Why eating too little calories is a bad idea.....
Replies
-
Another little old woman popping out of the woodwork.....
The kick back on the 1200 cals a lot of the time is that the original poster doesn't do full disclosure.
If I had posted at 54 (when I was losing), giving my stats as 5'1 and 130lbs and that I wasn't losing on 1200 plus eating my calories back I would have got help on how to count more accurately and how to figure out if my exercise calories were accurate.
If I had posted at 54, help I can't lose on 1200 cals, I would probably have got you are under eating etc etc.
The difference is-we assume that someone is of average height and at least over weight, unless we are informed otherwise.
Even I sometimes question someone of similar stats as mine (now 64) if they can't lose successfully on 1200 plus exercise cals and any medications are on point.
I have been maintaining since 2009 and my TDEE is somewhere around 1600 (that includes 5-8 hr of purposful activity a week). 1400-1450 without exercise, unless I put on my Ms Sloth mask.
So I am not an outlier, just a very average older woman. (5'1, 64yo, 100-105lbs)
NB: Not too sure of exact cals as I haven't counted consistently in years, I will have to do a couple of weeks counting soon just to see where I stand. I think it may be a bit higher now than my estimate.
Cheers, h.13 -
brianneangell08 wrote: »I am on my second start. my first, I lost no weight. Recalculated my TDEE to reflect the fact that yes, even though i work out a few times a week, I'm otherwise not that active--so its 1440 (I'm 5'1" and 125). . That puts me at 1200 to lose 1/2 lb a week. I'm going a bit under some days that I can have a nice meal out or two this week. My goal is to lose 5-8 pounds, but once I have a new 'set point' I'd really like build up enough muscle/get enough exercise that I can maintain on 1500. I know this seems low, but I am a 40 something short woman...
Yes! It's so frustrating for us shorties! My TDEE is only about 1510, so even 0.5 lb/week would mean a calorie intake of 1260 ... personally, I opt to eat at 1300 because any lower and I get cranky! The rate of loss is sooo frustratingly slow.
I think this is something that isn't acknowledged on MFP a lot.
Not everyone is tall (or even average height) and not everyone is able to or chooses to work out. For some, even a 0.5 lb a week deficit puts them at 1200-1300 calories a week. Not everyone eating at 1200-1300 calories is 'starving themselves' it's just what they have to eat in order to lose weight even at a very slow pace.
YES. I am 5'2' and I am weighing everything that goes in my mouth and I ride my bike (not that fast) an hour 4-5 times a week and do about 8000 steps. I am sitting at 1100 cals and confident in my logging and losing so SLOWLY.9 -
To clairify, I have never seen you three marvelous "little old ladies" act in the manner I am speaking about. The general response to I'm eating 1200 calories and barely losing is something very similar to and without mercy or tact, " you are logging wrong if you were only eating 1200 calories the weight would be falling off of you. I eat x amount plus all my exercise calories and I still lose so obviously you are doing it wrong". I get tough love I have two teenagers and I'm aware that the brutal truth must be expressed... once the facts are known. My poor mother (only poor because I'm dragging her all over the internet without her consent) as an example again: eating at 10% below tdee to lose she would be losing less than a pound of actual weight a month. Even on a trending app this could and probably would look like no loss at all for more than a month at a time, with water weight and hormones. And that is with such meticulous logging that she couldn't be off at all because 10% for her wouldn't even be 150 calories! Is it still a loss? Absolutely! Would it probably cause someone to feel frustrated and mad and end up on the forums saying they are barely losing or not at all? Probably so. If they do say this and get a resounding, "impossible you aren't counting you plebeian! I lose all the weight on 2000 calories so you are doing it wrong!" I can't imagine the frustration Dissipates and they feel better. Of course they should start with their stats so that people can better understand what is happening but as a new poster they probably won't. I'm really not sure why I got myself into this talk by the way because those who do the "I'm not being rude I'm being honest you idiot" routine on here are not going to change their approach because an internet human said it wasn't a helpful approach, and those of you I'm engaging with here are not those people anyway
. Also I can only hope to hit my 60s with the grace that the three of you have. I do enjoy reading your posts!
16 -
maggibailey wrote: »To clairify, I have never seen you three marvelous "little old ladies" act in the manner I am speaking about. The general response to I'm eating 1200 calories and barely losing is something very similar to and without mercy or tact, " you are logging wrong if you were only eating 1200 calories the weight would be falling off of you. I eat x amount plus all my exercise calories and I still lose so obviously you are doing it wrong". I get tough love I have two teenagers and I'm aware that the brutal truth must be expressed... once the facts are known. My poor mother (only poor because I'm dragging her all over the internet without her consent) as an example again: eating at 10% below tdee to lose she would be losing less than a pound of actual weight a month. Even on a trending app this could and probably would look like no loss at all for more than a month at a time, with water weight and hormones. And that is with such meticulous logging that she couldn't be off at all because 10% for her wouldn't even be 150 calories! Is it still a loss? Absolutely! Would it probably cause someone to feel frustrated and mad and end up on the forums saying they are barely losing or not at all? Probably so. If they do say this and get a resounding, "impossible you aren't counting you plebeian! I lose all the weight on 2000 calories so you are doing it wrong!" I can't imagine the frustration Dissipates and they feel better. Of course they should start with their stats so that people can better understand what is happening but as a new poster they probably won't. I'm really not sure why I got myself into this talk by the way because those who do the "I'm not being rude I'm being honest you idiot" routine on here are not going to change their approach because an internet human said it wasn't a helpful approach, and those of you I'm engaging with here are not those people anyway. Also I can only hope to hit my 60s with the grace that the three of you have. I do enjoy reading your posts!
Unfortunately things have a way of getting repeated to the point of becoming dogma on internet forums such as this. Yes, sometimes it is a case of inaccurate logging, but not always. I posted this on another thread yesterday, and will copy/pasta to save typing it all out again:I think MFP at large has a habit of developing some blinkered views. Things get said enough times, taken out of context and abbreviated, and people parrot a single line without actually really understanding. 'If you were eating at a deficit you'd be losing weight' is a classic example. What it should be is 'if you are eating at a deficit (and you've verified logging etc is on point), you should be losing fat, however that fat loss may be masked by unholy amounts of water weight from jacked up cortisol, and if you've been at a deficit for any amount of time you'll have some adaptive thermogenesis going on that will also impact your rate of fat loss'.
This is the nuance of plateaus/stalls that gets missed: fat loss hasn't stopped, but it can sure as hell be masked by water weight for a long-*kitten* time. In one of Lyle's podcasts he did a calculation that a woman could easily not see a scale loss for 10 weeks between hormonal weight fluctuations and cortisol-induced retention. So, plateau as in scale weight staying the same for weeks on end is real, plateau as in no fat loss for weeks on end (assuming actually at a deficit), not so much.
A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...
You (we) can't always jump to the conclusion that it's inaccurate logging, or that someone just really does need fewer calories, especially if that person had previously been losing just fine. I suspect a fair proportion of the MFP reader/postership never delve very far into the physiology of weight loss, beyond CICO and 3500 to lose a pound, and that's okay(ish), most people don't care how it works, so long as it does. But when it doesn't work, or appears to stop working, having a bit more of an understanding is infinitely helpful. It's also helpful to know what can (and often does) happen, even if it didn't happen to you, in order to help others. These following articles (short, easy to read and understand) are awesome, and there's a whole lot more where they came from for anyone who cares to read:
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/too-much-cardio-followup.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
(eta: site is currently down, but it'll be back)9 -
I am 84 and 5ft 3ins, I am eating 1200 cal's per day and slowly losing weight. My weight now is 157 lbs having lost 33 lbs since Jan'2nd. At my age I'd like to go down to 146 lbs. I sit for most of the day. If I can continue to lose weight on 1200 cal's I'd be more than happy.15
-
@maggibailey
I think using your poor mum as an example is confusing and throwing your thoughts on numbers out a bit.
Why?
Because, as you posted, she has a sedentary job, but active outside of work, is 65yo, 5'5, and 130 lbs. this gives her a BMI of 21.6. The chances of her wanting to lose weight are pretty slim.
Through my experience, when you do get down to that number in the BMI scale weight loss for almost any one would be less than 1lbs a month. It was for me.
Running her numbers, as you quoted, I get -
65yo, 5'5, 130lbs.
BMI 21.6
BMR 1126
TDEE 1561.
So 1211 would have her on .5 lbs a week loss. But she would have to log accurately.
Now, take your mum and add a little weight so she may really want to drop a few lbs.
65yo, 5'5, 160lbs
BMI 26.6
BMR 1272
TDEE 1748.
In this case, and she is only just over weight and at an acceptable weight for her age, with 1248 cals she could lose 1lbs a week (dropping to .5 after a few lbs lost)
You also have to take into account your poor mum has probably got a better than average muscle mass for her age as she is active outside of work so those numbers would be low for her.
This really can make a difference in ones personal BMR as one ages, as the lowering of BMR by calculators as one ages is predicated on the person being more sedentary, and therefore losing muscle mass.
I get between 150-200 cals more than expected because I have a higher, though not spectacular, lbm.
I used this calculator to come up with her numbers
http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Sorry about flogging this dead horse, I find it quite interesting.
Cheers, h.9 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »maggibailey wrote: »To clairify, I have never seen you three marvelous "little old ladies" act in the manner I am speaking about. The general response to I'm eating 1200 calories and barely losing is something very similar to and without mercy or tact, " you are logging wrong if you were only eating 1200 calories the weight would be falling off of you. I eat x amount plus all my exercise calories and I still lose so obviously you are doing it wrong". I get tough love I have two teenagers and I'm aware that the brutal truth must be expressed... once the facts are known. My poor mother (only poor because I'm dragging her all over the internet without her consent) as an example again: eating at 10% below tdee to lose she would be losing less than a pound of actual weight a month. Even on a trending app this could and probably would look like no loss at all for more than a month at a time, with water weight and hormones. And that is with such meticulous logging that she couldn't be off at all because 10% for her wouldn't even be 150 calories! Is it still a loss? Absolutely! Would it probably cause someone to feel frustrated and mad and end up on the forums saying they are barely losing or not at all? Probably so. If they do say this and get a resounding, "impossible you aren't counting you plebeian! I lose all the weight on 2000 calories so you are doing it wrong!" I can't imagine the frustration Dissipates and they feel better. Of course they should start with their stats so that people can better understand what is happening but as a new poster they probably won't. I'm really not sure why I got myself into this talk by the way because those who do the "I'm not being rude I'm being honest you idiot" routine on here are not going to change their approach because an internet human said it wasn't a helpful approach, and those of you I'm engaging with here are not those people anyway. Also I can only hope to hit my 60s with the grace that the three of you have. I do enjoy reading your posts!
Unfortunately things have a way of getting repeated to the point of becoming dogma on internet forums such as this. Yes, sometimes it is a case of inaccurate logging, but not always. I posted this on another thread yesterday, and will copy/pasta to save typing it all out again:I think MFP at large has a habit of developing some blinkered views. Things get said enough times, taken out of context and abbreviated, and people parrot a single line without actually really understanding. 'If you were eating at a deficit you'd be losing weight' is a classic example. What it should be is 'if you are eating at a deficit (and you've verified logging etc is on point), you should be losing fat, however that fat loss may be masked by unholy amounts of water weight from jacked up cortisol, and if you've been at a deficit for any amount of time you'll have some adaptive thermogenesis going on that will also impact your rate of fat loss'.
This is the nuance of plateaus/stalls that gets missed: fat loss hasn't stopped, but it can sure as hell be masked by water weight for a long-*kitten* time. In one of Lyle's podcasts he did a calculation that a woman could easily not see a scale loss for 10 weeks between hormonal weight fluctuations and cortisol-induced retention. So, plateau as in scale weight staying the same for weeks on end is real, plateau as in no fat loss for weeks on end (assuming actually at a deficit), not so much.
A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...
You (we) can't always jump to the conclusion that it's inaccurate logging, or that someone just really does need fewer calories, especially if that person had previously been losing just fine. I suspect a fair proportion of the MFP reader/postership never delve very far into the physiology of weight loss, beyond CICO and 3500 to lose a pound, and that's okay(ish), most people don't care how it works, so long as it does. But when it doesn't work, or appears to stop working, having a bit more of an understanding is infinitely helpful. It's also helpful to know what can (and often does) happen, even if it didn't happen to you, in order to help others. These following articles (short, easy to read and understand) are awesome, and there's a whole lot more where they came from for anyone who cares to read:
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/too-much-cardio-followup.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
(eta: site is currently down, but it'll be back)
Absolutely.
An, even beyond these solid truths you've posted, another thing I sometimes point out: Logic suggests that the people who fall on the "below average" side of the NEAT/TDEE curves are disproportionately likely to post here saying "help, I can't lose weight!". (They're not the only people who post that, of course.)
Way too many people think the calorie needs 'calculators' - like the one built into MFP - calculate, when what they actually do is estimate, using the assumption that you're average for your demographics. Most of us are close to average (this particular bell curve curve is tall & narrow - small standard deviation). But a very few people can be quite far from average, in either direction - say, 1 in 20 or so.
On that basis alone, it makes me very angry to see people immediately insisting that some random stranger is lying or delusional (not even just mistaken) when they say they're not losing weight on the "calculated" calorie goal.8 -
To be fair, there are normally "tells" in posts that make it apparent that someone is carefully tracking and is therefore likely to be an outlier.
I have been in threads and seen this happen and seen it acknowledged.
There are also tells that make it apparent that people are not fully aware of the process, the numbers, and are not taking everything properly into account, and it's pretty frustrating trying to deal with the constant refrain that those of us telling them that they are putting themselves through unnecessary misery are being mean to them. I doubt most of them are outliers.
12 -
i had previously used MFP to determine caloric amounts to lose weight, and it also put me at 1200. this is a hard number to maintain, but recently joined a macronutrient program, and eat 1900 calories...losing 33 in 11 weeks, and the amount is attainable and manageable. I know they say less is more...but in my case, eating more made me less!!12
-
tracymegan wrote: »i had previously used MFP to determine caloric amounts to lose weight, and it also put me at 1200. this is a hard number to maintain, but recently joined a macronutrient program, and eat 1900 calories...losing 33 in 11 weeks, and the amount is attainable and manageable. I know they say less is more...but in my case, eating more made me less!!
For many people, increasing calories to lose increases their incidental movement, thus increasing their total daily energy expenditure.
Saying that...
I'm not sure how all the parts of your story are adding up, especially since this post has you losing at 3 pounds a week and you mentioned losing 2 pounds a week in another thread.
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To be fair, there are normally "tells" in posts that make it apparent that someone is carefully tracking and is therefore likely to be an outlier.
I have been in threads and seen this happen and seen it acknowledged.
There are also tells that make it apparent thatj people are not fully aware of the process, the numbers, and are not taking everything properly into account, and it's pretty frustrating trying to deal with the constant refrain that those of us telling them that they are putting themselves through unnecessary misery are being mean to them. I doubt most of them are outliers.
I also doubt most of them are outliers. IMO, most of them (nearly all) are in some way misunderstanding, miscalculating, mismeasuring, or otherwise mistaken.
I'm talking mostly about the assumptions and tone of some counter-posters - often not themselves very insightful about the process - who sometimes appear in sufficient numbers that it feels like a flock of chickens all pecking at one with blood on its wing.
Disbelief does not require a posture that immediately fully reveals itself. Implicitly treating someone as a liar or delusional is rarely the most effective communication strategy. Compassion and empathy are almost always a good thing. One gives the delusional person a conceptual way out that lets them preserve face, dignity, ego. Tough love doesn't dispense with compassion; it requires it.
Just my opinions.
17 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »maggibailey wrote: »To clairify, I have never seen you three marvelous "little old ladies" act in the manner I am speaking about. The general response to I'm eating 1200 calories and barely losing is something very similar to and without mercy or tact, " you are logging wrong if you were only eating 1200 calories the weight would be falling off of you. I eat x amount plus all my exercise calories and I still lose so obviously you are doing it wrong". I get tough love I have two teenagers and I'm aware that the brutal truth must be expressed... once the facts are known. My poor mother (only poor because I'm dragging her all over the internet without her consent) as an example again: eating at 10% below tdee to lose she would be losing less than a pound of actual weight a month. Even on a trending app this could and probably would look like no loss at all for more than a month at a time, with water weight and hormones. And that is with such meticulous logging that she couldn't be off at all because 10% for her wouldn't even be 150 calories! Is it still a loss? Absolutely! Would it probably cause someone to feel frustrated and mad and end up on the forums saying they are barely losing or not at all? Probably so. If they do say this and get a resounding, "impossible you aren't counting you plebeian! I lose all the weight on 2000 calories so you are doing it wrong!" I can't imagine the frustration Dissipates and they feel better. Of course they should start with their stats so that people can better understand what is happening but as a new poster they probably won't. I'm really not sure why I got myself into this talk by the way because those who do the "I'm not being rude I'm being honest you idiot" routine on here are not going to change their approach because an internet human said it wasn't a helpful approach, and those of you I'm engaging with here are not those people anyway. Also I can only hope to hit my 60s with the grace that the three of you have. I do enjoy reading your posts!
Unfortunately things have a way of getting repeated to the point of becoming dogma on internet forums such as this. Yes, sometimes it is a case of inaccurate logging, but not always. I posted this on another thread yesterday, and will copy/pasta to save typing it all out again:I think MFP at large has a habit of developing some blinkered views. Things get said enough times, taken out of context and abbreviated, and people parrot a single line without actually really understanding. 'If you were eating at a deficit you'd be losing weight' is a classic example. What it should be is 'if you are eating at a deficit (and you've verified logging etc is on point), you should be losing fat, however that fat loss may be masked by unholy amounts of water weight from jacked up cortisol, and if you've been at a deficit for any amount of time you'll have some adaptive thermogenesis going on that will also impact your rate of fat loss'.
This is the nuance of plateaus/stalls that gets missed: fat loss hasn't stopped, but it can sure as hell be masked by water weight for a long-*kitten* time. In one of Lyle's podcasts he did a calculation that a woman could easily not see a scale loss for 10 weeks between hormonal weight fluctuations and cortisol-induced retention. So, plateau as in scale weight staying the same for weeks on end is real, plateau as in no fat loss for weeks on end (assuming actually at a deficit), not so much.
A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...
You (we) can't always jump to the conclusion that it's inaccurate logging, or that someone just really does need fewer calories, especially if that person had previously been losing just fine. I suspect a fair proportion of the MFP reader/postership never delve very far into the physiology of weight loss, beyond CICO and 3500 to lose a pound, and that's okay(ish), most people don't care how it works, so long as it does. But when it doesn't work, or appears to stop working, having a bit more of an understanding is infinitely helpful. It's also helpful to know what can (and often does) happen, even if it didn't happen to you, in order to help others. These following articles (short, easy to read and understand) are awesome, and there's a whole lot more where they came from for anyone who cares to read:
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/too-much-cardio-followup.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
(eta: site is currently down, but it'll be back)
Absolutely.
An, even beyond these solid truths you've posted, another thing I sometimes point out: Logic suggests that the people who fall on the "below average" side of the NEAT/TDEE curves are disproportionately likely to post here saying "help, I can't lose weight!". (They're not the only people who post that, of course.)
Way too many people think the calorie needs 'calculators' - like the one built into MFP - calculate, when what they actually do is estimate, using the assumption that you're average for your demographics. Most of us are close to average (this particular bell curve curve is tall & narrow - small standard deviation). But a very few people can be quite far from average, in either direction - say, 1 in 20 or so.
On that basis alone, it makes me very angry to see people immediately insisting that some random stranger is lying or delusional (not even just mistaken) when they say they're not losing weight on the "calculated" calorie goal.
Well I think I may adore both of you! I have just been using my mother as an example because lots of people on the site are like me, not obese or even overweight . So the weight is slow even for someone like me who has a little wiggle room because of my height and age. I used my mom as an example of someone who would not have the luxury of that wiggle room and even with perfect logging would likely see little scale change. The tdee calculator I used only gave her 1450 I believe for tdee, so the one you plugged her into was more generous. But yes it's the instant "oh you are a liar!" That makes me crazy and hurts my heart for people who are genuinely seeking advice. I think some long time posters have heard the question so many times that they are just a little crabby. And in that case I honestly think they should stop reading those threads and stop answering those questions for a bit. I work in customer service and I teach all of my team that 30 guests may approach you with the same issue, but for each guest you are the first person they are asking. We need to treat each of them with the same level of grace and kindness regardless of how we feel.16 -
I used to manage an IT help desk.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To be fair, there are normally "tells" in posts that make it apparent that someone is carefully tracking and is therefore likely to be an outlier.
I have been in threads and seen this happen and seen it acknowledged.
There are also tells that make it apparent thatj people are not fully aware of the process, the numbers, and are not taking everything properly into account, and it's pretty frustrating trying to deal with the constant refrain that those of us telling them that they are putting themselves through unnecessary misery are being mean to them. I doubt most of them are outliers.
I also doubt most of them are outliers. IMO, most of them (nearly all) are in some way misunderstanding, miscalculating, mismeasuring, or otherwise mistaken.
I'm talking mostly about the assumptions and tone of some counter-posters - often not themselves very insightful about the process - who sometimes appear in sufficient numbers that it feels like a flock of chickens all pecking at one with blood on its wing.
Disbelief does not require a posture that immediately fully reveals itself. Implicitly treating someone as a liar or delusional is rarely the most effective communication strategy. Compassion and empathy are almost always a good thing. One gives the delusional person a conceptual way out that lets them preserve face, dignity, ego. Tough love doesn't dispense with compassion; it requires it.
Just my opinions.
Ah, yes. The one or two line fly by posters. They aren't very helpful, I'll agree.
However, I have seen seasoned posters try to explain, with compassion, and in depth, to people who are undereating what they could do to make themselves less miserable, and those are the targets replies are usually directed to in the mean people game.
7 -
Congrats on this post making the stickies!5
-
Congratulations @tinkerbellang833
-
Thanks @diannethegeek @GottaBurnEmAll1
-
Bump3
-
9 -
Don't let it be your goal for the new year to make yourself miserable by starving yourself 6
-
Congrats on sticky- dom @tinkerbellang833
-
^1
-
Bump2
-
So help me out guys. I'm 5 foot 5 inches 170lb. I get to eat 1300 a day. I have my fitbit hooked up and I usually will get 100 to 300 calories more to eat a day. I always eat my calories back. I am still feeling hungrey. What am I doing wrong. Look at my diary please.0
-
1 -
gerbradaisy44 wrote: »So help me out guys. I'm 5 foot 5 inches 170lb. I get to eat 1300 a day. I have my fitbit hooked up and I usually will get 100 to 300 calories more to eat a day. I always eat my calories back. I am still feeling hungrey. What am I doing wrong. Look at my diary please.
Couldn’t access your diary as it’s locked but I’d suggest the usual suspects:-
1. Play around with your macros to find a balance that satisfies you. Personally I feel full on high protein.
2. Eat high fibre foods that fill you up.
3. Learn to accept that you are aiming for the “not starving” feeling and probably won’t feel the “absolutely stuffed” feeling. Most of us need to re-learn what satiation feels like.
13 -
gerbradaisy44 wrote: »So help me out guys. I'm 5 foot 5 inches 170lb. I get to eat 1300 a day. I have my fitbit hooked up and I usually will get 100 to 300 calories more to eat a day. I always eat my calories back. I am still feeling hungrey. What am I doing wrong. Look at my diary please.
What @GrumpyHeadmistress said but also consider whether you would find it more sustainable to lose slower, you could aim for a slightly slower loss which would give you more calories per day.6 -
gerbradaisy44 wrote: »So help me out guys. I'm 5 foot 5 inches 170lb. I get to eat 1300 a day. I have my fitbit hooked up and I usually will get 100 to 300 calories more to eat a day. I always eat my calories back. I am still feeling hungrey. What am I doing wrong. Look at my diary please.
You also need to consider if you're reading your body's signals correctly. Mine are completely messed up after years of overeating. Two culprits that are often misdiagnosed as hunger are thirst and sugar withdrawal. So for the thirst one try a big glass of water and see if you still feel hungry after. In terms of sugar withdrawal I think it's just a case of riding it out and your body will get used to the new sugar levels.3 -
gerbradaisy44 wrote: »So help me out guys. I'm 5 foot 5 inches 170lb. I get to eat 1300 a day. I have my fitbit hooked up and I usually will get 100 to 300 calories more to eat a day. I always eat my calories back. I am still feeling hungrey. What am I doing wrong. Look at my diary please.
I think people have given good advice. I'll add:
Pay attention to when you are hungry -- is it shortly before a meal? Don't worry about it. Is it constantly through the day? Change food choices or meal times. Are you still hungry after a meal (or wanting to eat afterwards -- sometimes that's confusing)? Think about volume.
Food choices -- pay attention to whether you are more or less hungry in a particular day. If so, eat more like the day you were less hungry. Things to try: increase protein, increase fiber, increase volume (more vegetables, less high cal/small serving things like oil), decrease refined carbs and high cal extras (so-called junk food, added oil, added cheese, croutons -- all fine, but often a smaller portion works). Some people find that more fat helps, some find it does not, so this is worth experimenting with.
Meal times -- are you hungry in the evening before bed? Consider saving calories for later. Are you snacking and also feeling hungry between meals and unsatisfied with them? Some find they feel more satisfied and less hungry if they eat only at meals (and so have larger meals). Are you hungry for breakfast? If not, maybe wait until later to eat. Does eating breakfast tend to make you more or less hungry? Stuff like that.5 -
I have gone through starvation periods during Crohn's flares. Not fun. Had skipped periods, was dizzy, confused, and my hair did start falling out. Even after eating it continued to fall out for a month or so. I got to the point that a bad flare up meant I was chopping off my hair when I got out of the hospital. The first time was heartbreaking. I was 16, had hair halfway down my back, and a few weeks after I was home from the hospital it was coming out in handfuls. Not sure there is any weight loss goal worth that.9
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
- 96.3K 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