Do I have to eat all my calories?
valerieH2012
Posts: 4 Member
Hi! So I'm a bigger girl coming in at 330 and I'm in beauty school so I'm always on my feet but I have 2,900 calories to consume before exercise but unless I binge eat, I never hit that goal. I'm trying to be more conscious of what I eat like staying away from fat and what not but will it hurt any thing if i only eat about 1,900 calories?
0
Replies
-
Use hunger as your cue0
-
Dietary fat is not bad; in fact, it is necessary for your body to be able to use fat-soluble vitamins, among other things. And foods with fat are an easy way to get closer to your calorie goals if you're having trouble meeting them (e.g., cooking with fat, adding olive oil to salads and veggies, using full-fat dairy, adding avocado, nuts, or peanut butter to your diet).
That said, at your current weight, assuming you're not 330 pounds of solid muscle, you almost certainly have enough fat to support a larger deficit (there's a limit to how much energy your body can recover from stored fat every day, but it is related to how much fat you have -- about 30 calories per pound of fat per day; after that, the deficit has to be made up by breaking down lean mass, which you want to limit as much as possible). But if you find yourself lacking energy, being hungry all the time, have trouble sleeping, etc., you might want to try eating more (see previous paragraph).0 -
Within a matter of days it appears that I am slimming down quite nicely I don't necessarily focus on avoiding fat but more as fat and processed foods. I'm hardly ever home so a lot of my food is prepackaged or something quick but I have noticed that I've been starving when I'm at school working on clients so I take the time to run down and grab yogurt or have lunch or have a bit of coffee so I suppose I am listening to my body as far as hunger pains go but after dinner I'm really not that hungry but I have all these calories left and after being on Weight Watchers where they drill into you that you have to have all your points consumed it worries me that I'm not eating all my calories even though 1900 calories is a lot0
-
Probably 1900 is enough for someone who has a lot to lose. Make sure that you eat enough protein as we lose both muscle and fat when we lose weight.
Also eat a variety of veggies if you can.
0 -
We live in a quick fix world and I am afraid you are falling into the trap of seeing quick weight loss and wanting that quick fix to get to your weight goal. If you put into MFP that you are on your feet all day then they figured that into your calorie amount and may be why it is so high. If you are honestly not hungry, if you are not losing energy, if you are getting plenty of nutrients in what you are eating then 1900 calories are probably enough. Otherwise you may want to find a way to add some snacks to your day. It would be disappointing for you to go through this and lose the weight just to gain it back again.0
-
The short answer is no.0
-
valerieH2012 wrote: »Hi! So I'm a bigger girl coming in at 330 and I'm in beauty school so I'm always on my feet but I have 2,900 calories to consume before exercise but unless I binge eat, I never hit that goal. I'm trying to be more conscious of what I eat like staying away from fat and what not but will it hurt any thing if i only eat about 1,900 calories?
1,900 will be plenty for your body to run on. If you still have 1,000 cals left to meet your goal and aren't hungry, don't push it (unless of course you are bulking)0 -
For smaller people working with less calories, it is very important to eat them all. But since you have so much to lose, and 1,900 is a decent amount of food, it's probably not a big problem. Just be very mindful of how you feel - if you start to feel sluggish or "off", try to bump up your calories a bit and see if it helps. Don't be afraid of the calories if you need them!
Make sure part of that 1,900 is getting you the nutrition you need, and make sure you are getting ENOUGH protein and fat. Fat actually isn't the enemy we used to think it is, so if you are eating a lot of "fat free" stuff, there is nothing wrong with getting a bit of the real deal.
Good luck!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
0 -
First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!0
-
goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
So left at that blanket statement...listen to your hunger cues...I could eat 3 donuts and a coke for about 1200 cals in a go. and then.......4 hours later.....hmmm hungry again.... to each there own.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
So left at that blanket statement...listen to your hunger cues...I could eat 3 donuts and a coke for about 1200 cals in a go. and then.......4 hours later.....hmmm hungry again.... to each there own.
Ah, I see. You interpret hunger as including cravings. They are separate in my mind.
ETA: Actually I think you have a point. My hunger cues are only accurate if I'm eating a healthy well balanced diet. But given that OP wants to eat fewer calories than she is allowed I think it is a safe assumption for now at least.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
So left at that blanket statement...listen to your hunger cues...I could eat 3 donuts and a coke for about 1200 cals in a go. and then.......4 hours later.....hmmm hungry again.... to each there own.
Ah, I see. You interpret hunger as including cravings. They are separate in my mind.
just cuz someone eats a donut or 3 doesn't make it a craving. The fact that someone says..hey, just listen to your hunger pangs is such short sighted advice and of no value unless followed up with more discussion. Gosh, if someone told me to do that i could eat way to much of the wrong things when hungry that just totally derails everything and is way to many calories.0 -
As long as you're getting enough nutrition, you don't need to feel compelled to eat more if you're genuinely not hungry. However, often initially we get this kind of "diet high"- "Look how little I can actually eat!"- spurred on by some quick weight loss, and that's not really beneficial. We can start to get tired and burned out and then a binge might come on. We all had to be eating much more to become overweight in the first place, so it's unlikely we will be content with such a drastic change for long. Keep it sustainable. Check out the thread right now on "Why is slow weight loss better?" Best to you!
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
Mine are not. A big part of why I need to be here is the very fact that my hunger cues are not accurate. I am guessing a person starting at 330 pounds struggles with that same issue. 1900 is fine since the original poster has a lot to lose, and thus has a lot of fat that they can burn in a day. However, a time will come when all the calories will need to be eaten to not have a huge deficit and lose too much lean mass. Probably about the time when 1900 calories is the goal that MFP gives.
To the OP, stick with the 1900, recalculate your calorie goal every 10-15 pounds. When you get to MFP saying eat 1900 you will be well served eating all your calories to get into a pattern of appropriate eating.0 -
First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
No! Don't change your activity level if you are losing nicely now. You are definitely not sedentary if you are on your feet all day since sedentary basically means sitting all day except for the necessary activity needed to prepare food and things like that. You do not fall into that category. You are likely more than lightly active as well.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
No! Don't change your activity level if you are losing nicely now. You are definitely not sedentary if you are on your feet all day since sedentary basically means sitting all day except for the necessary activity needed to prepare food and things like that. You do not fall into that category. You are likely more than lightly active as well.
But she's losing nicely now eating 1900.
0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
So left at that blanket statement...listen to your hunger cues...I could eat 3 donuts and a coke for about 1200 cals in a go. and then.......4 hours later.....hmmm hungry again.... to each there own.
Ah, I see. You interpret hunger as including cravings. They are separate in my mind.
just cuz someone eats a donut or 3 doesn't make it a craving. The fact that someone says..hey, just listen to your hunger pangs is such short sighted advice and of no value unless followed up with more discussion. Gosh, if someone told me to do that i could eat way to much of the wrong things when hungry that just totally derails everything and is way to many calories.
You responded before I added a statement but I'm not really sure why "wrong things" is part of this discussion.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
So left at that blanket statement...listen to your hunger cues...I could eat 3 donuts and a coke for about 1200 cals in a go. and then.......4 hours later.....hmmm hungry again.... to each there own.
Ah, I see. You interpret hunger as including cravings. They are separate in my mind.
ETA: Actually I think you have a point. My hunger cues are only accurate if I'm eating a healthy well balanced diet. But given that OP wants to eat fewer calories than she is allowed I think it is a safe assumption for now at least.
perhaps. I would think it would be a bit more safe once you've done your due diligence and logged your food for a few months and now had a good base of experiential knowledge to work off of.0 -
valerieH2012 wrote: »I'm trying to be more conscious of what I eat like staying away from fat and what not but will it hurt any thing if i only eat about 1,900 calories?
There is no reason at all to avoid fat. Dietary fat != adipose tissue. Many of us prefer fat and protein to carbs because carbs make us more hungry. YMMV.
Part of weight control should be learning as much as you can about nutrition.
0 -
rileysowner wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Use hunger as your cue
wow..that could go horribly wrong.
I have no idea how accurate other people's hunger cues are, but mine seems to be dead accurate. If the OP is anything like me, I'd say this is excellent advice.
Mine are not. A big part of why I need to be here is the very fact that my hunger cues are not accurate. I am guessing a person starting at 330 pounds struggles with that same issue. 1900 is fine since the original poster has a lot to lose, and thus has a lot of fat that they can burn in a day. However, a time will come when all the calories will need to be eaten to not have a huge deficit and lose too much lean mass. Probably about the time when 1900 calories is the goal that MFP gives.
To the OP, stick with the 1900, recalculate your calorie goal every 10-15 pounds. When you get to MFP saying eat 1900 you will be well served eating all your calories to get into a pattern of appropriate eating.
No one is suggesting that she ditch calorie counting and only use hunger cues, just that, in my case, I could handle under eating my assigned calories for a while but eventually hunger caught up with me and I ate every calorie I was allotted. It would have been good advice for me.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
No! Don't change your activity level if you are losing nicely now. You are definitely not sedentary if you are on your feet all day since sedentary basically means sitting all day except for the necessary activity needed to prepare food and things like that. You do not fall into that category. You are likely more than lightly active as well.
But she's losing nicely now eating 1900.
Which is why I said don't change her activity level.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
No! Don't change your activity level if you are losing nicely now. You are definitely not sedentary if you are on your feet all day since sedentary basically means sitting all day except for the necessary activity needed to prepare food and things like that. You do not fall into that category. You are likely more than lightly active as well.
But she's losing nicely now eating 1900.
Which is why I said don't change her activity level.
I'm confused. Her calorie goal is 2900. I wouldn't be surprised if decreasing activity level in MFP brought her goal to something in the mid 2000s.. When and if 1900 no longer feels like enough, she'll have a goal that more closely matches her hunger and probably is a more accurate number.
0 -
First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
I'd say rerun the calculator again and be sure when you run the calculator that you're putting in the correct info (if you're not sedentary don't pick that option, tat sort of thing). I want to say at 315 with sedentary (desk job) I was at about 1600 calories, it would go up if you picked a activity level that is incorrect however.
If you feel hungry, make sure you're drinking enough water to belay that causing hungry sensations, otherwise don't force yourself to eat that much if you're not hungry. Do NOT not eat because less calories mean bigger loss, it doesn't work well and then you go from binge eating to other issues (I have freaked out and obsessed over 20 calories difference between food items...you can get crazy). I know for me relearning the signs of actual hunger were really hard, and I was used to over eating so using hunger/full signs doesn't always work for everyone. We're like snowflakes, not everything works well for everyone. It's best to try to eat around the goals given because that's giving you a sensible weight loss management goal. Side bonus it works you into eating less slowly and you get a better chance to learn how your body reacts to foods, ie fat or fiber fill you better than carbs and protein as well as learning what foods will fit best into that range.
As far as staying away from fat, that's a personal choice. As long as you're under calories you should be losing weight.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »First, I'd recalculate your calorie goal. I seem to remember that when I was in the 300's my goal was like 1700 or 1800. That's with a predicted loss of 2 lbs per week - and not eating back exercise calories. I'm guessing yours is so high because you put in highly active since you are on your feet all day. I'd change that to sedentary or lightly active and go from there. Good luck with your weight loss - you can do it!
No! Don't change your activity level if you are losing nicely now. You are definitely not sedentary if you are on your feet all day since sedentary basically means sitting all day except for the necessary activity needed to prepare food and things like that. You do not fall into that category. You are likely more than lightly active as well.
But she's losing nicely now eating 1900.
Which is why I said don't change her activity level.
I'm confused. Her calorie goal is 2900. I wouldn't be surprised if decreasing activity level in MFP brought her goal to something in the mid 2000s.. When and if 1900 no longer feels like enough, she'll have a goal that more closely matches her hunger and probably is a more accurate number.
I agree with this. I'd change it to lightly active and see where it goes.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