Is 1200 calories not enough?

Nightmare_Queen88

WinoGelato wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »

Sued0nim wrote: »

Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »

CoachJen71 wrote: »

Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »

Ok I'll definitely do that. So as far as exercise calories go, if I burn 200 calories, do I eat 1600 calories? I'm only planning on eating half back or maybe 150 if it's 200.

That's a good starting point. Monitor what happens on the scale for a few weeks, if you are losing faster than expected then maybe eat a little more. I always ate back all the adjustments when I got estimates from MFP and when I got a FitBit and I lost at the rate I wanted and am now maintaining.

Ok I will do that. I think 1500 is a good range for me. Because I got really hungry last night and ended up eating a late snack when I shouldn't have. So I'm hoping eating more will prevent that.

I eat Greek yogurt when I take my bedtime pills. If I need extra protein, I add in nut butter and/or PB2. It only adds 80-200 cals to my day, and I always pre-log it like most of the rest of my day so that I make sure I have room for it.

I had 2 string cheeses. They're the ones made with skim milk. I did make sure it fit into my calories and macros. I did, however, go over my protein.

Think of protein as a minimum to hit, not a limit.

So it's not going to kill me if I go a little then?

Protein and fats are both minimums

Ok. So what about carbs. Because I can't seem to reach 1500 without going way over my macros. Especially that one. Fat is fine. But when I add everything in I'm over by quite a bit. Almost to 150 on carbs and almost 130 on protein. I don't know how to reach my goal without going over.

I'm not worried about carbs. Well, coming up to a race I am but I don't usually have a hard time hitting them. So I worry about hitting my protein minimum which is my biggest challenge, then make sure I'm hitting my fats and let the carbs fall where they may.

But keep in mind - worry about your calorie goal first, and where you macros fall second. You don't have to be exact with your macros but if you are falling way short on one you may want to adjust.
Like I mentioned, I struggle with protein and I want to hit that to help maintain muscle, so I focus on that. Fat isn't hard for me to get.
If you are high on carbs and protein, you must be low on fat or some entries are incorrect.

All of this. For weight loss OP, the calories are the important part. For satiety and preserving muscle, the macros can be beneficial to focus on. For overall health, micronutrients are important. For mental health, ice cream is important.

Ice cream is always important. But yeah I'll just make I hit my calorie goal. I'm not too far over my macros.

Nightmare_Queen88

vingogly wrote: »

Try putting your numbers in here and see what it says for a 1-2 lb weight loss:

http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html

If I were you, I'd be very concerned about your impatience. You want to get through your "dieting period"; does that mean returning to "normal" -- and ending up putting it all back on in a year or two? If not, start planning now how you're going to do maintenance. Permanent lifestyle changes are better than dieting to lose as much as possible as quickly as possible. I think there's a reason why so many people here (including me) have a history of yo-yo dieting.

I'm going to be more patient. Trust me. I want take the weight off forever. Not just a couple of years. And I'll check that link out. Thanks.

CharlieBeansmomTracey

karl317 wrote: »

Sued0nim wrote: »

Those who are consistently eating sub 1200 are going against all scientific and current medical thinking and give me the sads

Except it's not going against anything.

It may go against the current thinking at the NIH, but the NIH is so far behind CURRENT research (at least with what it publishes as its recommended guidelines TODAY), you would be a fool to accept anything it publishes as a recommendation. These are the folks that mfp quote when you try to close out your day's calories only to be scolded for not eating enough. They are also the folks who gave us the "food pyramid" lol

Read "good calories, bad calories" and/or "why we get fat" by Gary Taubes for starters. It is chock full of data that the NIH consistently gets wrong, but manages to publish as their "guidelines" despite all evidence being to the contrary.

Edit: and please don't misconstrue this post as an attack on your position. I'm simply saying that modern science is way ahead of what most people believe is the currently accepted "truth". For instance, if you try to get the NIH to take a position on intermittent fasting or ketosis as a nutritional management style, you would be SOL. Yet the science with supporting evidence has been there for years.

gary taubes wrote books big deal. he has no background that I can find in nutrition,dietary needs or so on.he has NO PhD or anything at the moment,anyone can write a book about diets or whatever they want and have it published. prevention magazine writes articles and books as well and a lot of their info is diet myths,woo and so on and they sell Im sure millions of magazines a month, same with other diet and nutrition magazines out there. yet the NIH is wrong but one guy is right?

karl317

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

gary taubes wrote books big deal. he has no background that I can find in nutrition,dietary needs or so on.he has NO PhD or anything at the moment,anyone can write a book about diets or whatever they want and have it published. prevention magazine writes articles and books as well and a lot of their info is diet myths,woo and so on and they sell Im sure millions of magazines a month, same with other diet and nutrition magazines out there. yet the NIH is wrong but one guy is right?

No, I'm saying that the information he provides is insightful - and I agree with some of it because the evidence is there (and no, I don't agree with all of it because there are things he wrote that don't make sense to me, or because he didn't make his case).

You can go on and believe the NIH's proclamations as gospel if you like, but I've read enough to think that's a terrible idea. The evidence isn't in line with their recommendations. But that's just my opinion of the situation, do what you want with it.

The common theme in here when someone tries to express a different viewpoint that challenges the norm: attack the message and attack the messenger. It's fine if you want to do that, but it leads to linear thinking and myopic views (again, in my opinion, which to most people in here will be worthless).

This is why I'm glad that more progressive forums on this topic exist in the wild.

karl317

Sued0nim wrote: »

Absolutely, I have read a lot and find that Taubes continues to expound on what but his theory, putting insulin at the root of issues. I find that people like Lyle McDonald, Allan Aragon, Eric Helms and James Kreiger are far more worthwhile reading due to their use of critical thinking and application of the scientific method with an open mind.

I'll check them out... I'm a voracious reader and I've only read the two Taubes books and another called "in defense of food" on this subject. I've read a lot of the criticism on those 3 works, but a lot of it doesn't seem to hold up in my eyes (though some of it absolutely does).

When I mix my own experience (102lb lost in 5 months), a lot of what Taubes wrote holds true, even if I took it to a bit of an extreme. That's not to say I'm a cheerleader for Taubes, as the newer things I've been researching - ketosis and intermittent fasting in particular - seem to be several steps ahead of Taubes. After all, his last book is, what, 8 years old now? I would hope some new data would have come in by now