I've only had 800 cals but I'm so FULL :(

Annie_01

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how many calories do you plan on eating once you've hit your goal?

Around 1300 is the suggested calories for maintaining my goal weight.

Are you very short??? How old are you???

I am 61 y/o and my maintenance calories when I reach the goal weight of 145 will be 1500 at sedentary and 1700 for 3x a week exercising.

WalkingAlong

Yes, this...this is how I feel as well and why I've responded differently to you VG than to other posts. You don't sound like you are humblebragging.

Between the sad face emoticon and the real confusion over if she is supposed to force-eat to hit her calorie goal, I didn't get the impression the OP was bragging about being full at 800.

bcalleycat

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how many calories do you plan on eating once you've hit your goal?

Around 1300 is the suggested calories for maintaining my goal weight.

Are you very short??? How old are you???

I am 61 y/o and my maintenance calories when I reach the goal weight of 145 will be 1500 at sedentary and 1700 for 3x a week exercising.

67, 5'5", goal weight 130. Some may think my goal weight is low for my height, but I'm very small boned, and that's what I weighed for most of my adult life.

keelieshae

ha!

17ChargerGirl17

I'm just worried about my body going into "starvation" mode, and gaining more weight. But is there a calorie limit that can make that happen? Or is 800-900 okay as long as it isn't habitual? I just don't want to screw up my metabolism by not eating enough

There have been dozens ( or maybe even hundreds ) of threads disproving " starvation mode " and it is difficult for me to imagine that there are still MFP members who actually believe that starvation mode is a possibility for people who live in the developed world, with the exception of people who have emotional problems that focus on food.....and with you weighing around 175 pounds that does not apply.
So my thought is: troll.....because you can't possibly be for real.


THIS!!! LOL

Aaron_K123

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

Are you mistaking your BMR for the amount of calories your body burns in a day? 950 cal to lose 1 pound a week sounds way too low to be real.

With the skinfold measurements I imagine you get a percent bodyfat read from that. Does your bodyfat loss track exactly with your weight loss? Meaning if you lose 5% bodyfat have you lost that much in pounds? If you have lost more in pounds then it would suggest you are losing muscle in addition to fat and you need to be really careful about that or you can cause yourself some future problems.

Aaron_K123

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how many calories do you plan on eating once you've hit your goal?

Around 1300 is the suggested calories for maintaining my goal weight.

Are you very short??? How old are you???

I am 61 y/o and my maintenance calories when I reach the goal weight of 145 will be 1500 at sedentary and 1700 for 3x a week exercising.

67, 5'5", goal weight 130. Some may think my goal weight is low for my height, but I'm very small boned, and that's what I weighed for most of my adult life.

67 5'5'' your goal weight is 130 and your ticker says 21 pounds to lose so I am imagining you are 151 now. I am going to use the following calculator:

http://exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

I am putting that you rest 12 hours (meaning you are essentially lying down or lounged for 12 hours) and that for 12 hours you do "very light" activity which would be like sitting at a desk working or walking around the house.

I get that your BMR is 1297, your daily activity adds 324 so you would need 1621 to maintain. One pound a week would be 500 calories deficit which would put you at 1,120 per day. You really should avoid going that low though because it will be pretty much impossible to get the nutrients your body needs that low (calcium, iron, vitamins, etc) and popping a multivitamin isn't going to fix that because many vitamins require a meal to absorb properly.

If you want to lose 1 pound a week you can, but you should start to exercise (that can be as simple as going for regular walks). That will raise the amount of calories you need for maintenance and bring the 500 calorie deficit to the point where you can eat more than 1200 calories and still lose at that rate.

Be careful, take care of yourself...make sure you are getting enough protein and fats and hitting your micronutrients.

bcalleycat

For info, and I realize there are many here that have done far more research and are way more knowledgeable about this diet business than I am, this author says " based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats."
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

ereck44

Seriously though. I must be a Fatty McPhaterson because I'm still hungry sometimes after eating my 1800 cal goal. I couldn't imagine being full at 800 cals. Crazy....

I am with you, my friend. Love your quote, by the way.

MelodyandBarbells

Agreed! This perfectly expresses something that has really bugged me about these threads. It almost seems that the "Help! My wee tummy is just so full!" people take some sort of masochistic pride in depriving themselves and letting others know about it, as if they expect a pat on the back instead of the stern talking-to they invariably get.

Hence my frustration and pissiness. Perhaps I read to much into these sorts of posts but it does seem to me like this is a real REAL simple fix, you just swap out low calorie dense foods for high calorie undense foods and there you go. So when I see a post like this I feel as you do, that it is somewhat attention whoring for a pat on the back and assurances that somehow repeatedly missing your goal is okay. Will it kill you...no...but its missing your goal and you have every ability to fix that if you just act.

While I am not in disagreement with you...I wonder...does MFP play a role in encouraging this. One thing that I have noticed...at the end of the day if I go to my home page and glance at what is on that news feed about people on my friends list...I see...

"So and So is under their calorie goal". (Then I see all the pats on the back from all of their other friends...)

You never see...

"So and So is over their calorie goal".

Nor do you see...

"So and So has met their calorie goal for the day".

Wording is everything to people that need some validation...even if it doesn't mean what they think it means.

Just my opinion...seems as if "eating under their calorie goal" has become a badge of honor.

Well, yeah, the idea behind MFP is to eat a bit less than you burn so you can lose weight

That said, I mostly use the like button. Other than that, I throw out a comment every so often and I'd say it's evenly split between under calorie goal and not. Two friends recently had short convos with me on the topic. One said but I ate like crap both yesterday and today! I had to explain that logging and an overall downwards trend in calories consumed was just as important as being under. Another one wants to stop logging due to too many "over" days in a row and agreed to do maintenance for a while instead. There's no reason we couldn't be just as supportive whether our friends are under their goal or not Heck, I'd say we need each other more when things aren't going just perfectly!

parkscs

For info, and I realize there are many here that have done far more research and are way more knowledgeable about this diet business than I am, this author says " based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats."
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

For one, that's a blog - hardly an authority on the subject. As another matter, what he's saying is he doesn't know where the 1200 calorie floor comes from and he's pointing out it's not based on RDA's for macros. The answer to his question about where it comes from isn't macro RDA's though but rather (to the best of my understanding) it's the rough minimum number of calories you can take in to still ensure you're likely to get sufficient nutrition. Not that you can't get by with less (as doctors put patients on VLCDs every day) but it's a general threshold which, if crossed and as a practical matter, it becomes to difficult to get sufficient nutrition. But going back to your blog post, you have to read his comments in proper context. He's NOT saying men should eat 900 calories and women 800. He's saying the generally recommended 1200 calorie threshold is not calculated from RDAs and explaining why that's the case. There's a huge difference there.

As for eating <800 calories a day, the same blog author describes that sort of diet, saying:

Now change the person to a 5’1 woman with an RMR of 1250 calories. She would have to eat around 750 calories per day as well as burning off an additional 500 in the gym. This is starting to sound more like torture than a reasonable diet plan.

Ah yes, torture rather than a reasonable diet plan. And I'd probably agree.

maidentl

This is a place where people can come for motivation and support in their fitness goals. Not a place where people should feel threatened because they "aren't as smart" as others or "ask dumb questions" or may not have actually read a post about a certain topic. Weren't you ever taught that if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all...? The "dozens of threads disproving 'starvation mode'" is just a bunch of people posting their own thoughts and opinions. Even if you have factual evidence that it does not exist you don't know this person's situation and you don't have to call someone asking for help a troll and call them out about how much they weigh on especially on a site where it is supposed to be a safe place. You're a cruel person for doing this and so is everyone else who is being mean just because they think they're "better" for thinking different things.

Speak for yourself. I come here to get information from those who have gone before me on how to lose this weight without being bloody miserable the entire time. Patting people on the back and telling them they must have "gained muscle" or "everybody is different so you're TOTALLY the special snowflake who can subsist on 800 calories and not have any repercussions" is NOT helpful in the long run. They may feel better in that moment but real information and feedback would serve them better.

Aaron_K123

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how many calories do you plan on eating once you've hit your goal?

Around 1300 is the suggested calories for maintaining my goal weight.

1300 is your BMR (basal metabolic rate) not your NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) and therefore not your maintenance. Your BMR is how many calories you would require in a coma to maintain your weight. Assuming you get out of bed that number is going to go up to 1600 even if you are not very active.

You would lose weight eating 1300 calories a day.

Aaron_K123

For info, and I realize there are many here that have done far more research and are way more knowledgeable about this diet business than I am, this author says " based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats."
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

I would not say easily. Keep in mind that many vitamins and macronutrients require the presence of fat to absorb properly.

hookilau

You get 'starvation mode' by being put in a prison camp, not by ignoring a box of cookies and going to bed with a belly full of fajitas.

If you 'can't eat', enjoy your impending weight loss. What's to complain about?

But if you don't lose, you know you're going to be one of those posters who claim they can't lose weight even though you eat only spinach leaves, water and dust.

:laugh:

heybales

That may play a role, but I think the overall mentality of dieting plays a big role in it as well. Swapping out higher calorie foods may seem like an obvious solution, people are conditioned to think dieting means restriction and high calorie is bad. We are bombared with labels, commercials, books and magazine articles that encourage us to buy products because they supposedly healthier, many by the simple fact that they are lower in calories or fat. Losing weight is equated with deprivation and sacrafice.
It is hard to let that go, I know it was for me.

The phrase "I am eating healthier" to me is a red flag. Most of the time you see low calorie, low fat foods or those versions of foods in the diary (if open).

Well, this is assuming the person that did that swapping actually has a clue on what good food is beyond market tabloids and has any concept of calorie eating levels besides the 1200 they see spouted out.

I'm betting the know in the back of their mind fruit and vegetables is better, so I'll swap that out for a bunch of stuff I used to eat, never mind of something of that is perfectly healthy too, and useful for reaching goal.

I'd also suggest the misguided encouragement from MFP "in 5 weeks you'd weigh...." probably is noticed early, noticed that when they miss goal by say 100 it's more weight lost amount, so then attempt to reach 200 under.

Also, many come in to MFP having already dieted and failed somehow else - their body is already messed up and not healthy. And the estimates of maintenance are based on healthy metabolism bodies (besides the fact of selecting unreasonable weight loss amount and becoming unhealthy here).

Couple responses in this thread of ones wanting to eat more with conviction, likely started that way elsewhere. So eating very little already because body is already jacked up. Of course they didn't gain weight eating that little originally, but their metabolism is so shot they are eating at their maintenance level now, whether that be with accurate or inaccurate food logging, still lower than it could be.

SLLRunner

I use skinfold measurements, and it shows I'm losing fat. At any rate, the calorie calculator I use indicates that 950 cals/day will lead to 1 lb/week weight loss, so I don't plan to exceed that. I think personal metabolism and other internal workings plays a part as well, and needs to be taken into consideration, rather than a one size fits all.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how many calories do you plan on eating once you've hit your goal?

Around 1300 is the suggested calories for maintaining my goal weight.

Are you sure about this? In your picture, you look fairly young. What is your weight and height and age? if you don't know about this website, ti's excellent for finding your TDEE: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/.

I'm 52. 5 ft 4.5 and 139 pounds and my maintenance calories without exercise are 1970, and my activity level is set to active. I also lift weights and run 2-3 times a week and sometimes eat as much as 2300 a day to make sure I eat my cardio exercise calories back. so it would surprise me anybody's maintenance calories are 1300.

cheeks102490

As for why you are getting the eye-roll posts here is why:

You entered a forum designed to provide a support community to a group who is attempting, often struggling, to lose weight. You then post something about how HARD it is to eat more than 800 calories.

If you don't see the issue here or why this would spur some of the reactions you got let me use an analogy. Lets say you went to a forum dedicated to sufferers of severe acne and excema and proceeded to complain bitterly about how hard it is to rub all this lotion into your glisteningly perfect porcelain flesh. Not only is it a first-world problem it is a first-world problem that is pretty much in exact contradiction to the problem most of the people on said forum are struggling with. So yeah, you are going to get some flak for that and its not surprising because to some it is going to seem like an intentional trolling or a bid for attention.

Also the fact that her problem stems from her taking phentermine, so she could stop taking it or call her doctors office if she really does have as much of a problem as she says she does. Which I'm not clear on because many of her posts suggest that she does not, in fact, have a problem.

You may not recall but this is the breakfast girl from yesterday. Given the amount of confusion the internet seems to be causing, I would strongly suggest she use the professional resources available to her.

Sorry I was just rereading this old post and you said I was "the breakfast girl" and that I'm on phentermine? You are mistaken because this was my first post on MFP ever and I've never been on phentermine or any other drug like that.

LovelyValentina

I didn't get round to using some extra calories yesterday so now I have 215 spare. If I get hungry today I'll have a tea and (one!) biscuit break...