the "eating when you're not hungry" dilemma

This is a good post. I think the one thing it left me thinking is that this it more important (eat those exercise calories) if you are running a large deficit close to 1200 for women or 1500 for men. If you deficit is small (say a goal of .5 pounds a week or maybe even 1 pound per week) you have more flexibility here unless it was a killer workout with a huge burn. If it was what seems like a more average burn 300-500 calories, with that smaller deficit you have a good deal of wiggle room. When you are pushing the deficit with a 1.5 or 2 pound per week loss, you don't have that room to work with and have to find ways to eat those calories.

This is a good post. I think the one thing it left me thinking is that this it more important (eat those exercise calories) if you are running a large deficit close to 1200 for women or 1500 for men. If you deficit is small (say a goal of .5 pounds a week or maybe even 1 pound per week) you have more flexibility here unless it was a killer workout with a huge burn. If it was what seems like a more average burn 300-500 calories, with that smaller deficit you have a good deal of wiggle room. When you are pushing the deficit with a 1.5 or 2 pound per week loss, you don't have that room to work with and have to find ways to eat those calories.

I agree with this to an extent. But most of the people who have a conservative deficit NEED a conservative deficit because they don't have much to lose (I'm mostly talking of .5 lb here). And, let's face it, the number of people who put in a lower deficit rather than higher are kinda few and far between. :laugh: But most of the folks who do use a lower deficit have so little body fat that they're just as, if not more, vulnerable to the effects of underfeeding. Obviously not a problem for a day, but over time a real issue.

bump

This is a good post. I think the one thing it left me thinking is that this it more important (eat those exercise calories) if you are running a large deficit close to 1200 for women or 1500 for men. If you deficit is small (say a goal of .5 pounds a week or maybe even 1 pound per week) you have more flexibility here unless it was a killer workout with a huge burn. If it was what seems like a more average burn 300-500 calories, with that smaller deficit you have a good deal of wiggle room. When you are pushing the deficit with a 1.5 or 2 pound per week loss, you don't have that room to work with and have to find ways to eat those calories.

I agree with this to an extent. But most of the people who have a conservative deficit NEED a conservative deficit because they don't have much to lose (I'm mostly talking of .5 lb here). And, let's face it, the number of people who put in a lower deficit rather than higher are kinda few and far between. :laugh: But most of the folks who do use a lower deficit have so little body fat that they're just as, if not more, vulnerable to the effects of underfeeding. Obviously not a problem for a day, but over time a real issue.

That is true, although I wish more people who are in the Overweight BMI would switch to 1Lb/week. It would get rid of a lot of the plateau posts that litter this message board. I switched close to when I entered the over weight category and I don't regret it at all. I now am within 5 of my goal (give or take a bit) and I will probably reduce the goal again although the formula I am using is not MFP's as I prefer basing my calorie intake on my lean mass, but it will be more calories per day and MFP will tell me what the weight loss/week would be from it.

Without a doubt, the (maddening) overall desire for most is a higher deficit, when a good portion of them should be lower. And even many who are ok to start out at 2 lbs or 1.5, don't lower it as soon as they should.

Go banks. And Ladyhawk.

nice. siemec links updated

Bumpity bump for later x

This is great. Thanks!

Bump

Bump