Trouble Eating Enough Calories

After finding this site, only a couple days ago, I have learned so much. I started counting calories as accurately as I can (just ordered a kitchen scale).

MFP says that I should be eating 2100 calories before working out. After tracking my calories I just can't seem to eat that many calories. I eat a lot of chicken and vegetables. These aren't very high calorie foods, so eating that many calories just seems excessive.

I know I'm new to this and will accept criticism for my thinking, but is there something I'm doing wrong or not understanding correctly? Thanks in advance.

Replies

  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    High calorie density foods - peanut butter, nut butters, nuts, avocados, full fat dairy etc... Gets in a lot of calories without a lot of intake volume.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    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.
  • This content has been removed.
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    For your weight needed to lose (63 lbs), I'm surprised your calorie limit is so high. How many pounds did you tell MFP you would like to lose in a week? Are you losing faster than that rate?
  • For your weight needed to lose (63 lbs), I'm surprised your calorie limit is so high. How many pounds did you tell MFP you would like to lose in a week? Are you losing faster than that rate?

    I have it set to 2lbs/week. I did notice I had it set to slightly active. I do workout 6-7 days per week but I work a desk job. Therefore I set it to sedentary and it changed to 1760. With exercise that is still 2000 calories per day though.
  • SonicDeathMonkey80
    SonicDeathMonkey80 Posts: 4,489 Member
    Cake, fudge, Talenti
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    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?
  • 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?

    I have been doing about 45 minutes of interval incline/speed on the treadmill for cardio as well as about 30 minutes of lifting.

    I have been basing the burn off of the treadmill itself and other exercise calculators. Then I subtract some based on the idea they aren't usually correct in their estimates. So I burn roughly 6-800 based on the machines estimates. I just purchased a heart rate monitor to better track, especially while doing cardio, my calorie burn.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Ice cream, cookies, chocolate.....etc. etc. etc. :wink:
  • Mediocrates55
    Mediocrates55 Posts: 326 Member
    Healthy options would include nut butters, avocado, butter, whole dairy. More protein is usually a good thing and will up your calories.
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    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:
    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.
  • 20yearsyounger
    20yearsyounger Posts: 1,630 Member
    Try drinking - milk, juice, etc
  • 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:
    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.

    Yeah. I understand how tough it is to accurate guess calories, that's why I'm getting the scale. I think once I start using it, it will really be an eye opener.

    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.
  • Graelwyn75
    Graelwyn75 Posts: 4,404 Member
    Basically what Sympha says.
    Start as you mean to go on. Unless you plan on living the rest of your life on chicken and vegetables, you would be better served in having a variety of foods, both nutrient dense with a few treats thrown in, learning to eat the correct portions and making this a lifestyle change. Just having chicken and vegetables, well, good luck with that, but I imagine you will get very bored and potentially end up falling off the wagon as a result at a later stage...unnecessarily restrictive.

    80/20 is a good rule to follow, 80% healthy, nutrient dense foods and 20% of less nutritious but tasty foods you enjoy.
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    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:
    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
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    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.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    edited November 2014
    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?
  • Isabelle_1929
    Isabelle_1929 Posts: 233 Member
    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.

    This. Just eat less calories than you used too. Why couldn't you?
  • 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.

    This. Just eat less calories than you used too. Why couldn't you?

    It's easy to eat that many calories when you're living on pizza, eating out, and desserts without caring about nor monitoring what and how much you're eating. So yeah, it is easy to eat that many calories.

    Since I have been living a healthier lifestyle and changed eating habits it is hard, personally, eating how I want/need to in order to reach that number.

    I have already lost 65 pounds with what I have already changed in my life. I then came across this site and app and now there is a more systematic way to lose weight that I wasn't previously going by. I have already lost weight, yeah, but I wasn't going by any equations or BMR numbers or anything, I was just losing it.
  • 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.

    I had my activity level set to slight active rather than sedentary based in the amount I exercise rather than general activity. It is now at 1760.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Cake, fudge, Talenti

    Mm. Eating Talenti now.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    edited November 2014
    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.

    This. Just eat less calories than you used too. Why couldn't you?

    It's easy to eat that many calories when you're living on pizza, eating out, and desserts without caring about nor monitoring what and how much you're eating. So yeah, it is easy to eat that many calories.

    Since I have been living a healthier lifestyle and changed eating habits it is hard, personally, eating how I want/need to in order to reach that number.

    I have already lost 65 pounds with what I have already changed in my life. I then came across this site and app and now there is a more systematic way to lose weight that I wasn't previously going by. I have already lost weight, yeah, but I wasn't going by any equations or BMR numbers or anything, I was just losing it.

    Okay let's say you have 600 calories left over...You COULD eat some pizza. You'll still lose the weight. If you want to eat something that fits into your definition of "healthy", you could do things like add a bit of cheese to your salad at lunch, eat MORE chicken for dinner, eat some nuts or avocado, etc.

    If I have 400 calories left over I just eat a whole pint of frozen yogurt.
  • chouflour
    chouflour Posts: 193 Member
    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.

    The first part I agree with.

    The second part, not so much. I'm short (5'3) and female, with not a huge amount of muscle mass. I'm also currently sedentary due to a knee injury. I need ~2300 calories per day to maintain a weight that's 8lb over the top of my healthy BMI range. If I lifted 6-7 days a week, 2100 calories might keep me at a reasonable rate of loss, but it's more likely I'd struggle and burn out.

    For the OP - I'd suggest logging what you would normally eat for a week or two. Look at your weight over those two weeks. If you're losing too fast for your taste - eat more (healthy fats are a great way to add calories). If you're losing too slowly - think about eating less. BMR and TDEE and all the other equations are just tools to help you do what you were already doing. There's no need to build a religion around them.
  • shai74
    shai74 Posts: 512 Member
    Don't take this the wrong way, but you didn't get to be 66lbs overweight by "not being able to eat enough". You can eat that much, and more. You didn't get big eating chicken and vegetables.
  • Mediocrates55
    Mediocrates55 Posts: 326 Member
    I just have to say: I understand where you're coming from. It's hard to make *good* food choices that add up. Sure you could eat a piece of cake and top off your calories for the day, but I know for me that starts the sneaky hate spiral of overindulging in bad food decisions. Some people can succeed while indulging, some people can't. If you're in the latter group as I am, stay strong and stick with your good decisions.
  • KaroshiQueen
    KaroshiQueen Posts: 213 Member
    Focus on macros, not calories, per se. It works for me.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Weight loss is not about being completely restrictive in my opinion, it's about learning to eat in a way you'll be able to continue for life

    So yes at the start of this journey, when I was set to 2lb a week and had 1200 + exercise to eat I was wholly restrictive to good food and had ultimate control...I had those doubts about how would I ever eat more as it seemed quite easy

    And then I lost some weight, and slowed my weight loss target down to 1lb then 0.5lb per week and the calories went up and for a week or so with the control issue I thought this is tricky...then I realised the truth of 80/20 ...80% of my food choices are "healthy" and I count oils! cheese and delicious carbs in this "healthy" and about 20% constitute things like chocolate, ice cream, crisps, wine.

    And you know what, it's harder to stick to the calories now ...but I feel more normal...and I do it because I weigh food religiously and log everything..but I also think (hope/pray) this part of my restriction which is going for another 6 months at least as I drop that last 14 lbs will allow me to maintain afterwards

    There's no final destination to this eating ...it's forever ..get to grips with that and you'll find it easy to eat to calorie target
  • Graelwyn75
    Graelwyn75 Posts: 4,404 Member
    edited November 2014
    shai74 wrote: »
    Don't take this the wrong way, but you didn't get to be 66lbs overweight by "not being able to eat enough". You can eat that much, and more. You didn't get big eating chicken and vegetables.

    Don't take this the wrong way, but someone else already posted what you did and the OP responded to it.
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    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:
    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.

    LOL who's the crazy coward who flagged that as abuse?!