TL;DR: the 1200/1500 kcal guideline is a guideline. You will not get sick or die if you drop below that for a few days. But you don't want that as an ongoing diet target unless you are under medical supervision. The reason isn't because the calories themselves, but because of the micronutrients that go with the calories.
Like almost everything to do with weight loss, these are recommended guidelines, not hard and fast rules that have guaranteed consequences if you break them. And like many scientifically-sound concepts, the details are often omitted to make the information more digestible to the average layperson. If a description is somewhat inaccurate but leads to more people adhering to it, it is better than a more detailed and possibly intimidating description that is technically accurate but discourage people from listening to it.
The problem with a hypocaloric diet is not so much the energy content itself (our body has plenty of energy stored away), but the nutrient content. When we eat a lot of food, not only do we get more calories, but we get more nutrients as well. These are your vitamin and minerals. Generally speaking, these micronutrients that are present in reasonable excess are harmlessly eliminated by the body. In other words, it's safe to ingest more, say, vitamin C than your body needs because what it can't use, you just pee out.
When you decide to starve yourself in an effort to lose weight quickly, the reduction in energy from food is easy to track. If you stay on a 500 kcal/day diet long enough, you will lose several pounds a week. And while your body may have enough energy reserves to survive many weeks, it does not have similar levels of micronutrient stores. You can run out in a matter of just a few days.
Can you take supplements to boost the missing micronutrients? Yes, but which ones? How much? How often? Are you estimating your micros based on a Google search, or are you actually measuring it via blood and urine samples? It is unlikely that we have the capability or expertise to do so at home. This is why hypocaloric diets are only recommended "under medical supervision", and even then you need a really, really good reason to do it.
You've probably heard of Hollywood stars and pro athletes taking extreme measures to change their bodies and health. They have unlimited money and round-the-clock access to the best physicians, dietitians, physiotherapists, and trainers. They have the time and motivation to dedicate to it. You do not. Choose a more realistic plan you'll stick to and won't hurt you.
This is understandable but I feel like I still get more nutrients in 1000 calories of lean meats and vegetables than 2000 calories of the garbage I was eating 4 years ago
Yes.. this is somethign no one is taking into account.
So, you're saying the overweight woman eating 1100 calories per day of lean proteins, veges and possibly supplementing with some vitamins is in the danger zone.
But the overweight woman eating 2400 calories of sweet cereals in the morning, McDonalds for lunch, and pizza for dinner is fine?
Which is it? Is it calories or is it micronutrients? Because why set arbitrary calorie limits if it's to do with micronutrient consumption? How do vitamin supplements factor in here? Should people who are eating exactly at 1200 be concerned since they are right on the minimum? If its micronutrients, which ones in particular are of most concern?
OPs post is just unsourced ass-flapping.
Exactly! How is eating high calorie food and getting no nutrients better than meeting your micros by eating healthy and being at a caloric deficit
Im awkward and even though ive lost a shit ton of weight i still have the self esteem of a fat kid. I enjoy my alone time and bettering myself. Plus It's hard to go on dates when you meal prep and don't drink.
Ego was amazing and one of the MCU's most legitimately terrifying villains. It doesn't hurt that Kurt Russell is super charismatic.
From a screenwriting standpoint it's really spectacular how the entire third act builds up and flows into this moment. The absolute menace he exudes really stands in contrast to just how likable he was up until he revealed his ultimate goal, and in this short scene you get a sense of how freakish he really is, the actual scope of the destruction he can bring to the universe, and the betrayal Peter feels for having trusted him. Yet all the while he never actually sounds that inhuman, and at no point does he ever come off as comically evil, but as someone who still sounds like Peter's father. He doesn't really ooze hate, just disappointment. This was the point at which I was sitting in the theater and realized just how much I was loving the movie. The entire ending of Vol.2 is phenomenal and I can't believe people rate the film so low in the MCU, but that's a different discussion.
Now I just want nerds rope
Not all Russians, but the same stratum of population that is called chavs in Britain, I think. Also adidas was the first brand of quality sportswear, which came to the USSR. In addition, adidas has historically been very popular with counterfeiting manufacturers. So in the 90's, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was covered by a wave of Asian counterfeit.
They're called Gopnik in Russia