I don't think I'm eating enough.
Replies
-
1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?2 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
I trust MFP. It can be inaccurate for some, and that's why it's important to log completely and honestly and then over time make sure results match expectations.
It seems @stianjl is new to MFP and is on a flurry of posting for some reason. Their goals may not match many users here; @stianjl is trying to build bulk, especially legs. Many users are trying to lose weight.
The OP @aprilgranier asked about a week ago about their calorie goal and thinking it might not be enough after just a few days on MFP. We haven't heard back from them as to how things have gone this week or what changes may or may not have been made in their calorie goal or how they approach it.
Remember; we're all just random internet strangers, and our advice is worth every penny paid for it. Let me know where to send my bill....😂 🤣4 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
Did you read anything other people have said? Ok, again just for you: The calorie goal someone is given depends on gender & age & weight & size & most importantly the chosen weightloss goal. MFP won't go below 1200. If you get 1200 then in pretty much all cases it means your weightloss goal is too agressive.3 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
there are factors to consider. The lower the BF% the more hunger has a chance of being a factor along with deficit size and activity.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
I would disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion. As you have less and less fat, hunger is what keeps people from continuing to progress otherwise everyone would be lean.paperpudding wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »You need to embrace a certain amount of hunger. Your body is telling you that it doesn’t want to tap into fat stores and you’re telling it to shut the hell up, you’ll get nothing and like it. Provided the deficit isn’t too large, the hunger will subside in time. Each time you lower calories it’ll happen.
People don’t like hunger hence why some will never lose weight. Food choice will greatly alleviate the problem.
I disagree.
You may or may not need to cope with some degree of hunger but this idea that it is an essential part of weight loss - no it isnt.
I might disagree. Part of managing ones diet is to figure out what keeps you full. The other part is expectations. If you have little left to lose then you can't expect to lose at a high rate. It will be slow.
Your name indicates you're a bodybuilder? Then things might be different if you want to get into competitive shape. But TO is a woman who will never have such a low fat percentage, and, based on the bit she wrote not a competitive sports person where every bit of fat is a negative aspect but just an average person. So I guess we should be using average person assumptions.
Food choice is always a factor, however at some point there just may not be enough calories available to stave off some level of hunger. Hunger not meaning a constant state as it’s generally just at certain times. Everyone has a different “set point” of what the body will and won’t allow which will dictate what will be possible, so yes many factors…..
I disagree with most of this.
Food choices have a HUGE impact on perceived hunger. So do habits. What many often perceive as "hunger" isn't true hunger. It's a feeling sometimes based on the body expecting something it is used to having - a snack and such-and-such time. It can take a little while to retrain the body not to expect that. It's not always easy to do, and fortunately it doesn't take TOO long. So even if you do struggle with some hunger for snacks you're accustomed to having, if you can see the bigger picture and just put up with a little "empty feeling" (I don't call that the same as hunger) for a week or two, it very well may reduce on its own. You can also use fiber-rich foods or foods with some healthy fats and protein to make your body feel fuller to get through this stage. After that, you may still have some work to do.
I think our brains are amazing organs. They can give us signals based on hormones and also from habits. If you make the effort to change the habits, the brain will accept it. It's worth a try.
Brains are weird. Like really weird. The hormone issue, some research suggests, is not just "hormones influence thought patterns and feelings" but also the reverse channel, "thought patterns and feelings influence hormones".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/
Perhaps some of that is behind the idea of the brain giving signals based on habits.
Expectations and mindset are a huge factor IMO. They don't just influence our thoughts, they influence our physiology. More generally, there's reasonably good evidence that the placebo effect is not "all in our minds", but actually in our bodies, physiologically, via our expectations.
No, I don't believe we can "just think" and manifest any or every response we might like. Not saying that. But thoughts (mindset) influencing physiology in subtle ways is part of the big picture, in a way that many under-appreciate IMO.
Betcha mindset influences perceived hunger. Because in that study, it did.
2 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
Did you read anything other people have said? Ok, again just for you: The calorie goal someone is given depends on gender & age & weight & size & most importantly the chosen weightloss goal. MFP won't go below 1200. If you get 1200 then in pretty much all cases it means your weightloss goal is too agressive.
Again, JUST FOR YOU: Did YOU read what I quoted? The person I quoted said 1200 calories "MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest." They also said, "1200 seems too low whatever goal you have." So stianjl thinks they know more than the MFP calculator. The best part is the have been here for 12 days now.1 -
If you are a petite sedentary female and not very, very overweight, the lowest setting of 0.5 lb/week may also default to 1200 (*NET*).. When I started on here, I think 1200 net calories corresponded to an estimate of ~0.3 lb/week at my stats.
ETA: Note: MFP does report what it calculates as the estimated loss/week when it spits out that 1200 calorie goal.4 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
there are factors to consider. The lower the BF% the more hunger has a chance of being a factor along with deficit size and activity.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
I would disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion. As you have less and less fat, hunger is what keeps people from continuing to progress otherwise everyone would be lean.paperpudding wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »You need to embrace a certain amount of hunger. Your body is telling you that it doesn’t want to tap into fat stores and you’re telling it to shut the hell up, you’ll get nothing and like it. Provided the deficit isn’t too large, the hunger will subside in time. Each time you lower calories it’ll happen.
People don’t like hunger hence why some will never lose weight. Food choice will greatly alleviate the problem.
I disagree.
You may or may not need to cope with some degree of hunger but this idea that it is an essential part of weight loss - no it isnt.
I might disagree. Part of managing ones diet is to figure out what keeps you full. The other part is expectations. If you have little left to lose then you can't expect to lose at a high rate. It will be slow.
Your name indicates you're a bodybuilder? Then things might be different if you want to get into competitive shape. But TO is a woman who will never have such a low fat percentage, and, based on the bit she wrote not a competitive sports person where every bit of fat is a negative aspect but just an average person. So I guess we should be using average person assumptions.
Food choice is always a factor, however at some point there just may not be enough calories available to stave off some level of hunger. Hunger not meaning a constant state as it’s generally just at certain times. Everyone has a different “set point” of what the body will and won’t allow which will dictate what will be possible, so yes many factors…..
I disagree with most of this.
Food choices have a HUGE impact on perceived hunger. So do habits. What many often perceive as "hunger" isn't true hunger. It's a feeling sometimes based on the body expecting something it is used to having - a snack and such-and-such time. It can take a little while to retrain the body not to expect that. It's not always easy to do, and fortunately it doesn't take TOO long. So even if you do struggle with some hunger for snacks you're accustomed to having, if you can see the bigger picture and just put up with a little "empty feeling" (I don't call that the same as hunger) for a week or two, it very well may reduce on its own. You can also use fiber-rich foods or foods with some healthy fats and protein to make your body feel fuller to get through this stage. After that, you may still have some work to do.
I think our brains are amazing organs. They can give us signals based on hormones and also from habits. If you make the effort to change the habits, the brain will accept it. It's worth a try.
Brains are weird. Like really weird. The hormone issue, some research suggests, is not just "hormones influence thought patterns and feelings" but also the reverse channel, "thought patterns and feelings influence hormones".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/
Perhaps some of that is behind the idea of the brain giving signals based on habits.
Expectations and mindset are a huge factor IMO. They don't just influence our thoughts, they influence our physiology. More generally, there's reasonably good evidence that the placebo effect is not "all in our minds", but actually in our bodies, physiologically, via our expectations.
No, I don't believe we can "just think" and manifest any or every response we might like. Not saying that. But thoughts (mindset) influencing physiology in subtle ways is part of the big picture, in a way that many under-appreciate IMO.
Betcha mindset influences perceived hunger. Because in that study, it did.
^^That study - hey, another vote for food addiction/compulsion being a real thing.
I love it when the naysayers themselves find and post research disputing their own stance.
*edit: also, this is a drive-by post. I have no intention of getting into yet another discussion about the thirteenth sentence in a 1000 sentence research study that may be ambiguous to someone. I'm not playing the turtles-all-the-way-down game today.
I won't be defending this post: been there, done that for over a decade. Ya'll can argue among yourselves, or maybe just let it go (heh, even though I didn't.) 2 -
cmriverside wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
there are factors to consider. The lower the BF% the more hunger has a chance of being a factor along with deficit size and activity.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
I would disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion. As you have less and less fat, hunger is what keeps people from continuing to progress otherwise everyone would be lean.paperpudding wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »You need to embrace a certain amount of hunger. Your body is telling you that it doesn’t want to tap into fat stores and you’re telling it to shut the hell up, you’ll get nothing and like it. Provided the deficit isn’t too large, the hunger will subside in time. Each time you lower calories it’ll happen.
People don’t like hunger hence why some will never lose weight. Food choice will greatly alleviate the problem.
I disagree.
You may or may not need to cope with some degree of hunger but this idea that it is an essential part of weight loss - no it isnt.
I might disagree. Part of managing ones diet is to figure out what keeps you full. The other part is expectations. If you have little left to lose then you can't expect to lose at a high rate. It will be slow.
Your name indicates you're a bodybuilder? Then things might be different if you want to get into competitive shape. But TO is a woman who will never have such a low fat percentage, and, based on the bit she wrote not a competitive sports person where every bit of fat is a negative aspect but just an average person. So I guess we should be using average person assumptions.
Food choice is always a factor, however at some point there just may not be enough calories available to stave off some level of hunger. Hunger not meaning a constant state as it’s generally just at certain times. Everyone has a different “set point” of what the body will and won’t allow which will dictate what will be possible, so yes many factors…..
I disagree with most of this.
Food choices have a HUGE impact on perceived hunger. So do habits. What many often perceive as "hunger" isn't true hunger. It's a feeling sometimes based on the body expecting something it is used to having - a snack and such-and-such time. It can take a little while to retrain the body not to expect that. It's not always easy to do, and fortunately it doesn't take TOO long. So even if you do struggle with some hunger for snacks you're accustomed to having, if you can see the bigger picture and just put up with a little "empty feeling" (I don't call that the same as hunger) for a week or two, it very well may reduce on its own. You can also use fiber-rich foods or foods with some healthy fats and protein to make your body feel fuller to get through this stage. After that, you may still have some work to do.
I think our brains are amazing organs. They can give us signals based on hormones and also from habits. If you make the effort to change the habits, the brain will accept it. It's worth a try.
Brains are weird. Like really weird. The hormone issue, some research suggests, is not just "hormones influence thought patterns and feelings" but also the reverse channel, "thought patterns and feelings influence hormones".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/
Perhaps some of that is behind the idea of the brain giving signals based on habits.
Expectations and mindset are a huge factor IMO. They don't just influence our thoughts, they influence our physiology. More generally, there's reasonably good evidence that the placebo effect is not "all in our minds", but actually in our bodies, physiologically, via our expectations.
No, I don't believe we can "just think" and manifest any or every response we might like. Not saying that. But thoughts (mindset) influencing physiology in subtle ways is part of the big picture, in a way that many under-appreciate IMO.
Betcha mindset influences perceived hunger. Because in that study, it did.
^^That study - hey, another vote for food addiction/compulsion being a real thing.
I love it when the naysayers themselves find and post research disputing their own stance.
*edit: also, this is a drive-by post. I have no intention of getting into yet another discussion about the thirteenth sentence in a 1000 sentence research study that may be ambiguous to someone. I'm not playing the turtles-all-the-way-down game today.
I won't be defending this post: been there, done that for over a decade. Ya'll can argue among yourselves, or maybe just let it go (heh, even though I didn't.)
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
there are factors to consider. The lower the BF% the more hunger has a chance of being a factor along with deficit size and activity.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
I would disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion. As you have less and less fat, hunger is what keeps people from continuing to progress otherwise everyone would be lean.paperpudding wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »You need to embrace a certain amount of hunger. Your body is telling you that it doesn’t want to tap into fat stores and you’re telling it to shut the hell up, you’ll get nothing and like it. Provided the deficit isn’t too large, the hunger will subside in time. Each time you lower calories it’ll happen.
People don’t like hunger hence why some will never lose weight. Food choice will greatly alleviate the problem.
I disagree.
You may or may not need to cope with some degree of hunger but this idea that it is an essential part of weight loss - no it isnt.
I might disagree. Part of managing ones diet is to figure out what keeps you full. The other part is expectations. If you have little left to lose then you can't expect to lose at a high rate. It will be slow.
Your name indicates you're a bodybuilder? Then things might be different if you want to get into competitive shape. But TO is a woman who will never have such a low fat percentage, and, based on the bit she wrote not a competitive sports person where every bit of fat is a negative aspect but just an average person. So I guess we should be using average person assumptions.
Food choice is always a factor, however at some point there just may not be enough calories available to stave off some level of hunger. Hunger not meaning a constant state as it’s generally just at certain times. Everyone has a different “set point” of what the body will and won’t allow which will dictate what will be possible, so yes many factors…..
I disagree with most of this.
Food choices have a HUGE impact on perceived hunger. So do habits. What many often perceive as "hunger" isn't true hunger. It's a feeling sometimes based on the body expecting something it is used to having - a snack and such-and-such time. It can take a little while to retrain the body not to expect that. It's not always easy to do, and fortunately it doesn't take TOO long. So even if you do struggle with some hunger for snacks you're accustomed to having, if you can see the bigger picture and just put up with a little "empty feeling" (I don't call that the same as hunger) for a week or two, it very well may reduce on its own. You can also use fiber-rich foods or foods with some healthy fats and protein to make your body feel fuller to get through this stage. After that, you may still have some work to do.
I think our brains are amazing organs. They can give us signals based on hormones and also from habits. If you make the effort to change the habits, the brain will accept it. It's worth a try.
Brains are weird. Like really weird. The hormone issue, some research suggests, is not just "hormones influence thought patterns and feelings" but also the reverse channel, "thought patterns and feelings influence hormones".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/
Perhaps some of that is behind the idea of the brain giving signals based on habits.
Expectations and mindset are a huge factor IMO. They don't just influence our thoughts, they influence our physiology. More generally, there's reasonably good evidence that the placebo effect is not "all in our minds", but actually in our bodies, physiologically, via our expectations.
No, I don't believe we can "just think" and manifest any or every response we might like. Not saying that. But thoughts (mindset) influencing physiology in subtle ways is part of the big picture, in a way that many under-appreciate IMO.
Betcha mindset influences perceived hunger. Because in that study, it did.
^^That study - hey, another vote for food addiction/compulsion being a real thing.
I love it when the naysayers themselves find and post research disputing their own stance.
*edit: also, this is a drive-by post. I have no intention of getting into yet another discussion about the thirteenth sentence in a 1000 sentence research study that may be ambiguous to someone. I'm not playing the turtles-all-the-way-down game today.
I won't be defending this post: been there, done that for over a decade. Ya'll can argue among yourselves, or maybe just let it go (heh, even though I didn't.)
Food addiction seems like a digression, in this thread. 🤷♀️
My main point is that mindset is really important, all-the-way-down. This particular point is IMO relevant to the OP. OP is hungry, thinks she's not eating enough. Decent odds she's not eating enough, though she hasn't been back to answer some folks' questions.
If she is eating enough (counter to my bet), then experimenting with eating timing/foods may be helpful, mindset may have an influence via habits or expectation, or it may simply be a temporary problem of adaptation.
To the bolded:
I didn't bring up addiction. But now that it's here, FWIW, I wouldn't call myself a naysayer. The most recent addiction thread has brought me around, somewhat. I still think it can matter - pretty much for reasons I think the study might support - how the "addiction" framing affects the individual, either as empowering (because addiction can be treated/remediated) or disempowering (because they feel helpless in the force of the situation).
I know you're not reading/defending, but my impression in the past - perhaps incorrect - is that you don't like it when other people tell you what you think. Most people don't like that, probably.2 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
Every body is different, so its too hard to make a accurate calculator. MFP gives you numbers based on what you provide MFP. Eating less to lose weight isnt always the answer. But you need to watch your macros. Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle is the answer. I use MFP to track meals and I put custom numbers in my macros in MFP, so I dont really follow the MFP calculator. 0 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
Every body is different, so its too hard to make a accurate calculator. MFP gives you numbers based on what you provide MFP. Eating less to lose weight isnt always the answer. But you need to watch your macros. Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle is the answer. I use MFP to track meals and I put custom numbers in my macros in MFP, so I dont really follow the MFP calculator.
Actually, eating less (fewer calories) than you expend IS the answer if the question is "How do I lose fat?" If you eat more calories than you expend, no matter what your macros, you will gain weight.
"Eating healthy" can mean different things to different people. It can benefit our overall health by providing nutrition, but it isn't the key to fat loss. "A healthy lifestyle" is a pretty nebulous statement that really doesn't mean anything.
3 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help
So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?
Every body is different, so its too hard to make a accurate calculator. MFP gives you numbers based on what you provide MFP. Eating less to lose weight isnt always the answer. But you need to watch your macros. Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle is the answer. I use MFP to track meals and I put custom numbers in my macros in MFP, so I dont really follow the MFP calculator.
Eating less pretty much always is the direct answer to lose weight, quantifying "more" and "less" in calorie terms. The practice is a little more complicated by issues like satiety, energy level, health, fatigue, etc., but those are indirect effects, via calorie expenditure or consumption.
"Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle" isn't the perfect universal answer, either - even if we could agree on a definition.
I've been vegetarian since 1974; eating all the hippie-esque whole food, whole grain goodness, veg/fruits; started training regularly pretty hard and even competing as an athlete in my mid-40s (not always unsuccessfully in age-group competition); . . . but got and stayed obese along the way, which triggered some negative health consequences. I stayed obese and active, eating healthy foods, for around a dozen years. I've been at a healthy weight for 7 years now since . . . by managing my calorie intake better, eating the same range of foods as before (different amounts, frequencies), and working out in pretty much the same ways. "Healthy eating and lifestyle" is a good thing, but unless "healthy lifestyle" includes eating at appropriate calorie level, it's pretty easy to stay fat IME. My health is much better now that I'm thin, unsuprisingly.
MFP's calorie estimates and macro estimates are research-based, very mainstream generic recommendations. MFP doesn't just make them up themselves. They're in line with generic US nutritional recommendations. Yes, varied macro mixes (personalized) can be more useful for some people, but the MFP defaults aren't a terrible place for most people to start, as long as they don't make choices that cut calories unreasonably far for their situation. (Eating too little is inherently going to short-change nutrition.)3 -
OMG, all these responses and I never saw any of them until now. I'm so sorry and thank you all for your feedback (I'm still reading them all). So, to answer some questions, I'm 50, 5'5" and started at 213. It's now been 2 1/2 weeks and I got down to 207. Actually, today the scale said 209, but that's trash because I know I didn't gain fat. Anyway, I've continued to work out twice a day and been eating about 1350 calories a day. I still wonder if this is too little. I'll make my diary public.1
-
Your initial weightloss is usually water so give it another 2 weeks before adjusting calories. Your 1,350 may very well be more when you average your weekly amount and consider possibly under counting calories to some extent. The proof is in the results so give it a little more time.
If you’re feeling good on that amount that’s usually an indication that the calories aren’t too low0 -
aprilgranier wrote: »OMG, all these responses and I never saw any of them until now. I'm so sorry and thank you all for your feedback (I'm still reading them all). So, to answer some questions, I'm 50, 5'5" and started at 213. It's now been 2 1/2 weeks and I got down to 207. Actually, today the scale said 209, but that's trash because I know I didn't gain fat. Anyway, I've continued to work out twice a day and been eating about 1350 calories a day. I still wonder if this is too little. I'll make my diary public.
Thanks for coming back!
It's pretty common to have rapid loss at first that includes water weight, so that rate probably will not continue. That said, my experience as a 5'6" woman says 1350 still seems lowish. Is your rate of loss set at 2 lbs/week? That can be fine for a while if obese, but as you get closer to the "overweight" line it might be better to revise to 1.5lb/week or so.
I lost about 60 pounds 2 years ago and my starting weight was close to yours (I don't know the exact number 😅) and I lost at a very quick clip - probably 2.5-3 lbs/week when aiming for 2, and while initially ecstatic I did hit a fatigue wall a little while in after the emotional high wore off. It's very hard to continue in those circumstances. In my case my calories were higher because I was breastfeeding, but it was still nowhere near enough. I got more energy back when I experimented with eating just a little bit more and then continued losing, just at a slower rate, and by the end of the year was in "normal" BMI range. (Then I had another baby, but that's another story. 😂) I was occasionally uncomfortable but never miserable.
Will it be devastating to continue at your current rate? Maybe not, especially if you are sedentary outside your planned exercise, but be open to watching your body's signals and plan to eat more if you get signs of undereating.3 -
.aprilgranier wrote: »OMG, all these responses and I never saw any of them until now. I'm so sorry and thank you all for your feedback (I'm still reading them all). So, to answer some questions, I'm 50, 5'5" and started at 213. It's now been 2 1/2 weeks and I got down to 207. Actually, today the scale said 209, but that's trash because I know I didn't gain fat. Anyway, I've continued to work out twice a day and been eating about 1350 calories a day. I still wonder if this is too little. I'll make my diary public.
Thanks for coming back to update! I agree with others that 2.5 weeks isn't enough to establish a clear trend of average weekly weight loss. I'd go more like 4-6 weeks. At 50, I don't know whether you're in menopause yet, but if not, compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles to estimate an average loss rate. Either way, the first couple of weeks can be wildly different from following ones (+ or -), so if those look weird once you have more data, throw those out and add a couple more on the consistent routine.
While 5 pounds in 2 weeks may be a little fast if that rate continues, it doesn't seem super scary fast for the first couple of weeks. One of several common rules of thumb around here is to lose no faster than 0.5% to 1% of current weight per week, with a bias toward the lower end of that if bodyweight isn't an acute health threat in itself, and if not under close medical supervision for deficiencies or negative health effects.
For you now, that range would be around 1-2 pounds a week. Two is probably not a terrible thing, short term.
That said, I don't trust how a person feels as a guide for how fast is too fast: I felt great and not hungry (while losing too fast at first) . . . until suddenly I didn't. I got weak and fatigued, then it took multiple weeks to recover normal strength and energy even after I started eating more. (No one needs that!) Fast loss alone can be at least a caution flag, even if feeling good.
I don't know about you, but I'm not as resilient as I was at age 20. It's easier to overdo, and takes longer to bounce back from overload. In that context, I'd note that a calorie deficit is a physical stress, new exercise is a physical stress (especially if intense at current fitness level), sub-ideal nutrition is a stress (no accusation implied, I'm just making a list), poor sleep quality/quantity is a stress, many of us have family or job stress, etc. Total stress, physical and psychological, is cumulative. Stack up too much, continue that too long, and it can have negative health and well-being consequences. So, a fast loss rate that might be great in context of a calm life, can be Too Much in a life with lots of other stressors. You know more about where you are on that continuum than we do.
I did take a look at your diary. Your eating style and mine are quite different (no criticism implied!), so I may not have much useful insight from a skim-through.
I'm wondering if you have and use a food scale? I'm seeing a lot of packages and pieces in portion sizes. Sometimes that's based on using arithmetic to derive an estimate from weight and package data, so I'm not assuming. But many packaged foods can be surprisingly far off from package/piece weight estimates. If losing at a satisfactory weight, not too fast not too slow, that level of precision is optional, but it can be helpful if progress gets unpredictable. (Scale is also quicker and easier than cups/spoons estimates, if you know the tricks, as well as more precise.)
I think some of your exercise calorie estimates might be a little high, based on experience as a 5'5" woman who started out only a little lighter than you are now. Both MFP and fitness trackers can overestimate, and it's more likely for some exercise modes than others. I won't belabor the point with details/explanation since it looks like you're not mostly eating back all the exercise calories anyway, more a thing to file for future consideration if things become less predictable.
Bottom line, I'm agreeing with others, let the current regimen run for another 2-4 weeks, see how things average out . . . unless you start having any hint of symptoms of too-low intake, or it looks like weight loss speeds up a lot from here until then. Once you have enough data to make more experience-based calorie needs estimates for yourself, then maybe think about slowing down a bit. It'll be easier to manage that with solid data in hand.
Best wishes!
1 -
In some cases, you might need to take caloric density into account. Like, grapes and raisins, for example. Same caloric intake, but the grapes leave you feeling fuller.
Upping water intake helps you feel full too.
Mind you, this sort of thing would only be a solution if caloric density is the issue.
Being said, if all of your beverages are zero cal (water, black coffee, black tea) it would give your calorie intake more wiggle room.
When I first started this app, my calorie budget was 2300 based on my goals, now it's 1990. It'll adjust.0 -
You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).
Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.
Good luck!3 -
JamesHoward33 wrote: »You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).
Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.
Good luck!
I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.
Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.
There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.
1 -
JamesHoward33 wrote: »You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).
Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.
Good luck!
I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.
Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.
There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.
Well, to be fair, there is that extra 2-4 calories per day that a pound of muscle burns at rest, compared to the smaller number of calories that a pound of fat burns at rest to keep itself alive and perking.
So, if a person added 4 pounds of muscle, they'd burn a whopping 8-16 more calories daily at rest. 🤣 In activity, AFAIK, not significantly more calories unless more muscle makes them move more.
Sadly, yes: 4 pounds of muscle gain in a month is highly unlikely, extra unlikely in a calorie deficit, very extra - sadly to me and OP - even a little bit more unlikely for women.
I'm sorry, PP (JamesHoward33), I think @mtaratoot is right.
Quite a few people think they've gained muscle quickly in a deficit because they got stronger fast (that's neuromuscular adaptation, better recruiting/using existing muscle fibers); because they look more defined (water retention in muscles for repair gives a bit of a pumped look); or because they seem a little smaller (that pump, improved posture, a little fat loss that's masked by that extra water retention, maybe a little overall glycogen/water depletion offset on the scale by the muscle-local water retention). It can be deceptive.
Two pounds a month would be a very good muscle gain result for a male under ideal conditions (young, male, in a calorie surplus, good progressive strength program, excellent nutrition, genetic predisposition and more) . . . half that would be good for a woman like me or OP (same conditions, but 100% less male so likely lower testosterone).2 -
JamesHoward33 wrote: »You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).
Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.
Good luck!
I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.
Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.
There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.
I understand a pound is a pound. But an inch of muscle is heavier than an inch of fat.
As far as gaining muscle, my shirt sleeves will disagree with you
I may not have articulated my point as well as you, the point being, as you said, more muscle mass will burn more calories.
Sounds like you know your stuff!
1 -
Barely. A pound of muscle burns between 6-8 calories per day so not really enough to be a factor. Fat burns around 2-3.JamesHoward33 wrote: »JamesHoward33 wrote: »You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).
Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.
Good luck!
I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.
Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.
There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.
I understand a pound is a pound. But an inch of muscle is heavier than an inch of fat.
As far as gaining muscle, my shirt sleeves will disagree with you
I may not have articulated my point as well as you, the point being, as you said, more muscle mass will burn more calories.
Sounds like you know your stuff!
1 -
The wonderful thing about the human body, and the reason why we are the apex land species, is our body's ability to adapt and thrive to almost any stress and any environment. Case in point: Hunger. Hunger pangs are a survival defense mechanism that you have a little bit of control over by compressing the gene that controls your Ghrelin output.
Epigenetics is a fascinating subject that shows you that you can affect certain traits over the course of your lifetime. I like to think of genes as a townhall meeting of DNA strands (stay with me on this one). You have all these genes demanding attention (expanded genes), and others that are quiet (compressed). The choices you make, environment you live in, dietary restraints, heck, even elevation, plays a role in how loud or quiet a gene is expressed. Hunger (ghrelin) is a tough one, but it can be subdued over a LONG period of time IF mental fortitude is stronger. You will always feel hunger regardless of how long you work on compressing that gene, but it will get better and less painful over time (kind of like tinnitus. You kind of just get used to it and it just becomes background noise.)
1200 calories very well could be what someone needs. Survival genes (like the output of ghrelin) tell you that you need to eat more calories. Even though it is likely untrue. Dieting is never pleasant. It's largely a battle of will power vs intended results. Is it worth it? That is the real question. I, myself, am on day 11 of my 1600 calorie diet and I can tell you I HATE IT. I'm hungry almost always. Results are steady and that helps provide me with motivation to continue. A little about me: 37 Y/O male. 203lb. 5'7" 27.9% BF (56.8LB of fat) 79.8 lb skeletal muscle 107.9lb water. My BMR is 1810 calories a day. I have lost 9lbs in 11 days. Muscle mass has gone down by 1.3lbs. Water is the same. which means fat loss is 7.7lbs. Not bad, right? I understand hunger. There's no easy way around it. I would highly recommend to anyone trying to lose or gain weight to log everything they eat on myfitnesspal.com, get a Galaxy Watch, an accurate digital body scale, and a food scale. All of these will help keep you honest with yourself, help you know when you need to tweak your diet and/or exercise, and provide you with the motivation you need to continue.
This trick is disgusting, but I swear to the god of all things cute and fluffy in the world that it works: 2tbs apple cider vinegar, 2tbs lemon juice, dash of cayenne pepper, about 3oz water. Drink it first thing in the morning (have a water chaser on hand), and any time you are feeling hungry. It's like a fire extinguisher for your blazing ghrelin hunger pangs. I've preached enough. Good luck with your weight loss journey. It's going to be horrible. Embrace it, because it will all be worth it in the end.
0 -
you have not lost 9 lbs in 11 days. MAYBE about 3 max the rest is water.The wonderful thing about the human body, and the reason why we are the apex land species, is our body's ability to adapt and thrive to almost any stress and any environment. Case in point: Hunger. Hunger pangs are a survival defense mechanism that you have a little bit of control over by compressing the gene that controls your Ghrelin output.
Epigenetics is a fascinating subject that shows you that you can affect certain traits over the course of your lifetime. I like to think of genes as a townhall meeting of DNA strands (stay with me on this one). You have all these genes demanding attention (expanded genes), and others that are quiet (compressed). The choices you make, environment you live in, dietary restraints, heck, even elevation, plays a role in how loud or quiet a gene is expressed. Hunger (ghrelin) is a tough one, but it can be subdued over a LONG period of time IF mental fortitude is stronger. You will always feel hunger regardless of how long you work on compressing that gene, but it will get better and less painful over time (kind of like tinnitus. You kind of just get used to it and it just becomes background noise.)
1200 calories very well could be what someone needs. Survival genes (like the output of ghrelin) tell you that you need to eat more calories. Even though it is likely untrue. Dieting is never pleasant. It's largely a battle of will power vs intended results. Is it worth it? That is the real question. I, myself, am on day 11 of my 1600 calorie diet and I can tell you I HATE IT. I'm hungry almost always. Results are steady and that helps provide me with motivation to continue. A little about me: 37 Y/O male. 203lb. 5'7" 27.9% BF (56.8LB of fat) 79.8 lb skeletal muscle 107.9lb water. My BMR is 1810 calories a day. I have lost 9lbs in 11 days. Muscle mass has gone down by 1.3lbs. Water is the same. which means fat loss is 7.7lbs. Not bad, right? I understand hunger. There's no easy way around it. I would highly recommend to anyone trying to lose or gain weight to log everything they eat on myfitnesspal.com, get a Galaxy Watch, an accurate digital body scale, and a food scale. All of these will help keep you honest with yourself, help you know when you need to tweak your diet and/or exercise, and provide you with the motivation you need to continue.
This trick is disgusting, but I swear to the god of all things cute and fluffy in the world that it works: 2tbs apple cider vinegar, 2tbs lemon juice, dash of cayenne pepper, about 3oz water. Drink it first thing in the morning (have a water chaser on hand), and any time you are feeling hungry. It's like a fire extinguisher for your blazing ghrelin hunger pangs. I've preached enough. Good luck with your weight loss journey. It's going to be horrible. Embrace it, because it will all be worth it in the end.
2 -
@Dan__Cote I will leave out the discussion of WHAT exactly you've lost in 11 days.
I think there were some responses to your other post that detailed the issues that a) you don't really KNOW with the precision you believe you do as to what is happening with your body composition and b) the caloric density of stored fat is pretty much known for values of usefulness and within margins it is usefully set at around 3500 Cal per lb.
The fallacy of overpowering our hormones with pure will-power eventually dawns on most of us, probably, after a few rounds of weight losses and regains.
We can accept that, in spite of multiple points of evidence to the contrary, all failed dieters are willpower weeklings. Or we can accept that perhaps willpower is a far from reliable and far from likely method of achieving long term weight management. Including a far from likely method of achieving and maintaining a meaningful loss.
As the years go by, if you do find yourself on another go-around, you may want to consider that seeking reasonable goals has a lot to do with the possibility of success. I am NOT saying that you should not aim for exceptional results. There is nothing wrong with aiming for exceptional results. BUT, there is a lot wrong with believing you can achieve them by browbeating your body into submission.
Aim for a reasonable deficit while engaged in a reasonable set of routines that you have a reasonable expectation you will be able to adhere to long term. Time is not part of the variables you should be trying to rigidly control. You may be surprised at how much you will be able to achieve. Or how little long term success you're likely to find if you peg your goals on the wrong variables.
Don't invest yourself so rigidly you're not willing to adjust until you break.
Regardless. Best of luck both for now and in the future.4 -
i'm a 5'4" female, and MFP says i should eat 1250 daily calories to lose half a pound a week. i always eat back around half of my exercise calories, because when i didn't, i felt weak and dizzy and eating some back means i feel good and can work out and enjoy life.
btw, i do lose about half a pound a week.
2 -
Dan cote,
The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.
Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.
It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan
And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.
4 -
paperpudding wrote: »Dan cote,
The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.
Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.
It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan
And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.
I can agree that unpleasant hunger torture is not desirable. It gets better the longer you do it. This isn't my 1st rodeo though. I'm new to this forum, not the life. I've been bulking and cutting for the majority of the time since i was in my early 20s. It works for me. Apple cider vinegar doesn't directly make you lose weight. true. It just makes you not have hunger pangs for a while. I use to use it during extended field training in the Army to keep hunger away, and I use it during cutting to do the same. It's best if most dieters don't follow my exact advice. It is extremely difficult to manage. Like with anyone's advice on here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Experiment. Try new things. Oh yeah, down another .4lbs since my original post. You don't NEED to burn 3600 calories to lose a pound of pure fat (insert mind-blown emoji). Hormones are powerful. The human body is complicated. To oversimplify such a complex subject that even "experts" don't know everything about is... Anywho, this has turned into a debate forum. Sorry.
back to the original subject.
Yes. 1200 calories seems realistic. Just move your body and drink a ton of water. Stay with it!0 -
hormones are given too much credit for FAT loss or gain. The body gains, loses or maintains mass based on calories. Your hormones may tell you to eat more however the direct result will be determined what you do with that hunger caloricly. You may store more water at times hormonally but that is not fat.paperpudding wrote: »Dan cote,
The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.
Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.
It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan
And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.
I can agree that unpleasant hunger torture is not desirable. It gets better the longer you do it. This isn't my 1st rodeo though. I'm new to this forum, not the life. I've been bulking and cutting for the majority of the time since i was in my early 20s. It works for me. Apple cider vinegar doesn't directly make you lose weight. true. It just makes you not have hunger pangs for a while. I use to use it during extended field training in the Army to keep hunger away, and I use it during cutting to do the same. It's best if most dieters don't follow my exact advice. It is extremely difficult to manage. Like with anyone's advice on here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Experiment. Try new things. Oh yeah, down another .4lbs since my original post. You don't NEED to burn 3600 calories to lose a pound of pure fat (insert mind-blown emoji). Hormones are powerful. The human body is complicated. To oversimplify such a complex subject that even "experts" don't know everything about is... Anywho, this has turned into a debate forum. Sorry.
back to the original subject.
Yes. 1200 calories seems realistic. Just move your body and drink a ton of water. Stay with it!
And yes, a pound of stored fat is around 3,500 calorie as much as flowery articles have attempted to debunk that. There just isn’t any sufficient evidence to disprove it, so for rational conversation and having a baseline to go off of, this equation works for the most part.
6 -
paperpudding wrote: »Dan cote,
The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.
Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.
It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan
And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.
I can agree that unpleasant hunger torture is not desirable. It gets better the longer you do it. This isn't my 1st rodeo though. I'm new to this forum, not the life. I've been bulking and cutting for the majority of the time since i was in my early 20s. It works for me. Apple cider vinegar doesn't directly make you lose weight. true. It just makes you not have hunger pangs for a while.
Actually, no, not universally. During weight loss, I drank apple cider vinegar daily for weeks at a time, and didn't drink it for other weeks at a time. (Reasons for starting and stopping had nothing to do with weight loss.) It had zero observable effect on my hunger or weight loss rate. I don't dispute that your experience is true for you, but you're on shaky ground when you tell other people how they will feel. They might, they might not. The research I've read on this point suggests minor effects, at most.I use to use it during extended field training in the Army to keep hunger away, and I use it during cutting to do the same. It's best if most dieters don't follow my exact advice. It is extremely difficult to manage. Like with anyone's advice on here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Experiment. Try new things. Oh yeah, down another .4lbs since my original post. You don't NEED to burn 3600 calories to lose a pound of pure fat (insert mind-blown emoji). Hormones are powerful. The human body is complicated. To oversimplify such a complex subject that even "experts" don't know everything about is... Anywho, this has turned into a debate forum. Sorry.
back to the original subject.
Yes. 1200 calories seems realistic. Just move your body and drink a ton of water. Stay with it!
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions