So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Gamliela
Posts: 2,468 Member
I'm curious to know if those who maintain at lower than 2000 a day are happy with that and are you planning to continue it for life. If not what is your plan and do you think that low calorie maintenance will have an impact on you health?
0
Replies
-
Since all body functions need calories to function optimally, how long, how many years, are you willing to go on with a deficit of caloric intake to maintain your weight loss?0
-
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.0
-
Since all body functions need calories to function optimally, how long, how many years, are you willing to go on with a deficit of caloric intake to maintain your weight loss?
First of all, you wouldn't be in a deficit for years. You'd be at maintenance.
Secondly right now I maintain on between 1700-1900 calories. It used to be more but health issues have limited my physical activity. I'm pretty happy. Sometimes I have to make myself eat more (again, due to health issues that make swallowing difficult) and other days I kinda wish I had more calories to work with. It beats the pants off the alternative-- I was much less comfortable when I was fat.0 -
My favorite package of cookies is 2000
0 -
I maintain around 1500-1800 calories a day and I've been doing so for over six months now. It it enough for me, I feel better than I ever have, and for me that makes it pretty easy. Also, as my body has changed so has my appetite. I do not feel deprived at all in fact! Of course there are days I far exceed my usual intake, going out and things like that but I've learned to balance that which has been important in not gaining the weight back.0
-
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
0 -
what the heck are you talking about?
it's not a caloric deficit if you aren't losing weight. If your weight is staying steady then there is no deficit.-1 -
I'm 5'2" and around 110 pounds, and 2000 calories would make me gain. Everything I've seen so far is in line with MFP in giving me about 1600 calories to maintain (plus exercise calories). I'm not sure where that 2000 calories came from in your original post, but I have no problems getting the nutrients I need while eating the calories I can maintain on.0
-
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
Not true.
Sedentary maintenance for me is a little over 1500 cals and is perfectly healthy. I'm 5' 3", and not close to underweight. in fact, when I was just shy of overweight, my maintenance cals were still under 2000.
ETA: fixed momentary brain lapse0 -
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Your claim is nonsensical. If one eats a normal variety of foods, one would get all the nutrients the body needs. It is easy to have a normal adult who requires less than 2000 calories per day. Look it up on the online BMR calculators. For example, a 57 year old man who is 5'8" and 145 lbs (normal weight) who leads a relatively sedantary life would only need 1734 calories per day to remain healthy.0 -
0 -
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
Source for the bolded?0 -
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
Informative comment
I am not willing to eat less than 2000, in fact if I can maintain on 2500 I'll be extremely happy and it looks like that may well be my sweet number
0 -
Since all body functions need calories to function optimally, how long, how many years, are you willing to go on with a deficit of caloric intake to maintain your weight loss?
As others have said, if you are maintaining it's not a deficit.
I wish I could maintain on over 2000, but absent a really high level of physical activity, I cannot.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
Informative comment
I am not willing to eat less than 2000, in fact if I can maintain on 2500 I'll be extremely happy and it looks like that may well be my sweet number
If by informative you mean wrong.0 -
Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
what? this is completely false. 2000 calories is just the number they use for food labels. it isn't even an average. it's just a nice round number. it has nothing to do with individual needs. plenty of people can live quite healthy lives on less than 2000 calories a day.
why do you keep calling it a calorie deficit? if you're maintaining your weight, it's not a deficit.0 -
Looks like my maintenance is going to be around 1800. On a daily basis, it seems okay. But I need to eat up to that every day, and I can very easily go well over that on the weekend. I'm going to have to find a way to balance it out
0 -
Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Source? Also, given that the calculated TDEE for someone of my stats (at 5'3) is under 2000 even with 6 days of exercise or 5 days of intense exercise, you are basically claiming that the only way I could be healthy is to be gaining weight (which is not healthy). Indeed, even if I assume my body weight is 145--which is slightly overweight unless I manage to build my muscle mass to more than it was last time I was there and not a weight at which I feel as healthy as I do now--my TDEE is still going to be below 2000 even with 6 days of week of exercise.
I can kick it higher by adding even more cardio (it was higher when I was running lots of miles) and perhaps by gaining some muscle mass (which is a goal), but that's about personal preference, not health.
Also, what about those studies that link low calories and long life. I'm not interested because I like to eat, but that's a different matter.0 -
@lemurcat12 which site did you get that calculation off? If you exercise 6 days that sounds wrong. My TDEE is 2600 for same amount of exercise and I'm 5ft 2.0
-
This is just wrong. Many people don't need to eat at least 2000 calories to fill all of their body's needs. If you typically eat more than you need to maintain you will gain weight...THAT is what is unhealthy.Eating less than 2000 calories doesn't automatically mean that you're eating at a deficit. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2000 calories per day then they're not in a caloric deficit. If they were they would be losing weight not maintaining it. The 2000 calorie guideline is an estimate based on the average person and not everyone fits that average. If they're maintaining a healthy weight on less than 2000 calories then their body will function just fine on those calories.
No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!
Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.
So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Source? Also, given that the calculated TDEE for someone of my stats (at 5'3) is under 2000 even with 6 days of exercise or 5 days of intense exercise, you are basically claiming that the only way I could be healthy is to be gaining weight (which is not healthy). Indeed, even if I assume my body weight is 145--which is slightly overweight unless I manage to build my muscle mass to more than it was last time I was there and not a weight at which I feel as healthy as I do now--my TDEE is still going to be below 2000 with 6 days of week of exercise.
This OP seems to believe (based on the two threads I've seen her start) that it is in fact healthier to be overweight than to be thin.
It seems from this thread that she is postulating it would be healthier to gain weight to get up to where you can maintain on over 2000 calories than it would be to maintain on less and have lower BMI.
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »@lemurcat12 which site did you get that calculation off? If you exercise 6 days that sounds wrong. My TDEE is 2600 for same amount of exercise and I'm 5ft 2.
I'm 5'4" 123 lbs, 18% body fat. My tested maintenance on lifting days is about 1900. That's with lifting intensely for an hour. I can burn about the same amount walking for an hour. So if I lifted 3 days, walked 3 days, and took one rest day (that would be too much exercise for me in my current condition but let's assume it wouldn't) it would make my average daily maintenance less than 1900 calories.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »@lemurcat12 which site did you get that calculation off? If you exercise 6 days that sounds wrong. My TDEE is 2600 for same amount of exercise and I'm 5ft 2.
IIFYM, either M-SJ or K-McC. Scooby is more (nowhere near 2600, though, more like 2200), not sure if that's because they calculate exercise differently or use H-B, which I don't think is reliable.
It depends on how much you exercise on those days. When I was doing the max exercise I have, including 2.5 hour long runs and lots of other running and biking I think my TDEE was about 2200. Now, with less cardio and more weights but 6 days of hard workouts still I think it's about 2000 or less--I'm losing less than .5 lb/week on 1750. I know I gained weight initially eating less than 2000 (pretty rapidly too), which is consistent with what my sedentary TDEE would be.
Clearly there is going to be some real life variation between people, but my numbers have generally lined up pretty well with the K-McC and M-SJ calculators.0 -
Oh, what the heck. I haven't been in a good train wreck thread in a while...
0 -
I have a friend who is 5'1" and a programmer, so about as sedentary of a job as exists, and she can maintain a consistent weight on something like 1200-1400 calories. It's part of what bugs me (and drives her slowly insane) when people say "oh, you absolutely have to have more than the magical number 1200) Lots of people of smaller stature don't need 1500 calories to maintain, much less 2000.0
-
tigersword wrote: »Oh, what the heck. I haven't been in a good train wreck thread in a while...
I love this gif. :laugh:0 -
I'm curious to know if those who maintain at lower than 2000 a day are happy with that and are you planning to continue it for life. If not what is your plan and do you think that low calorie maintenance will have an impact on you health?
I find the phrasing of this really confusing. Besides exercising and gaining/losing weight, and excluding any uncontrolled medical conditions like hypothyroidism or something, how could you actually change the number of calories your body needs to maintain? You can't really 'decide' to have a maintenance number below 2000, and not everybody can realistically exercise enough to get up to that fairly arbitrary figure i.e. if you're a very small woman and sedentary with a lot of other things which occupy your time. For me, I'd maintain on about 1700-1800 if I didn't do much, and I'm pretty confident I could eat a very nutritious diet within that limit, and regularly accommodate treats and such. I see that as very sustainable. I don't think that deliberately gaining a stone or two which might give me a maintenance level closer to 2000 would really have much impact on my health either way, if I'm honest.0 -
TIME FOR MATHS!!!
Lets see just how small you have to be to maintain at 2000 calories/day, using the middle of the BMI scale because weights were not given in this thread,
(Formula for BMI = weight (lb) / [height (in)]^2 x 703
Also, 21 is often considered "adult" age, so I'll use that age.
IIFYM TDEE Calculator:
Sedentary: 5' 8" @ 148 lbs = 2019 calories
Exercise 3x/week: 5' 8" @ 119 lbs = 2002 calories
5x/week: 5' 0" @ 111 lbs = 2019 calories
Now, for 4'5", in order to maintain at 2000 calories, with a mid-range BMI (87 lbs), and 21 years old, you need to exercise twice a day in maintain at 2000 calories.
OP,
0 -
I love maths and science.
0 -
Lets do some more maths!!!
In order to maintain at 4'5", age 21, and living a sedentary lifestyle, you'd have to weigh 240 lbs.
I'm 6' and I'm 240 lbs.
Being 4'5" and 240 lbs, you'd probably be wider than you are tall. Not kidding.
That's a BMI of 60.1. 30 is considered obese. I think 60.1 would equal dead.
Do you want to live a life like that?
Sorry, that was a redundant question. You can't live a life like that because you'd be dead.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