3 week weigh in - 20.8 lbs gone in 22 days! I'm stoked!
Options
Replies
-
vespiquenn wrote: »May I ask what your TDEE and BMR are? 20lbs is a lot in 3 weeks, even with doctor supervision. Although I'm not going to challenge the opinion of doctors, because clearly there is no point based on your above reply, but I just want to add that there have been doctors that offer patients dangerous options because they don't actually know what they're doing.
1200 just seems way too low at this point. It might be fine at first, but as time goes on, you are going to feel the effects. If you're eating below your BMR, your weightloss is going to cause damage to your organs, including heart, along with hair loss ect. Even at obese, you shouldn't really be losing more than 3lbs a week.
I suggest doing more research, look up TDEE if you haven't, and slow your rate down to a goal of 2lbs a week at the most. At the very least, this quick of weightloss can cause sagging skin, which may bounce back, but may need surgery.
I bid you good luck, and hope that you understand that us "Naysayers" do know what we are talking about.
Thank you for your concern and I applaud your confidence in being a "naysayer" as you put it.
Whether you choose to support someone or not support someone is your choice. That's what we all have, choices, and the way you choose to use yours is totally up to you, just as the way the recipient chooses to take into consideration your response is up to them. Aren't choices great!
I am well aware of TDEE and BMR (as I stated before, I'm an educated woman). My plan is based on numerous factors (which BMR/TDEE is/are included) as you can't just base yourself on one thing only! Too many variables in our bodies for that. And each person's body is different. If YOU choose to do that, that's "your choice" I would also suggest to you to do your own research on BMR (based solely on your response).
My organs ARE and WILL REMAIN fine. The chemical and elemental composition of my own personal body is not up for debate
My doctors are not quacks, and I totally trust their guidance.
I appreciate your response and truly wish you the best in your own personal journey. May God bless.0 -
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Hear Hear!!!!! There are even nay sayers on this forum. Excellent reply to this one! Congratulations on your weight loss and having found what works for you.
Thank you, I appreciate it and yes, it's great knowing that others take the time to know their own bodies. High five to you girl!Excellent OP. Knowing your body and finding a team of people you trust is crucial in this journey. It's great to hear others are so in touch with themselves and have the support they need for their journey. Keep inspiring others
Listed that in my previous posts above."AmandaGuitar wrote: »Can i ask where you came up with those specific numbers?
Great job!
And thank you, appreciate it!
0 -
What's your height and what was your starting weight?0
-
Good Job0
-
-
I freaking love everything about this post!0
-
vespiquenn wrote: »If you're eating below your BMR, your weightloss is going to cause damage to your organs, including heart, along with hair loss ect.
I'm not going to get in the middle of the specifics of this particular person, but I'm curious if you have a citation supporting your warning for an obese person eating under BMR, but above 1200. The citation should show evidence that their body will cannibalize organs (and cause hair loss) prior to using their substantial fat stores to make up the difference between caloric intake and BMR. If that's the case, then MFP is recommending a highly dangerous calorie intake for many, many people.
I'm also curious what you think about eating above BMR, but then exercising to an under BMR deficit? Does that result in the same negative health consequences? Why or why not? After all, the result is still fewer calories available for basic functions.
I have about 30-40 pounds to lose. My BMR is about 1900 with a 2400 sedentary TDEE. MFP's recommendation, set at sedentary and a 2 lbs weekly loss, is around 1680. Are you suggesting my organs and hair would be in imminent danger if I followed that plan?
0 -
Why are people saying 1200 is too low??
She is listening to her body and said she is happy that she isn't hungry or "starving herself"
I know you are trying to help (maybe?) but everyone is different!! Are any of your doctors or registered dietitians? Let her be. It's working for HER.
Congrats on your success!!!!!0 -
Why are people saying 1200 is too low??
She is listening to her body and said she is happy that she isn't hungry or "starving herself"
I know you are trying to help (maybe?) but everyone is different!! Are any of your doctors or registered dietitians? Let her be. It's working for HER.
Congrats on your success!!!!!
Aww snap
0 -
OutdoorCamoGirl wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »That's a great weight loss, and I hate to put a downer on it, but it is likely you are significantly under-eating for your current weight as you started with over 100lbs to lose.
While you are having big weight losses quickly they are not sustainable for the long term while you are under-eating for your weight. Such under eating will likely leave you feeling fatigued and possibly lead to binge eating when your body starts crying for the nutrition it needs to sustain it.
Thank you for your response and I appreciate your concern, but I AM and WILL BE fine.
My caloric goals and nutrition levels are SOLID and are at the perfect levels to "sustain" what my body needs/uses, including energy levels and nutrients. Binge eating is a state of mind, a reaction to an emotion. We all have emotions for one reason or another.
I'm listening to the words of my doctor(s), those who I know and trust, who also know(s) my history as well as adhering to my own research which I feel is important in understanding different aspects of the ways things work and affect our bodies.
I'm an educated woman (who knows my body and would never do anything to it that would harm it, barring that weight gain of course, which is a whole different story
) and do not just do things on a whim. Personal events in my life led to this weight gain, hence "my history" and this is the healthy way to remove this weight "for me". Weight loss should be individualized as not all bodies are the same, nor react in the same way. Each person must find the "healthy" way that works for them. Consulting your physician is a recommendation that I make. This app is only a tool to help reach your goal, to try and keep your dietary/fitness levels on track and is doing wonders for me.
I know that by posting this on the internet, there will always be those who will try to negate what people do (be the "downers" as you say), and I fully expect(ed) it
Now back to a wonderfully "healthy" day to us all!
And God bless all of you in your journeys
I think all that person was trying to say is that it is a massively unhealthy weight loss typically. The healthiest recommended weight loss is 2 lbs per week. They're perfectly right to be worried about you.0 -
ModernRock wrote: »vespiquenn wrote: »If you're eating below your BMR, your weightloss is going to cause damage to your organs, including heart, along with hair loss ect.
I'm not going to get in the middle of the specifics of this particular person, but I'm curious if you have a citation supporting your warning for an obese person eating under BMR, but above 1200. The citation should show evidence that their body will cannibalize organs (and cause hair loss) prior to using their substantial fat stores to make up the difference between caloric intake and BMR. If that's the case, then MFP is recommending a highly dangerous calorie intake for many, many people.
I'm also curious what you think about eating above BMR, but then exercising to an under BMR deficit? Does that result in the same negative health consequences? Why or why not? After all, the result is still fewer calories available for basic functions.
I have about 30-40 pounds to lose. My BMR is about 1900 with a 2400 sedentary TDEE. MFP's recommendation, set at sedentary and a 2 lbs weekly loss, is around 1680. Are you suggesting my organs and hair would be in imminent danger if I followed that plan?
I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.
What I have noticed with this individual is she avoids answering questions of her stats. Judging by her ticker on the profile, she has about 100lbs to lose. So I took a shot in the dark, registered her weight at 250lbs, height at 5'2", and age at 44. That still brought up a BMR of 1737. So she should at least aim for an area around that. I'm sure that's not accurate in regards to stats, but her BMR wouldn't change all too much. If the height increased, it would even go up. Now, that isn't to say that eating at 1600 would kill her, especially when there other body elements involved and the area of error in the calculator, but definitely 1200 is not safe at long term. At 5'9, mine is technically 1,509. Unfortunately, MFP doesn't take BMR completely into effect. Even though mine is 1509, it has allowed me to go down as low as 1300. It just is not sustainable in the long run to go too low. That isn't to say I don't have days that I don't net 1200, and obviously I'm alive. But it's not good to do it on an continuous basis. So to answer your question, yes, exercising below your BMR can result in negative consequences down the road.
However, if this what works for them, more power to them.
Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. With that much weight to lose, she probably can survive on fat storage for awhile. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly along with that fat. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible. So even in your case, with 30-40lbs to lose, you should start thinking of dropping it down to 1lb a week soon. I have about 15-20lb to go, and it's still recommended that I stick to a goal of .5 to 1lb per week to ensure I'm not going to low. Pretty soon I'm going to have to fully bring it to .5lbs. Slow and steady wins the race.
But with that being said, I wish everyone luck.0 -
vespiquenn wrote: »
I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.
Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible.
I agree that "slow and steady" is a great way to win the race. No disagreement. I started out at 1690 calories a day and was losing quicker than 2 pounds a week. I had plenty of energy, more than usual actually, but I was often truly hungry and even got light headed a few times. It might have been because I underestimated my activity level, or perhaps a result of eating 300 below my BMR, a combination of both, or perhaps nothing to do with calories and everything to do with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iron and/or potassium).
However, you made a strong unconditioned statement about the dire consequences of eating below BMR, and still haven't provided any citations. (I can Google search bogus beliefs about anything, but it doesn't make them true.) Now you seem to be saying a minimum of 1200 is fine, just not sustainable or healthy to go under 1200 for an extended period of time. She says she's doing 1200, and unbeknownst to her, perhaps her doctors already plan to increase her intake after a brief (read: not extended) period. Also, that you prefer not to lose lean mass is irrelevant to her. I apologize to the OP if it sounds harsh, but I'd guess she'd prefer not to lug around that 100 extra pounds of fat every day.0 -
ModernRock wrote: »vespiquenn wrote: »
I am on my phone, so I can't quite bold areas of importance in this. But, no, it is not recommended to eat below BMR for an extended rate of time. Even a simple google search brings up results in that regard. Your BMR is obviously that absolute necessary amount of calories your body needs to function. As stated, "It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating." 1200 is the lowest net a person can go under. So that means, after exercise, you should still be netting at least 1200. That's not to say that your body can sustain for awhile, but after an extended period, it will do harm to continuously go below a net calorie goal of 1200. At the very least, cravings will become worse.
Edit: I saw I missed a portion of that question. In regards to eating below BMR eats at fat storage, it obviously it does. But it also goes after lean muscle mass. Losing too quickly means that you're losing lean muscle mass quickly. I'd rather take it slow and eat above my BMR to ensure that when I'm done, I don't look skinny fat because I kept my lean muscle mass as much as possible.
I agree that "slow and steady" is a great way to win the race. No disagreement. I started out at 1690 calories a day and was losing quicker than 2 pounds a week. I had plenty of energy, more than usual actually, but I was often truly hungry and even got light headed a few times. It might have been because I underestimated my activity level, or perhaps a result of eating 300 below my BMR, a combination of both, or perhaps nothing to do with calories and everything to do with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iron and/or potassium).
However, you made a strong unconditioned statement about the dire consequences of eating below BMR, and still haven't provided any citations. (I can Google search bogus beliefs about anything, but it doesn't make them true.) Now you seem to be saying a minimum of 1200 is fine, just not sustainable or healthy to go under 1200 for an extended period of time. She says she's doing 1200, and unbeknownst to her, perhaps her doctors already plan to increase her intake after a brief (read: not extended) period. Also, that you prefer not to lose lean mass is irrelevant to her. I apologize to the OP if it sounds harsh, but I'd guess she'd prefer not to lug around that 100 extra pounds of fat every day.
I will admit that the increase is very possible. It's exactly why I'm not necessarily arguing the point, because at the end of the day, her progress or lack there of isn't important to me nor anyone else here. Just her.
I will also admit that I have been looking for a peer reviewed article on this matter that I actually just read a few days ago, but not having luck finding the forum that it was located. However, what it essentially stated was that folks that are under BMR versus those that did not had lost a greater percentage of lean muscle mass. Which you claim is irrelevant, but I don't know why any person would willingly do that to themselves. If I can manage to find it, I will link the article. But to be perfectly honest, it doesn't take a scientist to know that eating below what your body needs at pure rest isn't going to result in consequences after time.
But I will admit that I did not think of them upping it at some point, which may or may not be the case. But I'm not going to further this debate because I do not want to keep giving the OP alerts over a conversation straying from her original post. Essentially, I don't want to continue being a Debbie Downer on her celebratory topic. If I can manage to find that article, I will link it.
In the end, I essentially just wanted to ensure that the OP was aware of BMR because many newbies (not saying she is; general statement) are not. She claims she is, so there's not really much more to discuss. If she's confident in her doctors and feels that she can sustain her intake, I'm not one to challenge it further.
0 -
vespiquenn wrote: »
However, what it essentially stated was that folks that are under BMR versus those that did not had lost a greater percentage of lean muscle mass. Which you claim is irrelevant, but I don't know why any person would willingly do that to themselves. If I can manage to find it, I will link the article. But to be perfectly honest, it doesn't take a scientist to know that eating below what your body needs at pure rest isn't going to result in consequences after time.
Sure, there are consequences. Your body will turn to stored fat for fuel, to a lesser extent muscle, you'll be hungry, and you'll have a hard time sustaining for long periods at a time (if that's even the plan). I have no doubt that studies find sub-BMR diets burning more muscle. Makes sense to me. But, I was responding to the warning that eating under BMR results in organ damage and hair loss. It is entirely possible that those starvation-level effects disappear at 1200+ calories even if under BMR. I'd be interested in any study you find on that issue. In the meantime, the The NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute states "Eating plans that contain 1,200–1,500 calories each day will help most women lose weight safely."
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/eat/calories.htm0 -
I got a lot of flack when I started out eating 1500 a day. I felt totally fine, and didn't even feel especially hungry at night--I was just eating smaller, more protein rich meals and that kept me feeling nourished and energetic for a long time. Most people here were very encouraging, but there were also ALWAYS people telling me I was undereating and being unhealthy about my weight loss. I mostly just shrugged it off and listened to my body.
About two months ago, 1500 calories a day started feeling really bad, because I started getting a lot closer to my goal weight. I was hungry all the time, crabby, unenergetic, etc. I simply listened to my body and upped my daily caloric intake to 1700. That made a HUGE difference and I was back to being energetic and happy again. What's more is that my weight loss has continued, and I'm now 13 lbs. away from my ultimate goal of 175. (My minimum goal was anywhere in the 180's, which I hit a few days ago.)
If you feel fine at 1200 a day, go for it. Listen to your body when it starts telling you that's not enough and adjust up from there. You will be fine. Congrats on your weight loss.0 -
Way to go! Listen to your body and your doctor's. I salute you on finding what works for you! Being a diabetic changes your life, and it seems you have it all under control. Keep up the good work!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!