at once but I continue to be on the downward slope. Lately I have noticed more inches than pounds. That works for me! 

I really dig how your figuring out what works best for you....   Keep up the great job....

Bumping up my carbs was how I seemed to break my 3-week-long stall.   I've since gone back down to below 40, but I might try bumping up carbs again the next time I hit a stall.

Wow, there probably as many different answers to this post as there are people!  I bet it has a lot to do with body size, exercise level, metabolism, etc....

For me, I know that I do best keeping my calories between 600 and 700 (or just a bit over), when my protein is around 100 grams per day, water consumption (not liquid, but plain water) is over 80 oz per day, and I work out for an hour a day.

On the weekends I tend to have a much harder time keeping it on track - meaning I usually eat too little because I'm not on a schedule (same thing with my vites - I forget to take them on time). Yup, I'm one of those with little or no hunger and I can forget to eat when I'm busy and having a good time.

So.... I've noticed my trend is to lose more during the work week and stay stable over the weekend. As long as I'm down each week at least a little, I know I'm on the right track.

I have not been below 500 calories since I started back on solids, so I can't say how low I can go and still feel okay. I'm fine at 500, but not sure if I would have the energy for a good, productive work out with so few calories. 

I still use two protein drinks to make my protein and calorie requirements. Not sure I could eat enough at 3 months out to do it any other way. Anyone else still using protein drinks to meet their daily quotas?

I still have a protein drink for breakfast too.  I really love to use Bariwise hot chocolate - it's so yummy and nice in the winter.  80 calories and 15 grams of protein - not a bad way to start the day.

You are doing great!! 100 grams of protein is amazing - I never get that much!

I know that when we are dieting it's hard to look at the big picture but my big concern about doing 500 Cal's would be, what would it take to maintain when i get there.  we are already wrecking our metabolism with 600-800 IMHO and going to 500 for the long haul just puts the # of cals our bodies gets used to lower than maybe we need to maintain our loss  for life.  To do it for a couple of weeks to lost the last 10lbs is one thing, to do it when you are already losing at a good clip, as part of your losing regimen may be a little shortsighted.  Just something to think about.

I hear what you are saying!  I dieted when I was younger on a 500 calorie a day diet.  I lost weight and kept it off for years, but when I upped to calories ever-so-slightly I started to regain.  I was 140 lbs and gaining weight on an 800 calorie diet.  (I had other medical issues, though, that I didn't know about at the time that likely played a role in the weight gain too.)

I know the "starvation mode" thing is a common argument against very low calorie diets, but I've read very conflicting things on starvation mode - and some compelling arguments that it doesn't even exist.   No doubt, our metabolism is slowing down to compensate for a significant decrease in calories... but is there a significant slow down when you are talking a 650 calorie a day diet versus a 500 calorie a day diet?   I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is "no" - I would think the effect would be very similar between the two.

It's a really interesting subject, though, and one that I need to learn more about.  :)

Starvation mode is a very real phenomenon. It has been scientifically demonstrated in humans and in rat models  What is misunderstood is what it means.  

On a calorie restricted diet -- even with adquate protein, the level of T3 -- active thyroid hormone -- in the body drops by as much as 50%.   The effect is about a 13% decrease in metabolism, on average, when you go below 1200 calories a day for women. Is it materially different at 500 calories vs. 800?  It's going to depend on the person. You can and will lose weight on low calories, in fact you can starve to death. Will your metabolism recover after you finish dieting? That's a whole different question.

Thanks for that!  Very interesting about the T3...

I think I didn't choose my words carefully when I said it didn't exist.  I have no doubt there is a metabolic slow down with significantly reduced calorie intake...  what I meant is that the way it is commonly understood doesn't exist.  LOL.  My re-wording wasn't much better, there. But you said it best in the first paragraph - that's what I meant! :)