Do you need to feel hungry to lose weight?

Options
124»

Replies

  • TiffanyR71
    TiffanyR71 Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    I find I'm hungrier when I eat refined carbs (bread, pasta, etc.). Filling up 1200 calories with protein, fat, and fruit/vegetable carbs keeps me satisfied and energetic... You may have to play around with different foods & meal/snack timings to see what works for you personally. I find exercise actually helps curb my appetite, too (at least temporarily). Drink plenty of low- or no-calorie drinks, too (black coffee, tea, water, etc.). And plenty of sleep seems to be like magic! Good luck on your journey!
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    I read recently that 50% of weight loss from fat and 50% lbm is a poor result. 75/25 is an average result, and 85/15 is an extremely good result.

    If Tex lost 98lbs fat and 11lbs lbm, that's 89.9% fat and 10.1% lbm. Even if his body fat percentage estimations are off slightly, that is an outstanding result indeed! @DeguelloTex what kind of diet did you follow?
  • malavika413
    malavika413 Posts: 474 Member
    Options
    I eat my fitbit/exercise calories back (ideally half, sometimes all). Otherwise I'd be starving with my 1280 calorie goal.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    I read recently that 50% of weight loss from fat and 50% lbm is a poor result. 75/25 is an average result, and 85/15 is an extremely good result.

    If Tex lost 98lbs fat and 11lbs lbm, that's 89.9% fat and 10.1% lbm. Even if his body fat percentage estimations are off slightly, that is an outstanding result indeed! @DeguelloTex what kind of diet did you follow?
    1000 calorie a day deficit until I got down to 1600 calories. At that point, working out was a whip so I started adding back calories.

    One gram of protein per pound of actual body weight. 25% of calories from fat. The rest from carbs. I ate a lot of chicken breast and non-fat Greek yogurt with protein powder during the day because that was the easiest way to get the protein within the confine of my calorie limit as it got toward its lowest, but I ate whatever I made for the family for dinner. We ate pasta a lot less often.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    A you are hungry and
    My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week)
    from the same thread.

    1356 below TDEE...almost half your TDEE.

    AS for my quote that wasn't moving the goal post..read the sentence...For me...meaning if I lost that much, me personally losing 25% of my muscle mass...that is too much for my body...

    and if you look further down this is what I said to you...
    Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.

    The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.

    I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*

    I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.

    I think this was a series of misinterpretations to be frank...I still don't agree with your aggressive deficit but again...it's not my cup of tea...but you go ahead...and again I will disagree with such a large deficit..but please can we stop this debate...and agree to disagree...on your large deficit...
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    A you are hungry and
    My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week)
    from the same thread.

    1356 below TDEE...almost half your TDEE.

    AS for my quote that wasn't moving the goal post..read the sentence...For me...meaning if I lost that much, me personally losing 25% of my muscle mass...that is too much for my body...

    and if you look further down this is what I said to you...
    Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.

    The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.

    I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*

    I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.

    I think this was a series of misinterpretations to be frank...I still don't agree with your aggressive deficit but again...it's not my cup of tea...but you go ahead...and again I will disagree with such a large deficit..but please can we stop this debate...and agree to disagree...on your large deficit...
    Regardless, even by your own 90/10 standard, I lost an "extra" 1.4 pounds of muscle in exchange for getting to my goal weight a year earlier. Again, I'll take that every single time.

    Disagree if you want. I'm not operating on the basis of getting your agreement.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    I read recently that 50% of weight loss from fat and 50% lbm is a poor result. 75/25 is an average result, and 85/15 is an extremely good result.

    If Tex lost 98lbs fat and 11lbs lbm, that's 89.9% fat and 10.1% lbm. Even if his body fat percentage estimations are off slightly, that is an outstanding result indeed! @DeguelloTex what kind of diet did you follow?
    1000 calorie a day deficit until I got down to 1600 calories. At that point, working out was a whip so I started adding back calories.

    One gram of protein per pound of actual body weight. 25% of calories from fat. The rest from carbs. I ate a lot of chicken breast and non-fat Greek yogurt with protein powder during the day because that was the easiest way to get the protein within the confine of my calorie limit as it got toward its lowest, but I ate whatever I made for the family for dinner. We ate pasta a lot less often.

    Thanks for sharing... that's some going on the protein!
    Congrats on such a great result.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
    I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.

    What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?

    No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
    The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.

    According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.

    If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.


    did you miss that part of my post.

    you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...

    as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.

    I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...


    Define VLCD, then.

    I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.

    The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.

    ETA:

    335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.

    VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..

    TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...

    Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....

    I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.

    With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...

    But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...

    and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
    If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?

    And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.

    Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.

    ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."

    SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/

    I read recently that 50% of weight loss from fat and 50% lbm is a poor result. 75/25 is an average result, and 85/15 is an extremely good result.

    If Tex lost 98lbs fat and 11lbs lbm, that's 89.9% fat and 10.1% lbm. Even if his body fat percentage estimations are off slightly, that is an outstanding result indeed! @DeguelloTex what kind of diet did you follow?
    1000 calorie a day deficit until I got down to 1600 calories. At that point, working out was a whip so I started adding back calories.

    One gram of protein per pound of actual body weight. 25% of calories from fat. The rest from carbs. I ate a lot of chicken breast and non-fat Greek yogurt with protein powder during the day because that was the easiest way to get the protein within the confine of my calorie limit as it got toward its lowest, but I ate whatever I made for the family for dinner. We ate pasta a lot less often.

    Thanks for sharing... that's some going on the protein!
    Congrats on such a great result.
    Thanks.

    I think it helped keep hunger at bay to some extent. And I learned all kinds of new marinades and spices for chicken breast, so I have that going for me.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    I was never hungry until I got 5 pounds from my goal.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,981 Member
    Options
    Tex - here's a recipe for chicken and yogurt I just tried recently. The marinade didn't thrill me before it was cooked, but after grilling - yum! I didn't bother with skewers and just cooked the boneless thighs.

    Chicken Skewers Marinated In Paprika-Mint Yogurt
  • andylllI
    andylllI Posts: 379 Member
    Options
    I'm five pounds from my goal and I'm hungry whenever I'm in a deficit. If I eat to hunger I maintain which, in and of itself is great. I drink the water and eat the fiber (> 30 g a day) and all the voluminous veggies and I have macros split 40-30-30 (c-f-p) and all that helps but the truth remains that if I'm in a deficit I'm going to be hungry. It's just a matter of deciding that's okay and deciding how hungry I can feel while still functioning at a reasonable level. I also eat three meals and a bedtime snack. Cramming more food into smaller windows helps me feel more satisfied...but I'm still hungry (on a 1/4-1/2 pound a week deficit).
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    To the OP I would say just to add a little bit of exercise to your day. That would allow you to take in a little bit more calories so that you feel you could have a couple of snacks. Also working out tends to not make me feel so hungry. And then drink lots more water....and then more after that.