Tips on adjusting to 1200 calories per day?
Replies
-
malavika413 wrote: »Secondly, we KNOW that you are not weighing your food. So yes, maybe you are overestimating your calories.
But how do you go from I eat 1600 to 1700 Cal a day to I eat 1200 AND no exercise calories?
Anyway. Do one or the other; not both.
You don't LOOK like you are particularly overweight (I haven't run your numbers). You are young. Have you considered continuing to eat exactly what you are and upping your strength training or other exercise?
The effect will be the same (a larger deficit) and you will feel stronger too instead of "starving" yourself...
I'm planning to do 1200 with no exercise calories. I'm currently on 1290 with exercise calories, which brings me to 1600-1700.
I only have a face-up picture, I assure you that I look fat and need to lose the weight.
There is a difference in "I look fat and need to lose the weight" vs "I'm overweight and need to lose the weight" As pointed out, young, active, and close to goal weight.
You're probably in need more of a recomp than cutting to 1200 (or more if you don't eat exercise cals back). Recomp is eating close to maintenance and lifting so you mainly lose fat. If you cut to low cals, you lose weight in muscle so when you get to your goal weight you'll just be a smaller version of what you are now. (Roughly same BF%).0 -
malavika413 wrote: »Secondly, we KNOW that you are not weighing your food. So yes, maybe you are overestimating your calories.
But how do you go from I eat 1600 to 1700 Cal a day to I eat 1200 AND no exercise calories?
Anyway. Do one or the other; not both.
You don't LOOK like you are particularly overweight (I haven't run your numbers). You are young. Have you considered continuing to eat exactly what you are and upping your strength training or other exercise?
The effect will be the same (a larger deficit) and you will feel stronger too instead of "starving" yourself...
I'm planning to do 1200 with no exercise calories. I'm currently on 1290 with exercise calories, which brings me to 1600-1700.
I only have a face-up picture, I assure you that I look fat and need to lose the weight.
There is a difference in "I look fat and need to lose the weight" vs "I'm overweight and need to lose the weight" As pointed out, young, active, and close to goal weight.
You're probably in need more of a recomp than cutting to 1200 (or more if you don't eat exercise cals back). Recomp is eating close to maintenance and lifting so you mainly lose fat. If you cut to low cals, you lose weight in muscle so when you get to your goal weight you'll just be a smaller version of what you are now. (Roughly same BF%).
I'm 30 pounds away from goal weight, and about 10 pounds overweight.0 -
OK. Be aware that in MFP speak you would classify yourself as "active" based on maintaining that level of activity.
Sorry. Everything you are saying does not point to having to eat 1200 Cal in order to lose weight. Though you do appear convinced that you aren't.
Absolutely, this could be a labeling issue (i.e. you are thinking you're eating 1600 Cal and you're eating 2000).
Here is the world famous @lemonlionheart chart
I stand by my implied suggestion which was to adjust by increasing CO as opposed to by decreasing CI. You do not need to train yourself to live on less food as of yet!0 -
More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
I'm pretty sure I'm eating accurately, but even if I'm not, wouldn't cutting to 1200 give me buffer room for inaccuracies?0 -
malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
I'm pretty sure I'm eating accurately, but even if I'm not, wouldn't cutting to 1200 give me buffer room for inaccuracies?
Ahahaha. 10,000 steps gives me like 60 calories above sedentary.
My 7-day FitBit average is 19,759 steps, as of last update. In an hour it will be more because I'm on a treadmill now.
This does barely--BARELY--nudges me over into lightly active. I need another half-hour of cardio at least 3x per week to be solidly lightly active.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
I'm pretty sure I'm eating accurately, but even if I'm not, wouldn't cutting to 1200 give me buffer room for inaccuracies?
Ahahaha. 10,000 steps gives me like 60 calories above sedentary.
My 7-day FitBit average is 19,759 steps, as of last update. In an hour it will be more because I'm on a treadmill now.
This does barely--BARELY--nudges me over into lightly active. I need another half-hour of cardio at least 3x per week to be solidly lightly active.
Well, great. I'm already tired from all this walking.0 -
Check out my food diary again to see what I've been burning. Add 500 to my "daily goal" and you can see how much MFP and FitBit think I burned. I haven't hit 2,400 ONCE since I started tracking. Not even the day I walked 30k steps.0
-
malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
Need? NONE. (Well the WHO guidelines suggest at least some!)
Optimal for a young person? Lifting? Running? Swimming? Cycling? Racquet sports? Other sports?
Are you exhausted when you come back from your 4mile walk? I.e. do you walk so fast you need to hit the tub to recover?
How much screen time do you get each day by comparison to the time you spend walking?
And, guess what's the best part of it all: more activity = MORE FOOD!
(note: increased exercise WILL result in initial weight gain due to water retention to repair muscle tissue)0 -
malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
I'm pretty sure I'm eating accurately, but even if I'm not, wouldn't cutting to 1200 give me buffer room for inaccuracies?
Ahahaha. 10,000 steps gives me like 60 calories above sedentary.
My 7-day FitBit average is 19,759 steps, as of last update. In an hour it will be more because I'm on a treadmill now.
This does barely--BARELY--nudges me over into lightly active. I need another half-hour of cardio at least 3x per week to be solidly lightly active.
Well, great. I'm already tired from all this walking.
10,000 steps is like the minimum movement people should be doing in a day not to have a fully sedentary lifestyle. If you don't weigh a lot and aren't walking quite fast, you won't get much of a burn from that.
If you're fluffier than me, you're probably shorter than me. (Or else don't have a big butt. LOL.) Being shorter also reduces burn. It reduces both BMR and the number of calories you burn for the same number of steps.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
Need? NONE. (Well the WHO guidelines suggest at least some!)
Optimal for a young person? Lifting? Running? Swimming? Cycling? Racquet sports? Other sports?
Are you exhausted when you come back from your 4mile walk? I.e. do you walk so fast you need to hit the tub to recover?
How much screen time do you get each day by comparison to the time you spend walking?
And, guess what's the best part of it all: more activity = MORE FOOD!
(note: increased exercise WILL result in initial weight gain due to water retention to repair muscle tissue)
I'm rather tired, yeah. I don't walk all that fast, but I'm not what you'd call fit. I don't really thrive doing sports though.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »More calories out? I walk about 4 miles a day, how much more exercise do I need?
I'm pretty sure I'm eating accurately, but even if I'm not, wouldn't cutting to 1200 give me buffer room for inaccuracies?
Ahahaha. 10,000 steps gives me like 60 calories above sedentary.
My 7-day FitBit average is 19,759 steps, as of last update. In an hour it will be more because I'm on a treadmill now.
This does barely--BARELY--nudges me over into lightly active. I need another half-hour of cardio at least 3x per week to be solidly lightly active.
Well, great. I'm already tired from all this walking.
10,000 steps is like the minimum movement people should be doing in a day not to have a fully sedentary lifestyle. If you don't weigh a lot and aren't walking quite fast, you won't get much of a burn from that.
If you're fluffier than me, you're probably shorter than me. (Or else don't have a big butt. LOL.) Being shorter also reduces burn. It reduces both BMR and the number of calories you burn for the same number of steps.
I'm 5'3, so probably shorter. I have no butt, haha.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.
You're not exercising, though. What you're describing is probably going to JUST top off your calories for a sedentary lifestyle.
10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories.
And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!0 -
malavika413 wrote: »I'm rather tired, yeah. I don't walk all that fast, but I'm not what you'd call fit. I don't really thrive doing sports though.
OK. So we have some answers and some recommendations.
If your 10,000 steps are based on an hour's worth of walking outside plus your remaining daily activity, and do not include walking very fast, I will pull a Mr. Knight, and suggest that you... don't eat your exercise calories back! *but continue doing the exercise*
I would also suggest you check with a doctor as to why you have such a low level of energy.
Even though I know that weight loss is "done in the kitchen"; I am specifically not suggesting cutting your calories because a) you are not far from a normal weight and b) you are probably better off not to teach your body to subsist on less energy
Last, but not least: you want results, you want results fast, but you don't want to, for example, exercise more. Specifically you want to increase your energy deficit which could result in more muscle loss as you are close to normal weight, which is probably not the greatest idea for someone who doesn't enjoy the exercise it would take to rebuild it!
While not uncommon for a 20 yo in today's world to be tired from an hour's worth of activity in a day; no, I would not call it normal.
Yes, if you eat 2000Cal thinking it is 1600, eating what you think is 1200 will probably result in you eating 1600. Maybe.
Of course under-eating also makes people tired.... just saying!0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
While I agree with most of what you've said... 10,000 steps is supposed to be well above lightly active, verging on active. And you certainly sound more along the lines of active than lightly active when you add the rest of it! Of course, in the end, the scale trumps any estimates!
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
While I agree with most of what you've said... 10,000 steps is supposed to be well above lightly active, verging on active. And you certainly sound more along the lines of active than lightly active when you add the rest of it! Of course, in the end, the scale trumps any estimates!
It's not, though, for our heights and weights. TRUST me on this one. Or go check out my daily calorie goals, and I'll tell you how much I walked that day!!!
1955 calories with 20,195 steps so far today. Projected burn of 2106.
1683 is my expected calories for sedentary.
1,890 is lightly active.
2,150 is active.
On Wednesday, I walked just over 15,000 steps. No other exercise. Burn of 1,900 even.
So I have to walk 15,000 steps to be "lightly active" and OVER 20k steps to be "active."0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.
You're not exercising, though. What you're describing is probably going to JUST top off your calories for a sedentary lifestyle.
10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
Jesus, I'm already tired with this.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.
You're not exercising, though. What you're describing is probably going to JUST top off your calories for a sedentary lifestyle.
10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
Jesus, I'm already tired with this.
If you walk fast, you'll burn a lot more. Mine is a pretty slow walk because I'm usually typing/working.0 -
malavika413 wrote: »I'm rather tired, yeah. I don't walk all that fast, but I'm not what you'd call fit. I don't really thrive doing sports though.
OK. So we have some answers and some recommendations.
If your 10,000 steps are based on an hour's worth of walking outside plus your remaining daily activity, and do not include walking very fast, I will pull a Mr. Knight, and suggest that you... don't eat your exercise calories back! *but continue doing the exercise*
I would also suggest you check with a doctor as to why you have such a low level of energy.
Even though I know that weight loss is "done in the kitchen"; I am specifically not suggesting cutting your calories because a) you are not far from a normal weight and b) you are probably better off not to teach your body to subsist on less energy
Last, but not least: you want results, you want results fast, but you don't want to, for example, exercise more. Specifically you want to increase your energy deficit which could result in more muscle loss as you are close to normal weight, which is probably not the greatest idea for someone who doesn't enjoy the exercise it would take to rebuild it!
While not uncommon for a 20 yo in today's world to be tired from an hour's worth of activity in a day; no, I would not call it normal.
Yes, if you eat 2000Cal thinking it is 1600, eating what you think is 1200 will probably result in you eating 1600. Maybe.
Of course under-eating also makes people tired.... just saying!
My doctor says I'm out of shape, but otherwise okay. I figured the walking would be fine. I guess I have to do even more.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.
You're not exercising, though. What you're describing is probably going to JUST top off your calories for a sedentary lifestyle.
10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
Jesus, I'm already tired with this.
If you walk fast, you'll burn a lot more. Mine is a pretty slow walk because I'm usually typing/working.
I'll try that. I'm already pretty tired after the walk, though.0 -
And lots of teens today are very sedentary. There's a kid in the neighborhood who can't make it around the block without huffing and puffing (and he's not obese, just very, very sedentary). Your fitness improves in time.
You could try doing Couch to 5k. There's a free app. It will get you a LOT more calories than walking!0 -
malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »malavika413 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »My first recommendation is to log - everything - for a few weeks. Get an idea of what you're actually eating, and then you can figure out where you should be.
If you do decide to drop down to 1200 (unnecessary, IMO) - eat your exercise calories back.
I did log everything for over a month, no loss. And I burn off quite a few exercise calories (on vacation now, but on the average day I walk about 4 miles), so I feel like eating those back wouldn't help much.
Then my next suggestion is to weigh your food.
I really don't want my roommates to try and stage an intervention again. Would being more strict about not eating back exercise calories not work?
so your roommates run your life???
if you are not losing it is because you are not logging accurately due to overestimating of calories.
also, if you were eating 100% back of exercise calories that is part of the problem too. I would suggest getting afoot scale and only eating back half of your exercise calories.
if you don't log accurately on 1200 then you won't lose either.
I'm planning not to eat my exercise calories so I'll have a buffer. I log and measure all the food I can, so I'm guessing 450 extra exercise calories would cover that.
You're not exercising, though. What you're describing is probably going to JUST top off your calories for a sedentary lifestyle.
10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
Jesus, I'm already tired with this.
If you walk fast, you'll burn a lot more. Mine is a pretty slow walk because I'm usually typing/working.
I'll try that. I'm already pretty tired after the walk, though.
Couch to 5k will get you there. 0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And lots of teens today are very sedentary. There's a kid in the neighborhood who can't make it around the block without huffing and puffing (and he's not obese, just very, very sedentary). Your fitness improves in time.
You could try doing Couch to 5k. There's a free app. It will get you a LOT more calories than walking!
I've thought about it. Anything to lose weight, I guess. I figured eating less would be easier.0 -
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance!MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
It's not, though, for our heights and weights. TRUST me on this one. Or go check out my daily calorie goals, and I'll tell you how much I walked that day!!!MamaBirdBoss wrote: »10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
While I agree with most of what you've said... 10,000 steps is supposed to be well above lightly active, verging on active. And you certainly sound more along the lines of active than lightly active when you add the rest of it! Of course, in the end, the scale trumps any estimates!
1955 calories with 20,195 steps so far today. Projected burn of 2106.
1683 is my expected calories for sedentary.
1,890 is lightly active.
2,150 is active.
On Wednesday, I walked just over 15,000 steps. No other exercise. Burn of 1,900 even.
So I have to walk 15,000 steps to be "lightly active" and 20k steps to be "active."
I actually think that the Fitbit's TDEE estimate is fairly accurate, so if it takes 15,000 steps to match the MFP lightly active setting... then that's what it takes!
My Fitbit TDEE matches the MFP "very active" setting TDEE at about 15.5K to 16K (pretty much all of them are "purposeful for exercise")
Hence the dissonance!0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »10,000 steps gets me just to 1700 calories. And I'm taller than you, so I get more credit. 1700-1200=500, a one-pound-a-week deficit.
That's why I work out extra. I want more calories!
While I agree with most of what you've said... 10,000 steps is supposed to be well above lightly active, verging on active. And you certainly sound more along the lines of active than lightly active when you add the rest of it! Of course, in the end, the scale trumps any estimates!
It's not, though, for our heights and weights. TRUST me on this one. Or go check out my daily calorie goals, and I'll tell you how much I walked that day!!!
1955 calories with 20,195 steps so far today. Projected burn of 2106.
1683 is my expected calories for sedentary.
1,890 is lightly active.
2,150 is active.
On Wednesday, I walked just over 15,000 steps. No other exercise. Burn of 1,900 even.
So I have to walk 15,000 steps to be "lightly active" and 20k steps to be "active."
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance!
I actually think that the Fitbit's TDEE estimate is fairly accurate, so if it takes 15,000 steps to match the MFP lightly active setting... then that's what it takes!
My Fitbit TDEE matches the MFP very active setting at about 15.5K to 16K (pretty much all of them are "purposeful for exercise".
Hence the dissonance!
I'm walking at a pace that's faster than ambling but slower than striding. I'm also just 5'6" (so I don't walk as far as you for the same number of steps), and I weigh 140lbs (so I get way less credit per mile).0 -
I would encourage you to check out this link and calculate your TDEE and understand what that is.
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm
So many people think that cutting calories to an amount that is lower is the answer but if you are already hungry, then is that really the answer? Cutting the calories more to a point that is not healthy physically or emotionally is not going to be a habit you will stick to. Also, if you teach your metabolism that you are going to give it the bare bones amount, it will adjust to manage energy on that amount.
I am going to be unpopular for saying this, but if you have push back on the weighing the food idea, I respect that. One of my BFF's is a psychologist and she specializes in eating disorders. She says MFP is not the healthiest place for anyone with ED tendencies. As you mentioned, your roommates have already intervened and it's also not practical to tote a scale around. But you could consider learning the visuals of how much is what - that would help.
http://www.healthyeating.org/Portals/0/Documents/Schools/Parent Ed/Portion_Sizes_Serving_Chart.pdf
Some folks have mentioned adding strength training. If you can't afford a gym that would supply heavier weights, you can use body weight exercises and also resistance bands (<$20 on Amazon) to activate your muscles in a greater way than you do just walking. Walking is great but you will want to elevate your heart rate at least 15-20 minutes a day to a point where you are aware you are working and you have to take breaths between every few words if you were talking.
I am also a big believer in BF% over scale weight. I will add I am a fitness instructor for the past 10 years and for what I weigh now, I am 5-7 lbs heavier but with same measurements and clothing size at a BF% between 21-22%. That's what adding muscle mass will do for you. Also revs your metabolism. I eat between 1800-2000 calories a day at my exercise levels and try to stay 15% below my TDEE. I have lost 5.5 lbs very slowly (over 12 weeks) but have a goal to preserve muscle mass. I tell you this because everyone on here will have a different opinion of how YOU should get there. But it's really a process over years of educating yourself as to what works, what doesn't. I started WW at age 12 and I am now 45. I've always been in a healthy weight range for my height (at both ends of the range!) but because of my genetics, it's taken constant vigilance. I will always have to track and exercise to some degree because that works for me. You need to find what works for you.
Some websites I like are:
www.eatmore2weighless.com
www.girlsgonestrong.com
Educate yourself and you will win at this in the long term.
0 -
losingitseattle wrote: »I would encourage you to check out this link and calculate your TDEE and understand what that is.
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm
So many people think that cutting calories to an amount that is lower is the answer but if you are already hungry, then is that really the answer? Cutting the calories more to a point that is not healthy physically or emotionally is not going to be a habit you will stick to. Also, if you teach your metabolism that you are going to give it the bare bones amount, it will adjust to manage energy on that amount.
I am going to be unpopular for saying this, but if you have push back on the weighing the food idea, I respect that. One of my BFF's is a psychologist and she specializes in eating disorders. She says MFP is not the healthiest place for anyone with ED tendencies. As you mentioned, your roommates have already intervened and it's also not practical to tote a scale around. But you could consider learning the visuals of how much is what - that would help.
http://www.healthyeating.org/Portals/0/Documents/Schools/Parent Ed/Portion_Sizes_Serving_Chart.pdf
Some folks have mentioned adding strength training. If you can't afford a gym that would supply heavier weights, you can use body weight exercises and also resistance bands (<$20 on Amazon) to activate your muscles in a greater way than you do just walking. Walking is great but you will want to elevate your heart rate at least 15-20 minutes a day to a point where you are aware you are working and you have to take breaths between every few words if you were talking.
I am also a big believer in BF% over scale weight. I will add I am a fitness instructor for the past 10 years and for what I weigh now, I am 5-7 lbs heavier but with same measurements and clothing size at a BF% between 21-22%. That's what adding muscle mass will do for you. Also revs your metabolism. I eat between 1800-2000 calories a day at my exercise levels and try to stay 15% below my TDEE. I have lost 5.5 lbs very slowly (over 12 weeks) but have a goal to preserve muscle mass. I tell you this because everyone on here will have a different opinion of how YOU should get there. But it's really a process over years of educating yourself as to what works, what doesn't. I started WW at age 12 and I am now 45. I've always been in a healthy weight range for my height (at both ends of the range!) but because of my genetics, it's taken constant vigilance. I will always have to track and exercise to some degree because that works for me. You need to find what works for you.
Some websites I like are:
www.eatmore2weighless.com
www.girlsgonestrong.com
Educate yourself and you will win at this in the long term.
First - If OP is already not accurately tracking and not losing, then I really don't understand why you would say not to weigh all solid foods. You say she can't cut any lower, but then you say to not get a food scale and just keep inaccurately logging, sorry but that does not make any sense. Also, OP's roommate had an ED, not OP. So your theory about MFP being unhealthy for someone with ED tendencies does not apply.
Second - body fat scales are notoriously inaccurate so I don't know why you are recommending that as a tracking method.
Third - I agree on the strength training.
0 -
Im on 1200 a day. I have 0 cal tea in the morning but don't eat until I need to around 11/12. The morning is the only time I'm even semi hungry. I have a small lunch, fruit, cereal, salad, something, allow myself a few small handfuls of snacks to ride me through the rest of the day, then get to pig out (relatively speaking) for dinner.
It's not so much eating more filling foods for me, but just anything really low cal so I can have as much as I want. I'd open my diary but I've been so bad nutrition-wise this week I can't stand it
I think I was about to get an intervention from my family for weighing food, but when I explained to them it was more accurate than measuring by cups (because 1/2 cup of spinach is really hard to messure- do you press it down? Let it be fluffy? Cook it first?) and told them I do it for recipie reasons so I can have the exact same measurements for next time they were cool with it. It was only a semi-lie...0 -
She's 5'3" and 149lbs. She can weight lift all day, but she isn't going to see anything but slightly smaller dimensions for that. Recomping at 5'10" would make total sense at that weight, but not at 5'3".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
- 427 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