1000-1200 calories, anyone?
Replies
-
I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.2 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
What is "low cal" to you is not "low cal" to everyone. It would really not make sense to think that this website calculator (or any other for that matter) would be able to determine the correct amount of calories for every person. Perhaps 80% of them. Maybe even 90 or 95% - maybe.6 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Yep. Lots of diversity.
Someone asked me why I'm considering going lower than 1200. Other calculators have placed me there, for weight loss at a rate of 2lbs per week. That's why.
My net average has been around 1290 or so, however.
I might add, I've spoken with numerous professionals (doctors, nurse practitioners, nutrition counselors) and I have received different advice.
One said I have to consume 1200 daily, that's it.
One said intermittent fasting is the way to go.
One kinda just agreed with all my ideas... occasionally giving me health tips and "venting" support.
Well, I'm still figuring it all out.
I don't think you have said this, if so, I missed it. How much weight total are you trying to lose? 2 lbs/week is only appropriate if you have 75-100 lbs to lose.3 -
I am 5 foot 7 and wouldn't function on 1200. I eat at least 1500 everyday . Yes MFP will put me at 1200 as I have an office job but I just overrode it . I started in November and have lost 40 pounds. I would love to only eat 1200 but I know I cant do that for the rest of my life. I think it is really hard to get the protein ( and all the other nutrients ) you need when calories are that low. best of luck to you
Good to hear, because MFP gave me these settings as well at 5'7" with an office job, and I find myself going over most days...0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Totally agree, and love the new profile picture!3 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Doesn't matter. Over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back, and some gain even more within 5 years. You are in the small percent that keep it off. It doesn't mean that what you are doing will work for someone else.
Because you can do it, everyone should that is petite? Everyone is exactly the same as you? You know that this will work for someone your exact size? How? What qualifications do you have that you can know what is right for someone you have no clue about?
4 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Doesn't matter. Over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back, and some gain even more within 5 years. You are in the small percent that keep it off. It doesn't mean that what you are doing will work for someone else.
Because you can do it, everyone should that is petite? Everyone is exactly the same as you? You know that this will work for someone your exact size? How? What qualifications do you have that you can know what is right for someone you have no clue about?
oh boy8 -
I am 5 foot 7 and wouldn't function on 1200. I eat at least 1500 everyday . Yes MFP will put me at 1200 as I have an office job but I just overrode it . I started in November and have lost 40 pounds. I would love to only eat 1200 but I know I cant do that for the rest of my life. I think it is really hard to get the protein ( and all the other nutrients ) you need when calories are that low. best of luck to you
Good to hear, because MFP gave me these settings as well at 5'7" with an office job, and I find myself going over most days...
Remember MFP gave you those settings based on "I want to lose xx pounds per week." That default minimum is before exercise. Most women don't have to eat this low......a larger percentage of women choose to.
1200 seems like it's been around since the stone age. Back when trans-fats weren't on anyone's radar, and long before low-fat diets were considered "healthy."2 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »All great feedback. Thanks everyone.
I am 5'4". 32 years old. I have yo-yo'd more times than I can track (lost and gained 20lbs at least 4 times). I suspect my metabolism is slower, if you subscribe to that philosophy.
The MFP settings put me at 1200 for 2lbs per week, at 1370 for 1lb per week. To lose half a pound I need 1500-ish calories would be the amount to eat. Those are the numbers I am getting with the app.
Since mfp gives you 1350 for a 1lb loss, 1200 won't give you a 2lb loss. For a 2lb loss, you'd need 850 to lose 2lbs. Selecting 2lbs per week is only suitable for those that have at least 50lbs to lose, more like 70lbs. The reason why the number drops below 1200 is because it may not be a suitable goal for you. If selecting the goal takes you below 1200, it's not suitable.
There is nothing wrong with losing 1lbs... ~52lb per year.4 -
Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?27 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Co-signed. Science is science and I will never understand unnecessary restriction. I suspect some serious logging inaccuracies are at play.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
LOL!!! Where is anyone disagreeing with that? I would LOVE to eat more!!!
The only "defense" here is simply justification for those of us that fall outside the norm.
It does get a bit tiresome, after so many years of knowing what my body needs to stay at a healthy weight, to have strangers say "but you are not eating enough!!". I am. It may not be enough for you, but you and I are not the same people.10 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Co-signed. Science is science and I will never understand unnecessary restriction. I suspect some serious logging inaccuracies are at play.
I would bet money that that is true, for many. It is NOT true in my case, and I would bet that it is not true for others, as well.
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.10 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »I'm 5'1" and 118. I LOSE weight at 1500. All of the 5'7 and 5'8 women claiming they need to be at or under 1200 need to track more accurately, because that's ridiculous.
Lyle McDonald agrees: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
...So when a 300 pound individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be very leery of how true that is. Either they are that 1 in 100,000 person with a metabolic rate below 1400 at that bodyweight (who has never been found to exist in any study on the topic over a span of about 5+ decades), or they aren’t being accurate in how much food they are eating or how many calories they are burning each day. You can probably guess which one I think it is. And, so we’re clear, I’m not saying that they are deliberately lying, either, I want to make that very clear. They are just as bad as everybody else at estimating their caloric intake and expenditure. Which is apparently pretty bad.
Which is why you can’t magically gain weight on 1000 calories per day if your maintenance intake is 2000 calories per day. Either your body will mobilize stored fuels, or it will slow down metabolic rate to 1000 to put you back into balance (and no study has ever shown the latter to occur in the absence of rather massive weight loss). Something has to happen. But weight gain on sub-maintenance calories isn’t one of them.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kk_inprogress wrote: »I'm 5'1" and 118. I LOSE weight at 1500. All of the 5'7 and 5'8 women claiming they need to be at or under 1200 need to track more accurately, because that's ridiculous.
Lyle McDonald agrees: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/So when a 300 pound individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be very leery of how true that is.Which is why you can’t magically gain weight on 1000 calories per day if your maintenance intake is 2000 calories per day.
No, he is not saying that at all. He is saying that for people that have a maintenance intake of (a number much higher than mine, for instance) that you cannot gain weight on that maintenance number. And THAT is not all what I, or others here, have said.
At my healthy weight of 140 pounds, my maintenance is about 1200 - 1300 calories. I tracked for YEARS, and maintained, on that, with exercise most days. (Yes if I do extraordinary efforts, I consume more). I have no logging inaccuracies - I know the drill. I have a food scale at both work and at home. For me to lose, however, I need to eat below that. That is how MY body works. It's how it's always worked. I am sure it won't work for most others and am not suggesting that it will. You can yell "but that's impossible" from here to the moutaintops, if you like. That doesn't change the way my body works.
4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.3 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Hello.
Have any of you been on a 1000-1200 calorie per day plan? Did you follow it strictly? What was your experience? (Plateaus, weight loss rates, sleep quality...)
It is what I am doing; I never had to go so low before.
Thanks kindly.
I do. Have done this for over a year now. I'm F, 46, 5'1". It's just how I eat now. I can't exercise much, so the only way to be in a deficit is by keeping my calories in this range.
I weigh and measure everything. Have lost about 110 lbs and have about 10 more to go.
I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
As for your other questions: I sleep OK. My weight loss is weird. I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.4 -
youdoyou2016 wrote: »I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
LOL.youdoyou2016 wrote: »I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.
Actually I think that is the norm for a lot of people. Frustrating maybe, but pretty normal.
3 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
LOL.youdoyou2016 wrote: »I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.
Actually I think that is the norm for a lot of people. Frustrating maybe, but pretty normal.
Yeah, I know the bouncing is normal. Just maddening sometimes.
As for the 1200 ... Who made this up? I am completely serious. How'd 98.6 get to be a normal temp? (Really!) I can't be the only one who has felt half dead, gone to a doctor, had a temp of 98.8 or, worse, 98.4 and, suddenly, no one seems to care I feel beyond terrible. If your cholesterol is 195 you're OK but 205 you're in trouble? My bp is always 100/60. I once had a doctor want to give me meds to make it go up to a normal 120/80. Weirdos. 1 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Co-signed. Science is science and I will never understand unnecessary restriction. I suspect some serious logging inaccuracies are at play.
I wonder about this myself. I'm 5'3" and 111 pounds. I still lose weight eating 1900 calories a day. I already know I'm very active so I'd chalk it up to overestimated exercise calories but so many women claim they don't eat any of those back either so I just really don't get it. The only time I was able to function on 1200 calories was when I had a lot of excess bodyfat but I was losing 2 pounds per week like clockwork. Now that I'm pretty lean, my body gets mad on anything less than like 2300 calories.3 -
cerise_noir wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.
There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.
I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.3 -
I only just started a couple of weeks ago and MFP has me on 1200 cals with a goal of 0.5kg/wk (1 lb?). I have oatmeal for breakfast, either a boiled egg or a tin of sardines for lunch and some fruit with yoghurt. Dinner is usually around 400cals (meat and salads/veges). I can't eat much bread, pasta, rice or potatoes so I have to snack more to make up the 1200cal.0
-
This thread just makes me very glad I can lose weight eating 1500 calories a day!3
-
-
I'm 5"8 and mfp will give me 1200 calories if i pick a too aggressive goal. I tried 1200 once, and i lasted 3 miserable days, and my protein/fat and micros were way too low!
1600 calories is the absolute lowest i will go to lose weight.3 -
There is, so far as I know, one person who posts every now and then on these forums who went and had her RMR (or whatever the appropriate metric was) tested, because the numbers didn't work as expected for her. She did indeed prove to be a statistical outlier on the low end.
There's something to be said for not trusting your own data and seeking medical confirmation of being a special case. No matter how well you think you're tracking or how long you've been doing it, something can always trip you up.
I've been at this a while and fell prey to faulty logging data myself. I spent a while mired in the thinking that I was a special case until I did some cross checking and found the 200 calories in my logging that was causing the scale not to move.
Saying all that? I'm a 5'1" 54 year old woman who is active, but not a ridiculous amount these days since I'm not feeling well. I walk for a half hour every morning and every hour for 10 minutes or so throughout the day. That gets me 16-18K steps. I weigh 115 pounds and my TDEE is 1800-1900. That means I can lose a half a pound a week eating 1500-1600 calories.
There really is usually very little reason for most people to eat 1200 calories. When I first started dieting, I was completely sedentary, and that was the calorie amount given to me to lose a pound a week. It was very hard to get adequate nutrition eating that way. I've increased my activity over the time I've lost weight. One doesn't need to be ridiculously fit to be more active and burn more calories in daily living, either. Walk around while you're on the phone or something is on the stove or in the microwave. Put away each piece of laundry one at a time. Clean more frequently. Park at the very back of the parking lot. Take the stairs. Get up during commercials and walk in place. These little things add up and increase your TDEE.7 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.
There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.
I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.
I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...
No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.15 -
This doesnt apply to everyone on this thread, but it is one of the most informative posts i have read on here.Written by @Faithful_Chosen
Thanks, everyone, for the answers already I am just going to add that MyFitnessPal calculates your projected loss (so, the amount you have set to lose a week) into the net goal you recieve. It assumes that if you want to eat more, you have to move more to stay in that deficit. Makes sense, right?
Now, especially newbies have a tendency to up the cardio and decrease the food to make a bigger deficit, assuming they will lose faster--and they might! I am not gonna sit here and say that you won't lose more. It's probably not going to show up on the scale due to water weight, but they will lose more. The question is: at what price? And what are they losing?
The MyFitnessPal method (built in deficit based on your numbers, especially plus purposeful exercise) is designed to steadily lose fat and preserving as much muscle as possible. You see, there is a (science proven) limit to how much fat a body can convert into usable energy during any period of time. If you go over that limit, it turns to muscle for fuel instead. You will always get a little bit of muscle tissue loss when eating at a deficit, but if you undereat and up the cardio (or even strength training!) like I see a lot of people on here do, you are forcing your body to canibalize its muscle tissue on top of the max level of fat it can burn. Not to mention that meeting your macro and micro nutrient goals with this method is virtually impossible, creating massive hormone imbalances (leptine, for example) and vitamins and mineral deficits.
The long term effects of crash dieting and deprivation dieting (which is basically what happens when you become one of the people who net in the low hundreds to negatives day after day for an extended period of time) can be really severe. Basically, you are systematically starving yourself, after all. The results tend to be this (one example, hypothetical you):
- your body burns fat, then muscle tissue to sustain itself. You become weaker and sore. You also start having cravings because your brain is sending out warning signs: 'I am starving! Feed me!'. So, you either binge and up your overall net a little, or you persevere and pat yourself on the back for a job well done! You wanted lots of fatty food, but you fed it a celery stick instead. Sadly, your whole timeline congratulates you on your willpower. You start to wonder, though, why your willpower is not being rewarded! The scale doesn't budge! You fail to realize it's because of water weight due to too much exercise and the body's inability to recover due to a lack of nurishment. The solution is often to eat even less and work out even more to get the scale to move.
- the body is further unable to sustain. It changed the body's chemistry to preserve all it can--after all, it needs to protect vital organs from becoming affected and keep you going so you can hunt and gather for food! At this stage, the body becomes its own worst enemy: it no longer tells you you are starving so you can make a last ditch effort to get food. You think you are fine on 1000 calories a day, burning 1200, because your body shows no signs of hunger anymore, but basically, the little neutrients you are providing your body with get sucked towards your vital organs, leaving nothing for the rest. You become more tired, and cranky, and your muscles no longer recover from all the stress you put them through working out. As a result, they break down even faster and hold on to even more water to prevent that breakdown from affecting your ability to throw a spear at a prey animal (hey, I can't help it your body still thinks we are living in caves!). The scale drops oh so slowly--if at all--but meanwhile you do see you are slimming down! Your measurements are less! MyFitnessPal celebrates! 'Hurray! The weight must come off in a 'woosh' soon now! Keep doing what you are doing!'. Note that (thankfully) many people drop out at this stage. The psychological burden becomes too great, they feel *kitten*, and life isn't fun anymore. They stop dieting, start binging, and gain even more weight. The jojo'ing has begun.
- you keep doing what you were doing. We are a few months in now. You develop headaches, fatigue, and you start finding more and more hair on your pillow in the morning. In fact, you start finding hair everywhere. You also get hungry again, not in a way that makes you binge but a sort of steady nagging: a gentle reminder that time is running out. Fail to meet it (MyFitnessPal people pat your back when you tell them you went to bed early instead of having more food) and slowly, your body gives up its protective hold on more systems. You can survive without full function to certain organs, so your body throws them to the wolves: nutrients go towards your brain, heart, and lungs. Pretty much all other organs start running at half capacity. You hold on to more toxins, which start chipping away at your system, and your ability to process food (get nutrients out of them) suffers greatly, so you are truly starving now. This is the point where the weight starts coming off, and pretty quickly, too, usually. A big whoosh! (MyFitnessPal people cheer in the distance). What you are really seeing is your body giving up on protecting muscle tissue completely: the water weight falls away, showing you that you actually did lose a lot of fat and muscle tissue. More cheering! It must be working! Keep at it! Work harder! Eat less!
- now you are in serious *kitten*! Your organs are not keeping up, your muscles are breaking down, and the body has to start looking elsewhere for fuel: your organs and the more vital muscles, including your heart. At this point, your nails will become brittle and start falling out. Your hair falls out. Your period stops. You experience bouts of nausea and muscle weakness. You might find yourself pulling into a run and suddenly blacking out. You still function, but on the inside you are shutting down.
From here on out, it all depends on if you start eating again and stop exercising or not. If you don't, you can end up killing yourself. If you do, it is a long road to recovery, sometimes lasting years and it sometimes includes permanent damage to the function of certain organs, especially the liver and kidneys. Worst of all, this entire crash diet hasn't taught you how to sustain weight loss, so as soon as you crash and burn, the weight flies back on! And trust me, it takes a fraction of the time it took to lose it to gain it back.
I am not saying this to frighten you (well, I am a little), but as a nurse, you should be aware of the ramifications of crash dieting. Those of us that do realize the effects therefor recommend you lose weight slowly, at a sustainable rate that gives you the best ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss. Stick to your MyFitnessPal calculated net, take the time, eat back your true exercise calories (which is probably 50 to 75 percent of your machine or database given calories), and learn how to eat (and what to eat) for weight loss you can maintain for years to come. It might not go as fast, but you will be able to see it on the scale, and best of all, it will be safe. That is my very long winded answer to 'why' you should eat back exercise calories.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.
There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.
I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.
I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...
No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.
None of that means that every person's approach should be to eat as much as possible while still losing. Some of us don't feel deprived or find it unsustainable to eat 1200 calories a day, and we still exercise and have energy and aren't lying, failing to log properly or starving. The blanket pronouncement that no woman should ever eat at 1200 calories unless she's extremely short and very inactive is you and others projecting onto others.
Maybe try being a bit less quick to insist that everyone adhere to your strategy of eating every calorie they possibly can lest they be doing it wrong. The limit at which I lose at my chosen rate is the most I can eat, if hungry. It's not an obligation, nor is it a failure to get to the end of the day and have some calories left in the green.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions