Really struggling with extreme hunger
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »when you say eating roughly 3000-3500cal a day - were you actually logging to establish a baseline?
That's what it says in the OP.4 -
Sorry I apologize I stopped reading when you said you stopped exercising because you were too hungry!
The basic equation is your have to reduce your required intake by a little bit (LITTLE BIT) to lose weight that mostly consists of fat in a slow and fairly sustainable fashion.
If you were maintaining at 6 million calories, you would need to eat 5,999,750 Calories to lose on average and over the long term approximately half a pound a week (or 25 lb in a year). And you would need to eat 5,999,500 Calories a day to lose on average and over the long term approximately a pound a week (or 50lbs in a year).
While continuing to do everything that you normally do.
And feeling good about yourself.
And suffering less rebound hunger and side effects.
You did the right thing and measured your intake before starting to lose.
Why disregard good input that is relevant to you for some off-the-wall general equation that applies to vast numbers of people and only by approximation to yourself?
Please go back to a period of maintenance, and then start up again, and re-evaluate your goals especially if from what I've gathered you're not even overweight!
One of the *kittens why can't they just see it" mistakes I see younger people making is unnecessary hard and restrictive eating early on in life which sometimes lead to problems for many years afterwards.
And what's even worse and more disappointing is that perfectly normal weight people end up in multi year spirals of weight loss and regain spurred by fleeting events such as a friend's wedding or a sun destination holiday. All by dieting way harder than necessary...16 -
Sorry I apologize I stopped reading when you said you stopped exercising because you were too hungry!
The basic equation is your have to reduce your required intake by a little bit (LITTLE BIT) to lose weight that mostly consists of fat in a slow and fairly sustainable fashion.
If you were maintaining at 6 million calories, you would need to eat 5,999,750 Calories to lose on average and over the long term approximately half a pound a week (or 25 lb in a year). And you would need to eat 5,999,500 Calories a day to lose on average and over the long term approximately a pound a week (or 50lbs in a year).
While continuing to do everything that you normally do.
And feeling good about yourself.
And suffering less rebound hunger and side effects.
You did the right thing and measured your intake before starting to lose.
Why disregard good input that is relevant to you for some off-the-wall general equation that applies to vast numbers of people and only by approximation to yourself?
Please go back to a period of maintenance, and then start up again, and re-evaluate your goals especially if from what I've gathered you're not even overweight!
One of the *kittens why can't they just see it" mistakes I see younger people making is unnecessary hard and restrictive eating early on in life which sometimes lead to problems for many years afterwards.
well, wiz..... I would agree. I cut very aggressively, serious rebound hunger that's only starting to abate some after an almost 20lbs weight regain, (intentional btw) Also do and don't agree with listen to your body. Something is wrong and your body is telling you something, but a binge will do nothing. So... yeah, listen, but don't3 -
Sorry I apologize I stopped reading when you said you stopped exercising because you were too hungry!
The basic equation is your have to reduce your required intake by a little bit (LITTLE BIT) to lose weight that mostly consists of fat in a slow and fairly sustainable fashion.
If you were maintaining at 6 million calories, you would need to eat 5,999,750 Calories to lose on average and over the long term approximately half a pound a week (or 25 lb in a year). And you would need to eat 5,999,500 Calories a day to lose on average and over the long term approximately a pound a week (or 50lbs in a year).
While continuing to do everything that you normally do.
And feeling good about yourself.
And suffering less rebound hunger and side effects.
You did the right thing and measured your intake before starting to lose.
Why disregard good input that is relevant to you for some off-the-wall general equation that applies to vast numbers of people and only by approximation to yourself?
Please go back to a period of maintenance, and then start up again, and re-evaluate your goals especially if from what I've gathered you're not even overweight!
One of the *kittens why can't they just see it" mistakes I see younger people making is unnecessary hard and restrictive eating early on in life which sometimes lead to problems for many years afterwards.
And what's even worse and more disappointing is that perfectly normal weight people end up in multi year spirals of weight loss and regain spurred by fleeting events such as a friend's wedding or a sun destination holiday. All by dieting way harder than necessary...
The bolded, fershure, and if one does it lots of times - especially if combined with lowball protein and exclusively near-pure cardio during loss phases - one side effect is likely to be incrementally worse body comp, and gradually lower TDEE, round by round and year by year. Very slight effects, but cumulative, and complemeted by gradually dropping NEAT as activity gets more daunting with poorer body comp.
I see it in my demographic (60s, female, lived through Twiggy era).
Granny sez: Don't do it, kids!11 -
Sorry I apologize I stopped reading when you said you stopped exercising because you were too hungry!
The basic equation is your have to reduce your required intake by a little bit (LITTLE BIT) to lose weight that mostly consists of fat in a slow and fairly sustainable fashion.
If you were maintaining at 6 million calories, you would need to eat 5,999,750 Calories to lose on average and over the long term approximately half a pound a week (or 25 lb in a year). And you would need to eat 5,999,500 Calories a day to lose on average and over the long term approximately a pound a week (or 50lbs in a year).
While continuing to do everything that you normally do.
And feeling good about yourself.
And suffering less rebound hunger and side effects.
You did the right thing and measured your intake before starting to lose.
Why disregard good input that is relevant to you for some off-the-wall general equation that applies to vast numbers of people and only by approximation to yourself?
Please go back to a period of maintenance, and then start up again, and re-evaluate your goals especially if from what I've gathered you're not even overweight!
One of the *kittens why can't they just see it" mistakes I see younger people making is unnecessary hard and restrictive eating early on in life which sometimes lead to problems for many years afterwards.
And what's even worse and more disappointing is that perfectly normal weight people end up in multi year spirals of weight loss and regain spurred by fleeting events such as a friend's wedding or a sun destination holiday. All by dieting way harder than necessary...
If you go strictly by the “rules”, you are not overweight. (In the healthy BMI range).
If you go strictly by the “rules”, you should cut 250 calories a day to lose weight (or less).
In other words, yes, you cut calories so much that your BODY is asking for nourishment.
6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »mentallyinmaldives wrote: »Above all else, "Listen to your body". If you're hungry all the time, then something isn't right. Common sense says one of two things could be off: The number of daily calories, and/or the macro mix. There's sometimes a 3rd element, psychological, that is, getting used to diet-sized portions of food wherein your brain learns to process hunger signals differently and you kinda learn to ignore or tolerate them and then they diminish, but let's focus on calories and macros here.
You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished.
If it were me, I would try to establish a comfortable baseline I can then work from and fine tune, entailing a bit more food than the 2000 that we know isn't working, and with a different macro mix. Something like 2200 cals and more carbs. For a few weeks. To see if it works. Your body isn't going anywhere. You can revisit it any time and make further changes.
Low carb, high protein fat does not work for everyone. It works for a lot of people but not everyone. I once mentioned on MFP that I'm doing 35-35-30 carb-fat-protein and there were a lot of people saying they were doing the same -- that's the traditional "balanced" or almost the Zone approach that isn't in high style right now but gets the job done for a lot of people, just basically balanced eating with no particular bias as far as carbs vs fat/protein is concerned. Not saying it's right for you, but maybe you need something more along those lines to feel satisfied. Why don't you try 2200 or perhaps 2300 calories per day with more emphasis on carbs for a few weeks and take it from there. It's really useful to iron out the calorie level and types of foods needed to feel content while dieting, it'll be a useful process for you, I think.
Good luck.
I probably have a higher metabolism than you. In fact I’m sure I do. No need to be angry and disagree ❤️
I don't see anything in igfrie's post (or anyone else's for that matter) that in anyway questions your metabolism or how many calories you're burning. If anything, you're the one on this thread who doesn't seem to believe in what your logging is telling you about your metabolism, since you're questioning whether you could really be on a cut at 500 to 1300 calories below what your logging days your maintenance is.
If you're experiencing extreme hunger, eliminating exercise to try to avoid hunger, and your logging says you're in a deep deficit, all the evidence points to increasing your calories, as igfrie and pretty much everyone else on the thread suggested.
Gotta say, I took his "You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished." as questioning her calorie needs.
Other than that, I agree with you.
And I don't understand why OP seems to be questioning her "metabolism" (by setting a lower calorie goal than results would suggest) but questioning his doing the same.
Whatevs, I guess.
5 -
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »mentallyinmaldives wrote: »Above all else, "Listen to your body". If you're hungry all the time, then something isn't right. Common sense says one of two things could be off: The number of daily calories, and/or the macro mix. There's sometimes a 3rd element, psychological, that is, getting used to diet-sized portions of food wherein your brain learns to process hunger signals differently and you kinda learn to ignore or tolerate them and then they diminish, but let's focus on calories and macros here.
You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished.
If it were me, I would try to establish a comfortable baseline I can then work from and fine tune, entailing a bit more food than the 2000 that we know isn't working, and with a different macro mix. Something like 2200 cals and more carbs. For a few weeks. To see if it works. Your body isn't going anywhere. You can revisit it any time and make further changes.
Low carb, high protein fat does not work for everyone. It works for a lot of people but not everyone. I once mentioned on MFP that I'm doing 35-35-30 carb-fat-protein and there were a lot of people saying they were doing the same -- that's the traditional "balanced" or almost the Zone approach that isn't in high style right now but gets the job done for a lot of people, just basically balanced eating with no particular bias as far as carbs vs fat/protein is concerned. Not saying it's right for you, but maybe you need something more along those lines to feel satisfied. Why don't you try 2200 or perhaps 2300 calories per day with more emphasis on carbs for a few weeks and take it from there. It's really useful to iron out the calorie level and types of foods needed to feel content while dieting, it'll be a useful process for you, I think.
Good luck.
I probably have a higher metabolism than you. In fact I’m sure I do. No need to be angry and disagree ❤️
I don't see anything in igfrie's post (or anyone else's for that matter) that in anyway questions your metabolism or how many calories you're burning. If anything, you're the one on this thread who doesn't seem to believe in what your logging is telling you about your metabolism, since you're questioning whether you could really be on a cut at 500 to 1300 calories below what your logging days your maintenance is.
If you're experiencing extreme hunger, eliminating exercise to try to avoid hunger, and your logging says you're in a deep deficit, all the evidence points to increasing your calories, as igfrie and pretty much everyone else on the thread suggested.
Gotta say, I took his "You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished." as questioning her calorie needs.
Other than that, I agree with you.
And I don't understand why OP seems to be questioning her "metabolism" (by setting a lower calorie goal than results would suggest) but questioning his doing the same.
Whatevs, I guess.
concur - mostly becuase i weight less than and maintain comfortable only 2900 a day - so yeah, i get epically cranky on 1800-2000cal a day - its why i only do a fat loss cut once a year3 -
Gotta say, I took his "You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished." as questioning her calorie needs.
Whatevs, I guess.
The OP, not me, is questioning her own calorie needs; indeed, that was the point of her post. What I was questioning was what she should do about the fact that she is so hungry on 2,000 calories. My suggestions were: eat more food, and think about changing up the macros, since low carb doesn't suit everyone.
If I was at calorie level X, whatever the X is, and I was "starving", I would: (a) increase my calories to something like X+300 and see how it goes, and (b) take a look at my food and macros and think about changing it up. Which is exactly what I suggested doing.
4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »when you say eating roughly 3000-3500cal a day - were you actually logging to establish a baseline?
I logged for 6-8 months. So yes
2 -
mentallyinmaldives wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »when you say eating roughly 3000-3500cal a day - were you actually logging to establish a baseline?
I logged for 6-8 months. So yes
So what is holding you back from believing your own data? If you maintained at OVER 3K a day, then you would LOSE AT 3K a day.
Why go to 2K a day when already at a normal weight? And impact your activity and strength?
You attest to the validity of your previous logging whenever it is mentioned. But you don't seem ready to discuss re-evaluating the size of the deficit you have chosen. Nor do you seem willing to re-evaluate your current goals. Nor do you bring up any concerns you may have over changing your approach.
So what are your plans?
14 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »mentallyinmaldives wrote: »Above all else, "Listen to your body". If you're hungry all the time, then something isn't right. Common sense says one of two things could be off: The number of daily calories, and/or the macro mix. There's sometimes a 3rd element, psychological, that is, getting used to diet-sized portions of food wherein your brain learns to process hunger signals differently and you kinda learn to ignore or tolerate them and then they diminish, but let's focus on calories and macros here.
You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished.
If it were me, I would try to establish a comfortable baseline I can then work from and fine tune, entailing a bit more food than the 2000 that we know isn't working, and with a different macro mix. Something like 2200 cals and more carbs. For a few weeks. To see if it works. Your body isn't going anywhere. You can revisit it any time and make further changes.
Low carb, high protein fat does not work for everyone. It works for a lot of people but not everyone. I once mentioned on MFP that I'm doing 35-35-30 carb-fat-protein and there were a lot of people saying they were doing the same -- that's the traditional "balanced" or almost the Zone approach that isn't in high style right now but gets the job done for a lot of people, just basically balanced eating with no particular bias as far as carbs vs fat/protein is concerned. Not saying it's right for you, but maybe you need something more along those lines to feel satisfied. Why don't you try 2200 or perhaps 2300 calories per day with more emphasis on carbs for a few weeks and take it from there. It's really useful to iron out the calorie level and types of foods needed to feel content while dieting, it'll be a useful process for you, I think.
Good luck.
I probably have a higher metabolism than you. In fact I’m sure I do. No need to be angry and disagree ❤️
I don't see anything in igfrie's post (or anyone else's for that matter) that in anyway questions your metabolism or how many calories you're burning. If anything, you're the one on this thread who doesn't seem to believe in what your logging is telling you about your metabolism, since you're questioning whether you could really be on a cut at 500 to 1300 calories below what your logging days your maintenance is.
If you're experiencing extreme hunger, eliminating exercise to try to avoid hunger, and your logging says you're in a deep deficit, all the evidence points to increasing your calories, as igfrie and pretty much everyone else on the thread suggested.
Gotta say, I took his "You shouldn't be starving on 2,000. I eat less than 2k calories and am gigantically huger than you. I'm hungry sometimes, of course--it's a diet, after all--but not ravenously famished." as questioning her calorie needs.
Other than that, I agree with you.
And I don't understand why OP seems to be questioning her "metabolism" (by setting a lower calorie goal than results would suggest) but questioning his doing the same.
Whatevs, I guess.
Fair enough. I guess I read that colored by the advice to eat more, and didn't take it as questioning her calorie needs (because if someone thinks she doesn't really need the calories, why would they tell her to eat more?). But just looking at that paragraph in isolation, that's a fair reading.2 -
mentallyinmaldives wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »when you say eating roughly 3000-3500cal a day - were you actually logging to establish a baseline?
I logged for 6-8 months. So yes
So what is holding you back from believing your own data? If you maintained at OVER 3K a day, then you would LOSE AT 3K a day.
Why go to 2K a day when already at a normal weight? And impact your activity and strength?
You attest to the validity of your previous logging whenever it is mentioned. But you don't seem ready to discuss re-evaluating the size of the deficit you have chosen. Nor do you seem willing to re-evaluate your current goals. Nor do you bring up any concerns you may have over changing your approach.
So what are your plans?
None of this is accurate I am asking because I am looking to change my plans. I am questioning if my cut was too large which it seems from the responses it was. I have already upped calories and am currently cutting on 2500.3 -
It took me YEARS to learn I actually have a pretty fast metabolism. Coupled with a love of exercise, I feel the same after a week or so at 2000 calories. Why not up it to 2500-2700 as you will still be at a deficit but not feel so hungry? I think calculators error too low so people are sure to lose weight bc I'm under 5'2, weigh around 115 and maintain around 2300-2600.1
-
I'm just starting and already concerned about hunger. I honestly have a hormone imbalance that the doctors have been unable to fix. That nasty hunger hormone that your pituitary gland releases should be between 1-39 parts per million (whatever that means) and mine runs consistently over 140. Last time it was checked I had eaten about 1 hour earlier, so it should have been low. It was 143! I'm hungry even when I eat, dieting could actually end up quite painful.4
-
Try upping your calories. Im 5'10 200lbs and found 2400 is the absolute lowest I can go for my own sanity. Otherwise im constantly hungry.
Experiment and find what works for you
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions