1000 calorie diet for 2lb loss?

24

Replies

  • Jackie9950
    Jackie9950 Posts: 374 Member
    Please read... take to heart... good luck :)

    metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Because repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into truth.
  • myheartsabattleground
    myheartsabattleground Posts: 2,040 Member
    I seriously doubt that you're 30 years old.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Because repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into truth.

    How is what I said "nonsense"?
  • terar21
    terar21 Posts: 523 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    But seeing that OP's math (albeit off since she is basing off BMR) positions that she believes she can net 500 calories and be good to go, that's not really relevant to this situation. I'd say that's a wee bit different than someone going for 1200 net.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Yes, it is ultimately up to the OP. However, OP came here for advice, which she received plenty of. When people ask advice similar to OP's question, what do we suggest we tell them? "Well OP, looks like it's up to you. Go for it - hope you don't fail!" What would be the point of having a forum full of knowledgeable members if that's the only dialogue that took place?

    Also, CICO is completely science-based. Sustainability may be different for everyone, but for MOST people, eating a very low number of calories unnecessarily is not the best way to achieve long-term goals.

    Again, why would you want to restrict calories that low and risk losing more muscle mass than necessary if you don't have to?
  • helenlovesruby
    helenlovesruby Posts: 39 Member
    1000 calories isn't enough. you may not be able to sustain this calorie intake for any length of time. And wouldnt have enough energy to go about daily life let alone work out.
    I also worry that losing weight fast may lead to saggy skin, but I have no evidence for this theory. Good luck.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?

    One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick.

    Yep.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.

    But hey, nevermind! Just go superlow calorie because MFP conventional wisdom is wrongity wrong.

  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.

    But hey, nevermind! Just go superlow calorie because MFP conventional wisdom is wrongity wrong.

    I know right! We are always spouting nonsense, like sustainability and CICO. Shame on us.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    thats called arguing just to argue..

    I think ole zedy is just angry ….
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    Before you stop typing in reply to me being all angry take a second and look at this specific situation. First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick. The person has no idea how to calculate expenditure from the fact that she thinks 1500 is what at she burns daily. She then wants to limit her intake to 1000. Then she wants to burn an additional 500 while exercising. So think about it for a second, let's pretend what the OP though 1500 is really was like that. She would 1500 then eat 1000 then burn 500 more........net 500. Is that a good idea?

    You're not going to school me on the dangers of 1200 calories. One thing you won't find in my posts is where I randomly say someone must eat 1200 calories for before you lump me in with any particular group save your energy. Feel free to search through my posts for a time where I've told someone "you must eat 1200".

    Now is what her idea of netting 500 daily be wise?

    You raise some good points; in my replies I was reflecting on my own response to the OP, which said she should eat 1300 based on her own calculations which had an error (subbing BMR for TDEE). So my responses were based on my advice, but I can see how that wasn't a fair approach since everyone else would (rightly) be commenting on what she said, not what I said.

    On the other hand, I still don't think that it's terrible to eat your calories and not eat back exercise deficits. Is it unsustainable to net 500? Probably, yeah. But we're thinking beings, not robots. A person who is hungry and artificially creating a deficit will do what any thinking being would do, and eat more. There's a joke by the late comedian Mitch Hedberg that goes "If you have legs and are flammable, you're never blocking a fire exit." It's the same thing; if the OP tries for an unsustainable deficit they'll fail. But does failing necessarily mean going from net 500 to net 3000? If they go from net 500 to net 1500, is it still a total failure? I think a rational person would eat more until finding the point where they're no longer hungry, and then stop, and so I don't think it's dangerous per se to try it at the risk of failing.
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?

    One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.

    If you believe in CICO, why would you presume that she would ever plateau? Do you think that the poster could ever reach a TDEE of <1200? A pound of skeletal muscle adds about 13 calories per day to your maintenance needs. Losing lean mass doesn't make as drastic a difference as you seem to think it does.

    I certainly do see why not eating more is good, and it's obviously due to the rate of weight loss. Simply put, people are motivated by many things, but motivation has limits. Nobody - yes, I am speaking in absolutes - nobody maintains a strict calorie goal unfailingly forever. At some point, every diet fails. It should be everyone's goal to lose as much weight as possible (to a healthy goal) before reaching the point of failure. There is harm that comes from being overweight. If one can be less overweight for longer, you can limit that harm. One's goal should be the fastest, healthiest means to get to their goal weight. If you have the option of 1200 calories in a healthy way (which I gather is what you dispute) versus 1700 calories in an equally healthy, slower way, the net benefit is in doing it faster because you'll spend proportionally less time overweight.

    I understand that you would argue that the fast versus slow methods are not equally healthy, and I don't think that argument can be settled today, but at least I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.