2,000 calories [a day] is only enough to sustain children and postmenopausal women
Replies
-
-
@professionalHobbyist, nice ride! And go charge your phone. ;-p0
-
There was a time when I was gaining weight at 1,700-1,800 calories a day. So, I don't disbelieve those who claim to do the same. But, I suspect that was the end result of long term diet induced issues. When those turned around and healed, my TDEE rose and now I can eat 2,500-2,700 calories a day without gaining weight.
I read something about that a week or so ago - I wish I saved it. It basically came down to the fact that people who had lost weight had to eat at a lower caloric daily level than the same sized people, of the same age and sex, who had never been overweight.
It wasn't a long term study, so I hope you are right!0 -
I believe this is an individual thing, just like everything else. I gain at 1500 or greater. It's how I've always been. I really used to feel that I was starving on the SAD diet. With the ZC I can maintain that and not feel hungry! I can see how this woe leads one to eat so much less!0
-
There was a time when I was gaining weight at 1,700-1,800 calories a day. So, I don't disbelieve those who claim to do the same. But, I suspect that was the end result of long term diet induced issues. When those turned around and healed, my TDEE rose and now I can eat 2,500-2,700 calories a day without gaining weight.
EXACTLY!
0 -
socalprincess1 wrote: »Yup.sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »Oh to be able to eat that much and not gain weight. Some of us just flat out can't do that, it doesn't work for us. Which sucks.
This. If I consistently eat over 1800 calories and live a generally sedentary lifestyle where I'm not intentionally trying to exercise, and work a desk job all day, I WILL gain weight. Even 2000 is too high for me. I tested this from Jan - May of this year, when I went back to work after a 6 month break in which I ate healthy and worked out daily because I had the time. During that 4 month period I put on about 15ish lbs. I'm 34 and around 155 now. I guess my metabolism just sucks.
Even in my teens and early twenties to be "normal" weight (not slim just normal) I had to eat between 1200 and 1300 and exercise 2 hours a day... Every day.
That was when I was eating low fat high carbs though. I was hungry ALL the time.0 -
I have been losing faster than my calorie deficit would predict, so I suppose that means the TDEE that I got using one of the keto macro calculators was too low. However, I have been completely content eating at this level.0
-
when I see a 22 yr old lose 50 lbs in <18 weeks consuming cupcakes, but keeping 1200 calories (her first real diet)...then a >60 woman with a lifetime of negative 'low fat' diet influence, lower metabolism, medical issues hormone issues, etc…struggle on the same 1200 calories for months to lose 15 pounds??? I know we HAVE to follow our own N=1..all else is just reading for entertainment…and some education.
As much as I love LCHF I refuse to go to 1200 to lose, because I have already trained my body to STAY the same weight, very efficiently, at 1400 on a High Carb RD-advised "healthy plate" diet.
What really annoys me is anyone losing weight then getting on a big bandwagon, pointing to themselves and saying "you can too"…no. YOU did, but me…..ahhhh, that is a different story. But the hundreds of websites by 'bodybuilders', or the newly thin, are truly NO PROOF it will work for anyone but them.
Finding what works for each of us..and following that..PERSISTENCE is the true key to most success in life, in all things.0 -
The only thing that works to shake up my slow metabolism is hard core exercise
Interestingly enough a year of lifting heavy twice a week and my cardio had raised my T level by 50%
Exercise and good nutrition is almost something the body needs!
Ha!
0 -
All I can say is I'm glad I'm tall. At 5'10 I can eat 1700 - 1800 cals (and a few more on the weekend) and lose 1 to 2 lbs per week. And I'm 40, and a lifetime yoyo dieter. Like everyone else I have some weeks where I don't lose, but on the whole 6lbs a month is about average. I also have a desk job, I spend my evenings on the couch watching TV, I don't run (boobs are too big), the last time I had a gym membership is when I was about 15 and I don't drink 47 gallons of water a day (more like 3 to 4 coffees and a glass of something cold).
I would NOT be able to stick to 1200 cals a day for longer than about 3 days before I ate everything in the kitchen out of starvation. I really really feel for you girls who are so restricted, and I'm so impressed you're able to make it work
0 -
I can't do 2,000. I gain weight. Just tried it for 10 days and put on 3 lbs eating between 1700-2100 cal a day. Even though my macros were on point. I think the key is to listen to your body and learn how it reacts to what foods.0
-
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »
I wish I could figure out why my TDEE seems to be around 1600. Im 19, just over 5 feet, active as heck most days. Still a sh**ty TDEE.The awesome myfitnesspal data export tool (an excel thingamabob) gives me an average TDEE of around 2350kcal per day. I'm under 5 feet tall and female. I don't get how anyone's TDEE (around my age anyway, 32) could be 1400kcal either, they must be bedridden. I'm mainly sedentary as I don't work and still have a pretty good TDEE.
I think my obesity helps. I don't know how big you are, but I am 4'11" and 173lbs (I think...I work in metric). I am obese class 2. I do a lot of weightlifting. I dunno, bodies are weird. I hope I didn't offend anyone and apologise for my obnoxious sounding comments.
My son is 4.5 and eats more than I do and maintains his weight. It's nuts. How can someone 105cm and 18kg in weight eat so much?!
0 -
There have been several articles shared so far this year about folks who did gain on a reasonable calorie diet WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE REPAIRING THINGS. There was one referenced who gained for 6 months and then started dropping like mad. So as long as I feel good and continue gaining health markers, I'm willing to ignore the scale and clothes for a bit to let my body heal. I abused it for more than 20 years - but the standard rationale, it will take what, more than 20 months to full heal it?0
-
It makes so much sense that the body requires time to heal after years of abuse. Especially, if there are significant metabolic issues at play.
It is hard to be patient with the weight loss, but the positive response I have had from a BS and lipid profile standpoint is motivating too.
I need to remind myself of this about the week before my menstrual cycle when I want to dive head first into a pile of jelly beans.0 -
Repairs
Interesting concept
I never thought of the cumulative damage.0 -
Yeah, as I'm reading these comments, I'm wondering what amount of time it would take for my body to heal to the point of allowing weight loss. I've been at this for 6 months and would kinda like a little weight loss action to get going! Can I just assume that my body is busy healing, and how do I know when the healing is complete?0
-
After 10 months I have had enough body healing to permit me to physically do more 'things'. I was having unexpected weight losses then I realized on those days I did things that I had not done in years. I was eating about the same but was burning more calories than I realized. I no longer have major pain from just moving for any reason.0
-
professionalHobbyist wrote: »Repairs
Interesting concept
I never thought of the cumulative damage.
I've read somewhere that if you have NAFLD, Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, it could take some time reducing visceral fat/increase liver function before the body starts working on adipose tissue. Not sure about this, though. The liver is possibly the body's most underrated organ, since it is the metabolic general that decides which nutrients go where.0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »
I would NOT be able to stick to 1200 cals a day for longer than about 3 days before I ate everything in the kitchen out of starvation. I really really feel for you girls who are so restricted, and I'm so impressed you're able to make it work
Well, they are smaller than you, so their needs are less. I am 5'6 and have a hard time with 1200, but somebody who is 5'1 can manage it easier.
0 -
Foamroller wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »Repairs
Interesting concept
I never thought of the cumulative damage.
I've read somewhere that if you have NAFLD, Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, it could take some time reducing visceral fat/increase liver function before the body starts working on adipose tissue. Not sure about this, though. The liver is possibly the body's most underrated organ, since it is the metabolic general that decides which nutrients go where.
Being age 63 and really in bad shape I expect this is why my visceral fat has hung on for so long. The liver may very be the body's most underrated organ.
0 -
My caloric goal is 1970, pretty close to 2000. I follow my appetite though, sometime I'm a little over, sometimes a little under...0
-
Here is an interesting study on weight stable, non-obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257721
It was done in the last couple years. The conclusions are interesting and in line with this discussion.Total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was consistent between the 2 DLW studies (TDEE1: 2422 ± 404 kcal/d; TDEE2: 2465 ± 408 kcal/d; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.90) with a mean TDEE of 2443 ± 397 kcal/d that was, on average, 20% (580 kcal/d) higher in men than in women (P < 0.0001). The regression equation relating mean TDEE to demographics and weight was as follows: TDEE (kcal/d) = 1279 + 18.3 (weight, kg) + 2.3 (age, y) - 338 (sex: 1 = female, 0 = male); R(2) = 0.57. When body composition was included, TDEE (kcal/d) = 454 + 38.7 (fat-free mass, kg) - 5.4 (fat mass, kg) + 4.7 (age in y) + 103 (sex: 1 = female, 0 = male); R(2) = 0.65. Individuals significantly underreported energy intake (350 kcal/d; 15%), and underreporting by overweight individuals (~400 kcal/d; 16%) was greater (P < 0.001) than that of normal-weight individuals (~270 kcal/d; 12%). Estimates of TDEE from a 7-d physical activity recall and measured resting metabolic rate also suggested that individuals significantly underreported physical activity (~400 kcal/d; 17%; P < 0.0001).
I find this interesting, because the TDEE formula given here (1279 + 18.3 * weight + 2.3 * age - 338 * sex) gives me a TDEE of nearly 2,700. This is probably the closest calculated TDEE that conforms to my own experience, that is, slowly losing weight at 2,400-2,600 calories a day. The fat free mass calculations would give me over 2,800 calories a day. That would also conform to my experience. The normal TDEE calculations rarely get me over 2,500 calories unless I select moderately active or higher, which I don't feel is very accurate for my activity level.
The part about people underreporting their intake as well as their exercise is also interesting. Perhaps that's related to my problem with the TDEE calcs. Maybe I am chronically underreporting the amount of activity I am doing? I may have been able to correct for the underreporting of calories based on the extremely limited menu I eat, so the amount of error is minimized.
Now, this doesn't really apply to people who fall outside these study limitations. That's probably the vast majority of people here. First, most people here aren't weight stable. I think that's very important, which I'll explain in a moment. Plus, if you're obese, you have different energy needs (although I recall that they're usually higher than typical TDEE formulas give credit for). If you're older or younger, that's also an issue.
Why do I think being weight stable matters? Because I do believe the body compensates for extreme deficits or surpluses in calories. If you would be weight stable at 2500 calories a day and are eating 1,750 calories a day, I don't believe you're going to be showing the full 750 calorie a day deficit that you'd expect. You might be showing a 500 calorie a day deficit or less because your body is compensating as much as possible. Your body will never be able to compensate enough to stop weight loss, for large enough deficits, but it will still compensate a little. If you use your intake and rate of loss to try and calculate a TDEE, you'll end up getting a lower than actual weight-stable-TDEE. Likewise, if you're eating 3,250 calories a day, you're probably not going to be showing the full 750 calorie a day surplus. Your calculations based on weight gain and calories eaten will give you a higher than actual weight-stable-TDEE.
There are people here who say they're losing a pound a week at 1,200 calories a day, so they must have a TDEE of about 1,700. That's probably lower than their real weight stable TDEE. Their body is resisting being dragged away from the homeostasis that it prefers. I also happen to believe that, once you remove the hindrances to weight loss, you can lose weight even eating near your real TDEE because your body will compensate for the surplus in energy stores in the same way that it would compensate for moderate surpluses in intake. You can overload these compensatory mechanisms, if you push hard enough, obviously.
Anyway, that's enough for today's Goat rambling.0 -
Because I do believe the body compensates for extreme deficits or surpluses in calories.
It turns out that same group studied that question:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26187233
They restricted calories by about 12% below ad lib levels for TWO YEARS.
RMR residual decreased significantly more in CR than AL at 12 months (p = .04) but not 24 months (M24).
So you're right for the first year, but it looks like we get used to it in 2 years. They also found:
CR had larger decreases in cardiometabolic risk factors and in daily energy expenditure adjusted for weight change, without adverse effects on quality of life.
Yet another reason to count calories.
Edit: oh, just noticed the wording in that last sentence. That implies that RMR doesn't change in the long run, but TDEE does! It benefits health, but FIT_Goat seems to be right about TDEE adjusting downward for calorie restriction.0 -
Foamroller wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »Repairs
Interesting concept
I never thought of the cumulative damage.
I've read somewhere that if you have NAFLD, Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, it could take some time reducing visceral fat/increase liver function before the body starts working on adipose tissue. Not sure about this, though. The liver is possibly the body's most underrated organ, since it is the metabolic general that decides which nutrients go where.
That's awesome information and makes sense to me. It gives me hope to know that my body could be working in getting healthier on the inside before any results show on the outside.0 -
That is interesting about the RMR recovering while the TDEE continues to remain low. Makes me think there are probably different levels of compensation for varying calories. Short term is probably handled without much external change, and when it becomes prolonged your body might start reducing in other areas. Maybe it is the fidgeting that ends up going up or down. That is one area most people have no way to track reliably. There is also the reduced energy costs for weighing less and exercise adaptation.
Just more stuff to look into. I claim that I have become more "black box" approach to this, that is I care less about exactly why it works than the fact that it does, but my natural curiosity will never completely go away.0 -
I claim that I have become more "black box" approach to this, that is I care less about exactly why it works than the fact that it does, but my natural curiosity will never completely go away.
The complexity drives me nuts sometimes, but I think it's useful to at least have a handle on some of the parameters.
For example, Jason Fung says that calorie restriction lowers metabolic rate, but fasting doesn't. If true (I doubt it), then that implies there's some timing threshold.
But to me, the most interesting aspect of this stuff is the impact on appetite when carbs are restricted. At some point, that has to diminish or we become too thin. So, how's that work?
Working theory:
1) insulin resistance associated with leptin resistance (why???)
2) decrease in carbs = decrease in insulin (well established)
3) decrease in insulin = increase in leptin sensitivity (why???)
4) high leptin + increased sensitivity = reduced appetite
5) as intake goes down, fat stores are depleted, and leptin declines
6) eventually we reach equilibrium when fat/leptin are low enough so that appetite is appropriate to maintain weight
0 -
What would it suggest if I'm losing weight faster than expected? And it's been consistent and hasn't slowed down though I'm within about 20lbs of my ideal weight?
I keep waiting for and have been preparing myself for a major slow down, so that I wouldn't get bummed about it, but it hasn't happend.
I have averaged 1.6 lbs per week. I started at 164.5 and am 144.4 now. My personal goal has been 130, but 2 different weight tracking apps I use show an ideal weight of 124.5 and 126.7...
I have no metabolic issues.
I have averaged just under 1300 calories a day. At my start weight the Ankler calculator estimated my BMR as 1405. TDEE as a sedentary person at 1686 and lightly active is 1932.
At 1932 TDEE my 1300 calories is a 33% deficit. With a start date of 5/7/15 I should weigh 149.7 today.
At 1686 TDEE my 1300 calories is a 23% deficit. With a start date of 5/7/15 I should weigh 155.3 today.
I have exceeded what either of them would predict, and I really don't think my 3000 average steps a day and lack of forming any real exercise habit would rate me as lightly active. Is my idea of what lightly active means just not accurate? But even the calculator describes it as "walking around a good amount, retail jobs. 1-3 hours a week of light exercise." I assumed it means exercise in addition to the walking around. Maybe Not? But my job is nowhere near the walking that occurs in a retail job that I am assuming they also mean is a full time job.
I can't figure out how to explain why I would be losing faster than expected.0 -
My experience is that fasting a brief time and exercisin had no detrimental effect on me the other days.
I did feel lethargic after days of low calorie.
It is weird because yesterday I burnt conservative 2100 calories on a 34 mile ride with very little beforehand. I ate well afterward. Consumed 2500 calories that day but still well below my food log amount.
I didn't feel whacked down
Diet hard three days and try in excess of 20 miles and I fee like I'm dragging an anchor.
So fasting shortly before activity, then going like hell on fire, and refueling I eat less total but feel better
This has been the trend not the anomaly.
All I can say is the body is complex and sometimes baffling thing
But weight is coming off so I'm not complaining
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »What would it suggest if I'm losing weight faster than expected? And it's been consistent and hasn't slowed down though I'm within about 20lbs of my ideal weight?
I keep waiting for and have been preparing myself for a major slow down, so that I wouldn't get bummed about it, but it hasn't happend.
I have averaged 1.6 lbs per week. I started at 164.5 and am 144.4 now. My personal goal has been 130, but 2 different weight tracking apps I use show an ideal weight of 124.5 and 126.7...
I have no metabolic issues.
I have averaged just under 1300 calories a day. At my start weight the Ankler calculator estimated my BMR as 1405. TDEE as a sedentary person at 1686 and lightly active is 1932.
At 1932 TDEE my 1300 calories is a 33% deficit. With a start date of 5/7/15 I should weigh 149.7 today.
At 1686 TDEE my 1300 calories is a 23% deficit. With a start date of 5/7/15 I should weigh 155.3 today.
I have exceeded what either of them would predict, and I really don't think my 3000 average steps a day and lack of forming any real exercise habit would rate me as lightly active. Is my idea of what lightly active means just not accurate? But even the calculator describes it as "walking around a good amount, retail jobs. 1-3 hours a week of light exercise." I assumed it means exercise in addition to the walking around. Maybe Not? But my job is nowhere near the walking that occurs in a retail job that I am assuming they also mean is a full time job.
I can't figure out how to explain why I would be losing faster than expected.
All of this points to a current TDEE of about 2,100 calories a day, and a likely weight-stable TDEE of even more. If you're experiencing a 15% slowdown, your TDEE would be around 2,400 a day. Then again, depending on how rapidly your body wants to get rid of excess weight, it could be something between those two or even outside that range.
All we can say for sure is that you're lost about 1.6 pounds a week averaging around 1,300 calories a day. We can't speak to whether or not it will continue to happen or to your current TDEE or your final weight stable TDEE. We can only draw assumptions based on the past body changes.
0 -
Now I can't wait to get there even more! I'm so curious how long this rate will keep up.0
This discussion has been closed.