The 1200 calorie imperative.
Options
Replies
-
Please don't put this down to bone weight. Bones have a fairly low density, and adding a few cm^3 doesn't have a very big influence on body weight.
Smaller skeletal structure means less 'meat' needed to wrap around the bones. That's where weight differences come in. I have a narrow pelvis, maybe 34" at a sensible weight. There are many women my height who'd still be 36"+ when super underweight, a few probably much larger, because of wider pelvic spacing. At a similar perceived degree of fatness/thinness, and with other body parts of similar size, I'd be lighter in weight than those women would, because of the geometrically larger amount of meat (skin, muscle, tendons, fluid, etc.) that it takes to wrap around their wider hips. That's why "bones" matter, not the weight of the bones per se.
I have no idea what OP meant, but that's what's really involved in "big bones" leading to a higher desirable body weight, or "small bones" a lower one. If she's very petitely proportioned, as she says, a relatively lower body weight would be more appropriate for her, within the range of possible reasonable weights. (No opinion about the adequacy of specific weights reported.)7 -
Slowfaster wrote: »From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.
Thanks for checking out my diary, it's a little different right now due to some vacations, but yes I do seem to measure more than I weigh. That's because many of my regular foods were weighed in the beginning and later just matched with calories. For example my apples are always Kroger's "lunch box," galas. They are all small and around 50 calories so I just click the first fifty calorie apple in my list. I'm basically eating the very same things I ate ten months ago when I was losing 2 pounds a week so I don't think the total calories have changed that much.
I don't want you to think I'm sounding nitpicky here.... I just had a couple of thoughts on the bolded that could help you out. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you might buy your apples in a bag of similarly sized apples? Or at least pick out a few similarly sized apples at the store.
There is a discrepancy between the USDA calorie count for a small apple, and the Kroger Lunch Box Galas entry of about 30 calories. It may be helpful to cut the apple up and weigh each time before you consume it. (This way you are weighing exactly what you are consuming) And use a USDA per gram entry when you log. You might find you could be accidentally under-logging by using store and generic entries. (Such as the Kroger apples) 30 calories might not sound like much, but it could add up along with other things slowing your weight loss.
Also, let's just say you usually weigh the Arby's sandwich before you eat it. For the Arby's classic Roast Beef, I Pulled from their website, the sandwich is supposed to weigh 154g and be 360 calories. If it weighs say 164g before you eat it, how are you logging it? 164 grams while that sounds pretty close, is a difference of about 20 calories. ( 164/154= 1.06. 1.06*360= 381.6)
If you have enough little things like that through the day or week, it could add up to enough to slow down your rate of loss. Now, that's not to say 1/2 lb of loss a week is too slow. That's perfectly healthy. BUT if you find that you stall out like you have before, this could be a place to observe and see if you can find any areas for improvement. I don't believe anyone is calling you a liar. It's just that logging errors is such a common problem, it's usually what people try to weed out first.
8 -
Thanks Crafty_camp, I see what you're saying, but I think I tend to err on the other side of things. For example, my "favorites," list says the Kroger lunch box Gala is fifty calories and that's what I click each time, even though I don't weigh them but just pick out the smallest ones from the bin each time. Plus, since Dr. Oz did a whole show about insecticides -- apples being one of the worst things with the poison going down the core _- I cut my apples so that a very wide center section gets throw out.
With the Arby's sandwich (or any patented sandwich like the Whopper -- I don't weigh it myself, but go with what's listed and trust that if it's a little big one week, it might be a little small the next.
I rarely eat every last bite of anything -- that goes to my dog, yet I don't minus it off.
Bottom line is that since I eat the same group of foods every week, and this menu plan worked for me six months ago, it should average out the same now.
I really just think my metabolism has slowed down a little, adjusting to the smaller amount of calories it's been getting for the last ten months. That and the fact that I weigh less now, so I burn fewer calories.
AnnPT, Thanks for the small boned explanation, I never thought of the "meat wrapped around," bit, I was just told that bones and muscle were heavier than fat. When I was in a "normal" body-fat range I weighed around 110 and my measurements were 34-22-34. Even now at 167lbs my back and waist is much more narrow than many women my same weight. I just feel like I'm much "fatter," than my friends of similar weight who have broad shoulders and big calf muscles. It's like the difference between Venus Williams and Lucy Liu. Neither one is fat, neither one is overly skinny, they're just very different.8 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Thanks Crafty_camp, I see what you're saying, but I think I tend to err on the other side of things. For example, my "favorites," list says the Kroger lunch box Gala is fifty calories and that's what I click each time, even though I don't weigh them but just pick out the smallest ones from the bin each time. Plus, since Dr. Oz did a whole show about insecticides -- apples being one of the worst things with the poison going down the core _- I cut my apples so that a very wide center section gets throw out.
With the Arby's sandwich (or any patented sandwich like the Whopper -- I don't weigh it myself, but go with what's listed and trust that if it's a little big one week, it might be a little small the next.
I rarely eat every last bite of anything -- that goes to my dog, yet I don't minus it off.
Bottom line is that since I eat the same group of foods every week, and this menu plan worked for me six months ago, it should average out the same now.
I really just think my metabolism has slowed down a little, adjusting to the smaller amount of calories it's been getting for the last ten months. That and the fact that I weigh less now, so I burn fewer calories.
AnnPT, Thanks for the small boned explanation, I never thought of the "meat wrapped around," bit, I was just told that bones and muscle were heavier than fat. When I was in a "normal" body-fat range I weighed around 110 and my measurements were 34-22-34. Even now at 167lbs my back and waist is much more narrow than many women my same weight. I just feel like I'm much "fatter," than my friends of similar weight who have broad shoulders and big calf muscles. It's like the difference between Venus Williams and Lucy Liu. Neither one is fat, neither one is overly skinny, they're just very different.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid. Nutrition labels associated with any food product list the portion weight as the minimum it can possibly be. The actual weight of the portion will range from bang on to significantly higher than what's listed. But it will not be lower. You can give people more for "free," basically, but you cannot legally give them less food than what's stated on their nutrition label and that they're paying for.
The only accurate way to know how many calories are being consumed (especially important as you near your goal weight or if rate of loss slows down or stops) is to weigh everything you eat, using the gram values on nutrition labels as your guide.
When I eat out and can't weigh my burger and fries or whatever, I just add 10% to the stated calories to allot for this overage.
Also, please don't listen to Dr. Oz. The man is a quackadoodle of the highest order.
11 -
Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html12 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html
buy organic or peel your apples7 -
Quote: Not going to happen, I'm afraid. Nutrition labels associated with any food product list the portion weight as the minimum it can possibly be. The actual weight of the portion will range from bang on to significantly higher than what's listed. But it will not be lower. You can give people more for "free," basically, but you cannot legally give them less food than what's stated on their nutrition label and that they're paying for.
The only accurate way to know how many calories are being consumed (especially important as you near your goal weight or if rate of loss slows down or stops) is to weigh everything you eat, using the gram values on nutrition labels as your guide.
When I eat out and can't weigh my burger and fries or whatever, I just add 10% to the stated calories to allot for this overage.
Also, please don't listen to Dr. Oz. The man is a quackadoodle of the highest order.
[/quote]
Good case for measuring. Take bagels sold in a package. The package says 81 grams per serving. One bagel may weigh 89 grams and one may weigh 77 grams. But the total package has to equal the serving size times the number of units.
3 -
walking2running wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html
buy organic or peel your apples
Organic sometimes has more pesticide use (no one tests it nearly as much as conventional in these studies), not to mention organic pesticides tend to be less effecting and can have more of an impact on human health than their synthetic counterparts. Regardless, most produce be it conventional or organic is for the most part under the threshold where it should be. Buy organic if you like wasting money.9 -
Slowfaster wrote: »I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.
Sounds like you have a smart doctor and I like your suggested menu. My vegetarian son just brought home some almond milk!
A smart doctor would have referred their patient to a dietician. Telling someone to eat no more than 1000cal a day is seldom appropriate advice.7 -
Vaya!! es una interesantísima conversación, son todos personas muy al tanto del tema salud y peso corporal, y no me atrevo ni a postear casi porque a pesar de mis años recién comienzo a aprender de verdad... gracias a conversaciones como esta
La información cobra una importancia vital a la hora de revertir los hábitos alimenticios y la búsqueda de una mejor calidad de vida o vejez en mi caso...
Respecto del tema, y esto es pura experiencia, en los casi 8 meses que llevo en esta "odisea" de cambiar mis malos hábitos alimenticios y sedentarismo, he podido ir notando que cada cierto tiempo es bueno ir alterando o alternando, cada vez que cambio algo en mi dieta (saludable por cierto), vuelvo a perder peso como al principio, y claro en mi caso se ha dado porque al ir estudiando, leyendo e informándome he ido conociendo nuevas cosas, y al ponerlas en practica pues funcionan, al principio sólo seguí las instrucciones de mi nutricionista, la que el estado pone en mi barrio, y q sólo da instrucciones muy generales, así q al ojo no más comía por aquí y por allá, perdí peso bien con eso los 2 primeros meses, luego pareció parar el asunto, y me encontré con a dieta 3x1 de Metabolismo TV, conocí el veneno que son los carbohidratos refinados o procesados, así q los abandoné del todo, dejé la leche de vaca por ejemplo, empecé a perder peso de nuevo, volvió a parar el asunto, y conocí el Ayuno Intermitente y además conocí esto de las aplicaciones para controlar la ingesta diaria, volví a perder peso considerablemente, en casi 8 meses son poco más de 30 kilos menos (66 libras), irreconocible me dicen algunos.. fallo un poco (en este mes invernal terriblemente frio), un poco en ejercitarme, pero hoy descubrí los vídeos de Leslie Sansone's Walk at Home así q supongo q esto será lo nuevo en mi rutina q hará lo suyo. hasta q llegue de nuevo el sol y pueda volver a la piscina... parece q hay q ir alternando, cambiando, algo produce eso en el cuerpo con una buena respuesta. No sé cuántas calorías se queman o gastan con estos vídeos
pero bueno al menos me muevo harto con ellos
Gracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
2 -
Hola, Nory. Este foro es solamente inglés. Aquí están los foros de español: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/esGracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
6 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to post a reminder:
18. Please Post In English On The Main Forums
Because we need to ensure that our English-speaking moderator team can properly understand and evaluate all posts, we request that all posts on the Main Forums are made in English. If you wish to post in a different language, we encourage you to join a language-specific group.
At the bottom of the page, you can switch to a variety of languages: English, Danish, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, and Chinese Simplified and Traditional.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
With respect,
4legs
MFP moderator5 -
pismodiver wrote: »
Hola, Nory. Este foro es solamente inglés. Aquí están los foros de español: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/esGracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
@pismodiver I assume this directs to the spanish forum? Do you mind if I copy this for future use?2 -
Sure, of course. It says "Hello, Nory. This forum is English Only. Here are the Spanish forums:..."4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »pismodiver wrote: »
Hola, Nory. Este foro es solamente inglés. Aquí están los foros de español: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/esGracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
@pismodiver I assume this directs to the spanish forum? Do you mind if I copy this for future use?
3 -
pismodiver wrote: »
Sure, of course. It says "Hello, Nory. This forum is English Only. Here are the Spanish forums:..."4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »pismodiver wrote: »
Hola, Nory. Este foro es solamente inglés. Aquí están los foros de español: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/esGracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
@pismodiver I assume this directs to the spanish forum? Do you mind if I copy this for future use?
Just a suggestion: While I think what you did was a good and kind thing, it might unfortunately and somewhat bizarrely* put you afoul of the same rule (post only in English). When I recognize the non-English language someone is posting in on this forum, I will either just post the link to the appropriate language forum, or PM them if they started the thread (because those threads usually get taken down, so I want to be sure the poster sees the link).
*It's close to a catch 22 -- no way to tell explain the rules to someone in a way you can be sure they'll understand without breaking the rule yourself.
3 -
deleted
0 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Thanks Crafty_camp, I see what you're saying, but I think I tend to err on the other side of things. For example, my "favorites," list says the Kroger lunch box Gala is fifty calories and that's what I click each time, even though I don't weigh them but just pick out the smallest ones from the bin each time. Plus, since Dr. Oz did a whole show about insecticides -- apples being one of the worst things with the poison going down the core _- I cut my apples so that a very wide center section gets throw out.
With the Arby's sandwich (or any patented sandwich like the Whopper -- I don't weigh it myself, but go with what's listed and trust that if it's a little big one week, it might be a little small the next.
I am not sure why you are so opposed to weighing but let me make it very simple for you. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight. If you stop losing weight, diagnostically, the first place you look is at how much you are eating and the best way to verify the accuracy is by weighing your food. It doesn't matter if your eating practices are seemingly unchanged from six months ago.
I have no clue why you insist upon a more complicated answer to your problem before completely ruling out an easy one. Weighing your food takes no time once you get into the habit.
If your TV stops working you check to make sure it is plugged in before assuming a controller is burnt out. It doesn't matter if it was plugged in 6 months ago you rule the plug out as a possibility. This is how you diagnose a problem.16 -
So long as we're being condescending as well as patronizing let me make it even simpler for you. We eat out every day. We eat inside the restaurant. I am not going to take my scale to the restaurant with me, I am going to take the restaurant at their word so far as the calories in their food as listed on MFP. At home, I either weigh or measure depending on the food and how much difference it's likely to make. I have done that all along and it has worked for me for ten months. I know that taking my scale with me, taking my whopper apart and weighing the slice of tomato would be more accurate, but I am not willing to go that far. If I had to obsess about calories to the extent some of you seem to do I would quit dieting altogether because life is short and their really are other things.
You seem to think that my opening post asked why I stopped losing and that you have the answer with your theory that I'm somehow eating more calories now than I did ten months ago. I know myself better than that and if anything I'm eating less -- no longer finishing every bite, for example.
You do realize, don't you, that thousands of people manage to lose weight while not counting calories at all? They give up sugar, or they increase fat and limit carbs, or they start walking every day -- and they lose. Now you may say that it's because by giving up the sugar or whatever they have unconsciously lowered their total calories, but think how inaccurate that form of calorie counting would be by your 'weigh every morsel,' rule.
It may be considered blasphemy here but it really doesn't make that much difference over the long haul whether my apple is a small or medium. Aren't we usually trying for a 500 calorie per day deficit to lose at a safe rate? Doesn't it stand to reason that if we make mistakes and only average a 300 calorie deficit we will still lose weight, just a little slower? Doesn't it also stand to reason that if we are more casual with our statistics, we will under measure as often as we over measure? Perhaps listing a medium apple when we actually only ate a small?
You can even weigh every grain of salt and still not be able to predict whether you will lose or not because activity is very hard to measure accurately -- so hard that I don't even try.
If you spend your day either sitting at a desk or riding a stationary bike you may be able to come up with some fairly exact figures about calories burned, but most of us are far more variable than that. I have no MCL on my left knee so I must walk with a cane and can't do any sort of steady aerobic activity, even chair aerobics raises my blood pressure too much, but I do get activity every day. Yesterday, for example, I did a deep cleaning on my house, everything from pole dusting the lights, washing all the windows, polishing all sides of the furniture, cleaning the leather and microfiber, down to polishing the floors and cleaning the carpets. It was six hours of steady physical activity but I have no idea how many calories I burned and would not try to figure it out. Considering that, why do you think it really matters how many grams are in my apple when my "calories out" can vary by hundreds from one day to the next?
You see calorie counting is not as simple as plugging in a computer, your analogy really doesn't work.
However, that's not what I was asking with my opening post. My question was what people thought about eating below 1200 calories if one's age and/or activity level seemed to call for it. Only one or two posts have addressed that.
I think it's very interesting that one woman's doctor recommended 1000 calories for her. He knows her, her size, her needs, her medical history, her blood pressure, her thyroid numbers and her current risks from being over weight. That didn't keep some people from declaring him wrong even though they themselves have none of that information -- that's how they "diagnose a problem," but I think that doctor may know something we don't know.
The elephant in the room here is the blind obedience to the site's formulas used to set up calorie goals and the fanatic religious faith that the numbers will always hold true, for everyone, indefinitely. Those formulas and the information in the tutorials are good places to start, but they may not be effective forever for everyone. Some bodies do adjust to lower calories by slowing the metabolism. Some people who have dieted over long periods of time require very few calories to maintain weight and would gain weight if they ate according to those formulas.
22 -
Slowfaster wrote: »So long as we're being condescending as well as patronizing let me make it even simpler for you. We eat out every day. We eat inside the restaurant. I am not going to take my scale to the restaurant with me, I am going to take the restaurant at their word so far as the calories in their food as listed on MFP. At home, I either weigh or measure depending on the food and how much difference it's likely to make. I have done that all along and it has worked for me for ten months. I know that taking my scale with me, taking my whopper apart and weighing the slice of tomato would be more accurate, but I am not willing to go that far. If I had to obsess about calories to the extent some of you seem to do I would quit dieting altogether because life is short and their really are other things.
Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't make it false.
If you're at the point in your weight loss journey where you're at minimum calorie allowance(1200)
You have 2 options.
1. accept that you're not going to lose any more weight
2. tighten up your logging
The further along your journey, the less margin for error you have. 10 months ago, you had more weight to lose and thus a larger margin of error.
The fact that you choose to eat at a restaurant every day, indicates that you've made your choice. Enjoy your new maintenance weight.Slowfaster wrote: »I think it's very interesting that one woman's doctor recommended 1000 calories for her. He knows her, her size, her needs, her medical history, her blood pressure, her thyroid numbers and her current risks from being over weight. That didn't keep some people from declaring him wrong even though they themselves have none of that information -- that's how they "diagnose a problem," but I think that doctor may know something we don't know.
What he knows is that most people are *Kitten* at logging, and even at 1000 she's likely to be getting 12-1500 calories and enough nutrition for sustenance.
17 -
Slowfaster I want to support you. I am just shy of 70, started at 200 and at 1200 cal lost a the rate of about 1 lb a week. Now at 180 my 1200 cal will give me a loss of .7 a week, when I get to 170 it will be less than half a pound a week. for those people who say they would be STARVING and that 1200 is not substainable, the reality is that at my goal weight my maintenance calories are a whopping 1320----and that is still "overweight" So yes---at 1200 cal you have slowed down.
For the youngsters that are in their 60s or less, at 60 I started running and at 65 did 5Ks, trained my upper level dressage horse, biked and climbed. All it takes is a series of stupid injuries and major health issue to have you get the "not for sissies" idea.
To other youngins' The idea of taking your scale with you everywhere and weighing and scanning everything is what you are used to. I still need regular iPhone lessons to figure out how to get my messages and suri is not my best friend. Give those of us who are well aged a bit of a break!!!7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions