Alright people who supposedly get full on 1200, how do you do it?
Replies
-
I never feel full. Feeling full is uncomfortable for me and a sign that I've overdone it. I can feel satisfied on 1200, though. I divide my food into 200cal increments. So 200cal 6x a day, or 200cal 4x with a 400cal dinner, or however I want to break it up. On days I hit the gym, I eat back some of my exercise calories.
Those tend to be protein bars, Greek yogurt, and romaine salads with grilled chicken, though, so. Protein, I guess, is what satisfies me.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I am always surprised on these threads at the number of people who believe that if you are female, petite (5'2 and under), have a desk job, and maybe over a certain age you are destined to have to eat 1200 cals in order to lose weight.
I am 5'2, have a desk job, am over 40 and lose weight anywhere under 1700 cals net. My TDEE is ~2100 and it's not like I'm a marathon runner.
I started at 1200 too, was always over, but kept losing. I raised my goal first to 1400, then 1500, still losing. After I had less than 15 lbs to lose I raised it to 1650 and was losing about 0.5/week. I always eat back my exercise cals. Every last one of them too.
I would advise if you are having trouble meeting your calorie goals you should:
1. Reevaluate to make sure that's the right number for you. Maybe try a higher number for a few weeks and see what happens. You might be surprised.
2. Exercise and eat back at least a portion of your calories
3. Eat more nutrient dense, satiating foods.
ETA I think many people could benefit from steps 1-3 above, not just if you are struggling to stay within goal...
Rather than criticizing others or assuming they're doing something wrong, perhaps you should be very thankful.
I'm 4'10" (on a good day, and with a bit of fudging
) so . . . really short. I'm also 52 and hypothyroid.
Per the Scooby site my BMR is 1260. My sedentary TDEE is 1512 and lightly active TDEE is 1733. And keep in mind those numbers aren't taking hypothyroidism into consideration. Thankfully, according to my Fitbit I've yet to have a truly sedentary day. But my highest TDEE day has been 2043, and that involved walking a little over five miles, over ten flights of stairs, plus spending four hours on hands and knees giving my (large) kitchen floor a very thorough scrubbing.
You might also keep in mind that as you age your estimated TDEE will likely decline, too. There's quite a difference in "over 40" and "over 50." And I'm sure it's not going to get any better.
I'm sorry can you please point out where I was criticizing others or assuming they are doing something wrong, or sounded like I'm ungrateful?
I was simply pointing out that assuming that you HAVE to eat 1200 cals or less because of your height, age, and activity level is not always the case.
I'm no special snowflake, I'm saying there are probably more people who could be eating more and still losing, than everyone thinks. And as someone else pointed out up thread, why wouldn't you want to try that, to see if it works for you?
As you said, there's a difference between over 50 and over 40, but at 4'10 there's also a four inch difference in height as well. I certainly understand that someone who is 5'6 is going to have a different maintenance level than me. But there have been several 5'1 and 5'2 people in this thread alone saying they HAVE to do 1200 because of their stats.
I'm just providing my experience, which did include a brief stint at 1200 as well.
Edited because it's Friday.
0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »I had to do 1200 for some months
I filled up on veggies and fruit
I eat it all and it is all about balance
this is one of my 1200-ish days And yes i weigh EVERYTHING! to the gram
Plan and pre-log and it is doable...for some time. There isnt much room ofcourse. And to not be hungry i ate a lot of protein and veggies
After some time i could go up and now 10 months later and 105 pounds less than i was i eat between 1300 to 1600 a day sometimes more. All depends on my exercise or if i am hungry or not.
But i fuel my body what it needs.
Your food looks amazing.
thank you
I stir fry a lot.. i love that. I pre prep and log ahead
Keep a food log and blog with photo's Love to do that.
But i love to cook.
for me the trick is mixing it all up..when hungrier more veggies when not more calorie densed foods
Yummy food pics! And completely agree on mixing it up--low on calories, lots of veggies and low calorie protein (tuna on a pile of greens is my go to lunch when going out to eat later); lots of calories left, get out the chips and cheese!
lol ice cream for me...all the calories that are left
But i love my air popped popcorn every night for the last 10 months now
And next to that i have some frozen fruit
Its not ice cream but love the chewyness of the frozen fruits like it is candy.
But yes when calories left and i want some "extra" or need more i eat ice cream.
Well, yes, ice cream too......life would not be worth living without ice cream! 0 -
It's hard but it is doable. Here is an example:
Breakfast:
Egg white omelet:
100g egg white
2 oz ham
6 oz mushroom
1 slice Fat free American cheese
5g butter/4g olive oil
=242 Cal, 7.6g fat, 10.6g carb, 28g protein
Lunch:
Chicken and broccoli
200g raw chicken breast
200g broccoli
7g garlic
5g Olive oil
10g soy sauce
5 g corn starch
=367 Cal, 7.8 g fat, 20.8g carb, 52.7 g protein
Dinner:
Salmon cakes:
4.9oz pink salmon
4oz baked potato
1tsp mustard
17g egg white
45g light mayo
4g Parmesan cheese
5g Olive oil
This recipe makes 4 patties, I suggest spray the salmon cakes with olive oil and bake in the oven.
=488 Cal, 20.5g fat, 40.3 g carb, 38.1g protein
Total = 1097 Cal, and you can have 103 Cal in snacks.0 -
Thats easy.purplishblue wrote: »This isn't a thread bashing you, it's me asking how do you manage it?? I get super hungry on that little a day, however I'm wanting to try it again. What are your typical meals? Do you ever feel famished?
Eat bags and bags of frozen veggies. = 200+ calories per bag.
Green Zucchini - extremely low in calories.
18 grams of Fiber w/ drink 3 times a day.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I am always surprised on these threads at the number of people who believe that if you are female, petite (5'2 and under), have a desk job, and maybe over a certain age you are destined to have to eat 1200 cals in order to lose weight.
I am 5'2, have a desk job, am over 40 and lose weight anywhere under 1700 cals net. My TDEE is ~2100 and it's not like I'm a marathon runner.
I started at 1200 too, was always over, but kept losing. I raised my goal first to 1400, then 1500, still losing. After I had less than 15 lbs to lose I raised it to 1650 and was losing about 0.5/week. I always eat back my exercise cals. Every last one of them too.
I would advise if you are having trouble meeting your calorie goals you should:
1. Reevaluate to make sure that's the right number for you. Maybe try a higher number for a few weeks and see what happens. You might be surprised.
2. Exercise and eat back at least a portion of your calories
3. Eat more nutrient dense, satiating foods.
ETA I think many people could benefit from steps 1-3 above, not just if you are struggling to stay within goal...
Rather than criticizing others or assuming they're doing something wrong, perhaps you should be very thankful.
I'm 4'10" (on a good day, and with a bit of fudging) so . . . really short. I'm also 52 and hypothyroid.
Per the Scooby site my BMR is 1260. My sedentary TDEE is 1512 and lightly active TDEE is 1733. And keep in mind those numbers aren't taking hypothyroidism into consideration. Thankfully, according to my Fitbit I've yet to have a truly sedentary day. But my highest TDEE day has been 2043, and that involved walking a little over five miles, over ten flights of stairs, plus spending four hours on hands and knees giving my (large) kitchen floor a very thorough scrubbing.
You might also keep in mind that as you age your estimated TDEE will likely decline, too. There's quite a difference in "over 40" and "over 50." And I'm sure it's not going to get any better.
I'm sorry can you please point out where I was criticizing others or assuming they are doing something wrong, or sounded like I'm ungrateful?
I was simply pointing out that assuming that you HAVE to eat 1200 cals or less because of your height, age, and activity level is not always the case.
I'm no special snowflake, I'm saying there are probably more people who could be eating more and still losing, than everyone thinks. And as someone else pointed out up thread, why wouldn't you want to try that, to see if it works for you?
As you said, there's a difference between over 50 and over 40, but at 4'10 there's also a four inch difference in height as well. I certainly understand that someone who is 5'6 is going to have a different maintenance level than me. But there have been several 5'1 and 5'2 people in this thread alone saying they HAVE to do 1200 because of their stats.
I'm just providing my experience, which did include a brief stint at 1200 as well.
Edited because it's Friday.
Fair enough to point out that each person needs to identify what works for him or herself--I agree completely. However, I think your initial comment came across a little judgy, which might be what @pawsforme was responding to.
I am at least one of the folks who said that at 5'2" and with a desk job 1200 is my weight loss sweet spot and for me this is true. I've been doing it a long time also and have played with different calorie allotments and I could probably lose a bit with calories anywhere under 1400 but my maintenance range (when really sedentary, which happens during high stress/high work volume periods of time) is between 1500-1600. I will absolutely not lose weight eating that much and I have gained weight at 1700 calories. For what it's worth, I'm still in my 30's, too.
So, the core of what you said is true, each person needs to find their own path, but that doesn't mean that those of us who say that 1200 is our path are wrong. 0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I am always surprised on these threads at the number of people who believe that if you are female, petite (5'2 and under), have a desk job, and maybe over a certain age you are destined to have to eat 1200 cals in order to lose weight.
I am 5'2, have a desk job, am over 40 and lose weight anywhere under 1700 cals net. My TDEE is ~2100 and it's not like I'm a marathon runner.
I started at 1200 too, was always over, but kept losing. I raised my goal first to 1400, then 1500, still losing. After I had less than 15 lbs to lose I raised it to 1650 and was losing about 0.5/week. I always eat back my exercise cals. Every last one of them too.
I would advise if you are having trouble meeting your calorie goals you should:
1. Reevaluate to make sure that's the right number for you. Maybe try a higher number for a few weeks and see what happens. You might be surprised.
2. Exercise and eat back at least a portion of your calories
3. Eat more nutrient dense, satiating foods.
ETA I think many people could benefit from steps 1-3 above, not just if you are struggling to stay within goal...
Rather than criticizing others or assuming they're doing something wrong, perhaps you should be very thankful.
I'm 4'10" (on a good day, and with a bit of fudging) so . . . really short. I'm also 52 and hypothyroid.
Per the Scooby site my BMR is 1260. My sedentary TDEE is 1512 and lightly active TDEE is 1733. And keep in mind those numbers aren't taking hypothyroidism into consideration. Thankfully, according to my Fitbit I've yet to have a truly sedentary day. But my highest TDEE day has been 2043, and that involved walking a little over five miles, over ten flights of stairs, plus spending four hours on hands and knees giving my (large) kitchen floor a very thorough scrubbing.
You might also keep in mind that as you age your estimated TDEE will likely decline, too. There's quite a difference in "over 40" and "over 50." And I'm sure it's not going to get any better.
I'm sorry can you please point out where I was criticizing others or assuming they are doing something wrong, or sounded like I'm ungrateful?
I was simply pointing out that assuming that you HAVE to eat 1200 cals or less because of your height, age, and activity level is not always the case.
I'm no special snowflake, I'm saying there are probably more people who could be eating more and still losing, than everyone thinks. And as someone else pointed out up thread, why wouldn't you want to try that, to see if it works for you?
As you said, there's a difference between over 50 and over 40, but at 4'10 there's also a four inch difference in height as well. I certainly understand that someone who is 5'6 is going to have a different maintenance level than me. But there have been several 5'1 and 5'2 people in this thread alone saying they HAVE to do 1200 because of their stats.
I'm just providing my experience, which did include a brief stint at 1200 as well.
Edited because it's Friday.
Fair enough to point out that each person needs to identify what works for him or herself--I agree completely. However, I think your initial comment came across a little judgy, which might be what @pawsforme was responding to.
I am at least one of the folks who said that at 5'2" and with a desk job 1200 is my weight loss sweet spot and for me this is true. I've been doing it a long time also and have played with different calorie allotments and I could probably lose a bit with calories anywhere under 1400 but my maintenance range (when really sedentary, which happens during high stress/high work volume periods of time) is between 1500-1600. I will absolutely not lose weight eating that much and I have gained weight at 1700 calories. For what it's worth, I'm still in my 30's, too.
So, the core of what you said is true, each person needs to find their own path, but that doesn't mean that those of us who say that 1200 is our path are wrong.
And that is not at all what I was trying to say or imply. I think in general people try to make weight loss more complicated than it needs to be. They think they have to go extremely low with their calories, or cut out entire food groups, in order to be successful. There are threads after threads of people that are just starting out that either set too aggressive of a goal for themselves, because they want to lose weight quickly, or they make really drastic changes in diet because they read somewhere that in order to lose weight you have to "eat clean" or "cut carbs" or "do a sugar detox".
I am not saying this to sound like I am bragging. I think weight loss is challenging, for sure, but it doesn't have to be as miserable as some people make it out to be. It wasn't easy for me to lose 30 lbs and now maintain it, but it really wasn't that complicated either. It's really about eating less, moving more, and finding a balance. If your balance is between 1200-1400, and that works for you, and you're happy with it, then so be it. I agree everyone has to figure out what works best for them but what I'm trying to highlight is that being a petite female with a desk job is not a life sentence to eating under 1500 cals.
Maybe I need more smiley faces. I hear that's a good way to make your words sound more positive.
0 -
feisty_bucket wrote: »You can definitely get "full" on 1200 calories if that's one or two substantial meals. But you won't feel full all day long, no. You will be hungry at some point.
Losing fat requires being hungry. It's ok to be hungry. Get used to being hungry sometimes.
I didn't find that to be the case at all. I lost plenty of fat without being hungry.
That's not to say I'm never hungry. There are days when my usual mealtime comes and I'm stuck in a long meeting or some such, but it's not a regular thing.0 -
feisty_bucket wrote: »You can definitely get "full" on 1200 calories if that's one or two substantial meals. But you won't feel full all day long, no. You will be hungry at some point.
Losing fat requires being hungry. It's ok to be hungry. Get used to being hungry sometimes.
It doesn't require anything but a deficit, that's all
How big or small the deficit is, sex age, medical condition etc will determent how much you lose.
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.
lol studies please how to and why and results about "hard resetting" your body.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'm sorry can you please point out where I was criticizing others or assuming they are doing something wrong, or sounded like I'm ungrateful?
I was simply pointing out that assuming that you HAVE to eat 1200 cals or less because of your height, age, and activity level is not always the case.
I'm no special snowflake, I'm saying there are probably more people who could be eating more and still losing, than everyone thinks. And as someone else pointed out up thread, why wouldn't you want to try that, to see if it works for you?
As you said, there's a difference between over 50 and over 40, but at 4'10 there's also a four inch difference in height as well. I certainly understand that someone who is 5'6 is going to have a different maintenance level than me. But there have been several 5'1 and 5'2 people in this thread alone saying they HAVE to do 1200 because of their stats.
I'm just providing my experience, which did include a brief stint at 1200 as well.
Edited because it's Friday.
I'm sorry if I "heard" your post wrong.
To me your first paragraph sounded quite judgmental, as if those of us who really do have to stick to around 1200 calories must be doing something wrong. Likewise, your numbered list came across to me in the same way--as if those of us who need to stick to a lower intake are so dim that we wouldn't know if we could eat more and still lose.
It just gets really, really tiresome on here when those who obviously have no clue (not saying that's you!) post over and over and over again that no one and I mean no one should ever eat less than 1200 calories/day, and that even that level is somehow dangerous. That just doesn't work for some of us, even when we're weighing, measuring, logging and not being total couch potatoes. I didn't mean to take my general frustration about that out on you. Sorry.0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.
lol studies please how to and why and results about "hard resetting" your body.
I never made any claim that it was a medical fact. I said it was part of a mental game to keep people on track. For me personally, it can help me move past carb cravings after indulging. There are a lot of mental games people play with themselves and tools used to stay on track. That's just one I've found helpful for me, so I suggest to others to try.
eta: And when someone may say "detox" and may mean "reset," I try to suggest other language that's at least a little closer to reality.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'm sorry can you please point out where I was criticizing others or assuming they are doing something wrong, or sounded like I'm ungrateful?
I was simply pointing out that assuming that you HAVE to eat 1200 cals or less because of your height, age, and activity level is not always the case.
I'm no special snowflake, I'm saying there are probably more people who could be eating more and still losing, than everyone thinks. And as someone else pointed out up thread, why wouldn't you want to try that, to see if it works for you?
As you said, there's a difference between over 50 and over 40, but at 4'10 there's also a four inch difference in height as well. I certainly understand that someone who is 5'6 is going to have a different maintenance level than me. But there have been several 5'1 and 5'2 people in this thread alone saying they HAVE to do 1200 because of their stats.
I'm just providing my experience, which did include a brief stint at 1200 as well.
Edited because it's Friday.
I'm sorry if I "heard" your post wrong.
To me your first paragraph sounded quite judgmental, as if those of us who really do have to stick to around 1200 calories must be doing something wrong. Likewise, your numbered list came across to me in the same way--as if those of us who need to stick to a lower intake are so dim that we wouldn't know if we could eat more and still lose.
It just gets really, really tiresome on here when those who obviously have no clue (not saying that's you!) post over and over and over again that no one and I mean no one should ever eat less than 1200 calories/day, and that even that level is somehow dangerous. That just doesn't work for some of us, even when we're weighing, measuring, logging and not being total couch potatoes. I didn't mean to take my general frustration about that out on you. Sorry.
No problem, I know that my words don't often come out the way I intend them to. I actually went back and qualified my numbered list (sorry, I'm a project manager, almost everything I ever type makes more sense to me if it is in some sort of numerical or bulleted annotation) to indicate that I didn't just think that that advice applied to those who felt like they couldn't handle a 1200 cal goal, but that many people would benefit from revisiting their numbers and strategy from time to time. I've been on MFP for 2.5 years, and am transitioning to maintenance and I really do sit and try to figure out if I have everything properly tweaked on almost a weekly basis. Not that I'm obsessed with the numbers, I'm just a data driven person so I am always trying to figure out how to optimize the results. I think a FitBit is a great tool for that, and it sounds like you have one too.
And like I said in another post - there are lots of new people just starting out on MFP who automatically choose the most aggressive deficit to lose weight the fastest, or who believe that you have to go with an extreme diet program in order to be successful. You don't seem to fit that scenario, nor does the other poster who challenged the tone and intent of my words. Sounds like you guys have done what I did, played with the numbers, tried different approaches (more exercise, less food, more accurate logging, etc) in order to figure out what works best. I strongly encourage everyone to do that, but what I am not a fan of is the blanket statement that "I have to be at 1200 because I'm ______ (old, female, petite, sedentary)". I think when someone says that, they truly mean "I" in the sense that you do, when you say "I" you mean you, specifically, because you know what works for your body. I think that others may read that and think, "Oh, well if they need to be at that level, and I have similar stats to them, then I must need to be at that level too".
So sounds like we both get frustrated with blanket statements and assumptions.
0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.
lol studies please how to and why and results about "hard resetting" your body.
I never made any claim that it was a medical fact. I said it was part of a mental game to keep people on track. For me personally, it can help me move past carb cravings after indulging. There are a lot of mental games people play with themselves and tools used to stay on track. That's just one I've found helpful for me, so I suggest to others to try.
eta: And when someone may say "detox" and may mean "reset," I try to suggest other language that's at least a little closer to reality.
But writing it down that way gives the impression you reset or detox...There is a lot in these forums about this kinda things. And people really believe this nonsense that you can reset or detox your body.
Besides that this is a thread about what to eat at 1200 calories and how you do it.
But were ever there is a nice discussion going on like this one is/was....the low carb bad foods detox resetting metabolisms and other woo comes in...why?
its about what to eat on a 1200 diet...
But leaves this thread too.
Don't want to help today or discus and derail a thread like this any further
have fun all...and OP you can do it...eat a balanced diet and you will be fine just like the most of us here who do CICO
0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.
lol studies please how to and why and results about "hard resetting" your body.
I never made any claim that it was a medical fact. I said it was part of a mental game to keep people on track. For me personally, it can help me move past carb cravings after indulging. There are a lot of mental games people play with themselves and tools used to stay on track. That's just one I've found helpful for me, so I suggest to others to try.
eta: And when someone may say "detox" and may mean "reset," I try to suggest other language that's at least a little closer to reality.
Actually as a mindtrick, I do believe the detox/fast/reset works for a lot of people. I know it does for me. If I feel myself slipping it only takes me a couple of days before my mind has left the fridge and is back working fully (or as fully as it can be) and I am back on track. Do I do it often? No. Do I need a study to support my findings? No, as I know it works for me.Might be the placebo effect for all I know, but with the amount of flab I have got left to loose, a reset once a quarter for a couple of days is not going to do me any harm I believe. Not like I am doing the "Master Cleanse" for 14-28 days. I spend two days pulling my brain back together, and that works for me. Might not work for the majority, but as long as it works, I know my slippery slope will come to an abrupt stop.
For a lot of us, this is a journey, and we have different coping techniques. I'd love to say I am Ms Perfect and my log consists of only healthy eating at 1200 kcals a day, but lets face it, it does not, you'll find curries, wine and god knows what else in there (but no biscuits) as I am treating this as lifestyle change, so once I reach goal I know what I can eat and at what sacrifice level (CICU) All I am saying is, if something works for someone, and it is not doing them any harm, let them get on with it. A two day reset is nothing more then a 5:2 done over 2 consecutive days in my mind, and 5:2 works for a lot of people (but again not all) 0 -
arditarose wrote: »Fruit and veg, really. I'm only 5'1'', which is why I keep to 1200-1300. Also, I can only sustain it really if I have one maintenance level day per week. I could raise the calorie level every day, but having that one day when I can have a meal out and a glass of wine with my husband is better for me.
I'm trying the same now. Doing a couple 1300 calorie days so I can be a normal person on the weekend.
I've been full enough this week on 1300. Admittedly, I chew a bit of gum, drink black coffee, and eat a stupid amount of veggies and protein-which makes my fat intake drop a bit low. Have to find a good way to fix that up. 50 grams of avocado per day isn't doing it.
Have you thought of biting the bullet and trying to find some cardio you like to give you more calories? I know you hate it, but it could help in your case.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I am always surprised on these threads at the number of people who believe that if you are female, petite (5'2 and under), have a desk job, and maybe over a certain age you are destined to have to eat 1200 cals in order to lose weight.
I am 5'2, have a desk job, am over 40 and lose weight anywhere under 1700 cals net. My TDEE is ~2100 and it's not like I'm a marathon runner.
I started at 1200 too, was always over, but kept losing. I raised my goal first to 1400, then 1500, still losing. After I had less than 15 lbs to lose I raised it to 1650 and was losing about 0.5/week. I always eat back my exercise cals. Every last one of them too.
I would advise if you are having trouble meeting your calorie goals you should:
1. Reevaluate to make sure that's the right number for you. Maybe try a higher number for a few weeks and see what happens. You might be surprised.
2. Exercise and eat back at least a portion of your calories
3. Eat more nutrient dense, satiating foods.
ETA I think many people could benefit from steps 1-3 above, not just if you are struggling to stay within goal...
Rather than criticizing others or assuming they're doing something wrong, perhaps you should be very thankful.
I'm 4'10" (on a good day, and with a bit of fudging) so . . . really short. I'm also 52 and hypothyroid.
Per the Scooby site my BMR is 1260. My sedentary TDEE is 1512 and lightly active TDEE is 1733. And keep in mind those numbers aren't taking hypothyroidism into consideration. Thankfully, according to my Fitbit I've yet to have a truly sedentary day. But my highest TDEE day has been 2043, and that involved walking a little over five miles, over ten flights of stairs, plus spending four hours on hands and knees giving my (large) kitchen floor a very thorough scrubbing.
You might also keep in mind that as you age your estimated TDEE will likely decline, too. There's quite a difference in "over 40" and "over 50." And I'm sure it's not going to get any better.
I'm 5'1" with hypothyroidism too. It's not an excuse. Properly medicated and treated, it's a non-issue, frankly. If it's causing problems, you're not being properly treated for it. I'll be 53 in one week. The numbers don't need to take your hypothyroidism into consideration once you're medicated properly. You'll be just like everyone else in that case.
According to Fitbit? My TDEE is averaging almost 2400. I'm right around 153 pounds.
Yes, that's down to being active.
But as I stated earlier in this thread, I started out eating 1200 to lose weight, got down to a point where 1600ish was my TDEE. I got a whole lot more active, and now I eat 1500-1600 and drop 1.5 - 1.8 pounds a week, which is faster than I was losing on 1200.
People can likely eat more if they are willing to move more or lose weight more slowly.
0 -
and for the detox aspect..there is no detox or resetting your body. Really people stay on top here
its about a 1200 diet
Respectfully, I beg to differ. A hard reset can help get some people get back on track after an indulgence. I'm not a fan of calling it a "detox," as that's nowhere near the proper term. That's why I refer to it as a "reset." It's a mechanism to get back on track. Is it the only one? No, but it is a useful tool.
Please just stop with this. There should be no dieting mindset. People who think like that won't succeed. How you eat while losing weight should reflect the formation of HEALTHY patterns and behaviors around food that will last you a lifetime, and should not reinforce negative approaches.
The only thing different about being "on" a diet and "in" maintenance is the amount of calories you get to consume.
Your whole way of thinking here is so skewed. Indulgences are part of life. They should be handled as something that you have without guilt or shame and you just continue on your merry way afterwards, back on track.
The idea that you have to buckle down and do something as almost punishment for having had one? Is really, really not good.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm 5'1" with hypothyroidism too. It's not an excuse. Properly medicated and treated, it's a non-issue, frankly. If it's causing problems, you're not being properly treated for it. I'll be 53 in one week. The numbers don't need to take your hypothyroidism into consideration once you're medicated properly. You'll be just like everyone else in that case.
I agree with you that hypothyroidism shouldn't be an issue when it's properly medicated. But I'm recently diagnosed and so my doc and I are still working on getting me to that point. So for me right now it IS an issue.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions