to eat 1200 calories or not.....

2»

Replies

  • M30834134
    M30834134 Posts: 411 Member
    sheldonklein wrote: »
    This thread is a disgrace. OP: Adaptive Thermogenesis does not remotely mean what numerous posters say it means. You are eating far more than you think you are. Log accurately. Be honest with yourself.

    Would you, please, enlighten us (no sarcasm). I sincerely would like to know and read your references.

    Thank you.
  • MarziPanda95
    MarziPanda95 Posts: 1,326 Member
    MasterVal wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    We have no evidence that adaptive thermogenesis is an issue in this case.

    I agree with you @lemurcat12, that there is not enough information for that conclusion. But the facts OP indicated do not exclude that possibility. I think I wouldn't be out of line reiterating one more time that for a person weighing 202lb 1200 calories while being relatively active is just way too low and would neither be sustainable or healthy. I could've worded my initial reply a bit clearer to show that AT was just possibility and not OP's state.

    She would have to have been undereating for many months or even a year or two to have adaptive thermogenesis - it's pretty clear in OPs statement that this is not the case especially as with months of undereating in the first place she WOULD have lost weight. OP isn't even undereating, let alone starving herself to the extent seen during the Minnesota experiment - she's still eating 1300-1450. Even if adaptive thermogenesis were a factor, she'd still be losing on 1300-1450 because she's active.
    I don't think AT is even a remote possibility. She's underestimating her intake, or she has a thyroid problem.
  • nikiwill77
    nikiwill77 Posts: 3 Member
    Thank you guys for your input rather right or wrong, thanks for the input. We're brainstorming and your advice is welcomed. I'll be back with more questions if this weighing my food isn't working.....
  • beastmode2718
    beastmode2718 Posts: 108 Member
    I only wanted to loose 10 lbs but I am also 5' 4" and eat 1200 and I'm not loosing anymore. I was doing fine at 1500 but I got impatient and I find it so hard to eat 1200 I keep binging and gaining back loosing gaining back. So maybe set it to 1 lb a week and bump up your cardio. Just a suggestion if your like me and cheat a lot. I had to buy a food scale to keep myself from eating too large of portions as well
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    beastmode2718 wrote: »
    I only wanted to loose 10 lbs but I am also 5' 4" and eat 1200 and I'm not loosing anymore. I was doing fine at 1500 but I got impatient and I find it so hard to eat 1200 I keep binging and gaining back loosing gaining back. So maybe set it to 1 lb a week and bump up your cardio. Just a suggestion if your like me and cheat a lot. I had to buy a food scale to keep myself from eating too large of portions as well

    go back to 1500 if that was working for you. Why would you keep trying to stay at 1200 if you're having problems with binging? You're only trying to lose 10 pounds, so you shouldn't be trying to lose more than 1 pound per week at the very most, if not only 1/2 lb. Otherwise you'll have problems trying to move into maintenance. Go back to 1500, get your binging under control, get close to your goal weight, and get ready for maintenance.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories