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.
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 -
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.
And you are how tall? And you are maintaining what weight? And you exercise how much?
Maintaining and losing are two different things, by the way.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:
This sounds remarkably unhealthy to me. Why would you intentionally avoid all forms of exercise?
ETA: And more importantly, why would you preach this seemingly unhealthy approach to others?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?
Eat all you want, sweetheart. :flowerforyou:0 -
Man, just reading this thread is so sad. Why is everyone whining back and forth over cal intake? Why is that green haired barbie saying that some at 145 pounds and 5'9 is not thin as a rail so she must be young or workout alot. That not true genetics can play a roll and more muscle mass means more calories burnt. Plus she could weight more than u but look a hell of alot better than you can shes toned. Anyway had to put in my opinion in there and add to the madness.
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.
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?
Wait a minute. Are you insinuating that someone at 5 9" and 145lbs is in any way overweight?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.
And you are how tall? And you are maintaining what weight? And you exercise how much?
Maintaining and losing are two different things, by the way.
Average height (5 6"). No cardio. Sedentary job. I lift 4 x a week on average. I maintain on anywhere between 2,100 and 2,500 calories. I lose on less than 2,000.
Oh, and I do realize that maintaining and losing are 2 different things...by the way.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:
This sounds remarkably unhealthy to me. Why would you intentionally avoid all forms of exercise?
ETA: And more importantly, why would you preach this seemingly unhealthy approach to others?
What part of "boring and tiresome" wasn't clear? Exercise isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the overall health benefits of weight management shouldn't be the sole province of the sweat-stained master race of MFP. :glasses:0 -
OP. you are 10 lbs away from your goal weight. I can fluctuate 5 - 10 lbs in a day. You just are not going to lose 2 lbs a week, maybe 0.5. You should be instead looking at transitioning into how you are going to maintain for the rest of your life.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?
Wait a minute. Are you insinuating that someone at 5 9" and 145lbs is in any way overweight?
There is a lot of room between "skinny as a rail" and "overweight". There's that whole middle ground of "healthy weight", "rocking some curves" etc.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?
Wait a minute. Are you insinuating that someone at 5 9" and 145lbs is in any way overweight?
There is a lot of room between "skinny as a rail" and "overweight". There's that whole middle ground of "healthy weight", "rocking some curves" etc.
No idea why you mentioned it then. *shrugs*0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions