convince me .... or not...to eat more?
T0M_K
Posts: 7,526 Member
So, I've been struggling with what I perceive is the "right" amount to eat which is more than I've been eating.
Male- age 51 *almost*
height - 69"
Current Weight 187 - 2/3/16
Starting Weight 198 - 1/6/16
Data: Actual Begin Date - 12/29/15 - 200lbs
Data Analysis Period - 1/6/16 to 2/3/16.
Avg Calories Consumed per day - 1369.
The first 19 days before a conscious effort to eat more I was consuming avg 1307 and lost 8.8lbs. (started weightloss on 12/29/15)
The most recent 10 days i was consuming an avg of 1486 calories and have lost 1.6lbs although in the past week the scales aren't budging and are even up less than a pound.
I'm ok by the way with a 1.12ish lb weight loss per week "if that's whats really happening"
The real question i have is that some people and my research would tell me to eat 1600 calories per day for moderate 1 to 1.5 lbs per week weight loss for sedentary people (desk job) and possibly even eat back some of my exercise calories.
What is harm in just not eating more. I have good energy, don't feel hungry, am being accurate to the best of my ability on my logging. I'm eating lean proteins, veggie carbs, fresh fruits, almonds, cottage cheese, protein powder, eggs etc. I am not nutrient deficient and take a multi vitamin for a little added insurance and a fish oil supplement each day(hmmm i don't count my fish oil tablet in my calorie intake).
Why should I eat to the goal if don't really want to? what harm am i doing being under if I'm feeling good? Why not take advantage of this now if this is how i'm feeling?
Just curious. and i'm NOT going to binge eat later on..this proper calorie eating is my life mission and yes, when i reach my goal i will increase my intake to establish my proper maintenance level.
Thanks
Male- age 51 *almost*
height - 69"
Current Weight 187 - 2/3/16
Starting Weight 198 - 1/6/16
Data: Actual Begin Date - 12/29/15 - 200lbs
Data Analysis Period - 1/6/16 to 2/3/16.
Avg Calories Consumed per day - 1369.
The first 19 days before a conscious effort to eat more I was consuming avg 1307 and lost 8.8lbs. (started weightloss on 12/29/15)
The most recent 10 days i was consuming an avg of 1486 calories and have lost 1.6lbs although in the past week the scales aren't budging and are even up less than a pound.
I'm ok by the way with a 1.12ish lb weight loss per week "if that's whats really happening"
The real question i have is that some people and my research would tell me to eat 1600 calories per day for moderate 1 to 1.5 lbs per week weight loss for sedentary people (desk job) and possibly even eat back some of my exercise calories.
What is harm in just not eating more. I have good energy, don't feel hungry, am being accurate to the best of my ability on my logging. I'm eating lean proteins, veggie carbs, fresh fruits, almonds, cottage cheese, protein powder, eggs etc. I am not nutrient deficient and take a multi vitamin for a little added insurance and a fish oil supplement each day(hmmm i don't count my fish oil tablet in my calorie intake).
Why should I eat to the goal if don't really want to? what harm am i doing being under if I'm feeling good? Why not take advantage of this now if this is how i'm feeling?
Just curious. and i'm NOT going to binge eat later on..this proper calorie eating is my life mission and yes, when i reach my goal i will increase my intake to establish my proper maintenance level.
Thanks
0
Replies
-
You can lose muscle along with fat, your hair could thin, nails become brittle and your skin can suffer. You're more likely to suffer from loose skin.
You don't have much to lose to get into a healthy weight range for your height. I think you should set your weight loss rate to .5 lb/week.
ETA: At the absolute minimum, you should be netting 1500 calories.0 -
DonaldBlinks wrote: »You can lose muscle along with fat, your hair could thin, nails become brittle and your skin can suffer. You're more likely to suffer from loose skin.
You don't have much to lose to get into a healthy weight range for your height. I think you should set your weight loss rate to .5 lb/week.
^^ this0 -
not to be stupid...but define "netting" MFP and Fitbit seems to be messed up so i want to ensure i understand what your saying. Thanks for clarification.0
-
You should eat at least 1500 calories AND eat back your exercise calories
ETA: At minimum. Really more like 1700 calories would be better for your stats.0 -
DonaldBlinks wrote: »You can lose muscle along with fat, your hair could thin, nails become brittle and your skin can suffer. You're more likely to suffer from loose skin.
You don't have much to lose to get into a healthy weight range for your height. I think you should set your weight loss rate to .5 lb/week.
ETA: At the absolute minimum, you should be netting 1500 calories.
Also, I'm running, pushups, pullups and planks and eating alot of protein so i'm attempting to protect my muscle. What really does an extra 150 calories"ish" do for me nutrient wise?0 -
If you've been eating this way for a while and still have energy, you are likely eating more than you think you are but still enough for a deficit. Do you weigh your food? If you weigh your food and you are confident that's all you are eating, you do need to raise your calories.
There are other people who can explain the fit bit MFP stuff but netting means, in MFP anyway, that If I eat 1650 calories total for the day and I exercised and earn 150 calories then I am netting 1500. 1650-150=15000 -
You have to realize the first 19 days were a lot of water weight. That type of loss is not sustainable (unless you have LOTS of weight to lose, which it doesn't seem like you do). Someone your weight and height should plan on exactly as stated above, about a half pound a week. Its not just about losing weight, its about eating healthy, getting yourself proper nutrition (check your macros) and providing your body with the necessary fuel it needs. You wouldn't short your car on gasoline, just because its running well now. You're going to need fuel later or tomorrow too. If you are eating tons of veggies and lean protein and just can't hit your goal a day or two each week because you're full, that's one thing. If you are purposefully trying to keep it low to speed up weight loss, you will lose muscle mass too and therefore decease your calorie needs and your body starts holding onto fat and everything backfires on you. Also, don't forget to have fun occasionally, have a beer, have a pizza, have a piece of cake every so often. Life is meant to be sweet and fun too. Good luck.0
-
Keep weight loss less than 1% of your bodyweight per week. There is no reason to limit yourself to 0.5lb/week unless you are already have very low BF% (say single digits), or you are not large enough to create a deficit while still getting your micronutrient requirements met. A 1-1.5lb/week goal is a good, healthy, and sustainable rate for a 180lb person with a good amount of fat to lose.
Anyways, under eating can lead to the issues noted above. If the point is to get healthy, then why risk all those negative side effects? If you were severely overweight and much worse things were imminent, then it would make sense to risk it, but at 190lb there is no rush.0 -
Do you use a food scale to weigh your food? This is one of the most important components. Weigh and log everything and see if you are truly eating the amount of calories you think you are.0
-
tara_means_star wrote: »If you've been eating this way for a while and still have energy, you are likely eating more than you think you are but still enough for a deficit. Do you weigh your food? If you weigh your food and you are confident that's all you are eating, you do need to raise your calories.
There are other people who can explain the fit bit MFP stuff but netting means, in MFP anyway, that If I eat 1650 calories total for the day and I exercised and earn 150 calories then I am netting 1500. 1650-150=1500
I weigh nearly everything...am very very diligent in recording to the point i really don't know what i could do to be more accurate.0 -
You have to realize the first 19 days were a lot of water weight. That type of loss is not sustainable (unless you have LOTS of weight to lose, which it doesn't seem like you do). Someone your weight and height should plan on exactly as stated above, about a half pound a week. Its not just about losing weight, its about eating healthy, getting yourself proper nutrition (check your macros) and providing your body with the necessary fuel it needs. You wouldn't short your car on gasoline, just because its running well now. You're going to need fuel later or tomorrow too. If you are eating tons of veggies and lean protein and just can't hit your goal a day or two each week because you're full, that's one thing. If you are purposefully trying to keep it low to speed up weight loss, you will lose muscle mass too and therefore decease your calorie needs and your body starts holding onto fat and everything backfires on you. Also, don't forget to have fun occasionally, have a beer, have a pizza, have a piece of cake every so often. Life is meant to be sweet and fun too. Good luck.
Like i said...i'm eating very healthy nutrient dense foods which is why i feel like i'm ok on that front. plus as stated i do exercise.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Do you use a food scale to weigh your food? This is one of the most important components. Weigh and log everything and see if you are truly eating the amount of calories you think you are.
yes and recently have chosen to weigh in grams for most items. now weight everything...well i don't weigh things like yogurt, single serving cottage cheese, a single serving cheese stick...those type items i take the label's word for the calorie content.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »If you've been eating this way for a while and still have energy, you are likely eating more than you think you are but still enough for a deficit. Do you weigh your food? If you weigh your food and you are confident that's all you are eating, you do need to raise your calories.
There are other people who can explain the fit bit MFP stuff but netting means, in MFP anyway, that If I eat 1650 calories total for the day and I exercised and earn 150 calories then I am netting 1500. 1650-150=1500
I weigh nearly everything...am very very diligent in recording to the point i really don't know what i could do to be more accurate.
Then you need to up your calories. Your body may feel okay now, but you are nutritionally doing it a disservice that can lead to major health complications later on. Better to lose slower at a healthy sustainable rate than to lose quickly and risk your health.0 -
DonaldBlinks wrote: »You can lose muscle along with fat, your hair could thin, nails become brittle and your skin can suffer. You're more likely to suffer from loose skin.
You don't have much to lose to get into a healthy weight range for your height. I think you should set your weight loss rate to .5 lb/week.
^^ This.
I'm also 51 (but female). Your rate weight loss in the beginning, as you've described it, feels great initially but it will come back to bite you. Your energy and strength WILL drop, as I discovered. Don't be in a hurry to lose weight. Everybody wants to be thin NOW, I get that, but be patient. You didn't gain it fast, I'll bet, so why should you lose it fast?
I recommend that your net calories per day (food calories minus exercise calories) never go below your BMR. I did that for too long, and paid for it in energy/strength/performance. What I'm doing now is eating in a range between my BMR (around 1300) and 80% (1600) of my TDEE (2000). I'm still losing, but slowly, and feeling and performing much better. There are any number of BMR and TDEE calculators out there, just google. I used three different ones, and they all put me in a similar range.
YMMV.0 -
-
DonaldBlinks wrote: »You can lose muscle along with fat, your hair could thin, nails become brittle and your skin can suffer. You're more likely to suffer from loose skin.
You don't have much to lose to get into a healthy weight range for your height. I think you should set your weight loss rate to .5 lb/week.
^^ This.
I'm also 51 (but female). Your rate weight loss in the beginning, as you've described it, feels great initially but it will come back to bite you. Your energy and strength WILL drop, as I discovered. Don't be in a hurry to lose weight. Everybody wants to be thin NOW, I get that, but be patient. You didn't gain it fast, I'll bet, so why should you lose it fast?
I recommend that your net calories per day (food calories minus exercise calories) never go below your BMR. I did that for too long, and paid for it in energy/strength/performance. What I'm doing now is eating in a range between my BMR (around 1300) and 80% (1600) of my TDEE (2000). I'm still losing, but slowly, and feeling and performing much better. There are any number of BMR and TDEE calculators out there, just google. I used three different ones, and they all put me in a similar range.
YMMV.
Not in anyway desiring to hurry. just don't want to blow it and it feels wrong to eat for the sake. just trying to get my head around it.0 -
-
You need more calories. It can't be stressed enough that even though you feel fine now, long term eating this way will destroy your health.0
-
tara_means_star wrote: »You need more calories. It can't be stressed enough that even though you feel fine now, long term eating this way will destroy your health.
destroy is a strong word. if it eat 300 more calories of cookies..like 2 lol. thats better?0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »You need more calories. It can't be stressed enough that even though you feel fine now, long term eating this way will destroy your health.
destroy is a strong word. if it eat 300 more calories of cookies..like 2 lol. thats better?
You seem to have your mind quite made up about this, to the point of laughing at those trying to engage in the discussion you asked for. I think I'll skip adding my own experiences with undereating. It looks like I'd just be wasting my time and I've wasted enough just bothering to read this thread.0 -
Nutrition of your food is a good topic but not necessarily the one we are having. Perhaps destroy is a strong word but you seem to be willing to sacrifice good health to lose weight faster. The health recommendations are for men to stay above 1500 calories because you risk major health problems dropping below that number. Are you saying you care so little about your health that you'd rather just go on eating well below what is recommended as safe?0
-
Eventually your body will need to decide to fuel either your heart or your hair, your kidneys or your fingernails, the muscles you actively use or your skin. There won't be enough fuel to keep everything up. It's like a budgetary shortage, people who don't have sufficient income need to decide which bills to pay.0
-
first, I apologize for the cookie comment. it feels like though. like if i hit a magic number of calories despite the nutrient content..suddenly i'm healthy vs unhealthy with a boost of a couple cookies. Naturally if you look at my diary, you will see that isn't my intent.
I don't know why which was the point of this post I can't get past the "eat more" when I my hunger/urge to eat has been well satisfied.
I hear you and I thank you, especially Tara who hasn't thrown in the towel on me cuz i'm mentally struggling to get where i need to be despite feeling satisfied.
I will go to 1650 and trust the program.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »first, I apologize for the cookie comment. it feels like though. like if i hit a magic number of calories despite the nutrient content..suddenly i'm healthy vs unhealthy with a boost of a couple cookies. Naturally if you look at my diary, you will see that isn't my intent.
I don't know why which was the point of this post I can't get past the "eat more" when I my hunger/urge to eat has been well satisfied.
I hear you and I thank you, especially Tara who hasn't thrown in the towel on me cuz i'm mentally struggling to get where i need to be despite feeling satisfied.
I will go to 1650 and trust the program.
You will be so much better for it. I'm glad that's your decision. I'm with you on paying attention to nutrition too, though I do occassionally opt for cookies
0 -
Looking at the numbers you posted you are eating to the detriment of your health.
Yes, you feel fine now, short term, but you are eating your muscles- that can include the heart, and not providing your body with enough nutrients for long term health. All the good proteins, veg, and fruit are great, but you are not eating enough of them.
Eventhough you are hitting your protein goals and exercising a little, you are not protecting your muscles. The body can only burn so much fat in a day then, when it needs energy, it will turn to muscle.
It is not a couple of hundred calories a day you are lacking, it is more like 400-500.
A goal of .5-1 lbs a week would be suitable for you.
Please eat a sustainable amount of food.
Cheers, h.
PS weigh even the pre packaged portions, they vary.0 -
check with me in a month. I'll be purposeful and eating more and even try to be more diligent in logging.
Feel free to perv my diary and smack upside the virtual head. 0 -
When it comes to impact on health, calories is number one. Getting enough food will have biggest impact on you. Energy/fuel is the primary purpose of food for us.
Secondary impacts would be things like getting sufficient macros, variety in your food to get different nutrients
Relatively minor impacts would cover all the other "health" food stuff.
First make sure you are fueling your body appropriately.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »first, I apologize for the cookie comment. it feels like though. like if i hit a magic number of calories despite the nutrient content..suddenly i'm healthy vs unhealthy with a boost of a couple cookies. Naturally if you look at my diary, you will see that isn't my intent.
The funny thing is there is a "magic" number of calories you need to hit to stay healthy. Those calories could come from cookies if you want.
Based on what you've posted you are losing 2.7lb/week eating 1350 calories/day. If we assume that is all fat loss, then that would be a daily deficit of 1350 calories/day for a grand total energy need of 2700 calories/day.
Now, your body has a limit on how much energy it can take from fat per day. This maximum limit is ~31cal/day. If we assume that at you are at 25% BF (rough estimate based on BMI since that is all I have), then you have ~46lb of fat on you. That would equate to your body being able to sustain a deficit of up to 1426 calories/day. This is the maximum amount, which you are already based on the previous assumptions.
Based on this calculation you are within spitting distance of the maximum. Fat estimation could be off, your personal maximum might be lower than that found in the study. The reality is it is too close for comfort since so many estimations are done for most people to recommend it as a healthy weight loss.
If you limit your weight loss to 1% of your body weight per week it will in general keep you in the safe range. The 1-2lb guideline you often seen stated keeps most people in that safe range also. I feel that 1% does a better job of it.
So, there is this magic number, and you are pretty close to it.
And this is only one aspect of healthily losing weight. The other downside of eating such a low diet is lack of nutrition. Based on what you posted, while you think you eating everything you need, you probably need more fat in your diet. The recommended minimum is 0.35g/lb of body weight. You could get away with less if you target the specific fat minimums really carefully, but most people don't go to that level. So, for you to get more fat you'll have to cut either carbs or protein. Your protein levels are at 0.68g/lb which is perfect if you are trying to build/maintain muscle and lifting weights. So, you can't cut protein, you have to cut carbs. You now need to cut 50g of carbs to eat 22g more of fat. You are now essentially eating a keto diet, which many people can't handle and on top of that you probably had to cut nutritious vegetables that you liked out of your diet.
So, which do you do? Manage to switch around your extreme diet to get all the nutrients you really need (and hopefully you didn't miss any and find out 3 months later when the damage is already done), or do you just eat another 400 calories/day and the extra nutrients greatly decreasing your chances of becoming malnourished or eating away at muscle mass that you didn't need to?
You also have to weigh the psychological effects of fast weight loss. I know I did 2lb/week until I was 195 and it took a LOT of willpower the last week before vacation.
Again, it comes down to, is the faster rate of loss worth the risks? It isn't guaranteed that you'll have any negative side effects, but as I said before, isn't the point to be healthy? There is no reason to risk it for the vast majority of people. I'm even advocating faster weight loss than anyone else in this thread and I think your rate is too high. Yes, it will take a few more weeks to lose all the weight, but you can easily get from 187lb to 160lb in 20-25 weeks while minimizing health risks. And in the grand scheme of things, 20-25 weeks isn't that long.0 -
nordlead2005 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »first, I apologize for the cookie comment. it feels like though. like if i hit a magic number of calories despite the nutrient content..suddenly i'm healthy vs unhealthy with a boost of a couple cookies. Naturally if you look at my diary, you will see that isn't my intent.
The funny thing is there is a "magic" number of calories you need to hit to stay healthy. Those calories could come from cookies if you want.
Based on what you've posted you are losing 2.7lb/week eating 1350 calories/day. If we assume that is all fat loss, then that would be a daily deficit of 1350 calories/day for a grand total energy need of 2700 calories/day.
Now, your body has a limit on how much energy it can take from fat per day. This maximum limit is ~31cal/day. If we assume that at you are at 25% BF (rough estimate based on BMI since that is all I have), then you have ~46lb of fat on you. That would equate to your body being able to sustain a deficit of up to 1426 calories/day. This is the maximum amount, which you are already based on the previous assumptions.
Based on this calculation you are within spitting distance of the maximum. Fat estimation could be off, your personal maximum might be lower than that found in the study. The reality is it is too close for comfort since so many estimations are done for most people to recommend it as a healthy weight loss.
If you limit your weight loss to 1% of your body weight per week it will in general keep you in the safe range. The 1-2lb guideline you often seen stated keeps most people in that safe range also. I feel that 1% does a better job of it.
So, there is this magic number, and you are pretty close to it.
And this is only one aspect of healthily losing weight. The other downside of eating such a low diet is lack of nutrition. Based on what you posted, while you think you eating everything you need, you probably need more fat in your diet. The recommended minimum is 0.35g/lb of body weight. You could get away with less if you target the specific fat minimums really carefully, but most people don't go to that level. So, for you to get more fat you'll have to cut either carbs or protein. Your protein levels are at 0.68g/lb which is perfect if you are trying to build/maintain muscle and lifting weights. So, you can't cut protein, you have to cut carbs. You now need to cut 50g of carbs to eat 22g more of fat. You are now essentially eating a keto diet, which many people can't handle and on top of that you probably had to cut nutritious vegetables that you liked out of your diet.
So, which do you do? Manage to switch around your extreme diet to get all the nutrients you really need (and hopefully you didn't miss any and find out 3 months later when the damage is already done), or do you just eat another 400 calories/day and the extra nutrients greatly decreasing your chances of becoming malnourished or eating away at muscle mass that you didn't need to?
You also have to weigh the psychological effects of fast weight loss. I know I did 2lb/week until I was 195 and it took a LOT of willpower the last week before vacation.
Again, it comes down to, is the faster rate of loss worth the risks? It isn't guaranteed that you'll have any negative side effects, but as I said before, isn't the point to be healthy? There is no reason to risk it for the vast majority of people. I'm even advocating faster weight loss than anyone else in this thread and I think your rate is too high. Yes, it will take a few more weeks to lose all the weight, but you can easily get from 187lb to 160lb in 20-25 weeks while minimizing health risks. And in the grand scheme of things, 20-25 weeks isn't that long.
0 -
nordlead2005 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »first, I apologize for the cookie comment. it feels like though. like if i hit a magic number of calories despite the nutrient content..suddenly i'm healthy vs unhealthy with a boost of a couple cookies. Naturally if you look at my diary, you will see that isn't my intent.
The funny thing is there is a "magic" number of calories you need to hit to stay healthy. Those calories could come from cookies if you want.
Based on what you've posted you are losing 2.7lb/week eating 1350 calories/day. If we assume that is all fat loss, then that would be a daily deficit of 1350 calories/day for a grand total energy need of 2700 calories/day.
Now, your body has a limit on how much energy it can take from fat per day. This maximum limit is ~31cal/day. If we assume that at you are at 25% BF (rough estimate based on BMI since that is all I have), then you have ~46lb of fat on you. That would equate to your body being able to sustain a deficit of up to 1426 calories/day. This is the maximum amount, which you are already based on the previous assumptions.
Based on this calculation you are within spitting distance of the maximum. Fat estimation could be off, your personal maximum might be lower than that found in the study. The reality is it is too close for comfort since so many estimations are done for most people to recommend it as a healthy weight loss.
If you limit your weight loss to 1% of your body weight per week it will in general keep you in the safe range. The 1-2lb guideline you often seen stated keeps most people in that safe range also. I feel that 1% does a better job of it.
So, there is this magic number, and you are pretty close to it.
And this is only one aspect of healthily losing weight. The other downside of eating such a low diet is lack of nutrition. Based on what you posted, while you think you eating everything you need, you probably need more fat in your diet. The recommended minimum is 0.35g/lb of body weight. You could get away with less if you target the specific fat minimums really carefully, but most people don't go to that level. So, for you to get more fat you'll have to cut either carbs or protein. Your protein levels are at 0.68g/lb which is perfect if you are trying to build/maintain muscle and lifting weights. So, you can't cut protein, you have to cut carbs. You now need to cut 50g of carbs to eat 22g more of fat. You are now essentially eating a keto diet, which many people can't handle and on top of that you probably had to cut nutritious vegetables that you liked out of your diet.
So, which do you do? Manage to switch around your extreme diet to get all the nutrients you really need (and hopefully you didn't miss any and find out 3 months later when the damage is already done), or do you just eat another 400 calories/day and the extra nutrients greatly decreasing your chances of becoming malnourished or eating away at muscle mass that you didn't need to?
You also have to weigh the psychological effects of fast weight loss. I know I did 2lb/week until I was 195 and it took a LOT of willpower the last week before vacation.
Again, it comes down to, is the faster rate of loss worth the risks? It isn't guaranteed that you'll have any negative side effects, but as I said before, isn't the point to be healthy? There is no reason to risk it for the vast majority of people. I'm even advocating faster weight loss than anyone else in this thread and I think your rate is too high. Yes, it will take a few more weeks to lose all the weight, but you can easily get from 187lb to 160lb in 20-25 weeks while minimizing health risks. And in the grand scheme of things, 20-25 weeks isn't that long.
Thank you! Thank was great information. I'm ok with 20 to 25 weeks or even more. my desire is be healthy and for this to be for life.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions