1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....
Replies
-
I'm inclined to believe you, seeing as I'm 5'10 (21 f) and my maintenance is somewhere around 1550 (net).
Unlikely.
OP fair enough it worked for you in your opinion but it's dangerous to then say it's ok for eveyone and screw the general medical consensus. Just because you think it worked for you doesn't mean another method wouldn't have been better (how long have you maintained for? Did you maintain your LBM? Bone density, nutrition, etc?) nor does it mean that it is going to be ok for others. Your personal experience does not a universal truth make. And for most people, eating at that level is just not healthy.
HIGHLY unlikely! i'm also 5'10, 25 year old female and my maintenance is almost 2600 cal!0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.
These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)
Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.0 -
I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.
I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.
That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.
Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
A person might be able to eat 1800 calories and still lose weight, but that same person would lose weight more quickly at 1500 or even 1200 calories. I'm not necessarily defending 1200 calories, but the notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" doesn't really fit everyone because what you're essentially saying is you should lose weight very slowly. If you take someone who is morbidly obese, the best move for their health is almost certainly not to lose at 0.5 lbs/week or less, hitting a healthy weight within several years time, but rather to lose weight at a significantly more rapid rate. On the other hand, if you're already lean and looking to recomp, staying within 10-15% of your TDEE is probably more appropriate. I don't think it's as bright a line as some make it out to be and 1200 can be appropriate for someone depending on their size and situation; others having the ability to eat more and still lose some weight (albeit slowly) doesn't change that.0 -
I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.
I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.
That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.
The perceived "snark" is from seeing countless threads from kids in their late teens/early 20's touting "I net 800 calories a day and it works for me, I'm just super tired and not getting the "tone" I want".
There are a lot of "1200 defenders" here missing the forest for the trees. Yes, everyone knows that 1200 can/does work and is adequate for some individuals dependent upon ht, age, and activity, but there are so many individuals that start threads/defend it that are in the demographic from the first paragraph the intake level overall gets a bad rap.
Yes I agree it would not be suitable for people that age and consistently netting under 1200 is not good for anyone.
However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.
Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.0 -
OP so you say you got all your nutritional needs under 1200... now your logging is very inaccurate but it shows your protein is extremely low, your fats are low. The other issue with your calories so low you really shouldn't be using those precious calories for soda and chocolate when you aren't reaching your bare minimum nutritional needs. Keeping my calories at 1700 or so a day I can get all my nutrition and plenty of room left over for sweets, but protein comes first.
But it's also got lots of inaccuracies and inconsistent logging so would go with you were eating more than you think anyway.
Yeah the op's diary told a completely different story from what I expected after reading her first post.
Which part? The dangerously low protein (frequently 21g and less) and fat (25g and less)? The gaps of several days each week of nothing logged at all? The likely huge shortfalls in many micros?
I don't personally believe in "good" and "bad" foods, but this is an overall "bad" diet.
(Actually, now that I think about it...(and not to mix themes, but) OP's diary looks like what those who don't understand IIFYM seem to think everyone who follows IIFYM's diary would look like. She's hitting her calorie totals (on the days she logs), but her macros are all over the place because of her choices in foods. (TL;DR - it's hard to reach your protein minimum when >50% of your calories are from candy and wine.))0 -
QFT^
Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:
Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.
Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.
Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.
What studies?
I love when people refer to elusive "studies" without citing sources...it is the equivalent of "because I said so!" or "I heard it from this guy who has a cousin..." etc
0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
A person might be able to eat 1800 calories and still lose weight, but that same person would lose weight more quickly at 1500 or even 1200 calories. I'm not necessarily defending 1200 calories, but the notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" doesn't really fit everyone because what you're essentially saying is you should lose weight very slowly. If you take someone who is morbidly obese, the best move for their health is almost certainly not to lose at 0.5 lbs/week or less, hitting a healthy weight within several years time, but rather to lose weight at a significantly more rapid rate. On the other hand, if you're already lean and looking to recomp, staying within 10-15% of your TDEE is probably more appropriate. I don't think it's as bright a line as some make it out to be and 1200 can be appropriate for someone depending on their size and situation; others having the ability to eat more and still lose some weight (albeit slowly) doesn't change that.
That's because there is a part missing from that statement which is...
"eat as much as you can and still lose a reasonable amount of weight"
and that is defined by the amount you need to lose...
It is not reasonable for someone with 30lbs to lose to aim for 2-3lbs a week...however if you have 100lbs 2lbs or more is reasonable but they will be eating more than 1200 to do that...0 -
I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.
I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.
That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.
Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.
I am not commenting on OP's actual amount, which I agree may or May not actually be 1200. I am commenting on the assertions that 1200 is not a suitable net amount fir anyone at all.0 -
1100 calories is perfectly acceptable. After all, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
Funny! Keeping it light!0 -
Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:
Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.
Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.
Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.
What studies?
OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:
Fine, be that way.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full
Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short
Abstract
Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.
There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.
I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.0 -
As is the case with most people who start espousing the benefits of very low calorie diets, the accuracy of their logging is questionable a majority of the time, making their statements false as they have presented flawed and inconsistent data to argue their view point regarding how beneficial their calorie allowance is.I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.
I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.
That said, I am talking netting 1200, not necessarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.
Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.
0 -
Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:
Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.
Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.
Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.
What studies?
OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:
Fine, be that way.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full
Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short
Abstract
Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.
There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.
I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.
Those studies don't mean what you think they mean. You are operating under mistaken premises in an apparent attempt to excuse your own behavior.0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.
These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)
Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.
Yeah, but I did work out. I did jog. I did bust my knees. Exercise did not improve my allergies and asthma, if anything, they were worse this past year than they have ever been. I don't blame exercise for that, by the way, I'm simply saying exercise didn't fix it and wasn't sustainable for me.
I'm getting a bit tired of people dismissing me when I say I simply cannot do something. You don't know me and my health problems. Advice is fine. Advice is welcome. But don't assume.0 -
Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:
Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.
Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.
Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.
What studies?
OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:
Fine, be that way.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full
Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short
Abstract
Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.
There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.
I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.
Those studies don't mean what you think they mean. You are operating under mistaken premises in an apparent attempt to excuse your own behavior.
Source?0 -
I have a good cuisinart scale, I log my food (although my diet place has me measure veggies/fruit in cups, not my idea) I do also weigh a lot of the time though to double check, ever try to measure a cup of asparagus? I had a wrist heart rate monitor but I got one with a chest strap. I think I am good.Also, I sincerely hope that everyone spouting numbers (on either side of the argument) consistently weigh and measure their food so that they're working with reasonable estimates. Bad data/logging helps no one.0 -
It's a wretched place
Starving yourself isn't going to help, ok? Starving yourself isn't going to help you be healthier. Your body needs proper nutrients over the long term to heal itself. I know nothing I say is going to change your mind, but to anyone reading this who thinks depriving your body of nutrients is the best way to be healthy, I urge you to consider what happens to people when they do this. Lifelong problems can and do result from not eating enough.
I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.0 -
Wait, I get it. The thread title was a 'complete this sentence game', right?
1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....
...you don't care about your long-term health.
...you believe the advice of unsuccessful strangers on the interwebz.
...you're a special snowflake.
Do I win?0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.
These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)
Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.
Yeah, but I did work out. I did jog. I did bust my knees. Exercise did not improve my allergies and asthma, if anything, they were worse this past year than they have ever been. I don't blame exercise for that, by the way, I'm simply saying exercise didn't fix it and wasn't sustainable for me.
I'm getting a bit tired of people dismissing me when I say I simply cannot do something. You don't know me and my health problems. Advice is fine. Advice is welcome. But don't assume.
I'm sorry if you felt I was dismissing you. I didn't mean it to come across that way, I just know what's helped me. Granted there are some exercises that I think make my asthma worse, so those I avoid. I wonder if that might be the case for you? Maybe different exercises would help?0 -
Hungry? That is what exercise is for. If you exercise for an hour a day, you can add a few hundred extra calories and have an extra meal! Also, the weight loss part of your new lifestyle doesn't last forever: when you get to maintenance and/or increase your activity level, you can eat more. Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!
WAT? This is an incredibly unhealthy way to look at exercise and weight loss in general. I seriously hope no one chooses to listen to you.
Actually this not an unhealthy way to look at exercise. It is exactly how MFP works. You exercise, it gives you more calories, therefore you can eat more food. MFP set you up at a deficit without exercise - the more you exercise the more you can eat. It's fueling your body. I agree that exercise should be done for healthy reasons, but eating more is a benefit :happy: .
The built in deficit by mfp is supposed to be based on your daily activities. Here I am, short...If I don't exercise I STILL lose at 1650..explain me this. If you get into a mindset that "I can't eat very much because I didn't exercise.", that is a dark path. If you feel food is a reward for exercise, that's not a good way to look at it. You should be fueling your body, irregardless.
Sadly, this isn't the case for me. I maintain on about 1750 without exercise. :sad: :sad: :sad:
But that said, I think the goal is to eat as much as you can while still losing.
I'm torn on the exercising for more calories thing. I do it, I'll admit. Especially right now because I've had to cut my calories due to being injured and unable to lift/run. So this morning I walked so I could eat what I'm used to eating. But I do think it can get to a bad place-- I've heard it referred to as exercise bulimia-- where a person feels guilty for eating so they do a lot of exercise to burn it off.
I will admit, I probably have a bit of a high TDEE for not only height but weight but I think it's important to think of it more calories than less, always. I agree.
As far as exercising for more food. I think as long as it isn't from a place where you feel you can't eat without feeling guilt because you didn't exercise, I can see the point a bit, too. I tend to motion caution towards thinking that way myself, which is why, in the end, TDEE worked so much better for me
Under normal circumstances I much prefer TDEE method as well. I don't like having high days and low days. Okay, I don't like having low days. :laugh:
Just want to point out that while I do agree with most of your premise, not everyone has that high of a TDEE. For someone with a low one I'd encourage exercise to bring it up so that calories don't have to drop so low, if at all possible. Mostly because my experience has been that lower calories lead to less activity because fatigue quickly sets in, which drops TDEE even further, and a vicious cycle begins.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ummm.....
where's the op? :huh:0 -
After looking into more reliable sites and trying to figure out what I should be eating with my lifestyle I found that you take your current weight and multiply it by 15 and then subtract between 500 and 1000 (depending on what your goals are) and that's the calories your should be taking in to lose between 1 and 2 lbs a week. Mine is 1490 and I think that is totally reasonable. Trying to figure what you eat versus what you burn by heart rate is difficult if you cannot afford a hrm.0
-
Under 5'1 here.
Ate 1200 calories for 8 months. Started off obese. Developed anorexia, heart failure, osteoporosis etc. Weight loss was very efficient @3lb/week average. Nobody on MFP suggested I was under-eating on 1200 cals bc I was short and fat, so clearly I 'needed' it.
Now eat 2500-3500/day. Can squat twice my bodyweight and have lower body fat %. Have gained 40lb @0.5lb/week average.
So FWIW, stats don't tell the whole story either. Using your brain and understanding your body's individual needs tends to work out pretty well in the long run.
[/quote
You are 24 years old and you developed osteoporosis after eating 1200 calories for only 8 months? Sorry, but I don't believe that because osteoporosis is a very slow process specially in somebody of your age. Since it seems that you were obese, your problem probably started earlier and for another reasons.0 -
I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.
Stay educated. Stay strong. I've seen so many women overcome so many obstacles in pursuit of the same goals you have. I know you can, too. I hope your situation improves.0 -
I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.
Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.
These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)
Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.
Yeah, but I did work out. I did jog. I did bust my knees. Exercise did not improve my allergies and asthma, if anything, they were worse this past year than they have ever been. I don't blame exercise for that, by the way, I'm simply saying exercise didn't fix it and wasn't sustainable for me.
I'm getting a bit tired of people dismissing me when I say I simply cannot do something. You don't know me and my health problems. Advice is fine. Advice is welcome. But don't assume.
I'm sorry if you felt I was dismissing you. I didn't mean it to come across that way, I just know what's helped me. Granted there are some exercises that I think make my asthma worse, so those I avoid. I wonder if that might be the case for you? Maybe different exercises would help?
It's okay, I'm just over-sensitive because I'm depressed about it.
A plane ticket out of here is probably the only real ticket for me. I tried weights, walking, running, indoors, and outdoors. This Summer though I will attempt the neighborhood pool. Who knows? Chlorine often bothers people with breathing problems, but it has never bothered me. And like I said before, I'm trying hard to clean up my eating on the hopeful assumption that eating garbage is part of the reason I'm falling apart.0 -
I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.
Stay educated. Stay strong. I've seen so many women overcome so many obstacles in pursuit of the same goals you have. I know you can, too. I hope your situation improves.
Thanks. :flowerforyou:0 -
ETA: removed because that could be misconstrued as a personal attack instead of humor.
Maybe something to lighten the mood instead...
0 -
Ok, I am about the same height 5'2. I am 40 years old and work a desk job. My BMR is significantly higher than that. I tried the 1200 calorie thing and it isn't going to work for me sorry. What did work was getting up, moving my butt every day for an hour or so and eating at a higher level. 1100 to 1200 calories is not an accurate BMR for the vast majority of people short or not. 1200 calories a day makes me irritable and tired because it's not enough to fuel my needs. 1450 is my bare minimum calories I net per day and I am losing steadily too. I do exercise though and on those days I eat more.
Who would want to just eat as little as humanly possible? I guess I am strange because personally I'll do whatever I can to be able to eat more. I'm a good cook I don't wanna give up eating lol.
**I have asthma too and I understand that makes it harder initially. I get it. I started off walking on a treadmill indoors and have built up gradually to jogging/running a bit and I do strength training. The result is now I breathe easier than ever before. Over time, exercise helps asthma not just weight loss, but cardio exercise**0 -
I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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