So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Options
Replies
-
Of course it doesnt apply to people here, it applies to those studies.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.
If it doesn't apply here, then why did you say that it does by saying that people here are eating at a 1000 calorie deficit instead of a 500 calorie deficit, because the nasty MFP people are lying to us? People here weigh and measure our food. We are not underestimating our calories unless we do it wrong which most don't.
Your stance has no backing and no evidence unless you post the studies. If you don't, everyone is going to assume that those studies do not exist. You can find plenty of studies saying the exact opposite of what you're saying if you look for them.
And no, maintenance calories are NOT affected by long periods of dieting. My mother maintained her whole life on about 1700 calories at about 150lbs and 5'7. Her twin sister ate too much and got up to about 200lbs, then dieted and got down to the same weight as my mum, and ALSO maintained on about 1700 calories. (Neither exercised)0 -
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.Iron_Feline wrote: »So there is no article.
Gotcha. :noway:
theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
There are blogs and sites that dedicate themselves to all sorts of things.0 -
Is that all you wanted?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!
I didn't count to lose. I don't count in maintenance. I do plan to eat in a way that will help me keep maintaining. the end.
0 -
I'm genuinely confused - do you mean:
a) that most of the people here maintaining at below 2000 are trying to keep an unnaturally low body weight which is unhealthy in the long term because all bodies need over 2000 to function at their 'peak'?
or
b) that for some reason people here have damaged their metabolisms and have effectively chosen to maintain at a lower than normal or healthy calorie intake, which is why they aren't losing weight despite eating what you feel is an unhealthily meager amount?
or am I just totally lost?
0 -
*0
-
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!
No. You asked if people were ok eating their maintenance calories for the rest of their lifes. I said yes. You did not ask if we were going to use MFP or other guidelines. My maintanance calories were figured out after a few months of experimenting with my calories to figure out what they would be after I lost my weight. But, this amount of calories is close to what MFP would have given me anyway. And even thoough according to you, this is a deficit for me, being under 2000 calories, I have been maintaining for almost a year. Weird.0 -
I would be gaining weight if I ate at 2000 calories every day. It depends on your activity level and what your body is used to.0
-
I'm grateful to you for having posted this. I am sorry, I did get derailed there and thank you for posting your maintenance amount and the time you have maintained your weight on that amount of calories.
Have you incrased your excersize, what is your height and age, if you don't mind sharing it?
I'm awed that you say you have eaten the same amount of calories over the year and maintained the same weight. I assume your activity level is the same now as when you started maintenance?0 -
I'm genuinely confused - do you mean:
a) that most of the people here maintaining at below 2000 are trying to keep an unnaturally low body weight which is unhealthy in the long term because all bodies need over 2000 to function at their 'peak'?
or
b) that for some reason people here have damaged their metabolisms and have effectively chosen to maintain at a lower than normal or healthy calorie intake, which is why they aren't losing weight despite eating what you feel is an unhealthily meager amount?
or am I just totally lost?
yes simpson, I think diets lessen the strength of metabolism mostly because the caloric intake guidlines are scewed as I mentioned before at about 500 calories less than what we should be eating. I have also seen evidence, its pretty well known, that restricting calories eventually leads to plateu, because bodies adapt to the lower amount, resulting in a never ending cycle of either upping activity, or lowering calories, and/or switching diets to restrict different foods: for example going from a vegetarian diet to a paleo or atkins approach.
I think your a) above is also extremely probable as well, but that wasn't my concern at this point.
Thank you for this well composed question, it helped me to clarify.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Is that all you wanted?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!
I didn't count to lose. I don't count in maintenance. I do plan to eat in a way that will help me keep maintaining. the end.
Thanks! I am curious as to how you eat to keep maintaining! If you care to share it of course. I would like to stop counting, I did so for over two years but realized I was not eating enough, so I began counting again a few weeks ago.
0 -
I'm genuinely confused - do you mean:
a) that most of the people here maintaining at below 2000 are trying to keep an unnaturally low body weight which is unhealthy in the long term because all bodies need over 2000 to function at their 'peak'?
or
b) that for some reason people here have damaged their metabolisms and have effectively chosen to maintain at a lower than normal or healthy calorie intake, which is why they aren't losing weight despite eating what you feel is an unhealthily meager amount?
or am I just totally lost?
yes simpson, I think diets lessen the strength of metabolism mostly because the caloric intake guidlines are scewed as I mentioned before at about 500 calories less than what we should be eating. I have also seen evidence, its pretty well known, that restricting calories eventually leads to plateu, because bodies adapt to the lower amount, resulting in a never ending cycle of either upping activity, or lowering calories, and/or switching diets to restrict different foods: for example going from a vegetarian diet to a paleo or atkins approach.
I think your a) above is also extremely probable as well, but that wasn't my concern at this point.
Thank you for this well composed question, it helped me to clarify.
OK fab: I understand better now what you mean. However, do bodies not adapt to the lower calorie amount purely because they are now smaller and require a smaller amount of fuel to run, rather than because of any metabolic damage? I think everybody who decides to lose weight for whatever reason has to accept they cannot continue consuming what they did before. This 'adaptation' is not a bad thing - it's just a recognition of what your now-smaller body actually needs, and that you were 'over-fuelling' initially.0 -
-
MarziPanda95 wrote: »
Of course it doesnt apply to people here, it applies to those studies.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.
If it doesn't apply here, then why did you say that it does by saying that people here are eating at a 1000 calorie deficit instead of a 500 calorie deficit, because the nasty MFP people are lying to us? People here weigh and measure our food. We are not underestimating our calories unless we do it wrong which most don't.
Your stance has no backing and no evidence unless you post the studies. If you don't, everyone is going to assume that those studies do not exist. You can find plenty of studies saying the exact opposite of what you're saying if you look for them.
And no, maintenance calories are NOT affected by long periods of dieting. My mother maintained her whole life on about 1700 calories at about 150lbs and 5'7. Her twin sister ate too much and got up to about 200lbs, then dieted and got down to the same weight as my mum, and ALSO maintained on about 1700 calories. (Neither exercised)
I said that standard calorie requirements are wrong according to a revised study done that found that people had estimated their calories too low which were how those original standards were taken. so our understanding of how many calories are needed to maintain any certain weight is wrong and they all should be 500 calories higher. The political gears that have stopped these new standards for caloric intake from being updated and widely publicized to show the new research is what I called nasty. I just said I though that the owners of MFP and CC probably know these newer results because they are in the business and want to be successful at helping people slim down.
0 -
I'm grateful to you for having posted this. I am sorry, I did get derailed there and thank you for posting your maintenance amount and the time you have maintained your weight on that amount of calories.
Have you incrased your excersize, what is your height and age, if you don't mind sharing it?
I'm awed that you say you have eaten the same amount of calories over the year and maintained the same weight. I assume your activity level is the same now as when you started maintenance?
I'm guessing this is for me lol. I have not increased my exercise a ton, although over the last month, I have begun doing some strength training. I am 5'4 and weigh around 147 pounds. I am almost 53. I eat around 1850 calories, but over the last year in maintaining, I average that out for the week, eating more on the weekends and less during the week.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
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.Iron_Feline wrote: »So there is no article.
Gotcha. :noway:
Again. There are no scientific article backing your claims.
Blogs and sites are not proof.
I,m not prepared to do the research. As I said, brighter researchers that are actually in the field of nutrition and health have written reviews and studied this topic. I don't actually believe that people have to be censored just because they cant provide links to specific scientific papers. Its out there, if you dont care to search for it, its ok by me. I found it, a lot of it, and that is why I am asking for actual personal real people to share their actual real experience with dieting and maintaining at what I have read is not adequate caloric intake for robust health.
If I read here on MFP that lots of people consider themselves healthy and happy on these lesser amounts it adds to my scepticism about those papers I am reading. If people are not that healthy, they are on a lot of meds, they are excersizing more than they would like, they are hungry a lot of the time, I would like to know that too because that adds to my belief that those papers I am reading are correct!
0 -
Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!
Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.
My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?
It looks like you are in denial about something.
I'm extremely happy with my figure. I'm 5'7" 127lb 18-19% body fat, supercharged, 25" waist 37" hips (hourglass), tons of energy, never get ill, great skin, very strong bones, compete in triathlons and am strong. I'm 44.
I maintain at 1750. Get over it.
But, most days I eat 2250-2700 because of my training.
Every time I think I know best and can eat more I just.....get fat...unless I'm purposely bulking then I get fat and muscley.
You need to study more......
0 -
You asked in earlier post what is your maintain weight and how long have you been at maintenance. Also you asked if I (we) are happy with that?
My answer is I am 5'4" and 46 years old and have been at maintenance for 2 months at 1400 calories. I am slightly active and exercise a little. I am perfectly happy eating at this amount.
This week I have created another deficit of off my maintenance to loose that last 7 pounds. So my maintenance will change a bit after another 5 pounds..
II look at like this.. My body does not need excess calories to function and I like being smaller a lot more than I like being a chubby girl!0 -
I've been happily maintaining since early December on 1900 calories a day, an amount recommended to me by a registered dietician, based on my age (45), height (5'10), weight (148lbs), and current activity level. I'm in excellent health, don't over-exercise, and don't take any medications.Iron_Feline wrote: »
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.Iron_Feline wrote: »So there is no article.
Gotcha. :noway:
Again. There are no scientific article backing your claims.
Blogs and sites are not proof.
I,m not prepared to do the research. As I said, brighter researchers that are actually in the field of nutrition and health have written reviews and studied this topic. I don't actually believe that people have to be censored just because they cant provide links to specific scientific papers. Its out there, if you dont care to search for it, its ok by me. I found it, a lot of it, and that is why I am asking for actual personal real people to share their actual real experience with dieting and maintaining at what I have read is not adequate caloric intake for robust health.
If I read here on MFP that lots of people consider themselves healthy and happy on these lesser amounts it adds to my scepticism about those papers I am reading. If people are not that healthy, they are on a lot of meds, they are excersizing more than they would like, they are hungry a lot of the time, I would like to know that too because that adds to my belief that those papers I am reading are correct!
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?
Under 2000 calories is excellent as long as you are getting the recommended Daily Value of nutrients. I am consuming a healthy 1700 calories per day and reaching my daily values. My day looks like this ....
0 -
Danilynn1975 wrote: »Before 7 am every single day I log 5 miles at work. By 2pm I have another 3 miles logged.
I work outdoors. I get my exercise. Thyroid issues.
Or your metbolizm is truly bonked out from not eating enough!
Its gotta be a tough slog for you! Wow, you have my sympathy, truly.
I like being outside too, but shuffeling down country roads is good enough for me.
Well, and my house is on three stories, so you know between grocery shopping on foot in this hilly town,food prep, and playing accordion ( its kinda heavy) I get somewhat of a type of workout I guess, but nothing like running, my goodness you are active! And all on those measly few calories too! :-( glad you are at least content with the results of your efforts, thats something, I guess.
Ah we have a starvation mode believer.
She's already said she has a thyroid problem, try not to scare the horses with the slow metabolism coz not eating enough myth!
Honestly if I was over 130lb I would be feeling unhealthy, I'm 5'7" but that's my opinion and Im not going to start a thread about it!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions