So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Options
Replies
-
And on a less sarcastic note-- research science is cutthroat. It's the nature of the beast-- scientists love to debunk each other. I promise you, if a person is doing a lot of research they're coming up against much harsher skepticism than anything that's been in this thread. If the science is valid, the researcher would welcome the criticism.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.
It does sound this way.
I no longer get jealous of people who can eat whatever they want. I feel like as long as I'm sticking to my tdee, whatever that is, I'll be fine. If I need to be hungry in order to maintain a weight, then that's uncomfortable and not sustainable. This is assuming not being constantly hungry. I now see people who have to eat 3,000 calories in order to maintain and view it as more of a chore than anything else. I don't really feel envy of them.
I have a hard time eating up to my maintenance calories some days.
I have never been overweight before this and I ententionally raised my weight to bmi 26 to comply with what is regarded the most healthy weight for my age and stats, that is what my research on healthy weight ofpeople my age led to.
I havent actually been seeing too many people eating very high maintenance calories actually. Unless they excersize a lot, or are runners.
P.S. I'm not interested in weight loss or muscle building myself.
oh, i see. I would never ever do this since I don't believe your research. I'd rather look good in the normal bmi range. If the normal bmi range is in fact, not normal, they should officially make it higher. Until they do that, I will believe that the normal bmi range is in fact normal.
I understand your choice. I am at an age where from the papaers I have read bone density and muscle will be better at a bit more that normal bmi.
I understand you dont believe me. No rebuke here!
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
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.
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.
its hard to be healthy at a 16 to 17 bmi, and that is what it was for me. I felt ok and had tons of energy until the last few months. I didnt really know what I was doing to my body at the time.
16 or 17 is kind of low. I'd go with 18 being okay and could be healthy if the person is maintaining that weight with a decent calorie number. 500-800 calories is too low. If they are maintaining at 1500 calories, I'd go with okay. I'd been in the 18 bmi range for a while. Now down to the 17.5 bmi and trying to gain a few pounds back to 18. I never ate as little as you are though. I was probably eating 1300-1400 calories in order to get to a bmi of 17.5. I need to up it, but if I had been eating 500-800 calories, I think I would be dead now.
In the 18 bmi range, I never lost my hair. Still not losing hair at 17.5, but it makes me nervous.0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
That just reinforces the idea that you must be trolling.0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
what do you mean by "won't let you provide a link"? How does it stop you from doing that?0 -
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
0 -
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
Not necessary as it's clear you don't have said research.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »And on a less sarcastic note-- research science is cutthroat. It's the nature of the beast-- scientists love to debunk each other. I promise you, if a person is doing a lot of research they're coming up against much harsher skepticism than anything that's been in this thread. If the science is valid, the researcher would welcome the criticism.
Well, thanks.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
and thanks for this too?
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
what do you mean by "won't let you provide a link"? How does it stop you from doing that?
well, when I went to the top of the page on the second and third pages and tried to copy the links they wouldnt copy. Now I'm not that savy with computers and I'm on a ipad, an olde modle, but the info is on the halls vmi chart site, its just not on the first page and the links on that page are in red.
I am sorry I couldnt be more fast to respond, but I have obligations in my life and I have tried to be responsive to all the posters good enough to share their experience on the topics Threads i started.
sometimes I come back and there are new posts I have missed, I havent intentionally ignored anyone, its just sometimes difficult while I am making all these homecooked meals from fresh vegetqbles and keeping hous etc. Thanks for all the time you have spent on this, I know you arent happy with my input.
also, its getting late here as I am over in europe and the later in the day the harder I find being able to respnd at a high level.
0 -
PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
There are many people here that refute this through their personal experience. To take this as the only way for everyone is just ludicrous.
If you were eating 500-800 calories you were obviously eating very little and most experts would never advise people that this would be healthy long term, and many (if not most) would strongly advise against so few calories even short term.
You do understand that guidelines are general, don't you? It is not a finite amount. There are a lot of variables from person to person, and it can certainly vary greatly.
0 -
At 5"1", my TDEE (lightly active) is around 1800 calories. On completely sedentary days, it's 1324. That's with the Scooby calculation. There were years that I followed along blindly with the 2200 calories maintenance propoganda and gained. Right now I'm eating between 1200 and 1600 and am loosing slowly. I plan to maintain at about 1600, and workout about three to four days a week.0
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
You know, I'm sorry, I have spent more time on this device I'm holding here the last few days than in all my life. I tried to respond to everyone, but its been a lot! I will go back in the posts and resond to yours now.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I have the super secret research proving that everyone needs to eat a pint of Talenti gelato every week in order to maintain body functions. It's completely unhealthy to do anything else. I mean, I'm not going to post it because the researcher needs to be protected from big bad internet people like all of you. But you can google for yourself. The truth is out there.
I'm sorry Lift heqvy acrylics if I have rbuked you.
I hope your healthy and happy!:-)
So when I was posting legit questions and well-thought-out responses you couldn't be bothered to answer, but this is the post to which you choose to respond?
Not necessary as it's clear you don't have said research.
did you find the articles on the halls site?
0 -
As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
Wait, which one is it? Are you refusing to cite your source, or do you not have time to find your citation? Those two posts were 14 minutes apart, and you've already changed your story (which, btw, is why nobody believes you - everything you say is inconsistent)0 -
She probably meant this study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext
which found people in the higher end of healthy BMI (22.5–25) have lower mortality. Not a single study anywhere states that obese people live longer like OP claimed in some of her posts. Every single study of the kind found that obesity increases mortality, and that it gets consistently higher the higher the obesity grade. As for the overweight (not obese), the results are mixed, but they fare better than the obese and underweight.
Just for the record, I currently maintain at 2000 (tested and true, without any studies telling me anything), and my BMI is 35.5 (obese).0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »PixieGoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
See, the bolded is actually pretty interesting. And if that is what OP had started this thread to say, I would have been totally receptive.
That is adaptive thermogenesis, and there are a lot of research articles on it. And I agree, that would have been a valid discussion.
For more on adaptive thermogenesis:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
What are you doing?!? You can't just PROVIDE LINKS!!! We need to use Google to find the ultimate truths, or else we might bash the findings you post here that you found via Google!! THE TRUTH MUST BE FOUND BY GOOGLE!!!! IT CANNOT BE PROVIDED!!
Ok, I'm done.
I wish I culd provide links, but the Halls site, wont let me provide a link, you would have to go to the site and click on some of the links until you find the graphs and where he shows articals, scientific ones that say bmi over normal is healthier for people over 50. As for the 2000 calories being a sort of bottom marker for maintnance, I read a paper by a woman who sited a very important research on how caloire i take had been set up and that its been proved to be 500 higher actually, but this hasnt filtered down to be public. I apologize for not being able to say who that person is, but I am not going to. If this negates all my opinions and my ideas, please tell me.
It does.
Also I've been googling for half an hour because I'm home with a stomach bug and I've found no such research. So it doubly does, as far as I'm concerned.
did you go to the halls bmi chart site? its on there, but you must use the red highlighted links to find the papers and graphs. As far as the 2000 calories thing I thought you should be able to just google something like 'I need how many calories ? or something similar. I just havent had the time to search them myself. I apologize.
I'm only interested in the bit about the 2000 calories, so that's what I've been searching. I did put it into google, and into sciencebasedmedicine.org, and into the Cochran Summaries, and a few other sites where I go for research.
I thought you weren't posting them because we're all big mean bullies who might . . . what? Harass the scientists?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions