Would you be able to eat under 1200 calories/day if...

Disclaimer: I am not in this situation and hope to never be in this situation. I'm just curious!

So, the magic 1200 number is so that your organs get the necessary number of calories to function correctly and efficiently, right? Well, what if you were a small, sedentary female who did not have all of her organs? Like, what if you only had one lung, for some reason, or one kidney? Because there are less organs that need to work, would you be able to be healthy eating less? Or would the functioning organ need more since it's doing more work?

Like I said, not advocating a diet against CC's policy, I just am interested.

Hmm...That is an interesting question.  I don't know the answer, but aren't pretty much all organs vital?  I know you can get the gall bladder removed as well as a kidney but only one lung?  (Maybe I'm just dumb >_<.)

Well, I think you'd still need to eat that much. Even if you only had one organ, that organ would have to do a heck of a lot of work to do the job of two, like a kidney or a lung. When one organ is gone, the other has to work doubly as hard, if that makes sense.

So, I think eating less than 1,200 is pretty hard to avoid and still stay healthy.

I myself have often wondered how amputees arrived at their caloric needs. How many calories does a leg require, or half an arm?

Were you planning on having a a kidney removed in order to get the "OK" to eat fewer calories?

-The heart needs 12% of the calories (144 cals)
-The kidney needs 12% of the calories (144 cals)
-The Liver needs 23% of the calories (276 cals)
-The brain needs 23% of the calories (276 cals)
-The skeletal muscle needs 30% of the calories (360 cals)

A 5', 95lb, 22 year old woman has a Basal Metabolic Rate (RMR) of 1246 -- that is what is burned with no activity.  No getting out of bed, no toilet, no shower, etc.  The same woman burns approximately 1334-1495  calories while leading a sedentary life.

Eating fewer calories than your BMR is not recommended.

Original Post by coach_k:

Were you planning on having a a kidney removed in order to get the "OK" to eat fewer calories?

no, i think i stated pretty clearly that i really was just curious.

so if you do for some reason have to have a kidney removed, would the remaining kidney need all of those 144 since it would have to work harder to perform the same functions?

Hypothetically speaking of course...I would imagine that a body missing an organ would actually be burning more calories in order to compensate for that missing organ.  All the other body parts would have to be working just a little bit harder for everything to work reasonably well.

hmm even more interesting - my roommate in college got kidney failure so she got a kidney transplant from her dad. But when they do the transplant they don't remove the failed kidneys... so technically she has three, but just one functioning. So since she has one extra, would she need more calories, or since only one is properly functioning, would it be less than a normal person? :P

okay... I can't stand it, I have to join in on this, because I can see it's a valid question!  Last year I donated one of my kidneys, so I now only have one.  I am back to about 75% of my original function (with 2 kidneys) with my one remaining.  So as much as I'd love to find out somehow this is my "secret ticket" to weight loss, I think the kidney I have left is indeed working very hard, so it's probably burning more than half the average of a pair of kidneys.

It's funny how many things come up as "I'm just wondering" when you start thinking about taking body parts out! 

Also, for the record - people can indeed donate a lobe of a lung and still be fine!

<if you're reading this, please consider verifying your license notes you are a willing organ donor!!>

according to cc its 100 calories per organ :) jk

Interesting question. I've never thought about that before...

hahaha what a strangly intriguing question!

i guess the same goes to what if you had to have a leg removed? perhaps war veterans are required to stick to a strict diet regime once injured!

weird.

the other day i was wondering how people with only one arm or one leg would calculate their body mass index.. because it only takes height and weight into account, and assumes you have everything in between. one arm or leg could make a lot of difference to your weight! 

what a bizzaare question.  People who are injured in any way have much higher nutritional needs if they are to survive. 

And there's nothing magic about 1200.  It's just a widely accepted minimum level for a small, sedentary woman to receive enough nutrition.  Everyone is different and most of us need far more than 1200 calories to be healthy.

Original Post by clairelaine:

what a bizzaare question.

yeah, i know. i have plenty of those. this is just one where i was curious enough to actually seek out an answer.

Considering that most calories are consumed by brain function and heart...errrr...you'd have to be a very strange female to pull that off.

I'd say it doesn't work that way... if you lose one lung, the other one works harder to make up for it, and so on. It wouldn't change your base energy requirement. The only way you need less is if you are ENTIRELY bedbound, or a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, and even then the involuntary functions keep on ticking away...

How many less calories can I eat if I get my legs amputated?

Did anyone see The Starter Wife? It was a miniseries on USA(?) with Debra Messing that came out a summer or two ago. In the previews, you see her weighing herself, and then she ponders aloud "I wonder how much an appendix weighs?"

Original Post by a_mckh:

okay... I can't stand it, I have to join in on this, because I can see it's a valid question!  Last year I donated one of my kidneys, so I now only have one.  I am back to about 75% of my original function (with 2 kidneys) with my one remaining.  So as much as I'd love to find out somehow this is my "secret ticket" to weight loss, I think the kidney I have left is indeed working very hard, so it's probably burning more than half the average of a pair of kidneys.

It's funny how many things come up as "I'm just wondering" when you start thinking about taking body parts out! 

Also, for the record - people can indeed donate a lobe of a lung and still be fine!

 

just wanted to say how admirable it is from you to have donated an organ