Tired of all the "real dieters"
Replies
-
AMEN SISTER! THANK YOU FOR SAYING EXACTLY WHAT I'M THINKING!
People on here seem to pride themselves on eating as few of calories as possible, while exercising 3 hours a day and somehow that makes them the real deal....How long is that going to be sustainable?! How long until you're yoyo dieting again?? I hate the word "diet"...I do not diet. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, meaning that this is not temporary for me and I'm not going to make myself miserable for the rest of my life fighting hunger and cravings. FOOD = FUEL, not the enemy. It is completely possible to live healthy, generally eating healthy and taking care of your body while STILL enjoying the foods you love.
I hope these "real dieters" that you speak of realize that they are just setting themselves up for a lifetime battle against food....and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle does NOT have to be that way!
You look fabulous in your pic by the way
AWWW thanks. you're a sweetheart. I can't believe that people 2x my size are eating 2/3 as much and claiming to be stuffed--It's completely antithetical to what I would view as a sustainable, healthy, and lifelong approach to weight management. Maybe these people really can eat 1200 calories forever, but I honestly doubt it. At some point I think MOST people snap and that's when the weight comes piling back on. I just wish people could be a bit more patient..take one meal at a time, one workout at a time, one day at a time until they reach goal and then continue doing the things that got them to the finish line.
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves. I may not be twice your size, but I feel like I'm starving on 1200 cal/day and can rarely accomplish that. I think they're just trying to brag, like saying some ordinarily painful stimulus really doesn't hurt. Bull! And if it really is true for them, I envy that. I would love to be able to eat only what my body needs to survive in good health and think nothing more about it. But that isn't the case for me and my "diet" is whatever food is available that isn't processed in the portion sizes small enough to fit in the calorie limit that will result in weight loss. I am already in good health, but being overweight increases my risk of future health problems, and that means, probably, that I will never be able to just eat what I like that satisfies me without measuring and counting everything. That means I'll be "on a diet" for the rest of my life, really. That is the way of life I will have to choose in order to reduce my risks.0 -
i love it when people who haven't had a lot of weight to lose, nor had life events that cause weight gain, come around and make up these threads that try and call others out and dictate to them what they do wrong and why they are fat.
full of win!
I didn't see this any where in the thread. The fact is that there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to build lean mass and lose excess body fat (though it's very difficult to do both without the aid of performance enhancing agents). This is why those who are interested in building lean mass bulk first (this does not mean get fat). They take on more calories for many months in order to facilitate growth. And when they feel they've made enough progress gaining mass they switch up their diet and cardio habits (or simply add cardio back to their routine) in order to MAINTAIN the lean mass they just worked so hard to gain while burning body fat.
So, unless a body adheres to these types of principles (that are simple biological facts - NOT MAGIC) then they are doing it WRONG. period...
If you want to see how I know this... LOOK HERE: http://voices.yahoo.com/photos/bikinimom-pursuing-strength-living-fit-6215496.html?cat=5 20+ years of experience and STILL LEARNING EVERY DAY!!!
aren't you the same person who said they are sporting a 13yr old picture?
LOL
think you missed the point there sporty
LOLOLOL in my current pics (which are also on my homepage) I still have the same mass just am a lot smoother. In the avatar (which I put up for my own personal motivation and from which I am about 6 - 8 weeks away) I am about 14-15% bodyfat. I am currently about 22% - SIZE TWO. I am also about to turn 45 and have had four children.
So "Sporty" you should never assume... as you may just make an *kitten* of yourself. But thanks for stopping by!
0 -
Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?
To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.0 -
I sent you a request. I hope you will accept. Mine is set for 1200 calories a day, but that is what this thing set it as. I will be honest that I am a novice when it comes to this stuff and upon reading and reading articles and experts, after a while it all start to contradict each other. I have a complex schedule with working and kids and I am trying to figure out what better choices I need to make. I am looking for friend to share experiences and to educated myself what the average girl does.0
-
I agree. I just started MFP 5 weeks ago and have lost 17 lbs on 1800 cal/day. I have totally NOT deprived myself. I have eaten BBQ, Tex Mex, cookies, and lots of other "non-diet" foods. The biggest thing I realized about my diet after using MFP is what kinds of foods have lots of calories and how to limit portion size when I want some of those items. I also learned that when I over indulge, I need to exercise to counter-balance the calories. Lastly, I learned that MFP was teaching me a sustainable lifestyle and not how to diet.
how tall are you???
I ate just under 1900 calories today and I'm 5'2 (120lbs). Being short doesn't have to mean eating tiny amounts.
Agree. I am 4'11 and eat 1300 calories a day, sometimes just a little more and still lose.0 -
AMEN SISTER! THANK YOU FOR SAYING EXACTLY WHAT I'M THINKING!
People on here seem to pride themselves on eating as few of calories as possible, while exercising 3 hours a day and somehow that makes them the real deal....How long is that going to be sustainable?! How long until you're yoyo dieting again?? I hate the word "diet"...I do not diet. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, meaning that this is not temporary for me and I'm not going to make myself miserable for the rest of my life fighting hunger and cravings. FOOD = FUEL, not the enemy. It is completely possible to live healthy, generally eating healthy and taking care of your body while STILL enjoying the foods you love.
I hope these "real dieters" that you speak of realize that they are just setting themselves up for a lifetime battle against food....and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle does NOT have to be that way!
You look fabulous in your pic by the way
AWWW thanks. you're a sweetheart. I can't believe that people 2x my size are eating 2/3 as much and claiming to be stuffed--It's completely antithetical to what I would view as a sustainable, healthy, and lifelong approach to weight management. Maybe these people really can eat 1200 calories forever, but I honestly doubt it. At some point I think MOST people snap and that's when the weight comes piling back on. I just wish people could be a bit more patient..take one meal at a time, one workout at a time, one day at a time until they reach goal and then continue doing the things that got them to the finish line.
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves. I may not be twice your size, but I feel like I'm starving on 1200 cal/day and can rarely accomplish that. I think they're just trying to brag, like saying some ordinarily painful stimulus really doesn't hurt. Bull! And if it really is true for them, I envy that. I would love to be able to eat only what my body needs to survive in good health and think nothing more about it. But that isn't the case for me and my "diet" is whatever food is available that isn't processed in the portion sizes small enough to fit in the calorie limit that will result in weight loss. I am already in good health, but being overweight increases my risk of future health problems, and that means, probably, that I will never be able to just eat what I like that satisfies me without measuring and counting everything. That means I'll be "on a diet" for the rest of my life, really. That is the way of life I will have to choose in order to reduce my risks.
You hit the nail on the head to a great extent. A woman my height and weight (we won't talk BMI because that isn't totally relevant to the discussion) requires about 2100 calories in order "for my body to survive in good health" as you put it. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN ADULT FEMALE OF ANY AGE TO SURVIVE ON 1200 CALORIES AND SURVIVE IN GOOD HEALTH!!! How is it then that I can be 130# and be a tight-fitting size 2? Because I am still fairly well-muscled. Muscle is dense. So it is far more compact but weighs A LOT MORE than fat. Fat weighs relatively little but takes up a lot of space. Just think of a five pound bag of feathers as opposed to a five pound page of lead. Which bag do you think will be bigger? Well muscle vs fat works exactly the same way.
You should truly stop thinking of the word "diet" as something restricting and what you can't have and focus instead of what you CAN have if you WANT to attain and maintain proper health, fitness and wellness. This minor shift in thinking will cause you to move light years ahead with these goals. I promise you.
Example: If you would like to see what my diet consists of please click on my food journal. 0 -
Funny I am reading this while eating another salmon patty because I was still hungry. Great post. Food does = ENERGY 0
-
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.0 -
You wouldn't say 'I'm on a diet' to mean 'I'm on a customary course of living as to food'. You'd mean you were on a prescribed course of food.
Actually, I would use "I'm on a diet" to mean "I'm on a customary course of living as to food". I've been on a diet since jr. high school when I first started caring what I looked like. There is no prescribed course of food, just me limiting food as part of my customary course of living.
That is not what 'customary course of living as to food' means though. You mean your particular course of food, rather than simply the fact that you eat food as part of your life. Your diet is prescribed, because your decision to limit it is your own prescription. In which case the other meaning applies - you are on a prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity. Whether or not it's temporary or lifelong is not part of the meaning. The distinction is about a broad meaning of diet as applied to everyone, or a narrow meaning of a specific diet for one person.
Of course, in theory, anyone could say 'I am on a diet', using the broader meaning to indicate that they eat food as part of their way of living. But it becomes meaningless, because that is not how society uses that expression, so you'd get misunderstood. It is usage that defines a word,. Most people use language in order to communicate. In practical terms, you'd only have to announce your diet if you were attending some function that involved eating - if people were offering you more than you want, you could then say 'I'm on a diet, so I won't have any more'. If you had an allergy to a specific type of food, you wouldn't say 'Sorry, I'm on a diet, I can't eat that'. You could argue that saying it would be literally true, but functionally it wouldn't make sense to say it - it would make more sense to say 'I'm allergic, so I can't eat that.'
You seem to be talking in circles but saying the same thing I said.
Example: Because I make healthy choices most of the time I am often asked if I'm on a diet. My answer is "always". And I mean it exactly the way people think I mean it.0 -
Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?
To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.0 -
If anyone tells me to only eat 1200 calories ... I will smack the he!! Out of them!! That's not something I plan on doing daily, so I'm not doing it now!0
-
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.
Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.0 -
And because some rocket scientist called me out on how I look now... And for those who may question if I'd ever struggled with weight loss... Here you go. You know what they say about pictures being worth a word or two? http://voices.yahoo.com/photos/bikinimom-pursuing-strength-living-fit-6215496.html?cat=5
Thank you, Rocket Scientist. Call me out when you are nearly 50 and after you've had four kids.0 -
You seem to be talking in circles but saying the same thing I said.
Example: Because I make healthy choices most of the time I am often asked if I'm on a diet. My answer is "always". And I mean it exactly the way people think I mean it.
Nope, just trying to explain to you the difference between a broad meaning and a narrow meaning of a word, because you said you didn't see the difference between the two meanings of 'diet' that I stated earlier. It's hard to explain if you haven't come across the concept that words can have both broad and narrow meanings.
But from what you've said here, you do seem to be saying the same as what I am saying - you are using the narrow meaning of diet, which means a prescribed, restricted course of food. You are not using the broad meaning, which you initially said you were. People aren't asking if you happen to eat as part of your life (which is what the broad meaning is) - they assume that you eat, and they are asking if you have a specific restricted course of food. Which you do, so you say yes. You are now saying the same as what I have been saying, so anything either of us say will be circular! I'm assuming you now see the difference between the two meanings of the word - if not explicitly, at least implicitly.0 -
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.
Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.
Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.0 -
You seem to be talking in circles but saying the same thing I said.
Example: Because I make healthy choices most of the time I am often asked if I'm on a diet. My answer is "always". And I mean it exactly the way people think I mean it.
Nope, just trying to explain to you the difference between a broad meaning and a narrow meaning of a word, because you said you didn't see the difference between the two meanings of 'diet' that I stated earlier. It's hard to explain if you haven't come across the concept that words can have both broad and narrow meanings.
But from what you've said here, you do seem to be saying the same as what I am saying - you are using the narrow meaning of diet, which means a prescribed, restricted course of food. You are not using the broad meaning, which you initially said you were. People aren't asking if you happen to eat as part of your life (which is what the broad meaning is) - they assume that you eat, and they are asking if you have a specific restricted course of food. Which you do, so you say yes. You are now saying the same as what I have been saying, so anything either of us say will be circular! I'm assuming you now see the difference between the two meanings of the word - if not explicitly, at least implicitly.
Sorry, but that made me LOL. You're not saying the same thing I am, I am saying the same thing you are. :laugh:
Everyone on here losing or maintaining weight has a restricted course of food, so all are on a diet.
Diet Say it with me again friends. It's a good word.0 -
Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?
To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.
Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.0 -
Sorry, but that made me LOL. You're not saying the same thing I am, I am saying the same thing you are. :laugh:
Everyone on here losing or maintaining weight has a restricted course of food, so all are on a diet.
Diet Say it with me again friends. It's a good word.
Haha - well, if your'e disagreeing with me one minute and then saying the same as the thing you were disagreeing with, then it does seem like you are now saying what I was saying! I guess you forgot that initially you were saying you didn't see the difference between the two meanings, and you thought they were both the same!
I actually suspect we were both talking about different things - I was explaining that the word 'diet' has two meanings, because people were stating there was a right and a wrong meaning, which is not actually true. Both meanings are valid. But you seem to be focusing on just one of those meanings, with the idea that there is a right and a wrong emotional connotation to it - ie. whether it's a good or a bad word! Me, I have no emotional connotations attached to the word - I don't see it as good or bad. Just a word. But different people will see it either positively or negatively depending on the kind of diet they are on.0 -
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.
Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.
So people are probably more likely to listen to your advice about building muscle than losing weight. If I had a huge amount of weight to lose, realistically, I'd be more likely to want to talk to someone who had also lost that amount, or who has successfully coached a lot of people who lost that amount. But as a person who's never had much weight to lose, but who wants to gain muscle, then I would see you as someone who could give me advice on that.0 -
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.
Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.
So people are probably more likely to listen to your advice about building muscle than losing weight. If I had a huge amount of weight to lose, realistically, I'd be more likely to want to talk to someone who had also lost that amount, or who has successfully coached a lot of people who lost that amount. But as a person who's never had much weight to lose, but who wants to gain muscle, then I would see you as someone who could give me advice on that.
just because I've never had to lose a ton of weight doesn't mean that I don't know how to coach someone with that goal. Doing it healthily requires knowledge...that's something I possess and I don't feel like it's fair to dismiss any advice I have to give about weight loss just because I've never had much weight to lose. That's fine though--there are plenty of people who feel differently and I will gladly help them reach their goals.0 -
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.
Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.
So people are probably more likely to listen to your advice about building muscle than losing weight. If I had a huge amount of weight to lose, realistically, I'd be more likely to want to talk to someone who had also lost that amount, or who has successfully coached a lot of people who lost that amount. But as a person who's never had much weight to lose, but who wants to gain muscle, then I would see you as someone who could give me advice on that.
I was a certified fitness professional so yes, I helped many clients lose considerable weight SAFELY. I am very proud of each and every one. But some of my greatest challenges and clients of which I am most proud are the clients who overcame issues that so many don't even realize are issues, I had a client who had been anorexic FOR YEARS but she wanted to become an FBI agent. So she knew that in order to get into Quantico, she would not only have to pass the educational, professional and psychological requirements (which she had down) but she would have to once and for all COMPLETELY conquer anorexia. She had to eat, gain weight (which she had been doing successfully for years at that juncture) and get strong. Which meant she would have eat food in much greater quantities than she had ever done in HER LIFE. I am so proud to say that SHE DID IT! She conquered her issues and got accepted into the program to become an FBI agent. I also had a developmentally disabled woman (I will NEVER forget her. She was SUCH a happy, giving lady.) who was old enough to be my mom, but was more like one of my daughters in many senses. I had the added challenge of tailoring her training so that she could accomplish the movements properly and effectively (she also had many physical limitations we had to work around) and also keep her engaged. As I said, she had the attention span of an 8 year old. She beamed every time I saw her (at 5AM) and told me that of all the trainers she had she enjoyed our time together MOST. And then I had a client who was once in amazing shape and then she broke her back and put on well over 100 pounds. 20 years later she got to the point where she wanted to try to do something to lose the excess weight because it was making her now degenerative back issues worse. We got her well on her way (She could only afford 10 sessions with me.). Then there was a man who was once a high school and college football star, football coach then athletic director who was always a big man but who became ill and bed-ridden for nearly a year which caused him to put on even more weight further making his issues worse. Was released from the hospital, only to become ill again where he landed in the hospital for nearly another year. This man was near 60. After many months of rehab they told him he was finally ready to go to the gym. This 6'6" man was so weak and heavy that he couldn't even support his own skeletal structure long enough to walk on a treadmill for 10 minutes. He had to also carry an oxygen tank. NONE OF THE OTHER TRAINERS WANTED HIM. NOT EVEN MY BOSS... I cherished every minute with him and sadly we were only able to complete 6 sessions but he started to get stronger. My encouragement bolstered his confidence making him feel more comfortable going out (society often judges people who are morbidly obese quite harshly.. I wrote an article about is 2 years back when I was featured fitness & exercise contributor for Yahoo - yes, I'm also a free-lance writer). The basics I taught him about nutrition and a better way to eat put him on the right path.... And then there was my first client. After 30 days she got on the scale and only lost ONE POUND (she was 5'8" and over 200 lbs. If memory serves, she was like 220). So I was sweating it out thinking I clearly did NOT KNOW what the hell I was doing. As I busted out the tape measure I was like, "Judy, you haven't been fibbing to me about the meal plan - notice NO MENTION OF DIET - and you have been training the way I suggested when we're not together?" She was a bit put off and said, "YES!" End result? SHE LOST 14" OVERALL!! This meant she successfully lost substantial body fat WITHOUT GIVING UP ONE POUND OF LEAN MASS AND MAY HAVE ACTUALLY GAINED SOME MUSCLE!! After training with me for another 6 months she had gotten back down to a size 12. A dress size that she hadn't seen since since before she got pregnant with her now 17 year old son. ....and on and on and on.
So ya, I get it.0 -
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.
Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.
Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.
I said the number is HIGHER. 1200 is too low to sustain life in a healthy manner. Will a person who takes in NO CALORIES continue to live for more than a day? Umm, ya. How many days it will take that person to starve to death is dependent on several factors. And why on earth would any care what the least amount of calories an adult human being would require "just" to stay alive? Really people?0 -
just because I've never had to lose a ton of weight doesn't mean that I don't know how to coach someone with that goal. Doing it healthily requires knowledge...that's something I possess and I don't feel like it's fair to dismiss any advice I have to give about weight loss just because I've never had much weight to lose. That's fine though--there are plenty of people who feel differently and I will gladly help them reach their goals.
I know it doesn't necessarily mean that - that is why I used the word 'or', to show that either one or the other would be necessary for people to listen. But it goes back to what I was saying earlier about people needing to know a bit about you. People aren't going to automatically know whether you're experienced at coaching people with different weight loss needs. People generally need to know a bit about the credentials and experience of someone before taking whatever advice that person gives.0 -
Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?
To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.
Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...
A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.
Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.
It is mystifying to me why some people stubbornly dig their heels in and refuse to "get" that the more muscle you have, the higher your RMR - meaning that a person of the same height and weight will burn far more calories by merely breathing than their skinny-ft counter part.
If building and maintaining lean mass while staying relatively lean was easy there would be no fat OR skinny-fat people.
PERIOD0 -
BTW - I was so bothered by this 1200 calorie custom setting that I sent an email to the site administration about it. I got an in-depth and speedy answer (within hours!). Here is the cut and paste from that email:
"As for your concern about your base calories, when you set up your profile, we ask you for your age, height, weight, gender, normal daily activity level and how much weight you would like to lose/gain per week. We then use all this information and calculate it against the scientific calculation to give you your daily recommended goals. We start with a low base that already has the deficit to lose weight, without any exercise. Once you perform exercise, your daily totals will then increase.
Your normal average daily burn is already taken into consideration when we set up your profile. However, this is based on an average number. If you would like a more specific total based around your particular days activity, may we suggest looking into our integration with "fitbit" (an activity tracker). You can find more information on this integration by going to our website at www.myfitnesspal.com and signing into the members log in area with your normal username and password. Once online just click on the "tools" tab and then "fitbit".
We also ask you for your weekly exercise goals. However, this information is just for an incentive for you to reach. We do not actually take into consideration any extra exercise you do outside your normal day, until you add them to your diary under the "cardiovascular" section.
We set your nutritional target in Net Calories which we define as:
Calories Consumed (Food) - Calories Burned (Exercise) = Net Calories
What that means is that if you exercise, you will be able to eat more for that day. For example, if your Net Calorie goal is 2000 calories, one way to meet that goal is to eat 2,500 calories of food, but then burn 500 calories through exercise. When your exercise calories increase, your other nutritional goals will also fluctuate to match.
Think of your Net Calories like a daily budget of calories to spend. You spend them by eating, and you earn more calories to eat by exercising. To help avoid setting your body into starvation mode, we do not recommend for any member to consume under 1200 net calories.
Our program currently only calculates calories burned via our "cardiovascular" section. Estimating the calories burned from strength training is very difficult because it depends on a variety of factors: how much weight you lifted per repetition, how vigorously you performed that exercise, how much rest you took between sets, etc. Because of this, we do not automatically calculate how many calories you burned from strength training exercises.
However, if you like, you can try to search for the same or similar exercise in our "cardiovascular" database. If you can not find the exercise, you can do a general search for "Strength training" in the cardiovascular database, please be aware though that this is definitely a rough estimate and can be fairly inaccurate.
Or if you roughly know how many calories you are burning via a heart rate monitor, etc., then you can add the exercise in yourself. Just go to "cardiovascular" and then "create new exercise". This will be for your personal database and not the main database.
If you are following a guided plan from your doctor or nutritionist, we also allow an option for you to customize your own nutritional goals. You can set your own nutritional goals for calories, fat, carbs, and any other nutrient that we track. To customize your targets, log back in online. Once you've logged in, go to "My Home", then "Goals", then hit the "Change Goals" button at the bottom of the page. Choose the "Custom" option and you'll be taken to a page where you can set your own targets for all of the nutrients we track.
Once you've saved your changes, those same changes will appear in the app the next time the app syncs to the website - this should happen automatically with a valid internet connection.
Hope this helps. In the meantime, thanks so much for using the program. Please let us know if you have any additional feedback, problems or questions. We wish you all the success in reaching and maintaining all of your diet and fitness goals. "
I suppose that this is saying that they set this low number to get you to eat more and burn those calories off with exercise. A woman my height and weight requires about 21,000 - 2,200 calories to sustain life in a healthful manner. In order to lose a pound of bodyfat a week, this woman should create a calorie deficit of 500 - 600 calories per day which puts you at about 1600 calories per day. If you burn an additional 400 calories from exercise you will have a net caloric intake of 1200.
...I think. I find this confusing. Fitday.com explains and breaks it down in a manner that is a bit less confusing to me. But I enjoy MFP for a host of reasons... So while I do track my journal there too. I spend the bulk of my time here.0 -
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.
Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.
Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.
I said the number is HIGHER. 1200 is too low to sustain life in a healthy manner. Will a person who takes in NO CALORIES continue to live for more than a day? Umm, ya. How many days it will take that person to starve to death is dependent on several factors. And why on earth would any care what the least amount of calories an adult human being would require "just" to stay alive? Really people?
Well, the initial poster I was responding to used the number 1200, and you appeared to be speaking on her behalf - there was nothing about a higher number in your post. But regardless of what number you've plumped for, my post was asking for research evidence regarding numbers of calories. If someone states that anyone who feels full on less than 1200 calories is lying, and someone else states that the reason for this is that it's contradictory to sustaining life, I want to know the evidence for their statements, and specifically for the numbers that are used. If we don't know the research about minimum amounts, then how can we possibly know anything about any of the recommended amounts? Research provides the baseline - otherwise people could just be plucking numbers out of the air.
And actually, there are a few people who do care about the minimum amounts, because of the research suggesting that living on minimal amounts can significantly increase lifespan and reduce the risk of age-related diseases. That obviously doesn't mean the levels at which a person becomes ill - anorexia will eventually lead to death. But the levels at which a person can still thrive. The difficulty is when people just randomly throw out numbers and don't state why they have given that number - what reasoning there is behind it.0 -
This post violates one of the MFP forum guidelines and has been reported.
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Topics0 -
Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.
How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.
Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.
Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.
I said the number is HIGHER. 1200 is too low to sustain life in a healthy manner. Will a person who takes in NO CALORIES continue to live for more than a day? Umm, ya. How many days it will take that person to starve to death is dependent on several factors. And why on earth would any care what the least amount of calories an adult human being would require "just" to stay alive? Really people?
Well, the initial poster I was responding to used the number 1200, and you appeared to be speaking on her behalf - there was nothing about a higher number in your post. But regardless of what number you've plumped for, my post was asking for research evidence regarding numbers of calories. If someone states that anyone who feels full on less than 1200 calories is lying, and someone else states that the reason for this is that it's contradictory to sustaining life, I want to know the evidence for their statements, and specifically for the numbers that are used. If we don't know the research about minimum amounts, then how can we possibly know anything about any of the recommended amounts? Research provides the baseline - otherwise people could just be plucking numbers out of the air.
And actually, there are a few people who do care about the minimum amounts, because of the research suggesting that living on minimal amounts can significantly increase lifespan and reduce the risk of age-related diseases. That obviously doesn't mean the levels at which a person becomes ill - anorexia will eventually lead to death. But the levels at which a person can still thrive. The difficulty is when people just randomly throw out numbers and don't state why they have given that number - what reasoning there is behind it.
The numbers are NOT random. *sigh*
If you want to starve yourself to death, (or starve yourself to health or whatever whacky notion you've got in your head) be my guest. Who am I to tell you any different... Clearly, you feel that my credentials, life experience and 25 years of images that illustrate my struggles as well as my triumphs = I have no clue what I am talking about. I am cool with that.
I wish you well in whatever endeavors you may have, regardless of how counterproductive they may be to your health. My body will remain unchanged. :smokin:0 -
This post violates one of the MFP forum guidelines and has been reported.
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Topics
You are kidding. Aren't you?0 -
This post violates one of the MFP forum guidelines and has been reported.
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Topics
Seriously? If that were true then almost every thread should be deleted.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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