1200 Calorie Limit No matter what settings?
Replies
-
Regarding exercise: can you go for a walk or do a video in the morning before work? How about when you come home in the evening while dinner is cooking? Maybe do a walk before bed. As it warms up, late night walks are a favorite for me. My husband and I walk the dog and enjoy the evening air.0
-
xchocolategirl wrote: »What's your current height and weight? This might solve your question if you let us know.
I am 5'3". I started logging 4/4/2017 with a starting weight of 158. I was 153.8 yesterday. I am not sure there is a problem specifically. I just thought it was odd that the number did not change with different settings
How much weight are you trying to lose? If you have less than 20 I think 0.5 pounds rate of weight loss would be more ideal. I am one pound more than you and it gave me a new calorie intake of 1520 calories with this goal. When I wrote lose one pound it had me at 1270. A pop-box will display stating this Will update your information ensure to click on "yew"
What calorie option popped up when you went on the 0.5 pound lost option?0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
How do you set your calories to be less?
I would NOT recommend setting it for less, you're not an extreme outlier that needs to eat less than 1200 calories.7 -
Are you trying to eat less than 1200 calories op?0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
How do you set your calories to be less?
I would NOT recommend setting it for less, you're not an extreme outlier that needs to eat less than 1200 calories.
^^This^^ Eat 1200 until you can increase your activity level which will allow you to eat more. This process takes time, you can't rush it. You're doing great so far, just keep it up!1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
How do you set your calories to be less?
Please don't follow this advice. That some people are insistent that you can eat below the recommended minimum amount and be healthy does not mean this is a healthy approach for everyone (or maybe even anyone). Your stats suggest that a HIGHER calorie goal would be more appropriate for you than a lower calorie goal. You shouldn't be aiming to lose more than 1 lb/week and the numbers that MFP has given you suggests that 1200 NET would provide those results. After losing 5-10 lbs (if you are aiming to shed the 30 you recently gained) you should change your goal to 0.5 lbs/week which would have you at around 1450 NET.
Also, you mentioned you haven't had time for purposeful exercise but your comments above suggest a pretty active lifestyle. You mentioned having a FitBit, what is your average day's step count? What does FitBit say your total calories burned are? Based on your very preliminary results, some of which may be water weight, it's possible that you may have a higher maintenance level than MFP estimates.
For what it's worth, I'm 5'2 and lost > 30 lbs eating between 1600-1900 cals. My TDEE in maintenance is 2200. That's with a desk job. So it's entirely possible to eat well more than 1200 cals and achieve your goals, and if you can, why would you not want to?4 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
I've seen you post this a lot, but I'm not sure that I ever see you clarify your age? I believe the basal metabolic rate naturally declines with age, and what you may need at your current age may not reflect the calorific needs of someone younger. For example, it would be quite irresponsible for my post-menopausal, sedentary mother to insist my 23 year-old cousin could healthily eat as little as she does herself.
Additionally, I'm not sure @JacobNicolaus meant what you thought he meant. Nutritional needs for health aren't confined to calories. I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the 1200 figure was originally calculated by nutritionists as an absolute minimum because they didn't think it was realistically possible for a woman to restrict her calories further than that and still meet her other nutritional needs, i.e. macromolecules, vitamins (inc vitamins that need dietary fats for absorption), essential minerals.
In this context, whether you need less than 1200 calories isn't very relevant. Whether you are meeting your other needs on that might be relevant, but the most important thing is would other people meet their other nutritional needs easily?
I would say either no, or only with very careful planning. As this is a site for general use, by people who are not accredited in nutrition and who don't have a stable of sports nutritionists, personal chefs and dieticians at their disposal, it's a good, safe thing that MFP has the baseline set at 1200 and won't automatically generate a goal lower than that, however unrealistic a goal you input.8 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the 1200 figure was originally calculated by nutritionists as an absolute minimum because they didn't think it was realistically possible for a woman to restrict her calories further than that and still meet her other nutritional needs, i.e. macromolecules, vitamins (inc vitamins that need dietary fats for absorption), essential minerals.
Just for the record, a "nutritionist" is not held to any kind of standard and requires absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to apply that label, so what they say about nutrition is about as relevant as what an astrologer says about mental health.0 -
This is true, and something I should have mentioned myself. However, I am talking about nutritional data collection and analyses done before the post-millennial everyone-is-self-employed-as-a-nutritionist era, back when the only people who called themselves nutritionists were, er, extremely qualified to do so.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the 1200 figure was originally calculated by nutritionists as an absolute minimum because they didn't think it was realistically possible for a woman to restrict her calories further than that and still meet her other nutritional needs, i.e. macromolecules, vitamins (inc vitamins that need dietary fats for absorption), essential minerals.
Just for the record, a "nutritionist" is not held to any kind of standard and requires absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to apply that label, so what they say about nutrition is about as relevant as what an astrologer says about mental health.3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Regarding exercise: can you go for a walk or do a video in the morning before work? How about when you come home in the evening while dinner is cooking? Maybe do a walk before bed. As it warms up, late night walks are a favorite for me. My husband and I walk the dog and enjoy the evening air.
No. I refuse to get up earlier than my current 5 am. I have to be at work early. My evenings are consumed with running. We almost never eat at home because I can't cook. Plus housework. We do hike on the weekends. I am in bed early also.0 -
xchocolategirl wrote: »xchocolategirl wrote: »What's your current height and weight? This might solve your question if you let us know.
I am 5'3". I started logging 4/4/2017 with a starting weight of 158. I was 153.8 yesterday. I am not sure there is a problem specifically. I just thought it was odd that the number did not change with different settings
How much weight are you trying to lose? If you have less than 20 I think 0.5 pounds rate of weight loss would be more ideal. I am one pound more than you and it gave me a new calorie intake of 1520 calories with this goal. When I wrote lose one pound it had me at 1270. A pop-box will display stating this Will update your information ensure to click on "yew"
What calorie option popped up when you went on the 0.5 pound lost option?
I need to lose 30 more lbs. And the sooner I do, the sooner I can wear my bathing suits and summer clothes.0 -
I cannot find my fit bit. I did set my iphone to record sync. But I do not always have it in my pocket. I might see if I can work an apple watch in the budget instead of getting a new fitbit.WinoGelato wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
How do you set your calories to be less?
Please don't follow this advice. That some people are insistent that you can eat below the recommended minimum amount and be healthy does not mean this is a healthy approach for everyone (or maybe even anyone). Your stats suggest that a HIGHER calorie goal would be more appropriate for you than a lower calorie goal. You shouldn't be aiming to lose more than 1 lb/week and the numbers that MFP has given you suggests that 1200 NET would provide those results. After losing 5-10 lbs (if you are aiming to shed the 30 you recently gained) you should change your goal to 0.5 lbs/week which would have you at around 1450 NET.
Also, you mentioned you haven't had time for purposeful exercise but your comments above suggest a pretty active lifestyle. You mentioned having a FitBit, what is your average day's step count? What does FitBit say your total calories burned are? Based on your very preliminary results, some of which may be water weight, it's possible that you may have a higher maintenance level than MFP estimates.
For what it's worth, I'm 5'2 and lost > 30 lbs eating between 1600-1900 cals. My TDEE in maintenance is 2200. That's with a desk job. So it's entirely possible to eat well more than 1200 cals and achieve your goals, and if you can, why would you not want to?
I am getting older and knocking on the door of 40. So I do not burn as much calories apparently. I really do not feel hungry eating a good 1100-1200 calorie diet. Of course that means no junk. I have to fill my day with protein and good filling greens.
0 -
I cannot find my fit bit. I did set my iphone to record sync. But I do not always have it in my pocket. I might see if I can work an apple watch in the budget instead of getting a new fitbit.WinoGelato wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JacobNicolaus wrote: »I was playing with the settings and I get a 1200 calorie limit if I choose .5 lb a week or 2 lbs a week. How is that possible? It does not seem to make sense. Is this a flaw in the apps calculations?
I think the reason MFP puts 1,200 ccal as an absolute minimum is because that's the smallest amount of calories you can eat and still be healthy.
That's not true. I set mine below that and I am very healthy. Not every single person needs the same "minimum" calories. MFP uses this number because there is this fear that someone will not use common sense and actually eat too few calories for their individual needs. It's not a bad thing, but it certainly is not an absolute.
How do you set your calories to be less?
Please don't follow this advice. That some people are insistent that you can eat below the recommended minimum amount and be healthy does not mean this is a healthy approach for everyone (or maybe even anyone). Your stats suggest that a HIGHER calorie goal would be more appropriate for you than a lower calorie goal. You shouldn't be aiming to lose more than 1 lb/week and the numbers that MFP has given you suggests that 1200 NET would provide those results. After losing 5-10 lbs (if you are aiming to shed the 30 you recently gained) you should change your goal to 0.5 lbs/week which would have you at around 1450 NET.
Also, you mentioned you haven't had time for purposeful exercise but your comments above suggest a pretty active lifestyle. You mentioned having a FitBit, what is your average day's step count? What does FitBit say your total calories burned are? Based on your very preliminary results, some of which may be water weight, it's possible that you may have a higher maintenance level than MFP estimates.
For what it's worth, I'm 5'2 and lost > 30 lbs eating between 1600-1900 cals. My TDEE in maintenance is 2200. That's with a desk job. So it's entirely possible to eat well more than 1200 cals and achieve your goals, and if you can, why would you not want to?
I am getting older and knocking on the door of 40. So I do not burn as much calories apparently. I really do not feel hungry eating a good 1100-1200 calorie diet. Of course that means no junk. I have to fill my day with protein and good filling greens.
Why do you think you don't burn as many calories? I'm over forty, a busy working mother, and my maintenance cals are 2200. That's with exercise, but my exercise is mostly walking, much of which comes from just the craziness of all the family running around we do. I do light circuit training a couple times a week and we hike on weekends as well.
Your preliminary results after a week showed rapid weight loss. That may have been mostly water, but it's also possible that you are burning more than you think and losing 2 lbs/week at the weight you are now just isn't a good idea.
I know you want to get into a swimsuit for summer, but don't you want to look good in it? Rapid weight loss doesn't always yield the body we desire.3 -
Because last week I ate 1100 -1200 calories daily, with exercise and lost weight. This week I ate 1100 - 1200 calories, no exercise and stayed the same. I assume 1200 is my true maintenance. I seem to remember something similar the last time I did mfp and lost 50 lbs. I believe I dropped my calorie intake down to 1000 on days I did not exercise and 1200 on days that I did something.1
-
animatorswearbras wrote: »At 1200 cals you should lose a pound a week without exercise, it's set to 1200 because that's the minimum cals you need to nourish your body otherwise you're playing with your health and not getting the nutrients you need for your body to function (basically damaging your body to lose weight is like chopping off a leg to get to goal). The only way you can increase the loss is by exercise but you will need to eat some of those exercise cals back ideally. 1 pound a week really is the max you should be aiming for, I'm aiming for 0.75 - 0.5 pounds a week and I'm 20 pounds from goal and 2 inches taller.
Trust me when I say slow and steady wins the race, it's not worth losing lean body mass trying to get to goal quicker you'll shoot your metabolism in the foot and it'll be harder to keep the weight off. Good luck. xxx
I do have some exercise in my diary, but not nearly as much as I would like. Time is a premium.
Thats fine, you don't need exercise to lose but don't go below the 1200 as you'll have a hard time hitting the nutrients you need and may end up losing alot of lean mass and not just fat, which if you're trying to attain a specific physique (ie bikini confidence from your subsequent posts) is what matters. Also try to not get hung up on water weight it is temporary and doesn't mean anything and may blow your confidence when you retain one day if you concentrate on battling that (My water weight fluctuates a good 3 pounds on any given day and I just treat it as background noise and map my losses over a month).
Keep your sights set on fat loss, noone else can see the numbers on the scale apart from you so its just self flagellation to punish yourself with severe restriction and you'll only start losing alot of lean mass that way (and also knacker your hair and skin from lack of nutrients, as I said no different to chopping off a limb to get a smaller number on the scale in a short space of time) weight loss when you don't have a huge amount to lose, can't exercise and are petite can be slower.
You're doing great, adjust your goals in line with your lifestyle, if you can get some exercise in then great you may even lose more, but 1 pound a week is actually brilliant progress. Good luck again
x 0 -
Because last week I ate 1100 -1200 calories daily, with exercise and lost weight. This week I ate 1100 - 1200 calories, no exercise and stayed the same. I assume 1200 is my true maintenance. I seem to remember something similar the last time I did mfp and lost 50 lbs. I believe I dropped my calorie intake down to 1000 on days I did not exercise and 1200 on days that I did something.
Thats probably because you lost water weight the first week (if you lost 4 pounds?) and put some of that water weight back on this week which masked the fat loss. You will have lost fat both weeks, water weight can mask alot (both drops and gains) and you can't control it, you just have to map your losses over a month to get a better idea. x1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I've seen you post this a lot, but I'm not sure that I ever see you clarify your age?
What?? I've posted my age many many times. I am 61.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I believe the basal metabolic rate naturally declines with age, and what you may need at your current age may not reflect the calorific needs of someone younger. For example, it would be quite irresponsible for my post-menopausal, sedentary mother to insist my 23 year-old cousin could healthily eat as little as she does herself.
I absolutely agree. And I was not advising anyone on how many calories they should eat.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Additionally, I'm not sure @JacobNicolaus meant what you thought he meant. Nutritional needs for health aren't confined to calories. I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the 1200 figure was originally calculated by nutritionists as an absolute minimum because they didn't think it was realistically possible for a woman to restrict her calories further than that and still meet her other nutritional needs, i.e. macromolecules, vitamins (inc vitamins that need dietary fats for absorption), essential minerals.
In this context, whether you need less than 1200 calories isn't very relevant. Whether you are meeting your other needs on that might be relevant, but the most important thing is would other people meet their other nutritional needs easily?
I agree, it is very important to meet your nutritional needs, and when you are a person that needs less calories to maintain a healthy weight, you need to eat more carefully. This is why it is more difficult, and why MFP and so many other sites set the 1200 minimum. That said, a person can eat 1200, 1500, 2000 or more calories a day, and STILL not meet their nutritional needs. As far as myself, yes I absolutely do meet my nutritional needs. That is confirmed by how good I feel, the fact that I have no issues with energy, and of course by my annual physical with full labs done each year. My maintenance has always been a low number anyway, so for me to lose I do need to drop below the 1200, so I set it manually. But I have also increased my exercise so that I am really not that low - certainly not a VLCD.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I would say either no, or only with very careful planning. As this is a site for general use, by people who are not accredited in nutrition and who don't have a stable of sports nutritionists, personal chefs and dieticians at their disposal, it's a good, safe thing that MFP has the baseline set at 1200 and won't automatically generate a goal lower than that, however unrealistic a goal you input.
I already stated that agreed it was a good idea to set a minimum, as there are plenty of people that don't have much common sense about weight loss, and the reality is, most people don't need to eat below that to lose.0 -
xchocolategirl wrote: »xchocolategirl wrote: »What's your current height and weight? This might solve your question if you let us know.
I am 5'3". I started logging 4/4/2017 with a starting weight of 158. I was 153.8 yesterday. I am not sure there is a problem specifically. I just thought it was odd that the number did not change with different settings
How much weight are you trying to lose? If you have less than 20 I think 0.5 pounds rate of weight loss would be more ideal. I am one pound more than you and it gave me a new calorie intake of 1520 calories with this goal. When I wrote lose one pound it had me at 1270. A pop-box will display stating this Will update your information ensure to click on "yew"
What calorie option popped up when you went on the 0.5 pound lost option?
I need to lose 30 more lbs. And the sooner I do, the sooner I can wear my bathing suits and summer clothes.
Ummmm....does summer = June 1 or does summer = August 31??
30 pounds by summer is really not a reasonable goal. I mean, it just isn't. You have 1.5 months before June, and a reasonable expectation is to lose a pound a week. Possibly 2 but most people find that too difficult to maintain (unless you are obese). I think your goal should be to be successful. Don't set yourself up for failure.3 -
A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.0
-
Because last week I ate 1100 -1200 calories daily, with exercise and lost weight. This week I ate 1100 - 1200 calories, no exercise and stayed the same. I assume 1200 is my true maintenance. I seem to remember something similar the last time I did mfp and lost 50 lbs. I believe I dropped my calorie intake down to 1000 on days I did not exercise and 1200 on days that I did something.
You've been at this for two weeks. It is too early to make determinations about what your calorie needs are because your weight loss initially is masked by water weight. Going forward, you may still have some fluctuations, all of us do, especially women, but it will be much more predictable, especially if you look at a trend weight app to monitor and smooth out those fluctuations and look at the overall trend.
I don't recall if you mentioned, how accurate is your logging? are you weighing all your foods using a food scale? I really think if you are logging accurately, you will lose weight eating more than 1200, based on the stats you provided and your description of your lifestyle. MOST people have a maintenance level above 1200 calories unless extremely petite (you're not), extremely light (you're not), elderly (you're not), and extremely sedentary (you're not).
Set your goal to 1200. Eat at least that much, more on days you are active. Log as accurately as possible. Monitor your results for 4-6 weeks and adjust calories after that. It's just too soon to make a decision based on what you've seen so far.0 -
A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.
I would never base my own goals on what some guy at work says.
If he is really maintaining on only 800 calories a day, he is either recovering from bariatric surgery, or has medical reasons to do so, and in either case, is under a doctor's care. Are you under a doctor's care? 3 -
A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.
I am assuming his doctor has put him on a VLCD (probably 12 week plan) because he is obese and is being monitored, 800 will NOT be his maintenance, doctors only usually do these extreme plans when prepping for surgery or to help a medical condition like diabetes, where someones health is at serious risk because of weight. x2 -
A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.
You seem to have your heart set on eating a low calorie diet and losing weight rapidly and are looking for people to validate and support that idea. You may find some who will cheer you on, but it won't be me. I'm all about sustainable weight loss at a modest calorie deficit appropriate for the amount of weight you have to lose - in order to preserve lean body mass and build healthy habits with minimum of impact on a persons lifestyle. My mantra is "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight". It has served me well to lose the exact amount you are aiming to lose, with no major sacrifices, no hunger, and becoming more active than I have ever been in my life, all while still enjoying things like wine and ice cream and pizza with my family.
Best of luck.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Because last week I ate 1100 -1200 calories daily, with exercise and lost weight. This week I ate 1100 - 1200 calories, no exercise and stayed the same. I assume 1200 is my true maintenance. I seem to remember something similar the last time I did mfp and lost 50 lbs. I believe I dropped my calorie intake down to 1000 on days I did not exercise and 1200 on days that I did something.
You've been at this for two weeks. It is too early to make determinations about what your calorie needs are because your weight loss initially is masked by water weight. Going forward, you may still have some fluctuations, all of us do, especially women, but it will be much more predictable, especially if you look at a trend weight app to monitor and smooth out those fluctuations and look at the overall trend.
I don't recall if you mentioned, how accurate is your logging? are you weighing all your foods using a food scale? I really think if you are logging accurately, you will lose weight eating more than 1200, based on the stats you provided and your description of your lifestyle. MOST people have a maintenance level above 1200 calories unless extremely petite (you're not), extremely light (you're not), elderly (you're not), and extremely sedentary (you're not).
Set your goal to 1200. Eat at least that much, more on days you are active. Log as accurately as possible. Monitor your results for 4-6 weeks and adjust calories after that. It's just too soon to make a decision based on what you've seen so far.
This is not my first rodeo doing this. I lost 50 lbs in 2014. I was doing great at keeping it off, until I started adding alcohol back into my life (gained about 10lbs, which I was ok with), and then gained an additional 30 when I got a new Mirena. I am not ok with this bloated, looking pregnant all the time weight.
My logging is an overestimate. I might log a cup of grapes but only eat 5. I almost never finish eating anything. I never had an issue with food. I know everyone says that...but seriously I am not fat from eating too much food. I was anorexic in my teens. I still look at food in a skewed manner although I no longer intentionally starve myself.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.
I would never base my own goals on what some guy at work says. If he is really maintaining on only 800 calories a day, he is either recovering from bariatric surgery, or has medical reasons to do so, and in either case, is under a doctor's care. Are you under a doctor's care?fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »A manager at my work is on an 800 calorie diet (male). He has had all types of testing and this is his maintenance. His doctor agreed that he functions well and very healthy on an 800 calorie diet.
I would never base my own goals on what some guy at work says. If he is really maintaining on only 800 calories a day, he is either recovering from bariatric surgery, or has medical reasons to do so, and in either case, is under a doctor's care. Are you under a doctor's care?
I am not basing my caloric intake on his. Yes I am under a doctors care. I go every 6 months for a check up and whenever I am ill.
He had no surgery but told by doctor he had to take drastic measures to cut his weight and keep it off, for health reasons.0 -
You didn't indicate if you are on a hormonal IUD or one without hormones.
*** If your IUD doesn't contain hormones, please disregard.***
The ones with hormones contain a synthetic progestin hormone called levonorgestrel. It is the devil. It can/does cause weight gain.
See this website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12650633
There are instances with women also developing breast cancer after using synthetic hormones:
See this website: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021225s019lbl.pdf
Here is information on non-hormonal birth control:
https://www.drugs.com/article/non-hormonal-birth-control.html
One of the most effective birth control devices developed is the cervical cap which fits over the cervix rather than acting as a fence pressed against the pubic bone (like the diaphragm). It's made out of medical grade silicone and is very durable. Women seem to find them very comfortable.
See this website: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/cervical-cap
You do have to use spermicide, but, it is virtually undetectable and well tolerated. It can be inserted well before the tender moment and can also be part of foreplay. Spermicide can be bought on-line these days in bulk and it's not that expensive. If you pay attention to your fertility window they are extremely effective.
See this website: https://www.ovuline.com/guide/34/what-is-fertile-window
See these websites about natural progesterone and estrogen as well as remarks on synthetic hormones:
https://www.bedsider.org/features/70-paragard-vs-mirena-which-iud-is-best-for-you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-margolin-lac-dipl-om/breast-cancer-awareness-p_b_8306222.html
http://www.johnleemd.com/physiological-effects-estrogen-progesterone.html0 -
You didn't indicate if you are on a hormonal IUD or one without hormones.
*** If your IUD doesn't contain hormones, please disregard.***
The ones with hormones contain a synthetic progestin hormone called levonorgestrel. It is the devil. It can/does cause weight gain.
Weight gain without a calorie surplus is impossible. There is no hormone that can create matter out of nothing.8 -
You didn't indicate if you are on a hormonal IUD or one without hormones.
*** If your IUD doesn't contain hormones, please disregard.***
The ones with hormones contain a synthetic progestin hormone called levonorgestrel. It is the devil. It can/does cause weight gain.
See this website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12650633
There are instances with women also developing breast cancer after using synthetic hormones:
See this website: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021225s019lbl.pdf
Here is information on non-hormonal birth control:
https://www.drugs.com/article/non-hormonal-birth-control.html
One of the most effective birth control devices developed is the cervical cap which fits over the cervix rather than acting as a fence pressed against the pubic bone (like the diaphragm). It's made out of medical grade silicone and is very durable. Women seem to find them very comfortable.
See this website: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/cervical-cap
You do have to use spermicide, but, it is virtually undetectable and well tolerated. It can be inserted well before the tender moment and can also be part of foreplay. Spermicide can be bought on-line these days in bulk and it's not that expensive. If you pay attention to your fertility window they are extremely effective.
See this website: https://www.ovuline.com/guide/34/what-is-fertile-window
See these websites about natural progesterone and estrogen as well as remarks on synthetic hormones:
https://www.bedsider.org/features/70-paragard-vs-mirena-which-iud-is-best-for-you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-margolin-lac-dipl-om/breast-cancer-awareness-p_b_8306222.html
http://www.johnleemd.com/physiological-effects-estrogen-progesterone.html
I have the hormonal IUD. I have considered just having it removed and going with a tubal.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »You didn't indicate if you are on a hormonal IUD or one without hormones.
*** If your IUD doesn't contain hormones, please disregard.***
The ones with hormones contain a synthetic progestin hormone called levonorgestrel. It is the devil. It can/does cause weight gain.
Weight gain without a calorie surplus is impossible. There is no hormone that can create matter out of nothing.
Right but the hormone changes how your body processes the calories you typically consume. So you might not change anything about your normal diet and drinks, but suddenly your body is not using the same calories it did.
My body uses the calories better when I am not on a hormone. Hence the weight gain. I changed nothing about my diet.
The first time I got an IUD 6 years ago, the same thing happened. I actually started losing weight as soon as it was almost expired. It was like magic. I then started helping it along, by counting calories and I went from a size 12 in May, to a size 2 in September.0 -
You didn't indicate if you are on a hormonal IUD or one without hormones.
*** If your IUD doesn't contain hormones, please disregard.***
The ones with hormones contain a synthetic progestin hormone called levonorgestrel. It is the devil. It can/does cause weight gain.
I did not see any study that indicated that weight gain is caused by the hormone. In fact, this article seems to indicate otherwise.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/32654
0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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