So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
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 -
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: »
keeping track of all the mistruths is so difficult
I suggest an notebook and of course keeping it simple.0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »
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.
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: »
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 -
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 -
No, I don't think so, I have honestly read this. I didnt actually start by saying 2000 is a deficit, did I?
Your very first reply after the initial post (at which point nobody else had even replied yet):Since all body functions need calories to function optimally, how long, how many years, are you willing to go on with a deficit of caloric intake to maintain your weight loss?0 -
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.
with only 500-800 calories a day, of course you were having health problems and your hair was falling out. that's a lot lower than 2000 calories a day and can't even be compared to it.0 -
I mean that there are some very smart people out there studying the effects of dieting and not just dieting to extremes, but dieting as in what MFP suggests is normal calorie deficit.Iron_Feline wrote: »
It can cause metabolism shifts that can't be changed easily if dieting is prolonged.
So many people here have said maintaining is difficult, some have to increease excersize and lower their calories in order to maintain once they stop restricting. its not a happy cycle to get into.
Any ideas on how that could be avoided for the people here? Other than lifting more and more and lowering calories more and more, running longer distances?
Just asking because of course one way would be to bump up calories and regain to a natural bmi set point, wouldnt it?
0 -
No, I don't think so, I have honestly read this. I didnt actually start by saying 2000 is a deficit, did I?
Let's look at the second post in this flawed thread ....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?
You've reached the point where you can't keep your story straight ... you refuse to post a link to the alleged research you claim to read ... you've failed to present a solid logical or factual basis for your position.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
Regarding the bold
So you never dieted or restricted cals except when you did severely for 5 years.
You said
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.
no, you assumed I meant my muscle mass was good when I restricted, I dont know if it was, but its good now and always was before that.
the only dieting I did was in after menopause, and my underweight status was for about five years total. I don't see where this is contradictory.
0 -
P.S. what is a troll?
no, you assumed I meant my muscle mass was good when I restricted, I dont know if it was, but its good now and always was before that.
the only dieting I did was in after menopause, and my underweight status was for about five years total. I don't see where this is contradictory.
0 -
no, you assumed I meant my muscle mass was good when I restricted, I dont know if it was, but its good now and always was before that.
the only dieting I did was in after menopause, and my underweight status was for about five years total. I don't see where this is contradictory.
You don't see where claiming you've never dieted then admitting to dieting are contradictory?0 -
I've been on a 1200 calorie for several years and plan on staying there! Everyone is different though!0
-
I mean that there are some very smart people out there studying the effects of dieting and not just dieting to extremes, but dieting as in what MFP suggests is normal calorie deficit.
It can cause metabolism shifts that can't be changed easily if dieting is prolonged.
So many people here have said maintaining is difficult, some have to increease excersize and lower their calories in order to maintain once they stop restricting. its not a happy cycle to get into.
Any ideas on how that could be avoided for the people here? Other than lifting more and more and lowering calories more and more, running longer distances?
Just asking because of course one way would be to bump up calories and regain to a natural bmi set point, wouldnt it?
I'm not answering your questions until you name one person, source or study that backs your claim.
One article.0 -
Wow, thanks so much, that puts some sense to how that happened. I'm happy that healthy size is not a resricted and narrow lane. I see people in my family who have always been on large side and were actually healthy before they dieted, then became unhealthy. They didnt diet to extremes either. It seemed to me they were probably at the high part of normal or low over weight, and then dieting didn't agree with them, it set them on a path of obsessing on their weight and food and then later they gained more weight and did become unhealthy.cwolfman13 wrote: »
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 -
Um, in.
And if someone is in research and is afraid of defending their research, they should change careers. Science exists because people put forth ideas and others challenge them or confirm them.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
Regarding the bold
So you never dieted or restricted cals except when you did severely for 5 years.
You said
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.
when I was around 55 or 56 years old I started a diet that led me into severe restriction, I,then tried to maintain my low weight at what I thought at the time was a normal amount, 1200 to 1400. it didnt work long, as I had to keep increasing my amount of excersize and lower and lower calorie intake to the point where I was eating 500 to 800 a day only. I agree with you, miscle easting on low calorie maintenance is comman.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
I suggest an notebook and of course keeping it simple.
I used so many food joiurnals while restricting, no thanks. My memory may not be as quick as you, but I still can carry on a decent conversation youngun'!
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »
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.
I don't think it's the fact that she was underweight. I think it was the fact that she had to eat 500-800 calories in order to maintain that. Some people can be perfectly healthy at a low weight. Sounds like she isn't one of them.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »
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.
I dont even know what MFP would have me eating! I accept your NO! Thanks for letting me know this though, makes it real.
0 -
when I was around 55 or 56 years old I started a diet that led me into severe restriction, I,then tried to maintain my low weight at what I thought at the time was a normal amount, 1200 to 1400. it didnt work long, as I had to keep increasing my amount of excersize and lower and lower calorie intake to the point where I was eating 500 to 800 a day only. I agree with you, miscle easting on low calorie maintenance is comman.
You think you maintained on under 800? The lies keep getting more ridiculous.
0 -
I mean that there are some very smart people out there studying the effects of dieting and not just dieting to extremes, but dieting as in what MFP suggests is normal calorie deficit.
It can cause metabolism shifts that can't be changed easily if dieting is prolonged.
So many people here have said maintaining is difficult, some have to increease excersize and lower their calories in order to maintain once they stop restricting. its not a happy cycle to get into.
Any ideas on how that could be avoided for the people here? Other than lifting more and more and lowering calories more and more, running longer distances?
Just asking because of course one way would be to bump up calories and regain to a natural bmi set point, wouldnt it?
I'd find maintaining to be pretty easy if I could figure out how to stop losing weight first.0 -
OP, is sounds like you can't quite come to terms with the fact that eating how ever much you want is not in the way this works. It sounds like you're unhappy with the fact that not all bodies need as many calories as perhaps you wish to eat in a day. Tough. You simply can't have it both ways: healthy weight and eat more calories than you need. Ain't gonna happen. If you get jealous of people who eat more than you, and need more calories to function than you, there's always therapy. Of course, no one's telling you can't choose to be overweight and eat more calories just to meet that 2000 mark, which is simply a nice round number chosen for the purpose of making comparable nutritional labels. Just watched a new documentary where researchers are starting to learn more about how two people exactly the same weight and height, but where one of whom was overweight and the other was never, don't have the same maintenance calories. The one who was once overweight will have lower maintenance than the one never over.0
-
Um, in.
And if someone is in research and is afraid of defending their research, they should change careers. Science exists because people put forth ideas and others challenge them or confirm them.
But the FDA and WHO are hiding it -- the poor researchers are probably living in fear. Because, well, I assume the USDA is ultimately responsible, as clearly they want to convince us all to eat LESS than we otherwise would.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions