My calorie goal hard to reach, any suggestions?

butthurt cuz I say junk food is bad haha fatties. no wonder you all need to lose weight .

But I'm not fat...and I still say you're wrong...

...horribly, laughingly wrong.

but your still here hahaha

Leave my still out of this.

butthurt cuz I say junk food is bad haha fatties. no wonder you all need to lose weight .

I'm assuming you don't approve of my fort?

I'm assuming you don't approve of my fort?

I see your fort and raise you a pyramid......

Eat calorie dense foods like avocado, add in olive oil when you cook, eat nuts, & add full fat dairy products. My go to fix when I need about 200 cals is a big spoonful of peanut butter.

Eating healthier is fantastic, but you need to meet your calorie goal to make sure your nutritional needs are fulfilled.

Here's a great link:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

tried the olive oil, and do use it when I decide to fry my foods, but when I find it under the calorie food finder, my sodium shoots up. Don't want a lot of water retention, as I've lost a lot of my gut so far this past month of diet and walking before creating my account on here.

I've learned something very important from this thread. Ice cream can fix most problems. What a long strange rocky road it's been......

:drinker:

There are definite negatives to having a large calorie deficit. The greater the calorie deficit, the greater the muscle loss during weight loss. Also, the greater your metabolism wants to bridge the energy gap between calorie intake and calorie burn and will slow down if you sustain a large calorie deficit for a long period of time. Studies also show that with a large calorie deficit and faster weight loss, you're much much more likely to regain the weight and actually overshoot your original weight on the way up, mainly due to hormones that make you hungry when the body senses rapid weight loss and keep making you hungry even when you gain weight again...

I'm not here to debate. Your metabolism doesn't change significantly when you eat a large deficit. Everyone eating at a deficit will have a small decrease in metabolism, but it isn't exponential and it's temporary... so it's a non-factor. It absolutely does not matter. He's not starving himself so muscle loss won't be significantly if any different than if he was eating a few hundred more calories.

An individual is not a statistic. You can't point at someone and tell them that eating 1200 calories will definitely cause them to gain weight after they finish dieting. Something being statistically significant doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. Some people will have more success losing 2 lbs/week than 1/2 lb/week and vice versa. And don't use words like "much more likely" if you don't have the source. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2001.134/full here you will see that there is evidence against the idea of a VLCD hindering long term success of weight loss. While it is a popular idea and is often repeated, there isn't much research to back up the claim that VLCD is more likely to cause weight gain...while there is evidence against the claim.

Sidenote: OP isn't on a vlcd and I'm not advocating them...but I am disputing the notion that lower calorie diets are more harmful or won't work as well as eating a few hundred more calories.

Here's a quote from the conclusion section of the paper you linked to:

VLCDs and LCDs with an average intake between 400 and 800 kcal/d do not result in differences in body weight loss, as shown in some RCTs. Therefore, the pessimistic 1958 view of Stunkard and McLaren-Hume (1), that most patients will not lose weight, is no longer true. However, their statement that most patients regain their lost weight is still true. Although their are difficulties in comparing studies because of large variations in the design and control of study variables, the overall picture is still very negative. VLCD in combination with active follow-up treatment seems to be one of the better treatment modalities for long-term weight maintenance success. Carefully controlled studies, however, are needed to determine more precisely the role of VLCD or other dietary treatments such as LCD in the treatment of obesity. Questions such as the rate and level of initial weight loss, as well as gender differences on weight-maintenance success, need further attention.

The body is always working towards equilibrium. Everything we have seen in science shows the the universe prefers equilibrium and takes steps to get to it. You can't argue that a higher calorie deficit is superior to a lower calorie deficit because you've completely left out adaptive thermogenesis. Sorry for not providing links earlier, I will do that now:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/3/717.full.pdf+html

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/3/717.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22846776

"However, their statement that most patients regain their lost weight is still true." What is the significance of this statement? It is also true for people who are on less calorie restrictive diets. 4/5 of all people on a diet are going to fail. Most will gain weight.

I never said that people on a VLCD are more successful or are less likely to gain weight. I said there isn't much difference between the two. Nobody is disputing that our bodies have homeostatic responses. You lose weight, ghrelin levels go up, leptin goes down, you eat and gain the weight back. Losing weight more slowly will make you feel more satiated, but there are obviously other factors that contribute heavily. A huge part of losing weight is psychological which is one reason why people who have bariatric surgery or are on a doctor supervised VLCD with therapy are much more successful than the general public. Only 1/5 of them regain weight.

Again, I'm not advocating one method over the other. Many people lose weight on a variety of different calorie restrictive diets. Some find one way easier than another. As I told OP...if he is getting enough nutrients in his 1200 calorie diet and he feels satisfied and not starving, then there should be no issue. 1200 isn't vlc and getting enough nutrients shouldn't be an issue. If it's not working for him, he can change it. Odds are, he will fail and need to change something anyway. Help people figure out what works for them and encourage them to modify instead of give up if it doesn't work out.

By the way, the first article you linked has a poor sample.

I definitely see what you mean, but I do think the difference between a relatively large calorie deficit (1000 calories below maintenance in the OP's case) and a moderate calorie deficit (10%-20% below maintenance) and the effects of the two is significant enough to recommend that someone attempting to lose weight stick to a moderate calorie deficit especially if they are doing it on their own without any psychological support after the weight loss that is suggested in VLCD, and I know the OP is not on a VLCD.