So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
0 -
Yes, I must continue for life, or else I will become fat again, and as I'm borderline diabetic, I would become full blown diabetic as well! I work out hard and that's what it takes for me to earn enough calories to eat a "real" dinner. It just is what it is, man. Fairness and expectations don't really enter into it.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Um, in.
And if someone is in research and is afraid of defending their research, they should change careers. Science exists because people put forth ideas and others challenge them or confirm them.
But the FDA and WHO are hiding it -- the poor researchers are probably living in fear. Because, well, I assume the USDA is ultimately responsible, as clearly they want to convince us all to eat LESS than we otherwise would.
Hm, apparently I should go work for the FDA. Then I would have ALL THE POWER OVER RESEARCH!!!0 -
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
It does sound this way.
I no longer get jealous of people who can eat whatever they want. I feel like as long as I'm sticking to my tdee, whatever that is, I'll be fine. If I need to be hungry in order to maintain a weight, then that's uncomfortable and not sustainable. This is assuming not being constantly hungry. I now see people who have to eat 3,000 calories in order to maintain and view it as more of a chore than anything else. I don't really feel envy of them.0 -
I dont know what you mean by lies. I managed to keep my weight under 110 and below that actually for a prolonged period of time, inother words I maintained that low weight by only eating between 500 and 800calories. It was a bad time for me and I'm not proud of it, I'm just relating what I did. Where is the lying part? When I realized the truth about that kind of harsh restriction I began to up my calories and gradually have returned to health. I don't know what you mean by lies.0
-
I can chalk up some misunderstanding to a language barrier (based on OP's spelling mistakes, I take it English is not her first language). Some I think is because she's using herself as Patient Zero for mysterious research (notice how she wants all these stats and will only respond to people who provide such). The rest, to me, is someone looking to argue.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »Okay. I think I'm getting this now. Let's summarize:
OP: "People are mislead by the FDA. They think can only maintain on a paltry 1500 calories, but really they can maintain on 2000+ because of this new research I read but will not share." (ignores height, weight, muscle mass, activity level, age, gender.)
MFPer; "Uh, I maintain my preferred weight on 1700. If I ate 2000 I would be at a 300 cal surplus and gain weight. If I maintained at 2000 then that's what I would eat. But I don't. I maintain at 1700. Because of science."
OP: "YOU ARE MISLEAD. YOU SHOULD BE MAINTAINING ON 2000 OTHERWISE ITS UNHEALTHY."
MFPer: "IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR MY BODY TO MAINTAIN ON 2000 UNLESS I CHOOSE TO BE OVERWEIGHT"
OP: Then you should choose to be as overweight as it takes for you to eat over 2000. I do that and I prefer being 5-10lbs overweight.
MFPer: I am 5'3". I would be clinically obese if I did that. You are 5'7" its not the same.
OP: You poor thing so deprived of calories. Thanks for your comment sweetie, I wish you health and happiness.
squirrelzzrule: headdesk.
This makes my brain hurt so much. How is OP not understanding?? If you eat more than maintenance calories you gain weight. It doesn't take a study to tell you that. All it takes is eating a certain amount and seeing how your individual body responds. This whole discussion is beyond irritating!
0 -
Cloudi2, it seems that you rebuke everything everyone is saying, and yet you asked this question to begin with. So if you already know all the answers why bother us with your problems!! Seems like everyone here knows themselves pretty well and your just full of hot air....sorry full of too many calories. Sounds like you have a eating disorder, especially if you think the way you do!!0
-
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »Okay. I think I'm getting this now. Let's summarize:
OP: "People are mislead by the FDA. They think can only maintain on a paltry 1500 calories, but really they can maintain on 2000+ because of this new research I read but will not share." (ignores height, weight, muscle mass, activity level, age, gender.)
MFPer; "Uh, I maintain my preferred weight on 1700. If I ate 2000 I would be at a 300 cal surplus and gain weight. If I maintained at 2000 then that's what I would eat. But I don't. I maintain at 1700. Because of science."
OP: "YOU ARE MISLEAD. YOU SHOULD BE MAINTAINING ON 2000 OTHERWISE ITS UNHEALTHY."
MFPer: "IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR MY BODY TO MAINTAIN ON 2000 UNLESS I CHOOSE TO BE OVERWEIGHT"
OP: Then you should choose to be as overweight as it takes for you to eat over 2000. I do that and I prefer being 5-10lbs overweight.
MFPer: I am 5'3". I would be clinically obese if I did that. You are 5'7" its not the same.
OP: You poor thing so deprived of calories. Thanks for your comment sweetie, I wish you health and happiness.
squirrelzzrule: headdesk.
This makes my brain hurt so much. How is OP not understanding?? If you eat more than maintenance calories you gain weight. It doesn't take a study to tell you that. All it takes is eating a certain amount and seeing how your individual body responds. This whole discussion is beyond irritating!
I didn't write any of what you have quoted me as saying and its not my intention to imply the things you say I am.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/235351050 -
I mean that there are some very smart people out there studying the effects of dieting and not just dieting to extremes, but dieting as in what MFP suggests is normal calorie deficit.Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »OP, I am curious to know why you are a member of MFP at all. If you feel they are misleading us in someway, then what is your purpose of being a member of this fitness site?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
Lol lol lol
Who. Who is in this field of tin foil hats?
It can cause metabolism shifts that can't be changed easily if dieting is prolonged.
So many people here have said maintaining is difficult, some have to increease excersize and lower their calories in order to maintain once they stop restricting. its not a happy cycle to get into.
Any ideas on how that could be avoided for the people here? Other than lifting more and more and lowering calories more and more, running longer distances?
Just asking because of course one way would be to bump up calories and regain to a natural bmi set point, wouldnt it?
I'd find maintaining to be pretty easy if I could figure out how to stop losing weight first.
ok, that makes sense to me! thanks for the input, it is difficult then isn't it?
0 -
One does not maintain on 500-800 calories per day ... they lose (unless you shrunk to become a 3'5", 55 pound woman). They destroy their organs and bones if they do it for a prolonged period of time. It results in permanent damage.
To recap ... you never dieted except when you did ... you maintained at levels science says you wouldn't ... you have access to special research but can't provide links ... what did I miss in your series of illogical posts?0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.0 -
I dont know what you mean by lies. I managed to keep my weight under 110 and below that actually for a prolonged period of time, inother words I maintained that low weight by only eating between 500 and 800calories. It was a bad time for me and I'm not proud of it, I'm just relating what I did. Where is the lying part? When I realized the truth about that kind of harsh restriction I began to up my calories and gradually have returned to health. I don't know what you mean by lies.
between 500 and 800 calories is not healthy for almost anyone, whereas maintaining on maybe 1400 calories can be fine. you are making quite a leap to say everyone has to eat 2000 calories to be healthy.0 -
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
It does sound this way.
I no longer get jealous of people who can eat whatever they want. I feel like as long as I'm sticking to my tdee, whatever that is, I'll be fine. If I need to be hungry in order to maintain a weight, then that's uncomfortable and not sustainable. This is assuming not being constantly hungry. I now see people who have to eat 3,000 calories in order to maintain and view it as more of a chore than anything else. I don't really feel envy of them.
I have a hard time eating up to my maintenance calories some days.
I have never been overweight before this and I ententionally raised my weight to bmi 26 to comply with what is regarded the most healthy weight for my age and stats, that is what my research on healthy weight ofpeople my age led to.
I havent actually been seeing too many people eating very high maintenance calories actually. Unless they excersize a lot, or are runners.
P.S. I'm not interested in weight loss or muscle building myself.
0 -
I mean that there are some very smart people out there studying the effects of dieting and not just dieting to extremes, but dieting as in what MFP suggests is normal calorie deficit.Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »OP, I am curious to know why you are a member of MFP at all. If you feel they are misleading us in someway, then what is your purpose of being a member of this fitness site?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
Lol lol lol
Who. Who is in this field of tin foil hats?
It can cause metabolism shifts that can't be changed easily if dieting is prolonged.
So many people here have said maintaining is difficult, some have to increease excersize and lower their calories in order to maintain once they stop restricting. its not a happy cycle to get into.
Any ideas on how that could be avoided for the people here? Other than lifting more and more and lowering calories more and more, running longer distances?
Just asking because of course one way would be to bump up calories and regain to a natural bmi set point, wouldnt it?
I'd find maintaining to be pretty easy if I could figure out how to stop losing weight first.
ok, that makes sense to me! thanks for the input, it is difficult then isn't it?
I was maintaining okay for like a year, then I was up around 3 pounds and wanted to lose it, so I started tracking again. Tracking, in addition to cooking my own food (which was a sort of new concept to me) and therefore knowing almost exactly how many calories I was eating made me lose too much weight. Also, cooking my own food vs going to a restaurant somehow results in more filling food for less calories for me. I think that mfp might have also underestimated my calorie needs, but I'm not sure. I need to figure that out. I just disagree that 2000 calories is required for everyone.0 -
Cloudi2, it seems that you rebuke everything everyone is saying, and yet you asked this question to begin with. So if you already know all the answers why bother us with your problems!! Seems like everyone here knows themselves pretty well and your just full of hot air....sorry full of too many calories. Sounds like you have a eating disorder, especially if you think the way you do!!
I feel less eating disordered than when I was restricting. Since eating enough to sustain a bmi of 26 I don't feel eating disordered. Gosh, who did I rebuke? I didn't get that I was doing that!!
0 -
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
It does sound this way.
I no longer get jealous of people who can eat whatever they want. I feel like as long as I'm sticking to my tdee, whatever that is, I'll be fine. If I need to be hungry in order to maintain a weight, then that's uncomfortable and not sustainable. This is assuming not being constantly hungry. I now see people who have to eat 3,000 calories in order to maintain and view it as more of a chore than anything else. I don't really feel envy of them.
I have a hard time eating up to my maintenance calories some days.
I have never been overweight before this and I ententionally raised my weight to bmi 26 to comply with what is regarded the most healthy weight for my age and stats, that is what my research on healthy weight ofpeople my age led to.
I havent actually been seeing too many people eating very high maintenance calories actually. Unless they excersize a lot, or are runners.
P.S. I'm not interested in weight loss or muscle building myself.
oh, i see. I would never ever do this since I don't believe your research. I'd rather look good in the normal bmi range. If the normal bmi range is in fact, not normal, they should officially make it higher. Until they do that, I will believe that the normal bmi range is in fact normal.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »OP, I am curious to know why you are a member of MFP at all. If you feel they are misleading us in someway, then what is your purpose of being a member of this fitness site?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
You make wild claims ... then fail to back them up. It is laughable. Honestly, you started with a flawed premise that 2000 calories is a deficit and unraveled from there.
No, I don't think so, I have honestly read this. I didnt actually start by saying 2000 is a deficit, did I?
Where?
Unless you provide a link you will forever be a troll.
No, I don't think I came here to trigger people. I really am interested in how people are doing this.
It isnt unusual to ask those questions here is it?
0 -
I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.0
-
Iron_Feline wrote: »Springfield1970 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?
It looks like you are in denial about something.
I'm extremely happy with my figure. I'm 5'7" 127lb 18-19% body fat, supercharged, 25" waist 37" hips (hourglass), tons of energy, never get ill, great skin, very strong bones, compete in triathlons and am strong. I'm 44.
I maintain at 1750. Get over it.
But, most days I eat 2250-2700 because of my training.
Every time I think I know best and can eat more I just.....get fat...unless I'm purposely bulking then I get fat and muscley.
You need to study more......
Hi there Springfield,
Glad to know you are feeling healthy!
I was a low normal bmi most of my first 55 years of life just naturally. I didnt diet or watch my food intake at all, I didnt know what a bmi was! I started to gain slowly to the upper normal bmi after menopause. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years. I'm also 5' 7".
I started to not feel so good, digestive problems, low energy, hair falling out. I was excersizing quite a lot, but no real major health problems came about and I wasn't put on any type of medication nor am I on any now and I don't have any health issues today.
I began to read about caloric intake in relation to health while I was at that low weight, especially I was interested in the health of those of us over 60, but also about low intake plus excersize for everyone. There was a lot of conflicting information at the time.
Meanwhile, I found that where at first I was maintaining on around 1300 to 1400 calories, even though I kept up with excersize and even increased it, that each 6 months to a year along I had to cut more calories in order to keep my weight loss maintained. So after reducing my calorie amounts to 1200, then 1000 per day, then eventually, in order to maintain my weight at or below 110, I was only able to eat 500 to 800 calories a day and still do a lot of excersize.
Thank goodness I happened upon some reviews and some research writters who's papers, blogs, and web sites in some cases explained what was happening to me and I intentionally gained back to a weight that from whwt I read insures, as much as anything can do, my health will be robust into old age.
I am glad to be able to say that now, at age 65 those issues I had while maintaining under 110 are now gone. the nervous energy I had has resolved to calm, my hair has regrown, I have adequate energy and the digestive issues have almost all cleared up as well.
So my interest in this topic of maintenance continues to lead me to a curiosity of how other people manage to lose weight, maintain and do so without having to carry on their lives at a level of intake that to me, now, appears to be inadequate from the research and reading I have done.
And I'm sure none of that had to do with the fact that you were underweight at 110lbs at 5'7 so having to eat very low calories to maintained your very low body weight.
Of course you felt like crap at 110lbs - that's what happens when you're underweight.
Hopefully most people here are planning to maintain at a healthy weight for their height.
I don't think it's the fact that she was underweight. I think it was the fact that she had to eat 500-800 calories in order to maintain that. Some people can be perfectly healthy at a low weight. Sounds like she isn't one of them.
its hard to be healthy at a 16 to 17 bmi, and that is what it was for me. I felt ok and had tons of energy until the last few months. I didnt really know what I was doing to my body at the time.
0 -
And on a less sarcastic note-- research science is cutthroat. It's the nature of the beast-- scientists love to debunk each other. I promise you, if a person is doing a lot of research they're coming up against much harsher skepticism than anything that's been in this thread. If the science is valid, the researcher would welcome the criticism.0
-
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
It does sound this way.
I no longer get jealous of people who can eat whatever they want. I feel like as long as I'm sticking to my tdee, whatever that is, I'll be fine. If I need to be hungry in order to maintain a weight, then that's uncomfortable and not sustainable. This is assuming not being constantly hungry. I now see people who have to eat 3,000 calories in order to maintain and view it as more of a chore than anything else. I don't really feel envy of them.
I have a hard time eating up to my maintenance calories some days.
I have never been overweight before this and I ententionally raised my weight to bmi 26 to comply with what is regarded the most healthy weight for my age and stats, that is what my research on healthy weight ofpeople my age led to.
I havent actually been seeing too many people eating very high maintenance calories actually. Unless they excersize a lot, or are runners.
P.S. I'm not interested in weight loss or muscle building myself.
oh, i see. I would never ever do this since I don't believe your research. I'd rather look good in the normal bmi range. If the normal bmi range is in fact, not normal, they should officially make it higher. Until they do that, I will believe that the normal bmi range is in fact normal.
I understand your choice. I am at an age where from the papaers I have read bone density and muscle will be better at a bit more that normal bmi.
I understand you dont believe me. No rebuke here!
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Springfield1970 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?
It looks like you are in denial about something.
I'm extremely happy with my figure. I'm 5'7" 127lb 18-19% body fat, supercharged, 25" waist 37" hips (hourglass), tons of energy, never get ill, great skin, very strong bones, compete in triathlons and am strong. I'm 44.
I maintain at 1750. Get over it.
But, most days I eat 2250-2700 because of my training.
Every time I think I know best and can eat more I just.....get fat...unless I'm purposely bulking then I get fat and muscley.
You need to study more......
Hi there Springfield,
Glad to know you are feeling healthy!
I was a low normal bmi most of my first 55 years of life just naturally. I didnt diet or watch my food intake at all, I didnt know what a bmi was! I started to gain slowly to the upper normal bmi after menopause. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years. I'm also 5' 7".
I started to not feel so good, digestive problems, low energy, hair falling out. I was excersizing quite a lot, but no real major health problems came about and I wasn't put on any type of medication nor am I on any now and I don't have any health issues today.
I began to read about caloric intake in relation to health while I was at that low weight, especially I was interested in the health of those of us over 60, but also about low intake plus excersize for everyone. There was a lot of conflicting information at the time.
Meanwhile, I found that where at first I was maintaining on around 1300 to 1400 calories, even though I kept up with excersize and even increased it, that each 6 months to a year along I had to cut more calories in order to keep my weight loss maintained. So after reducing my calorie amounts to 1200, then 1000 per day, then eventually, in order to maintain my weight at or below 110, I was only able to eat 500 to 800 calories a day and still do a lot of excersize.
Thank goodness I happened upon some reviews and some research writters who's papers, blogs, and web sites in some cases explained what was happening to me and I intentionally gained back to a weight that from whwt I read insures, as much as anything can do, my health will be robust into old age.
I am glad to be able to say that now, at age 65 those issues I had while maintaining under 110 are now gone. the nervous energy I had has resolved to calm, my hair has regrown, I have adequate energy and the digestive issues have almost all cleared up as well.
So my interest in this topic of maintenance continues to lead me to a curiosity of how other people manage to lose weight, maintain and do so without having to carry on their lives at a level of intake that to me, now, appears to be inadequate from the research and reading I have done.
And I'm sure none of that had to do with the fact that you were underweight at 110lbs at 5'7 so having to eat very low calories to maintained your very low body weight.
Of course you felt like crap at 110lbs - that's what happens when you're underweight.
Hopefully most people here are planning to maintain at a healthy weight for their height.
I don't think it's the fact that she was underweight. I think it was the fact that she had to eat 500-800 calories in order to maintain that. Some people can be perfectly healthy at a low weight. Sounds like she isn't one of them.
its hard to be healthy at a 16 to 17 bmi, and that is what it was for me. I felt ok and had tons of energy until the last few months. I didnt really know what I was doing to my body at the time.
16 or 17 is kind of low. I'd go with 18 being okay and could be healthy if the person is maintaining that weight with a decent calorie number. 500-800 calories is too low. If they are maintaining at 1500 calories, I'd go with okay. I'd been in the 18 bmi range for a while. Now down to the 17.5 bmi and trying to gain a few pounds back to 18. I never ate as little as you are though. I was probably eating 1300-1400 calories in order to get to a bmi of 17.5. I need to up it, but if I had been eating 500-800 calories, I think I would be dead now.
In the 18 bmi range, I never lost my hair. Still not losing hair at 17.5, but it makes me nervous.0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
That just reinforces the idea that you must be trolling.0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
what do you mean by "won't let you provide a link"? How does it stop you from doing that?0 -
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
0 -
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
Not necessary as it's clear you don't have said research.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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