Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Scared at what I am reading
Replies
-
To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »BreezeDoveal I appreciate you saying that about that point.
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
I was too coward to say anything. I was thinking what kind horrible existence is that? To enjoy a the occasional donut I have to run almost half a marathon. Wow
Which point? There are just so many gems to choose from..
Can you post the link to the donut thread. Having to run 10 miles for 1 donut does sound rather depressing and a tad over the top.
ETA: Never mind, found the donut thread
And some of us might have clearly said they didn't need an excuse to eat a donut. HA!
Kidding. At any rate, I get what you are saying OP. You seem to feel that losing weight should be intuitive. That all this counting calories and restricting foods is stupid. I agree with that.
Unfortunately, my intuition fails me on a regular basis. It says "You ran today....go ahead and drink all the beer you want." The whole 1200 calories thing is because we are all people who want instant gratification so we pick to lose 2lbs a week...As a woman, that is almost always going to boot your *kitten* to 1200 calories. Heck, I'm short so it puts me there even when I pick to lose 1.5lbs a week.
Yes, we do probably make weight loss harder than it has to be, but it's such a personal thing. You have to let people figure out what works for them. MFP's guidelines are just that. Suggestions.
@BreezeDoveal who put you behind bars? lol.2 -
To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.
I don't think people are talking about calories when they are talking about lifestyle change...they're talking about living life differently into perpetuity...making nutrition a priority...adopting healthy habits and making better overall decisions...making exercise a priority, etc. I don't think anyone is implying that a calorie deficit is the lifestyle change.
Four years ago I was 40 Lbs overweight...I was sedentary and could barely walk around the block due in large part to the fact that I was also a 2-3 PAD smoker...my diet (noun) was pretty shabby and substantially lacking in nutrition due in large part to a lack of fruits and vegetables and eating quite a bit of highly processed refined food goods.
Fast forward four years +...I'm a lean and fit 180 Lbs @ 12% BF...I lift 2-3x per week and cycle on average about 80-90 miles per week (except when I'm training for time trials) and participate in various races and other cycling events. I no longer smoke cigarettes (though I do enjoy a cigar most evenings on the patio) and my diet at large is on point and consists largely of whole foods and minimally processed food goods...usually around 6 servings of veg daily and a couple of servings of fruit...whole grains, legumes, and whole food starches, lean sourced protein and good fats from things like avocados and nuts and good cooking oils.
Yes...I lost weight while being in an energy deficiency just like anyone else...but that's not the lifestyle change...the above is the lifestyle change...I've maintained my weight loss going on 3.5 years and I don't log...because I adopted a new normal and substantially changed the way I was living my life.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.
I don't think people are talking about calories when they are talking about lifestyle change...they're talking about living life differently into perpetuity...making nutrition a priority...adopting healthy habits and making better overall decisions...making exercise a priority, etc. I don't think anyone is implying that a calorie deficit is the lifestyle change.
Four years ago I was 40 Lbs overweight...I was sedentary and could barely walk around the block due in large part to the fact that I was also a 2-3 PAD smoker...my diet (noun) was pretty shabby and substantially lacking in nutrition due in large part to a lack of fruits and vegetables and eating quite a bit of highly processed refined food goods.
Fast forward four years +...I'm a lean and fit 180 Lbs @ 12% BF...I lift 2-3x per week and cycle on average about 80-90 miles per week (except when I'm training for time trials) and participate in various races and other cycling events. I no longer smoke cigarettes (though I do enjoy a cigar most evenings on the patio) and my diet at large is on point and consists largely of whole foods and minimally processed food goods...usually around 6 servings of veg daily and a couple of servings of fruit...whole grains, legumes, and whole food starches, lean sourced protein and good fats from things like avocados and nuts and good cooking oils.
Yes...I lost weight while being in an energy deficiency just like anyone else...but that's not the lifestyle change...the above is the lifestyle change...I've maintained my weight loss going on 3.5 years and I don't log...because I adopted a new normal and substantially changed the way I was living my life.
Pretty much this. Yes. I'm at 14 years maintaining. By adopting a new normal.4 -
To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.
Lifestyle change.1 -
To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.
Lifestyle change.
That's two words.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »To me, there's nothing wrong with the word "diet"; it's a prescribed (self-prescribed or doctor-prescribed) pattern of eating, for some purpose. For most of us, that purpose is weight loss. It's the single word that best explains "why I won't be having seconds."
But for some people, "diet" = "sadness." And weight management is a mental war game we all fight with ourselves, so for those who want to call it something else, I say "do what you have to do to win."
My one disagreement with those who use the particular phrase "lifestyle change," implying a permanent change, is that they omit the fact that a calorie deficit ought not be permanent. So I'm personally not a fan of that phrase, but who am I to judge?
The word "diet," outside of its stigma, also lacks the exercise component. You'll hear these people say "diet and exercise." I'm sure there's a single word that escapes me at the moment that accurately captures both. If not, and anyone can tell me of such a word in another language, I'll gladly use it from this moment forward.
Lifestyle change.
That's two words.
Lifestylechange12 -
For a lot of people, it's hard to know when that "nourishment" level is hit. For me, after years of bad decisions, I no longer knew what it felt like to feel physically healthy. I thought I did (because the way I felt had become the norm for me) but it wasn't until I changed my diet (as in what I was eating...not as in "I'm on a diet") that I noticed less bloating, no more heartburn, more energy, clearer skin, and improved mental health. Now that I know what it's like to feel like that, I can better trust my body to guide my decisions as I practice moderation. So if I notice symptoms of unhealthiness popping up, I recognize that I need to adjust my diet (again, as in, what I'm eating). Common sense tells us that veggies are healthier than pepperoni pizza...but does that mean I should never ever eat pizza? For many of us, no, because we believe in moderation. But common sense doesn't tell us whether to draw the line at one slice or two...or whether we can have that slice once a week or once a month. And that level of flexibility varies from person to person.6
-
mskessler89 wrote: »Appreciating.
Overtime you will notice its the same few posters who are
a)easily offended
b)will argue for the sake of being PC
c)least openminded and stuck in the processed food + CICO bubble
Ignore them and don't let those few stop you from voicing your opinions
You and the OP seem to be saying you see people posting different things. The OP is complaining that people suggest huge calorie deficits, overexercising, and eliminating sugar/carbs, etc. You're saying you see people post about CICO and being ok with eating processed foods. So I'm confused if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the original point.
Also, are these the same few posters who advocate for a moderate deficit appropriate for your goals? The same few posters who advocate exercising for health and muscle preservation, but making sure you eat enough calories to fuel your exercise? The same few posters who advocate for people eating diets they can adhere to, which can include ultra-processed food if they wish, because at the end of the day the laws of thermodynamics will determine if you lose weight and not the macro breakdown of your food? The same few posters who can back their points of view up with peer-reviewed studies and do so when asked?
What are your issues with the information you see posted? I've seen you complain quite a few times but have not seen you contribute in a positive fashion, so I'd really like to know what you think people SHOULD be advocating for.
For the record: not offended, and not arguing for the sake of being PC. Genuinely confused, because I'm not seeing what the OP or this quoted post are seeing.
I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about this.0 -
Am I doing it wrong? I am not eating 1200 calories but would if I wanted more food. I am still fitting in a fast food burger or a processed frozen meal now and then along with all the healthier fresh lean meats. Unfortunately, I am not a fruit and veggie person so it makes it a little more difficult to "eat right" but what I am doing is working for me. I am not exercising a lot because I sat on my butt for 6 years..hardly leaving the house. I walk some but with the lower calorie intake I am not concerned with making sure I am doing a lot of it at this point. I used to eat ONLY processed food and take out and snacked ALL day. I have only been at this for 19 days and feel great. I started off being able to eat more calories but since then when I eat I am completely satisfied for long periods of time so I usually only eat 2 meals. I plan on incorporating more exercise once I get a bit more weight off but I would like to know if I am way off base here. Should we force ourselves to eat to get to a certain calorie amount even if we aren't hungry. I am only 5'3" tall and was 204.5lbs. I am down to 193. Oh...and I'm 47
People gave you some very specific explanations about why eating too little is unhealthy in your thread. Perhaps reviewing those suggestions would answer your questions about why it isn't good to consistently eat too little.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?
You do 50-65 kilometres every week and ride your bike to work every work day??
That's far, very far from sedentary. Are you saying that with all that you average around 1200 cals?
I do not have enough info based on what you have said but unless you are tiny (as in 3.7 feet then 1500 with all that activity sounds very low.
If you read back all my comments, I do explain that my comments are not fixed and fits all.
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook3 -
I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?
You do 50-65 kilometres every week and ride your bike to work every work day??
That's far, very far from sedentary. Are you saying that with all that you average around 1200 cals?
I do not have enough info based on what you have said but unless you are tiny (as in 3.7 feet then 1500 with all that activity sounds very low.
If you read back all my comments, I do explain that my comments are not fixed and fits all.
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
You're not gonna be able to save them all, unfortunately haha!2 -
RelevantGains wrote: »I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?
You do 50-65 kilometres every week and ride your bike to work every work day??
That's far, very far from sedentary. Are you saying that with all that you average around 1200 cals?
I do not have enough info based on what you have said but unless you are tiny (as in 3.7 feet then 1500 with all that activity sounds very low.
If you read back all my comments, I do explain that my comments are not fixed and fits all.
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
You're not gonna be able to save them all, unfortunately haha!
One at a time my friend...one at a time2 -
I guess exercising for 2.5 hours a day could be considered too much. But as a short woman, I enjoy eating 1600 calories while losing weight. All be it only at a 350calorie deficit p/day.
But then, lifting weights and walking long, long distances is really fun, and it's more of an activity than exercise, if that makes sense. Especially considering I sit on my butt studying the rest of the day, Lol.4 -
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
So you come on here to lecture people about giving bad information (without providing links to examples) and the one thread you post in a couple of times per day takes up too much of your time? I'm all for improving the quality of information on here and providing useful/realistic steps to help others achieve their goals. I know several people in this thread who have adopted noobs, created informational threads that were pinned by the site as references, and who spend hours every day giving solid resources on how to create sustainable plans. I created one of the top referenced threads on here and I know I've changed many lives over the 2,000 days I have been here.14 -
-
I am not here to diet, I am here to change my life. It includes low carb, high fat *sarcastic gasp* and a calorie deficit of 1400 or so. It's a struggle because of how I was raised and how I see food, but if I can have only 4 problem days out of 30, I think I'm doing something right.2
-
You do you, everyone else can do themselves. Why worry yourself ever what others do. It's unnecessary stress and anger.3
-
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
So you come on here to lecture people about giving bad information (without providing links to examples) and the one thread you post in a couple of times per day takes up too much of your time? I'm all for improving the quality of information on here and providing useful/realistic steps to help others achieve their goals. I know several people in this thread who have adopted noobs, created informational threads that were pinned by the site as references, and who spend hours every day giving solid resources on how to create sustainable plans. I created one of the top referenced threads on here and I know I've changed many lives over the 2,000 days I have been here.
Well you certainly aren't talking about me. So i will just keep on moving.
2 -
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
So you come on here to lecture people about giving bad information (without providing links to examples) and the one thread you post in a couple of times per day takes up too much of your time? I'm all for improving the quality of information on here and providing useful/realistic steps to help others achieve their goals. I know several people in this thread who have adopted noobs, created informational threads that were pinned by the site as references, and who spend hours every day giving solid resources on how to create sustainable plans. I created one of the top referenced threads on here and I know I've changed many lives over the 2,000 days I have been here.
Well you certainly aren't talking about me. So i will just keep on moving.
@psulemon definitely not talking about mods. Especially not ones who put up with the broscience in the gaining weight section. :laugh:0 -
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
So you come on here to lecture people about giving bad information (without providing links to examples) and the one thread you post in a couple of times per day takes up too much of your time? I'm all for improving the quality of information on here and providing useful/realistic steps to help others achieve their goals. I know several people in this thread who have adopted noobs, created informational threads that were pinned by the site as references, and who spend hours every day giving solid resources on how to create sustainable plans. I created one of the top referenced threads on here and I know I've changed many lives over the 2,000 days I have been here.
Well you certainly aren't talking about me. So i will just keep on moving.
@psulemon definitely not talking about mods. Especially not ones who put up with the broscience in the gaining weight section. :laugh:
Am I missing something here?0 -
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
So you come on here to lecture people about giving bad information (without providing links to examples) and the one thread you post in a couple of times per day takes up too much of your time? I'm all for improving the quality of information on here and providing useful/realistic steps to help others achieve their goals. I know several people in this thread who have adopted noobs, created informational threads that were pinned by the site as references, and who spend hours every day giving solid resources on how to create sustainable plans. I created one of the top referenced threads on here and I know I've changed many lives over the 2,000 days I have been here.
Well you certainly aren't talking about me. So i will just keep on moving.
@psulemon definitely not talking about mods. Especially not ones who put up with the broscience in the gaining weight section. :laugh:
Am I missing something here?
If you were an active member of the forums you would understand the valuable contribution made by people like @psulemon and @usmcmp
To get back to your debate though.
I'm happy to describe what I eat as my diet (noun).
When I was losing weight I was also happy to say I went on a diet (verb).
I followed a style of eating called the Fast Diet (fast as in fasting not fast as in speed), commonly called the 5:2 Diet. None of that has any negative connotations to me. Just an easily understood use of appropriate words.
I actually get irritated by the phrase "lifestyle change".
I didn't change my lifestyle, I just had a period of moderate calorie restriction to reduce my fat. My lifestyle hasn't changed, I'm still a desk slave who enjoys good food and hard exercise, I just do that in a healthier, fitter, stronger, leaner body.
6 -
I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?
You do 50-65 kilometres every week and ride your bike to work every work day??
That's far, very far from sedentary. Are you saying that with all that you average around 1200 cals?
I do not have enough info based on what you have said but unless you are tiny (as in 3.7 feet then 1500 with all that activity sounds very low.
If you read back all my comments, I do explain that my comments are not fixed and fits all.
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
OK, you started this off with an admitted rant. I'm going to take that as permission to rant a little myself.
As @peleroja said: I, too, am absolutely sick of larger (usually) male people coming in, not doing their bleepin' homework, and telling smaller, older women that they're not smart enough to know how much to eat. Yeah, some aren't eating enough. And some are. Do the math before you tell people they don't know what they're doing!
In this case, even reading comprehension seems to have flown out the window. You ask @peleroja if she's doing all that exercise, and eating at 1200. She already told you she's maintaining at 2000. She also said that 1200 is a moderate calorie deficit for some people, and not demographically ridiculous outliers, either. This is also true.
At 60 years old, 5'5", 120 pounds (which is a rational weight on my body, ThankYouVeryMuch), the calculators put my BMR around 1200, and my sedentary TDEE at 1400-1500. (Note: This is not 3.7 feet tall. This is average height, within the healthy BMI range, at a weight my doctor endorsed as acceptable for me.)
Fifty pounds ago, when I weighed 170, those numbers were BMR at around 1400, and sedentary TDEE at around 1700.
Where, oracle of wisdom, should the former 170-pound me have set my calorie goal? 1200 would be a pound a week, according to the calculators, if I remained sedentary. One pound a week would be less than 1% of my body weight, and with 50 pounds to lose, not a crazy deficit level.
Yes, in real life, I would exercise and get more calories. But not everyone, at age 60, is going to be able to do a big bundle of that right off, because, oh, hip replacements'n'stuff. And either way, 1 pound a week is still 1200 net.
Really, truly, I appreciate that (some) big, young people are concerned that little, old people might undereat. If we did, it would be a Bad Thing. But please don't tell us how stupid & wrong-headed we are until you at least run the calculators, and do the math. It's just insulting.21 -
Appreciating.
Overtime you will notice its the same few posters who are
a)easily offended
b)will argue for the sake of being PC
c)least openminded and stuck in the processed food + CICO bubble
Ignore them and don't let those few stop you from voicing your opinions
So true based what I have seen over the past two years but their numbers seem to be dropping.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Appreciating.
Overtime you will notice its the same few posters who are
a)easily offended
b)will argue for the sake of being PC
c)least openminded and stuck in the processed food + CICO bubble
Ignore them and don't let those few stop you from voicing your opinions
So true based what I have seen over the past two years but their numbers seem to be dropping.
What's funny is: I had a completely different group of posters in mind until point C. I could absolutely change point C to that group as well and the shoe would fit just the same, if not better.
7 -
Appreciating.
Overtime you will notice its the same few posters who are
a)easily offended
b)will argue for the sake of being PC
c)least openminded and stuck in the processed food + CICO bubble
Ignore them and don't let those few stop you from voicing your opinions
Are you suggesting that:
a) CICO doesn't work, and
b) those who choose to include a moderate amount of 'processed food' (whatever that means) in their overall diet while successfully remaining in a deficit are somehow close-minded, easily offended and should be ignored simply because their methods don't match yours?
3 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »Some people will never make life style change because they don't have the cents for it.
How many cents does it cost?3 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?
You do 50-65 kilometres every week and ride your bike to work every work day??
That's far, very far from sedentary. Are you saying that with all that you average around 1200 cals?
I do not have enough info based on what you have said but unless you are tiny (as in 3.7 feet then 1500 with all that activity sounds very low.
If you read back all my comments, I do explain that my comments are not fixed and fits all.
This app is taking up more of my time then Facebook
I said pretty clearly in my post that I am maintaining around 2000/day (I do eat a little more on my long run day only). However, my maintenance without the running I do is more like 1500/day.
When I was losing weight, I was less active than I am now and I needed to eat 1200/day to lose less than a pound per week because my BMR was simply much lower than someone larger/heavier.
I'm not super tiny -5'4", 118 lbs - so I know that there are lots of women my size and smaller out there in the same situation and it just makes me crazy to see people going off around here about starvation etc.
@AnnPT77 pretty much addressed anything else I would have said.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions