So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »And on a less sarcastic note-- research science is cutthroat. It's the nature of the beast-- scientists love to debunk each other. I promise you, if a person is doing a lot of research they're coming up against much harsher skepticism than anything that's been in this thread. If the science is valid, the researcher would welcome the criticism.
Well, thanks.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
and thanks for this too?
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
what do you mean by "won't let you provide a link"? How does it stop you from doing that?
well, when I went to the top of the page on the second and third pages and tried to copy the links they wouldnt copy. Now I'm not that savy with computers and I'm on a ipad, an olde modle, but the info is on the halls vmi chart site, its just not on the first page and the links on that page are in red.
I am sorry I couldnt be more fast to respond, but I have obligations in my life and I have tried to be responsive to all the posters good enough to share their experience on the topics Threads i started.
sometimes I come back and there are new posts I have missed, I havent intentionally ignored anyone, its just sometimes difficult while I am making all these homecooked meals from fresh vegetqbles and keeping hous etc. Thanks for all the time you have spent on this, I know you arent happy with my input.
also, its getting late here as I am over in europe and the later in the day the harder I find being able to respnd at a high level.
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
There are many people here that refute this through their personal experience. To take this as the only way for everyone is just ludicrous.
If you were eating 500-800 calories you were obviously eating very little and most experts would never advise people that this would be healthy long term, and many (if not most) would strongly advise against so few calories even short term.
You do understand that guidelines are general, don't you? It is not a finite amount. There are a lot of variables from person to person, and it can certainly vary greatly.
0 -
At 5"1", my TDEE (lightly active) is around 1800 calories. On completely sedentary days, it's 1324. That's with the Scooby calculation. There were years that I followed along blindly with the 2200 calories maintenance propoganda and gained. Right now I'm eating between 1200 and 1600 and am loosing slowly. I plan to maintain at about 1600, and workout about three to four days a week.0
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
Not necessary as it's clear you don't have said research.
did you find the articles on the halls site?
0 -
As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
Wait, which one is it? Are you refusing to cite your source, or do you not have time to find your citation? Those two posts were 14 minutes apart, and you've already changed your story (which, btw, is why nobody believes you - everything you say is inconsistent)0 -
She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
Just for the record, I currently maintain at 2000 (tested and true, without any studies telling me anything), and my BMI is 35.5 (obese).0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
I'm only interested in the bit about the 2000 calories, so that's what I've been searching. I did put it into google, and into sciencebasedmedicine.org, and into the Cochran Summaries, and a few other sites where I go for research.
I thought you weren't posting them because we're all big mean bullies who might . . . what? Harass the scientists?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
I've read those, and while I do believe OP is misinterpreting them that's not the part of her posts that makes me skeptical.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
and thanks for this too?
Apart from the sarcasm, do you understand the point I'm making? No one is going to believe you just because you say so. Put up or shut up, as they say. Or, in nicer terms, either provide the studies or just admit that you don't have any.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
I'm only interested in the bit about the 2000 calories, so that's what I've been searching. I did put it into google, and into sciencebasedmedicine.org, and into the Cochran Summaries, and a few other sites where I go for research.
I thought you weren't posting them because we're all big mean bullies who might . . . what? Harass the scientists?
oh no. Its just that I feel uncomfortable wuoting this person. She has done a lot for me, is very well acquainted with this research. i dont feel right about posting her writtings. She has done the research from all kinds of papers and compiled a good explanation. I would think you would have come across it if you looked, but I guess not. Sorry. very sorry in fact, I think you would have loved reading this stuff.
0 -
the halls articles state that higher than normal are healthier for people over 50 and even that bmi 27 and upward are healthy. Obese isnt necessarily inhealthy.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
I've read those, and while I do believe OP is misinterpreting them that's not the part of her posts that makes me skeptical.
0 -
what makes you skeptical?ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
I've read those, and while I do believe OP is misinterpreting them that's not the part of her posts that makes me skeptical.
0 -
what story?PixieGoddess wrote: »As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
Wait, which one is it? Are you refusing to cite your source, or do you not have time to find your citation? Those two posts were 14 minutes apart, and you've already changed your story (which, btw, is why nobody believes you - everything you say is inconsistent)
0 -
I'm making dinner at the same time and its wuite late, my husband will be getting of work and I may be able to continue later, but I dont know for sure.0
-
I'm a bit confused by what's been going on here, but in any case, my responses to
1. Adaptive thermogenesis issue: I don't care if I can't consume as much as a hypothetical never-overweight version of me. I can't consume as much as my husband and it'll only be a year or two until I can't consume as much as my daughter. I'm genuinely not interested in other people's caloric intake - only what it takes me to maintain my weight loss, and that (between 1500 on sedentary days, up to 2000 on heavy activity days) is perfectly satisfying, varied and enjoyable for me.
2. Better outcomes at higher BMIs: it would make sense to me that thinner is not always better, at any age. However, I do wander if anyone knows of any research on extremely active 65+ year olds with higher than average muscle/body weight ratios and their outcomes? I see a good number of older people at my gym, and a few of them are in seriously great shape. They don't look frail and they look like they would give the 20 year-olds a run for their money in the free weights section. I struggle to believe their outcomes would be better for putting on a bit of weight.
Done.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
I'm only interested in the bit about the 2000 calories, so that's what I've been searching. I did put it into google, and into sciencebasedmedicine.org, and into the Cochran Summaries, and a few other sites where I go for research.
I thought you weren't posting them because we're all big mean bullies who might . . . what? Harass the scientists?
oh no. Its just that I feel uncomfortable wuoting this person. She has done a lot for me, is very well acquainted with this research. i dont feel right about posting her writtings. She has done the research from all kinds of papers and compiled a good explanation. I would think you would have come across it if you looked, but I guess not. Sorry. very sorry in fact, I think you would have loved reading this stuff.
Then post the researcher's name and everyone can google for themselves. if she's a research scientist who is published it should be easy to find with that. Or journal article title would suffice, although it might be harder to find.
FTR, the people arguing against your points in this thread are the same people who tell MFP newbies not to cut calories too low, to protect against muscle loss, to get enough fat for body functions, etc. It's not that we're saying people should starve themselves to lose weight. It's that we're saying maintenance isn't one-size-fits-all.
As for your theory that people are eating too little for maintenance, I've done a bulk as well which means I slowly increased calories over time until I started gaining weight. It's not like I just arrived arbitrarily at my maintenance number. I took steps to make sure I was eating as much as I possibly could.
I think it's amusing that you seem to think you're the one who is normal and all the rest of us are the outliers, instead of the reverse. Based solely on this thread (which obviously isn't science but it doesn't appear that we're doing any of that here anyway) you should instead conclude that you and the couple of others with high maintenance numbers are the outliers and the rest of us are normal.0 -
OP, you do amazingly resemble a troll.
Did you have an eating disorder way back when you maintained what apparently is an unhealthily low weight for your height and now just feel safer being overweight? If you are, that's probably OK, but most people on this site don't have these issues.
And if you cannot post links because the Hall site doesn't let you blah blah, would it kill you to just type out the name of the researcher they cited, the title and publication date of the research, the journal? It would help us to find it for ourselves saving you the trouble, and it would certainly take less of your time than posting the same thing over and over and passive-aggressively wishing everyone whose arguments you can't refute "good health" etc.
Yes, we wish you well too dear. But until you substantiate anything of what you say, you are engaging in typical trolling behaviour.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
There are many people here that refute this through their personal experience. To take this as the only way for everyone is just ludicrous.
If you were eating 500-800 calories you were obviously eating very little and most experts would never advise people that this would be healthy long term, and many (if not most) would strongly advise against so few calories even short term.
You do understand that guidelines are general, don't you? It is not a finite amount. There are a lot of variables from person to person, and it can certainly vary greatly.
yes, it is very evident from the responses here to my question that most people are maintaining on less than 2000. It does vary greatly, this amount, as you say is not finite.
I was doing a bad thing only eating so little, and now I have corrected that under some very good guidance.
I hope,you find a happy healthy life.
0 -
what makes you skeptical?ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
I've read those, and while I do believe OP is misinterpreting them that's not the part of her posts that makes me skeptical.
The fact that it sounds like nonsense and contradicts everything I've ever read, and the fact that you won't post it. Like I said earlier, I might as well post that gelato is necessary to health. I've every bit as strong a platform as you do at the moment.0 -
0
-
Height has very little to do with how many calories you need per day to maintain your weight.
A sedentary 6" female who weights 145lbs needs the same amount of calories per day as a sedentary 4"5 female who weighs 145lbs...
A female of any height who weighs 145lb, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
A male (since they have higher muscle mass) of any height who weighs 125lbs, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
Some people (especially females) are smaller than this and will easily maintain their weight on less than 2,000 calories per day, this is by no means a healthy number for everyone... but neither is it healthy for a petite, sedentary female to be eating like an Olympic athlete who may need 4,000 + calories per day to maintain their weight... everyone had very different needs.
Source: http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced0 -
SarahHowells1 wrote: »Height has very little to do with how many calories you need per day to maintain your weight.
A sedentary 6" female who weights 145lbs needs the same amount of calories per day as a sedentary 4"5 female who weighs 145lbs...
A female of any height who weighs 145lb, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
A male (since they have higher muscle mass) of any height who weighs 125lbs, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
Some people (especially females) are smaller than this and will easily maintain their weight on less than 2,000 calories per day, this is by no means a healthy number for everyone... but neither is it healthy for a petite, sedentary female to be eating like an Olympic athlete who may need 4,000 + calories per day to maintain their weight... everyone had very different needs.
Source: http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced
Ah, sorry no. If that were true, than why does the calculator you point to ask you to input weight? If it were unnecessary it wouldn't be there. There is going to be a difference of a couple hundred calories between a tall person and a short person, all else equal.
0 -
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
Don't know where you're pulling that from. I'm short, but well over 4' 5", and I have to eat well under 2,000. I do best at a little over 1,000. Nor am I malnourished.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »SarahHowells1 wrote: »Height has very little to do with how many calories you need per day to maintain your weight.
A sedentary 6" female who weights 145lbs needs the same amount of calories per day as a sedentary 4"5 female who weighs 145lbs...
A female of any height who weighs 145lb, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
A male (since they have higher muscle mass) of any height who weighs 125lbs, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
Some people (especially females) are smaller than this and will easily maintain their weight on less than 2,000 calories per day, this is by no means a healthy number for everyone... but neither is it healthy for a petite, sedentary female to be eating like an Olympic athlete who may need 4,000 + calories per day to maintain their weight... everyone had very different needs.
Source: http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced
Ah, sorry no. If that were true, than why does the calculator you point to ask you to input weight? If it were unnecessary it wouldn't be there. There is going to be a difference of a couple hundred calories between a tall person and a short person, all else equal.
I think you completely misread what she said or are just wrong. For weight as a constant, your required calories remain the same at any height. It looks like based on that website it's true and it also makes sense to me. If you just move the weight dial and keep everything else the same, the calories stay the same. However, shorter people will need to be a lower weight in order to be healthy in the first place.
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic of this thread though.0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »I have a friend who is 5'1" and a programmer, so about as sedentary of a job as exists, and she can maintain a consistent weight on something like 1200-1400 calories. It's part of what bugs me (and drives her slowly insane) when people say "oh, you absolutely have to have more than the magical number 1200) Lots of people of smaller stature don't need 1500 calories to maintain, much less 2000.
*Nodding vigorously.*
0 -
I maintain around 1500-1800 calories a day and I've been doing so for over six months now. It it enough for me, I feel better than I ever have, and for me that makes it pretty easy. Also, as my body has changed so has my appetite. I do not feel deprived at all in fact! Of course there are days I far exceed my usual intake, going out and things like that but I've learned to balance that which has been important in not gaining the weight back.
Props of sticking to that for so long. I've done that before and it's tough to start off. Here I am trying to do the same thing again. Good luck.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »SarahHowells1 wrote: »Height has very little to do with how many calories you need per day to maintain your weight.
A sedentary 6" female who weights 145lbs needs the same amount of calories per day as a sedentary 4"5 female who weighs 145lbs...
A female of any height who weighs 145lb, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
A male (since they have higher muscle mass) of any height who weighs 125lbs, sleeps 7.5hrs per night and has 1 hour of standing/walking per day will maintain their weight at 2,000 calories per day
Some people (especially females) are smaller than this and will easily maintain their weight on less than 2,000 calories per day, this is by no means a healthy number for everyone... but neither is it healthy for a petite, sedentary female to be eating like an Olympic athlete who may need 4,000 + calories per day to maintain their weight... everyone had very different needs.
Source: http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced
Ah, sorry no. If that were true, than why does the calculator you point to ask you to input weight? If it were unnecessary it wouldn't be there. There is going to be a difference of a couple hundred calories between a tall person and a short person, all else equal.
According to the calculator at iifym.com you get an extra hundred calories or so for every 4 inches of height (assuming a lightly active TDEE)
0
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