1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....

show previous quotes

I'm inclined to believe you, seeing as I'm 5'10 (21 f) and my maintenance is somewhere around 1550 (net).

Unlikely.

OP fair enough it worked for you in your opinion but it's dangerous to then say it's ok for eveyone and screw the general medical consensus. Just because you think it worked for you doesn't mean another method wouldn't have been better (how long have you maintained for? Did you maintain your LBM? Bone density, nutrition, etc?) nor does it mean that it is going to be ok for others. Your personal experience does not a universal truth make. And for most people, eating at that level is just not healthy.

HIGHLY unlikely! i'm also 5'10, 25 year old female and my maintenance is almost 2600 cal!

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.

show previous quotes

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

The perceived "snark" is from seeing countless threads from kids in their late teens/early 20's touting "I net 800 calories a day and it works for me, I'm just super tired and not getting the "tone" I want".

There are a lot of "1200 defenders" here missing the forest for the trees. Yes, everyone knows that 1200 can/does work and is adequate for some individuals dependent upon ht, age, and activity, but there are so many individuals that start threads/defend it that are in the demographic from the first paragraph the intake level overall gets a bad rap.

Yes I agree it would not be suitable for people that age and consistently netting under 1200 is not good for anyone.

However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.

Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

show previous quotes

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

QFT^

I love when people refer to elusive "studies" without citing sources...it is the equivalent of "because I said so!" or "I heard it from this guy who has a cousin..." etc

show previous quotes

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.

I am not commenting on OP's actual amount, which I agree may or May not actually be 1200. I am commenting on the assertions that 1200 is not a suitable net amount fir anyone at all.

show previous quotes

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

show previous quotes

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Those studies don't mean what you think they mean. You are operating under mistaken premises in an apparent attempt to excuse your own behavior.

show previous quotes

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Those studies don't mean what you think they mean. You are operating under mistaken premises in an apparent attempt to excuse your own behavior.

Source?

show previous quotes

It's a wretched place

Starving yourself isn't going to help, ok? Starving yourself isn't going to help you be healthier. Your body needs proper nutrients over the long term to heal itself. I know nothing I say is going to change your mind, but to anyone reading this who thinks depriving your body of nutrients is the best way to be healthy, I urge you to consider what happens to people when they do this. Lifelong problems can and do result from not eating enough.

I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.

show previous quotes

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)

Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.

Yeah, but I did work out. I did jog. I did bust my knees. Exercise did not improve my allergies and asthma, if anything, they were worse this past year than they have ever been. I don't blame exercise for that, by the way, I'm simply saying exercise didn't fix it and wasn't sustainable for me.

I'm getting a bit tired of people dismissing me when I say I simply cannot do something. You don't know me and my health problems. Advice is fine. Advice is welcome. But don't assume.

I'm sorry if you felt I was dismissing you. I didn't mean it to come across that way, I just know what's helped me. Granted there are some exercises that I think make my asthma worse, so those I avoid. I wonder if that might be the case for you? Maybe different exercises would help?

This content has been removed.

After looking into more reliable sites and trying to figure out what I should be eating with my lifestyle I found that you take your current weight and multiply it by 15 and then subtract between 500 and 1000 (depending on what your goals are) and that's the calories your should be taking in to lose between 1 and 2 lbs a week. Mine is 1490 and I think that is totally reasonable. Trying to figure what you eat versus what you burn by heart rate is difficult if you cannot afford a hrm.

I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.

Stay educated. Stay strong. I've seen so many women overcome so many obstacles in pursuit of the same goals you have. I know you can, too. I hope your situation improves.

show previous quotes

I know, and appreciate your concern, too, but I'm not starving myself. If I sit on my butt and do nothing all day, I burn less than 1500 calories. MFP doesn't even have me losing a pound a week on 1200 because the deficit is so teeny. Starving myself won't help, but being overweight won't, either. I'm not technically overweight by BMI standards right now, but I am small boned, I should be at the lower end for my height, and carrying this extra fat is no good for my health. Especially my joints. 1200 isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life, heck no, I love to eat! But being fat, even chubby, is completely unacceptable.

Stay educated. Stay strong. I've seen so many women overcome so many obstacles in pursuit of the same goals you have. I know you can, too. I hope your situation improves.

Thanks. :flowerforyou:

Ok, I am about the same height 5'2. I am 40 years old and work a desk job. My BMR is significantly higher than that. I tried the 1200 calorie thing and it isn't going to work for me sorry. What did work was getting up, moving my butt every day for an hour or so and eating at a higher level. 1100 to 1200 calories is not an accurate BMR for the vast majority of people short or not. 1200 calories a day makes me irritable and tired because it's not enough to fuel my needs. 1450 is my bare minimum calories I net per day and I am losing steadily too. I do exercise though and on those days I eat more.

Who would want to just eat as little as humanly possible? I guess I am strange because personally I'll do whatever I can to be able to eat more. I'm a good cook I don't wanna give up eating lol.

**I have asthma too and I understand that makes it harder initially. I get it. I started off walking on a treadmill indoors and have built up gradually to jogging/running a bit and I do strength training. The result is now I breathe easier than ever before. Over time, exercise helps asthma not just weight loss, but cardio exercise**