Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does a Higher Calorie Allowance Make Managing Weight Loss Easier or Harder?
ddsb1111
Posts: 925 Member
in Debate Club
I’m sharing a question I had from another board here, as I can see how it might spark a debate-
When you have a significant amount of weight to lose, which usually comes with a generous calorie allowance, how do you strike a balance between eating satiating, nutrient dense foods and including treats so you don’t feel deprived?
For those who’ve regained some or all of the weight, do you think it’s because the approach was too extreme, or does balancing healthy foods with treats just not feel satisfying enough?
For context, my TDEE is in the 1500s, and I can’t imagine how amazing it would be to work with 2500+ calories. It seems like it would be so much easier to include everything I want and need, making it less tempting to fall off track. Is that not the case for you?
What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
When you have a significant amount of weight to lose, which usually comes with a generous calorie allowance, how do you strike a balance between eating satiating, nutrient dense foods and including treats so you don’t feel deprived?
For those who’ve regained some or all of the weight, do you think it’s because the approach was too extreme, or does balancing healthy foods with treats just not feel satisfying enough?
For context, my TDEE is in the 1500s, and I can’t imagine how amazing it would be to work with 2500+ calories. It seems like it would be so much easier to include everything I want and need, making it less tempting to fall off track. Is that not the case for you?
What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
0
Replies
-
@springlering62 But remember, the difference between me and your 1500 is only six Oreos, a big bakery cookie or soft pretzel, a plate of cheese and crackers, a Hershey bar. It probably seems like whinging, viewing me from the other person’s side, but you still have to both count the calories, and make those calories count.
For some reason, folks see the calorie spread and equate it to lots and lots and lots of extra food. It’s still the same old calorie grind.
Hmm, I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here, but I related to the rest of your post from that earlier thread. I think I’m just a little confused by the math. If I maintain in the 1500s and you maintain in the 2500s, that’s an extra 1,000 calories, not 250. That’s a significant difference. You could fit in quite a bit more food, maybe even an extra treat. To put it into perspective, that’s almost my entire daily calorie intake when I’m dieting.
A higher calorie allowance inherently provides more opportunities for pleasure and satisfaction from food, which can make the process feel less restrictive. While everyone has to balance indulgence and nutrition, those with more calories to allocate might experience less frequent deprivation because they can include more of the foods they enjoy without exceeding their goals. This could result in a greater psychological reward, as they can incorporate treats more easily while still meeting their nutritional needs. For someone with a lower calorie target, the same indulgence might require significant sacrifices, making it a more challenging experience overall.
That said, I can understand how, from your perspective, the challenges of managing those extra calories might feel the same, balancing treats and nutritious foods while staying on track is a grind no matter the numbers. It’s interesting how the experience can feel so similar despite the difference in allowances.0 -
@springlering62
I’ve lost four, and would like to lose about six more.
I’m maintaining, but. struggling to lose anything.
Oh, and I wanted to chime in on this because so many of us who need to track our intake or risk going off track can relate to this struggle. Maintenance really is the ultimate grind. It takes constant effort and focus. And sometimes, bouncing back after slipping up isn’t as easy as it sounds. Right now my head is just not in it. Am I fine by most people’s standards? Yes. But am I 6-7 pounds above where I want to be? Also yes. And I care, but I’m also struggling to do anything about it. Part of the challenge is my calorie limit is so low, there’s hardly room for even a small treat. The other part is that my heart just isn’t in it right now. It’s tough to stay “on” for years with so little flexibility. That’s the reality of low-calorie living, but it is what it is. My brain and reward system don’t care about the fact that I’m small—it still wants the same rewards that bigger folks get 😂.0 -
I had a lot of weight to lose (still have a fair bit to lose) and I'll be honest - I didn't 'take advantage' of that higher allowance, because the idea of having to decrease how much I ate as I lost weight was a bit depressing. I didn't cut super low, but I have been eating around 1400 a day (plus one, maybe 2 days a week where I go over, maybe around 1800-1900) since I started out 61lbs ago and it should see me through to the range I want to stay, and I'll slowly start upping it to slow down.0
-
@AnnPT77 Back in the newsfeed days, I actually had a woman unfriend me because I said something like that on a thread where she was bemoaning her maybe lower than average calorie needs, kind of expressing resentment toward demographically similar people who had higher maintenance calories thus had it easier. It seemed odd to me to assume that it's necessarily easier.
I suspect individual people do have different biochemical/physiological/psychological responses to a given calorie reduction, but more an individual (maybe genetic) thing, not "easier for people who need more calories".
I do think it may be socially easier, in some ways, with a larger budget. For example, if I go out for dinner with people who are bigger than me, I may feel some impulse to eat as much as they do, FOMO basically. The biggest person at the table maybe could keep up with the smaller ones and still be within calorie budget. But that kind of thing is a blip in the big picture, probably.
I can totally see how this topic could turn into a debate, especially with us “shorties” feeling a bit envious of larger calorie allowances lol. But, no matter how you look at it, it’s tough, and complaining about it certainly won’t get me more calories.
But for the sake of conversation, so much of successful dieting really comes down to perspective. Maybe this could offer a positive angle for someone with a larger calorie allowance who’s struggling to stop eating when they hit their limit. This is where I’m trying to understand—does it ever feel like that for you? Does it help to fit in treats so you don’t feel too restricted, or do you find that even with treats, they don’t feel like enough? What’s the biggest challenge for you when you have so many calories to work with? It’s hard to fully understand from the perspective of having such a low amount to work with in the first place.
And yes, totally, it’s the FOMO I’m talking about. You hit the nail on the head.
Oh, and sorry about the “friend” situation. It’s really not something worth getting that upset over. What a strange situation, trying to win by playing the victim. Honestly, you’re probably better off she unfriended.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I had a lot of weight to lose (still have a fair bit to lose) and I'll be honest - I didn't 'take advantage' of that higher allowance, because the idea of having to decrease how much I ate as I lost weight was a bit depressing. I didn't cut super low, but I have been eating around 1400 a day (plus one, maybe 2 days a week where I go over, maybe around 1800-1900) since I started out 61lbs ago and it should see me through to the range I want to stay, and I'll slowly start upping it to slow down.
So for you, it’s easier to cut extra calories now rather than deal with losing them later? That’s actually surprising to me. Personally, I aim to make dieting and maintenance as effortless as possible, but if this approach works better for you, that’s awesome! I’m just really over the cycle of yo-yo dieting, and anything that feels drastic or unnecessary is a red flag for me, like I might be heading down the wrong path again.0 -
I’m not just “blessed” and get to eat 2310 calories a day.
I also normally average about 20,000 steps a day, either an hour training session or an hour cardio weights class, a minimum of 45 minutes swimming laps, and probably a hot power yoga class. I typically turn my “move” ring 4-5 times, except on a rest day, where it’s probably going to turn 3x. Today, I expect to turn it 6x.
Sure, some people are going to think “not fair she gets 2310” to themselves. Well, I’m more active than the person who does three workouts a week and 10,000 steps a day, hence I need fuel.
Yes, that’s 810 calories. That is two large Lidl bakery cookies. Or a Starbucks drink and a small baked good.
You’ve got to use it just a wisely as the person getting 1500. I’m not going to waste all that work on a cookie every day. Sure, once in a while is a treat. I do looooove my cookies.
I try to “spend” it on the extra protein I need, a big bowl of buttered air pop to replenish carbs, an extra large breakfast with heaps of carbs and protein, and a little chocolate syrup and hagel to make it enjoyable. (The two probably totaled about 25-30extra calories today.)
Today I’m spending calories on a slice of avocado toast, a small naval orange, and the giant California roll I’m planning to have at lunch with a friend. My meals are currently prelogged through Sunday.
Proportionally, I’m probably just as peckish as the person “surviving” on 1500 a day, probably more so, because I’m easily burning 900-1200 a day more than most.
When I first started and went from sedentary to moderately active, I did do 1470/day the first four months, until I got a trainer who encouraged me to go up and up again, so I wouldn’t hurt myself.
It’s all proportionate to what you’re doing.
My diary is open, along with my great, good, so so, and uh-oh choices. My steps are down while I nurse a sore foot. Staionary bike and swim are up to compensate.
Sure, some people have slightly higher than average BMR, but not enough that the Gods of Calories award them a daily freeforall.
There really is no “free” lunch when it comes to calories.3 -
@ddsb1111 - In weight loss mode - I’m an abstainer rather than a moderator. I suppose in maintenance I’m an abstainer too. 🤔
I tend to do better with more restrictions and less calories . I may be in the minority here. ( when I switched to only whole foods, there is only so much broccoli or squash or fish I can eat. I found more bang for my calorie buck.)
I lost 40 lbs about 10 years ago and I’ve stayed in range but I have to watch out for a stress glasses of wine here and there as empty calories… it’s my biggest calorie temptation..
I also feel better and more sprightly on fewer cals as opposed to more. Hara hachi bu or eating until I am 80% full - it’s been beneficial for me personally.
2 -
I’m sharing a question I had from another board here, as I can see how it might spark a debate-
When you have a significant amount of weight to lose, which usually comes with a generous calorie allowance, how do you strike a balance between eating satiating, nutrient dense foods and including treats so you don’t feel deprived?
For those who’ve regained some or all of the weight, do you think it’s because the approach was too extreme, or does balancing healthy foods with treats just not feel satisfying enough?
For context, my TDEE is in the 1500s, and I can’t imagine how amazing it would be to work with 2500+ calories. It seems like it would be so much easier to include everything I want and need, making it less tempting to fall off track. Is that not the case for you?
What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
I'm not sure really. I've been overweight and even as a 6' tall guy, you have to keep in perspective the nutritional needs of enough protein, carbs, etc.
And I've never been a petite woman, regardless of weight, so no direct comparison.
I think the biggest hurdle regardless is portion sizes. I had never really thought about it, but a very petite woman on here mentioned that even eating a banana was something she would log. As a 6' tall guy, I would have never weighed a banana since in my mind the difference between a very small one and a very large one is still a small percentage of my calories. And the same applies to cookies, cake, or just about anything else you can buy already made and portioned. It's not as if they make a "big lifter" size and a "very petite" size.
But usually for me, when I did want to indulge a little more, I'd do it as a reward for some longer cardio or something. That way I could more easily occasionally fit in a trip to the food truck and enjoying a couple beers at the local brewery. No matter what size you are, you have to work for extra calorie allowances. But I do think overall it's harder for a smaller person. There just aren't as many options, and the margin for error is fewer calories.
2 -
@AnnPT77 Back in the newsfeed days, I actually had a woman unfriend me because I said something like that on a thread where she was bemoaning her maybe lower than average calorie needs, kind of expressing resentment toward demographically similar people who had higher maintenance calories thus had it easier. It seemed odd to me to assume that it's necessarily easier.
I suspect individual people do have different biochemical/physiological/psychological responses to a given calorie reduction, but more an individual (maybe genetic) thing, not "easier for people who need more calories".
I do think it may be socially easier, in some ways, with a larger budget. For example, if I go out for dinner with people who are bigger than me, I may feel some impulse to eat as much as they do, FOMO basically. The biggest person at the table maybe could keep up with the smaller ones and still be within calorie budget. But that kind of thing is a blip in the big picture, probably.
I can totally see how this topic could turn into a debate, especially with us “shorties” feeling a bit envious of larger calorie allowances lol. But, no matter how you look at it, it’s tough, and complaining about it certainly won’t get me more calories.
But for the sake of conversation, so much of successful dieting really comes down to perspective. Maybe this could offer a positive angle for someone with a larger calorie allowance who’s struggling to stop eating when they hit their limit. This is where I’m trying to understand—does it ever feel like that for you? Does it help to fit in treats so you don’t feel too restricted, or do you find that even with treats, they don’t feel like enough? What’s the biggest challenge for you when you have so many calories to work with? It’s hard to fully understand from the perspective of having such a low amount to work with in the first place.
And yes, totally, it’s the FOMO I’m talking about. You hit the nail on the head.
Oh, and sorry about the “friend” situation. It’s really not something worth getting that upset over. What a strange situation, trying to win by playing the victim. Honestly, you’re probably better off she unfriended.
I think some of it is that some people with larger calorie allotments don't fully understand that often, those of us with lower calorie allotments simply can't fit in "treats". They talk about sprinkling treats into their daily eating like it's nothing. They don't seem to comprehend that I do it once a year. On my birthday. That's it. They talk about eating dessert. And I've seen them comment that they would be starving at my calorie level. Well, yes. That's why I try to eat mostly filling foods.4 -
@AnnPT77 Back in the newsfeed days, I actually had a woman unfriend me because I said something like that on a thread where she was bemoaning her maybe lower than average calorie needs, kind of expressing resentment toward demographically similar people who had higher maintenance calories thus had it easier. It seemed odd to me to assume that it's necessarily easier.
I suspect individual people do have different biochemical/physiological/psychological responses to a given calorie reduction, but more an individual (maybe genetic) thing, not "easier for people who need more calories".
I do think it may be socially easier, in some ways, with a larger budget. For example, if I go out for dinner with people who are bigger than me, I may feel some impulse to eat as much as they do, FOMO basically. The biggest person at the table maybe could keep up with the smaller ones and still be within calorie budget. But that kind of thing is a blip in the big picture, probably.
I can totally see how this topic could turn into a debate, especially with us “shorties” feeling a bit envious of larger calorie allowances lol. But, no matter how you look at it, it’s tough, and complaining about it certainly won’t get me more calories.
But for the sake of conversation, so much of successful dieting really comes down to perspective. Maybe this could offer a positive angle for someone with a larger calorie allowance who’s struggling to stop eating when they hit their limit. This is where I’m trying to understand—does it ever feel like that for you? Does it help to fit in treats so you don’t feel too restricted, or do you find that even with treats, they don’t feel like enough? What’s the biggest challenge for you when you have so many calories to work with? It’s hard to fully understand from the perspective of having such a low amount to work with in the first place.
And yes, totally, it’s the FOMO I’m talking about. You hit the nail on the head.
Oh, and sorry about the “friend” situation. It’s really not something worth getting that upset over. What a strange situation, trying to win by playing the victim. Honestly, you’re probably better off she unfriended.
I'd distinguish 2 generalized cases here, with the caveat that it's a little black and white/cartoonish to talk about since most of these things involve a range of cases, not distinct extremes:
1. Physically larger person who has a larger allowance because of size (weight or height larger or both, with maybe a few differences between those two, but more in common in my thought here)
2. Same-sized person (same size as "generic you") who has a large allowance because of higher activity level or some variation on blind luck.
In case 1, the person needs more of certain types of nutrition than the smaller person, especially in the height larger or frame larger subcases, maybe not so much so in the just-fatter subcase. In the height/frame cases, they can't necessarily spend all their extra calories on treats and get the same health benefits as the smaller person, and quite probably not all the satiation benefits either.
In all forms of case 1, genetic variability in this dimension being equal, I'd expect a big person eating 20% below maintenance calories to be roughly as hungry and challenged as a small person eating 20% below their maintenance calories, even though the big person gets more calories. Their bodies need more calories, so probably demand more calories.
In case 2, I do think there are benefits. Partly, I think that because I feel like I somewhat am case 2. I have higher maintenance calories than many people of similar demographics and similar activity level, at least in the way people talk about their activity levels here. (I have some vague theories that might account for part of the "why", but don't really know why I need more calories.)
If I'm the same size as someone with a calorie budget hundreds lower, I quite possibly have very similar nutritional needs - same minimum grams of protein/fats, same micronutrient needs, whatever. I may still have the same appetite issue described above, if we generically assume a body tends to demand the calories it needs to maintain. But if I can fit my nutrition into - making up numbers here - 1400 calories, but need 2000 calories, I might have more room to choose to eat some treats with those extra 600 calories, or some personally extra-sating foods beyond the minimum nutrition needs, and I'd guess those things might make the weight loss process easier in some respects.
Still, it took work to revamp my eating patterns of multiple decades, so it wasn't easy every second for sure, and possibly not easier in all ways just because possibly/probably easier in some ways.
I think we all have individual situations or inclinations that make the process a little easier or a little harder than it may be for some others. I have other things that I think made it easier for me: I don't think I've had the constant obsessive "food noise" some of the GLP-1 users mention the drugs relieving; I didn't hate myself or my body when I was fat; I'm a pretty confident, assertive person who believes she can accomplish stuff if she puts her mind to it; I'm not (very much) an emotional or stress eater; I was already athletically active; I was used to cooking myself and eating a lot of whole foods; I'm good enough at math that the calorie counting math wasn't hard for me as it obviously is for some who post; ditto for understanding and using software. Those are some things I can think of that probably made it relatively easier than it could have been to lose weight, and most of those are some form of blind luck or coincidence.
Some of those things arguably might've made loss harder, too: I couldn't switch from highly processed foods to whole foods to feel more sated, I couldn't add a bunch of new exercise, etc. (Strong note here: Those last remarks are not complaints. They're observations of things we often advise people to try that were not changes I could make, and that's all. They're mostly lucky things, not roadblocks, in the big picture.)
BTW, I mentioned FOMO in my PP, but also called it "a blip". That "blip" remark was because for me these days, I don't eat with others much, let alone bigger others, so if I over-eat somewhat at those times, I can probably keep the overall intake OK.
That may not be true for someone with - say - a larger partner/spouse they eat with often. I would never, ever blame him for this - it was all me and my decisions! - but I think one of the the many and varied things that added to my weight gain in the first place was having a larger husband with a larger calorie budget, and it was tempting to keep up because FOMO, basically. (P.S. I feel obligated to say widowed, not divorced!
No shame or blame to him or our relationship for anything.)
Note: There were a bundle of assumptions in the above for which I have exactly zero scientific evidence, and my education/background is absolutely not in any relevant field, so basically this is one of those things where someone (me) is spouting about their intuition about something they really don't know much of anything about.
P.S. Thank you for moving this topic to another thread. It's interesting to speculate about and discuss. My concern on the other thread was not mostly that it was debate-y (though it is, a bit), but more that it was taking someone's support thread into a discussion area the OP didn't start. To me, that seemed counter to the Community Guidelines that ask us to stay on topic, not hijack threads, etc. If the OP had blessed the digression, that's fine, but asking them to bless the digression didn't seem great to me, either - people tend to give the polite answer. That OP has experience here in the community so maybe NBD, but seeing newer folks' posts taken off into other territory makes me concerned that that doesn't leave them with a warm feeling about support here, y'know? So thanks.2 -
Sure, some people are going to think “not fair she gets 2310” to themselves. Well, I’m more active than the person who does three workouts a week and 10,000 steps a day, hence I need fuel.
Yes, that’s 810 calories. That is two large Lidl bakery cookies. Or a Starbucks drink and a small baked good.
You’ve got to use it just a wisely as the person getting 1500. I’m not going to waste all that work on a cookie every day. Sure, once in a while is a treat. I do looooove my cookies.
There’s a big misconception that smaller people don’t need those calories, and while that might be true biologically, try explaining that to our stomachs, minds, and taste buds. Unfortunately appetite doesn’t always align with size, I know plenty of smaller people who could out-eat those much larger than them. So, for us, extra calories or an occasional treat can feel like a total foodgasm. That’s all I’m saying. It sounds like you’re saying, for you, that your allowance feels really small as well unless you work your tush off for it.
Apologies if this feels like a comparison. It’s not about competition, there’s no villain or winner here. It’s just about understanding the differences in our experiences. And honestly, the hard work you put in to earn that calorie allowance? That’s seriously impressive! In fact, you and some of the others here are the reason I’m reevaluating my businesses in 2025. Working on less dependent employees so I can fit in more activity and have a better work/life balance (and cookies lol).
0 -
SafariGalNYC wrote: »@ddsb1111 - In weight loss mode - I’m an abstainer rather than a moderator. I suppose in maintenance I’m an abstainer too. 🤔
I tend to do better with more restrictions and less calories . I may be in the minority here. ( when I switched to only whole foods, there is only so much broccoli or squash or fish I can eat. I found more bang for my calorie buck.)
I lost 40 lbs about 10 years ago and I’ve stayed in range but I have to watch out for a stress glasses of wine here and there as empty calories… it’s my biggest calorie temptation..
I also feel better and more sprightly on fewer cals as opposed to more. Hara hachi bu or eating until I am 80% full - it’s been beneficial for me personally.
I’ve definitely gone through phases, and sometimes still do, where mindfulness doesn’t quite cut it, so I just don’t buy certain things or keep them in the house. Other times, I can have those items in the pantry, and they don’t faze me at all. It’s like the “off switch” works better when temptations and reminders aren’t staring me in the face, and I imagine having extra calories available could make that trickier. It’s such a slippery slope.
In a way, I guess my lower calorie allowance has its benefits. If I rarely have room for something in my day, I kind of forget it’s even an option. Out of sight, out of mind!
1 -
robertw486 wrote: »I’m sharing a question I had from another board here, as I can see how it might spark a debate-
When you have a significant amount of weight to lose, which usually comes with a generous calorie allowance, how do you strike a balance between eating satiating, nutrient dense foods and including treats so you don’t feel deprived?
For those who’ve regained some or all of the weight, do you think it’s because the approach was too extreme, or does balancing healthy foods with treats just not feel satisfying enough?
For context, my TDEE is in the 1500s, and I can’t imagine how amazing it would be to work with 2500+ calories. It seems like it would be so much easier to include everything I want and need, making it less tempting to fall off track. Is that not the case for you?
What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
I'm not sure really. I've been overweight and even as a 6' tall guy, you have to keep in perspective the nutritional needs of enough protein, carbs, etc.
And I've never been a petite woman, regardless of weight, so no direct comparison.
I think the biggest hurdle regardless is portion sizes. I had never really thought about it, but a very petite woman on here mentioned that even eating a banana was something she would log. As a 6' tall guy, I would have never weighed a banana since in my mind the difference between a very small one and a very large one is still a small percentage of my calories. And the same applies to cookies, cake, or just about anything else you can buy already made and portioned. It's not as if they make a "big lifter" size and a "very petite" size.
But usually for me, when I did want to indulge a little more, I'd do it as a reward for some longer cardio or something. That way I could more easily occasionally fit in a trip to the food truck and enjoying a couple beers at the local brewery. No matter what size you are, you have to work for extra calorie allowances. But I do think overall it's harder for a smaller person. There just aren't as many options, and the margin for error is fewer calories.
This is exactly what I was wondering, if it ever feels like, “Oh, it’s just a small banana.” A banana to me would be a pretty serious decision. It sounds like you’re experiencing what I imagined, and honestly, I’m glad for all the benefits that come with your calorie allowance! And, you’re absolutely right, no matter how you look at it, we all have to put in the work. There’s really no shortcut to making this happen.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. It’s really cool to see it from another perspective, and it allows me to help others better in your shoes. I think we could all benefit in knowing the pros and cons on both sides of the coin.0 -
Now, just to clarify, 2310 is your number to lose 1/2 lb a week, right? Because if we’re using that math, and I’m losing 1/2 lb a week on 1200 calories, that’s over a 1000-calorie difference. That’s why I find this interesting—you mentioned it’s only “one large cookie,” but for me, that’s nearly my entire daily calorie allowance. I think that’s the key difference here: the way we each get to view and experience our calories.
…. I’m reevaluating my businesses in 2025. Working on less dependent employees so I can fit in more activity and have a better work/life balance (and cookies lol).
Yes, 2310 to lose half a pound a week. I wasn’t losing and was frustrated- til I reviewed my diary and saw that for the most part I was averaging well above that, so duh, no wonder no movement.
Are you very short? How did you get to 1200? 1200 is awfully low. I’d be clawing the walls and snarling at everyone within earshot.
I was retired and bored, meaning even more boredom eating and weight gain. When I started this, I had the luxury (and it IS a luxury) of time, and framed it as “Improving Me is Now My Fulltime Job”.
Getting extra time in your day will certainly help.
1 -
I think some of it is that some people with larger calorie allotments don't fully understand that often, those of us with lower calorie allotments simply can't fit in "treats". They talk about sprinkling treats into their daily eating like it's nothing. They don't seem to comprehend that I do it once a year. On my birthday. That's it. They talk about eating dessert. And I've seen them comment that they would be starving at my calorie level. Well, yes. That's why I try to eat mostly filling foods.
Exactly, you get it. We don’t talk about it much because it might come across as complaining, but this is exactly why it’s such a fair question and an important discussion. We can’t truly help others if we don’t understand their perspective.
I’m one of those people who says, “Sprinkle in treats occasionally,” but deep down, I often feel like the odd one out because I really can’t do it very often—or sometimes not at all. The reason we don’t express that more is because it’s hard to be vulnerable about how limited we feel. I wonder how many others are in the same boat and how they’re managing.
@springlering62 makes a great point about activity being a key factor, but even with that, there are still only so many hours in the day to make it all work.
From what I’ve observed here, whether someone has a larger allowance or not, it often still doesn’t feel like enough or much of a treat. However, I think a shift in perspective could make it feel more fulfilling. Even if it doesn’t change things for us, it could still be helpful for them.0 -
@AnnPT77 Back in the newsfeed days, I actually had a woman unfriend me because I said something like that on a thread where she was bemoaning her maybe lower than average calorie needs, kind of expressing resentment toward demographically similar people who had higher maintenance calories thus had it easier. It seemed odd to me to assume that it's necessarily easier.
I suspect individual people do have different biochemical/physiological/psychological responses to a given calorie reduction, but more an individual (maybe genetic) thing, not "easier for people who need more calories".
I do think it may be socially easier, in some ways, with a larger budget. For example, if I go out for dinner with people who are bigger than me, I may feel some impulse to eat as much as they do, FOMO basically. The biggest person at the table maybe could keep up with the smaller ones and still be within calorie budget. But that kind of thing is a blip in the big picture, probably.
I can totally see how this topic could turn into a debate, especially with us “shorties” feeling a bit envious of larger calorie allowances lol. But, no matter how you look at it, it’s tough, and complaining about it certainly won’t get me more calories.
But for the sake of conversation, so much of successful dieting really comes down to perspective. Maybe this could offer a positive angle for someone with a larger calorie allowance who’s struggling to stop eating when they hit their limit. This is where I’m trying to understand—does it ever feel like that for you? Does it help to fit in treats so you don’t feel too restricted, or do you find that even with treats, they don’t feel like enough? What’s the biggest challenge for you when you have so many calories to work with? It’s hard to fully understand from the perspective of having such a low amount to work with in the first place.
And yes, totally, it’s the FOMO I’m talking about. You hit the nail on the head.
Oh, and sorry about the “friend” situation. It’s really not something worth getting that upset over. What a strange situation, trying to win by playing the victim. Honestly, you’re probably better off she unfriended.
I'd distinguish 2 generalized cases here, with the caveat that it's a little black and white/cartoonish to talk about since most of these things involve a range of cases, not distinct extremes:
1. Physically larger person who has a larger allowance because of size (weight or height larger or both, with maybe a few differences between those two, but more in common in my thought here)
2. Same-sized person (same size as "generic you") who has a large allowance because of higher activity level or some variation on blind luck.
In case 1, the person needs more of certain types of nutrition than the smaller person, especially in the height larger or frame larger subcases, maybe not so much so in the just-fatter subcase. In the height/frame cases, they can't necessarily spend all their extra calories on treats and get the same health benefits as the smaller person, and quite probably not all the satiation benefits either.
In all forms of case 1, genetic variability in this dimension being equal, I'd expect a big person eating 20% below maintenance calories to be roughly as hungry and challenged as a small person eating 20% below their maintenance calories, even though the big person gets more calories. Their bodies need more calories, so probably demand more calories.
In case 2, I do think there are benefits. Partly, I think that because I feel like I somewhat am case 2. I have higher maintenance calories than many people of similar demographics and similar activity level, at least in the way people talk about their activity levels here. (I have some vague theories that might account for part of the "why", but don't really know why I need more calories.)
If I'm the same size as someone with a calorie budget hundreds lower, I quite possibly have very similar nutritional needs - same minimum grams of protein/fats, same micronutrient needs, whatever. I may still have the same appetite issue described above, if we generically assume a body tends to demand the calories it needs to maintain. But if I can fit my nutrition into - making up numbers here - 1400 calories, but need 2000 calories, I might have more room to choose to eat some treats with those extra 600 calories, or some personally extra-sating foods beyond the minimum nutrition needs, and I'd guess those things might make the weight loss process easier in some respects.
Still, it took work to revamp my eating patterns of multiple decades, so it wasn't easy every second for sure, and possibly not easier in all ways just because possibly/probably easier in some ways.
I think we all have individual situations or inclinations that make the process a little easier or a little harder than it may be for some others. I have other things that I think made it easier for me: I don't think I've had the constant obsessive "food noise" some of the GLP-1 users mention the drugs relieving; I didn't hate myself or my body when I was fat; I'm a pretty confident, assertive person who believes she can accomplish stuff if she puts her mind to it; I'm not (very much) an emotional or stress eater; I was already athletically active; I was used to cooking myself and eating a lot of whole foods; I'm good enough at math that the calorie counting math wasn't hard for me as it obviously is for some who post; ditto for understanding and using software. Those are some things I can think of that probably made it relatively easier than it could have been to lose weight, and most of those are some form of blind luck or coincidence.
Some of those things arguably might've made loss harder, too: I couldn't switch from highly processed foods to whole foods to feel more sated, I couldn't add a bunch of new exercise, etc. (Strong note here: Those last remarks are not complaints. They're observations of things we often advise people to try that were not changes I could make, and that's all. They're mostly lucky things, not roadblocks, in the big picture.)
BTW, I mentioned FOMO in my PP, but also called it "a blip". That "blip" remark was because for me these days, I don't eat with others much, let alone bigger others, so if I over-eat somewhat at those times, I can probably keep the overall intake OK.
That may not be true for someone with - say - a larger partner/spouse they eat with often. I would never, ever blame him for this - it was all me and my decisions! - but I think one of the the many and varied things that added to my weight gain in the first place was having a larger husband with a larger calorie budget, and it was tempting to keep up because FOMO, basically. (P.S. I feel obligated to say widowed, not divorced! No shame or blame to him or our relationship for anything.)
Note: There were a bundle of assumptions in the above for which I have exactly zero scientific evidence, and my education/background is absolutely not in any relevant field, so basically this is one of those things where someone (me) is spouting about their intuition about something they really don't know much of anything about.
P.S. Thank you for moving this topic to another thread. It's interesting to speculate about and discuss. My concern on the other thread was not mostly that it was debate-y (though it is, a bit), but more that it was taking someone's support thread into a discussion area the OP didn't start. To me, that seemed counter to the Community Guidelines that ask us to stay on topic, not hijack threads, etc. If the OP had blessed the digression, that's fine, but asking them to bless the digression didn't seem great to me, either - people tend to give the polite answer. That OP has experience here in the community so maybe NBD, but seeing newer folks' posts taken off into other territory makes me concerned that that doesn't leave them with a warm feeling about support here, y'know? So thanks.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, it’s so insightful. It’s clear that this journey is hard no matter what, and by understanding how to support each other’s calorie needs and leverage, we can better encourage one another and respect individual choices. It’s tricky to give blanket advice when my approach, eating purely for sustainability because there’s no room for anything else, won’t apply to most people. Finding ways to meet others where they are is key to truly being helpful. For example, in the post I commented on, I wanted to understand if they were struggling because they were being too extreme or because the treats they were fitting in didn’t feel satisfying enough. To truly help, we need to know where the struggle lies. It’s okay to say, “I have plenty of calories; I’m just struggling with changing my habits.” It’s also okay to admit if you’re being too aggressive and finding it hard to stick to the plan. My goal is to meet you where you are and support you from there. I hope that makes sense.2 -
springlering62 wrote: »
Now, just to clarify, 2310 is your number to lose 1/2 lb a week, right? Because if we’re using that math, and I’m losing 1/2 lb a week on 1200 calories, that’s over a 1000-calorie difference. That’s why I find this interesting—you mentioned it’s only “one large cookie,” but for me, that’s nearly my entire daily calorie allowance. I think that’s the key difference here: the way we each get to view and experience our calories.
…. I’m reevaluating my businesses in 2025. Working on less dependent employees so I can fit in more activity and have a better work/life balance (and cookies lol).
Yes, 2310 to lose half a pound a week. I wasn’t losing and was frustrated- til I reviewed my diary and saw that for the most part I was averaging well above that, so duh, no wonder no movement.
Are you very short? How did you get to 1200? 1200 is awfully low. I’d be clawing the walls and snarling at everyone within earshot.
I was retired and bored, meaning even more boredom eating and weight gain. When I started this, I had the luxury (and it IS a luxury) of time, and framed it as “Improving Me is Now My Fulltime Job”.
Getting extra time in your day will certainly help.
Thank you for explaining to me, I deleted it thinking I’m too tired to do math and I’m probably embarrassing myself. It makes sense now.
I’m about 5’3” (though I think I’ve shrunk, but I’m not checking, lol). To lose 1/2 lb a week, I average around 1200-1230 calories based on my own data. When living my normal life, I maintain at about 1530 and not my leanest. Before kids and work, I was closer to 1700 with 10,000 steps a day—that’s where I’d love to be again. I want to feel strong, and at 43, now’s the perfect time to focus on that!
0 -
From my perspective, do it now.
I WISH WISH WISH I’d had the smarts to do it at 43.
Jeez, if I had it to do all over again…..2 -
I think some of it is that some people with larger calorie allotments don't fully understand that often, those of us with lower calorie allotments simply can't fit in "treats". They talk about sprinkling treats into their daily eating like it's nothing. They don't seem to comprehend that I do it once a year. On my birthday. That's it. They talk about eating dessert. And I've seen them comment that they would be starving at my calorie level. Well, yes. That's why I try to eat mostly filling foods.
Exactly, you get it. We don’t talk about it much because it might come across as complaining, but this is exactly why it’s such a fair question and an important discussion. We can’t truly help others if we don’t understand their perspective.
In part, I think this is a specific case of a general human tendency: To assume our circumstances are the "normal" case, and also perhaps to lack understanding of or empathy for people who differ from that supposed "normal".
There's a thread here now where someone asks if they'll lose weight on 2000 calories - without much context about size/age/etc. - and one of the replies essentially says it's probably too much because that replier has to eat 1200 to lose. We see it more here with the situations reversed, often big guys not really understanding how little some women need to eat to sustain even modest weight loss, but it's the same phenomenon.
This understanding/empathy thing even was an education piece I struggled with when managing a help desk: Some of our staff weren't at all good at comprehending what the picture in a caller's head was, because they implicitly assumed everyone knew what they knew.
I’m one of those people who says, “Sprinkle in treats occasionally,” but deep down, I often feel like the odd one out because I really can’t do it very often—or sometimes not at all. The reason we don’t express that more is because it’s hard to be vulnerable about how limited we feel. I wonder how many others are in the same boat and how they’re managing.
This is more an example of my fundamental hedonism and weak character, not an example of empathy let alone a recommendation: I definitely sometimes throw my usually-structured nutrition goals to the wayside on an occasional day in order to have more treats, and even do likewise with my satiety needs very occasionally. The latter case doesn't usually end well in terms of staying within calorie goal.@springlering62 makes a great point about activity being a key factor, but even with that, there are still only so many hours in the day to make it all work.
Activity is a key factor, but I think it's really important to underscore that activity and exercise aren't full synonyms. NEAT is under-appreciated sometimes, and can be bigger impact than exercise, too. Further, increased NEAT doesn't necessarily require more time. (I'll loop back to that later.)
Further, there is some research suggesting that obese people move less in that NEAT way than otherwise similar non-obese ones, at a statistical average level . . . and continue that lower NEAT even after weight loss. I admit this is a messy topic to research, so I'd call that maybe more probability than definitive proof. I'm not saying anything remotely like "fat people are lazier", it's more complicated than that: Culture and nurture for sure matters, i.e., some children are told to persistently to "be still", and others aren't, which can influence lifelong behavior. At the other extreme might be the nurture that draws on concepts like "the devil makes work for idle hands", so a person should stay busy. There may be genetic factors that make some people more NEAT-y. There's nuance, and it's not about laziness.
There seems to be some impulse in the culture to equate NEAT with steps, but it's not that simple.
In research, there's a concept called "spontaneous activity". There's some tendency for it to increase with calorie surplus, decrease with calorie deficit. There are some hints that that effect is more pronounced in some people, less in others. Definitely there's variation between individuals in their natural level of spontaneous activity. There's some tendency to oversimplify spontaneous activity, too, to something like fidgetiness, but it's not that simple either.
I may be wrong here, remembering incorrectly, but from reading @springlering62's posts over the years here, she's not only very active on the intentional exercise front, but has long been one of those "gotta do stuff" kind of people, i.e., has mentioned high-energy housecleaning, crocheting as a distraction, etc. - needing to do physically busy stuff, in cases where some others might distract themselves with TV or some other more placid behavior. IIRC, she's said that when obese, she was consuming many thousands of calories a day, more than many of us who had been at her starting size would've done without gaining rapidly. If my memory/impression is correct about those things, she might be a high "spontaneous activity" person, too.
As an aside, fidgetiness specifically is an easy-to-understand example of NEAT that doesn't take extra time. There's some research suggesting that a fidgety person can burn a couple of hundred calories more daily than a demographically similar non-fidgety one, just from the fidgetiness. That would be from things like shifting position often at one's desk job, jiggling one's foot while sitting, etc. I'm not suggesting people should do that as a calorie-burning strategy, but it's an example of the potential impact of small behavior differences on total NEAT.
Another thing some researchers have been talking about, though I've seen limited structured studies, is the effect of high calorie flux vs. low calorie flux. The concept advanced here on MFP (making up example numbers for illustration) is that a person who needs 1800 calories at sedentary to maintain weight will lose weight at the same pace if they exercise 500 more daily eating 1800, or eat 1300 daily. Theoretically, that's true. But there's some limited suggestion - maybe more like intuition of researchers, dunno? - that the eat more/move more strategy correlates more with longer term success with weight management.
That "eat more/move more" thing would be an example of "high calorie flux", and the "eat less/move less" would be "low calorie flux", relatively speaking. It's murky what the "why" might be, if the correlation with better weight management is true. It might simply be what has been discussed here, that it's easier to get along on higher calories, such as by fitting in more treats. But there's also a potential that it's just somehow more "thrive-y" for lack of a better term.
Counterbalancing that, though, is some research suggesting that exercising more leads to doing less in daily life, so there's little or no net calorie gain. I think that's usually called "compensation", like "exercise compensation" or "compensatory behavior". There's some reasonable research suggesting that's true at the population level, but I'm skeptical that it's entirely true at the individual level. (Elite athletes in my sport burn a lot more calories than I do, for example. ) Also, the degree of compensation may vary from one person to the next, too; and I strongly suspect that compensation varies depending on how taxing the extra activity is based on an individual's current fitness level.
There are also some smaller things that might matter, too. One is the very small difference in the calorie needs when at rest between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat. It's tiny, but real. More significant might be the impact of better fitness via that muscularity leading to more NEAT-type spontaneous activity, or making an exercise regimen easier or more intense.
Another is TEF, thermic efficiency of food. It's pretty clear that it takes more calories to digest/metabolize protein than it takes for carbs, and more for carbs than for fats. This isn't getting into "negative calorie foods" territory here, because it's looked at in terms of a percentage of the calories in that nutrient. Protein's TEF is maybe 15-20%-ish, carbs 5-15%, fats 0-5%. Also, there's more limited evidence that so-called "whole foods" have a higher TEF than highly processed foods. Again, this is a very small effect in the big picture: A typical mixed diet is believed to have an overall TEF of maybe 10%. But different ways of eating can very slightly shift things toward higher calorie needs, or lower calorie needs.
I've been really interested in this sort of thing, kind of "antennas up" for bits of information. Why? I think if we look at someone like Springlering62, we can decide (accurately or not) that there's obvious movement accounting for the higher calorie needs for her size. I need more calories, and I'm not like that.
My calorie needs aren't as dramatic as hers, but they're 25% or so higher than MFP and my good brand/model fitness tracker expect. I don't do a remarkable amount of exercise, though . . . probably more than average for my demographic, but most days I figure exercise - on the days I do any! - is half an hour to an hour, 200-300 or so calories. My tracker knows about all of my exercise, so why does it think I've averaged burning 1611 calories daily for the past year, when I've been reasonably weight-stable eating what I log as more like 2100+ on average? (I'm not one of those "I'll overestimate just in case" loggers, either.) That makes me interested in research and concepts around variability in individual calorie needs.
BTW: I do understand that many women in my demographic have dramatically lower calorie needs, and am sympathetic that that makes things more difficult in a variety of ways. I ate around 1200 net, sometimes a bit below, when I first started on MFP, because that's what MFP estimated I needed to lose weight at a then-sensible pace. I stopped doing it as soon as I realized I was losing too fast and having negative consequences (weak, fatigued), but it was long enough to see that it took some clever piecing-together to get reasonable nutrition on lower calories. Because of that experience, I think I could eat that way if I had to, but it's certainly more manageable not to have to. I respect the effort that it takes, certainly.From what I’ve observed here, whether someone has a larger allowance or not, it often still doesn’t feel like enough or much of a treat. However, I think a shift in perspective could make it feel more fulfilling. Even if it doesn’t change things for us, it could still be helpful for them.
I do think everyone has their own "hard". It doesn't make sense to me - in this or other realms - to compare and resent advantages others have that I may not, or feel virtuous about advantages I might have (maybe grateful, though!). Empathizing/sympathizing with and helping each other seems like a thing to strive for, but we'll inevitably talk past each other sometimes even when we're trying to do that, probably.
ETA: Apologies for another flippin' essay.
2 -
It’s true that we often frame our own experiences as the baseline for “normal.” This can lead to misunderstanding or lack of empathy when others’ realities diverge significantly. In nutrition discussions, for example, someone may not fully grasp how someone else’s caloric needs, preferences, or struggles differ due to factors like nutrition knowledge, activity level, or even psychological relationship with food.
As for the occasional deviation from goals, it’s a human experience to prioritize immediate satisfaction over long term plans sometimes. What stands out is your self awareness and the ability to reflect on these moments, something not everyone does. Hopefully we can be more comfortable with our vulnerabilities and this type of dialogue, whether the struggle is having too many calories which can create option overload, or too few calories and it feels incredibly limited. Because, they’re both a struggle, and it’s not a race.
Before I became hyper focused on work, I was totally that high energy, gotta do stuff kind of person too. I’d pace around while thinking, clean furiously to ‘clear my head,’ and jiggle my leg under the table like it was powering a secret generator. I know it’s still in me, I’m literally shaking my leg as I write this. And back then, I could feel the difference it made in my daily burn. Honestly, spontaneous activity feels like the metabolism’s sneaky little side hustle. Too bad mine got laid off when my workaholic era started. But, it’s a real thing, and a good reminder, even when I can’t make more time in the day, I can do more with the time I have. Maybe a headset is in my near future.
2 -
I do think it may be socially easier, in some ways, with a larger budget. For example, if I go out for dinner with people who are bigger than me, I may feel some impulse to eat as much as they do, FOMO basically. The biggest person at the table maybe could keep up with the smaller ones and still be within calorie budget.
I think it is much socially easier when eating out with a larger budget
, not because as a smaller person, of trying to keep up with larger persons intake but because servings tend to come in one size and it is usually more than I need to eat.
Buffets are easier - just serve myself less - but table service meals are hard - they are too big but once they are there, it is hard to avoid the temptation to eat all of it as well as the social expectation that one doesn't waste food,and is awkward when only small amount of plate eaten
Asking for a takeaway box is sometimes a n answer - things like pizza that can be reheated and eaten at home - but not all foods are suitable for this - and of course that doesnt address avoiding the temptation to eat more when the food is right in front of you.
A larger person for whom the serving size is appropriate doesn't have this issue3 -
@ddsb1111What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
Well, I don't think it terms of calories, calories don't mean much too me. I think it terms of food, which foods allow me to eat less while feeling full the longest, that's pretty much it. I've lost 65lbs and have been successful keeping it off for over a decade, your results may vary.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »@ddsb1111What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
Well, I don't think it terms of calories, calories don't mean much too me. I think it terms of food, which foods allow me to eat less while feeling full the longest, that's pretty much it. I've lost 65lbs and have been successful keeping it off for over a decade, your results may vary.
Yes, satiation is a very big deal. With my very limited calories daily, I have to consider how much I need or want something. Not everyday is the same so that answer isn’t the same, so being flexible helps.0 -
Side debate question—hope it’s okay since this is my thread. Can someone explain how someone can claim they “can’t lose weight no matter how much they eat, track, or do everything right,” but then start losing weight once they’re on weight loss medication? Doesn’t that just prove they could lose weight on a deficit all along and weren’t actually in a consistent deficit before? Curious if anyone is seeing this pattern, and if this medication is helping it click what a deficit really looks like. I think we can be portion blind. I know I’ve been there.0
-
Side debate question—hope it’s okay since this is my thread. Can someone explain how someone can claim they “can’t lose weight no matter how much they eat, track, or do everything right,” but then start losing weight once they’re on weight loss medication? Doesn’t that just prove they could lose weight on a deficit all along and weren’t actually in a consistent deficit before? Curious if anyone is seeing this pattern, and if this medication is helping it click what a deficit really looks like. I think we can be portion blind. I know I’ve been there.
I don't know if this is relevant, but maybe.
Before the drugs entered the picture, there was a kind of thread we'd see started here sometimes. It would be a person who advanced that "can’t lose weight no matter how much they eat, track, or do everything right" idea; said they were struggling; working really, really hard; eating some pretty-low calorie amount for their size (say 1200); weighing all their food, etc.
Sometimes, after a bit of back and forth, they'd be persuaded to open their diary so some of the old hands could look at it, maybe find common logging problems. When they opened their diary, there would be unlogged or partially logged days - gaps . . . sometimes quite a few. More back and forth, and it would come out that "it was terrible, they had been so bad, failed, etc.". In other words, they couldn't stick to the deficit, and felt so much shame about it, and it was so out of sync with how hard they felt they were trying, that it kind of dropped into a zone of denial that it was even happening. It wasn't how they were trying to lose, it was a departure.
I'm not saying this to be blameful, and generally the dialog in those threads from people other than the OP wasn't blameful either. We're all human, most get how that can happen, both the departure from plan, and the sense of failure that can lead to denial in order to maintain a positive sense of self. It's heart wrenching, honestly.
I'm not saying that general kind of pattern is behind all the cases you're talking about, but I wonder if it isn't behind some of them. What I'm reading on many of the threads about the drugs is that they've quieted overwhelming "food noise" and food obsession for some people, making appetite more of a mild headwind than a full-bore hurricane. I'm wondering if in some cases that's just enough of a shift to prevent those kinds of all-too-human slips and resulting all-too-understandable sense of shame and internal denial for a subset of people.1 -
Side debate question—hope it’s okay since this is my thread. Can someone explain how someone can claim they “can’t lose weight no matter how much they eat, track, or do everything right,” but then start losing weight once they’re on weight loss medication? Doesn’t that just prove they could lose weight on a deficit all along and weren’t actually in a consistent deficit before? Curious if anyone is seeing this pattern, and if this medication is helping it click what a deficit really looks like. I think we can be portion blind. I know I’ve been there.
Yep, basically, barring medical conditions
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »@ddsb1111What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
Well, I don't think it terms of calories, calories don't mean much too me. I think it terms of food, which foods allow me to eat less while feeling full the longest, that's pretty much it. I've lost 65lbs and have been successful keeping it off for over a decade, your results may vary.
Yes, satiation is a very big deal. With my very limited calories daily, I have to consider how much I need or want something. Not everyday is the same so that answer isn’t the same, so being flexible helps.
Like I said with the diet I and many others have chosen which is a ketogenic diet people eat until they're full and then stop, which turns out to be one of the best aspect of the diet. Most, almost all actually don't think in terms of calories, although some do, which personally I believe there's a medical or biological reason why satiation doesn't work well for them, a bit of a mystery, and possibly why a decent dose of GLP-1's might not work for some people, not scientific just an educated guess. A ketogenic or lower carb diet is just an option for weight loss and counting calories is another option and whatever works well for someone is what matters, just getting that out there.
Anyway, whether someone is consuming what would be considered very few calories or visa vera they just eat until they're satisfied and most people lose weight naturally and continue to if they stick with the diet properly and one of the drawbacks which I can attest to is making sure you eat enough because you can literally go all day and then at the end of the day you figure out you'd better eat something. Again, this is my experience, which is shared with many people on this diet and why I originally said it's about the food we choose to eat. The big problem with this diet is the same reason why it works so well, which are the food choices and most people don't or won't conform to that format or even try because of certain dogmatic beliefs bestowed upon them. 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »@ddsb1111What’s the biggest challenge you face, even with a higher calorie target? I’d love to hear your perspective, explained to me like I’m 5, so I can better understand your experience.
Well, I don't think it terms of calories, calories don't mean much too me. I think it terms of food, which foods allow me to eat less while feeling full the longest, that's pretty much it. I've lost 65lbs and have been successful keeping it off for over a decade, your results may vary.
Yes, satiation is a very big deal. With my very limited calories daily, I have to consider how much I need or want something. Not everyday is the same so that answer isn’t the same, so being flexible helps.
Like I said with the diet I and many others have chosen which is a ketogenic diet people eat until they're full and then stop, which turns out to be one of the best aspect of the diet. Most, almost all actually don't think in terms of calories, although some do, which personally I believe there's a medical or biological reason why satiation doesn't work well for them, a bit of a mystery, and possibly why a decent dose of GLP-1's might not work for some people, not scientific just an educated guess. A ketogenic or lower carb diet is just an option for weight loss and counting calories is another option and whatever works well for someone is what matters, just getting that out there.
Anyway, whether someone is consuming what would be considered very few calories or visa vera they just eat until they're satisfied and most people lose weight naturally and continue to if they stick with the diet properly and one of the drawbacks which I can attest to is making sure you eat enough because you can literally go all day and then at the end of the day you figure out you'd better eat something. Again, this is my experience, which is shared with many people on this diet and why I originally said it's about the food we choose to eat. The big problem with this diet is the same reason why it works so well, which are the food choices and most people don't or won't conform to that format or even try because of certain dogmatic beliefs bestowed upon them.
That hasn’t been my experience at all. I actually gained weight on a keto diet. To lose just half a pound a week, I’m limited to a mere 1,200 calories. Being short, that’s not surprising, but I was definitely excited by the idea of “eat until you’re full and don’t count calories!” Unfortunately, that didn’t work for me. I realized that keto simply helps SOME people feel more satiated, but you still need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Once I found balance, I was able to manage both feeling satisfied and avoiding the mental hell of never eating things I love again.5 -
For sure ddsb1111, there are outliers for every diet conceivable. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 433 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions