1200 calorie meal plan for road trip?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
pack you own food that totals 1200 cals0
-
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).
I was going to throw out Sara's name as well. She's in her late 40's and has an amazing amount of muscle mass. She's hot and strong. And certainly weighs more than 130 and eats more than 1200 calories a day to lose. Yet, she's still tiny. And hot, did I mention hot?
While what you gain in muscle and strength will be limited by your own genetics, age is not necessarily the biggest factor.
PLUS - OP is young!!!! So I don't get how you are using yourself as an example, if as you seem to think, that age is a big problem in being able to gain muscle mass?0 -
Why does the husband get to decide the parameters of the trip? Make some changes.0
-
I took it to mean that he is, like me, a person who does not want to spend one more minute on the road than necessary. Hurry up, pee, get back on the road, fast-fast-fast, we are losing time!Why does the husband get to decide the parameters of the trip? Make some changes. No, we aren't stopping to see the World's Biggest Horse Statue. No, you can eat in the car. No, we aren't stopping to ride a rollercoaster...or buy your cheap cigarettes...or see if Pepsi gives tours of the plant..or to see an antebellum home. No, no, no. Hurry, move, let's go!
We are the people who turn three day trips into two day trips. We turn 23 hours into 18.
We cannot be argued with.
We also do most of, if not all, of the driving.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Lap band surgery is a bariatric procedure.
You are altered. You have a medical device that was surgically placed inside you, that is restricting what you can intake. Due to this device, you have different nutritional rules than the rest of us. What work for you may not work others who are not altered.
With all due respect, unless you're a bariatric surgeon, I think I know the difference between my nutritional and caloric needs as a lap band patient versus those of a gastric bypass patient or gastric sleeve patient, etc. better than you do. I researched the different procedures for a year before I made my decision. The only restriction I have is physical - my physiology is no different than before the surgery. I'm not going to discuss this further.
Back to my point: regardless of whether someone has had lap band surgery or not, 1200 calories is not too low for many many people.
You're not going to "discuss it further" because I'm accurate.
If it's not a bariatric procedure, then a bariatric surgeon wouldn't be doing it. Again, as was stated, you are an outlier. As you are altered your needs, rules, and parameters for success/failure are going to be different from unaltered people.
It's not debatable, it's fact. You have a medical device implanted in you. You are altered. Done.-1 -
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?
LOL, but she's just like everyone else.... lol. As she refuses to realize, that makes her rules different from ours. It's not good or bad, it's just different.
Good for her, but her requirements are different from everyone, including the OP, unless the OP is altered as well.0 -
Pika's going to get some angry pm's. lol.jofjltncb6 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?
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.
SOP.
Also, lol, lapband doesn't effect physiology one bit.0 -
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.
Your BMR is much, much more than that. This is a pretty good calculator: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
I punched in your numbers, and got a BMR of 1850 kcal. Meaning you'll burn that much lying in a bed in a complete coma. If you sit around and watch TV all day, your TDEE is 2500 kcal and with one hour of moderate activity you should be burning around 2750 kcal in a day.
If you have been eating 1200 kcal, you have been seriously starving yourself so your metabolism is probably way out of whack, or you have some other underlying health issues that are seriously affecting your metabolism, such as a thyroid problem. Whatever it is, I seriously urge you to see a doctor before you do anything else.
Seriously, 1200 kcal is OK if you are a woman, are 4' tall and weigh under 100 lbs. If you exceed those specs, 1200 kcal is just way, way too little as a daily goal.0 -
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.
No, you will have to exercise more.
Starvation is not, I repeat, NOT a healthy way to lose weight, and if you are eating significantly below your BMR for any longer period you are essentially starving yourself.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »
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.
just about everyone =/= everyone0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions