Calories
Replies
-
Thanks I'm new here could I add me as a friend. That answered my ?
0 -
Not everyone has enough "wiggle room" to set an aggressive weight loss goal like TDEE-20%. Is that person getting adequate nutrition and hitting appropriate protein and fat targets at 1040 calories? It's possible, but not likely.
Then it's not appropriate for that woman, with those stats, to do TDEE-20%.Lizabelle1212 wrote: »My thoughts exactly. No way that's correct unless the person is extremely short, but even then, shouldn't be going below 1200 cals and DEFINITELY shouldn't go so low that your calorie goal is only 3 numbers.
A woman who's 65 years old, 5 feet tall, 135 pounds and sedentary (just to take an example) would have a TDEE of ~1300 and a 20% deficit would be ~1040 calories.
It is possible. And probably not that unusual for people who are a little bit older.
Just saying, hear out the OP's stats before being judgmental.
What are you basing this statement on?
0 -
Yeah, I'm not recommending 1040 as an adequate calorie intake. I'm just saying that it's mathematically possible for it to be someone's TDEE-20%.
0 -
-
happywifey2010 wrote: »Mine is saying 1200-1360
I sent you a friend request. I'll private message you. But I suspect you're setting your goal too aggressively.
0 -
I do too. Here is a good general rule of thumb for configuring the MFP settings:happywifey2010 wrote: »Mine is saying 1200-1360
I sent you a friend request. I'll private message you. But I suspect you're setting your goal too aggressively.
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is good
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is good
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is good
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is good
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is good
0 -
Is that person getting adequate nutrition and hitting appropriate protein and fat targets at 1040 calories? It's possible, but not likely.
Then it's not appropriate for that woman, with those stats, to do TDEE-20%.Lizabelle1212 wrote: »My thoughts exactly. No way that's correct unless the person is extremely short, but even then, shouldn't be going below 1200 cals and DEFINITELY shouldn't go so low that your calorie goal is only 3 numbers.
A woman who's 65 years old, 5 feet tall, 135 pounds and sedentary (just to take an example) would have a TDEE of ~1300 and a 20% deficit would be ~1040 calories.
It is possible. And probably not that unusual for people who are a little bit older.
Just saying, hear out the OP's stats before being judgmental.
What are you basing this statement on?
This is the part that I'm questioning. Everybody repeats this dogma over and over on MFP but not a single person can back it up with any evidence. I'm not advocating this, but lots of people go on very low calorie diets (either unsupervised or supervised by a physician) and there is not an epidemic of malnutrition in our society.
I simply don't believe that anyone is going to get malnourished on 1000 calories per day. This is oft-repeated, never-backed.0 -
I simply don't believe that anyone is going to get malnourished on 1000 calories per day. This is oft-repeated, never-backed.
There's just a lot less room for error. On a medically-supervised, closely-controlled diet, I agree it is theoretically possible to get adequate nutrition on a low calorie diet. But most people who attempt them are not sticking to such a rigid medically controlled plan.
Look, it's like income. If you're living on a low fixed income (fewer calories to spend), there's gonna be a lot less wiggle room in your budget than if you have a higher-paying job (more calories to spend). Within that, there might be enough room to cover your basic expenses like rent and food and bills, but there probably isn't much space for "junk food" spending and splurges. Whereas if you're eating more calories, you can have more balance including a reasonable amount of snacks and chocolate and chips, and still get adequate nutrition.
I think, given the choice, most people would rather earn more money than less money. So why, given the choice, do so many people choose to eat fewer calories when they could be eating more calories?0 -
Is that person getting adequate nutrition and hitting appropriate protein and fat targets at 1040 calories? It's possible, but not likely.
Then it's not appropriate for that woman, with those stats, to do TDEE-20%.Lizabelle1212 wrote: »My thoughts exactly. No way that's correct unless the person is extremely short, but even then, shouldn't be going below 1200 cals and DEFINITELY shouldn't go so low that your calorie goal is only 3 numbers.
A woman who's 65 years old, 5 feet tall, 135 pounds and sedentary (just to take an example) would have a TDEE of ~1300 and a 20% deficit would be ~1040 calories.
It is possible. And probably not that unusual for people who are a little bit older.
Just saying, hear out the OP's stats before being judgmental.
What are you basing this statement on?
This is the part that I'm questioning. Everybody repeats this dogma over and over on MFP but not a single person can back it up with any evidence. I'm not advocating this, but lots of people go on very low calorie diets (either unsupervised or supervised by a physician) and there is not an epidemic of malnutrition in our society.
I simply don't believe that anyone is going to get malnourished on 1000 calories per day. This is oft-repeated, never-backed.
There isn't an epidemic of malnourished people because most people can't stick to that low of a calorie goal for long.
0 -
I do too. Here is a good general rule of thumb for configuring the MFP settings:happywifey2010 wrote: »Mine is saying 1200-1360
I sent you a friend request. I'll private message you. But I suspect you're setting your goal too aggressively.
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is good
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is good
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is good
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is good
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is good
I would modify this based on what we know about fat metabolism. It is well documented that the body can mobilize fat at a rate of about 30 calories per pound per day.
at 17 lbs that is 510 calories per day (1 lb/week)
at 25 lbs that is 750 calories per day (1.5 lbs/wk)
at 34 lbs that is 1020 calories per day (over 2 lbs/wk)
I would change that range, based on scientific evidence to read:
Goal 0-17 lbs loss: lose 0.5 lbs/wk
Goal 17-25 lbs loss: lose 1 lb/wk
Goal 25-34 lbs loss: lose 1.5 lbs/wk
Goal >34 lbs loss: lose 2 lbs/wk
Calculating those figures, however, are based on FAT loss, not weight loss. You'd have to know your body fat percentage!0 -
I simply don't believe that anyone is going to get malnourished on 1000 calories per day. This is oft-repeated, never-backed.
There's just a lot less room for error. On a medically-supervised, closely-controlled diet, I agree it is theoretically possible to get adequate nutrition on a low calorie diet. But most people who attempt them are not sticking to such a rigid medically controlled plan.
Look, it's like income. If you're living on a low fixed income (fewer calories to spend), there's gonna be a lot less wiggle room in your budget than if you have a higher-paying job (more calories to spend). Within that, there might be enough room to cover your basic expenses like rent and food and bills, but there probably isn't much space for "junk food" spending and splurges. Whereas if you're eating more calories, you can have more balance including a reasonable amount of snacks and chocolate and chips, and still get adequate nutrition.
I think, given the choice, most people would rather earn more money than less money. So why, given the choice, do so many people choose to eat fewer calories when they could be eating more calories?
Your analogy is backwards.
If I have a high income but choose to live a spendthrift lifestyle, I will in fact have MORE wiggle room for indulgence. If, however, I have a high income but live paycheck to paycheck, I'm handicapped.
If I have a high calorie allowance but consistently eat under my goal, it allows me more indulgence to maintain a weekly deficit. If I have a high allowance and eat up to it everyday, then I have less room for occasional indulgences.0 -
Your analogy is backwards.
If I have a high income but choose to live a spendthrift lifestyle, I will in fact have MORE wiggle room for indulgence. If, however, I have a high income but live paycheck to paycheck, I'm handicapped.
If I have a high calorie allowance but consistently eat under my goal, it allows me more indulgence to maintain a weekly deficit. If I have a high allowance and eat up to it everyday, then I have less room for occasional indulgences.
Actually, you're saying exactly the same thing as me, except you're tracking on a weekly instead of daily basis and averaging out your calories.0 -
I eat try to eat 2100-2200... but its probably more accurate to say 2000-22000
-
We are not saying the same thing.
In your example you are consuming your maximum calories daily and calling it an indulgence. Eating "chocolate and chips" as you said is not an indulgence if you do it every day, that's simply your diet. I don't agree with your presumption that chocolate and chips are essential to obtaining adequate nutrition.
I do agree that indulging periodically has value, but not on a daily basis. I would argue that a lower daily calorie limit with occasional indulgences is healthier than a daily indulgence of empty calories.0 -
Between 650 and 4,438.
Average around 2600?0 -
To make the analogy go further:
You are arguing that one should maximize their spending every day - drive a BMW instead of a Ford Focus - and call that a healthy lifestyle.
I am arguing that one can be happier and healthier living more frugally with occasional large indulgences - drive the Ford Focus but go on an annual vacation to Mexico.0 -
Let's assume our example woman weighs 135 pounds and is 30% body fat. That means she has 95 pounds of LBM. On your 1040 calorie diet, she needs:
Protein: 95 x .8 = 76 g = 304 calories
Fat: 135 x .4 = 54g = 486 calories
Carbohydrates = 250 calories left (63g)
Can you show me a sample diet that would allow her to hit those macros and still get some kind of reasonable fruit and vegetable intake? Possibly, but it would be really restrictive in the long term.0 -
Okay, I get what you're saying. But look at it this way: Let's say you only had exactly the amount of money each month to cover your basic needs. Then your car breaks down. Now you're in the $**t without a paddle 'cause you have literally zero wiggle room.
We humans aren't perfect. We could eat a perfectly constructed jigsaw puzzle diet to get all our nutritional needs met in 1000 calories, but most of us couldn't stick to that for very long. And one unexpected thing would throw the whole thing off.
Having more calories in your daily goal makes it more likely that people will get their nutritional needs met, even though we're imperfect. It also means we can have a more balanced approach to weight loss, and yes, allow for the occasional party or Thanksgiving dinner.
If you want to eat less during the week and splurge on the weekends, that's totally legitimate. That's called spending your calories wisely and saving some for a rainy day.
But it's not the same as cutting your calorie goal entirely (i.e. cutting your income).0 -
Well, I think we're simply disagreeing on semantics here.
Bob wants to lose weight. Under your conditions let's say you calculate that Bob can eat 1500 calories every day and under my conditions I calculate that Bob can eat 1000 calories every day.
If Bob goes on my regimen and fails weekly by over-indulging on the weekend, eating 1000+ calories over goal on Saturday and Sunday, what happens? Well yes, he's failed the regimen, but he is STILL maintaining a more negative deficit that he would have on your regimen (500*7 - 1000*2 is a 1500 calorie deficit).
In my "plan" I am engineering failure - it is DESIGNED to not be sustainable because I think human nature is to want to indulge.
Read the confessions thread; there are hundreds of people on 1500, 1600, 2000 calorie per day limits who still binge. You could put someone on a 4000 calorie per day diet and I bet they would still binge and eat over their goal sometimes.
I am saying we should accept that binging will happen and is normal, but adjust our goals to facilitate it. I don't consider binging to be a failure of the diet, whereas I think that in your comments above, you are.
Anyways I have to go offline but thanks for having a good discussion without letting it devolve into a petty argument like happens on here so often!0 -
Anytime!
And yep, analogies only stretch so far. Keep on doin' what you're doin'.0 -
Is that person getting adequate nutrition and hitting appropriate protein and fat targets at 1040 calories? It's possible, but not likely.
Then it's not appropriate for that woman, with those stats, to do TDEE-20%.Lizabelle1212 wrote: »My thoughts exactly. No way that's correct unless the person is extremely short, but even then, shouldn't be going below 1200 cals and DEFINITELY shouldn't go so low that your calorie goal is only 3 numbers.
A woman who's 65 years old, 5 feet tall, 135 pounds and sedentary (just to take an example) would have a TDEE of ~1300 and a 20% deficit would be ~1040 calories.
It is possible. And probably not that unusual for people who are a little bit older.
Just saying, hear out the OP's stats before being judgmental.
What are you basing this statement on?
This is the part that I'm questioning. Everybody repeats this dogma over and over on MFP but not a single person can back it up with any evidence. I'm not advocating this, but lots of people go on very low calorie diets (either unsupervised or supervised by a physician) and there is not an epidemic of malnutrition in our society.
I simply don't believe that anyone is going to get malnourished on 1000 calories per day. This is oft-repeated, never-backed.
well, there are a lot of posts on MFP with young women losing their periods and losing their hair and nails becoming brittle, etc...because VLCD and not getting proper nutrition...just sayin'
it's not impossible to have a VLCD and get proper nutrition...but it's difficult and actually requires a fair bit of nutritional knowledge..which is why most should be supervised.
0 -
Between 1385 and 1800 depending on activity level/workout that day.0
-
My goal is 1200/day. Some days I end up only eating 800 and other days I may go up to 1400. I feel that if I am not hungry and I have only ate 800 calories for the day - oh well. I DO NOT eat back any exercise calories. My feeling on that is when I occasionally go out and have a few drinks, over-indulge on a holiday or vacation, or just have a "cheat day" (which I never technically allow myself, but I'm human and it happens!) than those excess exercise calories that I didn't eat back allow me to not beat myself up when I make a bad choice.
For those nutrition nazi's on here that have a complete tantrum when someone says they eat less than 1200 cals or don't eat back their exercise calories - look at it this way. Most of us trying to lose weight got here by eating junk food with little or no nutritional value. I can promise you that even IF I were to eat just 500 calories a day (I am NOT saying that I do, nor suggesting it to anyone, just an example!)... by choosing the healthy whole food options that I am today versus the nasty junk I used to stuff my face with, I would still be giving my body much more nutritionally than if I ate 3000 junk calories as before.
I lost 45 lbs a couple of years ago with the help of MFP. I am an indiscriminate stress eater and during a bad relationship, I put it all back on plus more. I know this method works (for me) because it has before. I also have PCOS (poly-cystic ovarian disorder) which makes me insulin resistant and I choose to not take the meds for because I don't like the sick feeling that comes with them.
My exercise regimen is and will continue to be a slow and steady progression. I injured myself during my last round of weight loss by over-extending my knee (not keeping proper form) by pushing myself too hard doing Jillian Michael's 30 Day Shred. Although I love that particular workout and can't wait to see results from it again, I am allowing time doing other less difficult (Biggest Loser 2 plus daily time on the treadmill) home workouts for 1-2 months before I go back to Jillian. My knee still bothers me, but I hope by continuing to work those surrounding muscles, their strength combined with less body weight will prevent additional injury.
I am 33 years old and 5'1" weighing in currently at 229 lbs in a size 20 (US) with a modest initial goal of 180 lbs and hopes of being in a size 14/16 at that weight and expect to reach that goal in a 6 month period. That is a bit too aggressive of a goal and lifestyle change for many people, but I feel is definitely attainable and I have seen countless success stories here on MFP that give me the courage to keep going and see that THIS IS POSSIBLE FOR ALL OF US!!!
I give all of this info to show you (nazis) that some of us that do more dramatic calorie reductions are not just insane fly-by-night type of dieters with no concern for our bodies. Yes, there are some for sure. But many of us are educated people and have made our own individual plan based on what we feel works best for us. Sometimes the judgement and rude comments that I see on these boards gets absolutely rediculous. Everyone thinks that they know best and are quick to jump on the new people with "You need to do THIS!" or "THAT is the only thing that works!" instead of being supportive and acknowledging what has worked for you AND other options that we have seen work for others, remembering that each person is different and they need to find the right balance and lifestyle that will work for them.
Good luck to all on their journey:)-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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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