Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?
Replies
-
In my opinion...
I always love this.
I bet this thread has been a total hoot.0 -
I was once eating at 1300 calories a day. Then I started to eat closer to 1800-2000 calories a day. I lost MORE weight, and my hair stopped falling out.
Why would anyone eat 1200 calories, when they can eat so much more, and still lose weight at a noticeable rate?0 -
I was once eating at 1300 calories a day. Then I started to eat closer to 1800-2000 calories a day. I lost MORE weight, and my hair stopped falling out.
Why would anyone eat 1200 calories, when they can eat so much more, and still lose weight at a noticeable rate?
The only way I can do that is exercise like mad, which has its own issues. My cutoff is less than 1500 calories. If I eat more, my weight will start to creep up. If I only eat a tiny fraction less, I'll be eligible for social security before I hit goal.0 -
I was once eating at 1300 calories a day. Then I started to eat closer to 1800-2000 calories a day. I lost MORE weight, and my hair stopped falling out.
Why would anyone eat 1200 calories, when they can eat so much more, and still lose weight at a noticeable rate?
So, obviously 1300 was too low to be healthy for you and you can still lose at 1800 - 2000.
I am not sure how tall you are but you look way younger than 60 years old, you are probably more active than many 60 year olds too.
1200 isn't right for you, I don't think anyone would dispute that - but it is right for some people, as outlined in posts above you.
ie not everyone can eat so much more and still lose weight.0 -
I was once eating at 1300 calories a day. Then I started to eat closer to 1800-2000 calories a day. I lost MORE weight, and my hair stopped falling out.
Why would anyone eat 1200 calories, when they can eat so much more, and still lose weight at a noticeable rate?
The only way I can do that is exercise like mad, which has its own issues. My cutoff is less than 1500 calories. If I eat more, my weight will start to creep up. If I only eat a tiny fraction less, I'll be eligible for social security before I hit goal.
I'm in the same boat, except that I have to eat below 1200 to lose weight. I can't even exercise like mad, because I have injuries.
It's not fun: I have to choose very carefully. But I'd rather be a normal weight, knowing I'm doing everything to support my health and self-esteem. I love food, but I can't eat the way I did when I was young; I have to find other things to focus on.0 -
I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.0 -
The second is likely to be a huge factor, as we see a very similar thing here all the time when someone starts resistance training; their muscles swell up, they panic thinking they're going to turn into Ronnie Coleman overnight. And then there's everyone that attempts to move to maintenance, but panics and reverts to deficit because their weight increased a couple of pounds.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.0 -
You still see BMR posted as the 'coma limit', so of course we still see 1200 as it. Though at least it's going down over the years! :laugh:
Even in the last few posts, there is '1200 shaming'. "Few people know what they're doing at it", "the risks, the dangers", "few people succeed at it", etc. Do you think that maybe the people who succeed at it don't post that because they get their **** jumped from the people who assume they don't know what they're doing and need educating and saving?
Do you think if it's dangerous MFP would use it? I think they'd have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if 1200 was dangerous.
But MFP puts this as the minimum, and you are expected to eat back your exercise calories. Many on here do not, and end up netting below 1200, oftentimes well below it. If you are morbidly obese, this is probably not a bad thing short term. But for most, it is unnecessary.0 -
I was once eating at 1300 calories a day. Then I started to eat closer to 1800-2000 calories a day. I lost MORE weight, and my hair stopped falling out.
Why would anyone eat 1200 calories, when they can eat so much more, and still lose weight at a noticeable rate?
The only way I can do that is exercise like mad, which has its own issues. My cutoff is less than 1500 calories. If I eat more, my weight will start to creep up. If I only eat a tiny fraction less, I'll be eligible for social security before I hit goal.
I'm in the same boat, except that I have to eat below 1200 to lose weight. I can't even exercise like mad, because I have injuries.
It's not fun: I have to choose very carefully. But I'd rather be a normal weight, knowing I'm doing everything to support my health and self-esteem. I love food, but I can't eat the way I did when I was young; I have to find other things to focus on.
In that case, if you haven't found Cronometer yet, it might be worth a look. The layout is excellent for tracking nutrients when it's hard to get all that you need in a day due to low calorie consumption. I use both Cronometer and MFP daily. And it's free.0 -
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.0 -
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
I would argue the bolded supports my argument more than it does yours...
...
...but since I suspect the possibility of swaying your position on this is somewhere close to zero, I won't even bother. (I'll just say that I believe that while my position may not be true for *you*, I suspect it's true for more people than you believe it is...not *all*, but *more*.)
And now I'm going to sit down with a not insignificant post-workout pile of food and watch fútbol. Cheers. :drinker:0 -
I would argue that my argument is more argumentative than the argument of another who is similarly argumentative but whose arguments have a marginally different point of origin. When looking at argument specificity.0
-
I would argue that my argument is more argumentative than the argument of another who is similarly argumentative but whose arguments have a marginally different point of origin. When looking at argument specificity.
I am unable to refute your argument.0 -
I can be swayed. I'd love it if someone showed me a way to eat more and lose weight. By 'at this long enough to know' I don't mean eating 1200. I mean we've done all kinds of diets at all kinds of levels and had all kinds of results. We know what works for us and what doesn't and how many calories we lose at and gain at.
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
I would argue the bolded supports my argument more than it does yours...
...
...but since I suspect the possibility of swaying your position on this is somewhere close to zero, I won't even bother. (I'll just say that I believe that while my position may not be true for *you*, I suspect it's true for more people than you believe it is...not *all*, but *more*.)
And now I'm going to sit down with a not insignificant post-workout pile of food and watch fútbol. Cheers. :drinker:
But you're right that there are new people here who don't, who eat 1200 and probably don't need to. But I would sure like to see the attitude of '1200 is NEVER RIGHT' gotten rid of, because sometimes it is right. I mean, you can stick numbers in a TDEE calculator and see it in black & white. There is no 'how much do you eat in calories' input variable because AT is minimal and not predictable.
Neither here nor there but I average 1400 calories/day (no 'net') but there are times in the past when I've used 1200 safely to lose more than my current 2-3lbs/month and I know many choose that route. And even 1400 here is accused of being 'too low for anyone'.0 -
I can be swayed. I'd love it if someone showed me a way to eat more and lose weight. By 'at this long enough to know' I don't mean eating 1200. I mean we've done all kinds of diets at all kinds of levels and had all kinds of results. We know what works for us and what doesn't and how many calories we lose at and gain at.
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
I would argue the bolded supports my argument more than it does yours...
...
...but since I suspect the possibility of swaying your position on this is somewhere close to zero, I won't even bother. (I'll just say that I believe that while my position may not be true for *you*, I suspect it's true for more people than you believe it is...not *all*, but *more*.)
And now I'm going to sit down with a not insignificant post-workout pile of food and watch fútbol. Cheers. :drinker:
But you're right that there are new people here who don't, who eat 1200 and probably don't need to. But I would sure like to see the attitude of '1200 is NEVER RIGHT' gotten rid of, because sometimes it is right. I mean, you can stick numbers in a TDEE calculator and see it in black & white. There is no 'how much do you eat in calories' input variable because AT is minimal and not predictable.
Neither here nor there but I average 1400 calories/day (no 'net') but there are times in the past when I've used 1200 safely to lose more than my current 2-3lbs/month and I know many choose that route. And even 1400 here is accused of being 'too low for anyone'.
I usually tend to be in the people can eat more than they think camp. I understand individual circumstances will need to be evaluated, but I agree that it seems many of the people who think they gain weight on anything over 1200 calories tend to base that off of an initial weight gain the first 4-6 weeks after increasing their calories because they don't understand the impact of water weight and glycogen. For goodness sake, people start panicking if they "plateau" for more than a week and are convinced something must be wrong, so obviously if they gain ANY weight after increasing their calories that MUST mean that they are eating above maintenance and have to drop their intake back down.
Please understand, not saying this is your situation, just saying that I think there are A LOT of people on this site who match that scenario. They panic too quickly at even the slightest hint of "weight" gain.0 -
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
I'm inclined to agree for most. Not for the 5'8 30 year olds who insist they gain on 1200, but the usual people I've seen. I haven't dieted that much, I've lost weight without problem when I've tried it, and I've run my TDEE numbers lots of times, since I want them to be different. The fact is that I've still got plenty to lose, I'm 44, so hardly so old that my stats are unrepresentative of anyone else, and my TDEE without exercise is supposed to be 1650-1750, at best. To be losing 1 lb a week, then--not an aggressive goal, especially given how easy it is to underestimate, I'd have to eat 1150-1250. If I ate 2000, I should be gaining.
That's NOT me, since my response to these stats is to figure out how active I can be and increase my TDEE, but not everyone has that option.0 -
1) Places like Weight Watchers make more money when people are only losing one pound per week.
2) No one wants a lawsuit in case someone with inherent health problems dies due to a VLC diet.0 -
Good point. I probably have a different view of what is typical because I don't read in the Getting Started or Intro forum and I tend to avoid the threads that have titles like "OMG!!! How did I GAIN, I did it all right!" And when I do I tell those people to eat more and exercise less, if they're in the gym 2 hours a day eating 1200. Or if they're 115 trying to get to 110.I usually tend to be in the people can eat more than they think camp. I understand individual circumstances will need to be evaluated, but I agree that it seems many of the people who think they gain weight on anything over 1200 calories tend to base that off of an initial weight gain the first 4-6 weeks after increasing their calories because they don't understand the impact of water weight and glycogen. For goodness sake, people start panicking if they "plateau" for more than a week and are convinced something must be wrong, so obviously if they gain ANY weight after increasing their calories that MUST mean that they are eating above maintenance and have to drop their intake back down.
Please understand, not saying this is your situation, just saying that I think there are A LOT of people on this site who match that scenario. They panic too quickly at even the slightest hint of "weight" gain.
I don't see people saying they gain on anything over 1200, usually. I see 'I'm 5', 150#, I want to lose a pound a week, I'm eating 1200 and I'm fine'. Then they get clobbered. :laugh:0 -
For someone who is obese, dropping to 1200 cal is probably a huge change from their current calorie requirements.Someone posts saying they are eating 1200 kcal/d, and a bunch of folks jump in saying not to do that. Why?
That means a huge lifestyle change, which is hard to do, likely to relapse,
as well as a risk of binging,
as well as a risk of malnutrition,
as well as too-rapid weight loss, which is hard to sustain & likely to lead to regain of the weight,
as well as physical risks such as gallstones from too-rapid weight loss*.
* http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/gallstones.htm
Dropping 500-1000 cal per day is a smaller, more sustainable change which leads to safe gradual weight loss.
Yes, under the guidance & supervision of a medical professional.Low calorie (LC) dieting and very low calorie (VLC) dieting are completely legitimate approaches to fighting obesity:
If someone is, say, 150 lb [1500 cal / day] and decides that s/he wants to be 120 lb, eating 1200 cal / day will get her/him there. It's also not a big drop from what they're currently eating.
If someone is 300 lb, which would require 3000 cal / day to maintain, dropping to 1200 is too big a change.
[/quote]The reason bariatric surgery helps so many people is that it makes it easier for them to do a VLC diet and diminishes the likelihood of early and substantial weight gain.[/quote]
A surprising number of people who have bariatric surgery regain the weight, even with their smaller stomachs or impaired intestines.
If someone is committed to losing weight, _MOST_ people can do it by eating less & exercising more.
Yes, there are a few rare people who benefit from surgery & couldn't lose weight w/o it.
But if someone only relies on the surgery, and doesn't commit to adopting new habits in eating & exercise, s/he will keep making bad choices and not lose weight, or regain it if it was lost.0 -
I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
Well, my own N = 1 study: my need to eat at a relatively low amount (1460) to lose weight was not based on any long term under eating at all - I don't think I ever under ate, certainly not in the last 20 years or so - in fact I made no serious attempts to lose weight at all in that time and for most of my life was not over weight.
But gradually I ate more and probably moved less and my weight crept up (middle aged spread, it used to be called
) until I was 10 kg over weight and joined MFP and calorie counted to 1460 net amount and got to where I am today.
So, yes, I thought my TDEE was low, because it was - I am in the reasonably large category of older, shortish, not super active women and I don't think my numbers were low because of any miscalculations or misunderstandings - I think they were low because I fit into the category of people for whom that low is the right number.0 -
I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.
I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.
ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.
I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.
I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.
Well, my own N = 1 study: my need to eat at a relatively low amount (1460) to lose weight was not based on any long term under eating at all - I don't think I ever under ate, certainly not in the last 20 years or so - in fact I made no serious attempts to lose weight at all in that time and for most of my life was not over weight.
But gradually I ate more and probably moved less and my weight crept up (middle aged spread, it used to be called) until I was 10 kg over weight and joined MFP and calorie counted to 1460 net amount and got to where I am today.
So, yes, I thought my TDEE was low, because it was - I am in the reasonably large category of older, shortish, not super active women and I don't think my numbers were low because of any miscalculations or misunderstandings - I think they were low because I fit into the category of people for whom that low is the right number.
1460 net as a deficit sounds reasonable to me given your stats.0 -
Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out.
My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.
1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.
There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"0 -
Agree with you 100%!0
-
Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out.
My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.
1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.
There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"
Yeah, I don't disagree...(and if you look through my posts, you'll never find me saying those things). You will, however, find me dissuading people from immediately starting at 1200...and against the dozens of people who immediately jump in to argue that starting there is a great idea...ideal, even.0 -
yes I agree jofjltn - I am first to defend 1200 or not much more as being right for SOME people - the sort already described in above posts - but by no means do I think it is right for everyone.
Gosh this thread is getting boring - posters all agreeing with each other - whatever next? :laugh:0 -
yes I agree jofjltn - I am first to defend 1200 or not much more as being right for SOME people - the sort already described in above posts - but by no means do I think it is right for everyone.
Gosh this thread is getting boring - posters all agreeing with each other - whatever next? :laugh:
Seriously.
*sigh*
So anyhow, juicing is stupid. Doesn't remove any toxins.
...and, um...
Most people aren't mean in the forums...and when they are, even the so-called "mean" people call them out on it.
...and...
...uh...
...I guess that's all I have for now.
:indifferent:0 -
I agree with your post, and wanted to say excellent job on the weightloss. I hope to be saying the same next year. I have 115 pounds to lose, and I know that it will take time, dedicaion, and patience. I once was suggested to base my calories on a weekly average. So if you want to eat 1500 a day then make that be the average. If you eat a little over one day then try to eat less the next. I was told I could eat 1500 calories a day and loose about 2 pounds a week to begin with without exercise.0
-
lol the gifs in here XD0
-
Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out.
My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.
1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.
There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"
I absolutely agree with all your points. And the short sedentary older person is common enough for it to be a logical floor for MFP. however, it's a sad starting point for most of the people who do. I'd argue that a better beginning would be to track current intake for a couple weeks. I haven't created a paradigm shifting weightloss website.0 -
Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out.
My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.
1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.
There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"
I absolutely agree with all your points. And the short sedentary older person is common enough for it to be a logical floor for MFP. however, it's a sad starting point for most of the people who do. I'd argue that a better beginning would be to track current intake for a couple weeks. I haven't created a paradigm shifting weightloss website.
This is actually what I wish people had to do first, just accurately track your intake and weight fluctuation for one month, no lifestyle changes, no added activity, just you doing your normal thing for one month, THEN make the adjustments you'll need to get the calorie deficit necessary for the speed of weight loss recommended for your current stats. This of course will NEVER happen, but gosh wouldn't it be wonderful and make everything here so much less dramatic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions