How do you do it?

Options
daisyfields79
daisyfields79 Posts: 69 Member
edited September 2017 in Health and Weight Loss
I know that losing anymore then 2 pounds a week is not good for you, so you should increase you calories. But but but For the most part I'm not hungry all the time annnnnnnd I love watching the numbers drop. How do you do it? How do you add calories to slow down what's needed to be done for so many years?

Replies

  • daisyfields79
    daisyfields79 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    I'm losing 4-8 pounds a weeks following the 2 pounds a week goal set on MFP. In 6 weeks I have lost 27.2 pounds and 2 of those weeks I did not lose anything. I am 273 pounds now.
  • LaReinaDeCorazones
    LaReinaDeCorazones Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    I'm losing 2-3 lbs a week, but I almost always have calories in the hundreds left over daily
  • A409302
    A409302 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    I've decided to eat when hungry only. I've lost 35 lbs in about a year. When I got to the point where it wouldn't come off, I cut back 300 calories and finally started back on losing weight. Do what works for you. I walk a lot. I am so happy to be back in my size 4! It took so long after gaining. I hope I never put the weight back on. It is hard work. Finally at goal so now want to maintain going forward. Good luck! Find your best point that works and stick with it. You're doing great!
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    For those of use who start out well above 200, the first rush of pounds falling off is often a lot of water. Things should slow down by themselves if you are eating at a deficit set to 1 or 2 pounds/week.
  • shaunshaikh
    shaunshaikh Posts: 616 Member
    Options
    For me, this is ultimately not just about losing weight but also being healthy and being able to sustain the weight loss for the rest of my life. From that stand point, I want to establish habits that make it easier to meet my goals without feeling like a chore or like I'm "dieting" in the traditional sense. With more severe deficits I think it would be hard to maintain that.

    From what you say, going over 2 lbs a week should be ok since 1% of your body weigh is near 3 lbs. as you get closer to your goal weight you'll find it is more difficult to shed the big numbers and the calories you're allocated keep going down down down
  • daisyfields79
    daisyfields79 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    Thank you all for the replies
  • kimberley1975mfp
    kimberley1975mfp Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    I started on April 28th and today hit the 50lb weight loss mark. 22lbs to get to my goal of 150lbs. Even though MFP said 1553 calorie intake I've stuck to 1200 the entire 19 weeks. Lost a lot like you starting out and the weight loss will slow naturally as you lose more and more so I wouldn't worry about. If you're doing ok with less than the recommended, it's fine. It worked for me and now MFP has me at 1200 now that I'm down 50lbs. All works out in the end :)
  • LiftHeavyThings27105
    LiftHeavyThings27105 Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    @daisyfields79 - It is really hard sometimes. But, if I might suggest, you have to trust the process.

    One concern that I have - and this applies to @kimberley1975mfp as well - is that if you continue to have such restricted caloric intake then your body adapts to that. And that ultimately puts you in a less than ideal position when it comes to health. Your body gets sooooooo used to the really low caloric intake - and I want to be very clear here that I am not judging anyone or chastising anyone at all with this comment so please do not view this post as 'just one more person telling someone else that they are wrong' - that it adapts down to that level.

    There is a concept out there that works really well, when applied in the right circumstances, for people who have found themselves | put themselves in a situation where they are at a rather low caloric intake level.....that concept is called a Reverse Diet.

    Now, this may or may not apply to your cases. i dont know the specifics so I am being rather general with this. It might be something worth investigating.

    Now, being at a low caloric intake level might not be a bad thing for a short period of time. 19 weeks is a long time! :smile:

    Just my general observation here (without any details with respect to stats....other than X amount of weight lost).
  • LiftHeavyThings27105
    LiftHeavyThings27105 Posts: 2,086 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    And, yes - I have implemented a Reverse Diet for many ladies.

    The latest was a 53yo lady who was 5'3 and weighed 200lbs. She was really at a low caloric intake level before she started working with me.....700 calories a day. Yes, that is what she was doing. Her BMR was 1,481 (or so). We - over the course of five or six weeks - took her up from 700 calories to 1,050 (I think that I have incorrectly stated 1,035 in other posts) and she was losing weight and experiencing massive amounts of energy (she had none when we started). We did not get to the part of exercise. So, all of this was strictly nutrition-based successes!

    So, just thinking out loud.......
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Options
    CWShultz27105 wrote: »
    And, yes - I have implemented a Reverse Diet for many ladies.

    The latest was a 53yo lady who was 5'3 and weighed 200lbs. She was really at a low caloric intake level before she started working with me.....700 calories a day. Yes, that is what she was doing. Her BMR was 1,481 (or so). We - over the course of five or six weeks - took her up from 700 calories to 1,050 (I think that I have incorrectly stated 1,035 in other posts) and she was losing weight and experiencing massive amounts of energy (she had none when we started). We did not get to the part of exercise. So, all of this was strictly nutrition-based successes!

    So, just thinking out loud.......

    And in what lifetime did you get awarded the Nobel Prize for defying physics?

Categories