1.5lb to 1lb a week
Chewitz
Posts: 217 Member
So much better
More calories to play with
Woohoo
More calories to play with
Woohoo
0
Replies
-
Good to know. I have started with 1 lb per week but was thinking of switching to 1.5. Maybe I should just stay where I am. More manageable?0
-
I was just more hungry... perhaps for you it will be fine
0 -
I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
this0 -
I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
0 -
^THIS.TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
This is what I figured too
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
This is what I figured too
But my goals are also set up around me getting ripped/fit, not just skinny. So for me, I try to preserve as much muscle as possible, so I eat about 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, I lift heavy and progressive and I don't have large deficits to help minimize the amount of muscle lost. Also, the additional calories I get from a less aggressive weight loss goals really has improved my lifting routine, which I suspect leads to higher burns. Not suggesting that you can't do this with a more aggressive goal.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
This is what I figured too
But my goals are also set up around me getting ripped/fit, not just skinny. So for me, I try to preserve as much muscle as possible, so I eat about 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, I lift heavy and progressive and I don't have large deficits to help minimize the amount of muscle lost. Also, the additional calories I get from a less aggressive weight loss goals really has improved my lifting routine, which I suspect leads to higher burns. Not suggesting that you can't do this with a more aggressive goal.
Good luck 0 -
I set mine to sedentary and 1 pound per week. I don't log my weight workouts and eat back half of my other exercise calories and lose about 1.8 pounds/week. Sometimes if I get really hungry or have cravings I'll either eat all my exercise calories for that day or just eat at maintenance for that day. I've only had to eat at maintenance once a month or so.
Been doing that for 95 days and lost about 25 pounds so far.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »I set mine to sedentary and 1 pound per week. I don't log my weight workouts and eat back half of my other exercise calories and lose about 1.8 pounds/week. Sometimes if I get really hungry or have cravings I'll either eat all my exercise calories for that day or just eat at maintenance for that day. I've only had to eat at maintenance once a month or so.
Been doing that for 95 days and lost about 25 pounds so far.
That's brilliant thanks for sharing 0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?0 -
I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia
It sounds like this is a good choice for you. I used to have mine at 2lbs per week, and I found that I was hardly ever hitting goal because I was just too hungry. When I moved to 1.5 instead, I could actually feel full while not going over and I started to lose consistently (22lbs since February). Every one is different. We all need to do what works for us.0 -
if you're able to, exercising will give you more calories.
thats why i exercise. LOL0 -
berlynnwall wrote: »I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia
It sounds like this is a good choice for you. I used to have mine at 2lbs per week, and I found that I was hardly ever hitting goal because I was just too hungry. When I moved to 1.5 instead, I could actually feel full while not going over and I started to lose consistently (22lbs since February). Every one is different. We all need to do what works for us.
That's great you have lost 22lbs 0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
For 1630 calories a day? Meh0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »if you're able to, exercising will give you more calories.
thats why i exercise. LOL
Good advice thanks 0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
Why would I want to starve myself, end up a weakling and not hit my goals to save a few dollars a week on groceries. And since my bill for my wife and I is around $100 a week, i'm good.
The bigger question at the end of the day is, is having an inferior body worth saving a few dollars, a slower metabolism and less muscle? You can eat your 1600-1800 calories, I will eat my 2300-2500 and then in a few months, we can compare body composition and strength (I track all my lifting days) and lets see who has a more effective plan.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
Yup every week when I feed myself, my 21 yo son who is a welder and my husband a 33 yo power engineer who between the 3 of us eat 300$ worth of food easy ...a week.
I will not be hungry while losing weight and I don't like cheap meat...it's about priorities.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
Yep, a heck of a lot less than it was when I got fat in the first place.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
Yep, a heck of a lot less than it was when I got fat in the first place.
LOL I know right0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
Yep, a heck of a lot less than it was when I got fat in the first place.
that too...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions