Up my calories?
Replies
-
Guys need more calories than girls do, plus you probably have more muscle than I do and muscle needs even more calories.
Yes guys need more calories, slightly, because they tend to have a larger lean mass than women and as you said muscle burns more than fat. Thing is that people hear that and assume it burns a lot more than fat...it doesn't. Muscle burns like 5-8 calories more than fat per pound...that is it. I am not a particularly muscly guy either...I might have something like 30 pounds more muscle than you. My BMR estimate is about 200 calories higher than yours because of this..but just 200 calories, not 2000 calories.
Like I said, everyone is different...but not THAT different. There is no way that with two people who weigh the same one would maintain at 2600 calories and the other would maintain at 1200 calories. Me being male doesn't explain that.0 -
I don't mean this to be rude OP but people are faliable where math isn't. I'm a firm believer that (Calories out minus calories in) divided by 3500 equals pounds fat lost. If someone is not losing fat over a long stretch of time (to eliminate the possiblity that they just haven't been tracking long enough) then calories out = calories in. At your age, weight and activity level it is not possible that calories out for you is 1200 and therefore your calories in is in error or you are not mentioning that you are eating back your calories based on estimated burns and your burn estimations are off.
That is it. Not trying to be rude, not being personal...I'd say this to anyone.
Without having access to your diary for either your intake our output logging its really hard to say what the problem might be.0 -
I'm 5'1, female, and only do moderate exercise, and am losing weight eating 1200 calories a day. Either you're logging your food incorrectly, or you have some sort of condition that makes weight loss difficult (you might want to check for this possibility with a doctor?); otherwise, I'm not sure how a 5'7 and 170 pound person could fail to lose weight consistently eating 1200 calories.
At the beginning of a long weight loss journey, obtaining a deficit is often easy enough that simple estimation works. As you progress further, more and more accuracy is needed. Something seems wrong with your "energy in" vs "energy out" calculations, unless non-scale measures paint a different picture?
Opening your food and exercise journal might help. Are you taking "cheat days", not counting certain foods, or eating out often and underestimating? With respect to exercise calories, how do you determine how many to eat back? Again, we all or mostly want to help you here, opening up your journal might help.
Have you asked a doctor to check for health conditions that might impact your metabolism?
Also, this. Could it be a possibility that you've been overestimating calories before, but it didn't really matter, since you still at a deficit at that weight?0 -
I don't mean this to be rude OP but people are faliable where math isn't. I'm a firm believer that (Calories out minus calories in) divided by 3500 equals pounds fat lost. If someone is not losing fat over a long stretch of time (to eliminate the possiblity that they just haven't been tracking long enough) then calories out = calories in. At your age, weight and activity level it is not possible that calories out for you is 1200 and therefore your calories in is in error or you are not mentioning that you are eating back your calories based on estimated burns and your burn estimations are off.
That is it. Not trying to be rude, not being personal...I'd say this to anyone.
Without having access to your diary for either your intake our output logging its really hard to say what the problem might be.
^^ yep
OP - I'm pretty close to you: 5'9 female 32 and currently 174lbs. I workout 4 days a week and I'm losing on 1800 calories a day.
Can you open your diary?0 -
A) You are obviously not eating a deficit right now. Weigh your food!
You should be and should have been eating WAY more than 1200 with all the exercise you do.
C) All of the above.
I vote C
I weigh all my food and count every calorie, thank you very much. Plus, other than the excercise I do, I don't move around all that much since I'm a student, so I'm stuck behind a desk most of the time, so I think 1200 isn't "way" too low.
I'm a student too. Doesn't matter that you're behind a desk because:
A) 1200 is really low and generally not very great for those who aren't petite women You exercise, a lot. Doesn't matter that you sit around most of the day, you exert 4 hours a day of strenuous activity and need to sustain that. 0 -
I'm just going to humour some of you. So okay the general opinion is:
1) I'm miscalculating my calorie intake and am eating more than I think I am
2) I need more than 1200 calories with the amount of excercise I do, about 1900-2000 calories to lose weight
So even if I am miscalculating, and I'm eating 1500 instead of 1200, wouldn't that still be a deficit though? Unless some of you are suggesting that I'm miscalculating by over a 1000 calories, cause that would be amazing.
I lost 1.2 pounds since yesterday btw... I really have no clue what is going on with my body, but I hope this means it's not plateauing anymore.
I am still going to up my calorie intake (not to 1900 though) and see what happens.0 -
I'm just going to humour some of you. So okay the general opinion is:
1) I'm miscalculating my calorie intake and am eating more than I think I am
2) I need more than 1200 calories with the amount of excercise I do, about 1900-2000 calories to lose weight
So even if I am miscalculating, and I'm eating 1500 instead of 1200, wouldn't that still be a deficit though? Unless some of you are suggesting that I'm miscalculating by over a 1000 calories, cause that would be amazing.
I lost 1.2 pounds since yesterday btw... I really have no clue what is going on with my body, but I hope this means it's not plateauing anymore.
I am still going to up my calorie intake (not to 1900 though) and see what happens.
Hi Airi8. I actually agree with you that it seems pretty impossible that you would be miscalculating your intake so much that when you thought you were eating 1200 you were actually eating 2200, I don't really believe that either. Back is to the wall though with the information you have provided. The "wall" being the notion I am not willing to give up which is Calories in - Calories out = weight loss if Calories out is bigger.
I get you don't want to respond to maintaining your weight by eating more and are therefore reluctant to eat a lot more but if I am one of the posters that you are currently humoring this is what I would suggest:
Bump your calories from 1200 to 1500 as you were saying you were thinking but in addition, stop exercising....just stop. Maybe go for a short walk now and again but no hard cardio no weight lifting. Do this for one full week. I am betting at the end of that week you will be 5 pounds lighter. If you can commit to that and I am wrong at the end I will fully admit I have no idea what is going on.0 -
My only other thought is to wonder if when you say you eat 1200 calories if you mean NET or gross. In otherwords do you estimate your burns from your exercise and eat that back so that you net 1200 or do you just eat only 1200 and ignore the burn from exercise?0
-
Humoring us would be opening up your food journal.
0 -
That is the problem. Her weight is "stable" at essentially starvation mode. It is not her weight that needs to become stable, but her body needs to adjust to the new level of homeostasis. It is not healthy to be at a "stable" weight while eating at a starvation level of calories. So, SLOWLY adding calories and SLOWLY decreasing exercise readjusts the body's inner homeostasis (hormone levels, metabolism, etc.) and allows the body to loose weight at a later date. If she were increase her calories now to say 2 or 3 thousand at this point, she would gain more weight than she lost in a very short amount of time, AND it will be harder to take off the next time. If she drops her calories below 1000 in order to loose more pounds, she will damage her body further. This is why dieting doesn't work most of the time. I am just learning about this. Calories in, calories out is a very small part of the picture. I watched my father suffer all of his life. He could eat 1200 calories and GAIN weight, when he weighed over 500 pounds. I have avoided diets because of this. Better to stay at a stable weight than to continue to yo yo diet and gain more weight. I am now trying to drop weight very slowly. Finding the information about homeostasis, was enlightening, helpful, and hopeful. We are more like thermostats than calories in, calories out machines. I've lost 27 pounds, and now I am bringing my calories back up and trying to maintain this weight for a while before I try to reduce again. I'm still loosing though, so I want to find a balance where I am stable, before I loose more weight. Then, I am going to try to take it off about 10 pounds at a time- go back to homeostasis for a time, then take off another 10 pounds, etc. We shall see how it works. I know for me, dieting the normal way does not work, my body eventually wins and I just simply gain it back and go crazy in the mean time. LOL Again, I am not an expert, but the idea of homeostasis makes a lot of sense. Loosing weight sometimes feels like it is as impossible as trying to change my body's core temperature. I might be able to freeze myself enough to make my temperature go down, but it will always go back to normal. Except after you diet... our body's new normal becomes 10 to 20 pounds above normal, in other words a new, heavier "normal". My goal now is to SLOWLY set a new normal for my body.0
-
That is the problem. Her weight is "stable" at essentially starvation mode. It is not her weight that needs to become stable, but her body needs to adjust to the new level of homeostasis. It is not healthy to be at a "stable" weight while eating at a starvation level of calories. So, SLOWLY adding calories and SLOWLY decreasing exercise readjusts the body's inner homeostasis (hormone levels, metabolism, etc.) and allows the body to loose weight at a later date. If she were increase her calories now to say 2 or 3 thousand at this point, she would gain more weight than she lost in a very short amount of time, AND it will be harder to take off the next time. If she drops her calories below 1000 in order to loose more pounds, she will damage her body further. This is why dieting doesn't work most of the time. I am just learning about this. Calories in, calories out is a very small part of the picture. I watched my father suffer all of his life. He could eat 1200 calories and GAIN weight, when he weighed over 500 pounds. I have avoided diets because of this. Better to stay at a stable weight than to continue to yo yo diet and gain more weight. I am now trying to drop weight very slowly. Finding the information about homeostasis, was enlightening, helpful, and hopeful. We are more like thermostats than calories in, calories out machines. I've lost 27 pounds, and now I am bringing my calories back up and trying to maintain this weight for a while before I try to reduce again. I'm still loosing though, so I want to find a balance where I am stable, before I loose more weight. Then, I am going to try to take it off about 10 pounds at a time- go back to homeostasis for a time, then take off another 10 pounds, etc. We shall see how it works. I know for me, dieting the normal way does not work, my body eventually wins and I just simply gain it back and go crazy in the mean time. LOL Again, I am not an expert, but the idea of homeostasis makes a lot of sense. Loosing weight sometimes feels like it is as impossible as trying to change my body's core temperature. I might be able to freeze myself enough to make my temperature go down, but it will always go back to normal. Except after you diet... our body's new normal becomes 10 to 20 pounds above normal, in other words a new, heavier "normal". My goal now is to SLOWLY set a new normal for my body.
None of this is correct besides the part where you say that eating less than 1000 calories a day is bad for you.
As for homeostasis your body can only do so much. In your body temperature example your body requires a certain amount of external heat in order to maintain. If you are a little cold you can do things like shiver to work your muscles and turn calories into heat to aid in maintaining your body temperature. That said if you go to the arctic naked it won't be long before your core temp drops to fatal levels and there is nothing your body can do to adjust to compensate, no amount of shivering is going to help you there.
Similarly your body requires a certain number of calories to maintain the amount of fat it has plus your body's functions like maintaining its temperature, and your organ function. If you eat less than that your body can attempt to compensate a little by slowing down your metabolism (very slightly) but if you eat at a large deficit (like 1200 calories) there is really nothing your body can do to compensate for that and you will lose fat. Now you might not lose WEIGHT because your body in its stressed state starts to retain more water which can offset the fat loss in terms of your scale weight...but you can't just magically not use energy if you eat to little...your body still requires calories and if you don't provide them it will get them from your fat stores.
Homeostasis is a thing but that thing is not magical. It cannot break simple laws of physics and allow the body to maintain without energy.0 -
This may have been what you perceived, but that certainly wasn't the reality. Even if he ate a wicked high sodium and retained water, within a very short while he'd see dramatic losses at that intake level.He could eat 1200 calories and GAIN weight, when he weighed over 500 pounds
+1. Whatever source you "learned" this from, ask them to show you studies backing up their perspective. Check out those studies. Certainly, you've gotten some bad advice. If you look into the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, where the term "Starvation Mode" comes from, you'll see everyone lost dramatic amounts of weight. They'd almost have to, or world hunger wouldn't be a problem. See the below--None of this is correct besides the part where you say that eating less than 1000 calories a day is bad for you.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-257822940 -
I get you don't want to respond to maintaining your weight by eating more and are therefore reluctant to eat a lot more but if I am one of the posters that you are currently humoring this is what I would suggest:
Bump your calories from 1200 to 1500 as you were saying you were thinking but in addition, stop exercising....just stop. Maybe go for a short walk now and again but no hard cardio no weight lifting. Do this for one full week. I am betting at the end of that week you will be 5 pounds lighter. If you can commit to that and I am wrong at the end I will fully admit I have no idea what is going on.
Oh boy... I don't know if I can do that? I feel extremely lazy and bad when I don't excercise. I tried doing that once and ended up excercising anyways haha.My only other thought is to wonder if when you say you eat 1200 calories if you mean NET or gross. In otherwords do you estimate your burns from your exercise and eat that back so that you net 1200 or do you just eat only 1200 and ignore the burn from exercise?
I only eat 1200 and ignore what I burn.
But I got measured yesterday and it seems that I lost 6 inches while my body was plateauing. I don't notice because
1) I only wear stretch pants and shirts (I only want to go shopping once I reach my goal weight)
2) I look in the mirror 24/7 (I know I shouldn't, but I can't help it)0 -
Humoring us would be opening up your food journal.
What I had today:
Morning:
- Oatmeal drink + 250ml skimmed milk (160 cal)
- One orange
- 2 crackers (25cal each) + 75 gr vegetarian bacon (grilled)
Snack:
- 400ml home made vegetable soup + 2 crackers
Lunch:
- Shirataki rice with a vegetable omelette (2eggs) + 100gr shrimps (grilled)
Dinner:
- 500ml vegetable soup + 150gr chicken (grilled)
- 2 crackers + hummus0 -
What you're saying doesn't really add up. How can you lose 6 inches and not lose a single pound? Everything you say sounds quite fishy. However, I wouldn't worry about it too much if you are losing inches.
Maybe your scale is inaccurate. You must have lost some weight to lose 6 inches.0 -
What you're saying doesn't really add up. How can you lose 6 inches and not lose a single pound? Everything you say sounds quite fishy. However, I wouldn't worry about it too much if you are losing inches.
Maybe your scale is inaccurate. You must have lost some weight to lose 6 inches.
Your body can retain a lot of water especially when under stress and water weighs a fair amount while being much denser than fat. That said I agree that it seems like if you lost six inches around your waist that would show up on the scale. If you mean you lost 6 inches adding up measurements all over your body though that could be masked by water retention.
1200 calories and not eating back from exercise is really not healthy, at all. That is a dangerously low intake.
If as you say you cannot get yourself to not exercise then I would recommend 1900-2000 calories per day, perhaps more if you are going to be working out 3-4 hours in a day.0 -
Hi, I'm a girl, 5ft10 and I currently weigh 173lbs. Even though I'm happy I finally have a 'healthy' BMI, I still have some weight I want to lose but I seem to have hit a plateau.
I started losing weight 3 months ago and lost 32 pounds by excercising 2hours a day (sometimes more) and eating 1200(-1300) calories (lots of protein, low carb). But that doesn't seem to work anymore. I even work out 4 hours a day now (2hours at the gym, 2 hours swimming) but my body still refuses to shed pounds
. My mom says I should up my calories to 1500 a day... I'm just really scared that it will make me gain weight. Any tips?
There aren't very many swimmers on here, so you'll have many opinions. My current needs are 2530; once I start swimming it will pop up over 2,800 cals daily. And I do not swim 2 hours daily, or workout 2 hours on top of it. Plateaus ae good and frequent; go back and look at your settings for your activity level and your weight loss goal. The last 10 pounds require more time and less weekly pound/per week loss. Good luck.0 -
I'm just curious as a new member here on MFP - but well versed in understanding the concepts of BMR, TDEE, etc....
It seems MFP uses an arbitrary calorie goal of 1200 for intake for the typical woman looking to lose weight. I see a lot of comments on here about 'eating back the exercise calories'. My question is....
If people are determining their TDEE either by online calculators or by monitoring devices (I use one) - thereby if you are exercising you need to consume more calories than 1200.... What is MFP or people on this forum recommending as the deficit? Perhaps I am mistaken, but if your TDEE is 1800, I wouldn't recommend eating 1800 a day if your goal is to LOSE weight. Therefore, a 500 calorie a day deficit for 1 pound a week loss means you should be consuming 1300 calories a day.
Hopefully that made sense. Im just curious what the MO on here is.
Grazie!0 -
a 150 pound woman swimming at a moderate rate for 30 minutes burns 270 calories; takes this times (4) the OP's 2 hours, and if she weighed 150 she burns 1080 calories in the water. Add in 2 hours in the gym, roughly 500 calories, and she is just shy of 1,600 calories burned. OP is heavier then 150 so she is burning more cals then this; if OP isn't losing weight she is consuming 1,600 plus (roughly) her RMR(??????). Folks, she is eating a lot, period. So, quick review, weigh it, log it, live it. You'll lose weight slowly since you increased your caloric needs by doubling your workout minutes and you need to accurately log everything and go slow with the last pounds. Again, best of luck.0
-
Calories in vs. calories out is not always true. My father weighed over 500 pounds and GAINED weight on a doctor supervised 1200 caloric intake diet. He could only loose when under 1,000 calories. According to the "numbers" this should not have been the case, but this was the reality that he had to live with much of his life. So no, not all metabolisms respond the same. Our bodies are much more complicated than this. If calories in vs. calories out is all that it took, most people would not be obese. People know how to reduce calories. People know how to exercise. Most people who are obese have been on NUMEROUS calorie reducing diets. As for you being a man, yes, men's bodies are much different than women's bodies. Men can loose weight much faster than women. Men have more muscle mass than women and they have different hormones. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Our hormones influence our weight ( men and women have different hormones and different hormone levels at different times of their lives), in addition to this sleep, stress, work habits and hours, vitamin levels, especially vitamin D, etc. all influence our weight. Plus genetics play a role in all of this. If it were just calories in vs. calories out, weight would not have a genetic influence. But it does, even when you remove the effects of the influence of nurture, such as in twin studies who were separated at birth. Things are not as simple as you think. It would be nice if perhaps you would not judge others on what you are able to do. And perhaps you could listen to other people's stories without doubting them and assuming that they are not telling the truth. Perhaps there is a truth that you have not thought about before.0
-
CA Underdog: No, my father was eating a 1200 calorie, diet in the hospital, and GAINING weight while 500 pounds. It wasn't a perception, this was reality. Not all bodies are the same and the calories in/ calories out idea is NOT valid in all individuals. Period. There ARE health problems that make people gain weight on low calorie diets.0
-
CA: Actually I am familiar with the Minnesota Starvation study. When you read the study, you will realize that yes, the subjects lost weight at the time....... but later in life most had severe eating disorders. Mmmm.... they were starved.......and then they had eating disorders, and gained weight or were extremely obsessed with food for the rest of their lives. My father was a boxer when he was a teenager and was constantly "making weight" and then later he was a fad dieter. In the end he couldn't loose weight even on very low calorie diets. The Minnesota Starvation study actually supports what I am saying. I am not interested in "loosing weight" only to gain more back. I am interested in achieving a healthy weight for life without getting a eating disorder as a result of fad dieting. Perhaps it is partially genetics, but I know what my father suffered from all of his life. I was there. I was a first hand witness of his struggles. These struggles eventually killed him.0
-
Humoring us would be opening up your food journal.
What I had today:
Morning:
- Oatmeal drink + 250ml skimmed milk (160 cal)
- One orange
- 2 crackers (25cal each) + 75 gr vegetarian bacon (grilled)
Snack:
- 400ml home made vegetable soup + 2 crackers
Lunch:
- Shirataki rice with a vegetable omelette (2eggs) + 100gr shrimps (grilled)
Dinner:
- 500ml vegetable soup + 150gr chicken (grilled)
- 2 crackers + hummus
Open up your diary
And I'd give it more than three weeks to call it a plateau. You schooled the other poster about being different from a girl so I take it you're familiar with the plumbing?0 -
What you're saying doesn't really add up. How can you lose 6 inches and not lose a single pound? Everything you say sounds quite fishy. However, I wouldn't worry about it too much if you are losing inches.
Maybe your scale is inaccurate. You must have lost some weight to lose 6 inches.
Your body can retain a lot of water especially when under stress and water weighs a fair amount while being much denser than fat. That said I agree that it seems like if you lost six inches around your waist that would show up on the scale. If you mean you lost 6 inches adding up measurements all over your body though that could be masked by water retention.
1200 calories and not eating back from exercise is really not healthy, at all. That is a dangerously low intake.
If as you say you cannot get yourself to not exercise then I would recommend 1900-2000 calories per day, perhaps more if you are going to be working out 3-4 hours in a day.
Not 6 inches around my waist, lol I would have no waist left. 6 inches all over my body 0 -
What you're saying doesn't really add up. How can you lose 6 inches and not lose a single pound? Everything you say sounds quite fishy. However, I wouldn't worry about it too much if you are losing inches.
Maybe your scale is inaccurate. You must have lost some weight to lose 6 inches.
Your body can retain a lot of water especially when under stress and water weighs a fair amount while being much denser than fat. That said I agree that it seems like if you lost six inches around your waist that would show up on the scale. If you mean you lost 6 inches adding up measurements all over your body though that could be masked by water retention.
1200 calories and not eating back from exercise is really not healthy, at all. That is a dangerously low intake.
If as you say you cannot get yourself to not exercise then I would recommend 1900-2000 calories per day, perhaps more if you are going to be working out 3-4 hours in a day.
Not 6 inches around my waist, lol I would have no waist left. 6 inches all over my body
In my personal experience I lost two inches around just my waist before the scale moved due to water retention from exercise.0 -
Calories in vs. calories out is not always true. My father weighed over 500 pounds and GAINED weight on a doctor supervised 1200 caloric intake diet. He could only loose when under 1,000 calories. According to the "numbers" this should not have been the case, but this was the reality that he had to live with much of his life. So no, not all metabolisms respond the same. Our bodies are much more complicated than this. If calories in vs. calories out is all that it took, most people would not be obese. People know how to reduce calories. People know how to exercise. Most people who are obese have been on NUMEROUS calorie reducing diets. As for you being a man, yes, men's bodies are much different than women's bodies. Men can loose weight much faster than women. Men have more muscle mass than women and they have different hormones. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Our hormones influence our weight ( men and women have different hormones and different hormone levels at different times of their lives), in addition to this sleep, stress, work habits and hours, vitamin levels, especially vitamin D, etc. all influence our weight. Plus genetics play a role in all of this. If it were just calories in vs. calories out, weight would not have a genetic influence. But it does, even when you remove the effects of the influence of nurture, such as in twin studies who were separated at birth. Things are not as simple as you think. It would be nice if perhaps you would not judge others on what you are able to do. And perhaps you could listen to other people's stories without doubting them and assuming that they are not telling the truth. Perhaps there is a truth that you have not thought about before.
Omg thank you! Even though I do agree with the general principle that to lose weight you have to consume less calories than you burn, there are so many other factors that can slow down weight loss or influence it. Cause if it were really that simple, I would have reached my goal weight already without any problems.
My mom actually can't lose weight to save her life. She eats super healthy, works all day and goes to the gym afterwards, and yet, she has stayed at the same weight for years and years.0 -
Calories in vs. calories out is not always true. My father weighed over 500 pounds and GAINED weight on a doctor supervised 1200 caloric intake diet. He could only loose when under 1,000 calories. According to the "numbers" this should not have been the case, but this was the reality that he had to live with much of his life. So no, not all metabolisms respond the same. Our bodies are much more complicated than this. If calories in vs. calories out is all that it took, most people would not be obese. People know how to reduce calories. People know how to exercise. Most people who are obese have been on NUMEROUS calorie reducing diets. As for you being a man, yes, men's bodies are much different than women's bodies. Men can loose weight much faster than women. Men have more muscle mass than women and they have different hormones. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Our hormones influence our weight ( men and women have different hormones and different hormone levels at different times of their lives), in addition to this sleep, stress, work habits and hours, vitamin levels, especially vitamin D, etc. all influence our weight. Plus genetics play a role in all of this. If it were just calories in vs. calories out, weight would not have a genetic influence. But it does, even when you remove the effects of the influence of nurture, such as in twin studies who were separated at birth. Things are not as simple as you think. It would be nice if perhaps you would not judge others on what you are able to do. And perhaps you could listen to other people's stories without doubting them and assuming that they are not telling the truth. Perhaps there is a truth that you have not thought about before.
Omg thank you! Even though I do agree with the general principle that to lose weight you have to consume less calories than you burn, there are so many other factors that can slow down weight loss or influence it. Cause if it were really that simple, I would have reached my goal weight already without any problems.
My mom actually can't lose weight to save her life. She eats super healthy, works all day and goes to the gym afterwards, and yet, she has stayed at the same weight for years and years.
If you are looking for excuses I suppose this one will do. Reality though is calories in calories out is true for everyone because it is physical law, its just a matter of determining what your calories in and your calories out actually are. I'm sorry but if you are going to latch on to the first person that gives you an out where this is because you are a special snowflake and not because you need to change what you are doing then why even ask for advice.
Do what you will but trust me you need to be eating a lot more or you need to be exercising a lot less. You are hurting yourself doing what you are currently doing and you are going to end up regretting it.0 -
Calories in vs. calories out is not always true. My father weighed over 500 pounds and GAINED weight on a doctor supervised 1200 caloric intake diet. He could only loose when under 1,000 calories. According to the "numbers" this should not have been the case, but this was the reality that he had to live with much of his life. So no, not all metabolisms respond the same. Our bodies are much more complicated than this. If calories in vs. calories out is all that it took, most people would not be obese. People know how to reduce calories. People know how to exercise. Most people who are obese have been on NUMEROUS calorie reducing diets. As for you being a man, yes, men's bodies are much different than women's bodies. Men can loose weight much faster than women. Men have more muscle mass than women and they have different hormones. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Our hormones influence our weight ( men and women have different hormones and different hormone levels at different times of their lives), in addition to this sleep, stress, work habits and hours, vitamin levels, especially vitamin D, etc. all influence our weight. Plus genetics play a role in all of this. If it were just calories in vs. calories out, weight would not have a genetic influence. But it does, even when you remove the effects of the influence of nurture, such as in twin studies who were separated at birth. Things are not as simple as you think. It would be nice if perhaps you would not judge others on what you are able to do. And perhaps you could listen to other people's stories without doubting them and assuming that they are not telling the truth. Perhaps there is a truth that you have not thought about before.
Omg thank you! Even though I do agree with the general principle that to lose weight you have to consume less calories than you burn, there are so many other factors that can slow down weight loss or influence it. Cause if it were really that simple, I would have reached my goal weight already without any problems.
My mom actually can't lose weight to save her life. She eats super healthy, works all day and goes to the gym afterwards, and yet, she has stayed at the same weight for years and years.
If you are looking for excuses I suppose this one will do. Reality though is calories in calories out is true for everyone because it is physical law, its just a matter of determining what your calories in and your calories out actually are. I'm sorry but if you are going to latch on to the first person that gives you an out where this is because you are a special snowflake and not because you need to change what you are doing then why even ask for advice.
Do what you will but trust me you need to be eating a lot more or you need to be exercising a lot less. You are hurting yourself doing what you are currently doing and you are going to end up regretting it.
How could you know that without seeing her diary?0 -
Aaron>K123: The 3500 calorie equation is NOT a law of physics. LOL Food may have a certain amount of energy when burned with a bunsen burner in a laboratory, but this does not mean that our bodies all metabolize food the same way. This would be like saying that you should go the same distance on a gallon of gas no matter what engine you put it in. There are no peer reviewed studies that prove that people of different sizes, shapes and ages will all loose a pound of fat for every 3500 calories in deficit calories. This is simply the amount of energy that is estimated in fat, not the amount the human body will loose if they have a deficit of calories. The equation is helpful in estimating what might happen in an average, overweight male person, of a certain age might loose at the beginning of a diet, however, it is in no way applicable to every person in the planet. Our bodies are simply more complicated than this. I would be interested in you sharing some peer reviewed, long term studies, that show that this mathematical equation actually works in people. I haven't been able to find any. I don't think they exist. The men in the Minnesota starvation diet ended up GAINING all of their weight back plus 10 percent after eating 1800 calories and exercising at a deficit. This is actually what happens to most dieters who fad diet and take in too few calories. I don't exactly know how to do it yet, but I do know that eating too little can hurt your metabolism and make you fat in the long run. I did not allow my children to diet when they were teenagers and none of them have weight problems. I, on the other hand dieted and suffered from eating disorders as a teen, because of the family that I grew up in, and I do struggle with my weight. I am trying now to loose a bit, then maintain it for a while, then loose a bit and maintain it. I will see how it goes. Maintaining is actually MUCH harder than the dieting part. : ) But then, I am not interested in "making a goal" but changing my life style and if I practice maintaining as I go, maybe this time, I will not gain it all back PLUS 10 percent again. The PLUS 10 percent is what I think is causing the obesity epidemic, not the lack of will power on the part of dieters. My father was an excellent dieter. He lost several hundred pound several times in his life, probably loosing more than 1,000 pounds or more total. He won many battles but lost the war. His eating disorders eventually killed him.0
-
Aaron>K123: The 3500 calorie equation is NOT a law of physics. LOL Food may have a certain amount of energy when burned with a bunsen burner in a laboratory, but this does not mean that our bodies all metabolize food the same way. This would be like saying that you should go the same distance on a gallon of gas no matter what engine you put it in. There are no peer reviewed studies that prove that people of different sizes, shapes and ages will all loose a pound of fat for every 3500 calories in deficit calories. This is simply the amount of energy that is estimated in fat, not the amount the human body will loose if they have a deficit of calories. The equation is helpful in estimating what might happen in an average, overweight male person, of a certain age might loose at the beginning of a diet, however, it is in no way applicable to every person in the planet. Our bodies are simply more complicated than this. I would be interested in you sharing some peer reviewed, long term studies, that show that this mathematical equation actually works in people. I haven't been able to find any. I don't think they exist. The men in the Minnesota starvation diet ended up GAINING all of their weight back plus 10 percent after eating 1800 calories and exercising at a deficit. This is actually what happens to most dieters who fad diet and take in too few calories. I don't exactly know how to do it yet, but I do know that eating too little can hurt your metabolism and make you fat in the long run. I did not allow my children to diet when they were teenagers and none of them have weight problems. I, on the other hand dieted and suffered from eating disorders as a teen, because of the family that I grew up in, and I do struggle with my weight. I am trying now to loose a bit, then maintain it for a while, then loose a bit and maintain it. I will see how it goes. Maintaining is actually MUCH harder than the dieting part. : ) But then, I am not interested in "making a goal" but changing my life style and if I practice maintaining as I go, maybe this time, I will not gain it all back PLUS 10 percent again. The PLUS 10 percent is what I think is causing the obesity epidemic, not the lack of will power on the part of dieters. My father was an excellent dieter. He lost several hundred pound several times in his life, probably loosing more than 1,000 pounds or more total. He won many battles but lost the war. His eating disorders eventually killed him.
I agree that 3500 calories is not going to be metabolised to yield energy exactly the same amount fir everyone however for those people who do not have a disease it is a bell curve and that curve does not extend into the territory of being able to exercise 2-4 hours per day on 1200 calories and not lose weight.
The laws of physics im refering to here are things like how much energy is required to move a 150 pound object one mile in distance or how much energy is required to keep 150 pounds of water at 98.6 degrees fareinheit. These are not bendable rules.
Also although you are correct that our bodies will not yield the full 3500 calories you would measure in a lab the fact is that lab measured amount is the most efficient meaning any given person might yield LESS than 3500 calories from that food and different amounts dependent on the person but no one gets MORE than 3500 calories because that is the maximum yield.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions