Calories - How important is it?

Can you open your diary?

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

If you've only eaten 672 calories and you aren't hungry, it's likely that your logging is wildly inaccurate. Did you actually weigh the portions of everything you ate?

This.

And also a common thing I see when people start trying to lose weight is the "dieting" mentality. Most people go from one extreme, eating too many calories, to severly restricting. They cut all foods they consider "bad" which usually means higher calorie foods and eat a lot of low calorie, low fat food. Calorie dense food does not always mean "unhealthy".
A day or two here and there of being under won't hurt you but if you are consistently under you need to take a close look at why. Eating too few calories isn't good. Neither is inaccurate logging.

If you've lost 4-5lbs since 22nd Feb then that's probably a few lbs water weight and around an acceptable lb a week since? If this the case then you probably aren't eating as low as you think and you need a scale to log more accurately. It is important to eat your calories as otherwise your body will use muscle for fuel and this contradicts your aims.

LauraJaneCast wrote: »

No I don't. It may look odd the portion I had today for dinner, because well... it was nasty. Couldn't eat more.

Warning- your about to get replies saying if you don't use a scale it will be inaccurate logging

LauraJaneCast wrote: »

=The only main meal I eat everyday is dinner. I wake up like 5pm and eat dinner and then just pick for the rest of the night. .

LauraJaneCast wrote: »

No I don't. It may look odd the portion I had today for dinner, because well... it was nasty. Couldn't eat more.

Hi Laura,

Welcome! I viewed one day of your diary and your food are all just generic entries, which indeed shows you don't weigh your food. The only way to know how much you're really eating is to weigh your food because or eyeballs and measuring devices often lie to us about the true calorie content of food.

The other thing you said is you eat dinner only and just pick for the rest of the night. Those calories can add up pretty quickly.

The fact that you don't weigh your food and you pick after dinner, my guess is you are eating more than you think you are (that does not mean you're lying, it just means you are not estimating correctly ). In any event, if you continue in this manner and are losing weight, then obviously everything is working and there is no reason to change anything. However, if you find yourself not losing weight, the first place you need to look is your logging habits.

My $10 food scale was the best investment I ever made

Never say that your logging isn't inaccurate. Everyone's logging is inaccurate, but some are worse than others. Some people struggle with portion sizes, so they like to weigh everything. But there are other causes of inaccuracies. Incorrect calorie information is another cause. Food dehydration is another. Or just forgetting or not bothering to log something.

TimothyFish wrote: »

Never say that your logging isn't inaccurate. Everyone's logging is inaccurate, but some are worse than others. Some people struggle with portion sizes, so they like to weigh everything. But there are other causes of inaccuracies. Incorrect calorie information is another cause. Food dehydration is another. Or just forgetting or not bothering to log something.

Not bothering to log something? That sentence gave me chills! I think I'm addicted to logging!

food scales make a world of difference. you can easily over estimate a portion regardless of measuring cups. in some instances i found i was able to actually eat *more* of something because the scale & cup/portion sizes varied too much. once you get comfortable with seeing what a portion looks like on a scale you get pretty good at estimating correct portion sizes and don't have to be all fanatical. also i'm sure you might be underestimating your consumption, not lying. cus if you were undereating you wouldn't need to lose weight in the first place, right? getting a cheap scale would be a good idea, and set little alarms or a schedule out for eating if your appetite is weird. mine goes haywire often and it's hard to eat or i'll just graze. but if you log consistently and as accurately as you can and get enough calories in for healthy weight loss i'm sure you will be fine.

How important is it to meet your calorie goal? It's important. It's not the end of the world to be a few calories shy or over here and there, but it is important to get enough food to be healthy. I think it was pointed out already that with IBS it may be even more important for you since your body may not be efficiently using/getting the nutrition you put in it anyway.

I don't think I see your stats anywhere, so I don't know how many calories you should be eating, so for the sake of argument we'll say the 1300 you have set is sufficient. You are losing weight, so you are in some sort of a calorie deficit, however if you were truly eating what your diary says, you'd likely be losing at a much higher rate. The amount you are logging is very unhealthy and you won't make any progress to your goal of getting muscle with that....more likely you'll pass out and crack yourself in the head with a barbell on the calorie amounts you say you are eating. I suspect your count is a bit higher than you estimate given your losses aren't atrociously high so you may be eating a healthier amount than your diary says. To really know you'd have to accurately log....accurately meaning specific weights and correct entries. I slack off and log lazy on occasion, but I know when I do it may affect my bottom line...it happens, but for consistent progress, it is important to be conscientious about it most of the time.

Final thought from looking at your diary if you really are eating as little as you say....try more calorie dense foods. If you are having trouble reaching your calorie goal through amount of food, why eat low calorie options? Go for the high calorie, nutrient dense foods. I admit I don't know much about triggers for IBS, but I suspect there must be some more calorie dense food choices than you have indicated. Eating at the calorie levels you have logged will not result in anything healthy.

LauraJaneCast wrote: »

And no my logging isn't inaccurate, whats the point in lying? Serves no purpose and is pretty stupid.

Not lying but, looking at just your breakfast yesterday - 1 medium banana, 1 ham slice, 6 melba toasts - is not accurate logging. The calories in a 'medium' banana could vary wildly and ham slices and melba toasts vary in size as well, even when they are portioned out by the manufacturer.

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

If you've only eaten 672 calories and you aren't hungry, it's likely that your logging is wildly inaccurate. Did you actually weigh the portions of everything you ate?

That, or she's in denial. Plenty of women (and probably men) manage to convince themselves that they're full on a really low calorie intake. Either way, if it's truly 672 calories, it's not nearly enough no matter how "full" she is.