Low Cal, High Cal, Ima just eat my cals & feed the troll
Verity1111
Posts: 3,309 Member
Look. It is not normal to eat 700 calories, okay, we all know this. The one thing I don't see much talk about is we also don't all need 2,000 calories. 1,200 is the minimum, or usually stated as such, and yes it seems low to some people. I have to say though I think people keep thinking what they want is what someone else wants. While you may want to look like Vin Diesel, someone else may want to look like Jim Carrey. While you want to look like Jillian Michaels, someone else wants to look like Paris Hilton or Kelly Clarkson (skinny or chubby, who knows). Now, telling someone who wants to be thin and not muscular to eat 2,000 calories is probably a bad idea. It is probably a worse idea if the person does not exercise regularly and you do not ask them to find out before telling them 1,200 calories is too low and they will lose muscle. Maybe they don't care if they lose muscle or have some to spare, once again, who knows. I just think if we give advice we should be clear about the other factors involved. IE: You should eat 2,000 calories and exercise 3+x per week if you want to be "cut" or gain muscle mass, but if you just want to lose weight and are less worried about if your tummy is soft or solid feel free to eat 1,200. Not just, "1,200 is not enough. You should eat 2,000/1,700/3,000,000" (you see my point) I, personally, despised all muscle until I came here and even now prefer to just be what a lot of you think of as "skinny fat". I actually prefer a bit of meat on my bones and don't even prefer skinny. The only reason I am trying to maintain and gain muscle mass is because I will be able to be more active with my kids. Otherwise, I would be more worried about weight loss and being a little more tone, but not so much bulky or oober muscular with any sort of pack, 2, 4, or 6. For some people who are single, without kids or just in general this may not matter as much as to lose a few pounds would. Just my opinion. If the person is eating 700 calories, by all means let them know that is insane unless they have a special reason, but otherwise I think it is silly to tell a person who seems healthy that 1,200 calories is not enough, especially since a real BMR test can often show results that low.
0
Replies
-
This is amazing and I absolutely agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I agree that everyone is unique and we can't just have this one speech for everyone, because not everyone has the same goals. I'm one of those people that wants to be muscular, I don't particularly want a six pack, I just want my tummy to be a little hard. But I'm also a bellydancer, and the dances often look better if you have a bit of meat on your bones. So, I don't mind a little fluff. I think you're wonderful for addressing this issue, feel free to add me if you like.0
-
people should calculate their BMR and healthy deficit full stop. I lot of people end up on 1200 or VLC diets through ignorance.
I agree there is a lot of "GET IN MY BOX" advice. not everyone wants to go to the gym etc. but on the low end its about health. too low and you can do some serious damage to yourself. thats not really about looks, its about health. low cal intake can damage your health.
in other news, have you seen this dog
gets me every time.0 -
Great post ! I am one of those who eats 1200 because I can't do any exercise or workouts like most!! If I eat more than this I gain weight.0
-
in other news, have you seen this dog
gets me every time.
Love it!
0 -
I have been doing NET kcal of 1200 for 56 days now. I aimed to lose 1 lb a week and MFP sure has delivered: in 8 weeks I have lost 8lb. I do eat back all my exercise calories, so most days I end up eating quite a large amount, but today is my one day of rest a week and I will be having just 1200 kcal worth of very yummy healthy food.
My fitness levels have soared which was my main aim to start with and I genuinely feel so good I could eat like that for the rest of my life without batting an eyelid. And, yes, I did calculate all my BMRs and TDEEs and what not and the result was: 1200 kcal (+exercise kcals).
I think there are a lot of born-again dieters on this site and they feel the need to preach the message to everyone who has ears (and even those who don't). I understand their (over)excitement and don't hold it against them one bit. Yes, it can be mildly-to- moderately annoying sometimes, but hey!
My advice: do your calculations and then see how it goes. If it doesn't work, check whether you have been accurate in your recordings and if need be, modify. And whatever you do, drink a loooooot of water (I am a born-again water guzzler :laugh: )
:flowerforyou:0 -
0 -
Awesome! I actually am thinking of getting into belly dancing when I lose a little more. It seems so fun and it is the one dance I can do well. I've seen you around and Id love to add you. You seem very nice :] Thank you for the kind replyThis is amazing and I absolutely agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I agree that everyone is unique and we can't just have this one speech for everyone, because not everyone has the same goals. I'm one of those people that wants to be muscular, I don't particularly want a six pack, I just want my tummy to be a little hard. But I'm also a bellydancer, and the dances often look better if you have a bit of meat on your bones. So, I don't mind a little fluff. I think you're wonderful for addressing this issue, feel free to add me if you like.0 -
@nikilis I kept seeing angry posts about low calorie diets and arguing and I think it is pointless. This is all about health for sure, but for some people healthy means having a better mental image. If eating less and not being as muscular as you would like makes the person feel happy then I think that is healthy in its own way. Love all the pictures you post! Lol
@sunshinefrei I know what you mean. It really depends for me. I can eat around 1700 if I work out for a hour or two, but usually I need to eat less. I'm 5'4" and while some people my height can eat more, I gain and lose easily in both directions.
@Kaiukas Nice work!!!! I could do to lose some more :] I think I have because I weighed today and I was 166.4 after I ate a cup of mac n cheese, a slice of bread with a veggie dog and drank a 16oz bottle of water. Lol. Id say I must be 1lb less at least and last time I was 166.6 woo I hope I am small when I double check tomorrow. Thank you for the input and experience. When I exercise I eat back about 85% of my calories or more.0 -
@zyxst You have no idea how much I wanted to report/quote that picture just because it is awesome. lol!0
-
Look. It is not normal to eat 700 calories, okay, we all know this. The one thing I don't see much talk about is we also don't all need 2,000 calories. 1,200 is the minimum, or usually stated as such, and yes it seems low to some people. I have to say though I think people keep thinking what they want is what someone else wants. While you may want to look like Vin Diesel, someone else may want to look like Jim Carrey. While you want to look like Jillian Michaels, someone else wants to look like Paris Hilton or Kelly Clarkson (skinny or chubby, who knows). Now, telling someone who wants to be thin and not muscular to eat 2,000 calories is probably a bad idea. It is probably a worse idea if the person does not exercise regularly and you do not ask them to find out before telling them 1,200 calories is too low and they will lose muscle. Maybe they don't care if they lose muscle or have some to spare, once again, who knows. I just think if we give advice we should be clear about the other factors involved. IE: You should eat 2,000 calories and exercise 3+x per week if you want to be "cut" or gain muscle mass, but if you just want to lose weight and are less worried about if your tummy is soft or solid feel free to eat 1,200. Not just, "1,200 is not enough. You should eat 2,000/1,700/3,000,000" (you see my point) I, personally, despised all muscle until I came here and even now prefer to just be what a lot of you think of as "skinny fat". I actually prefer a bit of meat on my bones and don't even prefer skinny. The only reason I am trying to maintain and gain muscle mass is because I will be able to be more active with my kids. Otherwise, I would be more worried about weight loss and being a little more tone, but not so much bulky or oober muscular with any sort of pack, 2, 4, or 6. For some people who are single, without kids or just in general this may not matter as much as to lose a few pounds would. Just my opinion. If the person is eating 700 calories, by all means let them know that is insane unless they have a special reason, but otherwise I think it is silly to tell a person who seems healthy that 1,200 calories is not enough, especially since a real BMR test can often show results that low.
A real BMR test would be awesome, but really you can start with what MFP says and tweak your way to the correct calories for you. Not everyone has the chance to get a BMR test at a lab, but in general they will show most people have a lower RMR than they realize, and most people need less calories than they realize (that is how we all got fat in the first place).
1200 is such a stupid number to get stuck on. What you need to eat for a deficit is relative to your RMR. If you are short you really don't have much room for up compared to the 1200. If you are taller you will have a higher RMR and can go up or down and still be in a deficit (way above 1200) so you can lose no matter what. All that matters is a calorie deficit.
To tell everyone eat more is wrong.
To tell everyone to eat less is wrong.
To find the exact amount of calories for you to be in a sustainable calorie deficit is correct. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others. Some people have emotional eating disorders and it comes into play. Even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such and everyone is different.
You just need to find the correct calories for YOU to be healthy and sustainable and still lose weight. It might require some experimentation and tremendous patience. You can always notch up and down by 100 until you find what is sustainable and still allows you to lose weight.
If you have emotional eating issues than you are not going to be able to handle such a deep deficit and if you eat to low it will backfire. A better strategy is to eat at a shallower deficit, and sometimes give yourself a break from the deficit and eat at maintenance. This is not going backwards, but eating to low and then binging because you can't sustain it is going backwards. It's better to stay forwards even if it is slower. The tortoise wins this race in the end.0 -
One added side note: I spoke to a few "cut" people who were female and about 15% body fat and some of them stopped periods and had negative effects. If they want to do that, it is just fine, but I also think it is wrong to lecture people for having too high of a body fat if yours is too low according to normal standards. I know it is a bit cliche and ghetto, but I was told by a few people "You do you. I'ma do me" I don't mean that in a "get arrested for indecent exposure" way either Lol. Unless they are anorexic or bulimic or on the verge of death eating 4000 calories a day, with little or no exercise, I say relax0
-
Look. It is not normal to eat 700 calories, okay, we all know this. The one thing I don't see much talk about is we also don't all need 2,000 calories. 1,200 is the minimum, or usually stated as such, and yes it seems low to some people. I have to say though I think people keep thinking what they want is what someone else wants. While you may want to look like Vin Diesel, someone else may want to look like Jim Carrey. While you want to look like Jillian Michaels, someone else wants to look like Paris Hilton or Kelly Clarkson (skinny or chubby, who knows). Now, telling someone who wants to be thin and not muscular to eat 2,000 calories is probably a bad idea. It is probably a worse idea if the person does not exercise regularly and you do not ask them to find out before telling them 1,200 calories is too low and they will lose muscle. Maybe they don't care if they lose muscle or have some to spare, once again, who knows. I just think if we give advice we should be clear about the other factors involved. IE: You should eat 2,000 calories and exercise 3+x per week if you want to be "cut" or gain muscle mass, but if you just want to lose weight and are less worried about if your tummy is soft or solid feel free to eat 1,200. Not just, "1,200 is not enough. You should eat 2,000/1,700/3,000,000" (you see my point) I, personally, despised all muscle until I came here and even now prefer to just be what a lot of you think of as "skinny fat". I actually prefer a bit of meat on my bones and don't even prefer skinny. The only reason I am trying to maintain and gain muscle mass is because I will be able to be more active with my kids. Otherwise, I would be more worried about weight loss and being a little more tone, but not so much bulky or oober muscular with any sort of pack, 2, 4, or 6. For some people who are single, without kids or just in general this may not matter as much as to lose a few pounds would. Just my opinion. If the person is eating 700 calories, by all means let them know that is insane unless they have a special reason, but otherwise I think it is silly to tell a person who seems healthy that 1,200 calories is not enough, especially since a real BMR test can often show results that low.
A real BMR test would be awesome, but really you can start with what MFP says and tweak your way to the correct calories for you. Not everyone has the chance to get a BMR test at a lab, but in general they will show most people have a lower RMR than they realize, and most people need less calories than they realize (that is how we all got fat in the first place).
1200 is such a stupid number to get stuck on. What you need to eat for a deficit is relative to your RMR. If you are short you really don't have much room for up compared to the 1200. If you are taller you will have a higher RMR and can go up or down and still be in a deficit (way above 1200) so you can lose no matter what. All that matters is a calorie deficit.
To tell everyone eat more is wrong.
To tell everyone to eat less is wrong.
To find the exact amount of calories for you to be in a sustainable calorie deficit is correct. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others. Some people have emotional eating disorders and it comes into play. Even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such and everyone is different.
You just need to find the correct calories for YOU to be healthy and sustainable and still lose weight. It might require some experimentation and tremendous patience. You can always notch up and down by 100 until you find what is sustainable and still allows you to lose weight.
If you have emotional eating issues than you are not going to be able to handle such a deep deficit and if you eat to low it will backfire. A better strategy is to eat at a shallower deficit, and sometimes give yourself a break from the deficit and eat at maintenance. This is not going backwards, but eating to low and then binging because you can't sustain it is going backwards. It's better to stay forwards even if it is slower. The tortoise wins this race in the end.
That is exactly true. Everyone has their own number. Even if I am 5'4" 150lbs and you are 5'4" 150 lbs, we can have totally different BMR/RMR/TDEE (you get my drift) What I found to work best is to either start to slowly lower my calories, OR since I didnt know what I was originally, I started at 1200 and slowly each day I ate 100 more to see how high I could go without gaining or not losing any more. xoxo0 -
geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!0
-
See, that is what I mean. When was it stalled, before or after you upped your intake? It depends on the person 100%. 1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!0 -
Agreed, one number doesn't suit all. There are various factors that need to be considered such as goals, situation, activity, medical issues, etc. 1200 is just a random number someone made up, setting it as a base for everyone is wrong. Forget about that silly number, BMR and TDEE are the numbers that are more important.0
-
geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!
if you went straight from 1200 to 1500 in one day that could cause your body to go "whoa... hold up... what?" 1500 could be too high just like 1200 could be too low, see the formula I posted below. its a BMR calc that takes into account your bodyfat. it is much more accurate than the rest.
stick with 1500 for now and make sure you watch your cals / micro nutrients. keep monitoring your weight and as long as it doesn't go up quickly (and more than 1lb - bowel movements cal weigh that much).
also how are you weighing yourself and how long have you been eating 1500.
you need to do the below BMR including the BF% its very important.See, that is what I mean. When was it stalled, before or after you upped your intake? It depends on the person 100%. 1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
The only way to figure out a good place to start is through calculating your BMR. you cannot tell anyone that 1200, or any other number is a good place to start without calculating their BMR as accurately as possible. without doing this, its just a guess.
Everyone needs to calculate your BMR through the Katch-McArdle method, you should give it a go as a lot of the other calculations can be off by 300-500 cals a day. it could be similar, but its worth ruling out.
doing that you have done your best to make sure your core calculations are correct.
see below!
this is the most accurate BMR you can get as it takes into account your BF%
Katch-McArdle BMR:Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean.
Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
calculate your body fat here
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/
KM BMR
http://www.calculatorpro.com/calculator/katch-mcardle-bmr-calculator/
noone can say what anyones correct intake is without doing those calculations. high or low. yes 1200 might be correct for some people, but not others. others it could damage their health.
YOU ARE GIVING BAD ADVICE! everyone should investigate their correct BMR and try to apply the formulas to their intake because thats what a nutritionist would do. its not about 1200 its about getting an idea of what should be normal for you.
Vague and statistically incorrect information helps noone. not being a hater, just speaking the truth.0 -
See, that is what I mean. When was it stalled, before or after you upped your intake? It depends on the person 100%. 1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!
i stalled the last 3 weekis. just upped them today0 -
i checked many bmr calculator sites, they all say anywhere from 1500 to 2000 cals a day is what i should be eating.
iam almost 54 yrs old, 5'5" and 154 lbs. so i upped them to 15000 -
noone can say what anyones correct intake is without doing those calculations. high or low. yes 1200 might be correct for some people, but not others. others it could damage their health.
YOU ARE GIVING BAD ADVICE! everyone should investigate their correct BMR and try to apply the formulas to their intake because thats what a nutritionist would do. its not about 1200 its about getting an idea of what should be normal for you.
Agree with this also. BMR and TDEE is what's important. So is health.0 -
Extra points for using David Tennant! Swoon!!!0 -
I personally am not giving bad advice. I said it is OKAY as in not horrible to start. I didnt say YES You should definitely eat 1200 calories. You dont know your BMR by the way unless you had an oxygen test by a dr. So even still that is "bad advice". This is all estimates and figuring out what works for YOU. Every person is different and no calculator will work right for everyone because they are wrong for me. I know my body after many trial and errors. I ate 1700, I ate 1900, I ate 1400, 1300, 1600 and different points to figure out what makes me gain lose and maintain. That is really the only way apart from seeing your dr for a BMR test. I don't eat 1200 by the way. I eat about 1400 or more if I am exercising a lot. xoxo I just want to clarify. If someone wants to eat 1,200 I don't think anyone should judge, especially since they may know their body well and these calculators don't work for everyone.
geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!
if you went straight from 1200 to 1500 in one day that could cause your body to go "whoa... hold up... what?" 1500 could be too high just like 1200 could be too low, see the formula I posted below. its a BMR calc that takes into account your bodyfat. it is much more accurate than the rest.
stick with 1500 for now and make sure you watch your cals / micro nutrients. keep monitoring your weight and as long as it doesn't go up quickly (and more than 1lb - bowel movements cal weigh that much).
also how are you weighing yourself and how long have you been eating 1500.
you need to do the below BMR including the BF% its very important.See, that is what I mean. When was it stalled, before or after you upped your intake? It depends on the person 100%. 1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
The only way to figure out a good place to start is through calculating your BMR. you cannot tell anyone that 1200, or any other number is a good place to start without calculating their BMR as accurately as possible. without doing this, its just a guess.
Everyone needs to calculate your BMR through the Katch-McArdle method, you should give it a go as a lot of the other calculations can be off by 300-500 cals a day. it could be similar, but its worth ruling out.
doing that you have done your best to make sure your core calculations are correct.
see below!
this is the most accurate BMR you can get as it takes into account your BF%
Katch-McArdle BMR:Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean.
Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
calculate your body fat here
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/
KM BMR
http://www.calculatorpro.com/calculator/katch-mcardle-bmr-calculator/
noone can say what anyones correct intake is without doing those calculations. high or low. yes 1200 might be correct for some people, but not others. others it could damage their health.
YOU ARE GIVING BAD ADVICE! everyone should investigate their correct BMR and try to apply the formulas to their intake because thats what a nutritionist would do. its not about 1200 its about getting an idea of what should be normal for you.
Vague and statistically incorrect information helps noone. not being a hater, just speaking the truth.0 -
THAT is a different story. Some people up them and stall. If you stall just adjust until you find your number. I had to do the same. It is usually best to only add 300 calories at most at one time and I actually did less (like 100 at a time). I kept adding until I found my maintenance number (which I watched for a few days) then I subtracted 500 to get a 1lb per week deficit. xoxo
See, that is what I mean. When was it stalled, before or after you upped your intake? It depends on the person 100%. 1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.geeez! i just upped my cals from 1200 to 1500 cuz of all the hype about not enuf cals! my weightloss stalled out and it wasn't moving. i just don't know what to believe anymore. upping my cals just scares me to death!
i stalled the last 3 weekis. just upped them today0 -
1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
this statement is wrong. the place to start is calculating your BMR as accurately as possible.
you complain that the gym crowd are too cookie cutter, but you are giving advice to people which is not tailored to them, in effect the same as the former.
Everyone needs to calculate an accurate BMR. thats nothing to do with what type of "slimmer" or the body type they want. its a scientific approach to health.
saying 1200 is a good place to start is incorrect. the correct place to start is calculating your BMR.0 -
First of all, you can't read. Never did I give advice. I said if they want to that is OKAY. Do you realize okay does not mean "You should". They are two different statements. I just said if they are bodybuilding/weightlifting 1,200 will be too low for sure. As for 1,200 not being okay, really, do tell that to my dr or to most other people who study diet and exercise. For most people 1,200 won't kill you and if you want to start it is okay. It in my opinion is best to start there and add 100 slowly 1200 Monday 1300 Tuesday so on and find what is closest to your maintenance. You can not calculate your BMR! So I guess you have no where to start. Have you been to a Dr for a BMR test? If not, you are wrong more than I am. These calculators are usually wrong.1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
this statement is wrong. the place to start is calculating your BMR as accurately as possible.
you complain that the gym crowd are too cookie cutter, but you are giving advice to people which is not tailored to them, in effect the same as the former.
Everyone needs to calculate an accurate BMR. thats nothing to do with what type of "slimmer" or the body type they want. its a scientific approach to health.
saying 1200 is a good place to start is incorrect. the correct place to start is calculating your BMR.
You even read this? http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/777877-i-had-my-bmr-tested-it-s-1032-calories?hl=BMR+warn
1032 vs 1400 is a big difference, so really those calculators don't work, at least not 100%. Why put your whole diet in the hands of a stupid computer calculator? Um no. I would ADVISE that it is best to find out yourself through experimentation how your body maintains its weight and go from there without going way below 1,200 calories since it is recommended not to usually. It is funny how these "TDEE" calculators and "BMR" are so wrong for me. If I eat 1600-1700 calories I gain or maintain my weight, I don't lose. I lost at a normal rate with 1,700 calories per day with intense exercise for 2hrs in one day. So obviously if I ate the insane amount the calculators advised me I would be no where. Instead, I went through trial and error. In my opinion, this is better than calculators which don't usually work. Now, if you want to criticise please stop giving your own dreadful advice. They can sure use those if they want, but don't lie and tell them it is their BMR because it is not.0 -
The reason those comments are made though is it is difficult to get enough nutrients out of only 1200 calories (or less) worth of food. Very poor nutrition can lead to things worse than "skinny fat" and although I believe "to each their own," I'm not going to keep my mouth shut if I think someone is potentially harming themselves (with too little OR too much). Of course, I can't make anyone follow through, but I can sleep at night knowing I threw my 2 cents in, especially when someone is posting and ASKING for advice. If someone says "I eat 1200 and I know I'm not supposed to but I you're not the boss of me" then I figure they know best for their own body and I respect that.0
-
I'm sorry, but for some people 1200 is not too little. Look at it this way, one girl in a group of ours is 4'8". Let us say she is 4'8" and 77lbs (totally healthy according to the usual for her size). She would need 246.4 calories of protein if she wants 1g for each pound of lean mass. She would have 15.4 pounds of fat. If she wanted to eat .4g of fat per lb of body weight she would need 277.2 calories from fat. I just read that half your intake should be carbs. Okay, so let us say this. 246.4+277.2=523.6 calories of carbs. Times 2 means her daily needs would be 1047.2. This is all estimation though, so in turn useless. Not everyone has a high BMR and hers could be below 1000 since she is so small and even if the calculator was correct 1200 is above her bmr. This means for someone taller 1200 could very well be their bmr. So, it is not too low for everyone and also you can not truly calculate your BMR.The reason those comments are made though is it is difficult, if not impossible, to get enough nutrients out of only 1200 calories (or less) worth of food. Very poor nutrition can lead to things worse than "skinny fat" and although I believe "to each their own," I'm not going to keep my mouth shut if I think someone is potentially harming themselves. Of course, I can't make anyone follow through, but I can sleep at night knowing I threw my 2 cents in, especially when someone is posting and ASKING for advice. If someone says "I eat 1200 and I know I'm not supposed to but I you're not the boss of me" then I figure they're own their own.0 -
First of all, you can't read. Never did I give advice. I said if they want to that is OKAY. Do you realize okay does not mean "You should". They are two different statements. I just said if they are bodybuilding/weightlifting 1,200 will be too low for sure. As for 1,200 not being okay, really, do tell that to my dr or to most other people who study diet and exercise. For most people 1,200 won't kill you and if you want to start it is okay. It in my opinion is best to start there and add 100 slowly 1200 Monday 1300 Tuesday so on and find what is closest to your maintenance. You can not calculate your BMR! So I guess you have no where to start. Have you been to a Dr for a BMR test? If not, you are wrong more than I am. These calculators are usually wrong.1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
this statement is wrong. the place to start is calculating your BMR as accurately as possible.
you complain that the gym crowd are too cookie cutter, but you are giving advice to people which is not tailored to them, in effect the same as the former.
Everyone needs to calculate an accurate BMR. thats nothing to do with what type of "slimmer" or the body type they want. its a scientific approach to health.
saying 1200 is a good place to start is incorrect. the correct place to start is calculating your BMR.
You even read this? http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/777877-i-had-my-bmr-tested-it-s-1032-calories?hl=BMR+warn
1032 vs 1400 is a big difference, so really those calculators don't work, at least not 100%. Why put your whole diet in the hands of a stupid computer calculator? Um no. I would ADVISE that it is best to find out yourself through experimentation how your body maintains its weight and go from there without going way below 1,200 calories since it is recommended not to usually.
lol. first of all, drop the personal attacks. your getting all defensive with your back up for no reason. and you're not listening. the first step in figuring out your caloric intake is calculating an accurate BMR.
I went to nutritionist and they calculated my BMR using a body fat measurement from an electronic scale and then used the Katch-McArdle BMR: Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. thats what they, the trained professionals said. Katch-McArdle is the most accurate formula other than the post you have posted which i have read. thats just one person.
everyone needs to calculate their BMR thats the fact. thats what medical professionals do as the starting point. to recommend anything else is misinformation or vague non scientific advice.
yes. most of the calculators suck. Katch-McArdle does not. The variation in BMR comes from not including Body Fat in the calculation which is not a problem with Katch-McArdle.
your not actually listening to me, im not talking about the lame *kitten* "1200" argument, I'm stating that everyone should investigate the (Katch-McArdle) BMR but you seem to be going on autopilot. I'm aware some people eat that amount due to their body size as the below states:
"One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal (6279 kJ). "
bottom line is, in any case, anyone who wants to figure out the starting point for their healthy deficit is with a close as possible to accurate BMR.
what do you think MFP does when it does calculations? its just that theirs isn't very good, and people always go to high.
final thought. if you dont think BMR/TDEE works for anyone, what do you recommend?
(keeping in mind the medical community have written and tested this to death)0 -
Wow ex freakin cuse me Im not an animal so I dont have my back up. Second, everyone was fine n talking till you started giving bad advice about other peoples so called bad advice. I don't think you know anything about what I am trying to say. Wow. Okay. I did not say they shouldn't use BMR. I said I would not use online calculated BMRs. I said most people can NOT use BMR because they don't know their real BMR. These online calculators are not tested to death and they don't give a proper BMR. BMR also is not 100% calculated by body fat, it is calculator properly using a test that measures your oxygen consumption and release under certain environmental conditions. There can be a huge difference because just because someone has a high body fat it doesn't mean they have a slow or quick metabolism. Your RMR is similar, except less restricted of a test. I am just saying some people don't put faith in calculators, like me, and I would rather figure out my maintenance calories/intake and work from there. The way I did this was to start at 1,200 calories as I have said and as I also said add 100 calories every few days until I stopped losing weight. When I hit that number I kept testing to make sure it is my maintenance by going down and back up. Every time I tried the same caloric intake I wouldnt lose or I would lose maybe .1 and gain .1lbs. So, I realized the number to drop from in order to lose and that is how I figured out my intake originally. It worked for me, but may not work for everyone. This is the entire point of this post: Something different works for everyone. It can be okay to eat 1,200 for SOME people. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people can eat 1,200, others need 2,200, some even need 3,000, but it depends on the person, exercise level, and BMR, which can only be calculated 100% accurately with a monitored test of oxygen consumption and expenditure. You may use it if you wish obviously, but I am not comfortable with online calculators, which is why I am trying to get mine tested at a nearby hospital soon.
First of all, you can't read. Never did I give advice. I said if they want to that is OKAY. Do you realize okay does not mean "You should". They are two different statements. I just said if they are bodybuilding/weightlifting 1,200 will be too low for sure. As for 1,200 not being okay, really, do tell that to my dr or to most other people who study diet and exercise. For most people 1,200 won't kill you and if you want to start it is okay. It in my opinion is best to start there and add 100 slowly 1200 Monday 1300 Tuesday so on and find what is closest to your maintenance. You can not calculate your BMR! So I guess you have no where to start. Have you been to a Dr for a BMR test? If not, you are wrong more than I am. These calculators are usually wrong.1,200 is not too little unless you are working to build muscle and abs, but if someone just wants to lose weight and be a normal body type/thinner then 1,200 is okay to start.
this statement is wrong. the place to start is calculating your BMR as accurately as possible.
you complain that the gym crowd are too cookie cutter, but you are giving advice to people which is not tailored to them, in effect the same as the former.
Everyone needs to calculate an accurate BMR. thats nothing to do with what type of "slimmer" or the body type they want. its a scientific approach to health.
saying 1200 is a good place to start is incorrect. the correct place to start is calculating your BMR.
You even read this? http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/777877-i-had-my-bmr-tested-it-s-1032-calories?hl=BMR+warn
1032 vs 1400 is a big difference, so really those calculators don't work, at least not 100%. Why put your whole diet in the hands of a stupid computer calculator? Um no. I would ADVISE that it is best to find out yourself through experimentation how your body maintains its weight and go from there without going way below 1,200 calories since it is recommended not to usually.
lol. first of all, drop the personal attacks. your getting all defensive with your back up for no reason. and you're not listening. the first step in figuring out your caloric intake is calculating an accurate BMR.
I went to nutritionist and they calculated my BMR using a body fat measurement from an electronic scale and then used the Katch-McArdle BMR: Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. thats what they, the trained professionals said. Katch-McArdle is the most accurate formula other than the post you have posted which i have read. thats just one person.
everyone needs to calculate their BMR thats the fact. thats what medical professionals do as the starting point. to recommend anything else is misinformation or vague non scientific advice.
yes. most of the calculators suck. Katch-McArdle does not. The variation in BMR comes from not including Body Fat in the calculation which is not a problem with Katch-McArdle.
your not actually listening to me, im not talking about the lame *kitten* "1200" argument, I'm stating that everyone should investigate the (Katch-McArdle) BMR but you seem to be going on autopilot. I'm aware some people eat that amount due to their body size as the below states:
"One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal (6279 kJ). "
bottom line is, in any case, anyone who wants to figure out the starting point for their healthy deficit is with a close as possible to accurate BMR.
what do you think MFP does when it does calculations? its just that theirs isn't very good, and people always go to high.
final thought. if you dont think BMR/TDEE works for anyone, what do you recommend?
(keeping in mind the medical community have written and tested this to death)0 -
Wow ex freakin cuse me Im not an animal so I dont have my back up. Second, everyone was fine n talking till you started giving bad advice about other peoples so called bad advice.
ok so thats the personal / anger part dealt with... not very nice ver. not very nice.I don't think you know anything about what I am trying to say. Wow. Okay. I did not say they shouldn't use BMR. I said I would not use online calculated BMRs. I said most people can NOT use BMR because they don't know their real BMR. These online calculators are not tested to death and they don't give a proper BMR. BMR also is not 100% calculated by body fat, it is calculator properly using a test that measures your oxygen consumption and release under certain environmental conditions. There can be a huge difference because just because someone has a high body fat it doesn't mean they have a slow or quick metabolism. Your RMR is similar, except less restricted of a test. I am just saying some people don't put faith in calculators, like me, and I would rather figure out my maintenance calories/intake and work from there. The way I did this was to start at 1,200 calories as I have said and as I also said add 100 calories every few days until I stopped losing weight. When I hit that number I kept testing to make sure it is my maintenance by going down and back up. Every time I tried the same caloric intake I wouldnt lose or I would lose maybe .1 and gain .1lbs. So, I realized the number to drop from in order to lose and that is how I figured out my intake originally. It worked for me, but may not work for everyone. This is the entire point of this post: Something different works for everyone. It can be okay to eat 1,200 for SOME people. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people can eat 1,200, others need 2,200, some even need 3,000, but it depends on the person, exercise level, and BMR, which can only be calculated 100% accurately with a monitored test of oxygen consumption and expenditure. You may use it if you wish obviously, but I am not comfortable with online calculators, which is why I am trying to get mine tested at a nearby hospital soon.
what you are saying is correct, and your method is good for finding maintenance, but for wider use, it would be better to start with 1500 for women in general and adjusted up or down depending. it is a good methodology.
I'm not regurgitating facts, found the online BMR's to be way off so I did a bit of research, mainly reading this from the american journal of clinical nutrition:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941
which is the scottish study I quoted a bit about before, which stated that the main variable in BMR is body fat so I searched for a method that incorporates that online and found Katch-McArdle through a post on here. I also went along to a university clinic for nutrition where the students get marked on their consultations and they also used the same formula.
in closing I will say this.
lets say the healthy range is 1000-2000 cals at sedentary for all women low to high with the average being 1500 and everything distributed evenly, if you divide that up into percentages and apply this to which is more correct you get this.
"eating below 1200 is ok for some people" - thats about 20% of people at the most - that means 80% of the taller / higher BMR its not ok for. so when you say vaguely some people, its at max a 1/5th minority of people, giving 80% the wrong impression.
infact if you pick any number range i.e 1400-1600 it under these circumstances cannot really work for enough people for it to be recommended without some sort of indication as of where to start.
in steps old trusty Katch-McArdle BMR to save to day! go Katch go!
or this way if you prefer the 2001 space oddesey version:
and just because I love it more than myself
a picture of my favourite laughing dog! ohh yeh!0 -
Wow ex freakin cuse me Im not an animal so I dont have my back up. Second, everyone was fine n talking till you started giving bad advice about other peoples so called bad advice.
ok so thats the personal / anger part dealt with... not very nice ver. not very nice.I don't think you know anything about what I am trying to say. Wow. Okay. I did not say they shouldn't use BMR. I said I would not use online calculated BMRs. I said most people can NOT use BMR because they don't know their real BMR. These online calculators are not tested to death and they don't give a proper BMR. BMR also is not 100% calculated by body fat, it is calculator properly using a test that measures your oxygen consumption and release under certain environmental conditions. There can be a huge difference because just because someone has a high body fat it doesn't mean they have a slow or quick metabolism. Your RMR is similar, except less restricted of a test. I am just saying some people don't put faith in calculators, like me, and I would rather figure out my maintenance calories/intake and work from there. The way I did this was to start at 1,200 calories as I have said and as I also said add 100 calories every few days until I stopped losing weight. When I hit that number I kept testing to make sure it is my maintenance by going down and back up. Every time I tried the same caloric intake I wouldnt lose or I would lose maybe .1 and gain .1lbs. So, I realized the number to drop from in order to lose and that is how I figured out my intake originally. It worked for me, but may not work for everyone. This is the entire point of this post: Something different works for everyone. It can be okay to eat 1,200 for SOME people. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people can eat 1,200, others need 2,200, some even need 3,000, but it depends on the person, exercise level, and BMR, which can only be calculated 100% accurately with a monitored test of oxygen consumption and expenditure. You may use it if you wish obviously, but I am not comfortable with online calculators, which is why I am trying to get mine tested at a nearby hospital soon.
what you are saying is correct, and your method is good for finding maintenance, but for wider use, it would be better to start with 1500 for women in general and adjusted up or down depending. it is a good methodology.
I'm not regurgitating facts, found the online BMR's to be way off so I did a bit of research, mainly reading this from the american journal of clinical nutrition:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941
which is the scottish study I quoted a bit about before, which stated that the main variable in BMR is body fat so I searched for a method that incorporates that online and found Katch-McArdle through a post on here. I also went along to a university clinic for nutrition where the students get marked on their consultations and they also used the same formula.
in closing I will say this.
lets say the healthy range is 1000-2000 cals at sedentary for all women low to high with the average being 1500 and everything distributed evenly, if you divide that up into percentages and apply this to which is more correct you get this.
"eating below 1200 is ok for some people" - thats about 20% of people at the most - that means 80% of the taller / higher BMR its not ok for. so when you say vaguely some people, its at max a 1/5th minority of people, giving 80% the wrong impression.
infact if you pick any number range i.e 1400-1600 it under these circumstances cannot really work for enough people for it to be recommended without some sort of indication as of where to start.
in steps old trusty Katch-McArdle BMR to save to day! go Katch go!
or this way if you prefer the 2001 space oddesey version:
and just because I love it more than myself
a picture of my favourite laughing dog! ohh yeh!
My point is not that they SHOULD start at 1200 it is that if they want to I wont scrutinize them for it. I wont 100% insist they use a calculator because maybe they know their body better than me, where as some people just insist they must eat more and trust these BMR calculators, which often can hinder their weight loss if it over estimates. I actually cant lose at 1600
lol Not much anyways. Im sure I can, but not much at all. I used to work out and eat 1700 and I ate 1900 while pregnant. I think for me 1700 will be my TDEE or if Im very active (for my standards lol Im pretty lazy) then 1900. I havent tried to figure it out in a while now, but I lose at 1400 net. I am going to try to get a BMR test done to be sure. Your posts always crack me up lol nice puppy picture (which Ive seen 3 times now from you lmso) 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions