Finally got my calories right

tbrain1989

Good day MFP'ers.

anyone who's tried any diet will understand my post. anyone whos got it right first time probably wont

Like many others ive never believed in eating more to lose weight. so ive given both a go


the difference is only 500 calores.. but thats such a difference to most.. almost an extra meal


cycle 1: low carb 1600 calories per day over 2 weeks, total loss. 3lbs


cycle 2: balanced macro nutrience 2100 calories over 2 weeks, total loss 3.6lbs


as the astute amongst you will notice. both my efforts lost weight. the more pedantic might say that the difference on weight loss could be any number of factors.

what im saying is the eating 2100 calories and not excluding any food group is one hell of a lot easier to maintain as a lifestyle.

Liftng4Lis

Awesome job!

nosebag1212

you didn't lose more fat on 2100 cals than on 1600, that's physically impossible, you were likely still in a deficit but dropped excess water your fat cells were temporarily holding, if a 2100 cal diet is easier for you stick to then by all means stay on it, but don't be fooled into thinking you'll lose faster long term on that than on 1600

tbrain1989

you didn't lose more fat on 2100 cals than on 1600, that's physically impossible, you were likely still in a deficit but dropped excess water your fat cells were temporarily holding, if a 2100 cal diet is easier for you stick to then by all means stay on it, but don't be fooled into thinking you'll lose faster long term on that than on 1600

thats not what i said at all. i dont for one minute think i will lose faster... i didnt realise it was a race.

what i was celebrating was finding a comfortable calorie and macro composite that gave me equivalent weight loss to a restricted diet.

where as before i didnt believe that would be true.

and if you want to talk about physical impossibilities.. how about the one where you suggest that my "fat cells" were holding more water on a low carb diet then on a balanced one..

Liftng4Lis

you didn't lose more fat on 2100 cals than on 1600, that's physically impossible, you were likely still in a deficit but dropped excess water your fat cells were temporarily holding, if a 2100 cal diet is easier for you stick to then by all means stay on it, but don't be fooled into thinking you'll lose faster long term on that than on 1600

He didn't say he lost more fat, he said he had basically the same results with both groups (so without starving himself).

Samenamenewlook

you didn't lose more fat on 2100 cals than on 1600, that's physically impossible, you were likely still in a deficit but dropped excess water your fat cells were temporarily holding, if a 2100 cal diet is easier for you stick to then by all means stay on it, but don't be fooled into thinking you'll lose faster long term on that than on 1600

He didn't say he lost more fat, he said he had basically the same results with both groups (so without starving himself).

^ Yup ...

monicastricker9

It makes perfect sense. When you consider the amount of weight someone needs to lose initially it can seem like a restrictive calorie diet is the way to go. The problem is like you said it is almost impossible to maintain. But as you eliminate fat stores that the body is feeding on your body turns to any available food source to maintain. Thus consuming itself.

Michifan

Whatever makes you feel good every day, gets you more healthy and accomplishes your goals in the time you've given yourself.

We can eat fewer calories when we are eating the right nutrients - and while there is a general/generic level that is suitable for a huger range of human beings - learning your very specific nutrient needs is the best pathway to healthy living.

NoMoreYoYos

Had the same epiphany about three weeks ago. Was trying to do the 1250 calories a week MFP suggested to lose 2lbs a week. Lost 3lbs the first week and then nothing for three weeks. Bumped it up to 1650 calories a week and now am actively losing 1-2lbs a week. Much easier to stick with and am still seeing results on the scale. Yay!

anapestic

Congratulations. I typically come in between 2000 and 2200 calories a day, and the difference between that and 1600 calories is the difference between being mindful of what I eat but not feeling terribly deprived, and abject misery. I would totally give up and be eating everything in sight after a few weeks of 1600.

Michifan

It makes perfect sense. When you consider the amount of weight someone needs to lose initially it can seem like a restrictive calorie diet is the way to go. The problem is like you said it is almost impossible to maintain. But as you eliminate fat stores that the body is feeding on your body turns to any available food source to maintain. Thus consuming itself.

What you are saying may make sense, but it is true in the most extreme forms of starvation. And by starvation, I mean levels where certain body functions start shutting down because of insufficient nutrition. Some people confuse water release in the muscles with muscle deterioration - not the same by any stretch.

Everybody has a different caloric need, and a different makeup of what they need from a macro nutrient diet. Of course there are general numbers that accurate across a wide range of people within a certain statistical standard deviation - but what some people call "restrictive calories" are more than sufficient calories for other people.

I don't have any issue eating 800 calories a day, walking 4 miles every morning, biking 10 miles every weekend. The rest of my days is at a desk - very sedentary - and all of my food is very whole and nutritionally balanced for me. I have absolutely no cognitive deterioration (I'm a forensic accountant) and my mood is balanced. Would I tell someone else to do what I do - not unless they were my clone.

But I'm doing famously well on a very restrictive diet and I can assure you I've had no muscle loss - in fact I'm stronger in every measure. I can also assure you that all my blood work is amazing as well. I look at what other people eat and do and know that I'd likely not be successful on their plans. I also know that other people couldn't and shouldn't do what I do because it isn't right for their very particular bodies or mental constitution.