Can I lose on 1500 calories ....
Replies
-
If that is truly the case then I would strongly suggest you go to a Dr. who will do a THROUGH blood panel - not just TSH but cortisol, free t3, reverse t3, free t4, and thyroid antibodies. What has your eating/stress/life been like previous to eating 1500 calories a day?0
-
I take it you have not considered OP 's individual stats in this assessment either.
If 1500 or less is right rate for her age, gender, height, activity level, then none of that will happen at all - just like it didn't for me eating under 1500 for the entire 10 months it took me to reach my goal weight.
I will admit I did not take those into consideration. the point i was trying to make though is you HAVE TO LISTEN to what you'r body is telling you. by taking in too few a calories this is what can happen I have known someone go to 800 cals which is too extreme for weight loss they had one meal a day and a smoothie that was all they went back to eating normal and now weigh more than what they did and are suffering from weak bones and a bad metabolism0 -
Have no clue how you guys can like Twinkies, I tried one from an international food store and it was sickly lol.
Yes you can still lose, but it can effect how you feel mentally, emotionally, physically, your skin, hair, digestion, hormones, cholesterol, blood pressure, it can effect your health badly if you're lacking fiber, nutrients, vitamins etc.
But look, if you're starting out and not sure you can stick to it, just try and get in under your calories as closely as possible. Over time, you will likely find it easier to eat more of a balanced diet and start hitting your macro's efficiently as well...I found that if I wanted to go to bed satisfied and not hungry, I had to start balancing things a little better so I was getting enough filling foods within my limits, not just meals of calorie dense unsatisfying stuff, so naturally it just happened to develop into a more balanced diet, still with regular treats.0 -
Well i'm 5'1 on my fitness pal that 1200 Calories is what im set at. But my nutritionist told me the other day that i should be eating 1500. So i defintely dont know what to do.
Then you don't understand how MFP got 1200.
Totally by your choices, and current size.
Your BMR is start of math, shorter and lighter, smaller BMR.
Then you selected non-exercise daily activity level, majority select Sedentary to be on the safe side, and many that is obviously not true. So did you pick honestly? Sedentary is 45 hr desk job/commute, with little to nothing done outside exercise, no kids, no walking dogs, no long shopping, ect.
Then you selected weight loss goal weekly, majority select 2 lbs weekly despite 1 lb being recommended, because they want to lose it fast. Reasonable or not, that determines how much deficit is taken off whatever you are estimated to burn in the day.
So your BMR is multiplied by an activity factor based on level you selected, say 1400 x 1.25 = 1750, and then the deficit is removed for eating goal on non-exercise days, 1750 - 1000, but MFP doesn't go below 1200 as bare bones safe minimum, so you get 1200.
As does vast majority of women that pick sedentary and 2 lbs weekly loss.
And then you exercise and log it. So now you burned eating goal 1200 + 300 exercise say = 1500 eating goal for this day.
Your nutritionist has probably taken an estimate of what you would burn daily that INCLUDES exercise, on average. Then removed a deficit.
So she might have estimated with your weekly exercise plans (did you tell her your plans?) that you would burn 2000 daily, and then she took off 500, and there's your 1500.
Under her method with exercise already included, you'd eat 1500 every day.
With MFP, if you had selected 1 lb loss and gotten the same 500 deficit daily too, you'd actually be eating around that amount too, tad higher when you really work out, tad less when you don't.0 -
OP .... put your age, stats and activity level in here and it will tell you how many calories you should eat per day to lose weight healthily http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/0
-
I take it you have not considered OP 's individual stats in this assessment either.
If 1500 or less is right rate for her age, gender, height, activity level, then none of that will happen at all - just like it didn't for me eating under 1500 for the entire 10 months it took me to reach my goal weight.
I will admit I did not take those into consideration. the point i was trying to make though is you HAVE TO LISTEN to what you'r body is telling you. by taking in too few a calories this is what can happen I have known someone go to 800 cals which is too extreme for weight loss they had one meal a day and a smoothie that was all they went back to eating normal and now weigh more than what they did and are suffering from weak bones and a bad metabolism
But nobody is suggesting anyone should eat only 800 calories per day :indifferent:
How is this relevant to whether 1500 is right for OP?0 -
Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, acctivity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
yup. I'm about her age. and.....?0 -
And we need additional information before deciding whether 1500 is appropriate calorie goal for OP.
You know,the questions she asked us.0 -
Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and I think it's important to point out that sugar intake is a bigger weightloss factor than calories. A calorie is not a calorie, people need to understand that. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers not a website.
The idea that you can put a load of numbers into a calculator and expect to know how many calories to eat to lose weight is ludicrous. It isn't all about calories and the sooner people realise that the better. Moderating quantity is a good place to start but food Science is a lot more complicated than calories. The long and the short of it is worry less about the counting cals, more about the clean eating and try and give up the sugar, do a bit of exercise, cut down on alcohol, just be sensible and stick at it. We all grew up listening to 'everything in moderation' and now we have the Science to back that up.0 -
YES if it's below maintenance u will loose weight, I have lost 21 lbs eating at roughly that and occasionally more
May take longer but yes you can0 -
No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.
See Heybales' explanation above.
As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.0 -
No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.
See Heybales' explanation above.
As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.
Gosh This forum is so argumentative.
I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.
I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.0 -
I'm a 62 yr. old female and MFP told me that I would lose 1/3 of a lb. per week on 1200 calories. I guess it's because I'm female, short, not very active and already in the healthy weight range for my height but I'd like to be at least 5 lbs. lower in it. Vanity lbs. I guess. Interestingly, I have a scale that measures fat percentage, muscle poundage and gives an estimate of what calories I need to eat to stay the same, and it usually gives me from high 1800's to low 1900's as calories to eat to stay the same, so if I were using that, I think I could eat 1500 and lose weight. However I'm eating the lower amount and losing about what MFP says so I think the scale is wrong, lol.0
-
Sweetd6, yes I agree 1200 would be the net amount MFP would give someone like you, even to lose at a slow rate.
Because of your age gender,height, starting weight and activity level.
You are the sort of person for whom 1200 IS right.
Of course if you exercise and eat back exercise calories, as MFP intends, then the actual amount you eat might be higher.0 -
No you said 1200 is the default - it isn't.
No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.
See Heybales' explanation above.
As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.
Gosh This forum is so argumentative.
I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.
I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.
If you are a scientist then I would have thought you would be more precise. Default and minimum are different things.
If you are a scientist that believes that sugar is more important than calorie balance for weight loss then I'd love to see these studies where people with a low sugar intake but in a sustained calorie surplus lost weight over a period of time.
Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.0 -
No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.
See Heybales' explanation above.
As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.
Gosh This forum is so argumentative.
I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.
I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.
By " gosh this forum is so argumentative" I think you mean " gosh, everyone doesn't agree with me"
I don't think most people on MFP are using 1200, I don't think sugar or clean eating are the issues, and I don't automatically think you are right because you are a scientist (of some sort, but not a doctor) or because "studies".0 -
even if at least 1000 of these calories are nit "clean" food? I have 50 lbs to lose.
Thank you.
Every person is different but generally speaking, everyone can follow the general rule that if you eat less then you burn, you will lose weight. Granted, many other factors play into this but this is the dominant principal to weight loss.0 -
The OP is 64.even if at least 1000 of these calories are nit "clean" food? I have 50 lbs to lose.
Thank you.
I'm 5'3, 26 years old and eat about 1510 calories a day and have lost 12.1 lbs since 07/15/14. I have just under 32 lbs to go and feeling great! I do not eat clean what so ever, but i drink lots of water, exercise at least 3-4 times a week and stay under my calories during the week, and usually go over on the weekends! BUT this works for me
0 -
OP: As has been mentioned, we'd have a lot better advice for you if you have us more information. Your profile says you're 64 and female. How tall are you? What is your current weight.
1000 may be ok. but without knowing more about you, versus the men, and 20something females on this thread telling you what works for THEM, we won't be able to offer much in the way of useful information.
If you don't want to post that, then yes, figure out what your BMR and TDEE are using a calculator like this http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ (but otherwise, ignore that site) and eat between those two numbers, or follow what MFP suggests, which I'd bet is 1200, or try eating a bit more than that. But again, this gets pretty random without knowing more about you.
ETA: Decide what you want about sugar.
Eat for the health you want.0 -
It all just became clear to me!
None of this 'discussion' really has much point.
TDEE is an estimate (purely obtained from height/age/activity level)
Calories burnt from exercise is an estimate (whether it's your fitbit, your exercise equipment or a website saying you burnt x calories doing y for z minutes)
Calories consumed is an estimate (especially when eating out or takeaway)
Sticking to macronutrient goals on MFP is way out (if I eat 4 items each containing 1.4g of fat, due to rounding MFP will say I consumed 4g of fat instead of 5.6g etc)
Sure, it's all good as a guideline and a starting point but the real question is this:
Could a person think their net calorie intake was 1200 but due to all the estimates and different variables actually be on 1500?0 -
To the op, I really wish you the best of luck, do let us know how you get on with your journey. :flowerforyou:0
-
There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.
I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.
Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:0 -
Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.
I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.
Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.
I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:
And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.
If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.0 -
Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.
I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.
Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.
I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:
And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.
If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.
If you could just show me your qualifications that entitle you to discredit Dr. Lustig, a leading pediatric endocrinologist, I will listen to your sneers. I might also point out that after speaking so condescendingly to me (I just don't think theres ever any need to be rude to people, theres lots of ways to get your point across without being hostile and mean)
after telling me that, you have cited a blog.Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.
I won't return to this topic because I foresee it descending into mean snipeyness. If anyone wants to talk to me more on this please feel free to pm me. Once again, to the op, Id love to hear how you get on the best of luck to you and anyone trying to reach their weightloss goals.0 -
Disagreement =/= rudeness or hostility.
Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.
I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.
Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.
I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:
And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.
If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.
If you could just show me your qualifications that entitle you to discredit Dr. Lustig, a leading pediatric endocrinologist, I will listen to your sneers. I might also point out that after speaking so condescendingly to me (I just don't think theres ever any need to be rude to people, theres lots of ways to get your point across without being hostile and mean)
after telling me that, you have cited a blog.Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.
I won't return to this topic because I foresee it descending into mean snipeyness. If anyone wants to talk to me more on this please feel free to pm me. Once again, to the op, Id love to hear how you get on the best of luck to you and anyone trying to reach their weightloss goals.
Don't think I was condescending either - it was you that tried to use some unspecified employment or interest as a "scientist" to back up your views and vague references to studies you won't share or expose to scrutiny.
BTW - I haven't given my credentials, just like you haven't. So we are just two people on the internet with different views. You seem to think sugar is the big issue but I think over consumption of calories and lack of activity are the real issues.
And I didn't "cite" Alan Aragon's link as a study. I invited you to view it as a riposte from someone I respect against someone I feel is guilty of severe cherry-picking of information at the very least.0 -
There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.
I don't think there is a mean spiritedness on these forums at all.
Just because people did not agree with you does not make them mean spirited.
I don't agree with you, as I already stated - and stated without any rudeness. :indifferent:0 -
I lose on 2300-2500 calories.0
-
No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??
OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.
This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.
I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.
op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:
OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .
We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.
My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.
I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.
Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.
See Heybales' explanation above.
As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.
Gosh This forum is so argumentative.
I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.
I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.
....only when people are adamant about how wrong they are.0 -
True, TDEE is an estimate, but can be based on more information than what you listed depending on what calculator used, so you can get a little closer to the true number right off the bat. Devices like Fitbit help with this info as well. And then all it takes is some consistent logging - more accurate when using a food scale and measuring cups - and then tracking progress or lack of for a month or so, and adjusting cals as needed. After a solid 2+ years of losing the fat and keeping it off, I think it's safe for me to say that my numbers are more than just estimates.It all just became clear to me!
None of this 'discussion' really has much point.
TDEE is an estimate (purely obtained from height/age/activity level)
Calories burnt from exercise is an estimate (whether it's your fitbit, your exercise equipment or a website saying you burnt x calories doing y for z minutes)
Calories consumed is an estimate (especially when eating out or takeaway)
Sticking to macronutrient goals on MFP is way out (if I eat 4 items each containing 1.4g of fat, due to rounding MFP will say I consumed 4g of fat instead of 5.6g etc)
Sure, it's all good as a guideline and a starting point but the real question is this:
Could a person think their net calorie intake was 1200 but due to all the estimates and different variables actually be on 1500?
It all comes down to logging cals in and out as accurately as possible, and making adjustments as needed.
And for what it's worth, I don't eat "clean" and have had good success. :drinker:0 -
I lose on 2300-2500 calories.
Yes - but you are a 36 year old male, not a 64 year old female like OP.
OP has not given her height - fair bet you are taller than her too.
What you lose on is pretty irrelevant to the question.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions