So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
You maintain on more, in part because of metabolism. In part because you weigh more. You burn more because you weigh more.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.
At 5'6.5" we're basically the same height. I weigh 30LBS less. Therefore I burn less. If I were you weight, perhaps I could maintain on that amount of calories. But again, we're all different. So perhaps not.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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" 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).
There is definate evidence that people over 50 are healthier and live longer at the overweight bmi.
You can find that info. easily, I can't link to the graphs and the second and third page on the Halls site, sorry, but that's not the only source. As for maintaining a healthy body weight, i think I will try to dig that one up tomarroW. I read it but can't seem to find the source, hopefully the person who wrote the papers I read did their homework and I can reference it! Truly there are several reasons you should take care to be a bit over normal bmi from here on in. i didn't do that myself at your age and wish that I had done.
Anyway, I doubt you will take heed, pretty much everyone thought I was "bonkers" here!
Never mind though, these things always resolve, and more and more it seems diets and restriction don't seem to be the answer, just like the cholesterol issue, now we see papers that claim fats weren't ever the cause.
0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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" 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).
There is definate evidence that people over 50 are healthier and live longer at the overweight bmi.
You can find that info. easily, I can't link to the graphs and the second and third page on the Halls site, sorry, but that's not the only source. As for maintaining a healthy body weight, i think I will try to dig that one up tomarroW. I read it but can't seem to find the source, hopefully the person who wrote the papers I read did their homework and I can reference it! Truly there are several reasons you should take care to be a bit over normal bmi from here on in. i didn't do that myself at your age and wish that I had done.
Anyway, I doubt you will take heed, pretty much everyone thought I was "bonkers" here!
Never mind though, these things always resolve, and more and more it seems diets and restriction don't seem to be the answer, just like the cholesterol issue, now we see papers that claim fats weren't ever the cause.
Yeah, you tried to convince me of this the other day. Seems you've convinced yourself. That's what matters. I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Exercising and eating right. cheers0 -
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.
Fair enough. But at 5'8" and a healthy BMI somewhat active (on my feet for work) my TDEE is about 2100. If I go for a run or work out it is 2400+. At my goal weight (also a healthy BMI, but lower end) I'll be about 1900 if I'm inactive, around 2100+ if I work out.
But that's beside the point. OP is making very odd and nonsensical claims.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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" 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).
There is definate evidence that people over 50 are healthier and live longer at the overweight bmi.
You can find that info. easily, I can't link to the graphs and the second and third page on the Halls site, sorry, but that's not the only source. As for maintaining a healthy body weight, i think I will try to dig that one up tomarroW. I read it but can't seem to find the source, hopefully the person who wrote the papers I read did their homework and I can reference it! Truly there are several reasons you should take care to be a bit over normal bmi from here on in. i didn't do that myself at your age and wish that I had done.
Anyway, I doubt you will take heed, pretty much everyone thought I was "bonkers" here!
Never mind though, these things always resolve, and more and more it seems diets and restriction don't seem to be the answer, just like the cholesterol issue, now we see papers that claim fats weren't ever the cause.
well, i'm 40, almost 41. when i'm 50, just for vanity purposes, i do not want to be overweight. i really don't want to wind up as one of those typical old ladies with a big stomach. it's just not attractive.0 -
I'm curious to know if those who maintain at lower than 2000 a day are happy with that and are you planning to continue it for life. If not what is your plan and do you think that low calorie maintenance will have an impact on you health?
I am 5'9" and I am currently 20 pounds away from my goal weight of 140 pounds. Once I get to that weight, I plan to maintain it with a 1400 calorie diet (if I exercise, I can/will eat more). I totally expect this to be the case for the rest of my life. I've made a commitment to myself to make myself happily healthy and this is what I believe it takes.
As far as how I believe it will impact my health, 1400 calories per day is what it will take to maintain my 140 pound weight once I get there; strictly calorically speaking, it should be fine. Nutrient-wise I am now a vegan, my diet consists mainly vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, etc--very little oils and processed foods. I feel great and I seem to be doing well so far
Isn't 1400 about your BMR? Not trying to second guess your numbers, but why would you maintain at your BMR? Wouldn't it be more like 1700 calories (if sedentary)?0 -
I'm curious to know if those who maintain at lower than 2000 a day are happy with that and are you planning to continue it for life. If not what is your plan and do you think that low calorie maintenance will have an impact on you health?
I am 5'9" and I am currently 20 pounds away from my goal weight of 140 pounds. Once I get to that weight, I plan to maintain it with a 1400 calorie diet (if I exercise, I can/will eat more). I totally expect this to be the case for the rest of my life. I've made a commitment to myself to make myself happily healthy and this is what I believe it takes.
As far as how I believe it will impact my health, 1400 calories per day is what it will take to maintain my 140 pound weight once I get there; strictly calorically speaking, it should be fine. Nutrient-wise I am now a vegan, my diet consists mainly vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, etc--very little oils and processed foods. I feel great and I seem to be doing well so far
I doubt your maintenance at 140 pounds and 34 years old is that low. Why do you think it's that low?0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
I suspect no one feels attacked. Best of luck to you as well. You seem happy at that weight. So that's what really matters.
PS: you have an odd sense of what it "takes" to maintain on 2000. But whatever.0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
And again I ask:
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?
People don't believe you because you haven't yet provided the evidence.
I have maintained on 2300 calories, 2100, 1900, and 1700. It's not really *that* much difference in terms of what you can fit in.0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
okay...First of all, you're only about 10lbs overweight, and I'm not sure why you think that 10lbs is going to make you vastly healthier. Seems like an entirely arbitrary cut off. Second, all calorie calculators predict that your TDEE is somewhere around 1800-1900. So if you are able to maintain on 2300 than you are either more active than you suggest or you simply have a well above average metabolic rate or perhaps an overactive thyroid, or another health condition that requires medication that affects your metabolic rate. Or maybe its just your genes. But this all makes you the exception, not the rule. You cannot base the entire science of weight loss on your own narrow experience.
But regardless, if you had EXACTLY your current BMI and were say, 5'4", you would need to even EVEN LESS to maintain that slightly overweight BMI that you covet. In fact calculators suggest that a woman your age who was 5'4" and attempting to maintain a BMI of roughly 26 (which yours is now) who exercises about 3 times per week needs to eat 1600-1700 cals/ day to maintain that slightly overweight BMI. following your logic of how much you eat now, than all other things equal if you were under 5'4" you would need to eat probably closet to 1900 to maintain your slightly overweight BMI. Are you saying if you were shorter you would force yourself to eat 2000 and gain even more weight?
Look, I don't care if someone prefers themselves slightly overweight for whatever reason. I honestly believe it is totally okay for someone to maintain at whatever weight they feel happiest and healthiest. But the things you are saying DO NOT MAKE LOGICAL SENSE. Many people need to eat UNDER 2000 CALORIES to even maintain an OVERWEIGHT BMI. And that is not because they are trying to look like a celebrity, it is due to the science of how human bodies use and store energy. Are you suggesting those people should eat at 2000 strictly in order to get EVEN MORE OVERWEIGHT? If you truly believe everyone should be 5-10 lbs overweight then that's your prerogative. But most women under 5'5" would need to eat under 2000 calories to maintain a BMI just about 5-10 lbs overweight.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you are clearly misunderstanding why people are responding to your post the way they have. I hope this clarifies.0 -
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
Very interested in these studies or meta-studies. Please cite and/or link. Especially the part where women stop having periods at 1999 calories per day.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.
Maybe some people find other things in life more satisfying than eating a lot?
0 -
I think the number of calories you need to maintain depends on your activity levels. Sometimes we may be more or less active than our activity settings lead us to think. Since I work at an office, I put my settings as sedentary. And, since I'm 5'5 and 134 lbs (165 cm and 61 kg), it has given me 1720 calories for maintenance.
When I began to maintain, I ate around this much but lost two kilos afterwards. After increasing my calories and observing my weight, I have found that I maintain at 1900-2000 calories given my everyday activity levels.
To answer your question, I think it is very easy to maintain and sometimes difficult to reach my maintenance calories if you don't eat out often. When I was losing weight, I would cut on snaking, but now I must snack or eat a large meal to maintain. This is great because now I can eat the super yummy snacks at my office.
I have a feeling my maintenance calories will go over 2000, though, when the snow melts since I normally bike to work instead of taking the bus.
2000 calories is very manageable imo and I don't consider it to be a lifetime commitment if you already eat a balanced and healthy diet normally, but sometimes indulge in sweets or go out from time to time. However, I could see having to maintain with 1700 calories or less quite the challenge. Good luck to you guys.0 -
Was the question just, " Hey, when you have lost all the weight you want, are you still going to count and limit your calories?" Then folks could have just replied, "Yep. Probably. You?"0
-
Hilarious thread. I am in a good weight loss deficit at 1555 per day and 5'8" 210 pounds. I want to lose 50 pounds this year. When I reach my goal I will slowly increase calories until I maintain, but I will not use any schedule of someone else's numbers or doctor's tables to find that point. I need to find it by my weight, assuming that I do not get sick somewhere along the way. I don't think I will. Hungry for a few minutes a day, maybe but not sick.
0 -
areallycoolstory wrote: »Was the question just, " Hey, when you have lost all the weight you want, are you still going to count and limit your calories?" Then folks could have just replied, "Yep. Probably. You?"
Nah, as a previous poster pointed out (come forward and claim credit!), OP wants to convince us all that eating enough to make a good chunk of us overweight is better in order to validate their own decision.
As it is, I have certainly consumed said 2000 calories in popcorn on this thread today.0 -
People: do not feed the troll. The troll gets all the calories he or she wants as it is. S/he doesn't need any more.0
-
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
Can you post up the article?
0 -
I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
I'm 5'4". If I had to be 165 pounds in order to eat over 2000 calories a day, I would be close to obese. I'm also not very muscular to begin with, therefore I think that I'm more okay at a low weight than most people. If I gained to be 165 pounds without lifting, my guess that based on body fat percentage, I would be well over obese. If in some alternate universe obese is the new healthy, I still care about looking good, so I'm not gonna go there purposely. It's not a good look on me. Pretty sure I regularly eat less than 2000 calories and I still get my period regularly. Not sure where you are reading this, but it's clearly wrong. Last I checked, my thyroid is also fine. I also never feel deprived.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »I've read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the hell is going on, or what OPs point is.
She's totally trolling, lol!
That said, for the record, I (female, 5'7) maintained at 124 for years on 2200+ calories, with moderate-vigorous activity. I gained weight on that amount while I was involuntarily sedentary, to be fair.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.
in other words you are active and totally have a nice TDEE because of that - just like me
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »I've read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the hell is going on, or what OPs point is.
Oh my god, I thought I'd skipped a page and missed something important, I went back and read all four pages and nope, still not getting it.
I think, think, that OP is saying anything under 2000cals is inherently unhealthy regardless of height, age or weight,
and that everyone in the world can maintain on more than 2000cals,
and being slightly overweight is healthier for some individuals than being a healthy weight.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.0 -
Next month will be 4 years maintaining at goal, with no end in sight. My maintenance calories are set at sedentary, 1700 calories PLUS any exercise calories I earn. I've been happy and successful at that level for years now and since it's quick, easy and a habit now, I have no reason to stop.
ETA: I noticed OP stating that older people are healthier being a little overweight. Being underweight is not great for older people, but being a normal weight shouldn't be a problem. I think it might depend more on your genes. Most of my great-grandparents and grandparents lived well into the 90's and only two of them could be considered overweight, though not obese. Those two died in their 80's. The others had all been slim throughout their lives. Their lack of overweight didn't seem to shorten their lives. I think I'm going to follow in the family footsteps and keep my weight where it needs to be. Thanks for your concern though, OP.0 -
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.0 -
Ahh, relief. So simple, but perhaps the way I asked the question triggered a complex system of thought somehow and I missed the point somewhere along the line myself!areallycoolstory wrote: »Was the question just, " Hey, when you have lost all the weight you want, are you still going to count and limit your calories?" Then folks could have just replied, "Yep. Probably. You?"
I count calories from time to time to make sure I get enough.
Thanks for the simple response!
0 -
Either you are in a deficit or at maintenance, not both. So this sentence makes no sense.Since all body functions need calories to function optimally, how long, how many years, are you willing to go on with a deficit of caloric intake to maintain your weight loss?
As for the 2000 random number, for most women, 2000 would be above maintenance for a healthy weight, unless we are talking about a very active woman or a very tall one. I am average height, at a healthy weight, exercise regulalry, I do not think I have every eaten above 2000 or even 2000 daily in all my life.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.
Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.
When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.
Yeah, things change when you get older.
Which numbers? My own personal numbers?
I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.
The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.
But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, 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 am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!
Can you post up the article?
Took the words right out of my mouth.0 -
A simple rule of thumb is that you need to consume more than your Basal metabolic rate requirements but not quite as much you meet your exercise requirements.The basal metabolic rate is the amount of quality calories you need for your body to basically work.. heating, thinking, everything to stay alive. If you don't reach this your body will tend to take energy from muscles, making them smaller and weaker, and store as much calorie intake from your eating as it can as fat. A very basic and simple calculation for basal metabolic rate is you need 30 calories for each 1kg of body weight. So if you weighed 100kg you'd need 3000 calories. I need, at 77kg, 2310 calories. Most over weight people consume more than 30calories per kg. I consume about 2600 calories to match my energy requirements for training in the swimming pool.. Forget bmi as body builders and power athletes are obese on that scale. So.. work out your basal calorie requirement.. add on a bit to match your exercise (can be not quite enough as that will cause weight loss) .. as you loose weight recalculate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions