So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?

I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.

soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?

Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.

THEN WHY DID YOU BOTHER TO COMMENT THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T SHARE STORIES? so that you could call them liars to their faces?


Why are you even here?

Just to lighten the mood.

Also, agree with poster below me...

I don't understand why this is a debate. She has posted her weight loss numbers. People have analyzed her diary. The weight loss doesn't match the calorie totals so obviously something is off. It's not that difficult.

I don't even know who people are arguing about...

Not worth it, it's a trap.

I really have nothing to add, I just saw this comment and came to add this gif...

I'm not a medical professional, but just looking at one day of your diary, it seems to me that you may be practicing "CRON"..which is "caloric restriction optimum nutrition". The idea behind this is that you can eat a lesser number of calories, maintain or improve health SO LONG AS (sorry to all cap!, but it is important), your nutrition is optimum.

There is actually at CR Society out there with a discussion group..where people debates the merits of yeast (not joking!), so people can get pretty crazy.

As for the crash, I don't know, cause this isn't my thing. From what I've read about long term CRONers body temperature lowers, resting metabolic rate drops, and they tend to frequently feel chilled.

Now, I should add that CRONers do not recommend endurance levels of caloric burn...so with that, you're in uncharted waters.

I am glad you are doing so well with your weight loss. However, not everyone does. Before my Gastric bypass my "diet" was inconsistent at best with long periods of eating very little to binge eating. Exercise was sketchy as well. Starvation mode is a term for cutting calories below 300 calories for a short period and not losing any weight. This does happen when someone yoyo diets. Same thing for metabolism problems, when you yoyo diet for years it gets harder and harder to lose. I have lost 110 lbs to date but I certainly needed help getting things in perspective. Now, my diet pretty much stays the same, but as I close on my first year post bypass the weight loss is slowing and getting more difficult. That is why I joined here. I am glad you have not had to experience any of the "bad stuff" but others do. I would hope we could all encourage each other and celebrate our successes. :drinker:

I'm not a medical professional, but just looking at one day of your diary, it seems to me that you may be practicing "CRON"..which is "caloric restriction optimum nutrition". The idea behind this is that you can eat a lesser number of calories, maintain or improve health SO LONG AS (sorry to all cap!, but it is important), your nutrition is optimum.

There is actually at CR Society out there with a discussion group..where people debates the merits of yeast (not joking!), so people can get pretty crazy.

As for the crash, I don't know, cause this isn't my thing. From what I've read about long term CRONers body temperature lowers, resting metabolic rate drops, and they tend to frequently feel chilled.

Now, I should add that CRONers do not recommend endurance levels of caloric burn...so with that, you're in uncharted waters.

I'm actually starting this program. It set my limit to around 1040 a day. I am 55, female and 5'1.5", 120 lbs. I've been eating 1200 a day, "eating back" exercise calories and haven't lost anything in about 3 months, after an early 6 lb. loss. I'm beginning to believe that 1200-1400 may be my maintenance. My concern has been that as I get older, I can't maintain the high level of workouts and physical activity that I do now and that if I don't do something now, I will become overweight and eventually obese. Even now, my joints ache after some strength training classes and high impact aerobics. CRON's target for me is between 1000-1100, and it also advise to "eat back" exercise (it subtracts it from the calories you eat). So, I've started CR, but I have to use the cronometer, which is online and also an app, to track nutrients because I have to make sure that what I eat is as nutrient dense as possible. I was actually surprised that my diet is pretty on-target nutritionally. But someone can't just do CR without really tracking nutrients pretty accurately. I'm usually short on calcium, but I take a supplement anyway because I've never been able to consume that much dairy.

That being said, I am a smaller, older person. I don't have the same metabolic needs that a younger, larger, more active person has. I wouldn't recommend this diet to everyone, and it's not recommended for younger people or women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

300 calories per hour for walking sounds reasonable. 3mph is a slow amble and 100 calories per mile is feasible (gross). At least Fitbit runs around there. It's probably more like 75-80 for 120lbs. but you could also cover closer to 4 miles.

None of her burns look ridiculous to me, and I'm closer to her size. But double-counting any of that is going to show a skewed picture, for sure.

You guys realize that you don't need to weigh almonds to get enough accuracy, right? And that even when you do weigh your almonds, it's an estimate. Your scale is estimating the weight. The database value is average calories for almonds. Your almond is not necessarily average. It doesn't matter. We don't need pinpoint accuracy. I wouldn't eyeball a cup of peanut butter but I also wouldn't weigh 4 almonds.

I think the almonds is more an indicator of a pattern of inaccurate logging than anything. No, the almonds probably aren't going to be enough to spoil a deficit, but if you add that to the quick adds and the days that aren't completely logged then it could be the issue.

But all that said, I think you're right about the walking. I weigh 125 and I regularly burn 300 calories per hour walking, or more. Which I know is at least close to accurate because I have always eaten back every calorie and my weight loss and maintenance have been spot on target with what I would expect. Then again, MFP's calorie estimates have never seemed overinflated to me.

Damn! I wish I could lose 7 pounds in a 1.5 years!

Are you losing 1.5lbs per week WalkingAlong? Curious because your picture suggests it.

Why? I'm losing 1 lb. a week. 13 lbs. in the last 13 weeks. My deficit is lower now, more like 500. I'm 9 lbs. overweight now. I did lose at that rate when I snagged that pic last summer.

Which someone will say means that I must not believe that it's safe to have a steeper deficit since mine is only 500ish. I think it's safe for most and the people here who choose to diet that way should be left alone, not harped on for being uninformed and reckless.

Oh no I wasn't saying that. I'm friends with SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish (so long to say), and he's nothing but helpful, he was just trying to help you. I know at 150lbs 3.0mph rate I burn 228 cals/hr by MFP, so not sure how you could burn more either. Anyways, I was just gonna say your pic shows that if you are using those numbers, you should be losing 1.5lbs, so if you are losing less, it might just be your walking exercise calories that is causing that difference, maybe he found something for you

Oh, well, thank you! I actually didn't read SoLong's second post and I'm sure he's a great guy. I've used Fitbits for almost 5 years and have lost a lot with it, so I kind of trust what it tells me I burn when I walk. And 300/hour is reasonable for me. I just went for a 30 minute slow walk and it estimates I burned 135 calories, for example. So I don't see a lot of reason to read paragraphs of refutation based on someone else's experience. Which may be rude, I'm sorry, but I think he and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :flowerforyou:

I would post a pic from my Fitbit log if I knew how. It says I walked 1.18 miles in 30 mins. (had slow dogs with me) and burned 135 calories. I'm 154 lbs. That would imply 270 calories an hour walking at 2.4mph. But Fitbit also uses the same compendium of physical activity that MFP does, I think, and if I manually log an hour walk at 2.4mph it only gives me 135ish calories for that, too. So you're right-- the databases seem stingy for walking?

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking

The compendium gives a METs of 3 for walking 2.5mph, which would be 3*60ish (BMR) for me, so around 180 per hour. Moderate pace of 2.8-3.2 it gives 3.5 METS so (3.5*60) = 210 for me. So 300 does seem a little generous by those estimators.

I'm very sensitive to low cal diets. Even after just a couple of days I start to feel tired and like a truck hit me. I get dry mouth, itchy scalp and more hair on my comb. And even though it makes me more tired it makes it harder for me to sleep properly. I seem to do best losing .5 to 1 lb a week.

Just look at the results. Lost about 70lbs in a year. Approximately 1.3lbs per week on average. (Most likely more at the beginning and less at the end) Going from what would be a relatively high BF to much lower. Doesn't seem too extreme to me. Seems like her plan has worked pretty well.

And on topic:
for me, VLCD (or very low carb diets) impact performance after about 3 days and lack of energy to do basic life stuff in about the same amount of time. The longest I've done was 12 days and that was extreme. (lost 4kg including water weight and down to 7% BF) Not recommended unless you have some sort of deadline!

And the numbers show she wasn't on a VLCD as she thought she was, as pointed out very early in the thread.

Just look at the results. Lost about 70lbs in a year. Approximately 1.3lbs per week on average. (Most likely more at the beginning and less at the end) Going from what would be a relatively high BF to much lower. Doesn't seem too extreme to me. Seems like her plan has worked pretty well.

And on topic:
for me, VLCD (or very low carb diets) impact performance after about 3 days and lack of energy to do basic life stuff in about the same amount of time. The longest I've done was 12 days and that was extreme. (lost 4kg including water weight and down to 7% BF) Not recommended unless you have some sort of deadline!

And the numbers show she wasn't on a VLCD as she thought she was, as pointed out very early in the thread.

Which is an important yet seemingly unacknowledged piece of the puzzle With that adjustment, it's just "I was at an appropriate calorie deficit and lost an expected amount of weight over a sufficiently long period of time. When does all the bad stuff happen?" and the answer is, "It doesn't, because you (perhaps accidentally) did it right."

The end.

I think the almonds is more an indicator of a pattern of inaccurate logging than anything. No, the almonds probably aren't going to be enough to spoil a deficit, but if you add that to the quick adds and the days that aren't completely logged then it could be the issue.

But all that said, I think you're right about the walking. I weigh 125 and I regularly burn 300 calories per hour walking, or more. Which I know is at least close to accurate because I have always eaten back every calorie and my weight loss and maintenance have been spot on target with what I would expect. Then again, MFP's calorie estimates have never seemed overinflated to me.

Hmm, I tried again, I still get 228 cals/hr for weighing 150lbs at a 3.0 pace here at MFP. How do you at 125lbs get a higher burn rate like you say you do? Without walking faster of course. You must be using something else besides MFP?

Sorry, I missed the part about 3 mph-- I usually walk about 3.5 mph. But MFP's burns are estimates. It's possible that a person could burn more or less. The truth is in the results.

eta: also I use a fitbit for my burn estimate, not MFP. MFP used to give me about 200 but I also found that I lost weight on the calorie amount MFP claimed would be maintenance for me. The part about MFP is a semi-disconnected thought-- just that most people feel like MFP overestimates for them. To me it seemed to underestimate or be just about right, so my experience with calorie burn may be different from others.