So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
To answer you question...yes. At 5'7' with a sedentary job, I stay between 1200 and 1500 calories daily (depending on how active I can become). Going above 1500 calories makes me gain weight, then my doctor gives me "the lecture" which I wish to avoid. I wont say you are wrong, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for better information.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.
I'm not sure we've figured out what actually is relevant to this topic...
And I'm still having problems believing that someone based off of information from some very nice person who shall remain unnamed and the world's worst organized website (seriously, I tried clicking some links and all I can figure out is that there is a talking camel...) decided that even though they have never been obese, they should gain weight until reaching obese BMI levels because it is healthier at her age (as stated by these two random sources). Even though there are THOUSANDS of other articles in peer review articles contradicting that statement.0 -
The refusal to link to something allegedly put into the public domain by its author makes no sense. Then again, nothing the OP claims makes sense so far which might partially explain why she keeps contradicting herself.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.
I'm not sure we've figured out what actually is relevant to this topic...
And I'm still having problems believing that someone based off of information from some very nice person who shall remain unnamed and the world's worst organized website (seriously, I tried clicking some links and all I can figure out is that there is a talking camel...) decided that even though they have never been obese, they should gain weight until reaching obese BMI levels because it is healthier at her age (as stated by these two random sources). Even though there are THOUSANDS of other articles in peer review articles contradicting that statement.
yeah, purposely gaining weight in order to become obese is just bizarre to me.0 -
I eat "intuitively" and I very much limit refined carbohydrates (white breads, corn chips, added sugars, pastries etc.) Basically I try to eat nutrient dense whole foods. Plenty of vegetables, lots of fiber. And I eat until I feel I've had enough. If the scale creeps up, I do a little "boot camp" where I keep an eye on what I'm eating until the scale goes back down. About once a year, I do a "boot camp" "reboot".Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Is that all you wanted?Ok, I seem to be hitting a nerve there wolfman. I don't know why. Are you ok with eating your maintenance cals for the rest of your life? I find most people here aren't really, that they struggle like hell to maintain and are hungry and eat reactivly on maintenance. I hear a lot of people having trouble when their appetite kicks them after restricting calories for so long when they start to eat to maintain.
I'm just asking if you plan to do it for life? To limit yourself to maintenance cals until you die and do you think you will be happy with that ongoing?
This isn't demon time! Just asking.
Yes.
Ok, one more vote for, yes, another person is willing to use the MFP guidlines for maintenance evn though it is actually 500 calories under what would be maintenance and is then in fact resticting for the rest of her life!
I didn't count to lose. I don't count in maintenance. I do plan to eat in a way that will help me keep maintaining. the end.
Thanks! I am curious as to how you eat to keep maintaining! If you care to share it of course. I would like to stop counting, I did so for over two years but realized I was not eating enough, so I began counting again a few weeks ago.
I lost doing this. I've maintained for 14 years doing this. But yes, if I input my calories, it's around 1700-1800 most days. Some days are naturally more. Some days are naturally less.0 -
I currently eat around 1500-1600 calories a day. I don't feel deprived. Currently my goal is set to weigh 199, but in reality, I'd like to weigh 150. In order to maintain that weight when I get there I'll need to eat somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I'm pretty confident that when I get there I'll be able to eat that much and be happy with it.0
-
MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »I currently eat around 1500-1600 calories a day. I don't feel deprived. Currently my goal is set to weigh 199, but in reality, I'd like to weigh 150. In order to maintain that weight when I get there I'll need to eat somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I'm pretty confident that when I get there I'll be able to eat that much and be happy with it.
It's actually a fairly common way of reaching your goal weight to just set your calorie goal to what you expect your maintenance calories would be at your goal weight. It can be a slower rate of loss, but it requires less recalculations through the process and naturally tapers the loss rate.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.
I'm not sure we've figured out what actually is relevant to this topic...
And I'm still having problems believing that someone based off of information from some very nice person who shall remain unnamed and the world's worst organized website (seriously, I tried clicking some links and all I can figure out is that there is a talking camel...) decided that even though they have never been obese, they should gain weight until reaching obese BMI levels because it is healthier at her age (as stated by these two random sources). Even though there are THOUSANDS of other articles in peer review articles contradicting that statement.
From what I read in my google search it sounds like she should have concluded that it would be healthier to calorie restrict regardless of weight-- at least I found some studies that seemed to support that idea. I mean, they've been pretty much debunked at this point, but at least I managed to locate them fairly easily.0 -
MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »I currently eat around 1500-1600 calories a day. I don't feel deprived. Currently my goal is set to weigh 199, but in reality, I'd like to weigh 150. In order to maintain that weight when I get there I'll need to eat somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I'm pretty confident that when I get there I'll be able to eat that much and be happy with it.
It's actually a fairly common way of reaching your goal weight to just set your calorie goal to what you expect your maintenance calories would be at your goal weight. It can be a slower rate of loss, but it requires less recalculations through the process and naturally tapers the loss rate.
That is really interesting. While I don't mind the goal MFP has set for me, I don't always worry about if I go over it by a couple hundred calories every once in a while. I tend to look at what it would take to maintain my current weight, and on days where for whatever reason I feel a bit hungrier than usual, I will eat up to that point (but try not to go over). I think right now that's somewhere around 2100 calories.0 -
MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »I currently eat around 1500-1600 calories a day. I don't feel deprived. Currently my goal is set to weigh 199, but in reality, I'd like to weigh 150. In order to maintain that weight when I get there I'll need to eat somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I'm pretty confident that when I get there I'll be able to eat that much and be happy with it.
It's actually a fairly common way of reaching your goal weight to just set your calorie goal to what you expect your maintenance calories would be at your goal weight. It can be a slower rate of loss, but it requires less recalculations through the process and naturally tapers the loss rate.
That is really interesting. While I don't mind the goal MFP has set for me, I don't always worry about if I go over it by a couple hundred calories every once in a while. I tend to look at what it would take to maintain my current weight, and on days where for whatever reason I feel a bit hungrier than usual, I will eat up to that point (but try not to go over). I think right now that's somewhere around 2100 calories.
For sanity sake, I think it's a really good idea to know what your current maintenance goal should be. So many people fear "blowing it" because they've indulged in something and are over for the day. But, many times they're still under their current maintenance, so they may lose at a slightly lower rate, but they won't gain weight because of it (except for possible water retention if higher carb or salt levels than usual).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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.
It totals an infinite number of calories over time.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.
Really? I used the same one here http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/ and got a difference of about 200 calories for the example she initially used (6 ft vs. 5'4" I believe) Just did it again. Got a difference from 1902- 2078. So about 175 cals different. Its not a huge deal but its incorrect to tell people its the same. I'm not sure why that other calculator ignores this. I mean, it makes sense conceptually to me.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.
Really? When I put in my stats the difference was about 100 calories difference per 4 inches.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.
Really? When I put in my stats the difference was about 100 calories difference per 4 inches.
oh, i was doing the "harris benedict" one. The "Mifflin-St Jeor" looks like it's more like 87 calories for 4 inches.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
its not. but try literally any other TDEE calculator. Any of them. Put in the same weight at different heights. There is a difference.
okay, just looked at one on iifym. there is a difference, but it's extremely small. for a 4 inch difference at the same weight and age, it's only like a 25 calorie difference. that is too minimal to matter. it's not a couple hundred calories.
Really? When I put in my stats the difference was about 100 calories difference per 4 inches.
oh, i was doing the "harris benedict" one. The "Mifflin-St Jeor" looks like it's more like 87 calories for 4 inches.
That makes sense. Harris Benedict is based on lean mass.0 -
Oh look it's the op again in their other profile
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10088516/the-truth-about-calorie-restriction/p60 -
Hi,
based on my targeted period + potential weight loss to be achieved, I am on 1280 calories/day. I have only had double that calorie intake once when I visited both kfc n McDonald's. I want to continue it for a very long time, to the point where I'm acclamatised to eating only when I need to n wisely too.
Low calorie intake should be done with some protein, fruits and veges as part of the day's menu. You could never go wrong nutrition-wise.
I must confess I started with the Cambridge weight plan where I was on 810kcals/day. So this is me taking my time now yet staying on track...hopefully.
P.S: with the CWP, lost 6kg in 3weeks!0 -
MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »MindySaysWhaaat wrote: »I currently eat around 1500-1600 calories a day. I don't feel deprived. Currently my goal is set to weigh 199, but in reality, I'd like to weigh 150. In order to maintain that weight when I get there I'll need to eat somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I'm pretty confident that when I get there I'll be able to eat that much and be happy with it.
It's actually a fairly common way of reaching your goal weight to just set your calorie goal to what you expect your maintenance calories would be at your goal weight. It can be a slower rate of loss, but it requires less recalculations through the process and naturally tapers the loss rate.
That is really interesting. While I don't mind the goal MFP has set for me, I don't always worry about if I go over it by a couple hundred calories every once in a while. I tend to look at what it would take to maintain my current weight, and on days where for whatever reason I feel a bit hungrier than usual, I will eat up to that point (but try not to go over). I think right now that's somewhere around 2100 calories.
For sanity sake, I think it's a really good idea to know what your current maintenance goal should be. So many people fear "blowing it" because they've indulged in something and are over for the day. But, many times they're still under their current maintenance, so they may lose at a slightly lower rate, but they won't gain weight because of it (except for possible water retention if higher carb or salt levels than usual).
I agree 100%. I think that's part of why I haven't had more than a few not so great days since I started. I don't beat myself up as much.0 -
And it keep going and going!!
It is a train wreck, you know you shouldn't look but you just can't look away!
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Oh look it's the op again in their other profile
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10088516/the-truth-about-calorie-restriction/p6
But, but, in this one the poster is 65 and used to be underweight and in the other one she's 20 and overweight. Totally different. Like opposites. Couldn't be the same. No way, no how. Total coincidence that both have landed on the idea that all adult humans need to eat at least 2000 calories a day for health. And how lucky is it that the other poster just posted today? It's like a miracle.0 -
Hi everyone!
Completely new to the forums, but wanted to share that I've kept 80 pounds off for over 20 years by watching what I eat 80% of the time which includes eating about 1600 calories per day give or take a few calories - but am fairly active ( walk a lot every day, climb stairs, Chase toddler and workout 3 times per week)
There are certainly days I go over 2000 calories but those are rare (maybe 1 day per month, if that)
So yes I'm committed to keeping the weight off forever and if that means I should eat only 1600 calories to do it, then so be it.
0 -
2000 calories is hardly low. I'm eating a huge bowl of curried shrimp and vegetables and it's under 150 calories. I'm going for 1700 per day until I reach the muscley look I want and I will have to increase at some point. I mean, if one is eating 2000 calories of not nutrient dense food, then one will be hungry since the amount of food will be little. I can eat 2000 calories in three pieces of popeyes chicken.0
-
0
-
Iron_Feline wrote: »The op just wants to justify the fact that they are overweight by claiming it is unhealthy to eat less that 2000 cals.
So far they have yet to provide a single link to back up their claims, not surprising as they are nonsense.
I completely agree. The OP was making the same claims on another thread and when I brought up the accurate information and asked for sources I got the same responses.
OP just wants someone to tell her it's ok to be overweight and that she should continue eating whatever she wants. It's pretty clear from her posts. And all the citing of this "research" sounds delusional.
Actually, if you want us to research your claims ourselves, what is the name of the female researcher you are referring to? Let me guess, you don't have time to post that?
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Oh look it's the op again in their other profile
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10088516/the-truth-about-calorie-restriction/p6
But, but, in this one the poster is 65 and used to be underweight and in the other one she's 20 and overweight. Totally different. Like opposites. Couldn't be the same. No way, no how. Total coincidence that both have landed on the idea that all adult humans need to eat at least 2000 calories a day for health. And how lucky is it that the other poster just posted today? It's like a miracle.
The plot thickens!0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Oh look it's the op again in their other profile
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10088516/the-truth-about-calorie-restriction/p6
But, but, in this one the poster is 65 and used to be underweight and in the other one she's 20 and overweight. Totally different. Like opposites. Couldn't be the same. No way, no how. Total coincidence that both have landed on the idea that all adult humans need to eat at least 2000 calories a day for health. And how lucky is it that the other poster just posted today? It's like a miracle.
Its not me but I'll probably be watching that one myself! Wish I was 20 again with all I know now.:-)
0 -
christineb1975 wrote: »Hi everyone!
Completely new to the forums, but wanted to share that I've kept 80 pounds off for over 20 years by watching what I eat 80% of the time which includes eating about 1600 calories per day give or take a few calories - but am fairly active ( walk a lot every day, climb stairs, Chase toddler and workout 3 times per week)
There are certainly days I go over 2000 calories but those are rare (maybe 1 day per month, if that)
So yes I'm committed to keeping the weight off forever and if that means I should eat only 1600 calories to do it, then so be it.
Thanks for adding to the group of those who are willing to continue to eat calorie amounts under 2000 for the rest of their lives. The number of those who do as you are planning to do is growing here.
0 -
2000 calories is hardly low. I'm eating a huge bowl of curried shrimp and vegetables and it's under 150 calories. I'm going for 1700 per day until I reach the muscley look I want and I will have to increase at some point. I mean, if one is eating 2000 calories of not nutrient dense food, then one will be hungry since the amount of food will be little. I can eat 2000 calories in three pieces of popeyes chicken.
Hi Valgo, A jar of peanut butter could easily do for the day! If I'm getting your point it depends on the type of food, if its dense with calories or not. I really agree with this. 2000 can be too much if its all raw veg and fruit, IMO, some things could fill me up in 2 minutes, others I could munch on all day.
Its an interesting journy aye?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions