600 calories left but no carbs
Options
Replies
-
Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »I feel like 2280 is loads when I look at other people's diarys there on like 1600
I'm on 1600 cals because I'm 5ft5 and 133lbs...
What are your stats?
I'm 99.3 Kg originally 102.4 kg a week ago today, I'm around 6 foot tall and just turned 18
So why are you only eating enough calories for a dinky woman??
I don't know I'm gonna fill my diary tomorrow!
I would just start with MFP's macros for a few weeks and then tweak from there
Yeah good idea! I'll increase my carbs too 40 as I feel like that's achievable
Also anyone have a rough idea how long it will take me to lose 20 kg
A pound a week is a good rate of loss, you want to be retaining as much muscle as possible as you lose fat?0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »I feel like 2280 is loads when I look at other people's diarys there on like 1600
I'm on 1600 cals because I'm 5ft5 and 133lbs...
What are your stats?
I'm 99.3 Kg originally 102.4 kg a week ago today, I'm around 6 foot tall and just turned 18
So why are you only eating enough calories for a dinky woman??
I don't know I'm gonna fill my diary tomorrow!
I would just start with MFP's macros for a few weeks and then tweak from there
Yeah good idea! I'll increase my carbs too 40 as I feel like that's achievable
Also anyone have a rough idea how long it will take me to lose 20 kg
As long as it takes. It can't be calculated, because weight loss isn't linear, and there are times when it may just stall. This is why where goals are good, time related goals with weight loss are not so good.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »I feel like 2280 is loads when I look at other people's diarys there on like 1600
I'm on 1600 cals because I'm 5ft5 and 133lbs...
What are your stats?
I'm 99.3 Kg originally 102.4 kg a week ago today, I'm around 6 foot tall and just turned 18
So why are you only eating enough calories for a dinky woman??
I don't know I'm gonna fill my diary tomorrow!
I would just start with MFP's macros for a few weeks and then tweak from there
Yeah good idea! I'll increase my carbs too 40 as I feel like that's achievable
Also anyone have a rough idea how long it will take me to lose 20 kg
A pound a week is a good rate of loss, you want to be retaining as much muscle as possible as you lose fat?
Yes I go to the gym as much as possible now around 4/5 times a week and do 300 calories cardio and small amounts of wieght training I'm big built and do have quite a lot of muscle under my layer as I use to be in really good shape0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »I count only my carbs and protein, I try to keep under 50 grms of carbs and try to get in 120 grams of protein (this is my challenge) I started this on 2/6 and to date I've lost 9lbs. I also do fasting 16 hours fasting and 8 hours eating.
What's the benefits of fasting? I've heard of them diets what are like 5 days on 2 days off and stuff but how does it make you feel?
Just hunger management really. Some people don't get hungry earlier in the day and prefer volume so would rather eat all their calories in a short time frame later on.
My tip is to focus on getting your protein in as a priority and let everything else fall where it may within your calories while keeping you satisfied. Experiment a bit and figure out what works for you and what is sustainable in the long term.
[There's actually a lot of ppl who dispute the calories in/ calories out model and focus on other items (i.e., insulin, sugar). But calories in/out is a good starting model.]
And those people are usually quacks. There is no evidence that any way of eating has better long term results purely from a calorie intake vs losses perspective. Because CICO applies to every single living being and no macro split reduces absorption/increases metabolism in order to see larger losses at the same caloric intake.3 -
Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this0
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »I count only my carbs and protein, I try to keep under 50 grms of carbs and try to get in 120 grams of protein (this is my challenge) I started this on 2/6 and to date I've lost 9lbs. I also do fasting 16 hours fasting and 8 hours eating.
What's the benefits of fasting? I've heard of them diets what are like 5 days on 2 days off and stuff but how does it make you feel?
Just hunger management really. Some people don't get hungry earlier in the day and prefer volume so would rather eat all their calories in a short time frame later on.
My tip is to focus on getting your protein in as a priority and let everything else fall where it may within your calories while keeping you satisfied. Experiment a bit and figure out what works for you and what is sustainable in the long term.
[There's actually a lot of ppl who dispute the calories in/ calories out model and focus on other items (i.e., insulin, sugar). But calories in/out is a good starting model.]
And those people are usually quacks. There is no evidence that any way of eating has better long term results purely from a calorie intake vs losses perspective. Because CICO applies to every single living being and no macro split reduces absorption/increases metabolism in order to see larger losses at the same caloric intake.
I don't think fasting is for me I'm never really hungry at one point I'm just hungry throughout the day0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If someone stops losing they're generally eating too much due to not adjusting goals or inaccurate logging/getting sloppy.
Metabolic adaptation during weight loss can be easily counteracted by taking regular diet breaks of eating at maintenance for one or two weeks.0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
As you lose weight the calories required to maintain lower. Thus your deficit may decrease resulting in smaller losses. This is the way it should be. If someone stops losing completely see my above reply.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
As you lose weight the calories required to maintain lower. Thus your deficit may decrease resulting in smaller losses. This is the way it should be. If someone stops losing completely see my above reply.
So basically what your saying is as time goes on and as someone keep losing wieght and finds that it's getting slower maybe it's time to lower there calorie intake?1 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
It's down to the number of calories you're eating compared to how many you're burning throughout the day, yes. As you lose more weight, the amount you can lose safely each week will get smaller. But within those constraints, you will still be able to lose weight.0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
As you lose weight the calories required to maintain lower. Thus your deficit may decrease resulting in smaller losses. This is the way it should be. If someone stops losing completely see my above reply.
So basically what your saying is as time goes on and as someone keep losing wieght and finds that it's getting slower maybe it's time to lower there calorie intake?
Yes. But they should also adjust their goals. It won't be safe or healthy to keep losing 2lbs per week for the entire duration of weight loss.1 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »In my case the slowing of weight loss came with the simple fact that i was getting closer to my goal weight.
The deficit was smaller.
But this isn't a bad thing, its healthier to lose at a slower rate the smaller you are, and keeping my calorie goal at a manageable amount made going to maintenance easier as well... if i had tried to live on 1200 calories for 2 years and then had to jump to 2000 that would be very hard to adjust to mentally.
Yeah you've got a good point there but small reductions in calorie intake over months wouldn't effect a person as bad or would it?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
As you lose weight the calories required to maintain lower. Thus your deficit may decrease resulting in smaller losses. This is the way it should be. If someone stops losing completely see my above reply.
So basically what your saying is as time goes on and as someone keep losing wieght and finds that it's getting slower maybe it's time to lower there calorie intake?
Yes. But they should also adjust their goals. It won't be safe or healthy to keep losing 2lbs per week for the entire duration of weight loss.
Yeah I understand that, does dieting get easier as time goes by0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »In my case the slowing of weight loss came with the simple fact that i was getting closer to my goal weight.
The deficit was smaller.
But this isn't a bad thing, its healthier to lose at a slower rate the smaller you are, and keeping my calorie goal at a manageable amount made going to maintenance easier as well... if i had tried to live on 1200 calories for 2 years and then had to jump to 2000 that would be very hard to adjust to mentally.
Yeah you've got a good point there but small reductions in calorie intake over months wouldn't effect a person as bad or would it?
Eat as much as you can while losing is generally the mantra round here. It will go down as your weight goes down so make hay while the sun shines and all that. As long as you're losing at a healthy rate for your stats at the time everyone has to reduce calorie intake due to just not needing as many at their lower weight.0 -
Hardcastle99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Hardcastle99 wrote: »Would you guys say when wieght loss comes to a slow it's the person fault or it's just life I understand metabolic rate slows down but can the person counteract this
If weight loss totally stops, it's because the person isn't in a calorie deficit anymore. In that sense, it's the person's "fault." Not in the sense that they should be blamed or that they knowingly did something wrong, but it's a problem that they can address by figuring out why they are no longer in a deficit.
Yeah I understand that but what if your still losing weight but slower than usual is this down to them person?
Your weight loss will slow down as you get lighter, because lighter bodies use fewer calories to keep them running. The usual advice is just to accept a slower rate of loss, because if you have less body fat, there is less available to burn off, so if you try and lose too fast you risk losing muscle instead of fat. Also if you try and keep up a fast rate of loss at lighter weights, you end up having to restrict your food to the point that it isn't sustainable.
Don't compare your calorie goal to others. It's very dependent on height and activity level. It's also dependent on whether the person is specifically logging exercise, or if they are using a TDEE estimate that already includes it. In the first case, a glance at their diary may make it look like they have a very low calorie goal, but that's because the exercise isn't counted yet.
For example, I'm a 5'4" woman and my goal is 1350 excluding exercise, but my total average over the last few weeks (what I've actually eaten) has been between 1700 and 2100 once the exercise is factored in. So if I were using TDEE my goal would be something like 1850. It all comes to the same thing in the end.0 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »For a more visal representation
252lbs -- losing 2lbs per week -- 1526 calories
Every time i lost weight my calories would go down by 10 calories. Eventually my calories would hit a number that made it hard for me to eat in a way that felt comfortable for me
180lbs -- Changed my deficit to lose 1lbs per week now -- 1577 calories
Now my calorie goal is back to where it was before and i can eat normal again but my rate of loss will be slower but this is much healthier because i am giving my body what it needs still and not risking lean muscle loss.
150lbs -- Changed deficit to .5lbs per week now -- 1640 calories
Again back to the same manageable number but my rate of loss will have slowed down to a healthier rate for my new body weight, since i now only have 15 pounds left until goal weight.
Oh that really helped I get where your coming from now so basically as time goes on and as you lose more weight the more the app demands of you until a point where it's not copeable0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions