1200 calorie meal plan for road trip?
Replies
-
snowbunny711 wrote: »I'm about to go on a 20 hour road trip and was wondering what I can eat during that 20 hours. Fast food or gas stations are the only stops we will be making my husband made that very clear lol any suggestions? Meal plans?
What we do for those long road trips? We get out the good old fashioned ice chest, plan what meals and snacks we will take, and we take them. We also go out for about one meal a day, which is generally lunch or dinner.
Why will you eat only 1200 calories on a 20 hour road trip? It's less than a day.0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for losing, thats what is recommended I thought?
It is recommended by MFP far more often than it is necessary...and I believe it is counterproductive to effective long-term weight loss. It's just an established lower limit, but that doesn't mean it's optimal.
Personally, I believe it makes more sense to find the *most* calories you can consume while still making satisfactory progress towards your goal. By starting at the absolute minimum, there's no wiggle room for an eventual plateau...and compliance can't be helped with such little eating.0 -
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.0 -
Thats what I said. Very helpful. We can all work hard and maybe one day, we can achieve that.PikaKnight wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
Ummm...it provides perspective, especially seeing as the OP is a 22 year old with not much to lose so yes, it is pretty helpful. Hopefully people won't get oversensitive about it.
Until then, though, we have to stick with what works for us.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »
Aren't you a bariatric patient?0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Lap band
And you don't think (aside from the age difference) that THAT was a vital piece of info to include or at least one that should have made you realize the difference in your nutritional needs?
You missed my point.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
I contend that there are far more people here for whom 1200 is *not* appropriate being encouraged to do it than there are people for whom it *is* appropriate being discouraged from doing it. I have never claimed that *no one* should eat 1200 calories...only that far fewer should than have been led to believe.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
ETA: Not sure if you missed my questions earlier - but what do you have your rate loss per week set at? And do you eat back exercise calories?
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
(Not to derail, but a better question is, if you're trying to get healthier/lose weight, why are you sedentary?)0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
i walk on the treadmill daily for 1.5 hours walking at 10% incline and 3.1 mph and i eat back the calories burned0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
I would assume she is taking issue with what you're saying/advising, not you personally. I don't recall seeing any personal attacks in this thread.0 -
I think the general point is that the demonizing of 1200 calorie diets isn't necessary.PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
Some people can eat more and yay for them. Some can't, but that's life. We play the cards we are dealt.
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
i walk on the treadmill daily for 1.5 hours walking at 10% incline and 3.1 mph and i eat back the calories burned
Then you aren't really sedentary. I'd say you could change to lightly active and be fine. Change it to 0.5b/week loss too (assuming you have only 5lbs to lose, of course)
And to just include - Another reason that Serah also probably has a higher metabolism then some would be the fact that she includes strength workouts into her routine which helped her minimize muscle mass loss during her time she lost weight. Having a lower body fat % (higher LBM) is why people at the same weight and height (and even close to the same age) can be different sizes and maintenance calories (the one with lower body fat % being smaller and needing to eat more than the other to maintain weight).0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.0 -
Nobody suggested she was lying. I think we all believe that she was telling the truth. And that's great for her. I don't begrudge anyone their calories! I'd love to be able to eat as much as she can and still lose weight! Everyone should eat as much as they can, IMO.PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
i walk on the treadmill daily for 1.5 hours walking at 10% incline and 3.1 mph and i eat back the calories burned
Then you aren't really sedentary. I'd say you could change to lightly active and be fine. Change it to 0.5b/week loss too (assuming you have only 5lbs to lose, of course)
And to just include - Another reason that Serah also probably has a higher metabolism then some would be the fact that she includes strength workouts into her routine which helped her minimize muscle mass loss during her time she lost weight. Having a lower body fat % (higher LBM) is why people at the same weight and height (and even close to the same age) can be different sizes and maintenance calories (the one with lower body fat % being smaller and needing to eat more than the other to maintain weight).
Gabby Douglas put on ten pounds in less than two years. That's after she'd already been working hard, training as a gymnast. Ten pounds, all muscle. It's impressive. I bet she ate a ton.
Sadly, we aren't all able to eat that much. Most of us would be happy to eat more, but we cannot. That's life.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.
To be clear, I questioned how you can justify the OP (who is younger and pretty much at goal) eating so little based on your situation which included you being twice her age and having had a medical procedure that is requiring you to limit your intake.
0 -
Activity level will be lower during the road trip, so there will be no activity calories to eat back. That being said, Cassie on Blogilates has a road trip exercise tips video...
You can google nutritional information and menus, or ask a pamphlet at the restaurant. In the states, a lot of the drive thrus have the calorie counts on the board. Also, if you are logging into MFP as you go, there are a lot of fast food options already in the database. You can log on paper if you can't log into the database during the day to keep track of calories as you go.
I like the Wendy's salads (you can ask for no cheese if you are lactose intolerant, and the MFP database has the salads with different options). Also, their small chili can be worked into a diet. At MacDonalds I like the Fruit and Yogurt Parfaits for breakfast. I also like their Asian Chicken Salad. At Kentucky Fried Chicken (States) I like corn on the cob, grilled chicken breast, and the Honey Barbecue Chicken sandwich. I don't really like Subways anymore... I don't think the bread agrees with me...and I find their salads a little lackluster lately...but they have a lot of lower-calorie options.
7-11 generally has veggie and fruit cups. I also like travelling with trail mix, just not too much (messy if it spills).
Travelling on a diet is a little nerve-wracking - good luck
0 -
-
This is the worst string of feedback and advice I have seen in a very long time.0
-
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.
To be clear, I questioned how you can justify the OP (who is younger and pretty much at goal) eating so little based on your situation which included you being twice her age and having had a medical procedure that is requiring you to limit your intake.PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.
To be clear, I questioned how you can justify the OP (who is younger and pretty much at goal) eating so little based on your situation which included you being twice her age and having had a medical procedure that is requiring you to limit your intake.
Ugh ok now I'm in bed on my phone so can't type so well.
Way back on page 1 someone started telling the OP that 1200 was too little FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYONE. I merely pointed out that many people, like myself, being short and middle aged, can't eat much more than that and lose weight. So the statement that JUST ABOUT EVERYONE should eat more than 1200 is incorrect.
I DIDNT BRING UP THE BAND BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE EXCHANGE. Then I was put in the position of having to explain that the band has in no way affected my physiology and that my caloric requirements would be the same without it. Then your post about how I should have mentioned the band previously....blah blah blah.
This is tedious and I really really need to sleep now.-1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
Yes, but I log my exercise, and MFP doesn't carry over...One of the things I like about WW...If OP has her exercise as part of her daily calorie needs (i.e. is set to lightly active or active), she should probably have more than 1200 calories a day...0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.
To be clear, I questioned how you can justify the OP (who is younger and pretty much at goal) eating so little based on your situation which included you being twice her age and having had a medical procedure that is requiring you to limit your intake.PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
No, I don't think so. I don't think you're attacking me personally, but I do think you're being unnecessarily snarky about my posts and I see no reason for it.
You started by questioning the validity of my posts re: lap band, as if I was hiding something, when in fact it's in my profile. Besides, the band is irrelevant to the conversation -- it was brought up by mdata or whatever his name is. Then you pick on my post re: Serah's calories and workouts, which wasn't even directed at you. I misread your post, I thought you were talking about Serah's workout not the OP's...my bad, my apologies. (But yes, I don't think Serah could eat as much as she does if she didn't work out the way she does.)
Anyway, it's late and I have to get up in about 6 hours, so I'm signing off. Sorry for overreacting.
To be clear, I questioned how you can justify the OP (who is younger and pretty much at goal) eating so little based on your situation which included you being twice her age and having had a medical procedure that is requiring you to limit your intake.
Ugh ok now I'm in bed on my phone so can't type so well.
Way back on page 1 someone started telling the OP that 1200 was too little FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYONE. I merely pointed out that many people, like myself, being short and middle aged, can't eat much more than that and lose weight. So the statement that JUST ABOUT EVERYONE should eat more than 1200 is incorrect.
I DIDNT BRING UP THE BAND BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE EXCHANGE. Then I was put in the position of having to explain that the band has in no way affected my physiology and that my caloric requirements would be the same without it. Then your post about how I should have mentioned the band previously....blah blah blah.
This is tedious and I really really need to sleep now.
Ummm...OKAY THEN? :huh:
-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions