Do you allow yourself to have a treat night ??

I fit a dessert in nearly every night. For me it's usually a bowl of fro yo with edible cookie dough or a lil buff protein cake (these things are amazing) - it may be helpful that these are kind of like one off foods so I finish it and it's done, not like a sleeve of cookies I can easily keep dipping into.

I would have to bake another cake if I really wanted more but I wouldn't do that because a. lazy and b. the first one was big/satisfying enough.

But agreed with above, 1000 calories doesn't nearly sound enough. I'd make sure you're eating enough for a healthy weight loss. You could be feeling you need those 2 or 3 more because your body is genuinely hungry. If you up you cals and fill your day with whole foods, then you may find your 1 treat at night sufficient.

I always save extra calories for a treat, but I also eat a good deal more calories than you do. If you're currently eating 1000 calories a day I would think you have more than enough allowance for a treat. When I was losing I still had a net average of 1400-ish calories.

paigethurlow95 wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

Why are you eating so little?

Like I’ve just said for my to loose 2lb a week mfp has give me a calorie goal of 1200

So 2lbs per week is quite aggressive, and you're eating significantly below your calorie target.

I can understand, in that context, why you'd be concerned about a treat taking over. I'm not a big fan of unsustainable change.

Personally I just eat things, and remain within my calorie target. By being thoughtful about what it is I meet my needs for fueling, and make choices about what fits into that target.

Friday evening is usually pizza and movie night with the fam...I did that while I was losing weight and I've done it for 5 years of maintenance.

I typically have some kind of indulgence most days.

paigethurlow95 wrote: »

So it wouldn’t really matter if I was to have a bag of crisps as long as I didn’t go over 1200. I thought the calorie control diet meant eating good healthy things and staying under your target but when I do have calories left over I might have something as I call a treat “chocolate” “crisps” I also just make sure I have a good dinner and tea so that it fills me up if I mean I wouldn’t just have 2 bars of chocolate for my dinner even if it meant staying under my calorie goal because in the long run I’ll probably be hungry an hr later. Thanks.

Weight management is about calories. Yes, nutrition is important, but you have to look at your diet as a whole when you're talking about "healthy". And yes, it is typically going to be easier to consistently hit your calorie targets when you're eating more healthful foods...but having a "treat" is irrelevant to the bigger picture.

My diet on the whole is very healthy...having a Krackel bar doesn't somehow negate all of my other nutrition throughout the day.

paigethurlow95 wrote: »

So it wouldn’t really matter if I was to have a bag of crisps as long as I didn’t go over 1200.

In principle, no. Losing weight is about eating fewer calories than you burn. The challenge with a target at 1200, and not quite making that, is that it's difficult to maintain a healthy diet at that level. That's why personally I'd question whether 2lbs pw is sustainable for you. I do appreciate that I'm in a very different situation, but you don't have much scope.

It's easy to lose weight in an unhealthy way, both physiologically and psychologically.

I thought the calorie control diet meant eating good healthy things and staying under your target but when I do have calories left over I might have something as I call a treat “chocolate” “crisps” I also just make sure I have a good dinner and tea so that it fills me up if I mean I wouldn’t just have 2 bars of chocolate for my dinner even if it meant staying under my calorie goal because in the long run I’ll probably be hungry an hr later. Thanks.

I agree that feeling satisfied is a big challenge at times. Personally I eat a lot of fruit, but it's not particularly filling in the way that say porridge is, and I'd say the same about chocolate.

I'll also look at things on about a weekly period, so if I go over on one day I can offset that a little in the rest of the week.

paigethurlow95 wrote: »

My diet is very healthy especially compared to what it used to be like I used to have toast for breakfast along with a bag of crisps anything my one year old would leave I would finish it off I would snack all day on crisps and chocolate I would have pizza and garlic bread for dinner and then I would have something like pork chops chips and gravy for my tea and taking a pack of biscuits to bed and other treats like crisps and cakes. Now I’m on a strict diet I don’t know what all the fuss is about and why people are saying I’m eating too little I’m loosing weight that’s the main thing

1200 calories is the minimum recommended for most women for a reason. Eating below that requires very careful attention to be sure you're getting the vitamins and nutrients your body needs and to be sure that your body isn't doing anything like eating away at the muscles in your heart. You said in your OP that you "never really go over 1000 calories." If that's not accurate, I'm glad. But those are your words and a lot of people are responding to them because a diet that's below your minimum required calories over a long period of time (as "never" seems to indicate) is, by definition, not a healthy diet. It doesn't matter how healthy each individual food is in your diet if they don't add up to cover your basic nutrition needs.

It might be a good idea to clarify what your daily and weekly calorie intake looks like because I would give different advice to someone who's never going over 1000 calories vs. someone who sometimes goes over 1200 and sometimes doesn't so that their goals average out over the course of a week. That's important information for people to have (including yourself) and right now we're kind of being told two different things, do you see?