Starvation mode is a myth.
Replies
-
Reading the comments in these types of posts drives me up a wall because I think the moral of the story is this:
DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!
Some people eat 1800+ calories a day and lose weight and some people (like me) set goals at 1200 a day and STILL LOSE WEIGHT.
Which by the way to the people who say this is not maintainable, I've been eating at this level for over a month and I don't feel starved and I don't feel the urge to binge. And I'm not a small person--I'm 5'9" and 199lbs. And no, I'm not underestimating because I weigh and measure EVERYTHING that goes into my mouth. I don't feel the need to readjust and eat more because this is not achievable--if that changes I will recant my statement but I dont' see that happening.
You've been doing this for a month. That's not very long.
And I think you misunderstand most people's intentions when they say you should be able to eat more and still lose weight. Look, I want you to lose weight. I want people to be happy. And I want to see them succeed long term. Unless a person has a special condition that makes them different than the bulk of the population, it isn't that hard to calculate your body's caloric needs. At 5'9" and 199 lbs (and 30 but that was just a high-ball guess) you need 2037 calories to maintain your weight if you are completely sedentary. Which is consequently what I need to maintain a weight of 125 lbs while moderately active.
I don't know how I feel about starvation mode, though it appears our bodies are somewhat adaptive to caloric conditions.... However, I do want to people to succeed. And when I see overweight friends try to eat super low calories and then binge and then give up because it's too hard, it makes me feel bad.
But if you're happy with what you're doing, keep doing it. I wish you luck. I personally think there's an easier way. It may be slower but it's maintainable for years and years and years. Eat at your goal weight TDEE. That way when you get there nothing changes, you don't revert to old habits, and you maintain that weight.
To start, I realize that a month isn't very long--I see success stories all the time in the boards of people who have been using the site for 5 years and have made huge life changes. I hope that someday I will be one of them. I really do understand that by comparison to some people, I'm a baby on MFP. That being said, I've used the 21 day habit-forming technique successfully in other areas in my life, so I applied it to this site. I said I was going to try a 1200 calorie approach for 21 days and see if it was something I could commit to indefinitely.
I haven't felt the need to run to the kitchen and tear through a bag of chips or eat an entire pizza or down a gallon of ice cream. If I start getting those urges and feeling like my calorie count is too low to be successful, I will absolutely re-evaluate my strategy. I'm not so proud to think that what's working for me is the perfect method and will always be realistic. I might need to make some changes down the road.
My point was simply that if eating a low calorie diet is realistic for me and is working (as it is for many other people on this site) why is that "wrong". I wouldn't say someone eating 1800 calories a day is wrong if that method works for them and they're happy with their progress.0 -
Speaking of uniformed....Thanks for the article. It drives me nuts how so many uninformed people regurgitate what they read about "starvation mode" to others who complain about not losing weight by eating x amount of calories.
The common thing I read is something like: You're only eating (usually a number 1500 or less) calories a day. You're in starvation mode and your body is holding onto (or gaining) fat to preserve itself. You need to eat more in order to lose more.
That's complete bull. It's also dangerous to tell people who are overweight that they need to eat more in order to lose, because I'm betting they aren't losing because they aren't accurately tracking their calories and are actually eating over maintenance.
If you're overweight or not dangerously thin, you could eat 0 calories a day for quite some time and not experience starvation. Why? Your body gets its energy from your fat store. Is it recommended? No. People get fixated on calories and ignore what else food provides us - nutrients that are essential for bodily functions. VLCDs will make you lose weight and not go into starvation mode until you have no fat to burn, but they also make you malnourished and unhealthy.0 -
I've been told plateaus are normal, but I just didn't expect to encounter one when I still have 50 pounds left to lose!
Same here! I lost steadily for 10 months, then I hit a plateau for 3 months. I kept "gaining" and "losing" about 4 pounds over and over again. Then suddenly, I dropped those pounds, then another, then another. Once all was said and done, the final loss appeared inside of a week, and it matched what my loss should have been during that three month period of not losing. People might want to claim that I was *suddenly* not doing something right, but clearly my body, for whatever reason, decided to hold on to those pounds for a few months. Some will say that a plateau shouldn't last three months, but it can. It did. Thank God it's finally over.0 -
Stop eating fast food 5-6 days a week and I promise that you will see the scale move again. Also, I am not gonna call bs on you but a good majority of fast food you eat are combo meals yet there is not a drink recorded...
I don't get the drinks ... I am too cheap
And yes, I need to break my McDonald's and Subway habit. Although I understand completely why from a nutritional standpoint, you should technically be able to eat fast food every meal and lose weight as long as you're under your calories. Not that I'm suggesting that's a good plan for one's health, nor is it something I want to test ... I'm just saying you can't point to a certain food on someone's list and say "That's why you're not losing" if you're also going to argue "The only reason you're not losing is because you're eating too many calories." (Not that you specifically did that - just the thread in general.)
I did say it....you are measuring your food not weighing it...to loose weight you have to be in a caloric deficet.
But not to hijack this thread any longer as it is about an article on the often over used phrase of "STARVATION MODE"
[/quote]
Huh? I am weighing my food. Did you not see my other post? I have a digital scale and I use it to weigh my food unless it's a liquid; in which case I measure.0 -
If you are not losing weight, it's almost virtually guaranteed that the reason is that you are not accurately counting your caloric intake.
I assume you know that " virtually " means that it may, or may not....which makes the whole statement moot .0 -
Did u see my follow up post? I wanted to clarify a few pieces of info.
Sorry, no! I did not see this questions until you said that:
What was your weight in mid july when you started? How long did it take to get down to 170? Did you really only eat 800 cals last saturday? I'm almost done I promise.
July 4th I "restarted" and my weight was 177. I lost 3 pounds the first week to bring me down to 174. By early August I was down to 168. I started a new exercise program around that same time and weight crept back up to 170, 171... it hovers around the 171-173 range every day.
Last Saturday I was sick (like, throwing up) so I probably did only eat 800 calories. It was not intentional. I finally was able to start eating around 5 p.m. Believe me, I wanted food ... but my stomach did not
Thanks for your help ... feel free to send me a message too if I am hijacking this thread too much! 0 -
Sorry to bust some bubbles, but I was under a Dr. s supervised diet for 2 years. He constantly said " you don't eat enough" I even went through the breathing weight test to make sure that his calculations of TDEE were correct. Whith my job, I need to eat more food not less, time of day does not matter, content does! Constantly under eating during the week also made me have memory issues, depression and other health problems. This was a strict program with weekly weigh ins and also included b12 shots. So why am I back to dieting again? His program was very similar to Atkins. Great to loose weigh! But no maintenance program and very hard to stick to for life. No education on nutrition. This keeps his patients coming back as he also does research in this department. I did drop to a size 6 and weigh 145 lbs at one time at 5 ft 5 in, but without proper skills we all go back to the same old habits.
I will not under eat ever again. A thyroid issue does not help.
It is a journey to learn from. I learned a lot from this Dr. Now it is up to me to take the next step.0 -
Or it could be that one needs to recalculate TDEE. My rule is, 2 weeks with no loss? Recalculate and try a lower calorie amount.0
-
Okay Adiostrasero. From what I have gathered, the answer to your question is “Patience, Grasshawppa” (picture me in a karate suit with head band when I say this)
I don't see any logs until 7/15. If you were 177 on 07/4, its possible your starting weight may be higher. But regardless, You lost around 7 pounds in 6 weeks (9 to get to 168). Sounds like the plan is freaking working to me. The quick change in eating habits likely lead to a large flushing of water weight initially which has gradually adjusted out over this “stall”. So basically, the scale showed a larger loss than was actually fat initially, while now some of that water is back but you have still lost fat over the past few weeks.
Speaking of which you started a new exercise program. Many people don’t know this, but starting an exercise program typically results in some water retention initially. This introduction is likely causing your weight to ride a little higher. Doesn't mean you aren't losing fat still. Google "Lyle McDonald whoosh effect". I think he has a good article on how water retention can be frustrating in the short term.
Here some additional things that come to mind.
You are currently using an estimation technique in calorie counting. You are taking info from McDonalds, Subway, and starbucks sites and using them for you counts on several instances. Those are estimations and subject to inaccuracy. Not that you can't do it but you just have to know it is what it is. It is not precise as it is used for the whole population. Ideally, IMO you should stick to prepping stuff at home initially so you can get a handle on your calorie counts and know exactly how much you are consuming day in and day out.
Also if you are measuring and not weighing as Stephanie indicated above, I would recommend a switch. Buy a digital scale and start weighing. Using cups instead of grams is horribly inaccurate (think sometimes like 50%).
I would start tracking your sodium intake. When you eat out those products are almost always loaded with sodium which can cause a spike in your weight due to water retention. That’s a useful piece of info to have so you don’t panic if your weight shoots up. My "guess" would be you had some lower sodium days that may have led to a lower # in the short term.
Practically, I would also think about upping your protein intake. I would say somewhere closer to 100 grams. If you are a little lower or higher some days, nothing to freak out about but I would shoot for a higher number.
Also, how often do you weigh in?0 -
Speaking of uniformed....Thanks for the article. It drives me nuts how so many uninformed people regurgitate what they read about "starvation mode" to others who complain about not losing weight by eating x amount of calories.
The common thing I read is something like: You're only eating (usually a number 1500 or less) calories a day. You're in starvation mode and your body is holding onto (or gaining) fat to preserve itself. You need to eat more in order to lose more.
That's complete bull. It's also dangerous to tell people who are overweight that they need to eat more in order to lose, because I'm betting they aren't losing because they aren't accurately tracking their calories and are actually eating over maintenance.
If you're overweight or not dangerously thin, you could eat 0 calories a day for quite some time and not experience starvation. Why? Your body gets its energy from your fat store. Is it recommended? No. People get fixated on calories and ignore what else food provides us - nutrients that are essential for bodily functions. VLCDs will make you lose weight and not go into starvation mode until you have no fat to burn, but they also make you malnourished and unhealthy.
LOL, how so? What specifically is uninformed about my post that you would like to argue about? But hey, way to contribute to the discussion and adding something worthwhile.0 -
To the OP: Thank you so much for the article! I really enjoyed it and have spent the last hour actually reading through the article and it's different links. I think some people that seem to be very against the article, did not even bother to read it or follow the authors train of thought throughout the readings. The whole system is similar to everything I have been reading on mfp. The author even bluntly states why things are this way, why you are losing weight, not losing weight etc. It is all about calories in and calories out. All the author did was correctly define starvation mode. If someone wants to eat 1200 calories fine, if someone wants to eat 1800 fine, whatever works for them. A common response I keep seeing is well the 1200 will just gain all the weight back, or the 1800 are losing weight slowly cause they are over eating, whatever just stop people. It should be up to the individual to decide what is best for them and what is working or not working for them. I thought the article was great thank you for posting it.0
-
I read the article, seemed like it had good information. It does acknowledge a slowdown of progress because of slowing metabolism when not eating enough, which is what I've always thought made sense anyway.
Seriously, if "starvation mode" could actually keep a person from losing weight forever, all of the starving children on telethons would be fine, their bodies would adapt!
So, metabolic slowdown can stall weight loss temporarily, it can make it take longer to lose weight (and make you feel much more miserable while losing), but it can't stop you from losing FOREVER. Eventually, if you are creating a deficit, you will lose weight, unless you have some kind of metabolic disorder or hormone imbalance, in which case you need to see a doctor.
That said, why make a deficit so large that your progress is slowed? Why slow your metabolism to the point that if you do start eating normally you will probably gain? Why not create a reasonable deficit and lose weight at a healthy rate, protecting metabolic rate and muscle mass at the same time, and enabling you lose faster than you would have with a huge deficit anyway?0 -
I really hope this is true because lately I haven't been eating enough calories according to the MFP app. But I've lost a couple of pounds already. I was JUST stressing about this ..
I don't know why, but nothing looks good enough to eat right now.0 -
Lol @ people who eat 1200 or less cals a day trying to lose weight, bunch of crap. You really think that's a lifestyle you can keep up? Even if you get nice and skinny you'll be looking like a starving african child. I eat lots of fat and protein every day and I still lose weight as long as I set the correct defecit, and I eat cookies, ice cream, fried chicken, and all the goods, AKA I'm not miserable or obsessive about my diet, just careful about calories in vs calories out and hitting my macros. This isn't rocket science.
It's not meant to be a "lifestyle change" forever. My doctor put me on a 900 calorie a day diet. 1200 a day did not work for me. I was told to do this for 4 to 6 weeks and then gradually increase my calorie intake over the coarse of the next few months until I was at 1200 a day. 900 cals a day is intended to jump start a metabolism, it is not intended to be an everyday life choice for the rest of your life. That is insane. It is safe under a doctors watch. And for obese people, it is actually a better way to quickly diet especially if they have health ailments due to their weight that need to be corrected quickly. Also, with the food I eat, I am not hungry all day as some others have said. But again, it's all in what you eat.
I'm sorry, but if your doctor told you to do a 900 cal diet to "jump start" your metabolism then you have found one of the worst
doctors to be under the care of.
Where did you go to school to become a doctor? It is a common practice, just because you don't agree with it or it doesn't work for your body doesn't mean it's not right. Like I said in another comment, I will trust a person who has a doctorate before someone ranting on MFP lol.0 -
Lol @ people who eat 1200 or less cals a day trying to lose weight, bunch of crap. You really think that's a lifestyle you can keep up? Even if you get nice and skinny you'll be looking like a starving african child. I eat lots of fat and protein every day and I still lose weight as long as I set the correct defecit, and I eat cookies, ice cream, fried chicken, and all the goods, AKA I'm not miserable or obsessive about my diet, just careful about calories in vs calories out and hitting my macros. This isn't rocket science.
It's not meant to be a "lifestyle change" forever. My doctor put me on a 900 calorie a day diet. 1200 a day did not work for me. I was told to do this for 4 to 6 weeks and then gradually increase my calorie intake over the coarse of the next few months until I was at 1200 a day. 900 cals a day is intended to jump start a metabolism, it is not intended to be an everyday life choice for the rest of your life. That is insane. It is safe under a doctors watch. And for obese people, it is actually a better way to quickly diet especially if they have health ailments due to their weight that need to be corrected quickly. Also, with the food I eat, I am not hungry all day as some others have said. But again, it's all in what you eat.
I'm sorry, but if your doctor told you to do a 900 cal diet to "jump start" your metabolism then you have found one of the worst
doctors to be under the care of.
Where did you go to school to become a doctor? It is a common practice, just because you don't agree with it or it doesn't work for your body doesn't mean it's not right. Like I said in another comment, I will trust a person who has a doctorate before someone ranting on MFP lol.
Hold up...
Do you go to an ACTUAL doctor? One with a medical license? Or do you go to someone who has a PhD and calls him/herself "Dr."?? BIG difference. Medical doctors don't become doctors because they received a doctorate, though they can have one in addition to their medical degree.
I'm not ranting about anything and I don't have to be a doctor to know that the plan you're on is crap, but I AM a nurse. I know a thing or two about science and how it works.
By all means, continue on with your diet. We'll see you back here in a few months when you're wondering why you stopped losing or when you start over because this great plan didn't work.0 -
Then why did I not lose weight when eating 1200 calories a day, but when I bumped it up to 1400-1500 a day I finally started losing again? I measured the SAME either way. So how does that add up?
Your body is built for SURVIVAL, so YES, if you don't eat enough your body will hold on to stores as long as it can.
What is so hard to understand about that?0 -
To the OP: Thank you so much for the article! I really enjoyed it and have spent the last hour actually reading through the article and it's different links. I think some people that seem to be very against the article, did not even bother to read it or follow the authors train of thought throughout the readings. The whole system is similar to everything I have been reading on mfp. The author even bluntly states why things are this way, why you are losing weight, not losing weight etc. It is all about calories in and calories out. All the author did was correctly define starvation mode. If someone wants to eat 1200 calories fine, if someone wants to eat 1800 fine, whatever works for them. A common response I keep seeing is well the 1200 will just gain all the weight back, or the 1800 are losing weight slowly cause they are over eating, whatever just stop people. It should be up to the individual to decide what is best for them and what is working or not working for them. I thought the article was great thank you for posting it.
it's because the OP picked a REALLY bad title for this thread. derpy people are responding based on the title and not the article. the article doesn't say starvation mode is a myth. it simply says that "starvation mode as an excuse for not losing weight" is a myth.
there is a real starvation response/mode, but it will never apply to 99% of the people reading these forums.0 -
Then why did I not lose weight when eating 1200 calories a day, but when I bumped it up to 1400-1500 a day I finally started losing again? I measured the SAME either way. So how does that add up?
Your body is built for SURVIVAL, so YES, if you don't eat enough your body will hold on to stores as long as it can.
What is so hard to understand about that?
read the link.0 -
Most people who believe in "starvation mode" are the people on here who are relatively new to nutrition, still moderately-to-severely overweight, and (of course) will lose weight on 1800 calories per day when starting from 300+ pounds.
I have used 1300 calories a day for ages, have a BMI of 19.5 (5'9" tall) and have never gained a single pound from "not eating enough". What a ridiculous notion.
The only reason I have ever gained weight is from eating too much junk and drinking alcohol.
I'm 127 lbs, 37, and lose on 1800 cal per day. I can also drink alcohol and lose weight. No, I'm not a special snowflake. But I do feel sorry for people who think they can only eat 1300 cal/day to either maintain their weight or lose weight. My RMR is 1580 calories (tested). That means I burn nearly 1600 cal/day just sitting. Maintenence for me is about 2100 calories/day.
Food is not the enemy. No one gets a medal from eating too little. They just get hungry.
**So what about those like me who are over 300 yet eat around 1800 w/ exercise who still cannot lose? I'm happy for all those who are in there 100's who eat 1800 and lose... but how??? Someone please explain this because clearly it isn't always about calories in vs calories out...0 -
adiostrasero, ryry62685, (and others who commented)
Actually, far from hijacking the thread, it's been an education watching your discussion. So thank you - I've now got some more tips for if/when I start to plateau.
H0 -
http://www.nowloss.com/starvation-mode-myth.htm This is a great read as well 0
-
Its not that eating 1200 calories a day will make you put on weight, its that your body is hungry so when you do eventually cave and have that little binge, then your body stores it as fat. that has always been my take on it. I eat 1800 calories a day and I am consistently losing. Of course exercise helps
This is a nice way to show you don't like the 1200 route. I wish everyone said it like that :flowerforyou: I stick to the 1200, and am never hungry, because I'm stingy with how I spend calories - I'd rather an enormous salad with a bowl of soup than some chocolate. So I eat a lot of food on 1200, and on days I exercise, most days at the minute, I can have something I really love, or a few drinks. No better motivator to move!
But back to this comment, a 1200 calorie diet can easily lead to a breakdown of will if you only have two sandwiches and a bowl of cereal in a day.
I love this. It is exactly what I do. I exercise to eat, essentially. I'm at 1200 a day, but on most days, I burn enough from exercise to eat much more than this.0 -
Hormones. "Starvation mode" in the true sense of the word doesn't exist until you're VERY thin, but to think your hormone levels aren't affected by eating too little is to deny what our bodies are designed to do. It's like cutting grass. You shouldn't take off too much at one time. If you do, you'll end up with short grass, but it won't be the results you're looking for.0
-
**So what about those like me who are over 300 yet eat around 1800 w/ exercise who still cannot lose? I'm happy for all those who are in there 100's who eat 1800 and lose... but how??? Someone please explain this because clearly it isn't always about calories in vs calories out...
While the basic laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone the same way (they have to, it's a fundamental part of the universe) what can differ significantly is an individuals BMR and TDEE.
Different people can respond and adjust their BMR and TDEE according to intake to some extent. While research shows it's minor I don't think it's as insignificant as many like to claim. In a highly controlled experiment it's one thing but in real life we'll start messing with the control variables (reducing activity, overeating, etc.).
I'm 5'9" 175 lbs and maintain on 3200 calories. I'm on a cut now at 2690 calories and losing weight. That's because I have a high lean body mass and a high TDEE from being highly active.
At one point I was on 1800 calories per day and stalling out at 154 lbs. My lean mass had taken a hit and my athletic performance was in the tank. I had essentially lost lean mass and the ability to be highly active. I could have reduced calories more but I would have taken a lean mass hit.
So as crazy as it sounds I've maintained weight at 1800 calories and 3200 calories.0 -
Most people who believe in "starvation mode" are the people on here who are relatively new to nutrition, still moderately-to-severely overweight, and (of course) will lose weight on 1800 calories per day when starting from 300+ pounds.
I have used 1300 calories a day for ages, have a BMI of 19.5 (5'9" tall) and have never gained a single pound from "not eating enough". What a ridiculous notion.
The only reason I have ever gained weight is from eating too much junk and drinking alcohol.
I'm 127 lbs, 37, and lose on 1800 cal per day. I can also drink alcohol and lose weight. No, I'm not a special snowflake. But I do feel sorry for people who think they can only eat 1300 cal/day to either maintain their weight or lose weight. My RMR is 1580 calories (tested). That means I burn nearly 1600 cal/day just sitting. Maintenence for me is about 2100 calories/day.
Food is not the enemy. No one gets a medal from eating too little. They just get hungry.
**So what about those like me who are over 300 yet eat around 1800 w/ exercise who still cannot lose? I'm happy for all those who are in there 100's who eat 1800 and lose... but how??? Someone please explain this because clearly it isn't always about calories in vs calories out...
In the past 7 days, you've only logged your intake for 4 days. One day was blank and two days were partial. So how can you say how many calories you're taking in when you don't really know? If you aren't losing, you aren't eating at a deficit. Period.0 -
**So what about those like me who are over 300 yet eat around 1800 w/ exercise who still cannot lose? I'm happy for all those who are in there 100's who eat 1800 and lose... but how??? Someone please explain this because clearly it isn't always about calories in vs calories out...
What is your activity like? Have you had your RMR tested. Body Fat %? Do you weigh foods? Do you log every drop of oil, ketchup, drop of honey, etc.? Have you had your thyroid tested?
There are actually very few calories between a sedentary woman at 140 lb and 200 lb (like, 600). I'm a pretty active person. I have a low BF%. But in order to drop from 138 lb to 127 lb (where I am now), I had to start weighing/measuring/counting my food. I was stuck at 138 lbs forever (2 years). I also quit eating grains (90% of the time), which I totally recommend. Mostly because it forces me to make better decisions when it comes to food. And too much wheat makes my stomach kinda icky. But that's another discussion all together.
I can't say why you aren't losing. You are welcome to look at my diary and see what I eat. I don't usually track on weekends because I'm lazy and I no longer track exercise. I was wearing a body media for a while and got all the information I needed from it (July had that info). However, to get an idea what my exercise is like, last night I went to an aerial silks class. We spent a half an hour stretching with the contortionist (ouch) and then an hour on fabric. This involves climbing, lifting the body upside down, manipulating different poses, over and over and over again. Today I will take my mountain bike out for a quick 2.5 mile ride on some single-track. My husband and I are going backpacking, so it'll be hiking tomorrow. I have a desk job, but I get up no less than every hour because I cannot sit still. I exercise daily. I lift weights. I do minimal cardio.
If I were not an active person with a relatively low BF%, 1800 calories would be way too many for me. My actual maintenance calories are about 2100, but I tend to go over on weekends so I try to stay low on weekdays. Personally, for you, I'd start by having my RMR tested and go from there. I also highly recommend a body media or fitbit, and of course, a food scale if you don't have one.0 -
adiostrasero, ryry62685, (and others who commented)
Actually, far from hijacking the thread, it's been an education watching your discussion. So thank you - I've now got some more tips for if/when I start to plateau.
H
Why, thank you I have found it quite educational, myself. 0 -
Speaking of uniformed....Thanks for the article. It drives me nuts how so many uninformed people regurgitate what they read about "starvation mode" to others who complain about not losing weight by eating x amount of calories.
The common thing I read is something like: You're only eating (usually a number 1500 or less) calories a day. You're in starvation mode and your body is holding onto (or gaining) fat to preserve itself. You need to eat more in order to lose more.
That's complete bull. It's also dangerous to tell people who are overweight that they need to eat more in order to lose, because I'm betting they aren't losing because they aren't accurately tracking their calories and are actually eating over maintenance.
If you're overweight or not dangerously thin, you could eat 0 calories a day for quite some time and not experience starvation. Why? Your body gets its energy from your fat store. Is it recommended? No. People get fixated on calories and ignore what else food provides us - nutrients that are essential for bodily functions. VLCDs will make you lose weight and not go into starvation mode until you have no fat to burn, but they also make you malnourished and unhealthy.
LOL, how so? What specifically is uninformed about my post that you would like to argue about? But hey, way to contribute to the discussion and adding something worthwhile.
You left out metabolic adaptation and especially for women, hormonal issues. VLCDs are no bueno unless the person is extremely obese and under supervision of a doctor. Most people need to use TOPS: Take Off Pounds Sensibly. That means eating a minimum of fats and protein and keeping your deficit less than 1000.0 -
**Gets popcorn ready**
Oh it's gonna get good once the 'I eat 200 cals a day and I'm not losing weight!' crew gets here.
Bahahahaha I'm in.....for popcorn....for laughs....and for shaking my head at some forum drama today!0 -
Reading the comments in these types of posts drives me up a wall because I think the moral of the story is this:
DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!
Some people eat 1800+ calories a day and lose weight and some people (like me) set goals at 1200 a day and STILL LOSE WEIGHT.
Which by the way to the people who say this is not maintainable, I've been eating at this level for over a month and I don't feel starved and I don't feel the urge to binge. And I'm not a small person--I'm 5'9" and 199lbs. And no, I'm not underestimating because I weigh and measure EVERYTHING that goes into my mouth. I don't feel the need to readjust and eat more because this is not achievable--if that changes I will recant my statement but I dont' see that happening.
BUT, I'm not going to tell the people who eat 1800+ calories a day are stupid for eating more if they're happy with their progress. I'm also not saying that people should go out and eat 500 calories a day every day for a year.
As long as you're putting good things into your body and exercising regularly, it shouldn't matter whether you're more successful with a higher or lower calorie count. If one stops working for you, maybe you should consider switching things around!
But there's no reason to come on a message board and act like your method is the "correct" way to do something just because it has been working for you. Everyone has a different body with a different metabolism which is why a One-Size-Fits-All weightloss method is not and will never be realistic. The only proven method for weight loss is calories in < calories out. The spread between the two is not important as long as it works for your body and your lifestyle.
Very well put. I agree 100%. There is no need for finger pointing or higher than mighty claims of grandier. If a particular weight loss solution works for you, stick with it. If not, try something new and keep trying until you get it right. As long as weight loss is "healthy" weight loss, that is all that matters.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions