Is America Irrationally afraid of eating disorders? Struggles for petite dieting women

Options
2

Replies

  • pollypocket1021
    pollypocket1021 Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    i post the link again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

    To know what your calorie intake is ...weigh your food in grams.
    And only measure your liquids.


    95069916.png

    This is so important as a smaller person. We don't have the wiggle room for error.
  • BurnWithBarn2015
    BurnWithBarn2015 Posts: 1,026 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    Another good example The Sunsweet pitted dried prunes label says 7 prunes (40 gram is 1 serving) = 100 calories

    I took last time 4 because when i threw them in my bowl that was on my scale it was with 4 prunes already at 40 grams. Which means that when i would have taken one serving without weighing so 7 prunes...i would lamost have the double amount of calories...without knowing this!

    l9mwh8u3868v.png


    95069916.png
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    pollypocket1021 wrote: »
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    i post the link again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

    To know what your calorie intake is ...weigh your food in grams.
    And only measure your liquids.


    95069916.png

    This is so important as a smaller person. We don't have the wiggle room for error.

    Thanks for making that connection and in a nice way.

  • BurnWithBarn2015
    BurnWithBarn2015 Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    I feel as if this thread is getting hijacked. I thought the point was to support OP not to take other posters' inventory about how accurately they're measuring.

    Not hijacked at all
    I try to point out as a smaller person your deficit is most of the times smaller and how important it is to know how much calories you get and to be accurate and weigh your food.

    95069916.png
  • BurnWithBarn2015
    BurnWithBarn2015 Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    pollypocket1021 wrote: »
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    i post the link again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

    To know what your calorie intake is ...weigh your food in grams.
    And only measure your liquids.


    95069916.png

    This is so important as a smaller person. We don't have the wiggle room for error.

    Thanks for making that connection and in a nice way.

    Well i tried but seems it wasnt nice enough

    OP good luck and congratulations you did great by losing your weight. :)

    I am outta here too lol

    95069916.png
  • pollypocket1021
    pollypocket1021 Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    tcharn wrote: »
    Hello I do believe you mean stumpy not petite. If you describe a woman as petite, you are politely saying that she is small and is not fat. ADJECTIVES he was of below average height, petite and slender. Please see the links below for the actual definitions of stumpy and petite.


    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/stumpy.



    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/petite

    Thanks

    Huh. There are sizes like 14P, which is made for a person who is a size 14, but shorter than average (petite). You better call all the clothing companies in the US and tell them they are labeling their clothes wrong.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    tcharn wrote: »
    Hello I do believe you mean stumpy not petite. If you describe a woman as petite, you are politely saying that she is small and is not fat. ADJECTIVES he was of below average height, petite and slender. Please see the links below for the actual definitions of stumpy and petite.


    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/stumpy.



    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/petite

    Thanks

    @rosebette Here's a great example of not being helpful. BurnWithBarn was being helpful, you just didn't want to hear it.

    FWIW, I am also 5'2", in my 40s, I am not petite at this point, but I have been losing about 2lb/week for the last 9 weeks while eating 1600, so no, 1200 is not necessary for shorter women to lose weight. I realize that this will likely have to drop as I get closer to goal weight, but I have no interest in needing to eat at 1400 in maintenance, so I am doing what I can to preserve as much as possible.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    pollypocket1021 wrote: »
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    i post the link again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

    To know what your calorie intake is ...weigh your food in grams.
    And only measure your liquids.


    95069916.png

    This is so important as a smaller person. We don't have the wiggle room for error.

    Off topic, and I do weigh my food, but I was always confused by that "shocking" video. Maybe I'm some kind of special snowflake, but I never measured my food the way the video shows. A tablespoon means a tablespoon. Not a packed, heaping tablespoon over the brim. Do people really measure like that??
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    LaurenAOK wrote: »
    pollypocket1021 wrote: »
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    i post the link again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

    To know what your calorie intake is ...weigh your food in grams.
    And only measure your liquids.


    95069916.png

    This is so important as a smaller person. We don't have the wiggle room for error.

    Off topic, and I do weigh my food, but I was always confused by that "shocking" video. Maybe I'm some kind of special snowflake, but I never measured my food the way the video shows. A tablespoon means a tablespoon. Not a packed, heaping tablespoon over the brim. Do people really measure like that??

    Yes, some really do.
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,089 Member
    Options
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    I'm older (57) and also petite, 5'1.5". I wear a fitbit Charge HR that measures how many calories I burn throughout the day, and if I'm inactive, I am actually using less than 1200 calories a day. So, smaller people do need fewer calories. If I ate under 1200 on those days, I wouldn't be "starving" myself, I'd be eating at maintenance. I'm maintaining now around 1400 (with exercise). I understand a bit where you're coming from because I'm starting to get s*** from my husband and son who are overweight about portion sizes. They claim no one can survive on what I eat. I measure all my food, and for them, a bowl of cereal is to the top of the bowl, and a meal is eating everything I've made so there are no leftovers, no matter how much is actually left in the casserole dish.

    But you are not weighing all your food either so those numbers are way off too. If i see a large banana a cup of this or that..than your numbers arent right.
    And yes measuring makes a huge difference with weighing!

    95069916.png

    This ... Weighing your food is really important to be as accurate as possible.
    Many claim to be eating 1200 and claim they can't lose but are actually eating more then they think. Those inaccuracies knock them out of their deficit but they assume they just can't lose on 1200 ( when reality they are not eating 1200 at all )
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    tcharn wrote: »
    I was simply correcting someone who called them selfs petite when a medical perfectionist has stated they are clinically overweight.

    "Despite the fact that my doctor even said that I was clinically overweight"

    At no point did I state the the us labelling system was incorrect.

    Actually, she said she's now BMI 23. But of course you are trying to be rude.
  • ericGold15
    ericGold15 Posts: 318 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    Thorsmom,
    ^^ This could easily be true, but it doesn't change the more important message:

    Get adequate nutrition, and then the rate of weight loss is a personal preference. A calorie ingested today does not have any special quality over one eaten yesteryear and stored. I've met a few of the forum regulars who will scream EATING DISORDER if someone posts intake below 1200 kCal a day, and it makes me wonder if they lack the basic tools of nutrition.

    As an example: a 45 Kg LBW person will maintain protein mass at ~ 0.7 grams per Kg daily, or 32 grams of protein a day. That equals 128 kCal a day of protein. I am not recommending that people subsist on 32 grams of protein tablets a day and a multi-vitamin, but I am saying that the 1200 kCal a day recommendation of MFP is a good rule of thumb but not a physiological mandate for healthy dieting -- or even close, as the example illustrates.

    OK ... off my soapbox. Now I'll agree that eating disorders are common in this forum, fads are rampant and the search for an easy fix never ends so I understand why low calorie diets are frowned upon. I would prefer, however that the well meaning folks inquire about adequate nutrition rather than pass judgement based on incomplete information and forum memes.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    There's a point about which I am confused. You say you are "clinically overweight" but your Dr told you that you are within a healthy weight range. Which is it?
    As far as dealing with others flak, any time you make a change, you're going to get some pushback, because change, especially change they have no control over, makes people uncomfortable.
    But, please make sure you stay in close touch with your Dr about this stuff. What you're doing may be fine, but you're probably riding a fine edge, so you want to be as careful as you can.
  • ericGold15
    ericGold15 Posts: 318 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    jennifer_417 wrote: »
    There's a point about which I am confused. You say you are "clinically overweight" but your Dr told you that you are within a healthy weight range. Which is it?
    So far as I know, a 'healthy weight range' means that epidemiological studies have shown that the disclosed range is not linked with decreased survival.

    That leaves a lot of room for impaired quality of life at both ends of the range. Then there is the problem with BMI itself, which does not distinguish fat from muscle. OP's doctor may have been saying that she was carrying a relatively large amount of fat, which in the context of relatively less muscle mass would be a rationale reason to diet (and exercise!)

    My BMI is 21 and change, and I know that I will be quite happy to get rid of the remaining fat around my lower torso. Mostly for vanity reasons, but it is not aiding my posture or cycling.

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    tcharn wrote: »
    With a
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tcharn wrote: »
    I was simply correcting someone who called them selfs petite when a medical perfectionist has stated they are clinically overweight.

    "Despite the fact that my doctor even said that I was clinically overweight"

    At no point did I state the the us labelling system was incorrect.

    Actually, she said she's now BMI 23. But of course you are trying to be rude.

    You must be American

    In the US, clothes cut for women under a certain height are called "petite", regardless of weight.

    And I'm going to guess that calling a woman stumpy is rude most countries.

    Also, I believe forum rules consider correcting someone's grammar as trolling. Which is also rude.

Categories