So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
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 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
samesies0 -
I am sorry but if you are still looking at 2k calories and thinking of all the foods you will miss out on then you are failing. Food is not a reward, it is not a friend, it is fuel. A 20 something might need 2000 calories but a 30 something might only need 1500. A person who is 5'8" and 150lbs needs more than a 5'3" who is 110. 2000 is a stupid number based on the average which is like 5'8" and 160lbs with an average activity level. If you are not that height and weight or activity level you do not need those calories. If you are over 40 and female you do not need those calories. If you have a condition that causes you to struggle to lose weight or causes you to put on more weight that the average person, you do not need those calories. Please stop trying to shove everyone into the same box.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!
You stated the claim - it is up to you to provide the proof.
I am not wasting my time trying to research something I know is nonsense. I've wasted enough time talking to you in the first place - and I do it for the lurkers who might learn something.
If you have read it you have already done the research so either provide a link or admit you are making stuff up.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »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!
I think OP's idea is a bit off here.. A OMG the "starvation mode" again...
I am asking this question, what the hell is unhealthy? I thought being over weight or obese is unhealthy !
The OP asked about our maintenance, how long and if we accepted the new calories (you do need less calories to live when you get smaller)
I think this was not a question but a debate for us to have....
I CAN'T EAT 2000 calories period. My TDEE does not even get close to getting that high in needing 2000 calories a day. I would not be overweight, I would be a fat sloth!0 -
The op just wants to justify the fact that they are overweight by claiming it is unhealthy to eat less that 2000 cals.
So far they have yet to provide a single link to back up their claims, not surprising as they are nonsense.
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »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.
in other words you are active and totally have a nice TDEE because of that - just like me
pretty sure she said her tdee is still very low in spite of this.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »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.
in other words you are active and totally have a nice TDEE because of that - just like me
pretty sure she said her tdee is still very low in spite of this.
This thread is so full of ??? I chose to ignore that one. Because if that is a nice TDEE, well.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?
You are assuming that every single person out there would love to eat more than they do, and that eating to maintain a healthy weight is a struggle. Not everyone naturally falls into a pattern of becoming overweight or obese, and not everyone suffers to stay in a healthy range. Perhaps it is something you personally consider a huge sacrifice, but not everyone has the same lifestyle or the same personal preferences.
As for quality of life, when I am not at the lowest healthy BMI, and will little body fat, which means more than 40 lbs below your weight for similar height, my health immediately suffers and my various endocrinological problem start affecting my quality of life. So, this might come as a huge surprise to you, but no, storing extra fat would not make all of us healthier (or happier).
To be honest, I think you and my grandma are the only people I have ever heard trying to start a campaign over "the fatter, the healthier". My grandma had survived 3 wars, had spent her childhood literally starving and had seen numerous friends and relatives die from malnutrition, so I can understand her reasons. Yours, not so much...
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?
You are assuming that every single person out there would love to eat more than they do, and that eating to maintain a healthy weight is a struggle. Not everyone naturally falls into a pattern of becoming overweight or obese, and not everyone suffers to stay in a healthy range. Perhaps it is something you personally consider a huge sacrifice, but not everyone has the same lifestyle or the same personal preferences.
As for quality of life, when I am not at the lowest healthy BMI, and will little body fat, which means more than 40 lbs below your weight for similar height, my health immediately suffers and my various endocrinological problem start affecting my quality of life. So, this might come as a huge surprise to you, but no, storing extra fat would not make all of us healthier (or happier).
To be honest, I think you and my grandma are the only people I have ever heard trying to start a campaign over "the fatter, the healthier". My grandma had survived 3 wars, had spent her childhood literally starving and had seen numerous friends and relatives die from malnutrition, so I can understand her reasons. Yours, not so much...
To the OP...... THIS!
This is spot on! VERY NICELY SAID!0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »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.
in other words you are active and totally have a nice TDEE because of that - just like me
pretty sure she said her tdee is still very low in spite of this.
ok, I didn't see what her TDEE is, this thread is getting too long to wade through everything.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »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.
in other words you are active and totally have a nice TDEE because of that - just like me
pretty sure she said her tdee is still very low in spite of this.
ok, I didn't see what her TDEE is, this thread is getting too long to wade through everything.
I think the point has been made and over and over again. Keep the "pot" stirred up" seems be the objective now..
Can't learn any more or give more information than what has already been said. It has been 6 pages and not getting anywhere with this discussion.0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »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......
Hi there Springfield,
Glad to know you are feeling healthy!
I was a low normal bmi most of my first 55 years of life just naturally. I didnt diet or watch my food intake at all, I didnt know what a bmi was! I started to gain slowly to the upper normal bmi after menopause. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years. I'm also 5' 7".
I started to not feel so good, digestive problems, low energy, hair falling out. I was excersizing quite a lot, but no real major health problems came about and I wasn't put on any type of medication nor am I on any now and I don't have any health issues today.
I began to read about caloric intake in relation to health while I was at that low weight, especially I was interested in the health of those of us over 60, but also about low intake plus excersize for everyone. There was a lot of conflicting information at the time.
Meanwhile, I found that where at first I was maintaining on around 1300 to 1400 calories, even though I kept up with excersize and even increased it, that each 6 months to a year along I had to cut more calories in order to keep my weight loss maintained. So after reducing my calorie amounts to 1200, then 1000 per day, then eventually, in order to maintain my weight at or below 110, I was only able to eat 500 to 800 calories a day and still do a lot of excersize.
Thank goodness I happened upon some reviews and some research writters who's papers, blogs, and web sites in some cases explained what was happening to me and I intentionally gained back to a weight that from whwt I read insures, as much as anything can do, my health will be robust into old age.
I am glad to be able to say that now, at age 65 those issues I had while maintaining under 110 are now gone. the nervous energy I had has resolved to calm, my hair has regrown, I have adequate energy and the digestive issues have almost all cleared up as well.
So my interest in this topic of maintenance continues to lead me to a curiosity of how other people manage to lose weight, maintain and do so without having to carry on their lives at a level of intake that to me, now, appears to be inadequate from the research and reading I have done.
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!
Thank you very much for your post Gia!
0 -
My whole way of life will change when I reach 65. I am 20 years younger and I do expect age, health (physical, mental and emotional health) will all play a role in my weight, exercise and activity and hopefully life is going good with no stress..
What the hell (pardon my expression) is the question here? OP you have made up your mind on how you NEED to live (feed your self for proper nutrition and how you choose to eat) so why are bashing all the comments here. There is some sort of self served preaching to us MFP members and I am not sure why...
PS We lose weight because we eat less calories and maintain a deficit to reach our goal weight.. When we are happy with where we want to be, we learn to in crease calories to maintenance and we exercise FOR HEALTHY living....
THIS has been around for years!
0 -
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »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......
Hi there Springfield,
Glad to know you are feeling healthy!
I was a low normal bmi most of my first 55 years of life just naturally. I didnt diet or watch my food intake at all, I didnt know what a bmi was! I started to gain slowly to the upper normal bmi after menopause. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years. I'm also 5' 7".
I started to not feel so good, digestive problems, low energy, hair falling out. I was excersizing quite a lot, but no real major health problems came about and I wasn't put on any type of medication nor am I on any now and I don't have any health issues today.
I began to read about caloric intake in relation to health while I was at that low weight, especially I was interested in the health of those of us over 60, but also about low intake plus excersize for everyone. There was a lot of conflicting information at the time.
Meanwhile, I found that where at first I was maintaining on around 1300 to 1400 calories, even though I kept up with excersize and even increased it, that each 6 months to a year along I had to cut more calories in order to keep my weight loss maintained. So after reducing my calorie amounts to 1200, then 1000 per day, then eventually, in order to maintain my weight at or below 110, I was only able to eat 500 to 800 calories a day and still do a lot of excersize.
Thank goodness I happened upon some reviews and some research writters who's papers, blogs, and web sites in some cases explained what was happening to me and I intentionally gained back to a weight that from whwt I read insures, as much as anything can do, my health will be robust into old age.
I am glad to be able to say that now, at age 65 those issues I had while maintaining under 110 are now gone. the nervous energy I had has resolved to calm, my hair has regrown, I have adequate energy and the digestive issues have almost all cleared up as well.
So my interest in this topic of maintenance continues to lead me to a curiosity of how other people manage to lose weight, maintain and do so without having to carry on their lives at a level of intake that to me, now, appears to be inadequate from the research and reading I have done.
And I'm sure none of that had to do with the fact that you were underweight at 110lbs at 5'7 so having to eat very low calories to maintained your very low body weight.
Of course you felt like crap at 110lbs - that's what happens when you're underweight.
Hopefully most people here are planning to maintain at a healthy weight for their height.
0 -
OP, I am curious to know why you are a member of MFP at all. If you feel they are misleading us in someway, then what is your purpose of being a member of this fitness site?0
-
@iron_feline, you have a point. 5'7" and 110 pounds is underweight. I am 5'4" and weighed 110 almost my entire life until I got older and the hormones, menopause and crap started happening!0
-
emily_stew wrote: »I've read this whole thread and I still have no idea what the hell is going on, or what OPs point is.
Agreed, but so far it's one of the more entertaining recent threads, even if it requires feeding a troll.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Springfield1970 wrote: »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......
Hi there Springfield,
Glad to know you are feeling healthy!
I was a low normal bmi most of my first 55 years of life just naturally. I didnt diet or watch my food intake at all, I didnt know what a bmi was! I started to gain slowly to the upper normal bmi after menopause. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years. I'm also 5' 7".
I started to not feel so good, digestive problems, low energy, hair falling out. I was excersizing quite a lot, but no real major health problems came about and I wasn't put on any type of medication nor am I on any now and I don't have any health issues today.
I began to read about caloric intake in relation to health while I was at that low weight, especially I was interested in the health of those of us over 60, but also about low intake plus excersize for everyone. There was a lot of conflicting information at the time.
Meanwhile, I found that where at first I was maintaining on around 1300 to 1400 calories, even though I kept up with excersize and even increased it, that each 6 months to a year along I had to cut more calories in order to keep my weight loss maintained. So after reducing my calorie amounts to 1200, then 1000 per day, then eventually, in order to maintain my weight at or below 110, I was only able to eat 500 to 800 calories a day and still do a lot of excersize.
Thank goodness I happened upon some reviews and some research writters who's papers, blogs, and web sites in some cases explained what was happening to me and I intentionally gained back to a weight that from whwt I read insures, as much as anything can do, my health will be robust into old age.
I am glad to be able to say that now, at age 65 those issues I had while maintaining under 110 are now gone. the nervous energy I had has resolved to calm, my hair has regrown, I have adequate energy and the digestive issues have almost all cleared up as well.
So my interest in this topic of maintenance continues to lead me to a curiosity of how other people manage to lose weight, maintain and do so without having to carry on their lives at a level of intake that to me, now, appears to be inadequate from the research and reading I have done.
And I'm sure none of that had to do with the fact that you were underweight at 110lbs at 5'7 so having to eat very low calories to maintained your very low body weight.
Of course you felt like crap at 110lbs - that's what happens when you're underweight.
Hopefully most people here are planning to maintain at a healthy weight for their height.
Yeah, this seems like a no brainer...I'm honestly confused as to what point the OP is trying to make exactly.
I'm at a healthy weight and around 15-16% BF...I eat to fuel my activities appropriately (2600 - 3200 calories depending) and I exercise regularly. Not sure what the issue is here..most people are here to be healthy OP, not get underweight and try to maintain some super low body weight.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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