Trouble Eating Enough Calories

2100...and more if you exercise?!

Have you seen your doctor? If you haven't, go ask him about your weight, daily calories and all that.

If you end up needing to eat like 2500 calories in a day, I wish you luck. I'd have to eat a lot of junk food every day to get that high.

If you sit at a desk most days, then you are sedentary, yes. Most people agree that MFP overestimates calories burned for exercise, and therefore not to eat back all of your exercise calories. What are you doing for exercise and for how long, and what is your calorie burn?

You say you just ordered a food scale. Which suggests you understand the importance of using one, but are not using one just now.

Frankly, it's very easy to eat 2100 calories if you are eating "a lot" of anything. My guess is that once you start weighing your portions, you'll be surprised at how big some things actually are, and that your tracked calorie count will go up.

For instance, you may be assuming that when you eat a chicken breast, you're eating 3 oz or 100 g (slightly different weights but both are standard portions given in many databases). But I rarely find chicken breasts that are less than 180 grams, the average is about 210, and I regularly end up with 300g monsters (delicious, delicious monsters).

Fruits and veggies are also -- at least at the mass market supermarkets I frequent -- much bigger than the standard sizes assumed in many calorie databases if you're logging "one tomato" or "one onion." For most veggies (except for potatoes and squash, to some extent onions, etc.) that won't matter a ton in meeting your calorie goals, but for fruit it adds up. And measuring by volume (cups etc.) is pretty pointless, it's always so wrong LOL.

If you're using any oil at all to prepare your veggies and chicken, you also may very well find that the amount we "eyeball" as about a tablespoon or about a teaspoon is usually much more than that. And that really can add up.

Also, you said:

paradisewhite wrote: »

I eat a lot of chicken and vegetables. These aren't very high calorie foods, so eating that many calories just seems excessive.

Which, maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you're saying that you've made a decision to eat only those things and nothing else (because they're "healthy") and if you can feel satisfied on those foods and aren't getting enough calories it's okay. My only response to that is that while chicken and vegetables are great foods, there's no reason to eat those foods exclusively unless you've got allergies or serious food intolerances. A healthy diet really should include some fats -- your body needs them. Nuts, avocados, olive oil etc., are super good for you. Oily fish like salmon and sardines, too.

But also, why not include a piece of chocolate or some ice cream or maybe a beer once in a while? It can be very good to have the big majority of your diet come from healthy, whole, unprocessed foods, but you don't really get extra credit points for totally eliminating pleasure from your diet. Cutting back and practicing moderation are sufficient to improve your health substantially while losing weight.

Lest you think I'm telling you it's easy from a position of someone for whom it's always been easy, I've lost >145 lbs over the past 16 months. (And for what it's worth, as a counterpoint to the voices above saying they think you need to see a doctor for needing to eat 2100 calories LOL: coming from a formerly very heavy weight myself, 2100 calories does not sound like it's very high for someone to lose weight on at a sensible pace, particularly for a man who is active). My blood pressure has gone from being hypertensive (and maxed out on 2 different medications for it) to the low end of normal and completely off meds. I'm very active and healthy. And I've been eating pizza and chocolate and drinking wine on the regular. I just don't consume those things immoderately anymore.

paradisewhite wrote: »

sympha01 wrote: »

You say you just ordered a food scale. Which suggests you understand the importance of using one, but are not using one just now.

Frankly, it's very easy to eat 2100 calories if you are eating "a lot" of anything. My guess is that once you start weighing your portions, you'll be surprised at how big some things actually are, and that your tracked calorie count will go up.

For instance, you may be assuming that when you eat a chicken breast, you're eating 3 oz or 100 g (slightly different weights but both are standard portions given in many databases). But I rarely find chicken breasts that are less than 180 grams, the average is about 210, and I regularly end up with 300g monsters (delicious, delicious monsters).

Fruits and veggies are also -- at least at the mass market supermarkets I frequent -- much bigger than the standard sizes assumed in many calorie databases if you're logging "one tomato" or "one onion." For most veggies (except for potatoes and squash, to some extent onions, etc.) that won't matter a ton in meeting your calorie goals, but for fruit it adds up. And measuring by volume (cups etc.) is pretty pointless, it's always so wrong LOL.

If you're using any oil at all to prepare your veggies and chicken, you also may very well find that the amount we "eyeball" as about a tablespoon or about a teaspoon is usually much more than that. And that really can add up.

Also, you said:

paradisewhite wrote: »

I eat a lot of chicken and vegetables. These aren't very high calorie foods, so eating that many calories just seems excessive.

Which, maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you're saying that you've made a decision to eat only those things and nothing else (because they're "healthy") and if you can feel satisfied on those foods and aren't getting enough calories it's okay. My only response to that is that while chicken and vegetables are great foods, there's no reason to eat those foods exclusively unless you've got allergies or serious food intolerances. A healthy diet really should include some fats -- your body needs them. Nuts, avocados, olive oil etc., are super good for you. Oily fish like salmon and sardines, too.

But also, why not include a piece of chocolate or some ice cream or maybe a beer once in a while? It can be very good to have the big majority of your diet come from healthy, whole, unprocessed foods, but you don't really get extra credit points for totally eliminating pleasure from your diet. Cutting back and practicing moderation are sufficient to improve your health substantially while losing weight.

Lest you think I'm telling you it's easy from a position of someone for whom it's always been easy, I've lost >145 lbs over the past 16 months. (And for what it's worth, as a counterpoint to the voices above saying they think you need to see a doctor for needing to eat 2100 calories LOL: coming from a formerly very heavy weight myself, 2100 calories does not sound like it's very high for someone to lose weight on at a sensible pace, particularly for a man who is active). My blood pressure has gone from being hypertensive (and maxed out on 2 different medications for it) to the low end of normal and completely off meds. I'm very active and healthy. And I've been eating pizza and chocolate and drinking wine on the regular. I just don't consume those things immoderately anymore.

As far as eating only chicken and vegetables, that is more of a standard food for me which is why I stated it. We eat various foods including fish, turkey, venison, some beef, etc. We also drink beer here and there as well as wine and, of course some scotch/bourbon.

Good -- then you won't have any difficulty adding some foods that will help you get more calories. Insisting "But I can't eat more calories!" is a mistake oft made by beginners that will quickly escalate into people here calling BS on it. Of course you can. If anyone gained enough weight that they need to lose it, then they're perfectly capable of eating more calories.

That being said, if you don't want to eat as many as 2100 calories, that's probably okay too, depending on how low you're talking about. You haven't stated that. Even at a heavier weight (and very active) I was usually eating around 1850 per day. Now I'm at 1950 per day and still losing > 1 lb per week, so.

Generally speaking though, the advice I'd give anyone starting out is to try to begin eating at the maximum calories recommended to lose your target weight loss per week, give it at least 3 weeks to see how your body responds to it, and adjust downward from there only if it doesn't work. Especially if you haven't been tracking and measuring your food up until now. It's very beneficial for some people even to eat at maintenance at the beginning while they learn to measure and log their food. It is, as you say, eye-opening.

Eating very low at the beginning when you're all fired up is a common mistake that paints you into a corner later when you're less motivated, more ego-depleted, and weight loss inevitably slows. Because when you start low, adjusting downward further falls somewhere on the spectrum between "massively disheartening" to "not really even possible." Don't do that to yourself if you really want to make progress over the long term.

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

No offense but you didn't become 66 lbs overweight by having trouble eating enough calories.

And 2100 calories seems awfully high considering you want to lose weight.

+1

How tall are you?

SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »

Cake, fudge, Talenti

Mm. Eating Talenti now.