We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is it harder for those who only have little to lose..?
kayleexbabeex
Posts: 55 Member
I only have a stone to lose and I tried losing this stone September last year and I managed to lose 6lbs of it so nearly half way but then over Christmas I put it back on and stopped working out and eating clean..I have started back up again last week but I feel like it's going to be harder just to lose a stone as I'm not far off from a healthy weight. Is this true? X
0
Replies
-
Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
This0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going
This
agree and wells said.0 -
It is usually because of homeostasis. The body is quick to adapt to how it burns calories at rest if body fat storage gets down to 20% or less for females and 15% or less for males. Not saying it can't be done because many people have done it, but it does take more attention to detail and requires more discipline.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Yes. The body really resists losing vanity lbs. You have to be very careful and accurate with logging. When in doubt about something I ate, I'll overestimate rather than underestimate calories.
Also, when you're talking about 10 lbs or so of vanity weight, it comes off super slow, but can come back on in what SEEMS like a blink of an eye.0 -
kayleexbabeex wrote: »I only have a stone to lose and I tried losing this stone September last year and I managed to lose 6lbs of it so nearly half way but then over Christmas I put it back on and stopped working out and eating clean..I have started back up again last week but I feel like it's going to be harder just to lose a stone as I'm not far off from a healthy weight. Is this true? X
A pound of fat can only release a certain amount (31) of calories per day, so weight loss, as in fat loss and not loss of lean mass, will be slow. You will also have to be meticulous in your logging.
What you eat has no direct impact on weight loss. Calories in have to be fewer than calories out, that's what counts. But what you eat can impact how you feel (energy, satiety, mood), and make adherence to diet easier, and thus eat fewer calories than you burn.
"Clean eating" is nonsense, it can mean anything and so it means absolutely nothing. Eat whatever you want but try to get in a variety of real, nutritios foods every day, and don't deny yourself foods you like.0 -
Yeah, I want to lose about 10-15 lbs depending how I feel after 10 lbs. Its taken me about two and a half months to lose 5 lbs BUT I wanted to lose .5 a week so its actually right where I need to be. I'd rather it take longer and be able to maintain then try and lose quickly.0
-
A smaller person has a lower TDEE than a larger person, all else being equal. So if you're 150 pounds and 15 pounds overweight, your body uses less energy than if you're 250 pounds and 115 pounds overweight. Assuming everything else is the same, such as age, activity level, height, gender.
A lower calorie burn means that you need to have a smaller deficit, because you just don't burn enough calories in a day to aim for a 750-1000 calorie deficit. And with a smaller deficit comes an increased need for accuracy. If you aim for 1000 and you're off by 200 calories due to estimation errors you still have a decent deficit. If you are aiming for a 250 deficit and you're off by 200 due to errors, you are practically eating at maintenance.
At a smaller deficit, results take longer to 'see' on the scale and in the mirror, so its easy to get frustrated and give up.
Those are some reasons why it may be harder to lose when you don't have much left to lose. Essentially though it still comes down to sustaining a calorie deficit over time.kayleexbabeex wrote: »I only have a stone to lose and I tried losing this stone September last year and I managed to lose 6lbs of it so nearly half way but then over Christmas I put it back on and stopped working out and eating clean..I have started back up again last week but I feel like it's going to be harder just to lose a stone as I'm not far off from a healthy weight. Is this true? X
0 -
Yes it is because (as ClosetBayesian points out) you need to be more meticulous with weights and measurements.
But, additionally, for those that have had a long haul down to close to their ideal/goal weight there are physical (leptin levels) and mental issues ("I'm just tired of all this" and "Everyone tells me to stop losing weight") which can make the last part grueling.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »Yes it is because (as ClosetBayesian points out) you need to be more meticulous with weights and measurements.
But, additionally, for those that have had a long haul down to close to their ideal/goal weight there are physical (leptin levels) and mental issues ("I'm just tired of all this" and "Everyone tells me to stop losing weight") which can make the last part grueling.
Truer words were never spoken.
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.0 -
It depends -- if you've been very heavy for a long time there could be all kinds of things that make it tough. But as others said, your TDEE is higher and often the first lbs come off really fast (although may be largely water).
For me, what's hard about losing the last 5-10 lbs is (a) you have to be more patient, since losing .5 lb is less fun than losing 2 lb, as it's easy to think it didn't happen at all, as it gets lost in fluctuations; (b) it's hard to feel as urgent about it, so I constantly find myself think "if I do this I won't lose this week" and shrug it off "okay, I'll lose next week." I was far more motivated when I was 200 lbs.
I still think it's a lot easier now, even if the weight is harder to lose in some ways. Among other things, I know I know how to lose it, and I am fit, so can contribute more through activity.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
I was trying to find the best way to respond. This sounds a lot like it. It's harder for me to just lose weight walking around my block now than when I was heavier.
Edit : Or should I say lose the same pound0 -
It is usually because of homeostasis. The body is quick to adapt to how it burns calories at rest if body fat storage gets down to 20% or less for females and 15% or less for males. Not saying it can't be done because many people have done it, but it does take more attention to detail and requires more discipline.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is pretty much what I've experienced. Getting to and maintaining a healthy BF% around 12-15% isn't difficult at all for me...getting really lean is a much tougher task. Also, as you age it gets harder because as we age, our body naturally wants to hold onto more fat which is why if you look at BF illustrations, you see acceptable and healthy amounts of BF increase as age increases.
I'm trying to get to around 10% right now from 12%...it's tough sledding. I think I can do it, but any lower than that would truly be a task that is probably not worth my time and effort and I often have question whether 10% is worth it.0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
Meh, then you're lucky. I'm always hungry. Constantly. It's endless. I almost never get to actually go out to eat. Can't have a beer. All treats are pretty much gone. It's nuts. All that starving and less than a pound a week AND i'm 40lbs overweight on a good day. If I had 5lbs to lose I'd be loving the idea of starving for only 5 weeks but faced with the idea of starving for 40 more? That's real torture. People with 5lbs to lose have it easy.0 -
Having less to lose means little room for error. I suggest heavy lifting which will pump up those muscles and in turn make your calorie burns higher.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »It is usually because of homeostasis. The body is quick to adapt to how it burns calories at rest if body fat storage gets down to 20% or less for females and 15% or less for males. Not saying it can't be done because many people have done it, but it does take more attention to detail and requires more discipline.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Also, as you age it gets harder because as we age, our body naturally wants to hold onto more fat which is why if you look at BF illustrations..../quote]
So the body of a leaner person "holds on to fat" but the body of a non-lean person doesn't? Why? How? I still just don't get how the rules are different somehow. CICO right? 3500 calories in a lb, etc etc. Someone explain it. What does the body do instead of get rid of the fat in the leaner person?0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
Meh, then you're lucky. I'm always hungry. Constantly. It's endless. I almost never get to actually go out to eat. Can't have a beer. All treats are pretty much gone. It's nuts. All that starving and less than a pound a week AND i'm 40lbs overweight on a good day. If I had 5lbs to lose I'd be loving the idea of starving for only 5 weeks but faced with the idea of starving for 40 more? That's real torture. People with 5lbs to lose have it easy.
I'm lucky because this has gotten harder instead of easier? I'm always hungry, too. It has gotten worse as I've lost weight. I still want to eat the same way I did when I was heavier, but I can't. I exercise A LOT to be able to eat a reasonable amount and still lose my half pound a week. There are no rest days, either, or I will be gnawing on my own foot by bedtime. And I have to be very strict with my logging. One cheat meal can wipe out my entire week's work.
And don't forget, once you lose the next 35 pounds and are prepared to "starve" for that last five, you will, in fact, have to eat a lot less than you are "starving" on right now. You will have to cut your intake by ~300 or so calories just to maintain your momentum.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Again, harder because it's harder to create a deficit in that there's only so low a person can reasonably go. Physics still works, but at some point there's a human element to it, and that becomes important when you just don't have as many calories that you can reasonably cut. Taking your suggestion to go to half my TDEE and "suck it up" would put me at 700 calories per day. No.
I started this journey 100lbs heavier. It was much easier to create a caloric deficit then. I did it without feeling hungry, as well; I certainly didn't feel like I was starving. I don't feel like I am starving now, either, but I consume fewer calories than I did 100lbs ago. Dropping calories lower than where I am now? Nope. This is sustainable, even if it means losing more slowly.
Your fat people / thin people dichotomy is.... something. At my heaviest, my BMI put me in the Morbidly Obese category; now, I'm four pounds away from a "normal" weight range, according to the BMI charts. Is my experience from 100lbs ago somehow not valid anymore? Is it only valid if I am still technically overweight?0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
I was trying to find the best way to respond. This sounds a lot like it. It's harder for me to just lose weight walking around my block now than when I was heavier.
Edit : Or should I say lose the same pound
Absolutely. My sedentary TDEE used to be ~2300 a day. Now it's ~1700. I used to burn 30 calories just walking to the mailbox (I have worn activity trackers for most of my weight loss progression). Performing the exact same workout no longer gets the same results. Unfortunately, my appetite is still on 2000+ a day.
0 -
So the body of a leaner person "holds on to fat" but the body of a non-lean person doesn't? Why? How? I still just don't get how the rules are different somehow. CICO right? 3500 calories in a lb, etc etc. Someone explain it. What does the body do instead of get rid of the fat in the leaner person?
CICO is the most important overarching principal where weight management is concerned...and 3,500 calories per Lb is a generality, but a reasonable and relatively accurate one in the context of that overarching principal.
The human body is very adaptive and also an evolutionary marvel...part of our evolution is to carry more fat as we age...in men, testosterone production decreases and generally estrogen levels increase...this is called Andropause and while not as pronounced as menopause, these hormonal changes do influence fat metabolism.
Hormonal wackiness also occurs when someone is already pretty lean but trying to get leaner...for example, a 41 year old male like myself trying to drop to or below 10% BF when they're already at a perfectly acceptable level for their age is going to put a huge stress on the body which increases cortisol (among other hormonal wackiness) which is in turn going to directly influence fat metabolism...the same holds true for pro longed dieting in general...prolonged calorie restriction is a huge stress on the body particularly when combined with what generally amounts to an incessant exercise levels. Often people are very surprised when they take a diet break and/or go to maintenance and their maintenance calories end up being above...and often far above what they expected given the general equation...this is because as they move to maintenance for a prolonged period of time, those hormones that were all jacked normalize.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
Meh, then you're lucky. I'm always hungry. Constantly. It's endless. I almost never get to actually go out to eat. Can't have a beer. All treats are pretty much gone. It's nuts. All that starving and less than a pound a week AND i'm 40lbs overweight on a good day. If I had 5lbs to lose I'd be loving the idea of starving for only 5 weeks but faced with the idea of starving for 40 more? That's real torture. People with 5lbs to lose have it easy.
You shouldn't be hungry all the time.
I am 45 lbs above a healthy weight, more than that to my end goal (in the middle of healthy).
I still eat out all the time, multiple times a week. I still give myself "treats". Just was picking off some oreos over the last couple weeks. I don't work out like a crazy person, don't eat back exercise calories...I DO occasionally overeat and binge still. I log it as accurately as I can because I want the data.
If I ate chicken breast and broccoli every night for dinner maybe I'd feel deprived. But I get in plenty of protein and still largely eat the things I want, almost every day. I have had to decide whether I am really "hungry" or "deprived". Yes sometimes I am sad I can't eat what used to be my old favorites (a huge burrito with a side of rolled tacos). Nowadays I just have the burrito, and make sure I saved calories from lunch for it. But that's not hunger. I've been averaging 1750 calories a day for the last 3 weeks and am losing about a pound a week. I am aiming for 1.5 but because I am still struggling with overeating sometimes, my average is higher than I would like it to be. But I need to stick with this for the rest of my life, there is no day that this "ends". So that means making choices I can live with, and some days where I eat too much. I try to eat less the next day and exercise more because those are strategies I can do forever after days where I overindulged. If anything, I plan to increase my quantity of exercise as the weight comes off as like others have mentioned, my calorie burn for the same effort will be less.0 -
CalorieCountChocula wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »CalorieCountChocula wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Those of us with only a little to go have to be more meticulous with our calories, as there is less room for error.
That said, the definition of "clean eating" varies widely, and really has nothing to do with weight loss. Eat less than you burn. Feeling like you can't eat something because it doesn't fit into your plan can trigger a binge/splurge, which can erase the caloric deficit you've had going.
Why? So you're saying if someone that has 1lb left to lose eats 500 calories under their TDEE a day their body somehow won't react the same as someone who has 50lbs to lose but does the same thing? CICO yada yada standard quoted gibberish.
The TDEE of someone who is 250lbs will be quite different than the TDEE of someone who is 150lbs. As such, a 500 Cal/day deficit might not be possible for someone who weighs 150lbs (assuming a minimum of 1200 per day for women and 1500 for men); if someone's TDEE is 1600 calories, they're not going to have a 500 calorie per day deficit unless they eat below minimum.
You say minimum as if there's so magic line that absolutely can't be crossed. As in some sort of hard stop. I'm not saying chronically undereating for a long period of time is a good idea, but if 1lbs is 3500 calories (500 per day) couldn't a person with 1lb to lose who's TDEE is 1600 just bite the bullet, eat 1100, and lose the lb? I ask again, would their body react differently. CICO, it's just math, etc etc, standard quoted stuff.
For one pound? Sure. But where's the line? What about ten pounds? At a 500 calorie per day deficit, that's two and a half months. Still okay, or too long? How about 20 pounds? So, five months? Where's the line?
Isn't there some sort of formula for that? The max fat one can metabolize thus giving them their maximum deficit (usually uncomfortably low but comfort is relative). I just get irritated by the "I don't have much to lose so it's harder" card fit people play. As if they're special snowflakes almost. As if physics ceases to work. It's obvious they're saying it's ok for fat people to be hungry, feel starving, etc but God forbid they do. Suck it up. If you have 5lbs to lose but can't seem to slash your calories by half your TDEE and see if they don't fall off.
Don't forget many of those "fit people" were "fat people" not so very long ago. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was fatter I did not feel like I was starving by cutting 250-500 calories a day. It was barely noticeable even. And it was very easy to "earn" more calories through exercise. Now that I am slimmer and my TDEE has dropped, cutting 250 calories a day *does* feel like I'm starving sometimes! And I have to exercise a lot more to burn the same calories. So, yes, it's harder now. That doesn't make me a special snowflake.
Meh, then you're lucky. I'm always hungry. Constantly. It's endless. I almost never get to actually go out to eat. Can't have a beer. All treats are pretty much gone. It's nuts. All that starving and less than a pound a week AND i'm 40lbs overweight on a good day. If I had 5lbs to lose I'd be loving the idea of starving for only 5 weeks but faced with the idea of starving for 40 more? That's real torture. People with 5lbs to lose have it easy.
I wonder if you're being too restrictive? What do you have your desired weight loss per week set to? Is that perhaps too aggressive a goal?
Again agreeing with another person that if you're starving now, it's going to get worse when you have less to lose and therefore need to eat less than you are now to maintain your current rate of loss. And how much do you think you're going to be able to eat when you get to your goal weight? Try calculating your estimated TDEE at goal and eat that for a week or two.
Weight loss is CICO. Sustainable weight loss has to account for the things you can't math in to some formula, and whether or not a person feels hungry or like they're depriving themselves of something is going to have an important effect.
Of course, feel free to discount my opinion because, after losing 100lbs, I am not a "fat person" (your words), and therefore I have no idea how hard it is. Or something.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm trying to get to around 10% right now from 12%...it's tough sledding. I think I can do it, but any lower than that would truly be a task that is probably not worth my time and effort and I often have question whether 10% is worth it.
This I encounterd the hard way and just gave up on that 10%. As long as I see abs when I wake up in the morning, I have accepted the 11-13% rangeClosetBayesian wrote: »Again agreeing with another person that if you're starving now, it's going to get worse when you have less to lose and therefore need to eat less than you are now to maintain your current rate of loss. And how much do you think you're going to be able to eat when you get to your goal weight? Try calculating your estimated TDEE at goal and eat that for a week or two.
This is basically the road I took except rather for just a few weeks, I accepted it as forever. I figured out what I needed to eat at my goal weight at learned how to do that. I've been there before so I figured I knew how to do it in a past life. I guess that's why I also notice more my CI is the same (plus a few extra calories earned from maintenance - yeah!), but my CO is much less without greater effort.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions