So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I'm 45 and range between 133-136 lb which on my medium frame is slim.
This may be part of it. I'm 45 too, and not especially slim (fine, though) at 125, which is probably because my frame size is smaller, sigh. I would like to reverse diet and build up my LBM, however, so am hopeful that I can increase the numbers somewhat. (This is part of why I'm doing less running and more weights, plus just being increasingly interested in weights and tired of the stupid cold--but I digress.) ;-)
The cold is a bummer for sure. I got to where it hurt worse than a toothache.
Sadly, it's nothing to do with me. It's just colder than I like it. I spent my early years in Miami and all the ones since then in the north and have never truly adjusted, although I like Midwestern summers just fine. This was the case when I was fat too. All the thin people around here would complain about the heat and I'd be happy.
My parents tell a story about how they took me to visit my mother's family for Christmas when I was about 3--my first white Christmas. They took me out in the snow thinking I'd be all happy and excited and I started crying, which I think is a perfectly rational reaction and give myself credit for being a highly advanced 3 year old.
Granted, I also was normal weight as a 3 year old, so maybe that was the problem. ;-)
I love the winter, but I frequently meet people who move here (Canada) from Jamaica, Nigeria, Korea, etc., who are all "I can't wait to see snow!"
I'm like, "Yes, yes you can."
I digress, I love winter and love snow. I rarely meet someone who shares my love for it.0 -
Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!
Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.
My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Considering I've stayed under that amount on average for the entirety of my life so far (as evidenced by the fact that I never gained weight to the point my TDEE would have been > 1800), I figure it's a pretty safe bet that I will stick with it for the rest of my life. And it won't impact my health, other than that I won't become clinically overweight or obese.0 -
Nope, will be reverse dieting once I lose the fat I need to. Then lean bulk.0
-
Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!
Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.
My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Considering I've stayed under that amount on average for the entirety of my life so far (as evidenced by the fact that I never gained weight to the point my TDEE would have been > 1800), I figure it's a pretty safe bet that I will stick with it for the rest of my life. And it won't impact my health, other than that I won't become clinically overweight or obese.
Clearly you're going to die young.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »Most women need between 1600 and 1800 calories a day for maintenance. Eating more will just cause your body to store it as fat. It's excess food.
OP is bonkers, but to be fair this is misleading as well. Plenty women maintain at over 2000 calories. Very petitie women (5'3" and under) who are lightly active do not. Just saying.
Pretty sure OP is trying to suggest that being heavy enough to maintain at 2000 is healthier than being a healthy BMI and maintaining at something under 2000. Which is, of course, nonsense.
I just meant that the average woman who wasn't very active was probably needing around that much. You'll need more of course depending on your activity level and it varies from person to person. My BMR is 2,500 calories per day. Of course I'm 6'2" and weigh about 223 lbs. I lose about .5 a pound a week if I eat at 2,000 calories a day.
Exercise adds in an additional 1,000 - 3,000 per day. My calorie goal for Saturday was 5,500. I generally don't make goal on those days but I average it back in during the week. Today's is 3,500 calories. I don't exercise to eat more. It's honestly a bit of an annoyance some days. Food is mostly just fuel but I do throw in a beer or two( or three) some days. You have to have fun too.
I wouldn't say that this is difficult maintaining this lifestyle. Eating at maintenance is a very very healthy thing. I don't plan on changing anything. I'm probably the only guy at work with healthy blood pressure and normal cholesterol levels.
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?
I've read your post and would be curious to read the sources you've used. You're correct that it's our choice, individually to decide what to do with our own health and our own bodies. But I've not been able to find anywhere that eating less than 2000 calories a day is detrimental to health. Much depends on a persons height, of course, so some people of smaller stature can consume 1200 calories a day and be fine. And of course someone over 6 feet tall would have a higher caloric need. But for the average person, of average height, it's possible to eat 1500 calories a day and meet all nutritional needs.
Calories and nutrients are two different things. You could eat 10,000 calories a day and still be nutrient deficient. On the flip side of that coin, based on my height, at 5'5", I can eat 1500 calories a day and easily meet all of my nutrient requirements if the foods I'm eating are high quality foods in reasonable proportions - fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, lean protein, beans. It would also be possible for me to eat 1500 calories a day, lose weight and not be meeting my nutrient goals.
This is why the nutrient density of foods is key if my goal is to meet the needs of the cells in my body and still lose weight. Based on my height, it would probably be a challenge for me to meet all my nutrient needs at 1200 calories a day. It could probably be done, but would need to be well planned out. Fortunately, foods that are nutrient dense are often
( not always, as in the case of nuts and seeds) low in calories.
Losing weight is a primary goal for me, but making sure my cells are getting high quality fuel in the process is also important, because I don't want to just lose weight, I want to be healthy too. Is it difficult for me to keep my caloric intake at 1500 cal / day? My diary will tell you - yes! it is! Not because 1500 calories can't deliver all the nutrients my body needs, but more that I have a long standing pattern of eating more than I need, ( I love to cook, I love to eat, and sometimes eat for fun rather than out of true hunger) and also too often choose to eat foods that are low in nutrients / high in calories.0 -
This.mk732 wrote: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're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
Maintenance calories are about 15/lb for someone who's active at least 30 min/day.cloudi2 wrote: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.
2000 / 15 = 133
Going by BMI, 133 lb would be in the healthy weight range for someone from about 5'2" to 5'11".
IMO, that height range probably covers 85% of the population.
And for people who are inactive (again, much of the population, since 2/3 are overweight or obese) they need fewer calories, so eating 1500 could be perfectly reasonable.
Again, if someone is not losing weight, they're not eating at a deficit.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.
There's nothing magical about 2000 calories per day. It's just an average number.
When I get to my healthy goal weight, I will gradually nudge up the calories I eat until I'm maintaining weight. That could be 1600 or it could be 2400, depending on how active I will be.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!
Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.
My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Considering I've stayed under that amount on average for the entirety of my life so far (as evidenced by the fact that I never gained weight to the point my TDEE would have been > 1800), I figure it's a pretty safe bet that I will stick with it for the rest of my life. And it won't impact my health, other than that I won't become clinically overweight or obese.
Clearly you're going to die young.
And from starvation, I gather. Or is it malnutrition? Hard to tell.0 -
Well, if the choice is to be in the overweight BMI category or the underweight BMI category, it is healthier to be overweight than under.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote:This OP seems to believe (based on the two threads I've seen her start) that it is in fact healthier to be overweight than to be thin.
But it's healthiest to be in the healthy range, not over or under.
0 -
Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!
Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoritative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.
My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal exercise if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Of course it will have an impact on my health - that's the point. Keeping a low weight will reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, various cancers, and any number of other obesity related illnesses. Doing more exercise has also noticeably improved my asthma already, and reduced my stress levels. My quality of life is therefore vastly improved.
Yes, I do need to employ more self control when it comes to tasty food than I did when I put on weight, but I would much rather have smaller portions and do exercise, than be overweight like my dad with diabetes, heart issues, and pancreatitis.
ETA - I think you have missed the point again OP. To say 1800 calories is the maintenance level for a woman is equally as wrong as to say that 2000 is the level; what level you maintain at depends on height, weight, age, exercise levels, and non-exercise activity levels. So there will be people who can maintain while eating well over 2000 calories, and there are people who need to eat under 1500 to maintain, simply due to differences in height, weight, age and lifestyle.
It's really going to be a trade-off between how active you are, how much exercise you are willing to do and how much you are willing to curtail your eating. It is definitely a 'cannot have your cake and eat it' situation.0 -
My maintenance is 1580 when I do not work out. So the days I am just a slug with Netflix that is all I can eat. I haven't really tried it but that is what several calculators have me at or near. I am at 1500 now so we will see what happens this week. When i exercise 3 times a week, I bump myself up to 1700-1800. Fitbit usually has me at 1780 when I wake up in the morning. I am short at 5'1 and weigh 122.8lbs.0
-
My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.0 -
No, you said several things which were stupid &/or wrong.cloudi2 wrote:Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what?are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Yes, I'm fine with maintaining a healthy weight for life. That's why I'm working hard to get there. I don't expect that I will stay at exactly my goal weight every single day, nor do I expect that I will always eat within 50 calories either way of maintenance. But overall, yes, I expect to continue my healthy eating patterns as long as I live. I've done too much hard work to go back to being fat.Are you ok with eating your maintenance cals for the rest of your life?
Do I think that exercising and being at a healthy weight will have an impact on my health? Of course. It already has. My cholesterol is way down, I can move more, I can move more easily, I can move longer, my heart rate is down, my body fat % is down. (My lean body mass has essentially stayed the same; I think it might be measuerment error showing up saying I've gained 4 lb of LBM. I'm happy simply not to lose muscle mass!)0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
it surprises me too. I weigh a lot less than her (same age) and I have a feeling I would still be losing weight on that goal even sedentary. I would disappear.
0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
thyroid issues0 -
MFP gives me 1700 calories aday in order to lose 1.5lbs a week. This is workable as long as I plan out my meals and have snacks in between meals. The snacks help me feel satisfied and prevent me from stuffing my face at lunch or dinner. The goal of 1700 cal is definitely doable, especially when I also add in exercises.0
-
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
it surprises me too. I weigh a lot less than her (same age) and I have a feeling I would still be losing weight on that goal even sedentary. I would disappear.
wow. I feel sorta fat and frumpy now.
It won't go any lower, the scale I mean.
Still waiting to find out what meds and get them. endocrinologists are pathetically slow.0 -
I have no idea what MFP would have me eating!
0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
it surprises me too. I weigh a lot less than her (same age) and I have a feeling I would still be losing weight on that goal even sedentary. I would disappear.
I actually wanted to disappear for a few years, starved myself and all I got was tired, pale, skinny and brain fogged. I feel better now.:-)
0 -
No, you said several things which were stupid &/or wrong.cloudi2 wrote:Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what?are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
Yes, I'm fine with maintaining a healthy weight for life. That's why I'm working hard to get there. I don't expect that I will stay at exactly my goal weight every single day, nor do I expect that I will always eat within 50 calories either way of maintenance. But overall, yes, I expect to continue my healthy eating patterns as long as I live. I've done too much hard work to go back to being fat.Are you ok with eating your maintenance cals for the rest of your life?
Do I think that exercising and being at a healthy weight will have an impact on my health? Of course. It already has. My cholesterol is way down, I can move more, I can move more easily, I can move longer, my heart rate is down, my body fat % is down. (My lean body mass has essentially stayed the same; I think it might be measuerment error showing up saying I've gained 4 lb of LBM. I'm happy simply not to lose muscle mass!)
I had hardly any muscles when I was done dieting. Now I got them all back!
Best wishes on you for your health into a long old age!
0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
it surprises me too. I weigh a lot less than her (same age) and I have a feeling I would still be losing weight on that goal even sedentary. I would disappear.
wow. I feel sorta fat and frumpy now.
It won't go any lower, the scale I mean.
Still waiting to find out what meds and get them. endocrinologists are pathetically slow.
nah, my weight is probably too low at the moment. i'm also 3 inches shorter than you.
hopefully meds can help you up that calorie goal regardless.0 -
--1
-
Before 7 am every single day I log 5 miles at work. By 2pm I have another 3 miles logged.
I work outdoors. I get my exercise. Thyroid issues.0 -
Well, if the choice is to be in the overweight BMI category or the underweight BMI category, it is healthier to be overweight than under.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote:This OP seems to believe (based on the two threads I've seen her start) that it is in fact healthier to be overweight than to be thin.
But it's healthiest to be in the healthy range, not over or under.
Agreed
eta: for most people. There are some who have overweight BMI due to muscle mass and not fat. But for the majority of people I'd agree.0 -
So, let me get this straight. You came to a calorie-counting website forum and started a thread for apparently the sole purpose of decrying a calorie deficit?
1.) What are you selling?
2.) No one is buying.0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »Before 7 am every single day I log 5 miles at work. By 2pm I have another 3 miles logged.
I work outdoors. I get my exercise. Thyroid issues.
Or your metbolizm is truly bonked out from not eating enough!
Its gotta be a tough slog for you! Wow, you have my sympathy, truly.
I like being outside too, but shuffeling down country roads is good enough for me.
Well, and my house is on three stories, so you know between grocery shopping on foot in this hilly town,food prep, and playing accordion ( its kinda heavy) I get somewhat of a type of workout I guess, but nothing like running, my goodness you are active! And all on those measly few calories too! :-( glad you are at least content with the results of your efforts, thats something, I guess.
0 -
OP, your posts were a bit strange. It seems you can maintain on above 2300 calories. Great! You've found the weight / calorie intake that works for you, and you feel happy at that weight. But surely the fact that your maintenance calories are 2300, shows you that people maintain at different calorie levels? I mean, by your own reckoning, there are people maintaining at 300 below you and 300+ above you - why not below 2000 calories, if they are short / inactive etc?
I know I will be happy sticking at my maintenance level. Sure, I might gain a couple of pounds over Christmas, but I'm going to loose them straight away and stay within 3-4lb of my goal weight. For the rest of my life? Sure. I have lots of older relatives who are morbidly obese. They can't get out and about. Their mobility is poor. They're on tons of blood pressure meds, have replacement joints, and diabetes. These things can happen to anyone, but they're more likely if your BMI is above 25. I love life, I love my body and this beautiful world, and I want to be healthy as long as I can. Food is a blessing and a joy, - and that's why I've put on weight. But I can still enjoy food and excercise a little self control, in order to balance it with my enjoyment of all the other good things in my life! So yes, I'm happy.
0 -
My BMR is around 1259. My TDEE at SEDENTARY is 1511.
For my *actual* activity level, my TDEE is 1952. I run. I do Pilates. I lift weights. I commute on bike and foot to work.
I'm 5'6.5" and 135LBSs, 50 years old, female.
So, yeah. I maintain on about 2000. Have been. And Buddha willing, I will continue to do so, and then my TDEE will go down... and, I'll have to adjust my intake downward.
The alternative is to be overweight. So I'll keep maintaining. And yes, I'll be healthier at a healthy weight than overweight. I've read this thread and still not sure I get your point other than maybe justifying being overweight because it might be healthier (in your opinion).
ETA: oh, Cloud. Yes, I recall your thread from the other day about BMI. Would we be happy with a higher BMI if it was healthier, and considered sexier etc. I guess the gist is: YOU WANT to be happy at a higher BMI or weight or whatever.
Go for it.0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »My maintenance calories are between 1300 and 1450.
Been maintaining on that for nearly 3 years now.
Is it frustrating, sure.
Do I sometimes have to be hungry to do it, yes.
But I like myself again, so it's a good trade off
stats:
40 years old female
5'7"
155 pounds
the calculators for me are dead wrong. I weigh everything I eat. And I exercise.
but again, I like how I look, so totally worth it.
This surprizes me to pieces!
I'm just shy of 5'7", 165 pounds and I maintain at 2300 calories per day with NO excersize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus that I'm 65 years old and I don't diet or eat particularly healthfully!
I have good bone density, I'm on no medications and have NO healthissues. A non smoker and non drinker.
How is this possible?
I just don't get it. It seems like the maintenance calores are just too low. Oh well, maybe its something in the water over here? I dunno.
That's great for you. It's possible because metabolism varies. There are ladies on my friend list who are similar. I find it amusing that you think the rest of us are the strange ones.
How would you respond if someone in my position postulated to you that eating over 2000 calories is always unhealthy because it's more than you need to support your body functions?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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions