Tired of all the "real dieters"
Replies
-
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?0 -
Exactly why I increased my calories to 1400 from 1200.
I came here after losing 18 pounds on WW and a 4 month plateau. Then I discovered weight training. I started focusing on toning and increasing my lean muscle mass. I know I need to eat a little more to do this and I felt that after 2 plus months of weight training, I wasn't making any progress as far as strength goes. From what I have read on the subject, you can't build muscle when you have too high a calorie deficit. Maybe those extra 200 will make all the difference....maybe I need more. I just plan on adjusting slowly to see what works for me. I also hope that a gradual increase will help combat some inevitable regain.
It must be working since I have started losing again since I added weights- 8 pounds. Wooohoooo!!! 6 to go baby:)
You are DEFINITELY on the right track! May I ask if you are keeping track of your changing body via the tape measure and pictures? These are far more effective tools for tracking progress (in addition to the training journal to see your strength progress) than the scale or JUST the scale.
May I make a suggestion? (I know this one is scary for women.) DON'T WEIGH YOURSELF BUT ONCE PER MONTH. Your weight can fluctuate several pounds a day due to a number of issues. And most women who are just learning to embrace building mass freak out when they see the number on the scale go up. This leads to them eating less and so they get sucked back into the vicious cycle that so many of are trying to help y'all avoid.
Embrace your strength and changing body-shape. Your clothing will start to fit differently. Depending on genetics and activity, you may see tightness in your shirt-sleeves or around the bust (this is due to a growing back LOL - not bigger bewbs) or in your thighs/seat of your pants. As long as your clothing is fitting loser around your waistline, you are golden.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
I'm sorry I said I was done here but this is simply absurd. .3%? Did you mean 3%? .3 is literally 6 calories assuming a maintenance of 2000 calories per day whereas 3% is only 60 calories. That would mean by age 70 it's 240 calories less than at age 30 (for 3%). so a maintenance of 1760 vs 2000. That's pretty far from what would warrant someone saying they have to eat 1200 calories because they're older.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
I'm sorry I said I was done here but this is simply absurd. .3%? Did you mean 3%? .3 is literally 6 calories assuming a maintenance of 2000 calories per day whereas 3% is only 60 calories. That would mean by age 70 it's 240 calories less than at age 30 (for 3%). so a maintenance of 1760 vs 2000. That's pretty far from what would warrant someone saying they have to eat 1200 calories because they're older.
I meant 0.3 but that's only if they maintain the same muscle mass and activity level as when younger, which is rare. And yes, it would be a very small decline over a lifetime if someone were actually to maintain it. Whether they need to eat 1200 or 1760 to maintain weight would depend entirely on the person.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
I'm sorry I said I was done here but this is simply absurd. .3%? Did you mean 3%? .3 is literally 6 calories assuming a maintenance of 2000 calories per day whereas 3% is only 60 calories. That would mean by age 70 it's 240 calories less than at age 30 (for 3%). so a maintenance of 1760 vs 2000. That's pretty far from what would warrant someone saying they have to eat 1200 calories because they're older.
I meant 0.3 but that's only if they maintain the same muscle mass and activity level as when younger, which is rare. And yes, it would be a very small decline over a lifetime if someone were actually to maintain it. Whether they need to eat 1200 or 1760 to maintain weight would depend entirely on the person.
but it's basically within the realm of control. People say they HAVE TO eat 1200 to maintain their weight, or even less than that. This is simply not true. That's my point.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
I'm sorry I said I was done here but this is simply absurd. .3%? Did you mean 3%? .3 is literally 6 calories assuming a maintenance of 2000 calories per day whereas 3% is only 60 calories. That would mean by age 70 it's 240 calories less than at age 30 (for 3%). so a maintenance of 1760 vs 2000. That's pretty far from what would warrant someone saying they have to eat 1200 calories because they're older.
I meant 0.3 but that's only if they maintain the same muscle mass and activity level as when younger, which is rare. And yes, it would be a very small decline over a lifetime if someone were actually to maintain it. Whether they need to eat 1200 or 1760 to maintain weight would depend entirely on the person.
but it's basically within the realm of control. People say they HAVE TO eat 1200 to maintain their weight, or even less than that. This is simply not true. That's my point.
How do you know they don't? I realize that most people don't, but I'm sure there are some. My SIL in over 50, 4' 8" tall and never exercises. I can't imagine she could eat much more than 1200 calories and not gain weight.0 -
"Over one-half of teenage girls and nearly one-third of teenage boys use unhealthy weight control behaviors such as skipping meals, fasting, smoking cigarettes, vomiting, and taking laxatives.17 "
^^^ my friends and I did that in the past. And I am watching my daughter (13 yo)struggle with her weight and scared to death that she will resort to the same...as we speak she skips meals--her bmi is 34--and I wish I wish I wish I could get through to her.
Which is why am here. How can I preach to her if I don't practice it? Which is why I can only be so grateful for having learning what I am learning now. I have come from a long line of heavy females and we all ate what we wanted when we wanted and I watched my mom starve herself never exercising. now she's pushing 60, over 250 lbs, tons and tons of medical problems including the fact that she may never walk again. AND she's so depressed she won't do anything about it. My grandmother,
diabetes, amputee, died young. I see the writing on the wall and I need to break this cycle... so IDC, love4fitness I am glad you did this post; I choose to take the good out of it and apply it to my life.( this is making me emotional thinking about it)0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
Now that makes sense... NOT. Hormones do not burn calories. Declining hormone levels (which is a natural part of aging for both sexes) cause a decreasing ability for men and women to build and maintain lean muscle mass. So, naturally, unless both men and women do something (exercise, eat intelligently and take HRT) to counteract this natural part of the aging process, then yes, their metabolism will slow.
Not magic, just simple biology.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
Now that makes sense... NOT. Hormones do not burn calories. Declining hormone levels (which is a natural part of aging for both sexes) cause a decreasing ability for men and women to build and maintain lean muscle mass. So, naturally, unless both men and women do something (exercise, eat intelligently and take HRT) to counteract this natural part of the aging process, then yes, their metabolism will slow.
Not magic, just simple biology.
No one said hormone burn calories, or at least I didn't say or suggest it. But hormones do play a role in metabolic rate, which was what we were discussing.0 -
The most important thing to keep in mind is that life doesn't stop for weight loss. It doesn't stop for maintenance either. You've got to be realistic about your eating and exercising. Both have to sustainable for life in order to successfully reach your goal and stay there. Your diet and exercise have to fit into your work schedule, your family schedule, birthday parties, graduations, Friday nights out, vacations, etc. Some of that stuff is going to be pretty tough when you're working with only 1200 calories of rabbit food and need to exercise for 3 hours a day.0
-
"Over one-half of teenage girls and nearly one-third of teenage boys use unhealthy weight control behaviors such as skipping meals, fasting, smoking cigarettes, vomiting, and taking laxatives.17 "
^^^ my friends and I did that in the past. And I am watching my daughter (13 yo)struggle with her weight and scared to death that she will resort to the same...as we speak she skips meals--her bmi is 34--and I wish I wish I wish I could get through to her.
Which is why am here. How can I preach to her if I don't practice it? Which is why I can only be so grateful for having learning what I am learning now. I have come from a long line of heavy females and we all ate what we wanted when we wanted and I watched my mom starve herself never exercising. now she's pushing 60, over 250 lbs, tons and tons of medical problems including the fact that she may never walk again. AND she's so depressed she won't do anything about it. My grandmother,
diabetes, amputee, died young. I see the writing on the wall and I need to break this cycle... so IDC, love4fitness I am glad you did this post; I choose to take the good out of it and apply it to my life.( this is making me emotional thinking about it)
I understand how you feel 100%.
I just had to sign DNR and DNH orders for my father. He is morbidly obese and is dying as a result. He did it to himself - period. Until someone has had to watch their parents/grandparents die this way and then be faced with the decision to have them be allowed to "die naturally" because they are so ill that it makes no sense to put them through all sorts of painful/torturous procedures just to prolong what is left of their lives (basically bedridden floating in and out of being semi-coherent) for a few hours or days.
I also suffer from a condition that could cause me to be 100% ok right now - to I'm so dehydrated that I am at risk of stroking out within a matter of few hours. Cardio-vascular health is of paramount importance to me. If I become suddenly ill (as I did just this May past) my heart needs to be strong enough to keep pumping blood that has become too think until I can get to the hospital.I am concerned about my appearance, yes. But that is truly secondary for me at this point in my life.
So for all the people who are promoting practices that WE ALL KNOW are unhealthy, please stop!! Get educated or please just starve and exercise to death in silence. So that YOUR sickness doesn't negatively affect someone who is coming here to seek knowledge. You've no idea who may be reading your words or whom it may influence. If you are here because you WANT TO LEARN from people who are TRYING TO HELP YOU - WELCOME!!!0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
Now that makes sense... NOT. Hormones do not burn calories. Declining hormone levels (which is a natural part of aging for both sexes) cause a decreasing ability for men and women to build and maintain lean muscle mass. So, naturally, unless both men and women do something (exercise, eat intelligently and take HRT) to counteract this natural part of the aging process, then yes, their metabolism will slow.
Not magic, just simple biology.
No one said hormone burn calories, or at least I didn't say or suggest it. But hormones do play a role in metabolic rate, which was what we were discussing.
/facepalm... Did I not already explain in a very simple manner what role hormones play regarding metabolism?0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
I'm sorry I said I was done here but this is simply absurd. .3%? Did you mean 3%? .3 is literally 6 calories assuming a maintenance of 2000 calories per day whereas 3% is only 60 calories. That would mean by age 70 it's 240 calories less than at age 30 (for 3%). so a maintenance of 1760 vs 2000. That's pretty far from what would warrant someone saying they have to eat 1200 calories because they're older.
I meant 0.3 but that's only if they maintain the same muscle mass and activity level as when younger, which is rare. And yes, it would be a very small decline over a lifetime if someone were actually to maintain it. Whether they need to eat 1200 or 1760 to maintain weight would depend entirely on the person.
but it's basically within the realm of control. People say they HAVE TO eat 1200 to maintain their weight, or even less than that. This is simply not true. That's my point.
How do you know they don't? I realize that most people don't, but I'm sure there are some. My SIL in over 50, 4' 8" tall and never exercises. I can't imagine she could eat much more than 1200 calories and not gain weight.
of course you can always find an exception--I don't dispute that. Of course if someone is UNABLE to workout and as a result loses much of their LBM then yes, they might have to eventually eat so few calories. I am not talking about those people. I am talking about the people who CAN exercise, do exercise, yet claim they must eat 1200 calories to maintain/lose. I don't believe that this is true. That's just MY opinion. Now, when you have a metabolic condition brought on by a hormonal imbalance then that's yet another situation to which my perspective does not apply. I realize there are exceptions!0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
Now that makes sense... NOT. Hormones do not burn calories. Declining hormone levels (which is a natural part of aging for both sexes) cause a decreasing ability for men and women to build and maintain lean muscle mass. So, naturally, unless both men and women do something (exercise, eat intelligently and take HRT) to counteract this natural part of the aging process, then yes, their metabolism will slow.
Not magic, just simple biology.
No one said hormone burn calories, or at least I didn't say or suggest it. But hormones do play a role in metabolic rate, which was what we were discussing.
/facepalm... Did I not already explain in a very simple manner what role hormones play regarding metabolism?
Yes, though it was obviously unnecessary. My reply was to your statement that my post made no sense and hormones don't burn calories, which led me to believe that you misunderstood my post to say that hormones burned calories, even though we weren't discussing what did or did not burn calories.
My post made sense because it is probably hormones that cause metabolic rate to slow over time, despite muscle mass and activity level. Though, as I said, I don't know what makes it slow. I only know that data show it slows.0 -
bump for later... Love this post!0
-
has any person on here actually advocated any where near 3 hours of working out a day? i workout maybe 20 minutes a day average.The most important thing to keep in mind is that life doesn't stop for weight loss. It doesn't stop for maintenance either. You've got to be realistic about your eating and exercising. Both have to sustainable for life in order to successfully reach your goal and stay there. Your diet and exercise have to fit into your work schedule, your family schedule, birthday parties, graduations, Friday nights out, vacations, etc. Some of that stuff is going to be pretty tough when you're working with only 1200 calories of rabbit food and need to exercise for 3 hours a day.0 -
I'm one that works out a lot because I love to work out. I am a stay at home soon to be wife with no license so I have a lot of time on my hands. A little while back I was in a funk and just depressed and wasn't working out much and just felt terrible. I got back to working out and now I put any stress or what have you into my work outs and it really helps. I don't count calories anymore because it made me nuts, I eat when I'm hungry and don't when I'm not, I eat healthy foods but I do also indulge in things that aren't the healthiest in moderation. I taught myself to eat slower as I was always a fast eater and now I can actually stop eating when I'm full without going over and feeling uncomfortably full. There is always going to be new science, articles or people telling you when, what and how much to eat. My Gramma is 88 years old and does not at all look it or feel it, she eats when she's hungry and walks everyday. I highly doubt she gets 1200 but who knows, she's healthy as a horse and if at 88 I look, feel and am as healthy as she is then I did something right. My family has a history of heart issues, biological grandfather died when my mom was 8 of a heart attack and both my uncles have had heart surgeries. My moms heart is fine but she did have breast cancer so my health is important to me and taking care of myself so I can be around when I have a family of my own is very important. I don't know what the "magic" number of calories is for people but as long as my doc says I'm healthy then I'm going to continue what I'm doing because it works for me and I am well aware that it would not be ideal for others because as it's been pointed out everyone is different .0
-
People are commenting on the fact that 1200 isn't enough... That's the amount that MFP set mine at. I do have a lot of weight to lose... 86lbs. I have been staying within the 1200 and haven't been hungry. Eating healthy foods, cooking, weighing every thing and the biggest change has been portion control.. Wow, It has been a wake up call on some of the foods I had been eating. I have also started a bit of walking...has been a problem since I have very bad knees, but I am taking it slow and going a little further each time. I would like some input on the 1200...
1200 is what mfp has me set at, as well...and it seems to be working when I don't have the health issues of the past week and half.... my life is sedentary, and I eat my exercise calories when I've made time to exercise.0 -
You know what REALLY sux? As we age, if we don't make it our business (or when lack of health insurance precludes us) to seek out a competent endocrinologist to get bio-identical HRT, we may not gain weight per say. But our fat distribution and BMI changes dramatically slowly, but surely. It SUX! But that doesn't mean that we can't combat these issues. Proper nutrition IMHO is more important than ever before in a woman's life as she ages. Eating less is NOT THE WAY to achieve this paramount goal.
I both agree and disagree. As we get older our metabolism naturally slows. Even more so for women once they hit menopause. And while nutrition is very important, eating less is also important. Whether you exercise more so you can eat the same, or you lower total calories, an older person will need to eat less net calories to maintain weight.
The metabolic slow down is due to loss of muscle mass. Please educate yourself. If you don't lose your muscle mass, then guess what? Your metabolism won't slow. I know way too many real-life examples of women who are much older than me who KNOW this not only because it has been their life's work (educationally and professionally speaking) but because they also walk the walk.
No, it is not solely due to loss of muscle mass. You can combat it by gaining muscle mass, but with the same exact muscle mass your metabolic rate will still slow as you age.
And this is due to what exactly?
I don't know. Hormones, probably. But a person that maintains muscle mass and activity level will still see a decrease. It will be about 0.3% vs. the average of 5 - 10 % per decade.
Now that makes sense... NOT. Hormones do not burn calories. Declining hormone levels (which is a natural part of aging for both sexes) cause a decreasing ability for men and women to build and maintain lean muscle mass. So, naturally, unless both men and women do something (exercise, eat intelligently and take HRT) to counteract this natural part of the aging process, then yes, their metabolism will slow.
Not magic, just simple biology.
No one said hormone burn calories, or at least I didn't say or suggest it. But hormones do play a role in metabolic rate, which was what we were discussing.
/facepalm... Did I not already explain in a very simple manner what role hormones play regarding metabolism?
Yes, though it was obviously unnecessary. My reply was to your statement that my post made no sense and hormones don't burn calories, which led me to believe that you misunderstood my post to say that hormones burned calories, even though we weren't discussing what did or did not burn calories.
My post made sense because it is probably hormones that cause metabolic rate to slow over time, despite muscle mass and activity level. Though, as I said, I don't know what makes it slow. I only know that data show it slows.
I DO KNOW WHAT MAKES METABOLISM SLOW.... FOR EVERYONE..
One last time. HORMONES DO NOT BURN CALORIES - LEAN MASS DOES. HORMONE LEVELS DECREASE THUS AFFECTING THE ABILITY FOR ONE TO ATTAIN/MAINTAIN LEAN MASS = LESS MASS = LOWER METABOLIC RATE.
Conversely, with all things being equal age being the only difference, BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate = the calories one burns by merely being alive) an older person will expend the same amount of calories as their younger counter part. There is no magic here. It is basic biology.0 -
People are commenting on the fact that 1200 isn't enough... That's the amount that MFP set mine at. I do have a lot of weight to lose... 86lbs. I have been staying within the 1200 and haven't been hungry. Eating healthy foods, cooking, weighing every thing and the biggest change has been portion control.. Wow, It has been a wake up call on some of the foods I had been eating. I have also started a bit of walking...has been a problem since I have very bad knees, but I am taking it slow and going a little further each time. I would like some input on the 1200...
1200 is what mfp has me set at, as well...and it seems to be working when I don't have the health issues of the past week and half.... my life is sedentary, and I eat my exercise calories when I've made time to exercise.
Oh it will work. You will lose a considerable amount of lean mass (which is what burns most of the calories you consume and far outweighs and takes up less space than the fat you will NOT be losing) thus slowing your metabolism. So when you go back to eating like a normal human being (because NO ONE can exist on a starvation diet forever when food is readily accessible) you will gain all of the weight back and more.
This isn't magic. It is basic human biology.0 -
i have a hard time reaching my 1200 calorie goal. i eat meat, and veggies. no grains or sugar. even when i don't work out, eating until i'm satisfied (not full or even stuffed), my foods keep me fuller longer. the other day someone suggested that i eat back the calories i burn working out. well um, tried that advice, screw that, i've gained 5 lbs doing that (and haven't strayed from what i was doing), and have literally STUFFED myself to the point it's painful to JUST reach 1200 calories. how is this a GOOD thing? stuffing myself just to reach calories? i'm 4'11 and i have a very small frame, i don't know if that has anything to do with it. i've never had any type of eating disorder or anything like that. but yeah, 1200 calorie days i feel so stuffed i can't move. how is that good for me?0
-
i have a hard time reaching my 1200 calorie goal. i eat meat, and veggies. no grains or sugar. even when i don't work out, eating until i'm satisfied (not full or even stuffed), my foods keep me fuller longer. the other day someone suggested that i eat back the calories i burn working out. well um, tried that advice, screw that, i've gained 5 lbs doing that (and haven't strayed from what i was doing), and have literally STUFFED myself to the point it's painful to JUST reach 1200 calories. how is this a GOOD thing? stuffing myself just to reach calories? i'm 4'11 and i have a very small frame, i don't know if that has anything to do with it. i've never had any type of eating disorder or anything like that. but yeah, 1200 calorie days i feel so stuffed i can't move. how is that good for me?
well then I can undoubtedly say that you're most likely not getting enough fat in your diet. Even 400 calories worth of fat, 33% of your daily intake, would only leave you with 800 calories of FOOD. That's equivalent to 8oz lean protein (240 calories), 1 serving oatmeal (150), 6 servings veggies (180) and 2 pieces of fruit (~200ish). Are you telling me that oatmeal and fruit, veggies and chicken, and veggies and chicken (3 meals total) would make you STUFFED if you were cooking these things with olive oil and/or dressing your salad with olive oil and topping it with a healthy fat like nuts or avocado? That's no snacks, all "healthy" foods, and aiming for a balanced diet. I dont think that MOST people would be stuffed on this amount. I'm your height by the way.0 -
well then I can undoubtedly say that you're most likely not getting enough fat in your diet. Even 400 calories worth of fat, 33% of your daily intake, would only leave you with 800 calories of FOOD. That's equivalent to 8oz lean protein (240 calories), 1 serving oatmeal (150), 6 servings veggies (180) and 2 pieces of fruit (~200ish). Are you telling me that oatmeal and fruit, veggies and chicken, and veggies and chicken (3 meals total) would make you STUFFED if you were cooking these things with olive oil and/or dressing your salad with olive oil and topping it with a healthy fat like nuts or avocado? That's no snacks, all "healthy" foods, and aiming for a balanced diet. I dont think that MOST people would be stuffed on this amount. I'm your height by the way.
yesterdays fat total was 106. day before that 61. i cook with coconut oil. i even started taking it by the spoonful to get more calories. i don't eat oatmeal (no grains) and try limit my carbs. you can look at what i had yesterday and the day before to get at 1200 (eating back what i worked off), and i've been stuffed to the point where it hurts. like my supper last night i had 6 ounce of chicken, a cup and a half of collard greens and 1/4 cup stir fry (in coconut oil) veggies. 366 calories and i was hurting afterwards.0 -
also, i'm eating primal, so really all i eat is meat, veggies, and some fruit. i haven't been eating anything from a can or a box. the "worst" thing i've had was popcorn (popped in coconut oil).0
-
also, i'm eating primal, so really all i eat is meat, veggies, and some fruit. i haven't been eating anything from a can or a box. the "worst" thing i've had was popcorn (popped in coconut oil).
You'll eat popcorn but you won't eat brown rice or oatmeal? I don't understand this.
Do you eat yams?
Also do you judge your success based strictly on the number on the scale or do you also use other means to assess progress?
And finally, how did you change the settings on your food diary to say "first meal" etc as opposed to the default of breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks? I'd wanted to change mine too since I can only consume relatively small meals all day long due to the fact that my stomach is one third smaller than normal.0 -
You'll eat popcorn but you won't eat brown rice or oatmeal? I don't understand this.
Do you eat yams?
Also do you judge your success based strictly on the number on the scale or do you also use other means to assess progress?
And finally, how did you change the settings on your food diary to say "first meal" etc as opposed to the default of breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks? I'd wanted to change mine too since I can only consume relatively small meals all day long due to the fact that my stomach is one third smaller than normal.
well, i did cut out popcorn, i just had some last night to help up my calories, but normally no i wouldn't, its part of the no grain thing (corn is a grain, same with rice). i find oatmeal to be one of the most disgusting things on the planet, yams would be the second..lol. i couldn't even choke down one bite of oat meal when i was trying up my milk supply when breastfeeding. never been much of a rice fan either.
i judge my success partly on the scale. alot of it is how i FEEL physically. like this morning, when i woke up, i felt heavier and bloatier (if that's a word..lol). i could physically SEE my stomach was bigger than a few days ago, so i knew i'd gained before i even stepped on the scale (but definitely wasn't expecting to be up FIVE lbs). i can't fit into the pants i could tuesday, my favorite shirt was tighter on me this morning where they other day. i've felt lethargic yesterday and and today (though today could be a result of the popcorn..never again! ugh). and i haven't done anything different except meet my calorie goal.
and i changed it from my home, under settings.
0 -
Can relate. I don't call it dieting, mine is changing my life style to include eating better (portion wise) still eat what I have always eaten just smaller, and exercising so I walk 5 days a week and take it easy on the weekends. I used to try & "Diet" but it was like you said, eating rabbit food and killing myself on exercising. I started my life style change in April 2012 and have dropped 43 pounds and feel pretty good about it.
Exxxactly! I always say 'moderation vs. deprivation'! I don't believe you can just eat whatever you want, I do try to eat healthy no matter where I'm at, but smaller portions and staying active are definitely the key! Congratulations on the loss! 43 lbs. in 4 months is FANTASTIC!0 -
i consider my diet primal also, and despite what people think its not a diet that says you can never stray off for a cheat meal every now and then. most people stick to trying to eat about 80% of their meals on it and the other 20% not. in fact i believe robb wolf (who is one of the bigger names in paleo) eats white rice on his sushi, and mark scison eats hamburgers every now and then.also, i'm eating primal, so really all i eat is meat, veggies, and some fruit. i haven't been eating anything from a can or a box. the "worst" thing i've had was popcorn (popped in coconut oil).
You'll eat popcorn but you won't eat brown rice or oatmeal? I don't understand this.
Do you eat yams?
Also do you judge your success based strictly on the number on the scale or do you also use other means to assess progress?
And finally, how did you change the settings on your food diary to say "first meal" etc as opposed to the default of breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks? I'd wanted to change mine too since I can only consume relatively small meals all day long due to the fact that my stomach is one third smaller than normal.0 -
I eat between 1100 and 1400 a day, usually closer to 1200. And I'm full, I don't go hungry, I don't starve myself, I"m not withering away into nothing. I'm not a "yo yo" dieter, and I'm not feeling deprived of anything.
I'm gluten free due to Celiac, and I have some pretty awful food intolerances and get quite sick and sore if I eat meat or fish (of any kind, I've tried them all), gluten, dairy, eggs, fast food, etc. and I'm allregic to all nuts except peanuts. Sooo....having desserts sounds great, and as soon as someone makes me a dairy, wheat, nut, egg free cupcake, and make it taste good, I'll be all over it.
So before everyone decides to group EVERYONE that eats 1200 calories into the "they're doing it wrong group, remember that its not always as it seems. I do have a hard time hitting 1200 calories sometimes, but I make everything I eat, nothing comes out of a package except pickles and the occasional protein bar, and I can't eat fast food, chips, most candy, pizza, cupcakes etc. and I rarely drink pop. That makes it a whole lot easier to stay low calorie.
There is no way that I would ever force myself to eat more then I am eating now just because someone wants to tell me I"m doing it "wrong". I would rather eat my 1200 calroies worth of healthy foods then 1800 worth of cupcakes, starbucks, pizza and other junk that does nothing good for me, even if I could eat those foods. If that makes me "wrong", then fine.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