Going 'over' Maintenance Calories
Replies
-
christinev297 wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
It is certainly not true for me. I can and have put away a lot of food.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
It is certainly not true for me. I can and have put away a lot of food.
Yeah, I've seen some 5" women pack away a lot of food. More than me, at 5'8. Maybe as mentioned above, we have to retrain ourselves to recognise that full/satisfied signal
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
I would think so, I mean, I can't imagine that a 6 feet tall woman would be happy with what I'm eating.0 -
arditarose wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
That's the problem. I don't feel full on less food. I can still easily eat what I ate to maintain my weight at 160+. My struggle now is literally re-learning how to eat for my smaller self.
But I would guess if I small person never exceeded an "ideal" weight she would eat less than a taller woman at an "ideal" weight.0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »arditarose wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
That's the problem. I don't feel full on less food. I can still easily eat what I ate to maintain my weight at 160+. My struggle now is literally re-learning how to eat for my smaller self.
But I would guess if I small person never exceeded an "ideal" weight she would eat less than a taller woman at an "ideal" weight.
Good point
0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »arditarose wrote: »I'm 5'1", 105lbs, and 35 years old. My maintenance range is somewhere in the 1600-1700, but that's only because I'm fairly active. If I were sedentary I'd only be able to eat 1200-1300 calories a day to maintain.
So yes, it's a challenge for us smaller women. But it's not impossible. Remember, we can eat less food, but we also feel full and satiated on less food.
That's the problem. I don't feel full on less food. I can still easily eat what I ate to maintain my weight at 160+. My struggle now is literally re-learning how to eat for my smaller self.
But I would guess if I small person never exceeded an "ideal" weight she would eat less than a taller woman at an "ideal" weight.
Well obviously she would eat less if she had never been overweight. But yeah, she would most likely feel sated on her maintenance calories.0 -
PinkPixiexox wrote: »The other day I had a plain beanburger with a portion of mash potato at Nando's (I think it's a UK restaurant only .. not sure!) and it came to around 850 calories! This was just my lunch! So I'm then scrimping for the rest of the day. It is what it is and I'll cut back on other days if I go majorly over
I looove Nando's! I'm so glad I don't live near one because I love everything on their menu. When my family was in England a few years ago we ate there every few days. Lol. We do have one in Washington, D.C. now, too, but it didn't seem as good, IMO. Maybe other places in the states now, too, but that's the only one I've been to.
Anyway, you're right about eating out. I eat out way too much and then wonder why I can't stick to my calorie goal. It sounds like you don't do it too much and are being really mindful, so I'm betting you're going to be fine.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
Well, sure. If you burn less energy just by existing, then you don't need as much energy to fill up.
The challenge, IMHO, comes not from the quantity of food being less, but from standard portion sizes being designed for much larger people. Most of the time we keep eating not really 'cause we're still hungry, but 'cause it's there. When food is portioned out for a 6 foot man who weighs twice what I do, then obviously I'm going to have too much on my plate. I therefore need to be a lot more mindful than he does, to force myself to only eat half of it or to share it with someone or whatever, if I don't want to gain weight. Whereas he can probably just eat it and be fine.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
Well, sure. If you burn less energy just by existing, then you don't need as much energy to fill up.
The challenge, IMHO, comes not from the quantity of food being less, but from standard portion sizes being designed for much larger people. Most of the time we keep eating not really 'cause we're still hungry, but 'cause it's there. When food is portioned out for a 6 foot man who weighs twice what I do, then obviously I'm going to have too much on my plate. I therefore need to be a lot more mindful than he does, to force myself to only eat half of it or to share it with someone or whatever, if I don't want to gain weight. Whereas he can probably just eat it and be fine.
I think you're right about this. I know some naturally thin, petite women who tend to do things like "split an appetizer" for a meal! I would think to myself, WTF, what are you a bird? But they were probably doing the more natural thing than what I was doing, which was to eat my whole meal, a taste of someone else's plus the bread on the tables, plus drinks,and maybe dessert. Lol.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
Well, sure. If you burn less energy just by existing, then you don't need as much energy to fill up.
The challenge, IMHO, comes not from the quantity of food being less, but from standard portion sizes being designed for much larger people. Most of the time we keep eating not really 'cause we're still hungry, but 'cause it's there. When food is portioned out for a 6 foot man who weighs twice what I do, then obviously I'm going to have too much on my plate. I therefore need to be a lot more mindful than he does, to force myself to only eat half of it or to share it with someone or whatever, if I don't want to gain weight. Whereas he can probably just eat it and be fine.
I am 5'0" and my husband is 6'2". I am definitely satisfied on way less than he is, but yes, in restaurants it is easy to "clean your plate" just because it is there. I am in the habit now of splitting it in my mind right off the bat, and making sure that I save enough for lunch or dinner the next day. My weakness was when I would eat too much and what was left was not enough for another meal, so I would say to myself that it wasn't worth taking home, so I may as well finish it off, so as not to waste it! I wasn't necessarily hungry, I just didn't want to throw out food we paid $30 for. The good news is, now that I am more mindful, I get two meals for the price of one, and he doesn't
0 -
you don't gain weight (fat) from overeating here and there just like you don't lose weight from dieting for a day...your body is an awesome machine and very good at using excess energy for good and strives for maintenance...where you run into problems is when you consistently overeat...when you consistently overeat, you override your body's ability to maintain and that's when you start storing fat...similarly, you have to consistently under-eat (diet) to effectively lose weight. you don't start storing excess fat with one day of over-indulgence just as you don't lose weight having low calorie days here and there...either one requires a consistent effort.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »you don't gain weight (fat) from overeating here and there just like you don't lose weight from dieting for a day...your body is an awesome machine and very good at using excess energy for good and strives for maintenance...where you run into problems is when you consistently overeat...when you consistently overeat, you override your body's ability to maintain and that's when you start storing fat...similarly, you have to consistently under-eat (diet) to effectively lose weight. you don't start storing excess fat with one day of over-indulgence just as you don't lose weight having low calorie days here and there...either one requires a consistent effort.
Science tells us that energy doesn't just disappear though.. so that extra energy from all those extra calories... where does it go?0 -
Science tells us that energy doesn't just disappear though.. so that extra energy from all those extra calories... where does it go?
You still gain it. It's just negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Let's say you pig out 3 days a year and eat 1000 calories over maintenance on each of those days. That's 3000 calories total. Or less than a pound. Over the course of an entire year, it's negligible, especially since our weight fluctuates more than that. And you can always burn them off with an extra run or gym appearance or two over the few days after that. So, whatever.
If, however, you're just 200 calories over your goal almost every day, then that's 73,000 calories over the course of a year. That's a gain of 20 pounds, which is not negligible.
Most of us didn't gain weight due to the occasional celebration or indulgence. We gained weight by not eating mindfully and eating more than we burn over a long period of time.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I've always wondered this, so it's true that smaller people fill up quicker than their taller counterparts?
Well, sure. If you burn less energy just by existing, then you don't need as much energy to fill up.
The challenge, IMHO, comes not from the quantity of food being less, but from standard portion sizes being designed for much larger people. Most of the time we keep eating not really 'cause we're still hungry, but 'cause it's there. When food is portioned out for a 6 foot man who weighs twice what I do, then obviously I'm going to have too much on my plate. I therefore need to be a lot more mindful than he does, to force myself to only eat half of it or to share it with someone or whatever, if I don't want to gain weight. Whereas he can probably just eat it and be fine.
I think you're right about this. I know some naturally thin, petite women who tend to do things like "split an appetizer" for a meal! I would think to myself, WTF, what are you a bird? But they were probably doing the more natural thing than what I was doing, which was to eat my whole meal, a taste of someone else's plus the bread on the tables, plus drinks,and maybe dessert. Lol.
Haha I could have written this exact same post!
0 -
Some great input on the replies here. 1700-1800 cals is pretty low for maintenance (unless you are really short). If you're keeping in that range for a majority of the time, some excursions to 3-4K a few times a month will not make a noticeable difference. Just try to keep is as a special treat and not make it a habit.
1700-1800 is not really all that low for a female. My TDEE is 1620 without exercise and I am 5'7" I've been tracking for almost 2 years, I know that number to be very accurate. I also disagree when you say an extra 304K a month will not make a noticeable difference. An extra 3-4K a month that isn't made up for with a deficit at some later point will gain her over a pound a month or over 10 pounds in a year.
^ This.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »you don't gain weight (fat) from overeating here and there just like you don't lose weight from dieting for a day...your body is an awesome machine and very good at using excess energy for good and strives for maintenance...where you run into problems is when you consistently overeat...when you consistently overeat, you override your body's ability to maintain and that's when you start storing fat...similarly, you have to consistently under-eat (diet) to effectively lose weight. you don't start storing excess fat with one day of over-indulgence just as you don't lose weight having low calorie days here and there...either one requires a consistent effort.
Science tells us that energy doesn't just disappear though.. so that extra energy from all those extra calories... where does it go?
Remember you are also likely to have low days though being too busy, ill, a lot of exercise or as a conscious decision.
To me it's dreadfully restrictive to attempt to maintain by eating the same calorie level every day.0 -
Science tells us that energy doesn't just disappear though.. so that extra energy from all those extra calories... where does it go?
You still gain it. It's just negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Let's say you pig out 3 days a year and eat 1000 calories over maintenance on each of those days. That's 3000 calories total. Or less than a pound. Over the course of an entire year, it's negligible, especially since our weight fluctuates more than that. And you can always burn them off with an extra run or gym appearance or two over the few days after that. So, whatever.
.
I've thought about this a bit. I wonder if it can also be accounted for by non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT).
"Physiological studies demonstrate, intriguingly, that NEAT is modulated with changes in energy balance; NEAT increases with overfeeding and decreases with underfeeding. " (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468415 )
Perhaps our bodies move just a little more, we tap our feet, we drum the steering wheel while we drive, we pick up something heavy instead of asking for help, etc. It all takes energy, but maybe our bodies are more likely to dissipate it in this way when we have plenty at hand.
Generally, I worry about it more in the other direction, though. Lately, when I work out really hard my body is really good at telling me to relax and sit still the rest of the day! Thanks to having negative adjustments on Fitbit I know exactly when I'm doing this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions