1000-1200 calories, anyone?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
And then there's ensuring adequate nutrition. Low calorie goals make it much more difficult to meet your micronutrient needs.7 -
While it is by far most common for people to cut their calories more aggressively than necessary and/or be less than meticulous about their logging, sometimes 1200 or less is actually appropriate. I am 5'3" and 125 pounds. I track my metabolism using indirect calorimetry, according to which I actually have a low metabolism. According the common Mifflin St Jeor formula, my BMR should be 1271. My BMR actually hovers at 1000. That means if I don't exercise, I MAINTAIN at about 1200 calories. TDEE = BMR x 1.2 (sedentary activity factor). Even with an activity factor of 1.75 (hard exercise or sports 6-7 days/wk), that's only 1500 calories to lose half a pound a week.
To answer the OP, I am strict. I log everything, down to how many grams of mustard I use.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
Two years.
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
Two years.
You've been eating at 1200 for two years?
Further questions:
You say you exercise and have energy - how much exercise do you get?
Have you ever taken a diet break?
What are your current stats?
There are reasons I'm asking these questions, I do have a point. I'll get to it once I know more information.2 -
Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
Two years.
You've been eating at 1200 for two years?
Further questions:
You say you exercise and have energy - how much exercise do you get?
Have you ever taken a diet break?
What are your current stats?
There are reasons I'm asking these questions, I do have a point. I'll get to it once I know more information.
First, asking me about a diet break is nonsensical as this implies a temporary condition that exists until I "go back to normal." I am living my life, day in, day out. You might as well ask if I intend to take a breath break.
Second, I run six days a week. Three to four miles per day on week days, and an eight mile run on the weekend. I may skip a run if I'm doing something else like backpack camping for a weekend. That is aside from whatever else I do hanging out with friends like going bowling or biking. In the summer, I like to motorcycle. Sometimes when I don't have a race coming up, I replace two short run days with rowing. I like yoga on Sundays.
Third, I'm at the high end of normal currently, BMi 24.8, and will probably drop to between 20 and 21.
I feel far better, less hungry, and more energetic now than I ever did at any point before in my life. Make whatever point you want, but if you think I'm trading this in to eat more so you'll be happy with my intake, I do t suggest holding your breath.5 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".
With only 30-45lbs to lose, I suspect you'll find that trying to lose 2lb/week will be unsustainable either now, or in the near future.
The general recommendation is to aim to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. And that percentage should, in most all cases, decrease as you get closer to your goal weight.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
Two years.
You've been eating at 1200 for two years?
Further questions:
You say you exercise and have energy - how much exercise do you get?
Have you ever taken a diet break?
What are your current stats?
There are reasons I'm asking these questions, I do have a point. I'll get to it once I know more information.
First, asking me about a diet break is nonsensical as this implies a temporary condition that exists until I "go back to normal." I am living my life, day in, day out. You might as well ask if I intend to take a breath break.
You misunderstand the concept of the diet break, then.
It's merely a period of eating at maintenance as opposed to deficit in order to replenish certain hormones.
Have you ever done that?Second, I run six days a week. Three to four miles per day on week days, and an eight mile run on the weekend. I may skip a run if I'm doing something else like backpack camping for a weekend. That is aside from whatever else I do hanging out with friends like going bowling or biking. In the summer, I like to motorcycle. Sometimes when I don't have a race coming up, I replace two short run days with rowing. I like yoga on Sundays.
Third, I'm at the high end of normal currently, BMi 24.8, and will probably drop to between 20 and 21.
I feel far better, less hungry, and more energetic now than I ever did at any point before in my life. Make whatever point you want, but if you think I'm trading this in to eat more so you'll be happy with my intake, I do t suggest holding your breath.
Ah, so you still have fat stores.
Yes, let me know how your running performance and dieting go when your BMI drops to say... 22ish and you're still trying to get down to 20-21.
This is why I was asking what I was asking you.
It's very easy to have bravado about a low caloric intake when you have body fat you're burning up. You don't realize what you're doing in the process, though, until you get down to those last pounds and start getting really lean while you try to keep up with athletic performance.
You seem to think this is all about people forcing food on you and that none of us have had any experience or anything and that you can sort all this out for yourself, so I'll just let you see how this all plays out.
15 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".
I will add my voice to those urging you to be in no rush to lose weight.
It's really unrealistic to expect to lose more than a pound a week with that amount to lose. People have unrealistic expectations of weight loss and make the process of losing weight harder and more punishing than it has to be in order to rush through it.
Weight management is a life long endeavor. Loss is only the first phase of it. Once the excess weight is gone, your weight will need to be maintained. Take the time while losing weight slowly and sensibly to establish habits that will see you through to maintenance of your goal weight.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions