Calorie Goals
Options
Replies
-
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »If you have problems with meeting your calorie goals then back away from skinny food like skim milk, drink full instead. Butter and mayonnaise and skinny salad dressing...use the full versions!
Use a spoon of olive oil over you salads ( 120 calories for one spoon)
Eat more calorie dense food, avocado, almonds etc.
eat a cracker with 2 tablespoons of peanut-butter etc etc
You dont have to eat much, but you can make wiser choices.
Just terrible advice right here. Yeah, take your healthy plant-based diet and drink some butter just to get to a magical 1200 calorie number. Ugh.
They said if the OP is using fat free / low fat versions of items to keep calories low, to switch to full fat versions. Yeah 1200 is quite magical. Frankly I believe it's a start and the OP should aim for a bit higher
How do you know she eats a "healthy plant based diet"? Did she mention this somewhere? She doesn't have an open diary
And it's still terrible advice. The advice literally is "eat more fat just to consume more calories." Not "eat more fat to be more satisfied and happy" or "eat more fat because some fats have fat-soluble vitamins" or "eat more fats because HDL fats reduce heart disease." It was "eat more fat just to consume more calories."
Terrible advice. Is a bacon-fat diet what we consider healthy now? I am not advocating a low fat diet in any way, but the notion of everyone needing to force-feed empty calories to themselves just to reach an arbitrary target is absurd.
I don't know - is a bacon fat diet what we consider healthy now? Who said that?
So because she didn't write every reason fat is good for the body, does it stop all of that from being true? Have you read any of the stories from people who ate too low of calories over a long duration and came back telling us of their hair falling out and nails turning brittle - some unable to recover prior health even after increasing calories? Lethargy, etc? MFP does not support VLCD. If you have a problem with that, maybe sort it out with the admin. She posted here asking for advice. Increase the calories is indeed what she's being told. It's great, phenomenal, fantastic advice.
0 -
So because she didn't write every reason fat is good for the body, does it stop all of that from being true? Have you read any of the stories from people who ate too low of calories over a long duration and came back telling us of their hair falling out and nails turning brittle - some unable to recover prior health even after increasing calories? Lethargy, etc? MFP does not support VLCD. If you have a problem with that, maybe sort it out with the admin. She posted here asking for advice. Increase the calories is indeed what she's being told. It's great, phenomenal, fantastic advice.
It's only good advice if you believe it's a real problem, which it isn't.
"My calories are too low, what should I do?" "Eat more calories."
The problem with the answer - of course it is literally true that more calories is the solution to too few calories - is that too few calories isn't really a conceivable problem for most people.
For starters, the OP has been endlessly trying fad diets for weeks. If any of them were working she'd stop searching for new advice. The definition of "working" in this case means weight loss, which allows us to reasonable deduce that the OP is not wasting away on a starvation diet. So is she REALLY eating 900 calories per day? It seems highly unlikely.
Second, nobody here ever can explain why they think that 1200 calories is so important. At 1150 you'd waste away and die but at 1200 you'd thrive is the usual implication, without any rhyme or reason.
Certainly people try to give explanations, but they're all crap.
"You don't get enough nutrients to sustain you body eating that little." Maybe so, but calories aren't measures of nutrition, they are measures of energy. If I ate 1500 calories of white sugar, is that healthier than 900 calories of vegetables? Obviously not, so why the fixation on calories when nutrition is actually what we care about?
"You shouldn't eat below your BMR." Nobody has ever been able to cite a consequence of doing so, but their friend's brother's aunt told them not to, so you shouldn't either.
"Your hair might fall out!" Okay, maybe it could if your in a deep deficit for a long time. But any reasonable person who is rapidly balding because of their elective and easily modifiable dietary restrictions would simply adjust the diet. It's not asking too much to presume that the living, breathing people we're conversing with are reasonable, is it?
So what reason IS there to always stay above 1200? Because without a compelling reason, it's hard to agree with you that eating empty calories for the sake of getting to 1200 is good advice.0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »If you have problems with meeting your calorie goals then back away from skinny food like skim milk, drink full instead. Butter and mayonnaise and skinny salad dressing...use the full versions!
Use a spoon of olive oil over you salads ( 120 calories for one spoon)
Eat more calorie dense food, avocado, almonds etc.
eat a cracker with 2 tablespoons of peanut-butter etc etc
You dont have to eat much, but you can make wiser choices.
Just terrible advice right here. Yeah, take your healthy plant-based diet and drink some butter just to get to a magical 1200 calorie number. Ugh.
They said if the OP is using fat free / low fat versions of items to keep calories low, to switch to full fat versions. Yeah 1200 is quite magical. Frankly I believe it's a start and the OP should aim for a bit higher
How do you know she eats a "healthy plant based diet"? Did she mention this somewhere? She doesn't have an open diary
And it's still terrible advice. The advice literally is "eat more fat just to consume more calories." Not "eat more fat to be more satisfied and happy" or "eat more fat because some fats have fat-soluble vitamins" or "eat more fats because HDL fats reduce heart disease." It was "eat more fat just to consume more calories."
Terrible advice. Is a bacon-fat diet what we consider healthy now? I am not advocating a low fat diet in any way, but the notion of everyone needing to force-feed empty calories to themselves just to reach an arbitrary target is absurd.
So if someone is truly having trouble meeting their calorie goal, telling them to eat more calorie dense foods is terrible advice? You've lost me there. It's called a goal because you're supposed to meet it. In this case, I have to agree with Janei and others in that there is no way the OP is logging accurately.0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »If you have problems with meeting your calorie goals then back away from skinny food like skim milk, drink full instead. Butter and mayonnaise and skinny salad dressing...use the full versions!
Use a spoon of olive oil over you salads ( 120 calories for one spoon)
Eat more calorie dense food, avocado, almonds etc.
eat a cracker with 2 tablespoons of peanut-butter etc etc
You dont have to eat much, but you can make wiser choices.
Just terrible advice right here. Yeah, take your healthy plant-based diet and drink some butter just to get to a magical 1200 calorie number. Ugh.
They said if the OP is using fat free / low fat versions of items to keep calories low, to switch to full fat versions. Yeah 1200 is quite magical. Frankly I believe it's a start and the OP should aim for a bit higher
How do you know she eats a "healthy plant based diet"? Did she mention this somewhere? She doesn't have an open diary
And it's still terrible advice. The advice literally is "eat more fat just to consume more calories." Not "eat more fat to be more satisfied and happy" or "eat more fat because some fats have fat-soluble vitamins" or "eat more fats because HDL fats reduce heart disease." It was "eat more fat just to consume more calories."
Terrible advice. Is a bacon-fat diet what we consider healthy now? I am not advocating a low fat diet in any way, but the notion of everyone needing to force-feed empty calories to themselves just to reach an arbitrary target is absurd.
So if someone is truly having trouble meeting their calorie goal, telling them to eat more calorie dense foods is terrible advice? You've lost me there. It's called a goal because you're supposed to meet it. In this case, I have to agree with Janei and others in that there is no way the OP is logging accurately.
This is just another fad diet if that's the case. We are rational, thinking people, and you should do things because there's a reason, not because somebody told you to. Just because "that's the goal" isn't a good reason to do it. That's the same logic used by people who do lemon cleanses and juice detoxes and all that other crap. If anyone can describe a consequence of eating below 1200 I'm all ears.
I do agree with you though that this particular OP is probably not being honest.0 -
So because she didn't write every reason fat is good for the body, does it stop all of that from being true? Have you read any of the stories from people who ate too low of calories over a long duration and came back telling us of their hair falling out and nails turning brittle - some unable to recover prior health even after increasing calories? Lethargy, etc? MFP does not support VLCD. If you have a problem with that, maybe sort it out with the admin. She posted here asking for advice. Increase the calories is indeed what she's being told. It's great, phenomenal, fantastic advice.
It's only good advice if you believe it's a real problem, which it isn't.
"My calories are too low, what should I do?" "Eat more calories."
The problem with the answer - of course it is literally true that more calories is the solution to too few calories - is that too few calories isn't really a conceivable problem for most people.
For starters, the OP has been endlessly trying fad diets for weeks. If any of them were working she'd stop searching for new advice. The definition of "working" in this case means weight loss, which allows us to reasonable deduce that the OP is not wasting away on a starvation diet. So is she REALLY eating 900 calories per day? It seems highly unlikely.
Second, nobody here ever can explain why they think that 1200 calories is so important. At 1150 you'd waste away and die but at 1200 you'd thrive is the usual implication, without any rhyme or reason.
Certainly people try to give explanations, but they're all crap.
"You don't get enough nutrients to sustain you body eating that little." Maybe so, but calories aren't measures of nutrition, they are measures of energy. If I ate 1500 calories of white sugar, is that healthier than 900 calories of vegetables? Obviously not, so why the fixation on calories when nutrition is actually what we care about?
"You shouldn't eat below your BMR." Nobody has ever been able to cite a consequence of doing so, but their friend's brother's aunt told them not to, so you shouldn't either.
"Your hair might fall out!" Okay, maybe it could if your in a deep deficit for a long time. But any reasonable person who is rapidly balding because of their elective and easily modifiable dietary restrictions would simply adjust the diet. It's not asking too much to presume that the living, breathing people we're conversing with are reasonable, is it?
So what reason IS there to always stay above 1200? Because without a compelling reason, it's hard to agree with you that eating empty calories for the sake of getting to 1200 is good advice.
All of this has been covered for the benefit of the OP. Coming in and saying "Ugh" due to some chip on your shoulder, well - good luck with that. If the OP has follow up questions I'm sure we'll do our best to answer them. Sayonara
0 -
It's not a "chip on my shoulder" it's a disagreement in principle. This is a discussion forum made explicitly for the purposes of discussing opinions. I would put forth that I am here for exactly the right reasons.0
-
It's not a "chip on my shoulder" it's a disagreement in principle. This is a discussion forum made explicitly for the purposes of discussing opinions. I would put forth that I am here for exactly the right reasons.
If you would like to invite discussion, you should try to be a bit less rude and more constructive. I know, shocking concept on MFP
0 -
Rudeness and wrongness are not synonyms. I am at ease with the former and not with the latter. I am certainly NOT shocked, however, by the utter failure of anyone to answer the question: what harm is expected to come to those not meeting a 1200 calorie goal?0
-
Rudeness and wrongness are not synonyms. I am at ease with the former and not with the latter. I am certainly NOT shocked, however, by the utter failure of anyone to answer the question: what harm is expected to come to those not meeting a 1200 calorie goal?
If it were working so well for you, maybe you'd have your answers by now
0 -
Rudeness and wrongness are not synonyms. I am at ease with the former and not with the latter. I am certainly NOT shocked, however, by the utter failure of anyone to answer the question: what harm is expected to come to those not meeting a 1200 calorie goal?
You're the only one in this thread who seems to be fixated on the 1200 number. I've only seen one other person even mention it. I can bet most of us would recommend her to eat a number significantly higher than that. So yes, in that case the number does mean something and it is a goal for a reason based on your body composition and weight loss/maintenance/gain goals, not just an arbitrary "safety" number, which no one is arguing but you seem to be stuck on.0 -
Rudeness and wrongness are not synonyms. I am at ease with the former and not with the latter. I am certainly NOT shocked, however, by the utter failure of anyone to answer the question: what harm is expected to come to those not meeting a 1200 calorie goal?
Question: assuming OP really is eating 900 calories (which I think is unlikely), do you think that is sufficient?
0 -
Rudeness and wrongness are not synonyms. I am at ease with the former and not with the latter. I am certainly NOT shocked, however, by the utter failure of anyone to answer the question: what harm is expected to come to those not meeting a 1200 calorie goal?
I see you're using nothing more than hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum. Those are not substitutes for logic and fact.
1200 is a generality set by numerous health organizations based on how many calories it takes for the average woman to hit minimum nutrition levels. Unless short, frail, very inactive ... the rule holds true. For this OP at age 19, overweight (both according to her profile) ... 900 is far below the intake level needed to meet basic nutritional needs.-1 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »If you have problems with meeting your calorie goals then back away from skinny food like skim milk, drink full instead. Butter and mayonnaise and skinny salad dressing...use the full versions!
Use a spoon of olive oil over you salads ( 120 calories for one spoon)
Eat more calorie dense food, avocado, almonds etc.
eat a cracker with 2 tablespoons of peanut-butter etc etc
You dont have to eat much, but you can make wiser choices.
Just terrible advice right here. Yeah, take your healthy plant-based diet and drink some butter just to get to a magical 1200 calorie number. Ugh.
They said if the OP is using fat free / low fat versions of items to keep calories low, to switch to full fat versions. Yeah 1200 is quite magical. Frankly I believe it's a start and the OP should aim for a bit higher
How do you know she eats a "healthy plant based diet"? Did she mention this somewhere? She doesn't have an open diary
And it's still terrible advice. The advice literally is "eat more fat just to consume more calories." Not "eat more fat to be more satisfied and happy" or "eat more fat because some fats have fat-soluble vitamins" or "eat more fats because HDL fats reduce heart disease." It was "eat more fat just to consume more calories."
Terrible advice. Is a bacon-fat diet what we consider healthy now? I am not advocating a low fat diet in any way, but the notion of everyone needing to force-feed empty calories to themselves just to reach an arbitrary target is absurd.
I don't know - is a bacon fat diet what we consider healthy now? Who said that?
So because she didn't write every reason fat is good for the body, does it stop all of that from being true? Have you read any of the stories from people who ate too low of calories over a long duration and came back telling us of their hair falling out and nails turning brittle - some unable to recover prior health even after increasing calories? Lethargy, etc? MFP does not support VLCD. If you have a problem with that, maybe sort it out with the admin. She posted here asking for advice. Increase the calories is indeed what she's being told. It's great, phenomenal, fantastic advice.
I love veg, no doubt, but I like to have loads of veg sometimes w/ full fat dressings/or a low cal dressing and extra full fat parmasean, I love full fat mayo on broccoli or salad with vinegar. The fat adds more calories as well, but it tastes better, i'm fuller longer, (bathroom trips are more pleasant)..etc. A BLT is not the same without real whole fat mayo and bacon (2 slices does the trick + 1 Tbs full fat mayo). So long is it fits calorie goals. I love these topics, because I still am learning how much I should be eating and will find out with time and reading what others say. Fat is very important, of course in moderation and with the amount of calories she may be consuming (if really as low as was written), some full fat could be added w/o hindering her progress. I would think, so I agree (I hope I made sense 0 -
It depends what type of diet you are doing. If it's a ketogenic diet (where the body is light on carbs) that would be plenty of calories (as the balance of your calories to meet your metabolic need would be met from your body's own fat stores), but in a balanced diet it is too few calories. Ketosis also eliminates the hunger response so you do feel satisfied on fewer calories. It can be very effective for weight loss/maintenance, but you do need to be aware of the drawbacks and pitfalls of a long term keto-diet.
I suspect that you have eliminated a food group - fats or carbs (or pruned them back quite severely) for your calories to be that low. Try adding in some nuts, sweet potato, brown rice if you are worried about getting too many carbs. These all have fiber to offset the higher carbs so ultimately it will help you, rather than hinder you.
Best of luck. Remember that health is at the top of your eating priorities and make sure you are eating enough for your body's needs.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »If you have problems with meeting your calorie goals then back away from skinny food like skim milk, drink full instead. Butter and mayonnaise and skinny salad dressing...use the full versions!
Use a spoon of olive oil over you salads ( 120 calories for one spoon)
Eat more calorie dense food, avocado, almonds etc.
eat a cracker with 2 tablespoons of peanut-butter etc etc
You dont have to eat much, but you can make wiser choices.
Just terrible advice right here. Yeah, take your healthy plant-based diet and drink some butter just to get to a magical 1200 calorie number. Ugh.
I dont see any unhealthy food in my advice
And no where i am saying something about a plant based diet.
Just said eat more dense calorie foods
Its just how you read that post and how far you want to take it out of context.
And i dont see anything wrong with bacon either. I am a firm believer in CICO and if it fits your calorie allowance.
And sometimes i am around the 1100 calories a day too. And than its very simple to eat a avocado or some nuts. Or eat yogurt with fruit or a piece of chicken whatever i like.
Since i went up in calories i dropped some "skinny" products and replaced them for more "full" products. Its as simple as that.
How ever you read it that i advice the OP a plant based diet is beyond me.
0 -
@diannethegeek gave the best answer. She supplied a list of calorie dense foods for the OP and she can choose options or research these options further to supply her diet with needed calories/nutrition.
Her answer is constructive and helpful.
0 -
ayannabayer wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ayannabayer wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I suspect she meant, vegetables have very few calories....
They new what I meant too. Some people just love to act in such a manner that is childish. Thank you for understanding.
Given that the myth that some vegetables have negative calories is still in circulation and you have shown a tendency to fall for fads, no, I don't think everyone knew what you meant.
When you wrote that vegetables literally had no calories, it is unfair to assert people are acting childish when they thought you meant that vegetables literally had no calories.
Since everyone is sooooo smart on here I figured they understand my silly comment referring to the topic. And that's why I asked the question. I keep adding more things to make my calories go up. But its often things I end up feeling like I don't need or shouldn't have eaten.
Your nutrition goals from MFP indicate what you need to have a balanced diet and meet at least some of your nutrients. They aren't all "maximums."
So to start, are you meeting your fat and protein goals? You aren't going to with just veggies (although presumably you are eating something else too). Many people, especially many younger women, seem to think that protein is not important and that fat is bad, so this is something to look at.
Eating all those veggies (from what you say--I can't see your diary), you should be doing well on potassium and fiber, but check and see. (If you are logging the veggies correctly, using the USDA entries, they will indicate potassium.)
There are also a range of other vitamins and minerals listed, look at those.
Beyond that, if you genuinely aren't eating more than 900, you aren't getting enough foods needed to fuel your activities. Without seeing what you are eating it's hard to make suggestions (although Diane's are great), but if you think there aren't foods that make sense to include in a healthy diet (and not things you feel like you don't need or shouldn't have eaten) that have calories that would make it easy to get above 900, then you are being too restrictive. You really don't want to get into a pattern like that--it will make it much harder for you going forward.
I don't really buy "too full on veggies," either, since I eat lots of veggies and have no problem eating 1850 calories. I do eat other things too, of course, since I meet my protein and fat goals and fuel my workouts with some fruit and starchy carbs (among other things).0 -
It depends what type of diet you are doing. If it's a ketogenic diet (where the body is light on carbs) that would be plenty of calories (as the balance of your calories to meet your metabolic need would be met from your body's own fat stores), but in a balanced diet it is too few calories.
This makes no sense. The body burns fat in either case.
Supplying nutrient needs (like adequate protein, iron, calcium, vitamins, potassium) is important in both cases, also.0 -
Especially important for a 19-year-old woman to get enough calcium. The body can continue to absorb calcium into the bone until your mid-to-late 20s. After that, you spend the rest of your life basically drawing from the stored calcium in your bones. If you don't get enough while you're young, you're at a very increased risk for osteoporosis later on.
http://healthfinder.gov/HealthTopics/Category/nutrition-and-physical-activity/nutrition/get-enough-calcium0 -
which planet do you live on where veggies have 'literally no calories'
Cause it ain't Earth.....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions