Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Male Calories Capped at 1,500?



  • NovusDiesNovusDies Member, Premium Posts: 8,936 Member Member, Premium Posts: 8,936 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    So I've progressively lost weight, and my calorie 'allowance' hasn't changed from 1,500 for a while; I checked another calculator and it said it should be 1,350 for me - is there a cap on male allowance?

    So, how much weight have you lost over what period of time eating only 1500, which seems crazy low for a 6'3" man?

    Since really going for it, I've lost 1.5 stone so far this year.

    Assuming January 1st (160 days) you are losing about 1 pound a week. It is actually quite likely you are eating more than you think which in this case is a good thing.

    Hey, you stole what I was going to say! :smile:

    @maliciouspenguin, are you using a scale to weigh your food, and checking the database entries you use for accuracy?

    Yeah - also to add to my weight loss, it's only really kicked on the last two months where I've lost around stone in 2 months. I'm probably losing at 1-1.5lbs most weeks, sometimes more, sometimes less.

    I openly go over my allowance at times, and with eating back part of my exercise calories I know there's no chance of it being 100% accurate, but I've dropped from 231 to 207lbs so far :smile:

    I'd also like to add... I didn't mean to cause any controversy on the topic! I didn't realise asking about eating sub 1,500 (net) calories per day would generate so much (healthy!) debate.

    I really appreciate all your replies/insights/links, I've read and digested (pun intended) them all.

    If your eating varies from day to day you should probably be managing yourself on a weekly basis anyway. I eat less than 1500 calories some days but my 7 day average is almost always in a healthy range for my weight loss.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,771 Member Member Posts: 8,771 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    The Woo reaction has been a problem since it debuted. Here's what is is supposed to be used for:
    What does the woo reaction mean? Woo is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

    Well, that's just someone's opinion in a thread. The only official statement from MFP I've been able to find indicates Woo is a positive reaction.
    How do reactions work?
    Reactions allow members to quickly react in different ways to discussions or comments. The Reactions can be used to highlight interesting discussions, suppress abusive or spam comments, and create more nuanced reputation profiles. Users can receive badges for receiving positive Reactions such as “Like”, “Awesome,” "Insightful", "Inspiring", or "Woo".

    This also implies Woo is positive, since you supposedly can get in trouble for using it to support a post that violates MFP guidelines (like support a VLCD):
    Positive reactions were enabled with the intent to provide an additional positive element to the forums and should be used in a manner that supports our Community Guidelines.

    With that said, any “Like”, “Awesome,” "Insightful", "Inspiring", or "Woo" reaction that is used on a post that breaks our guidelines will be subjected to removal or a warning. It is not ok to promote posts that violate the guidelines and users that do so will be held accountable as well as the original poster.

    Edited to try to see the embedded quote I'm referring to.
    edited June 2019
  • SpadesheartSpadesheart Member Posts: 459 Member Member Posts: 459 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I did not woo Spadeheart, but I suspect the woos were because the post seemed to be encouraging a male poster to ignore the floor and to go ahead and eat only 1200 cal, which I think would be woo'able in that encouraging undereating or suggesting undereating is a good thing could be seen as contrary to the rules of the site and not a good health practice (if someone wrote "jump start your weight loss by eating 1000" I'd consider that woo for sure).

    To be clear, I don't think Spadeheart was actually encouraging such a practice, but wondering about whether 1200 was the real floor since it is possible to close the diary at 1200, but I've seen way weirder posts woo'd (should I bring up the last 5 posts I wrote that were woo'd?).

    I guess I don't get the point of shaking one's finger at some unknown people for hitting woo as if we didn't all get woos that don't seem to fit the technical definition all the time.

    Personally I think we should be able to see who gave the reactions we get.

    I mean, I'm not really shaking my finger at it, just accepting that people are often overly emotional and kind of silly. I maintain that excessive woo's on a post indicates an emotional reaction that the poster illicited by saying something that could be construed as controversial even if it isn't actually. It's the same kind of psychology that gets people to share inflammatory headlines from non legitimate sources on Facebook. They read something, don't really absorb it or think critically about it, and then react. And you're right, adding anonymity to this makes it so people react in petty or negative ways as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.