If the av person should eat 2000, then why can I only eat 1650 to maintain? Bummer!!
Replies
-
This thread just made me want bacon, but I'm at work, dang it.0
-
If you want to eat like the average person (whoever that is) you will look like the average person. Look around you- are most people around you fat? Most people around me are. I don't want to look like the average person and there is no way that I could eat 2,000 calories without putting on weight.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Damn it, you guys. Stop talking about bacon and eggs! I was fine with my peach until I started reading these posts! Now the ONLY thing I want is bacon and eggs and toast.0
-
Katerina9408 wrote: »Ok people this is my opinion do whatever you wish.But if you haven't pay at least 5 min to research for this don't say that it is "nonsence". B
Isn't there a minimum age limit on this site?0 -
I'm just sad that I didn't have bacon and eggs for breakfast.
But then, there's always dinner - I know what I'll be eating tonight now! And if I add some spinach to my eggs, grill a tomato and add some mushrooms I'll be getting some of my 5 a day in too!
Yay Me!0 -
-
Katerina9408 wrote: »
Mmm OKamyrebeccah wrote: »Katerina9408 wrote: »
It depends what you eat. Carbs burn faster then fat so try to concentrate on simple carbs like fruits and veggies for protein : you can make chickpease, lentils,beans.cyberblonde wrote: »I know I am most of the day inactive as I have a desk job, but i exercise 3 to 4 times a week which I will be adding to the 1650 cals I have been given.
Just seems cray to me that we are alway told that 2000 cals a day are the amount an average person should eat per day. I would put on weight at that level.
Maybe the average person runs 5km per day too?!
Continue to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, spend 2 h in the gym and tell yourself that you are doing good job (y)
Bacon and eggs for breakfast is not a bad thing in and of itself! Now a whole slab of bacon and 3 or 4 eggs, then you have a problem. And I don't spend a lot of time in the gym either! I do run, hike, go on walks with my husband, etc. (in other words I am active without being a gym rat)0 -
-
Katerina9408 wrote: »Lrdoflamancha wrote: »It depends what you eat. Carbs burn faster then fat so try to concentrate on simple carbs like fruits and veggies for protein : you can make chickpease, lentils,beans
I must ask are you a troll or do you believe this?
Could you please quote correctly. Now it seems like you posted the nonsense.
It is not nonsence research for yourself
You have obviously researched this, can you give us a link to the scientific studies you have read about this so we can read them too? Eating fat does NOT make you fat! You need fat for brain function. You also need protien as well as carbs! There must be a balance. And this is coming from my NUTRITIONIST!0 -
-
Rebeccafitandhealthy2015 wrote: »
Please elucidate. What point are you trying to make?0 -
1650 calories to maintain your weight? You lucky duck!
There are a whole bunch of factors involved, including height, build, and level of activity, but no one has mentioned genetics. Keep in mind that each person has a unique metabolism. You just have to deal with the hand you're dealt.
While 2000 calories is a nice round number that someone picked out of a hat, for an awful lot of Americans (and others) it's a pretty good goal given what they actually DO eat.
(says the person who maintains at about 1100, gains at 1200, and has to stay under 1000 to even think about losing weight).
Miriam in MA0 -
That everyone has a way, that you can be vegan, eat lots of fruit, veg, beans for protein, and for fat, and no meat or animal fat and higher carb and lose weight. You all are being too critical on Katerina9408 about her food choices as if they are not logical, when they are very doable and healthy. Don't knock someone else's food choices until you have actually tried them.0
-
Rebeccafitandhealthy2015 wrote: »That everyone has a way, that you can be vegan, eat lots of fruit, veg, beans for protein, and for fat, and no meat or animal fat and higher carb and lose weight. You all are being too critical on Katerina9408 about her food choices as if they are not logical, when they are very doable and healthy. Don't knock someone else's food choices until you have actually tried them.
I don't think anyone was really commenting on her food choices, but on her comment that carbs are a better source of energy than fat and her implication that a person who eats bacon and eggs is doing something wrong.0 -
Rebeccafitandhealthy2015 wrote: »That everyone has a way, that you can be vegan, eat lots of fruit, veg, beans for protein, and for fat, and no meat or animal fat and higher carb and lose weight. You all are being too critical on Katerina9408 about her food choices as if they are not logical, when they are very doable and healthy. Don't knock someone else's food choices until you have actually tried them.
wasn't she putting down bacon and eggs as a food choice? seemed like she was the only one putting down food choices.
0 -
Because Gaussian Distribution, that's why.
Are there really adults out there who do not know what "average" means?
0 -
Rebeccafitandhealthy2015 wrote: »That everyone has a way, that you can be vegan, eat lots of fruit, veg, beans for protein, and for fat, and no meat or animal fat and higher carb and lose weight. You all are being too critical on Katerina9408 about her food choices as if they are not logical, when they are very doable and healthy. Don't knock someone else's food choices until you have actually tried them.
Did you even read the thread?
0 -
what no one will say is that the reason the numbers don't make sense is that the science is obviously flawed. I have to stay under 1,600 to maintain, under 1,400 to lose, and it has been that way since I was a young active teen. We all accept that there are skinny people that eat as much as they want and never gain (one is my mother-in-law, I've seen her do it), so it is intellectually dishonest to say that the same cannot be true in reverse for heavy people. The BMI charts are also very flawed. At the weight at which I look amazing in a bathing suit, I am still considered "obese" on the charts.0
-
cyberblonde wrote: »I know I am most of the day inactive as I have a desk job, but i exercise 3 to 4 times a week which I will be adding to the 1650 cals I have been given.
Just seems cray to me that we are alway told that 2000 cals a day are the amount an average person should eat per day. I would put on weight at that level.
Maybe the average person runs 5km per day too?!
I don't think that 2000 is for the average person. I think it's just a nice round number they picked to measure calorie percentages by that is sort of reasonable.
I don't know about the U.S. of A. but here in Canada, 2000, calories a day is the recommended daily caloric intake for the average person (women only, there is a scale for men as well). Average being, 5' 5"to 5' 10". The dietician I went to last year insisted I eat 2000 calories a day to lose weight. I gained 30 pounds before I finally said screw this. I started my own thing in December and have lost 22 pounds and an inch everywhere. So, I guess what you will have to do is gradually increase your exercise and maybe re-think your food intake.
Berna, honestly, either you are very short, or you are probably eating more than you think. I would recommend reading the sticky posts at the top of the various forums, starting with
Logging accuracy, consistency, and you're probably eating more than you think.
To the OP, maintenance really comes down to your height and what weight you are trying to maintain. For me, at 43, 5'7, 136 lbs, my maintenance would be around 1650 calories per day. But that would need to be an accurate number, weighing and logging. However, since I am planning on a bulk and cut, hopefully some extra muscle mass and a lifting program will up that a bit so I can eat more.0 -
what no one will say is that the reason the numbers don't make sense is that the science is obviously flawed. I have to stay under 1,600 to maintain, under 1,400 to lose, and it has been that way since I was a young active teen. We all accept that there are skinny people that eat as much as they want and never gain (one is my mother-in-law, I've seen her do it), so it is intellectually dishonest to say that the same cannot be true in reverse for heavy people. The BMI charts are also very flawed. At the weight at which I look amazing in a bathing suit, I am still considered "obese" on the charts.
Most people here don't really accept that. Or rather, they would argue that a person who appears to do this is still eating around their maintenance and is either very active (thus having a higher TDEE) or isn't eating as much as it seems they are. Some may eat one huge meal and then not have an appetite for a next couple of days, or similar. There is a range of metabolism, of course, but I don't think it's as large as people think it is. Most differences in TDEE can be explained by differences in size and activity level.0 -
-
I maintain at about 2350 calories a day.
...but I do bust out 5m runs whenever the weather permits. and I lunk about with weights.
<< will run for cupcakes.0 -
I would consider myself to be one of those people that 1890dawn is talking about. Based on my activity level and what my TDEE should be based off that, I have reason to believe my BMR is at least 50 calories over what most calculators would suggest for my stats. I think over time the implications of this can become significant. In theory, an extra 50 calories a day for a couple years would translate to a 10 pound weight gain. I realize that I am simply eating at maintenance, but my overall TDEE is high enough (without a very active lifestyle) that I simply can eat whatever I want (in accordance with my appetite) and not gain weight.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »what no one will say is that the reason the numbers don't make sense is that the science is obviously flawed. I have to stay under 1,600 to maintain, under 1,400 to lose, and it has been that way since I was a young active teen. We all accept that there are skinny people that eat as much as they want and never gain (one is my mother-in-law, I've seen her do it), so it is intellectually dishonest to say that the same cannot be true in reverse for heavy people. The BMI charts are also very flawed. At the weight at which I look amazing in a bathing suit, I am still considered "obese" on the charts.
Most people here don't really accept that. Or rather, they would argue that a person who appears to do this is still eating around their maintenance and is either very active (thus having a higher TDEE) or isn't eating as much as it seems they are. Some may eat one huge meal and then not have an appetite for a next couple of days, or similar. There is a range of metabolism, of course, but I don't think it's as large as people think it is. Most differences in TDEE can be explained by differences in size and activity level.
0 -
I know it is probably little consolation but look at it this way: You body is so efficient that it needs less intake to perform it's daily tasks than others need. From an evolutionary standpoint, your body = superior.0
-
[/quote]
It is not nonsence research for yourself[/quote]
Actually, it is nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense.[/quote]
I thought maybe she meant non science....lol.
0 -
[/quote]
Mmm OK Continue to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, spend 2 h in the gym and tell yourself that you are doing good job (y)
[/quote]
Actually, I generally do have bacons and eggs every morning, thank you very much. I've also lost 50+ pounds while doing and completed a Half Ironman triathlon.
As for your research, I think you need to do some more and listen to many of the folks on this site who have been around for awhile. Just because someone posted it in a website or in some magazine, does not make it scientifically sound research.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I would consider myself to be one of those people that 1890dawn is talking about. Based on my activity level and what my TDEE should be based off that, I have reason to believe my BMR is at least 50 calories over what most calculators would suggest for my stats. I think over time the implications of this can become significant. In theory, an extra 50 calories a day for a couple years would translate to a 10 pound weight gain. I realize that I am simply eating at maintenance, but my overall TDEE is high enough (without a very active lifestyle) that I simply can eat whatever I want (in accordance with my appetite) and not gain weight.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »what no one will say is that the reason the numbers don't make sense is that the science is obviously flawed. I have to stay under 1,600 to maintain, under 1,400 to lose, and it has been that way since I was a young active teen. We all accept that there are skinny people that eat as much as they want and never gain (one is my mother-in-law, I've seen her do it), so it is intellectually dishonest to say that the same cannot be true in reverse for heavy people. The BMI charts are also very flawed. At the weight at which I look amazing in a bathing suit, I am still considered "obese" on the charts.
Most people here don't really accept that. Or rather, they would argue that a person who appears to do this is still eating around their maintenance and is either very active (thus having a higher TDEE) or isn't eating as much as it seems they are. Some may eat one huge meal and then not have an appetite for a next couple of days, or similar. There is a range of metabolism, of course, but I don't think it's as large as people think it is. Most differences in TDEE can be explained by differences in size and activity level.
That just means that your hunger signals are in line with your caloric needs. This is also greatly helped by the fact that you focus on nutrient dense foods. If you ate more calorie dense foods (many of which would not be as satiating) until you were full, chances are you would exceed your calorie goal.0 -
I can easily maintain on 2000 cals/ day if not still slowly drop weight. I lift heavy and do cardio throughout the week though. It all depends on your lifestyle and body size.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I would consider myself to be one of those people that 1890dawn is talking about. Based on my activity level and what my TDEE should be based off that, I have reason to believe my BMR is at least 50 calories over what most calculators would suggest for my stats. I think over time the implications of this can become significant. In theory, an extra 50 calories a day for a couple years would translate to a 10 pound weight gain. I realize that I am simply eating at maintenance, but my overall TDEE is high enough (without a very active lifestyle) that I simply can eat whatever I want (in accordance with my appetite) and not gain weight.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »what no one will say is that the reason the numbers don't make sense is that the science is obviously flawed. I have to stay under 1,600 to maintain, under 1,400 to lose, and it has been that way since I was a young active teen. We all accept that there are skinny people that eat as much as they want and never gain (one is my mother-in-law, I've seen her do it), so it is intellectually dishonest to say that the same cannot be true in reverse for heavy people. The BMI charts are also very flawed. At the weight at which I look amazing in a bathing suit, I am still considered "obese" on the charts.
Most people here don't really accept that. Or rather, they would argue that a person who appears to do this is still eating around their maintenance and is either very active (thus having a higher TDEE) or isn't eating as much as it seems they are. Some may eat one huge meal and then not have an appetite for a next couple of days, or similar. There is a range of metabolism, of course, but I don't think it's as large as people think it is. Most differences in TDEE can be explained by differences in size and activity level.
That just means that your hunger signals are in line with your caloric needs. This is also greatly helped by the fact that you focus on nutrient dense foods. If you ate more calorie dense foods (many of which would not be as satiating) until you were full, chances are you would exceed your calorie goal.
Yep.
And for every person who has a legit higher BMR, there are people like me who get accused of being one of those people who can eat whatever all the time. It's patently false for me. Even people who know I count calories (like my MiL) will tell me I'm just one of those naturally skinny people who can eat whatever I want. It's like she's forgotten the part where I used to be almost 50 lbs heavier, or the fact that I count every calorie. People who say that to me just see me baking a lot of desserts, loading up on ice cream at the grocery store, or not skimping on the bread when we go out to eat. They don't see the part where I'm up at 4:45 in the morning to workout, weighing my food so I don't go over, and making my meals at home 95% of the time.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions