Why eating too little calories is a bad idea.....
Replies
-
OK, so I get the whole CICO thing, but how accurate is the Fitbit in calculating calories burned? I have linked MFP to Fitbit, so my Fitbit app shows exactly how much deficit I have. However, I'm not really sure how trustworthy this calculation is.
Any ideas?
Those numbers are always estimates so take them with a grain of salt. Eat your deficit as it predicts and cross check with your actual weight trends over time to see if it's good or needs to be adjusted.2 -
OK, so I get the whole CICO thing, but how accurate is the Fitbit in calculating calories burned? I have linked MFP to Fitbit, so my Fitbit app shows exactly how much deficit I have. However, I'm not really sure how trustworthy this calculation is.
Any ideas?
None of the devices are 100% accurate, but they give you ballpark number and you have to adjust accordingly. If you're losing as expected then your device is pretty accurate, if not then reduce your calories to find a better rate of loss. I've lost 50 lbs logging and wearing a Fitbit to measure my calorie burns. I have a Blaze and it's fairly accurate. The longer you wear it the more accurate it becomes. Oops, @stevencloser beat me to it.1 -
OK, so I get the whole CICO thing, but how accurate is the Fitbit in calculating calories burned? I have linked MFP to Fitbit, so my Fitbit app shows exactly how much deficit I have. However, I'm not really sure how trustworthy this calculation is.
Any ideas?
I used FitBit synced with MFP while I was losing weight (~18 lbs lost after getting a FitBit) and have been using it in maintenance as well. I've always eaten back the calories and found it accurate for me.
I notice you said the FitBit app shows how much deficit you have. If you have them synced, and negative calorie adjustments enabled to account for days where you don't move as much, then you should be looking at your remaining calories in MFP, not FitBit. The deficits and remaining calories will never match up, they work off of different algorithms. What most people do is sync the two, log food in MFP and any non step based exercise in FitBit and then let the two systems sync and look at MFP to tell you how many calories you have to eat. Keep in mind that the amounts fluctuate throughout the day as your activity goes up and down, and also keep in mind that it will get more accurate at predicting your calorie burn the longer you have it.
Hope that helps.5 -
OK, so I get the whole CICO thing, but how accurate is the Fitbit in calculating calories burned? I have linked MFP to Fitbit, so my Fitbit app shows exactly how much deficit I have. However, I'm not really sure how trustworthy this calculation is.
Any ideas?
When I started using my Fitbit I stopped losing weight. I was basing calories on what Fitbit says I was burning and obviously it was way off. I took off the Fitbit and never put it on again. But that's just me. Others may have a different story.4 -
Yes, please do sticky this. I'm 84 and most days average 1200 calories but at the moment I have plateaued after losing 31lbs.
4 -
OK, so I get the whole CICO thing, but how accurate is the Fitbit in calculating calories burned? I have linked MFP to Fitbit, so my Fitbit app shows exactly how much deficit I have. However, I'm not really sure how trustworthy this calculation is.
Any ideas?
After I used mine for a while I found it to be EXTREMELY accurate. But I looked at results for a while, and kind of eased into eating back all the calories (I had a lot to lose, so for me losing a bit more as I got comfortable was okay).1 -
smithmssycatsmithiris30 wrote: »Yes, please do sticky this. I'm 84 and most days average 1200 calories but at the moment I have plateaued after losing 31lbs.
@smithmssycatsmithiris30 To request it to be stickied, you need to vote for it here http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10260479/nominate-posts-for-announcement-status-stickies3 -
I'd like to expand in the hair loss issue, just to help people who may be experiencing some, and wondering what's behind it. Having completely lost my hair during chemotherapy some years back, I kind of understand the mechanics.
Think of your hair as a cylinder of protein being extruded from your scalp. (This is a little bit metaphorical, but close enough.) When you consume too few calories, too little protein, or insufficient amounts of certain other nutrients, your body can decide that hair is a lower priority than other body functions more essential to continued life. The rate of extrusion slows, and the cylinder may be narrower, or less strong. This creates a weak point in the hair shaft.
If the situation is borderline, some hair strands may be weaker than others at that scalp-level point of new growth. Brushing, or the weight of the strand, makes some break.
If you're doing chemotherapy, this stress is abrupt and general. My hair started falling out in big clumps about 3 weeks after the first chemo - the effect is not subtle. But, if the problem is caloric/nutritional, it can happen more gradually - it won't be instant, it may not be all at once.
It's not that your hair falls out - not that it literally ejects from the hair follicles. It's that it weakens/thins, and breaks off.25 -
bump2
-
Inspirational and informative posts on here, I find it really helps me understand what I need to do to help me lose weight. I was under eating and not losing weight. I have started to weigh my food to ensure that I am eating the correct amounts and tracking everything. I need to up my protein and check out the oils and fats that I am using ( I have just started using frylight which is 1cal per spray). I tend to eat lots of veg, salads etc but my downfall is sauces , pasta and rice. I really need to watch what I eat. I don't have biscuits or cake in the house (I would eat everything), I do tend to eat a lot of fruit yogurt which isn't very good because of the sugar content. Has anyone any advice on meals that keep you feeling fuller for longer to stop snacking between meals. Thank you.3
-
Elaine352962 wrote: »Has anyone any advice on meals that keep you feeling fuller for longer to stop snacking between meals. Thank you.
For many, protein and fats help keep them full. But this is pretty much something you have to play with to see what works for you. I find I'm fullest if my meal includes all 3.
10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Elaine352962 wrote: »Has anyone any advice on meals that keep you feeling fuller for longer to stop snacking between meals. Thank you.
For many, protein and fats help keep them full. But this is pretty much something you have to play with to see what works for you. I find I'm fullest if my meal includes all 3.
Yes. And high volume foods are satiating for some (such as low-cal veggies with lots of fiber), perhaps in combination with fats and/or protein.
Though timing of eating is unimportant to the average person for nutrition or weight loss, it can be important to some for satiation. There are lots of individual variations.
Unless I get a solid breakfast with plenty of protein, I will be crave-y later. Other people do better skipping breakfast entirely for larger meals later, eating 5-6 small meals, or just having one big one. If you experiment, you'll find what works best for you.
4 -
Elaine352962 wrote: »Inspirational and informative posts on here, I find it really helps me understand what I need to do to help me lose weight. I was under eating and not losing weight. I have started to weigh my food to ensure that I am eating the correct amounts and tracking everything. I need to up my protein and check out the oils and fats that I am using ( I have just started using frylight which is 1cal per spray). I tend to eat lots of veg, salads etc but my downfall is sauces , pasta and rice. I really need to watch what I eat. I don't have biscuits or cake in the house (I would eat everything), I do tend to eat a lot of fruit yogurt which isn't very good because of the sugar content. Has anyone any advice on meals that keep you feeling fuller for longer to stop snacking between meals. Thank you.
I tend to eat a lot of things like chicken breast, veggies, potato, hard boiled eggs, nuts, seeds and full fat Greek Yoghurt (the thick, proper stuff) mixed with peanut powder and seeds. I snack on things like apples and these all natural protein brownies you can get buy a company called Graze. I tend to mostly not get hungry. You just need to find what works for you. For me, I need a good balance of protein, fats and carbs and cannot really thrive on low carb or low fat etc.6 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »I have a question, I'm relatively new on here. Here's my stats. I'm 5'4, I was 158 and now I'm at 138. When does the weight loss kinda come to a halt and you stop losing weight? I feel like I'm at that point and I eat about 1,300 calories a day. I'm a stay at home mom. So I say my life is pretty sedentary, except the few strength training exercises I do which it doesn't say in the app that it doesn't burn any calories. I do 60 sit ups a day, 50 v ups. A minute of side planks( each side), a minute of normal planks, every other day I do leg day 100 squats, and iron titans til my legs can't do it anymore. On tuesdays and Thursday I take my baby for a walk which is gonna have to stop here soon because it's getting cold, and I run on saturdays. My fiancé is active duty in the military and my step son is 6 and my son is 9 months. My fiancé works from about 6am to 8/9pm and I can't take my children to the gym and my fiancé gets home too late to watch the kids while I go for a run or what not.
Is there a mall or other semi-public large indoor space nearby that you could take the baby for a walk? Do you have access to a fitness center or pool (either through the military or your local parks & rec department) that provides on-site childcare while you get in some cardio?4 -
Bump
1 -
Check out the Eat More To Weigh Less forums here on MFP or go to the website www.em2wl.com.0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »I have a question, I'm relatively new on here. Here's my stats. I'm 5'4, I was 158 and now I'm at 138. When does the weight loss kinda come to a halt and you stop losing weight? I feel like I'm at that point and I eat about 1,300 calories a day. I'm a stay at home mom. So I say my life is pretty sedentary, except the few strength training exercises I do which it doesn't say in the app that it doesn't burn any calories. I do 60 sit ups a day, 50 v ups. A minute of side planks( each side), a minute of normal planks, every other day I do leg day 100 squats, and iron titans til my legs can't do it anymore. On tuesdays and Thursday I take my baby for a walk which is gonna have to stop here soon because it's getting cold, and I run on saturdays. My fiancé is active duty in the military and my step son is 6 and my son is 9 months. My fiancé works from about 6am to 8/9pm and I can't take my children to the gym and my fiancé gets home too late to watch the kids while I go for a run or what not.
Is there a mall or other semi-public large indoor space nearby that you could take the baby for a walk? Do you have access to a fitness center or pool (either through the military or your local parks & rec department) that provides on-site childcare while you get in some cardio?
I used to love doing this when my kids were small. The mall was always open early for walkers and there were more senior walkers than mom's with strollers, but it was a great way to be active. My mall also had kid play areas for my older kids after the walk was done.0 -
People have some crazy TDEE apparently. I'm 5'10" and mine is only about 1900 to maintain. I'm in a healthy weight range and I lose at about 1500-1600. I go to the gym on occasion but I have no desire to live there (I've done so in the past but I like the life I'm leading at the moment). I don't think I'm all that weird either so the number of posts to short older women about how ridiculous 1200 calories is seems bizarre to me. If I maintain at 1900 and I'm a giant who are these older sedentary women who can eat all the calories? Sorry that was a sidebar:)12
-
maggibailey wrote: »People have some crazy TDEE apparently. I'm 5'10" and mine is only about 1900 to maintain. I'm in a healthy weight range and I lose at about 1500-1600. I go to the gym on occasion but I have no desire to live there (I've done so in the past but I like the life I'm leading at the moment). I don't think I'm all that weird either so the number of posts to short older women about how ridiculous 1200 calories is seems bizarre to me. If I maintain at 1900 and I'm a giant who are these older sedentary women who can eat all the calories? Sorry that was a sidebar:)
Me, for one
Li'l ol' lady (62 next month), sedentary outside of intentional exercise, 5'5", 128-point-something pounds this morning, second year in maintenance, NEAT in the low 2000s, TDEE mid-2000s. It's outlier-ish, but it happens.
1200 calories, for me, at 150-something pounds, age 59, was a bad, bad idea. Paid for it.
Far from universal, though - that's true.7 -
maggibailey wrote: »People have some crazy TDEE apparently. I'm 5'10" and mine is only about 1900 to maintain. I'm in a healthy weight range and I lose at about 1500-1600. I go to the gym on occasion but I have no desire to live there (I've done so in the past but I like the life I'm leading at the moment). I don't think I'm all that weird either so the number of posts to short older women about how ridiculous 1200 calories is seems bizarre to me. If I maintain at 1900 and I'm a giant who are these older sedentary women who can eat all the calories? Sorry that was a sidebar:)
Me, for two -- I turn 68 next week, 5'2.5," lost 50 lbs., in maintenance at 128-130 lbs. close to 3 years now. Gym 3 times per week, eating 2,000 + calories to maintain. Without the gym and just staying active with normal old lady stuff I maintain at around 1750ish. If totally sedentary, I'd probably drop down to around 1400ish. 1200? Never.4 -
This is part of my point though. Both of you are adding intentional exercise, which by the way good on you! And the "little old lady" thing is almost never true. My 65 year old parents move more then me constantly just on day to day life. They wouldn't consider themselves active but they garden, do woodwork and flit about he house way more than I do. I think based off both of your posts I wouldn't consider either of you sedentary. And you are both on the outside of normal to start with, when you plug in your age and weight and height even a tdee calculator is going to say that the amount you eat is not normal. Fantastic and admirable but not normal. I just plugged in my mothers stats. 130# 5'5" office job 65 years old. The "average". Person would need 1365 to maintain. So the likelihood is that most people with those stats will need much less than both of you get to eat to maintain their weight. If she wanted to lose .5 a week she would have to drop below mfps magic 1200 for women number. So my argument is not that no one can eat more and I love that you both can. My argument is that the majority of people in that position are not going to be able to. So when someone posts about being sedentary and eating at 1200 and barely losing and everyone jumps in with "omg you are eating too little don't you know you can eat more and still lose!" The honest truth is they probably can't. I may eventually up my exercise, but right now I'm in the honeymoon faze of a fabulous marriage and I'd rather sit by him on the couch and read them go to the gym. So in 5 pounds when I switch to maintenance I'll get a whopping 1750 at 5'10 38 years old 150#. I'm not worried about it I eat plenty and I'm happy. I'm worried about the people who are being set up for failure when they are told over and over to up their calories because all the cool people can. I think it gets a little out of hand with people refusing to believe lots of people need a low number of calories to lose weight. Sorry that was a novel!21
-
maggibailey wrote: »This is part of my point though. Both of you are adding intentional exercise, which by the way good on you! And the "little old lady" thing is almost never true. My 65 year old parents move more then me constantly just on day to day life. They wouldn't consider themselves active but they garden, do woodwork and flit about he house way more than I do. I think based off both of your posts I wouldn't consider either of you sedentary. And you are both on the outside of normal to start with, when you plug in your age and weight and height even a tdee calculator is going to say that the amount you eat is not normal. Fantastic and admirable but not normal. I just plugged in my mothers stats. 130# 5'5" office job 65 years old. The "average". Person would need 1365 to maintain. So the likelihood is that most people with those stats will need much less than both of you get to eat to maintain their weight. If she wanted to lose .5 a week she would have to drop below mfps magic 1200 for women number. So my argument is not that no one can eat more and I love that you both can. My argument is that the majority of people in that position are not going to be able to. So when someone posts about being sedentary and eating at 1200 and barely losing and everyone jumps in with "omg you are eating too little don't you know you can eat more and still lose!" The honest truth is they probably can't. I may eventually up my exercise, but right now I'm in the honeymoon faze of a fabulous marriage and I'd rather sit by him on the couch and read them go to the gym. So in 5 pounds when I switch to maintenance I'll get a whopping 1750 at 5'10 38 years old 150#. I'm not worried about it I eat plenty and I'm happy. I'm worried about the people who are being set up for failure when they are told over and over to up their calories because all the cool people can. I think it gets a little out of hand with people refusing to believe lots of people need a low number of calories to lose weight. Sorry that was a novel!
The reason they jump on to say you might be eating too little is because many people set too aggressive a weight loss rate. You get someone who is just barely overweight setting themselves to a 2lb a week loss, which they can't sustain, and whilst there may be the odd person with a low tdee, for everyone of those outliers there are 5 of these people.11 -
I'm not a low tdee though. And the example I used of my mother is not either. It's the average for our stats. I'm not saying that I need to eat 1200 calories by the way I lose just fine and totally fast enough at the 1500 I'm eating right now. And I'm not saying that everyone on a 1200 calorie diet needs to be. I am saying probing for more information before telling people 1200 is too low might be a good habit for people to get into. I have never been overweight. I occasionally throw caution to the wind and gain 10 pounds and then have to count to get back to my happy weight. So I know from an entire adulthood of experience how much I need to eat to lose and to maintain, I'm not coming from a made up perspective. It would be unreasonable for me to tell my mom to up her calories to 1700 because "most people can eat more". She would gain weight at almost a pound a week if she did that. So how is it any more responsible to push more calories at people than it is to encourage too few?13
-
@maggibailey, I don't believe I'm an outlier when it comes to maintenance calories. MFP and Scooby both give me around 1450ish for maintenance if sedentary. I would not call myself sedentary either at present. Due to circumstances (husband's recent surgery) I can't get to the gym but I am actively moving around doing old lady stuff because my husband is out of commission right now. However, I have to agree with @tinkerbellang83. Many people on here set way too aggressive weight loss goals and kill themselves exercising trying to manage on 1200 or fewer calories; they can eat more and not just because they're cool.
PS: I entered your mom's stats into Scooby: Maintenance 1456; a 20% reduction, 1165 calories (too aggressive); at a 15% reduction she would eat 1238 calories; a 10% reduction would amount to 1311. Of course one would have to track for several weeks and adjust as needed.
PPS: Congrats on your marriage!
Best regards. . .3 -
maggibailey wrote: »This is part of my point though. Both of you are adding intentional exercise, which by the way good on you! And the "little old lady" thing is almost never true. My 65 year old parents move more then me constantly just on day to day life. They wouldn't consider themselves active but they garden, do woodwork and flit about he house way more than I do. I think based off both of your posts I wouldn't consider either of you sedentary. And you are both on the outside of normal to start with, when you plug in your age and weight and height even a tdee calculator is going to say that the amount you eat is not normal. Fantastic and admirable but not normal. I just plugged in my mothers stats. 130# 5'5" office job 65 years old. The "average". Person would need 1365 to maintain. So the likelihood is that most people with those stats will need much less than both of you get to eat to maintain their weight. If she wanted to lose .5 a week she would have to drop below mfps magic 1200 for women number. So my argument is not that no one can eat more and I love that you both can. My argument is that the majority of people in that position are not going to be able to. So when someone posts about being sedentary and eating at 1200 and barely losing and everyone jumps in with "omg you are eating too little don't you know you can eat more and still lose!" The honest truth is they probably can't. I may eventually up my exercise, but right now I'm in the honeymoon faze of a fabulous marriage and I'd rather sit by him on the couch and read them go to the gym. So in 5 pounds when I switch to maintenance I'll get a whopping 1750 at 5'10 38 years old 150#. I'm not worried about it I eat plenty and I'm happy. I'm worried about the people who are being set up for failure when they are told over and over to up their calories because all the cool people can. I think it gets a little out of hand with people refusing to believe lots of people need a low number of calories to lose weight. Sorry that was a novel!
QFT Thank you. I’m a post menopausal woman whose TDEE is likely around 1400, and eating 1200 calories would mean literally YEARS to lose the 50 pounds I needed to. And 1200 calories is misery, do it for two years? No thank you. - I found a better way for me (5:2 IF -same weekly calories but much better life) but I still get irked in these forums because for plenty of shorter ladies 1200 is VERY close to maintenance anyway, yet we are often advised to eat at a much higher calorie level which in fact would probably have us gaining weight. I’ll shut up now, after I say this: the two older short women posting above eating 2000ish calories daily are so far from reality for most shorter older women that I don’t think they can understand the average shortie at all.15 -
I absolutely agree that lots of people do set way to aggressive a weight loss goal. And I'd even say the majority of people eating at 1200 calories don't need to do so. But not everyone and not everyone is going to adjust their calories out to compensate for their calories in. My frustration with the forums is simply the jump to assumptions that happens in so many threads. I guess if I'm honest my biggest frustration with people in general is assumptions lol. On a thread where someone says "I'm starving on my 1200 calories" then absolutely it should be addressed as an option. But I see the same on a thread that says "eating 1200 and barely losing" the assumption being that they can't possibly only be eating 1200 if they are barely losing but as with the example of my mother the weight loss at 1200 would be very very slow and hard to see at times with water weight and fluctuations. And I'm sorry if the cool kids sounded rude, I was just being silly, and as is often proven tone does not come across well via the internet
. It is fascinating the difference Between one tdee calculator to the next isn't it? Obviously the only real world answer is to eat and measure and see what your body does with it . As an aside my mom isn't trying to lose I was just using her as an example as the amount she does daily is always a shock to me. So "little old ladies" is always hysterical to me. I worked in a retirement community for years and I tell you there were 90 year old people who blew me out of the water on activity . Thank you so much about my marriage its life changing to be in a happy relationship! 9 -
maggibailey wrote: »This is part of my point though. Both of you are adding intentional exercise, which by the way good on you! And the "little old lady" thing is almost never true. My 65 year old parents move more then me constantly just on day to day life. They wouldn't consider themselves active but they garden, do woodwork and flit about he house way more than I do. I think based off both of your posts I wouldn't consider either of you sedentary. And you are both on the outside of normal to start with, when you plug in your age and weight and height even a tdee calculator is going to say that the amount you eat is not normal. Fantastic and admirable but not normal. I just plugged in my mothers stats. 130# 5'5" office job 65 years old. The "average". Person would need 1365 to maintain. So the likelihood is that most people with those stats will need much less than both of you get to eat to maintain their weight. If she wanted to lose .5 a week she would have to drop below mfps magic 1200 for women number. So my argument is not that no one can eat more and I love that you both can. My argument is that the majority of people in that position are not going to be able to. So when someone posts about being sedentary and eating at 1200 and barely losing and everyone jumps in with "omg you are eating too little don't you know you can eat more and still lose!" The honest truth is they probably can't. I may eventually up my exercise, but right now I'm in the honeymoon faze of a fabulous marriage and I'd rather sit by him on the couch and read them go to the gym. So in 5 pounds when I switch to maintenance I'll get a whopping 1750 at 5'10 38 years old 150#. I'm not worried about it I eat plenty and I'm happy. I'm worried about the people who are being set up for failure when they are told over and over to up their calories because all the cool people can. I think it gets a little out of hand with people refusing to believe lots of people need a low number of calories to lose weight. Sorry that was a novel!
Respectfully: I actually am sedentary, outside of my intentional exercise, which is typically around 250-300 calories daily. I'm retired, a lazy housekeeper, and my non-exercise hobbies are sedentary: I'd be surprised if I get 1000 steps in a typical day. When I do materially more than sit around, I add exercise calories and eat them. Without exercise, I can eat over 2000 calories and maintain.
But I didn't assert that I'm normal. In fact, I speculated that I'm a statistical outlier. I don't know why it's true, but I consider myself lucky.
All of that was in response to your "who are these older sedentary women who can eat all the calories?".
Some people need to eat 1200 to lose at a sensible loss rate. At the risk of violating TOS around here, a very few - outliers in the unlucky direction - may need to eat even less. I never argue that because I can eat 2000+, others my age & size can. (Though I have occasionally used my stats to bludgeon some 19-year-old 6' male who wants to eat 1400 - yeah, it happens . . . SMH!) In general, I tell people not to worry about other individuals' calorie needs, but to use MFP's estimate and adjust after 4-6 weeks' experience.
But as others have said, there are also a surprising number eating 1200 (and netting even less) because of misperceptions that all women must, or because some half-baked doctor or trainer said to, or because they've set up a 2 pounds a week goal despite having only 20 pounds to lose, or some other such unhealthy reason.
It's worth questioning, if we're concerned about fellow MFP-ers' health. Not abusing or attacking: Questioning.16 -
maggibailey wrote: »I absolutely agree that lots of people do set way to aggressive a weight loss goal. And I'd even say the majority of people eating at 1200 calories don't need to do so. But not everyone and not everyone is going to adjust their calories out to compensate for their calories in. My frustration with the forums is simply the jump to assumptions that happens in so many threads. I guess if I'm honest my biggest frustration with people in general is assumptions lol. On a thread where someone says "I'm starving on my 1200 calories" then absolutely it should be addressed as an option. But I see the same on a thread that says "eating 1200 and barely losing" the assumption being that they can't possibly only be eating 1200 if they are barely losing but as with the example of my mother the weight loss at 1200 would be very very slow and hard to see at times with water weight and fluctuations. And I'm sorry if the cool kids sounded rude, I was just being silly, and as is often proven tone does not come across well via the internet. It is fascinating the difference Between one tdee calculator to the next isn't it? Obviously the only real world answer is to eat and measure and see what your body does with it . As an aside my mom isn't trying to lose I was just using her as an example as the amount she does daily is always a shock to me. So "little old ladies" is always hysterical to me. I worked in a retirement community for years and I tell you there were 90 year old people who blew me out of the water on activity . Thank you so much about my marriage its life changing to be in a happy relationship!
The people that claim to eat 1200 calories and barely losing are, most likely, eating more than they think they are -- simply because they are not measuring as accurately as possible. It's very easy to miscalculate a bite here or there. Those bites add up quickly. We are supposed to "adjust our calories out to compensate for calories in" because that's the science behind losing weight.
Many people don't seem to have the patience to understand the process and freak out when they don't lose weight immediately. It's not a quick process. One can see losses over time by collecting data from weighing in, taking measurements, and photos because fluctuations happen on a daily basis and mask fat loss. One has to watch the downward trend over time. You're right about eating and measuring to see what your body does -- the TDEE calculators are only estimates, we all have to adjust up or down. Even maintenance calories are ever changing which is why I think it's important to keep weighing, measuring, and tracking consistently. Crap, I'll be doing this for the rest of my life though it's a small price to pay for better health as I age.
No offense about the "cool kids" remark, tone is difficult on the internet and feathers get ruffled every easily on these forums. I realize your mom isn't in weight loss mode -- I, too, was just using her as an example. Even at 97 my mother stays as active as she can with household chores, you'd think she'd just relax, but no. I wish you all the happiness with your husband -- my husband and I are on year 34 and sometimes we sit together on the couch and hold hands.13 -
@maggiebailey, congratulations on your great new marriage. That is a beautiful thing!
I’m in the honeymoon phase of a 37 year marriage.
You don’t have to leave his side for long to get a good workout, and you certainly don’t have to go to the gym.
I’ll say to my husband, I need 30 minutes, and he knows what that means. I go into my office and do 30 minutes of “all out” on whatever I’m doing that day. I give 150%.
Some days it’s strength training with dumbbells, or body weight circuits, or HIIT circuits. But if you are totally engaged 30 minutes is all you need.
Not just about weight loss, but keeping muscle, flexibility, mobility, balance and for your heart and organs (not to mention skin & hair).
He encourages me to do it because he knows it’s good for me.
I’m 56 years old. 5’ 9” And currently 153 lbs with a goal of 145ish and am losing on 1800-2000 calories a day. Slowly, but surely. Fitbit has my TDEE at between 2200-2400. Oh, and I have a sedentary job, but I’m the trouble sitting still type.
2 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »@maggiebailey, congratulations on your great new marriage. That is a beautiful thing!
I’m in the honeymoon phase of a 37 year marriage.
You don’t have to leave his side for long to get a good workout, and you certainly don’t have to go to the gym.
I’ll say to my husband, I need 30 minutes, and he knows what that means. I go into my office and do 30 minutes of “all out” on whatever I’m doing that day. I give 150%.
Some days it’s strength training with dumbbells, or body weight circuits, or HIIT circuits. But if you are totally engaged 30 minutes is all you need.
Not just about weight loss, but keeping muscle, flexibility, mobility, balance and for your heart and organs (not to mention skin & hair).
He encourages me to do it because he knows it’s good for me.
I’m 56 years old. 5’ 9” And currently 153 lbs with a goal of 145ish and am losing on 1800-2000 calories a day. Slowly, but surely. Fitbit has my TDEE at between 2200-2400. Oh, and I have a sedentary job, but I’m the trouble sitting still type.
My guy is a trouble sitting still type. I'm almost certain it's the main reason he is so slender. I go through periods of enjoying working out I'm just not in one at the moment. I do a bit of yoga to keep flexible, but I'm disinterested in doing more for now. I use to be in the gym 6 days a week. Three days of weights and cardio and three days of Pilates or yoga. Honestly though my muscles were a bit bigger and fun to look at I never noticed much difference in the amount of food I could eat... possibly because the added exercise added hunger so it wasn't like a dreamy time of just eating till I was full all the time. I am really not complaining about the amount I get to eat. I'm totally satisfied. After all it's the amount I've been eating plus or minus a couple hundred calories my whole life. I just think that my rather boring, very average under 2000 to maintain TDEE is probably pretty normal for a majority of people. The guy and I do absolutely encourage each other to go enjoy our separate hobbies though. One of the reasons I fell for him was his independent nature after all. exercise just isn't one of them at the moment lol.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions