Extra cals not working despite patience= hmmmm!
Replies
-
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
no, that is all mostly myth. there are various reasons stalls and what not happen and only in very extreme cases is it based on metabolic change. it takes a LOT to change your metabolism by any great degree. It's mostly user error in calculation that causes these things.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.
Lol.
Just lol.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Actually it will only give 1200 if the weight loss goal you give MFP would require you to eat less than 1200 cals (or 1200 on the dot). But since MFP won't give you a daily calorie goal that is under 1200, it gives 1200. It's the cut off.0 -
The OP has hypothyroidism, btw
Personally, I think that matters a great deal. 0 -
Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.
Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.
Thank you.
I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.
But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.
In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.
Isn't that the same thing as eat more food to reducing the size of the deficit to make weight loss both successful and sustainable compared to eating a severely restrictive diet... Because that sounds an awful lot like what we are saying in regards to eating more to lose weight....
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Which is why I keep saying we are in agreement with that regard.
What I'm arguing against is the automatic assumption that someone is eating too little and has damaged their metabolism, without regard to the possibility of that perhaps they are actually eating more than they think, or are logging. Which is significantly more likely than metabolic damage.
And before this argument is perpetuated any further by you saying "But we said for her to buy a scale" - I'm not arguing the point against you. I'm arguing it against the people who originally convinced OP to start eating more, despite not having an accurate log of her food to prove the extremely unlikely hypothesis that she has metabolic damage.
Fact of the matter is that in the vast majority cases, if a person isn't losing weight, they are eating at or above maintenance. So in the absence of proof to the contrary, the only rational conclusion is that they are eating at or above maintenance. So my advice to OP stands. Best thing to do is to better track intake, and go from there. But if she can't possibly measure her food and discover how much she is actually eating, she should slowly reduce her intake until weight loss occurs over a prolonged period. The chance of it being a metabolic disorder is statistically so low that it shouldn't even be considered until all else is exhausted.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
I agree, she is probably not being accurate!
Or perhaps she has not given the higher calorie intake more time. Your body needs 2 to 3 weeks to adjust to the change, depending on the length of the deficit. To log ones foods accurately, one needs to be totally honest and put down exactly what they put in their mouth. You have to add everything, oils, seasonings, weight of grains, vegetables, even that little nibble of carrot before dinner...etc! Extreme I know, but in the beginning it is necessary to see what calories you are consuming. Weighing food is vitally important because the size of a piece of meat can be well over or under 4oz. I had a chicken breast this evening that was the size of a deck of cards and it was below 4oz.
As another post stated it is all trial and error and you need to find your happy medium on your path.
0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
eta: I did the whole 1200/day thing (because, like someone else said, that's what MFP gives you most of the time). The only thing that I lost was my athletic ability (and a whole lot of muscle). I looked awful, I felt awful, but hey, who cares, I was down to 140! And I only wanted to lose 10 pounds to begin with.0 -
So you're saying that 90% of women, statistically, are outliers who have substantially less total energy expenditure than the average? The research on self-reported food intake vs measurable doubly labeled water would strongly suggest otherwise.if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?0 -
I don't have measuring equipment and eat in public with people who wouldn't understand but I do my best based on palm etc size visuals yes
It might be an idea to buy a kitchen scale. Do you still live at home - is that why it's awkward?
You'll get there, it's just a case of tweaking, here and there.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
If 90% of women are given 1200 as their budget it's because 90% of women are choosing the 2 lb/week loss rate when they probably shouldn't be. MFP only does math. If you ask it to give you a 1,000 calorie deficit it will go down to the cut off point of 1200. Unfortunately, the developers seem to think that common sense is rampant among dieters which is definitely not the case.0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?
It seems pretty evident to me (and I believe studies exist that support this) that people who eat at a large deficit are not nearly as active as those who eat at a reasonable deficit...perhaps not on any given day, but over time, at a substantially different level. It isn't "metabolism" that is the big difference (although I suspect that will eventually decrease as well), but overall calorie burned.
I also believe people who eat at a reasonable deficit are nicer, friendlier, better looking...just intrinsically better people, but that's just my personal opinion and may not be supported by science. :flowerforyou:0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
If 90% of women are given 1200 as their budget it's because 90% of women are choosing the 2 lb/week loss rate when they probably shouldn't be. MFP only does math. If you ask it to give you a 1,000 calorie deficit it will go down to the cut off point of 1200. Unfortunately, the developers seem to think that common sense is rampant among dieters which is definitely not the case.
Heck, I'm a 5'11 dude, and with a sedentry activity level it started me out on 1,200 calories. Thankfully I quickly realized that I'd be much happier losing 1 pound a week for a year of flexible dieting, than 2 pounds a week for six months of eating nothing but rabbit food.0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?
Thread regarding your question
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage
Articles regarding your question
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/weight-loss/weight-loss-myth-yo-yo-dieting-will-wreck-your-metabolism.html#b
http://www.burnthefat.com/metabolic_damage.html
We all take from information differently, some believe in it fully, others do not and think it is BS, and a few take bits of it ( not all of it) and incorporate into their lifestyle.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.
I suppose I'm just lucky.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.
Um...I think you might find this to be untrue for just about any active woman. If you're going to do absolutely nothing physical then maybe, but if you're an active person, go to the gym three times a week, go for walks or bike rides on the regular, I highly doubt this would be the case.
For example, here are a bunch of active females that are eating 1500+ calories a day and are succeeding:
bumblebums
Sarauk2sf
graysmom2005
elly1979
Ssaraj43
catfive1
j99li
tkcasta
lindsswack
lisaissasa
pspetralia
...and I'm getting tired of hunting down more. There are a bunch.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
I am male and if I let MFP set my calorie amount it would be in the 1200-1300 range. That is way too low for a male of 5'10"
As to the answer to the OP, unless you are actually measuring, all this is futile. Guessing won't work.0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.
I suppose I'm just lucky.
Not lucky, just young. Try doing that 20 years from now. I'll wait. :devil:0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?
Well aren't you the pleasant one here....... I have 4 years of hardwork and diet invested into coming from being homebound for over 2 years and unable to walk to losing 312 lbs. and putting a year of maintenance under my belt. I have a cupboard full of food logs that I can pull and tell you what I ate July 10th of 2010, down to the ounces and grams... I was diligent from day one to only maintain a deficit that would allow for a 1 to 2 lb. weight loss weekly and I stayed steadfast to this approach making adjustment weekly as needed... I had perfect weeks that on paper should have produced weight loss and I would step on the scale and see no loss or even weight gain of a pound or two... I would review my logs, go over every aspect of my week and it was unexplainable and I would literally have to turn the page and focus on the next week at hand... You fail to see the point of my Eat more mantra, it has everything to do to eating enough food to sustain a slight deficit to promote weight loss while eating enough to not cause deprivation strictly for sustainability....... Nothing more....0 -
This thread has devolved into an eat more, weigh less circlejerk. It might be time to take a breather y'all.0
-
OP, account for all food intake and weigh everything using a digital scale. Also, if you have people on your friend list who are netting -1300 calories, do not compare yourself to them or follow their advice.0
-
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.
I suppose I'm just lucky.
Not lucky, just young. Try doing that 20 years from now. I'll wait. :devil:
So if you're young it cancels out the other two?
And I imagine if I was 45+ but tall you'd point to being tall.
And if I was 45+ and short you'd point to being active.
Even though by your own words having any combo of your 3 factors should have me losing/maintaining on far less than I do. You did say more than one and 'you'll definitely be team twelve hundred' right?0 -
OH
Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more
No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.
I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.
I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:
Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.
you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.
I gave the op good advice,
You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:
I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.
So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?
If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:
You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?
It seems pretty evident to me (and I believe studies exist that support this) that people who eat at a large deficit are not nearly as active as those who eat at a reasonable deficit...perhaps not on any given day, but over time, at a substantially different level. It isn't "metabolism" that is the big difference (although I suspect that will eventually decrease as well), but overall calorie burned.
I also believe people who eat at a reasonable deficit are nicer, friendlier, better looking...just intrinsically better people, but that's just my personal opinion and may not be supported by science. :flowerforyou:
For those of us who eschew exercise, a dramatic calorie deficit is really the only game in town. Exercise is tiresome and boring. Hate it. I still want to lose weight though, so I hitched my wagon to good ol' fashion calorie deficit. I think the results speak for themselves. :flowerforyou:0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.
I suppose I'm just lucky.
Not lucky, just young. Try doing that 20 years from now. I'll wait. :devil:
I am 46 years old. I maintain at about that also.0 -
This thread has devolved into an eat more, weigh less circlejerk. It might be time to take a breather y'all.
That's likely because the thread itself lacks sufficient information to be meaningful otherwise. OP needs to measure and log. Period.
People have a tendency to fill in a lack of relevant details with discussions about theories and principles (aka circlejerks).0 -
It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.
Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
Ah, you must be male.
Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
<----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.
Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.
I suppose I'm just lucky.
Not lucky, just young. Try doing that 20 years from now. I'll wait. :devil:
So if you're young it cancels out the other two?
And I imagine if I was 45+ but tall you'd point to being tall.
And if I was 45+ and short you'd point to being active.
Even though by your own words having any combo of your 3 factors should have me losing/maintaining on far less than I do. You did say more than one and 'you'll definitely be team twelve hundred' right?
I'm >40, but a man, so my non-exercise TDEE of 2600 (and exercise TDEE of >3000) is meaningless.
:sadface:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions