Morbidly obese... Do I need to eat more? LoL
Options
Replies
-
Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond. I appreciate the advice.0
-
Just double checking with the more experienced folks on here, is there a reason I should be trying to eat all of my target calories daily? I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds, am just starting exercising again very lightly, and was thinking unless I'm feeling deprived or tempted to binge there wasn't much reason to eat all those calories? But my sister was concerned so I thought I'd ask.
OP...I rarely give advice on what someone should do...I am still trying to figure this out for myself.
I would try at what MFP suggests...see it gives the weight loss that you want...2lbs...a week to start with. Pay attention to your body...do you feel good...do you have enough energy to exercise. See if you are hungry at 1600 calories. Give it 3 or 4 weeks.
After losing almost 50lbs I still adjust my eating along the way. If I hit a period of time (2 or 3 weeks) then I check my food intake to make sure it is accurate...assess my exercising. I do some minor adjustments and the the weight seems to start dropping again.
I started at 1200 calories...it wasn't enough...so I upped it to 1400 - 1500 (depending on my workouts) and I am still averaging losing 2lbs a week. I feel so much better now.
The longest that I have ever gone and not lost is three weeks...I made MINOR adjustments and then dropped 7lbs in one weeks. So you might hit a period that you don't lose...just make sure that you are recording your calories accurately...maybe increase your exercise by a few minutes daily and .... just be patient. The weight will catch up.
If you start off with very few calories...then you have no where to go except up or to a calorie level that is unhealthy.
Good luck...I know it seems like an insurmountable task...just take small steps...5 10 15 pound increments. You will get there is you just hang in there.
Oh...and the exercising gets easier as the weight comes off. I felt like a wimp when I first started...I am now doing things that I didn't think that I would be able to do. I started with just walking...1 mile seemed to knock me on my butt. Yesterday I came close to doing 5 miles at a fast pace.
For strength training I bought a set of resistance bands. Started out using the lightest one...worked my way up to the heavy resistance. Just keep working at it...find things that your body will let you do...work toward the next level.0 -
I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
I appreciate your perspective and I do think that people have a tendency to oversimplify this discussion. But, while people may be able to tolerate VLCDs and initially lose weight, the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.0 -
I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
A Doctor required very low cal diet following surgery with close monitoring is not the same as someone simply choosing to eat 600 cal per day as they feel they will have faster weight loss. Promoting a VLCD for a "normal" person here on MFP will get you a strike as it isn't a healthy way to lose weight if you are not under close Doctor supervision. Eating too little will deprive you of nutrients, cause muscle loss, deprive you of energy, make you hangry, set you up for eating disorders etc etc.
OP: Eat what MFP tells you to, or as close to it as you can. 2 lb per week is considered a "safe" rate of weight loss (and remember, you didn't put the weight on overnight, so it isn't going to fall off overnight either). Monitor your weight for a few weeks*, then adjust accordingly if needed.
* where a few = 2 to 5: http://xkcd.com/1070/
Who said anything about 600 calories? At 300 lbs a 1400-1500 calorie limit would be "low calorie" for this person.
I don't care much if I have MFP "strikes", especially since I don't adhere to the MFP "right way" in my own walk.
A morbidly obese person can cut calories far below the typical 500 deficit, still get plenty of food and nutrients, while initially losing a lot of weight fast. That's my point. At that size he does not need to do modest and conservative deficits.
I would know, I WAS that size.0 -
the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
Unfortunately the long term success rates for ALL weight loss methods are poor.
Every single one. Including "slow and steady".
The idea that keeps getting perpetuated that slowly losing will give you an advantage for long term maintenance is a myth that is not backed up by any facts.
Most people who lose will regain a good portion, if not all (plus more) of their weight.0 -
the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
Unfortunately the long term success rates for ALL weight loss methods are poor.
Every single one. Including "slow and steady".
The idea that keeps getting perpetuated that slowly losing will give you an advantage for long term maintenance is a myth that is not backed up by any facts.
Most people who lose will regain a good portion, if not all (plus more) of their weight.
Well then if that is the case we might as well all throw in the towel and give up...... geez...... lol0 -
I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds...
You could literally eat nothing but mineral and vitamin supplements for six months (under doctor supervision, of course) and you'd be just fine. Fat stores are there explicitly for times of no food. The human body is designed to run without food - that's why it stores fat in the first place!
Bottom line: the fatter a person is, the less they need to eat.0 -
the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
Unfortunately the long term success rates for ALL weight loss methods are poor.
Every single one. Including "slow and steady".
The idea that keeps getting perpetuated that slowly losing will give you an advantage for long term maintenance is a myth that is not backed up by any facts.
Most people who lose will regain a good portion, if not all (plus more) of their weight.
Well then if that is the case we might as well all throw in the towel and give up...... geez...... lol
Ha! I know, I know, it sounds awful.
Just trying to be realistic here though, and dispel some myths. I lost a ton of weight back in my late teens/early 20s and swore I'd never, ever be one of those people who regained; I just loathed being fat so damn much, it was so incredibly destructive on my mind, that I didn't really think it possible that I could ever regain. Well I did regain the 70 lbs, plus another 70.
I'm in a totally different space with myself, and food, now than back then. But still I need to be aware to be ever vigilant and realistic.
As far as "slow and steady"? Been there, done that. Did it slow, did it fast. The only thing "slow" did was make me frustrated at how long it was taking, and disappointed at how quickly I could regain it. For me regains have never had anything to do with the rate of fat loss.0 -
Unfortunately the long term success rates for ALL weight loss methods are poor.
Every single one. Including "slow and steady".
The idea that keeps getting perpetuated that slowly losing will give you an advantage for long term maintenance is a myth that is not backed up by any facts.
Most people who lose will regain a good portion, if not all (plus more) of their weight.
Well then if that is the case we might as well all throw in the towel and give up...... geez...... lol
That's the logical equivalent of saying "I'm going to die anyway, I may as well shoot myself now."'
I trust the fallacy is obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out...0 -
Unfortunately the long term success rates for ALL weight loss methods are poor.
Every single one. Including "slow and steady".
The idea that keeps getting perpetuated that slowly losing will give you an advantage for long term maintenance is a myth that is not backed up by any facts.
Most people who lose will regain a good portion, if not all (plus more) of their weight.
Well then if that is the case we might as well all throw in the towel and give up...... geez...... lol
That's the logical equivalent of saying "I'm going to die anyway, I may as well shoot myself now."'
I trust the fallacy is obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out...
I spent 3 days sitting in a recliner with a loaded handgun after being trapped in my house for over 2 years so the fallacy is very much obvious but even though at the time of having the aha moment and putting the gun down and asking for help, I was going from consuming over 10,000 calories a day to 2800. to me that was massively restrictive in and of itself and had I been put on a no calorie or 600 calorie diet there would not have been a chance in heck that I would of made that sustainable for even a day let alone til I had lose 2 or 300 pounds.... I lost the vast majority of my 312 pounds eating over 3000 calories a day which in my eyes aloud me to adhere to a long term plan that did not overly deprive me while letting me lose a couple pounds a week...0 -
I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds...
You could literally eat nothing but mineral and vitamin supplements for six months (under doctor supervision, of course) and you'd be just fine. Fat stores are there explicitly for times of no food. The human body is designed to run without food - that's why it stores fat in the first place!
Bottom line: the fatter a person is, the less they need to eat.
But...but! That doesn't sound yummy at all!0 -
I appreciate your perspective and I do think that people have a tendency to oversimplify this discussion. But, while people may be able to tolerate VLCDs and initially lose weight, the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.
I'll never understand why people criticize certain diets as having a poor long-term success rate, when the overall long-term success rate of people who lose a significant amount of weight is something like 20% (which is the highest of the figures I've seen, and the others are much more bleak). Suggesting that VLCDs have an "extremely poor" success rate seems to imply that IIFYM and basic calorie counting have a high rate of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence is simply not there to back up such statements. If you want to talk numbers, 4 in 5 people who actually manage to lose a significant amount of weight will fail at keeping that weight off in the long-term, and even more people will fail to lose a significant amount of weight to begin with.
In short, a poor chance of long-term success is not a valid critique of a VLCD, because all significant weight loss has a poor chance of long-term success.0 -
IMO...at least for me...there is more to this than the type of food we eat...counting calories...getting fit...it is about facing why I let this happen to me to begin with and resolving those issues.
"When it all began" will be the hard part for me...eating less...not so much...exercising...well besides a few sore muscles I enjoy it.
The last half of my journey however is more about resolving those other issues which is where it all began for me.0 -
Just double checking with the more experienced folks on here, is there a reason I should be trying to eat all of my target calories daily? I'm 5'4" and over 300 pounds, am just starting exercising again very lightly, and was thinking unless I'm feeling deprived or tempted to binge there wasn't much reason to eat all those calories? But my sister was concerned so I thought I'd ask.
First of all, make sure you have set your calorie goals on MFP correctly, so it is giving you a realistic goal.
Second, you might consider simply tracking your actual food habits for a week or two. If your actual habit is 3 or 4 or more thousand, then an immediate drop to 1650 may be so stressful you give up. If you are also adding calorie burn to your habits, the combination could leave you feeling miserable and ill. You might want to incorporate the multiple new habits in stages: set your goal for what will be your someday maintenance level while you get into the habit of logging, and figure out what you want to eat/fit into your lifestyle/cooking skills and get into your exercise habit. If you are in the habit of overeating, that still may result in some weight loss.
After a week or so, when have your logging, and food choices and methods, and workout habit sorted, then drop to diet level.
At either stage, you can eat some of your earned calories, but of course, eating it all back will slow your weight loss. Still, it allows you to deal when life throws a high calorie situation at you. It also allows you to plan ahead, if you know a high calorie event is going to happen, you can workout that bit more that morning (or the day before after) to allow for it.
Dont forget, if you are adding muscle, your weight loss may be hidden at first. If you are improving your time/distance/resistance at exercise, and your clothes are looser, go with that evidence even if the scale isn't reassuring.0 -
I appreciate your perspective and I do think that people have a tendency to oversimplify this discussion. But, while people may be able to tolerate VLCDs and initially lose weight, the long-term success rate is extremely poor. So while I agree that a lot of the hair-on-fire warnings of metabolic doom are overstated, the almost certain long-term failure of a VLCD pretty much makes them a non-starter IMO, except in the most dire cases. The fact that "doctors recommend (them)...all the time" is unfortunately more a comment on their lack of knowledge on this issue rather than an endorsement of VLCDs.
I'll never understand why people criticize certain diets as having a poor long-term success rate, when the overall long-term success rate of people who lose a significant amount of weight is something like 20% (which is the highest of the figures I've seen, and the others are much more bleak). Suggesting that VLCDs have an "extremely poor" success rate seems to imply that IIFYM and basic calorie counting have a high rate of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence is simply not there to back up such statements. If you want to talk numbers, 4 in 5 people who actually manage to lose a significant amount of weight will fail at keeping that weight off in the long-term, and even more people will fail to lose a significant amount of weight to begin with.
In short, a poor chance of long-term success is not a valid critique of a VLCD, because all significant weight loss has a poor chance of long-term success.
This made me cry. A lot.0 -
I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
Cool! You don't happen to know at what point she was advised to eat more calories do you? Was it once goal was reached? Or within a certain poundage away from goal?
Don't follow this advice please. The key words here are bariatric surgery. What this poster is not saying is that their sister will be on a lifetime cocktail of drugs to ensure she gets the nutrients that eating way under her daily TDEE inhibits.
My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.0 -
This made me cry. A lot.
I hope that's not the case as that wasn't my intent to upset anyone when I posted it. I'm simply saying that it's not valid to criticize a particular type of diet based on long-term success rates.
It's also worth noting that statistics regarding long-term success are just numbers, and you can make the change you want if you have the desire and willpower to stick to it. Personally, I think it's helpful to understand to know that so many people aren't successful, because it gets you thinking about why they aren't successful and it reminds you that you can't just rest on your laurels once you reach your desired weight. In other words, don't adopt the mentality that you will just "diet for a year" and then resume your normal behavior. Instead, keep your focus on the long-term and mentally plan for how you're going to handle your maintenance phase.0 -
My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.
Why would you have to reduce below 1200 calories when you weigh 200 lbs...? It doesn't work that way.0 -
I wish people would stop perpetuating such nonsense.
My sister was morbidly obese, had bariatric surgery, and is REQUIRED, by doctors, to eat well below her TDEE.
She, like most patients in this predicament, lost just fine on a severely calorie restricted program.
Doctors recommend these kinds of plans for obese patients all the time. When you're that size stripping away a ton of fat on a low calorie diet can be just fine for quite awhile.
Cool! You don't happen to know at what point she was advised to eat more calories do you? Was it once goal was reached? Or within a certain poundage away from goal?
Don't follow this advice please. The key words here are bariatric surgery. What this poster is not saying is that their sister will be on a lifetime cocktail of drugs to ensure she gets the nutrients that eating way under her daily TDEE inhibits.
My personal advice is do more research. look up more accurate measures of your daily calorie intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to maintain your mass; if you only eat 1200 calories now, what will you reduce to when you weight 200lbs? Even MFP recommends 1200 plus calories as a minimum for just about everyone.
What about eating closer to a maintenance intake for my goal weight? Sure weight loss will get much slower as an ideal weight is approached, but the whole time I'd be getting used to a more appropriate daily quantity of food for my height? Not going to try this for now, just an idea for later.
What you wrote makes it sound like I'll need to continually lower my calorie intake as I lose, but would weight loss just slow as long as there is still a calorie deficit, just a shrinking deficit?0 -
A morbidly obese person can cut calories far below the typical 500 deficit, still get plenty of food and nutrients, while initially losing a lot of weight fast. That's my point. At that size he does not need to do modest and conservative deficits.
I would know, I WAS that size.
I completely second this. Don't take weight loss advice from people who A.) Haven't been that size and lost the weight. or B.) Don't have significant experience assisting those who are and were morbidly obese.
The rules are different, and these people telling you to force yourself to hit your "suggested caloric goal based on a 500 calorie blah blah blah...." Have NO clue.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions