Not eating enough
Replies
-
Besee.. It's like we are the same person lol. I can't eat the ice cream. It's sad, but the binge will happen and then I wake up the next morning hating myself, like the alcoholic that swore they weren't going to have more than a sip and they got wasted. Everyone has a cross to bear and not shoving bad choices into my mouth is mine1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Lol. Fundamentally, yes... If you eat only twinkies and junk food and are still under calories you will lose weight (fat and muscle.) However, if you eat the same amount of calories in chicken and brown rice you will lose MORE fat and retain MORE muscle. Make sense?
Question: who is talking about eating *only* Twinkies and junk food? What does this have to do with someone choosing to have a half cup of ice cream in the context of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs?
OP actually brought it up.
I did ask that regarding cico. It's hard for my brain to believe that if I eat 1200 calories of candy bars or 1200 of kale.. My results would be the same with regards to the scale. I'm not going to eat candy bars all day long. Since Christmas, I've had one bag of peanut mms at the movies with my kids. I know the science of cico, my butt just argues as I seem to blow up eating sugar, but maybe it causes me to overeat? I'm not going to test the cico theory. I trust that it's true, I'm just not someone who could test it or would1 -
laurasprogress wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lol. Fundamentally, yes... If you eat only twinkies and junk food and are still under calories you will lose weight (fat and muscle.) However, if you eat the same amount of calories in chicken and brown rice you will lose MORE fat and retain MORE muscle. Make sense?
Question: who is talking about eating *only* Twinkies and junk food? What does this have to do with someone choosing to have a half cup of ice cream in the context of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs?
OP actually brought it up.
I did ask that regarding cico. It's hard for my brain to believe that if I eat 1200 calories of candy bars or 1200 of kale.. My results would be the same with regards to the scale. I'm not going to eat candy bars all day long. Since Christmas, I've had one bag of peanut mms at the movies with my kids. I know the science of cico, my butt just argues as I seem to blow up eating sugar, but maybe it causes me to overeat? I'm not going to test the cico theory. I trust that it's true, I'm just not someone who could test it or would
Nor should you, you are doing great, BTW. What everyone else has said, plan your day out better.
I have a question however, are you hungry when you need to eat the calories to get to 1200 calories?0 -
I was simply point out that CI/CO is not the whole story. That was my only intention. I made this mistake, lost pounds of muscle AND slowed my metabolism to a halt.It was a nightmare. That is why I am passionate about this. The body WILL use muscle for fuel if protein is insufficient. That was my advice to Lauren. I stick to that because it's fact. Have a great day ladies!
Did u died?9 -
Alluminati wrote: »I was simply point out that CI/CO is not the whole story. That was my only intention. I made this mistake, lost pounds of muscle AND slowed my metabolism to a halt.It was a nightmare. That is why I am passionate about this. The body WILL use muscle for fuel if protein is insufficient. That was my advice to Lauren. I stick to that because it's fact. Have a great day ladies!
Did u died?
That was the nightmare part!7 -
queenliz99 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lol. Fundamentally, yes... If you eat only twinkies and junk food and are still under calories you will lose weight (fat and muscle.) However, if you eat the same amount of calories in chicken and brown rice you will lose MORE fat and retain MORE muscle. Make sense?
Question: who is talking about eating *only* Twinkies and junk food? What does this have to do with someone choosing to have a half cup of ice cream in the context of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs?
OP actually brought it up.
I did ask that regarding cico. It's hard for my brain to believe that if I eat 1200 calories of candy bars or 1200 of kale.. My results would be the same with regards to the scale. I'm not going to eat candy bars all day long. Since Christmas, I've had one bag of peanut mms at the movies with my kids. I know the science of cico, my butt just argues as I seem to blow up eating sugar, but maybe it causes me to overeat? I'm not going to test the cico theory. I trust that it's true, I'm just not someone who could test it or would
Nor should you, you are doing great, BTW. What everyone else has said, plan your day out better.
I have a question however, are you hungry when you need to eat the calories to get to 1200 calories?
No. I just feel like I'm supposed to.0 -
laurasprogress wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lol. Fundamentally, yes... If you eat only twinkies and junk food and are still under calories you will lose weight (fat and muscle.) However, if you eat the same amount of calories in chicken and brown rice you will lose MORE fat and retain MORE muscle. Make sense?
Question: who is talking about eating *only* Twinkies and junk food? What does this have to do with someone choosing to have a half cup of ice cream in the context of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs?
OP actually brought it up.
I did ask that regarding cico. It's hard for my brain to believe that if I eat 1200 calories of candy bars or 1200 of kale.. My results would be the same with regards to the scale. I'm not going to eat candy bars all day long. Since Christmas, I've had one bag of peanut mms at the movies with my kids. I know the science of cico, my butt just argues as I seem to blow up eating sugar, but maybe it causes me to overeat? I'm not going to test the cico theory. I trust that it's true, I'm just not someone who could test it or would
Nor should you, you are doing great, BTW. What everyone else has said, plan your day out better.
I have a question however, are you hungry when you need to eat the calories to get to 1200 calories?
No. I just feel like I'm supposed to.
Well then, carry on. If you feel a little peckish, you know you will have some extra calories saved for this occasion.0 -
Op, how much weight do you have left to lose? The last bit comes off a lot slower than the first half. That's why it's generally a good idea to slowly lower your calories to create a slower deficit because at 1200 Cals, it's not safe to go lower than that without potentially causing damage to yourself (hair loss, gallstones, digestive problems just to name a few).
So say your maintence is 2000 Cals per day, you can lower it to 1500 per day to lose 1 lb per week. As you get smaller, your body needs less fuel to keep going. Being at 1500 would still give you room to reduce.
You don't have to by any means but it's a good thing to keep in mind for the long term. Weightloss isn't just about losing, it's also about keeping it sustainable for life.0 -
DaniCanadian wrote: »Op, how much weight do you have left to lose? The last bit comes off a lot slower than the first half. That's why it's generally a good idea to slowly lower your calories to create a slower deficit because at 1200 Cals, it's not safe to go lower than that without potentially causing damage to yourself (hair loss, gallstones, digestive problems just to name a few).
So say your maintence is 2000 Cals per day, you can lower it to 1500 per day to lose 1 lb per week. As you get smaller, your body needs less fuel to keep going. Being at 1500 would still give you room to reduce.
You don't have to by any means but it's a good thing to keep in mind for the long term. Weightloss isn't just about losing, it's also about keeping it sustainable for life.
Well that's a hard question. I started at over 260 pounds.. I didn't weigh myself when I started because I was disgusted frankly so 260 is where I was 2 weeks in and was brave enough to get in the scale. Today I was 205. I set my goal with fitness pal to 185. Do I think I need to lower that now? Absolutely. 185 is too much but couldn't make myself set my goal lower because honestly I didn't think I would get to where I am even today. I have faith I can get to my goal and make an even better goal at that time. It's been 6 months now and I feel good. I'm not sure what my new goal should be. I've always been the fat girl in the room. I'm not sure what I'm "supposed" to weigh. I'm not a tiny person. I'm 5'7" and wear a size 9 shoe. I want to be realistic but dang I really don't want to be the fat girl in the room anymore. I've went from a pants size of 24 to a 16. Do I want to be the 10? Absolutely. My fitness pal put me at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week to get to 185. I'm a bit scared as to how much lower i will need to go to get to say, 150. And what scares me even more is how much do I eat to stay there?0 -
laurasprogress wrote: »DaniCanadian wrote: »Op, how much weight do you have left to lose? The last bit comes off a lot slower than the first half. That's why it's generally a good idea to slowly lower your calories to create a slower deficit because at 1200 Cals, it's not safe to go lower than that without potentially causing damage to yourself (hair loss, gallstones, digestive problems just to name a few).
So say your maintence is 2000 Cals per day, you can lower it to 1500 per day to lose 1 lb per week. As you get smaller, your body needs less fuel to keep going. Being at 1500 would still give you room to reduce.
You don't have to by any means but it's a good thing to keep in mind for the long term. Weightloss isn't just about losing, it's also about keeping it sustainable for life.
Well that's a hard question. I started at over 260 pounds.. I didn't weigh myself when I started because I was disgusted frankly so 260 is where I was 2 weeks in and was brave enough to get in the scale. Today I was 205. I set my goal with fitness pal to 185. Do I think I need to lower that now? Absolutely. 185 is too much but couldn't make myself set my goal lower because honestly I didn't think I would get to where I am even today. I have faith I can get to my goal and make an even better goal at that time. It's been 6 months now and I feel good. I'm not sure what my new goal should be. I've always been the fat girl in the room. I'm not sure what I'm "supposed" to weigh. I'm not a tiny person. I'm 5'7" and wear a size 9 shoe. I want to be realistic but dang I really don't want to be the fat girl in the room anymore. I've went from a pants size of 24 to a 16. Do I want to be the 10? Absolutely. My fitness pal put me at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week to get to 185. I'm a bit scared as to how much lower i will need to go to get to say, 150. And what scares me even more is how much do I eat to stay there?
Two things. When you set your goal so aggressive, you no where to go but down on your daily calorie intake. But you cannot go lower, you have to stay at 1200. Do you use a food scale to weigh all your food?0 -
I do.0
-
laurasprogress wrote: »I do.
Awesome!!0 -
But I didn't excercise a lick before two weeks ago. I now jog 5 miles at least three times a week. Or so far I have anyways. I hope to keep that up because I really enjoy it1
-
laurasprogress wrote: »But I didn't excercise a lick before two weeks ago. I now jog 5 miles at least three times a week. Or so far I have anyways. I hope to keep that up because I really enjoy it
Are you eating back the calories you burn doing this?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »But I didn't excercise a lick before two weeks ago. I now jog 5 miles at least three times a week. Or so far I have anyways. I hope to keep that up because I really enjoy it
Are you eating back the calories you burn doing this?
I haven't done that to date. According to my fitness pal, i burn an additional 700 calories between my run and the steps I put in at work. Should I be? I don't want to stop losing
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »But I didn't excercise a lick before two weeks ago. I now jog 5 miles at least three times a week. Or so far I have anyways. I hope to keep that up because I really enjoy it
Are you eating back the calories you burn doing this?
This^^ You did not mention any running.
1 -
MFP is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. If you're worried, don't eat back all of them. Go with 25-50 %.2
-
queenliz99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »But I didn't excercise a lick before two weeks ago. I now jog 5 miles at least three times a week. Or so far I have anyways. I hope to keep that up because I really enjoy it
Are you eating back the calories you burn doing this?
This^^ You did not mention any running.
Queenliz- lol! The running is a new development. I was too fat to run before. Now I feel like a free bird. Just tell me what to do.. Clearly I need help0 -
I hear you.
When I began I was shocked by how often I was 600-800 cals shy my goal. And it wasn't because I was fasting, or doing it on purpose. I have a good buddy who calls me on it...and even suggests ways I can bring my total to a better level. But I don't force it. If I don't feel hungry, it's hard to eat.
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.0 -
I think you've set a really good goal of 185 to start but I think now that you're 60 lbs down, 2 lbs a week is too aggressive. I'd say adjust to 1 lb per week and see how that goes. And definitely eat at least some of your exercise Cals back.
Just for example for me, I'm 5'3 and start weight was 177 lbs. I'm set to lose half a lb per week at sedentary. Mfp gives me 1610 Cals per day. I'm currently breastfeeding so I need about 500 Cals extra (pretty much exercise Cals). And I work out on top of that which gives me another 200 or so for my workout. My eating is averaging about 2000-2100/ day and so far I've lost 5 lbs in 30 days. Slow and steady.
This is my second time around for losing a decent amount of weight (40lbs both gained from pregnancy). The first time I did the 1200/day and not insulting and didn't stay off. When I adjusted my mind set, I was finally able to lose and keep it off for more than 2 years.0 -
tiffanylacourse wrote: »
Losing muscle and slowing down her metabolism is her goal? Oh, my mistake. Sorry. I'll stop using science.
Enough with this "metabolism damage" crap! It's rare, caused by extreme crash diets and not something 99.999% people in existence will ever have to worry about.
AND
1200 is a ballpark recommendation for a minimum. This is not a solid number and short women can safely eat under or at it. TDEE calculators are your friend.3 -
You need to fuel running workouts or you will burn out. You may feel fine now but in the end it will bite you. LOL
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/2 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.
Nope. Not possible.3 -
happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »Galadrial60 wrote: »
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.
Nope. Not possible.
I don't need to eat them back? I get so many different answers 0 -
laurasprogress wrote: »happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »Galadrial60 wrote: »
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.
Nope. Not possible.
I don't need to eat them back? I get so many different answers
She's got old and very wrong info, please disregard.
Not eating enough does not cause holding onto weight! Think about it! It's b.s2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »Galadrial60 wrote: »
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.
Nope. Not possible.
I don't need to eat them back? I get so many different answers
She's got old and very wrong info, please disregard.
Not eating enough does not cause holding onto weight! Think about it! It's b.s
Well that's a relief! I'm going to eat right and bust my *kitten*. I'm going to eat when I'm hungry. Makes sense right?2 -
laurasprogress wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »Galadrial60 wrote: »
BUT...metabolically you need it. Otherwise your body decides you are starving, and you won't lose weight because it will be storing instead of burning. Good luck with this...I do hear you.
Nope. Not possible.
I don't need to eat them back? I get so many different answers
She's got old and very wrong info, please disregard.
Not eating enough does not cause holding onto weight! Think about it! It's b.s
Well that's a relief! I'm going to eat right and bust my *kitten*. I'm going to eat when I'm hungry. Makes sense right?
High five!0 -
I agree - I think it's time to start thinking about moving to 1 lb a week now that you have less to lose. It will be more sustainable and it will fuel your running. I started out at your weight but I only set my deficit at 1 lb a week. The first 60 (like you) were closer to 2 lbs a week because of exercise (eating back about 1/2). You'll eventually get down to 1200 again. I'm at 1300 at 189 (although I'm 5'5") and will soon enough have to switch to 1/2 a week to keep fueling my workouts and not burn out. You've already come so far - you've got this!1
-
Timing doesn't matter for weight loss, but if your goal is 1200, you should definitely be eating to that. Treat yourself a little
It absolutely does! Calorie in/calorie out is good but it's been scientifically proven blood sugar plays an ENORMOUS role as well, especially for individuals who are diabetic or even insulin resistant. I'm sorry but this was awful advice.
It absolutely does not. Your body doesn't see the clock, your body doesn't know what time it is. According to you, I'm lying about losing over 80lbs since July and I'm hallucinating the weight loss of my night shift friend.5 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Timing doesn't matter for weight loss, but if your goal is 1200, you should definitely be eating to that. Treat yourself a little
It absolutely does! Calorie in/calorie out is good but it's been scientifically proven blood sugar plays an ENORMOUS role as well, especially for individuals who are diabetic or even insulin resistant. I'm sorry but this was awful advice.
It absolutely does not. Your body doesn't see the clock, your body doesn't know what time it is. According to you, I'm lying about losing over 80lbs since July and I'm hallucinating the weight loss of my night shift friend.
OP already agreed with my point on this matter. Some people are more sensitive to sugar than others. Sugar eaten before bed will not be burned for fuel. Sugar eaten before exercise will be burned quickly. You will notice that as your BF% lowers these things come in to play much, much more. Good luck!2
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
- 426 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