So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?

Packerjohn wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

nxd10 wrote: »

I have no ideas where you are getting these numbers from. I'm 5'10", 150 pounds (21.5 BMI), 54, female. MFP says my maintenance calories at sedentary are 1700. It works - I've done this for several years. I'm not hungry, I eat what I want, my weight has stayed within 3 pounds +- the whole time. This is maintenance. Yes, I plan on doing this forever.

Now, I have a fitbit and, when I walk more, I get to eat more. But not a huge amount more. I usually eat under 2000.

When I was young I would eat a lot more. My super skinny sons do. Each of them eat more calories than my husband and I together. I slowly gained a pound a year when I hit 40, my metabolism slowed down, and my eating didn't.

Yeah, things change when you get older.

Which numbers? My own personal numbers?

I'm 5'7", 65 years old. I eat around 2300 calories a day, no formal excersize and maintain around 165 pounds. I don't diet, I eat three meals a day, two snacks if I need them.

The reason I do this is because I read some scientific reviews that said that eating under 2000 calories can deplete the fat cells so much that certain hormonal deficiencies will occur, thyroid, dopamine, opioid receptors will deplete. You end up with less bone strength, poor digestion, less muscles and cessation of periods if you are a woman and more.

But no one believes me and they feel attacked because it seems the obesity scare is so prevalent, and fat fear is big and people like to feel like movie stars I guess. Well, like skinny movie stars anyway. But thats ok, I just wondered if people were truly prepared to eat so measily a bunch of rations for the rest of their lives when they could be eating more.
I am surprized that so many people on the maintenance part of MFP maintain at such low calorie intakes or run five miles before breakfast and lift weights in the evening while eating less than I do doing nothing at age 65.
Best wishes on your health and may you and your family be happy in all the years to come!

Can you post up the article?

Well, I thought about this overnight and I will explain why I think 2000 is probably accurate as a bottom line. But I won't post the article because the writter has done a TON of research on metabolism, and on the results of diets on the general population and on eating disorders and she is a rather sensitive intellectual type and after reading all these posts I feel it would be irresponsible of me to reveal her name. She has enough disgruntled dieters to fend off these days. I also have a life and I don't want to go through her bibliography and do the heavy work of combing through tonnes to bring you the gems of science that you can find yourselves much easier than I can.

It won't take you long to research yourselves.

To start with is the beginning. The beginning is: How did we begin to know exactly how many calories a person needs to maintain a certain weight? This was originally done by a poll.
Well, not exactly a poll, but not very much different than a poll. My understanding is they asked a lot of people how many calories they ate per day and weighed those people then calculated the averages and graphed those and there it is, calories per day to eat to maintain a certain weight. The one that is still in use today.

Later somebody had some misgivings. Maybe that wasn't really very scientific of them, maybe people weren't really very sure of EXACTLY how many calories they ate per day.

So, secondly, there was a much more accurate study done where they actually made sure to watch and verify exactly how many calories per day the test people ate.

This research showed that almost everybody underestimates their caloric intake by around 500 calories per day. So there you have it. I know I underestimate calories, left to my own imagination.

The nasty political implications here are that for some reason this hasn't yet filtered down to us in any form. I feel pretty sure that owners of MFP and CC know about this though. If you keep following the guidlines set on these sites and use the Calorie Counters, you can't help but lose weight because you are eating 1000, not 500 calories under your needs per day if you follow the guidlines set on these sites. The owners of these sites must have thought to themselves how can we not be a success?

As most of you know metabolic disorders can be caused by consistent restriction below your normal calorie requirement.

I have no axe to grind. I really was very curious to see just how this error, a grand error, was playing itself out with sincere dieters like yourselves.

There is a lot of speculation as to why this information has not filtered down to us. Worries about the 'obesity epidemic', or concerns that if the amount of calories per day given to the public is raised to the more accurate level and made public, people will of course keep estimating it wrong and be actually eating 500 a day more, and cause even more fatties! Then the earth will become lopsided with all the heaviness on one side and go off course spinning away! Who really knows, but as with most things there is probably a monetary underpinning to the withheld and more accurate analysis of calories per day to maintain certain weights.

So there you have it, have at it!

Iron_Feline wrote: »

Lol lol lol

People who are underestimating their calories are 99% of the time not weighing, measuring and logging their food. That doesn't apply to the people on here who are doing that.

If your logic applied everyone here would lose a lb a week more than expected. Yet most aren't.

You are an amusing troll, as I don't think this angle has been played before.

Of course it doesnt apply to people here, it applies to those studies.

Iron_Feline wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

mamadon wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

Ok, I seem to be hitting a nerve there wolfman. I don't know why. Are you ok with eating your maintenance cals for the rest of your life? I find most people here aren't really, that they struggle like hell to maintain and are hungry and eat reactivly on maintenance. I hear a lot of people having trouble when their appetite kicks them after restricting calories for so long when they start to eat to maintain.

I'm just asking if you plan to do it for life? To limit yourself to maintenance cals until you die and do you think you will be happy with that ongoing?

This isn't demon time! Just asking.

Yes.

Ok, one more vote for, yes, another person is willing to use the MFP guidlines for maintenance evn though it is actually 500 calories under what would be maintenance and is then in fact resticting for the rest of her life!

Dying.

If they were 500 cals under maintance they would continue to lose weight. I think they might notice that :laugh:

By the time they have been dieting to lose their desired weight, they have adjusted their bodies to exist on less calories and they will have to mai twin on 500 less thqn their actual needs in order to stay at the weight they stop dieting at. This is well known, no need to cite science for that one is thee?

Iron_Feline wrote: »

So there is no article.

Gotcha. :noway:

yes there are a few blogs and sites that dedicate themselves to this current problem and those people have done all the homework. Actually this isn't all that new in the world of research on diets inablilty to produce healthful results, as much as we have the faith that they will and spend millions trying to make it work.

beckkkahhhx3 wrote: »

I am shocked so many people maintain below 2000. I am underweight, 5'5ish and maintain on 3000 doing yoga 5-7 times a week.

Thanks for taking the time to post that.

You have a normal metabolism!

Cheers and enjoy your day!

RaspberryTickleChicken wrote: »

cloudi2 wrote: »

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?

Yuppers - I am very comfortable maintaining at 1230 -1450ish calories; it was an seamless transition from losing & has been truly effortless to maintain.

I'm 4'10" and have been maintaining for 18+ mos.

As long as I continue to feel that 1230 -1450ish calories is something that I can carry on with minimum effort I plan to continue.

Best of luck to you!

Thank you so much, very sweet of you to reply. :-)