So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
Springfield1970 wrote: »Springfield1970 wrote: »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!
OK great for posting this! Another vote for " yes! I am willing to do less than 2000 a day to keep my weight down."
Its really becoming clear that a lot, maybe MOST of us MPF'ers are willing to keep restricting calories under 2000 a day, isnt it?
Again, it's not RESTRICTING if that is how much energy is needed to MAINTAIN a certain weight. You can't teach your body to absorb more calories. You can just be more active or burn a handful more calories with muscle that you have added, it's not like we've CHOSEN to follow the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
People quite often get their TDEE wrong, either way.
When you've meticulously weighed everything,got your average weekly weight and measurements, and stabilised for a good few weeks, you can say that you've found your set point. Mine is 1750 without exercise, a bit higher than the good calculators sedentary numbers for my size, age and weight coz I am active outside my exercise too. I then add my exercise calories and eat em all up! I quite often go into the mid 2000s, but I am still always a bit hungry. I was always a bit hungry when I was 5 stone higher too. That is maintenance unfortunately. Getting pretty darn hungry before meals.
My dictionary says restrict is the same as reduce. Am I still not getting these words right?
I thought natural setpoint was what was reached when a person eats to their appetite.
Finally I get to know how much you eat! I wish you werent still hungry. Sometimes I am hungry for more than 2300 myself, and I just go ahead and eat more. Usually next day I will be a bit under, so its no bother. I am at my natural set point as nearly as I can tell, as I have described above. Although I havemore days where I don't really feel like eating 2300 than ones were I am hungry enough to eat over 2300!
I want to thank you for your offer to do my body fat levels. You are a fitness trwiner maybe?
or you ar a generous person. Nice. :-)
Reduce/ restrict same thing. If your weight is stable you aren't doing either of those things.
When a person eats to their appetite, most of the time they become overweight.
I stated how much I ate pages ago. I actually eat more than I should at my age according to most calculators. I'm lucky my metabolism is normal, and my body fat is low.
It's perfectly normal to be a bit hungry before dinner. It's something that normal weight people feel. Perhaps an hour before food. There are days when I overeat as food is a hobby of mine, and I bulk and cut too.
I'm not a trainer, but I do know what I'm talking about. I choose to be at low end of BMI range, I'm fine boned, and like nice clothes, having a bounce in my step and being competitive at sports.
You sound very happy with yourself and your life. I also feel hungry about wn hour before meals especially on more active days and before breakfast. i love breakfast, sometimes I have a big bowl of oatmeal and apples cooked in it, my husband does the breakfasts, plus he makes toast with nit utter and jam, and wehave coffee and eggs and then sometimes I make myself a pudding with some whole fat yogurt a pear and cocoa. Breakfast is definately my favorite meal! Good you can eat more, well we can both agree food is something to enjoy!
It must be fun being an athelite! I was not like that. I am the booky, artistic painter, accordion, flute player type.
0 -
I can't believe I just read 13 pages...I should of been working!
LOL...brianpperkins wrote: »
If you wanted to be useful you would provide a link to the research, or at least the name of the researcher. You've repeatedly refused.
If you wanted to be useful, you wouldn't keep changing your story and denying your past comments.
Your behavior shows you aren't here to be useful.
Yep .... THIS..
YUp, I think that guy is right, as I answered this before I won't bore people with what I really am here for in yet another post.
0 -
After wasting more time than I care to admit on this thread.
A) I believe this summarizes OP's position and the research behind it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size
For the record, I am not sold on this approach. I have chosen to maintain at the mid-point of healthy BMI which for my gender, age, height, and activity level means less than 2000 cal average. If I ate ad libitum I would probably net 2500 on most days, weigh about 300 lbs, and have a BMI in the mid-40s. I do not think I would be happy or healthy at that size.
C) in this and other posts OP does touch on a couple of interesting truths. Namely:
1) there is a psychological cost to managing one's calories and it makes sense to ask whether the health/aesthetic gains are worth it. For me I found there were diminishing returns and did stop short of what some would consider ideal.
2) the physiological cost of yoyo-ing may be higher than that of maintaining at a moderately overweight BMI so it is worth considering one's long term commitment before setting a weight loss goal.
Your writing here is very much appreciated, especially the two points you added.
Many thanks, I wish you every happiness.
0 -
areallycoolstory wrote: »And it keeps going and going!!
It is a train wreck, you know you shouldn't look but you just can't look away!
I know. I keep coming back to paw through the wreckage. I'm so ashamed:-)
^^^^^^^ THIS^^^^^ 0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »The OP choose to stay in an overweight BMI on purpose!
Again, this thread is a train wreck.... You know you should not look, but you just can't help but look no matter what you might see!
Its true, I chose, still choosing, to eat enough to ensure robust health into old age. I'm 65 and having a 26 bmi is, from what I read, good for health and happiness. It could even be possibly better at 27 bmi.
I am fortunate to have no health problems. I'm not taking or been prescribed any meds.
I don't smoke or do formal excersize and am a bit of a dirty eater.
I can't twke any credit for this however, because in fact , besides quiting smoking over 30 years ago I havent been very attentive or concerned to my health.
I posted this topic becaus of my recent interest in caloric intake and health.
Love the picture!
Okay, OP. Okay then. Let us just ACCEPT your claim that a 26 bmi is good for health. No one is disputing that that is only a bit overweight. And let's also accept that you are not lying when you say you eat 2300 per day. I'm less inclined to believe that, but for purposes of my questions we will assume its accurate.
Now. MANY MANY PEOPLE, if they were to eat 2300 calories every day, would have a BMI of 35+. Not everyone, but for many people that would be the case.
Are you suggesting that that person should eat 2300 calories a day regardless? Are you suggesting they would be HEALTHIER at a BMI of 35 because they are eating over 2300 calories? Is this what you are advocating?
Or, are you advocating everyone strive for a BMI of 26? Because if that is the case, you need to accept that many people would need to eat well under 2000 calories to maintain a BMI of 26.
Please answer these questions.
Ok, first, I claim that 26 or 27 bmi is good for MY health. I have not said its good for yoirs. Its food for my heqlth becaue I am 65 years old and I was under a bmi of 17 for seveal years after I did a diet whan I was 55 years old, when i had gained weight afte menopause, menopause seemed to have mademy weight get up to the high end of the normal bmi range. This was my firs diet in my life. i didnt stop the diet when I shuld have. When I wanted, after losing those pounds, to stop losing, I found it was not possible. Either I gwined or I had to keep lowering my calorie intake to something abysmal and un healthy. Even on 1200 caloreis, I gwined, so I went lower, 800 to 1000, then lower, 500 to 800, inorder to stop gaining, but finally I decided to eat around 1000 which took me to a higher weight, but still too thin and severe hunger kicked me. So I felt like I was starrving to maintain sn 18.5 bmi. So I went to 1200, hunger massacred me and by then I was probwbly 20 bmi.I lived in Venice at that time and I started googling the problems I was having and came upon several articals papers and people who blogged about this dieting problem, metqbolism rtc.Thwt was the last time I saw my weight on the scale, when we moved from Venice to Susa I begwn to eat over 2000 caloreis and decided, from the research I had done that it was healthier dor my bones, muscles and my happiness to be st 26 or 27 bmi. I succeded about 6 months ago to reach that and it took about a year and a half of eating pretty much whatever I wanted to get here. I feel happy and actually have a life. my husband is 20 years youngerthan Iam and we have been together now 18 years. He has never seen my this heavy and he is not complaining! So I am very happy at this time.
I was curious to know how other people are faring with dieting and their weight, for I am not alone in making this decision and many others are doing this now, I only hear from the ones who are dedicated to giving up diets. i am interested also in those who struggle with it too. I asked the questions to hear how ral people are managing their diets and eating and excersize too.
There are so many lovely ones here who have shared ther experience.
Oh my, I lost th topic of your questions,
Ok yoi asked if I advocate eating over 2000 I think. yes, from my research, its better to eat at the very least 2300 to 3500 a day depending on gender, age andheight.
I am at the bottom of these levels because I am past the menopause.
The theory is that after a possible initial weight gain the bmi will settle at its natural set point eventually which could take from 2 to 6 years.
Thank you for these questions. if my post doesn't answer, please write a brief bit and ask me more if you would care to.
0 -
I am 6'1" and 400 lbs. For the past two weeks I have struggled to hit 2000 calories per day, let alone the 2800 I am supposed to reach (before adding in the calories for exercise) . 2000 calories is a lot of food.0
-
-
I am only 4'11", age 49 with a sedentary job, and my TDEE is 1268, so if I ate at 2000, I would definitely gain. I have my calories set at 1000 and eat back all my exercise calories (FitBit or HRM calcs). This a slow loss of .5 per week. I am very healthy and active outside of work.
So no, not everyone can eat 2000 and not be gaining. I only wish...sigh
Kenda, thanks so much for writing here to answer my question.
I wish you continued good health, and I always think the shortest women look so sweet and feminine.
0 -
sandyskw1967 wrote: »I think most ladies who have never been overweight always ate 2000 or less(men likely a little higher), us who have been larger, got large because we have been eating more and gaining weight. To us (who have been heavy) it may seem to be a deficit to eat less(2000 or lower on maintenance) then what we were accustomed too,but we should have been doing this all along and we wouldn,t have been heavy in the first place.
Sounds like a good theory but I probably would disagree. I have read on this thread of some women who are eating more than 2000 after losing weight, and I think some were overweight, but please ladies, chime in if that has been true for you. I beleive that I ate quite a lot over 2000 plenty of times through mylife and I wasn't over normal bmi until an .older age.
I know there are people in the field of health who say, and have written that bmi is like height, there is not anything we can do about it, and that appetite/hunger and consequent eating to hunger cues naturally takes us to our genetically disposed bmi. I realize that hardly anyone here will want to agree with me on that, but I think its worth saying that it is a theory of weight in humans and how we weigh what we do. It also points up that ovese people arent lazy, or ignorant about food, its their genetic disposition, I am against fat shaming and fat phobics.
Your post here was a gem. Thank you so much and all my best to you for your continued health and happiness into old age! 0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »OK now the OP's spelling and style have changed :huh: A different troll or the old troll tired of maintaining the 65-year old woman persona with proper care to detail?People are really still responding to this load of crap to keep the OP engaged in something that was answered 12 pages ago...
You know what, I think that might actually be doing some good in the world? While they're kept busy peddling their fads here they can't at the same time go and actively do it somewhere else where they would do more damage.
You're right! Thank you for pointing this out.
I speak three languages and right now I'd rather be doing this in Italian and I'm tired and so both my typing skills, which neverwere very great, and my verbal intelligence, which is often negligable are both at risk of shutting down completely. !& maybe I sholud use the signs and symbols keys more often to express my self! Lol.
Thanks again, Sir Wise!
0 -
Doesn't want to post stats, but expects other to do so when she asks.Springfield1970 wrote: »
I am barely in the overweight bmi range. i choose to be here, I am eating 2300 a day to stay here, and some days its not easy to eat that much actually. I have my own justification for this from research I have read, no just one artical. But the things I have read from one particular author have lengthy bibliographies amd I am not in a position to look at all the research and post links. Its not new research, I am gathering that some of you have heard about these findings before. Even some news articles have covered it, especially in UK news. It wont be hard to locate.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?
Thanks for your criticism!
Hi
I wonder if I could get you to maybe look at this from a different angle to the BMI one.
I would like to work out (with your permission) your body fat percentage, to see if that is in the healthy range?
All I would need is your weight,height, wrist measurement, hip, waist (at naval) measurement.
I would be able to tell you what your BF percentage is which is a far better indicator of health than the BMI index which takes no account of the composition of the person.
Are you up for a bit of open mindedness?
That will be the day! when 65 year olds start posting their stats on social web sites!!! LOLLLLLL!
No, no expectstions or demands about that. I have asked age, sometimes height, but no one must post them to me if they would feel better not doing so. I didnt ask for anyones measurements though.
0 -
This:
Does not coincide with this:I just wondered if people were truly prepared to eat so measily a bunch of rations for the rest of their lives when they could be eating more.I have no axe to grind
You very clearly have an axe to grind. It is obviously vitally important to you to feel okay about overeating and being slightly overweight. But you aren't okay with it. So you need to *attack* people who look at food primarily as a source of fuel as opposed to a source of pleasure. It's okay that you want to overeat and be slightly overweight. You do you, ya know? Even if *you* is fake-nice and passive aggressive.
Needing to see what others eat as *measly rations* is pretty indicative of your mindset. I eat a heaping bowl of delicious sundae almost every night. I eat pastries. I eat sandwiches. I eat fabulous 3 or 4 course meals everyday. Some days, I just choose to eat pretty much non-stop all day long. I'm also working towards having a strong heart and lungs, good endurance and physical strength. Should anything untoward happen, I'd like to be as prepared to survive it as possible.
But hey. If you need to see my lifestyle as *scraping by on meager rations* in order to feel better about yourself, have at it! No skin off my nose. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a frozen yogurt, blueberry, strawberry and peach sundae with a *kitten*-ton of cool whip on it calling my name. Take care and good health to you!
You're great! And so funny. Thanks, its made my day lighter.
i admit that post was probably reactionary on my part. It can be a big mistake to do that.
Golly I've actually written so many words its become like a philosophic tract wherein people are scouring the words for the forbidden contradictions!
Well, its all my folly for calling anything under 2000 measily or meager.
I could do with a dozen of humility I think.
Ok,
I fess up:
for ME under 2000 is meager and measily and I enjoy food,
For ME ts not just about fueling my engine.
But I'm still extrememly intersted in how others cope and if some of you do eat ove 2000 and where does that maintwin you!
Have a great day Mr. 125 etc. :-) ( thats my morepassive smilie!!)
0 -
I also find your repeated use of the word *robust* interesting.
From Dictionary.com:( <- see that? It's called *citing a source* It's a handy little thing people do to back up their otherwise completely empty assertions)
1. strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous
2. strongly or stoutly built
3. suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance
Synonyms (from Oxford Dictionaries.com):
strong, vigorous, sturdy, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, strapping, brawny, burly, husky, heavily built; healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle
So when you use *robust* you mean in the *husky, strapping, brawny, heavily built* sense, I suppose? Where as I see myself as *robust* in the *strong, vigorous, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle* sense. Still robust though. And still eating sundaes. And still running around the block without coughing up a lung. Go me!
Well, I'm pretty hale and hearty myself. plenty strong too, you cant carry accordions around for several hours a day and not be somat like that.
Comgratulations mr. robust!
Thanks again, my more passive smilie coming up
0 -
higgins8283801 wrote: »As someone who is "fun sized" my maintenance is low. However, I can get it above 2000 with exercise. On rest days though, it's 1530.
I haven't lost any weight since I got to this point, so I'm pretty sure I found my zone.
Thanks Higgins for your post, nice picture there too!
0 -
I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Sorry I muissed that, very very cool, awesome!
0 -
Well, I didnt even get to page 14 yet and I have to go make supper now. Bummer.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »The OP choose to stay in an overweight BMI on purpose!
Again, this thread is a train wreck.... You know you should not look, but you just can't help but look no matter what you might see!
Its true, I chose, still choosing, to eat enough to ensure robust health into old age. I'm 65 and having a 26 bmi is, from what I read, good for health and happiness. It could even be possibly better at 27 bmi.
I am fortunate to have no health problems. I'm not taking or been prescribed any meds.
I don't smoke or do formal excersize and am a bit of a dirty eater.
I can't twke any credit for this however, because in fact , besides quiting smoking over 30 years ago I havent been very attentive or concerned to my health.
I posted this topic becaus of my recent interest in caloric intake and health.
Love the picture!
Okay, OP. Okay then. Let us just ACCEPT your claim that a 26 bmi is good for health. No one is disputing that that is only a bit overweight. And let's also accept that you are not lying when you say you eat 2300 per day. I'm less inclined to believe that, but for purposes of my questions we will assume its accurate.
Now. MANY MANY PEOPLE, if they were to eat 2300 calories every day, would have a BMI of 35+. Not everyone, but for many people that would be the case.
Are you suggesting that that person should eat 2300 calories a day regardless? Are you suggesting they would be HEALTHIER at a BMI of 35 because they are eating over 2300 calories? Is this what you are advocating?
Or, are you advocating everyone strive for a BMI of 26? Because if that is the case, you need to accept that many people would need to eat well under 2000 calories to maintain a BMI of 26.
Please answer these questions.
Ok, first, I claim that 26 or 27 bmi is good for MY health.
I was curious to know how other people are faring with dieting and their weight, for I am not alone in making this decision and many others are doing this now, I only hear from the ones who are dedicated to giving up diets. i am interested also in those who struggle with it too. I asked the questions to hear how ral people are managing their diets and eating and excersize too.
There are so many lovely ones here who have shared ther experience.
Oh my, I lost th topic of your questions,
Ok yoi asked if I advocate eating over 2000 I think. yes, from my research, its better to eat at the very least 2300 to 3500 a day depending on gender, age andheight.
I am at the bottom of these levels because I am past the menopause.
The theory is that after a possible initial weight gain the bmi will settle at its natural set point eventually which could take from 2 to 6 years.
Thank you for these questions. if my post doesn't answer, please write a brief bit and ask me more if you would care to.
First of all, until this point you have not said it is just healthier for you specifically. You have said studies show it is healthier for everyone and then refused to cite those studies, but whatever.
In response to the bolded: You think that someone who eats above 2300 calories every day will magically "settle" into a BMI of 26 or 27?? If that is genuinely what you think then I think I finally understand the problem with this thread. Your fundamental understanding of human bodies is flat out wrong. If it were true, people would never get obese.
Thanks for explaining your reasoning.0 -
When I wanted, after losing those pounds, to stop losing, I found it was not possible. Either I gwined or I had to keep lowering my calorie intake to something abysmal and un healthy.
I am really sorry for your unhealthy relationship with food and weight loss in the past. That said, if not being able to stop when you felt you had lost enough was your problem because every time you increased calories a bit you gained.... If you read/listened more and spoke/wrote less, you would have found the answers on this very forum. Don't be too self-absorbed to learn something new when you can.
I thought you were the same person as the one who posted in another thread, may be it was just having some of the same ridiculous ideas, may be you are indeed that nice little troll, may be you're not But if you're not a troll, then you remind me irrepressibly of a person who can't stop teasing their painful tooth with their tongue:(
I don't know what kind of deep dissatisfaction is pushing you to spend your time on a forum dedicated to something you've decided not to do, but I hope you resolve it... Farewell and good luck to you, whoever you are behind those posts 0 -
Drama aside, I don't know. I'll let you know when I get there. Eating at a deficit and working out kinda sucks, though, so I hope it sucks less. 0
-
I feel like you're confusing "net calories" and "total calories eaten".
If you lead a sedentary lifestyle and you maintain around 1900 and you like food and you don't ever exercise, you're going to have a hard time.
I have a sedentary job, and I currently maintain around 1900 but am trying to lose.
If I try to keep my total caloric intake to 1400, I feel hungry, tired, and deprived. I can eat enough food for my nutritional needs but there's no 'slack' for a dinner out, a dessert, or a drink. That's no way to live.
On the other hand, if I eat 2000 calories per day and do 2 hours of gentle cardio daily (which I do right now), I'm fine. I try to walk for an hour a day and I do 60-90 minutes of treadmill, elliptical, or exercise bike. Daily. An extra 500 calories a day in the budget lets me enjoy 2 small/normal meals, one big meal AND some snacks and treats every day. The hardest part is finding time for the gym.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I missed someing here, could you repeat the crit, I'd like to underwtand.
Oh, wait I see the provlem. I left out the important part. Sometimes i make the mistake of being in a hurry to get through to all the posts and don't spend enough time writing slowly and comprehensibly.
Ok here goes.
Inactive women 5' to 5' 7" under 25 years old : 3000 a day
Inactive women same hieght and 25 or older : 2500 a day
Under 5' subtrqct 3oo
Past menopause 2300.
Higher activity levels or formal excersize, and athletes require more.
I didnt make it up, so dont even ask.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »Springfield1970 wrote: »
I am barely in the overweight bmi range. i choose to be here, I am eating 2300 a day to stay here, and some days its not easy to eat that much actually. I have my own justification for this from research I have read, no just one artical. But the things I have read from one particular author have lengthy bibliographies amd I am not in a position to look at all the research and post links. Its not new research, I am gathering that some of you have heard about these findings before. Even some news articles have covered it, especially in UK news. It wont be hard to locate.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?
Thanks for your criticism!
Hi
I wonder if I could get you to maybe look at this from a different angle to the BMI one.
I would like to work out (with your permission) your body fat percentage, to see if that is in the healthy range?
All I would need is your weight,height, wrist measurement, hip, waist (at naval) measurement.
I would be able to tell you what your BF percentage is which is a far better indicator of health than the BMI index which takes no account of the composition of the person.
Are you up for a bit of open mindedness?
That will be the day! when 65 year olds start posting their stats on social web sites!!! LOLLLLLL!
Just pm me. Your BMI says you're overweight, and if you aren't very active then you could be in a high bf range which you should be aware of (and other readers) brings a risk of many health complaints.
I'm 45 and have no issue in posting my photo and stats, because I know I'm in good physical shape. This isn't a social website, it's a website about health and fitness so forgive us if we are disagreeing with your idea that being overweight is in any way healthy. People are reading these threads all the time looking for guidance. You are just giving a distorted point of view.
I am happy as I am today. My health is good, Medical careis free at my age here in France and I was last at my doctor in the fall for a flu shot. i am not doing formal excersize but I do a lot every day. I play accordion, am out in fresh air and must do a bit of walking because I live in a medieval hill town where most streets ar too narrow for cars and to get groceries and bread every day we must walk. I know many people other places do strong yoga and go to the gym, I cantstwnd gyms. So stinky and metalic. Bleck! But again, I appreeciate so much your concerns for me. My waist to hip thing is really good, funny, its even better at this weightthan ever before! Its surprizing me!
I love thwt you care for my healthiness! Thwnks again. Sorry for the many many mistakes in spelling, I am typing as fast as I can!
Your lifestyle is great if you're happy being overweight, I'm happy for you. My brother lives in a medieval town in France and I'm very jealous of the way of life there, c'est fantasique!
BUT, it's c'est ne pas cool to encourage people to go into overweight catagories.
The evidence against it far outweighs your anecdotals. I'm sorry, but it's true!
I care for newbies here, trying to get healthy and looking for guidance. I totally disagree with your life plan irt weigh and health. But santé! You.....do...you!
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I will accept the under 25 though
Yeah, I didnt read about your activity level, I dont remember that you posted anything about that, I wish you would, its verr interesting and as I said, I didnt see thqt you are an athelite,thats just probably cause I should wear my reading glasses to see the finer things posted by people like you.
Good on and thanks again for posting about HAAS.
0 -
i'm a strong believer of making healthy choices and calories per day shouldn't matter, like age, it's just a number. Personally, one should feed their body the good stuff and indulge once in awhile. Having low calories for the rest of your life is tough and there is no way I can do that.
Try to workout daily for atleast 30 minutes and make good choices. At the end you will feel and look better. 0 -
But again refusing to give a source...brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I missed someing here, could you repeat the crit, I'd like to underwtand.
Oh, wait I see the provlem. I left out the important part. Sometimes i make the mistake of being in a hurry to get through to all the posts and don't spend enough time writing slowly and comprehensibly.
Ok here goes.
Inactive women 5' to 5' 7" under 25 years old : 3000 a day
Inactive women same hieght and 25 or older : 2500 a day
Under 5' subtrqct 3oo
Past menopause 2300.
Higher activity levels or formal excersize, and athletes require more.
I didnt make it up, so dont even ask.
0 -
TL/DR it all but did see the post where OP is in her 60s, partner is 20 years younger, they've been together 18 years and he makes breakfast. Apparently I made some bad choices in my past that weren't just food related. LOL
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I missed someing here, could you repeat the crit, I'd like to underwtand.
Oh, wait I see the provlem. I left out the important part. Sometimes i make the mistake of being in a hurry to get through to all the posts and don't spend enough time writing slowly and comprehensibly.
Ok here goes.
Inactive women 5' to 5' 7" under 25 years old : 3000 a day
Inactive women same hieght and 25 or older : 2500 a day
Under 5' subtrqct 3oo
Past menopause 2300.
Higher activity levels or formal excersize, and athletes require more.
I didnt make it up, so dont even ask.
^^Seriously, this continuing thread, is the most bizarre post I have ever seen on MFP in the 3 years I have been here.
I am truly flabbergasted by the tenacity of this OP. She will never give up. I am done.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Lets do some more maths!!!
In order to maintain at 4'5", age 21, and living a sedentary lifestyle, you'd have to weigh 240 lbs.
I'm 6' and I'm 240 lbs.
Being 4'5" and 240 lbs, you'd probably be wider than you are tall. Not kidding.
That's a BMI of 60.1. 30 is considered obese. I think 60.1 would equal dead.
Do you want to live a life like that?
Sorry, that was a redundant question. You can't live a life like that because you'd be dead.
Love it!0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I missed someing here, could you repeat the crit, I'd like to underwtand.
Oh, wait I see the provlem. I left out the important part. Sometimes i make the mistake of being in a hurry to get through to all the posts and don't spend enough time writing slowly and comprehensibly.
Ok here goes.
Inactive women 5' to 5' 7" under 25 years old : 3000 a day
Inactive women same hieght and 25 or older : 2500 a day
Under 5' subtrqct 3oo
Past menopause 2300.
Higher activity levels or formal excersize, and athletes require more.
I didnt make it up, so dont even ask.
^^Seriously, this continuing thread, is the most bizarre post I have ever seen on MFP in the 3 years I have been here.
I am truly flabbergasted by the tenacity of this OP. She will never give up. I am done.
Seriously. I'm 5'2. I would be very obese if I ate 3000 cals a day with no exercise
Edit. I worked it out on a cal counter site. To maintain on 3000 cals as inactive I would have to be 400lbs.
Very obese. I see nothing healthy in that.
I'm done with this troll
Gifs or gtfo0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I missed someing here, could you repeat the crit, I'd like to underwtand.
Oh, wait I see the provlem. I left out the important part. Sometimes i make the mistake of being in a hurry to get through to all the posts and don't spend enough time writing slowly and comprehensibly.
Ok here goes.
Inactive women 5' to 5' 7" under 25 years old : 3000 a day
Inactive women same hieght and 25 or older : 2500 a day
Under 5' subtrqct 3oo
Past menopause 2300.
Higher activity levels or formal excersize, and athletes require more.
I didnt make it up, so dont even ask.
^^Seriously, this continuing thread, is the most bizarre post I have ever seen on MFP in the 3 years I have been here.
I am truly flabbergasted by the tenacity of this OP. She will never give up. I am done.
Seriously. I'm 5'2. I would be very obese if I ate 3000 cals a day with no exercise
Edit. I worked it out on a cal counter site. To maintain on 3000 cals as inactive I would have to be 400lbs.
Very obese. I see nothing healthy in that.
I'm done with this troll
Gifs or gtfo
At 5'8", I don't even count on this scale!! Guess us women over 5'7" are exempt from the craziness. phew!!!
If you haven't yet seen her reply to me it was very revealing of her logic. She said if you just eat this much eventually after a gain your weight will stabilizes at its healthiest level.
If I ate 3000 calories per day I would sure as hell "stabilize...." at an obese bmi with over 30% body fat (unless I burned about 1000 through exercise per day, which for me personally is not gonna happen.)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
- 424 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