So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Options
Replies
-
snowflake930 wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Help me understand, so this is a conspiracy? All of us here who are maintaining at under 2000 calories, are misguided and it is a figment of our imagination that we are maintaining and doing well, and are happy and satisfied with the results?
No, there is no conspiracy. Its just a failure to make public new findings about how many calories it takes to maintain body weight.
0 -
MFP recommends 1200 for me and honestly I've been fine with that. When I do really hard workouts I might hit 1500/day, but rarely am I over 1200 or feeling empty or hungry. I'm training for a half marathon and I have been gaining overall strength & endurance very easily.
Every body it different.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 lapse
0 -
I may not get to eat a lot. I may not be your idea of perfect weight. My bmi is in healthy range. Granted it's the upper end. I have still lost 54 pounds and kept it off for over 2 years.
Thyroid issues and all, I'm healthy and wear a size 4/5 with a 27" waist. Would I like to be 135 again, yes, but the calorie drop required for it plays havoc with my health. So all good, I'll stay were I am. Maintaining on 1300 to 1450. It's better than being overweight and being at risk of worse health issues.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
0 -
and to feed the troll further ( I don't usually post on here, but am surprised no one has said this so far) there is a mountain of research that indicates caloric restriction is beneficial to health - beyond the excess weight issues.
The 5:2 diet that's popular right now evolved from the very idea that fasting was healthy and that idea is based on some pretty sound research.
I've actually read those too and its another reason I wanted to ask some questions here on MFP to see if real people are actually experiencing those results or different ones that more align with the newer research that says higher body weight gives a more robust health.
0 -
0 -
I'm 5'5" and I'm sitting for at least 11 hours a day between my job and commute. If I miss a workout day, which is often, I generally only have time to workout 3-4 days a week, then I'm often stuffed full with my 1200 calories and will steadily gain. I have a hard time waking up even if I just eat a small salad after 7pm. I'm pretty sure I have like the slowest metabolism on Earth, but I don't see it as a problem, that just means when I eat I can wait longer than most before I'm hungry again.
I've read "Eat to Live" by Joel Thurman and he goes in to detail about differing metabolisms and how have a slow one isn't bad at all if you recognize it and plan accordingly.FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »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 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
You make wild claims ... then fail to back them up. It is laughable. Honestly, you started with a flawed premise that 2000 calories is a deficit and unraveled from there.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
Lol lol lol
Who. Who is in this field of tin foil hats?0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Help me understand, so this is a conspiracy? All of us here who are maintaining at under 2000 calories, are misguided and it is a figment of our imagination that we are maintaining and doing well, and are happy and satisfied with the results?
No, there is no conspiracy. Its just a failure to make public new findings about how many calories it takes to maintain body weight.
No, just no.
NO ONE knows me better than I know myself. If it is working for me, I don't need "secret" findings that the FDA & WHO are not letting the public in on new guidelines that say I should be eating more to maintain.
I find this blatantly untrue for me. I would become very overweight, if not obese again, if what you say is true, and I ate 2000 calories.
I know what works for me. No one else can tell me it isn't.
Find your sources and put them on MFP. Maybe you would receive some credibility then.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
yes, I know stuff about being unhealthy at a low bmi.
but even when I got to a perfectly healthy bmi, I couldnt maintain that weight level without being at w serously deficit caloric intake. only point there was that it may be necessary to keep lowering calories and or upping excersize to maintain even a 'healthy bmi' at any age.
I hope getting healthy is everyone's status, whatever their size.
You were very underweight for what I suspect was a long time and probably destroyed a lot of your muscle mass. You probably also screwed up your metabolism by your severe calorie deficit. This is why you had such issues.
You are not the norm - don't assume everyone should be like you. Just because you had issues at a lower calorie amount doesn't mean everyone else will.
actually, I didnt face such issues, they were mild, given my age. My weight resolved over about three years fairly naturally. I'm happy with the outcome. Actually my muscle mass is high for not doing much activity, but then it always was. Bone density is good too. so my take on this is that because I never dieted or restricted any foods, ate like I wanted for 55 years, I had an ok start. and I managed to weather the five years of restricting cals well. Glad I'm done with it
Regarding the bold
So you never dieted or restricted cals except when you did severely for 5 years.
You said. I dieted for the first time in my life then and maintained below 110 pounds for 5 years
At least try to get your story straight. And a high muscle mass at 5'7 and 110lbs. Nope.
You went wrong on this troll by embellishing too much. You lost track of the story.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Help me understand, so this is a conspiracy? All of us here who are maintaining at under 2000 calories, are misguided and it is a figment of our imagination that we are maintaining and doing well, and are happy and satisfied with the results?
No, there is no conspiracy. Its just a failure to make public new findings about how many calories it takes to maintain body weight.
And again...this is variable. There isn't a set, one size fits all number here. The reasons you needed to consume less to maintain (even at a "healthy" BMI) is because you were smaller...the smaller you are, the less calories are required to maintain weight. I require fewer calories to maintain my weight now than when I was obese...because I'm smaller and I don't have to support all that fat.
What you're basically talking about is that you don't mind being a bit overweight and being a bit overweight allows you to consume more to maintain...because you're bigger. This is one of the reasons I'm very comfortable just being around 15-16% BF...I can simply eat more than I could if I wanted to maintain a BF% of 10-12%. This is simply a matter of consuming calories in an appropriate quantity for your particular stats and activity level...there is no one size fits all magical number.
It would also be helpful if people had a better understanding of the BMI range...140 Lbs is on the low end of the scale for me...and while that number is technically in the "healthy" range it would be inappropriate for me given my bone structure and muscle mass...I would have to do a lot of very unhealthy things to get to that number and I would definitely be very sick for it...
Conversely, I'm @ 15/16/17% BF (somewhere in there) and around 185 - 190 Lbs..totally healthy BF%, just slightly overweight by BMI...I don't worry about it though...there's a reason BMI is a big range...it doesn't mean every number within that range is an appropriate weight for a particular individual; there are other variables.
0 -
At least try to get your story straight. And a high muscle mass at 5'7 and 110lbs. Nope.
You went wrong on this troll by embellishing too much. You lost track of the story.
Keeping track of all the mistruths is so difficult, but I hear it burns LOTS of calories (I read this in some secret, hidden from the public, conspiracy blog that I can't link to now). I guess that's why OP must have 2000+ calories to maintain.0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »At least try to get your story straight. And a high muscle mass at 5'7 and 110lbs. Nope.
You went wrong on this troll by embellishing too much. You lost track of the story.
keeping track of all the mistruths is so difficult
I suggest an notebook and of course keeping it simple.0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »At least try to get your story straight. And a high muscle mass at 5'7 and 110lbs. Nope.
You went wrong on this troll by embellishing too much. You lost track of the story.
Keeping track of all the mistruths is so difficult, but I hear it burns LOTS of calories (I read this in some secret, hidden from the public, conspiracy blog that I can't link to now). I guess that's why OP must have 2000+ calories to maintain.
Lol. Love the edit.0 -
in trying to figure out my tdee with trial and error of eating, i'm starting to think it might actually be close to 2000. not sure yet though.0
-
petrinasupler wrote: »I'm 5'5" and I'm sitting for at least 11 hours a day between my job and commute. If I miss a workout day, which is often, I generally only have time to workout 3-4 days a week, then I'm often stuffed full with my 1200 calories and will steadily gain. I have a hard time waking up even if I just eat a small salad after 7pm. I'm pretty sure I have like the slowest metabolism on Earth, but I don't see it as a problem, that just means when I eat I can wait longer than most before I'm hungry again.
I've read "Eat to Live" by Joel Thurman and he goes in to detail about differing metabolisms and how have a slow one isn't bad at all if you recognize it and plan accordingly.FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »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.
Thank you so much! How old are you? Did you have to diet to get to your current weight? If so how long did that take?
0 -
Okay. I think I'm getting this now. Let's summarize:
OP: "People are mislead by the FDA. They think can only maintain on a paltry 1500 calories, but really they can maintain on 2000+ because of this new research I read but will not share." (ignores height, weight, muscle mass, activity level, age, gender.)
MFPer; "Uh, I maintain my preferred weight on 1700. If I ate 2000 I would be at a 300 cal surplus and gain weight. If I maintained at 2000 then that's what I would eat. But I don't. I maintain at 1700. Because of science."
OP: "YOU ARE MISLEAD. YOU SHOULD BE MAINTAINING ON 2000 OTHERWISE ITS UNHEALTHY."
MFPer: "IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR MY BODY TO MAINTAIN ON 2000 UNLESS I CHOOSE TO BE OVERWEIGHT"
OP: Then you should choose to be as overweight as it takes for you to eat over 2000. I do that and I prefer being 5-10lbs overweight.
MFPer: I am 5'3". I would be clinically obese if I did that. You are 5'7" its not the same.
OP: You poor thing so deprived of calories. Thanks for your comment sweetie, I wish you health and happiness.
squirrelzzrule: headdesk.
This makes my brain hurt so much. How is OP not understanding?? If you eat more than maintenance calories you gain weight. It doesn't take a study to tell you that. All it takes is eating a certain amount and seeing how your individual body responds. This whole discussion is beyond irritating!-1 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
You make wild claims ... then fail to back them up. It is laughable. Honestly, you started with a flawed premise that 2000 calories is a deficit and unraveled from there.
No, I don't think so, I have honestly read this. I didnt actually start by saying 2000 is a deficit, did I?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »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?
I don't think MFP and CC are the bad guys. Its those higher commitees in the government that set and publicize the status on what is healthy bmi, proper caloric intake etc.
MFP is just going with that government status of these things and I just said I thought they (mfp and cc) know that the newer more accurate caloric intakes for specific weight info is out there. But what can they do? fly in the face of the FDA and WHO? not likely. those guys are like gods, the FDA and the WHO I mean.
why am I a member? its an easy way to track my calories, because I am susceptible to overestimate my calories, and I need to keep my calorie level up over 2300. Sometimes I slip down under that. I don't always count calories, but from time to time I find it helpful because my imagination will come into play and I don't really know how much I'm eating. I tend to enjoy eating and I eat for different reasons at different times. If I change eating certain things its always good to check for a few days to get an idea for sure I'm at least at 2300 or averaging that over a few days anyway.
Thanks for asking, that was a good opportunity to make clear something that was murky in my earlier post! thanks again.
Where is this info - you still haven't posted ANYTHING that backs your claims.
yeah, I alreddy coverd that above and u wont fet it out of me either. you can google it and probly come up with even better results than I could quoting someone who is in the field.
You make wild claims ... then fail to back them up. It is laughable. Honestly, you started with a flawed premise that 2000 calories is a deficit and unraveled from there.
No, I don't think so, I have honestly read this. I didnt actually start by saying 2000 is a deficit, did I?
Where?
Unless you provide a link you will forever be a troll.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