The 1200 calorie imperative.
Slowfaster
Posts: 186 Member
I've always heard that dieters should never eat fewer than 1200 calories per day. This seems based on the belief that they can't get all the "nutrition," they need on, say, 1150 calories. I wonder.
I was sixteen the first time I tried the 1200 calories per day regimen and I lost ten pounds the first week. Later on, through my twenties and thirties 1200 calories would allow me to lose about 7 pounds the first week and 2 pounds a week thereafter. At that time my starting weight was usually about 130 pounds with my goal at about 110.
Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.
Here's my thought: Doesn't it stand to reason that if an older, sedentary person needs less calories he would also need less nutrients? Why would I need the same amount of protein, vitamins and minerals now, as I needed as a growing teen? I eat a very nutrient dense diet with lots of salmon, vegetables, and good fats and am probably already getting more good nutrition than lots of young people are getting with 3000 calories a day of donuts and fries.
I was sixteen the first time I tried the 1200 calories per day regimen and I lost ten pounds the first week. Later on, through my twenties and thirties 1200 calories would allow me to lose about 7 pounds the first week and 2 pounds a week thereafter. At that time my starting weight was usually about 130 pounds with my goal at about 110.
Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.
Here's my thought: Doesn't it stand to reason that if an older, sedentary person needs less calories he would also need less nutrients? Why would I need the same amount of protein, vitamins and minerals now, as I needed as a growing teen? I eat a very nutrient dense diet with lots of salmon, vegetables, and good fats and am probably already getting more good nutrition than lots of young people are getting with 3000 calories a day of donuts and fries.
11
Replies
-
Lots of people say don’t go below 1200. For lots of people that’s good advice.
It’s a generalization though, we are all different and some people do need less than this to loose. . Of course, if you’re not eating much it is going to be harder to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs from your food.
Listen to your body and ask your doctor if you’re planning a very low calorie diet.4 -
mnbvcxzlkjhgfdsa12 wrote: »Lots of people say don’t go below 1200. For lots of people that’s good advice.
It’s a generalization though, we are all different and some people do need less than this to loose. . Of course, if you’re not eating much it is going to be harder to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs from your food.
Listen to your body and ask your doctor if you’re planning a very low calorie diet.
Nobody should be eating below 1200 calories unless you're a sedentary dwarf.
16 -
I don't have any strong opinions about what you're asking, I just want to comment on this:
The decreasing rate of loss you're experiencing is normal and to be expected, because your fat reserves are smaller at a lower weight. You just can't create the same calorie deficit anymore.Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.
But if you can't lose weight on 1200 calories, your logging is off, or you're too impatient and start eating more without logging it. You would have to be, for instance, 95 pounds and 5'1 in order to maintain on 1200 true calories.20 -
In regards to thinking you need less nutrients as you age, I'd have to disagree. I would think eating more nutrients would be important to help maintain muscle and to provide the body with more than sufficient nutrients to keep functioning optimally (or to slow the loss of functions)11
-
Honestly it sounds like someone who has always gone for rapid loss and an unhealthy mind set about weight loss and calories and is trying to justify that unhealthy approach now by saying that because you are older, surely you must need less calories.22
-
We need more intake of certain nutrients as we age, unfortunately, because we absorb and utilize them less effectively. Protein is one example. (I'm 62.)
Any form of movement you're able to do will help to increase your calorie burn, right down to fidgeting. It doesn't have to be full bore exercise.
Many of us face increased physical challenges as we age - arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiac issues, more - but it's important to think through whether there may be certain things we still can do, within our personal limitations, to gradually get stronger and fitter. Consider options like chair exercises, arthritis yoga or tai chi, pool exercises, etc. If you have major limitations, consider asking your doctor for a physical therapy referral to identify things that are achievable for you. It's all too easy to let "I'm too old to . . . ." infect our thinking, and allow it to limit us even beyond our physical limitations.
A good deal of our reduced calorie burn in later years is simply because we've gotten in the habit of doing less in our daily lives (sitting more, moving less), because our muscle mass has decreased with inactivity, and because - particularly for women - many rounds of too-rapid yo-yo weight loss have sacrificed lean muscle tissue and replaced it with fat. The good news is that those are also things we can chip away at reversing at any age
IMO, you'd be better sticking with 100% sound nutrition at the lowest calorie level that works for you, and striving for more movement of any type to increase calorie expenditure. Sacrificing nutrition is a risky bet. Personally, I aim for 0.8g of protein per pound of healthy goal weight; 0.35-0.45g fats per pound of healthy goal weight (as much of that as possible from sources like nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc); and a bare minimum of 5 servings of veggies and fruit (preferably more) daily; letting carbs fall where they may to balance out calories.
Best wishes!21 -
The first thing that comes to my mind is how do you know you were eating 1200 calories all those times you tried to lose?7
-
Slowfaster wrote: »I've always heard that dieters should never eat fewer than 1200 calories per day. This seems based on the belief that they can't get all the "nutrition," they need on, say, 1150 calories. I wonder.
I was sixteen the first time I tried the 1200 calories per day regimen and I lost ten pounds the first week. Later on, through my twenties and thirties 1200 calories would allow me to lose about 7 pounds the first week and 2 pounds a week thereafter. At that time my starting weight was usually about 130 pounds with my goal at about 110.
Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.
Here's my thought: Doesn't it stand to reason that if an older, sedentary person needs less calories he would also need less nutrients? Why would I need the same amount of protein, vitamins and minerals now, as I needed as a growing teen? I eat a very nutrient dense diet with lots of salmon, vegetables, and good fats and am probably already getting more good nutrition than lots of young people are getting with 3000 calories a day of donuts and fries.
One of the problems with your reasoning is that you were seriously undereating at 1200 kcal a day when you were a teenager, and were most likely not getting all the nutrients you needed then, and quite possibly the same was true in your 20s. Losing 10 ponds in a week or even 7 lbs in a week when you only had 20 lbs to lose is umdereating. And that doesn't even address the question of whether 110 lbs was a healthy goal weight. How tall were you?
The argument against going below 1200 kcal per day does not mean that everyone should go as low as 1200 in the first place. For many 1200 is already too low.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Honestly it sounds like someone who has always gone for rapid loss and an unhealthy mind set about weight loss and calories and is trying to justify that unhealthy approach now by saying that because you are older, surely you must need less calories.
If you'll read more carefully, you'll see that I only lost quickly the first week of any diet -- probably mostly water weight -- after that I would lose 2 pounds a week for a few months and then either one pound or 1/2 pound a week for the rest of the diet until I reached goal. That has never been considered too fast. Now, I'm not trying to justify anything but trying to continue to lose. In recent years, I have found that I eventually stop losing at all and months go by with no loss at 1200 calories a day. After which I quit dieting because only a fool keeps trying what doesn't work.ladyhusker39 wrote: »The first thing that comes to my mind is how do you know you were eating 1200 calories all those times you tried to lose?
Because I was weighing and measuring what I ate and recording my calories in a notebook.
But if you can't lose weight on 1200 calories, your logging is off, or you're too impatient and start eating more without logging it. You would have to be, for instance, 95 pounds and 5'1 in order to maintain on 1200 true calories.
No. That's always the pat answer when someone stops losing, but I know my calorie counting is accurate. I eat only two meals, lunch and dinner, as I'm doing intermittent fasting as well and I eat the same thing every Monday, every Tuesday, etc. So it's easy to get the calories right, it's not like I'm guessing or snacking. I eat lunch out every day and something like an Arby's roast beef classic doesn't change from one day to the next, because it's always weighed. My calories were accurate in September when I was losing weight and they're just as accurate now when I'm barely losing anything.
I walk with a cane which keeps me from doing lots of aerobic activity but I do yard work, vacuum the house every day, walk the dog and do calisthenics and rehab exercises so I do get as much movement as possible into everyday. I just can't do enough to burn a significant amount of calories because it would further damage my leg.
I think it's remarkable how much faith some of you have in the common formulas of weight loss. They aren't magical and a calorie amount that causes weight loss for one person may not work for another. Sometimes a person's body definitely does adjust to a calorie deficit so what works in January may not continue to make you lose in July.
I'm 5' 5" and an under water body fat analysis done by a professional concluded that the ideal weight for me would be 102 pounds. I have extremely small bones. I'm only trying for a goal of about140 these days but I know lower would be better.
I'm just tired of all weight loss coming to a stop when I get to about 160 which is coming up soon. I started this current 1200 calorie diet September first 1917 and have gone from 212 to 167. Forty five pounds in ten months is not terribly fast I don't think.
14 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Forty five pounds in ten months is not terribly fast I don't think.
Thats pretty much 1lb/week. Thats a perfect pace. It feels slow, but you are actually doing great. Keep in mind, the smaller you get the less calories you need, therefor the less room you have to make a deficit. Most people close to goal are only losing half a lb per week or so. That is perfectly normal.5 -
Something like an Arby's roast beef classic can vary by as much as 50% of it's listed calories based on the mood of the preparer.Slowfaster wrote: »No. That's always the pat answer when someone stops losing, but I know my calorie counting is accurate. I eat only two meals, lunch and dinner, as I'm doing intermittent fasting as well and I eat the same thing every Monday, every Tuesday, etc. So it's easy to get the calories right, it's not like I'm guessing or snacking. I eat lunch out every day and something like an Arby's roast beef classic doesn't change from one day to the next, because it's always weighed. My calories were accurate in September when I was losing weight and they're just as accurate now when I'm barely losing anything.
14 -
And now I know what I should NEVER eat 1,200 cals or less....Thank you OP!0
-
It sounds like you have unrealistic expectations OP - 45 lbs in 10 months is a very good rate of loss for the amount of weight you have to lose and when you get within 20 lbs of your goal you should be trying to slow it down to 0.5 lb/week.
You also mentioned thinking that a weight of 102 for your height of 5’5 was ideal when you were younger - that is underweight! The 140 you are aiming for now is perfect - but it’s going to take some time to get there and going below 1200 is not advisable for all the reasons listed above.7 -
All medical science/conclusions are based on averages concluded by people doing some sort of study over the years. Just like the idea that the Arby's sandwich can vary by 50% based on the mood of the preparer (because no restaurant ever uses portion control as a cost measure) so can scientific conclusion based on the parameters of the study, how conducted and the desires of the tester/poster. It is so easy to skew testing for any study and thinking that has not happened over the years is living in denial. In fact, I often see MFP "experts" commenting on "de-bunked" information...but who is de-bunked? Which one is REALLY right? Who's agenda is being followed?
Unfortunately, there is a lot faith in "averages" brought out of traditional science. This post is a perfect example of that. Averages are based on lumping a bunch of results together, adding and dividing to come to something in the middle. Concluding we are all in the middle and there are no deviations from that, is concluding that everyone ever studied was right there on that line and THAT is how the "number" or conclusion was derived. Forgotten are all those other people who were or were not in the middle to make that "average".
I don't know all your health risks nor the specific results of ANY of your formal testing or health Hx. There is SO MUCH MORE to you than what is posted. Concluding that 1200 is or is not good for you, is not appropriate. Concluding nutritionally what you need, requires a deeper evaluation of your health risks verses intake and medication affecting it. The same would be true for when you were a teenager or in your 30's or now in your 70's. Finding a medical Provider whom you feel comfortable and trust worthy, able to view all your medical records is the only real way to find answers to your questions about your uniqueness. Very few people are an "average" through their entire life, if at all.7 -
I agree with you Lisawolfinger. It's the possibility of all those variables that I was hoping to discuss -- instead I ended up with a lot of people making assumptions about how accurate my information was and basically accusing me of lying.
The only true weight loss professional I have encountered was the one who determined my ideal weight based on underwater body fat measurements and calipers. I have a 4 and 1/2 inch wrist which means my bones simply don't weigh as much as most peoples. I think the expert knew better about my body after examining it closely and measuring it in several different ways than WinoGelato does.
I know that the last few times I've tried to get below 160 pounds on 1200 calories that my loss had slowed and stopped with no loss at all for months and months. So, I'm different and was hoping some other people were "the same kind of different as me," and we could discuss things. On this current diet I was quite satisfied with my weight loss, until now at around 167 where I can see it slowing down to about one pound a month and I'm afraid all loss will stop soon. I don't think one pound a month is an "unrealistic expectation."
My doctor is no help with this sort of thing, he just looks at me and my cane and says he thinks I'm probably doing the best I can considering I can't exercise much. He hands out booklets that say, "Eat more fruits and vegetables and less fat." Keep in mind that most doctors receive one semester of weight control study and their information is often out of date.
12 -
I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.35
-
From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.8
-
I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.
Sounds like you have a smart doctor and I like your suggested menu. My vegetarian son just brought home some almond milk!17 -
From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.
Thanks for checking out my diary, it's a little different right now due to some vacations, but yes I do seem to measure more than I weigh. That's because many of my regular foods were weighed in the beginning and later just matched with calories. For example my apples are always Kroger's "lunch box," galas. They are all small and around 50 calories so I just click the first fifty calorie apple in my list. I'm basically eating the very same things I ate ten months ago when I was losing 2 pounds a week so I don't think the total calories have changed that much.5 -
Please don't put this down to bone weight. Bones have a fairly low density, and adding a few cm^3 doesn't have a very big influence on body weight.4
-
Please don't put this down to bone weight. Bones have a fairly low density, and adding a few cm^3 doesn't have a very big influence on body weight.
Smaller skeletal structure means less 'meat' needed to wrap around the bones. That's where weight differences come in. I have a narrow pelvis, maybe 34" at a sensible weight. There are many women my height who'd still be 36"+ when super underweight, a few probably much larger, because of wider pelvic spacing. At a similar perceived degree of fatness/thinness, and with other body parts of similar size, I'd be lighter in weight than those women would, because of the geometrically larger amount of meat (skin, muscle, tendons, fluid, etc.) that it takes to wrap around their wider hips. That's why "bones" matter, not the weight of the bones per se.
I have no idea what OP meant, but that's what's really involved in "big bones" leading to a higher desirable body weight, or "small bones" a lower one. If she's very petitely proportioned, as she says, a relatively lower body weight would be more appropriate for her, within the range of possible reasonable weights. (No opinion about the adequacy of specific weights reported.)7 -
Slowfaster wrote: »From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.
Thanks for checking out my diary, it's a little different right now due to some vacations, but yes I do seem to measure more than I weigh. That's because many of my regular foods were weighed in the beginning and later just matched with calories. For example my apples are always Kroger's "lunch box," galas. They are all small and around 50 calories so I just click the first fifty calorie apple in my list. I'm basically eating the very same things I ate ten months ago when I was losing 2 pounds a week so I don't think the total calories have changed that much.
I don't want you to think I'm sounding nitpicky here.... I just had a couple of thoughts on the bolded that could help you out. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you might buy your apples in a bag of similarly sized apples? Or at least pick out a few similarly sized apples at the store.
There is a discrepancy between the USDA calorie count for a small apple, and the Kroger Lunch Box Galas entry of about 30 calories. It may be helpful to cut the apple up and weigh each time before you consume it. (This way you are weighing exactly what you are consuming) And use a USDA per gram entry when you log. You might find you could be accidentally under-logging by using store and generic entries. (Such as the Kroger apples) 30 calories might not sound like much, but it could add up along with other things slowing your weight loss.
Also, let's just say you usually weigh the Arby's sandwich before you eat it. For the Arby's classic Roast Beef, I Pulled from their website, the sandwich is supposed to weigh 154g and be 360 calories. If it weighs say 164g before you eat it, how are you logging it? 164 grams while that sounds pretty close, is a difference of about 20 calories. ( 164/154= 1.06. 1.06*360= 381.6)
If you have enough little things like that through the day or week, it could add up to enough to slow down your rate of loss. Now, that's not to say 1/2 lb of loss a week is too slow. That's perfectly healthy. BUT if you find that you stall out like you have before, this could be a place to observe and see if you can find any areas for improvement. I don't believe anyone is calling you a liar. It's just that logging errors is such a common problem, it's usually what people try to weed out first.
8 -
Thanks Crafty_camp, I see what you're saying, but I think I tend to err on the other side of things. For example, my "favorites," list says the Kroger lunch box Gala is fifty calories and that's what I click each time, even though I don't weigh them but just pick out the smallest ones from the bin each time. Plus, since Dr. Oz did a whole show about insecticides -- apples being one of the worst things with the poison going down the core _- I cut my apples so that a very wide center section gets throw out.
With the Arby's sandwich (or any patented sandwich like the Whopper -- I don't weigh it myself, but go with what's listed and trust that if it's a little big one week, it might be a little small the next.
I rarely eat every last bite of anything -- that goes to my dog, yet I don't minus it off.
Bottom line is that since I eat the same group of foods every week, and this menu plan worked for me six months ago, it should average out the same now.
I really just think my metabolism has slowed down a little, adjusting to the smaller amount of calories it's been getting for the last ten months. That and the fact that I weigh less now, so I burn fewer calories.
AnnPT, Thanks for the small boned explanation, I never thought of the "meat wrapped around," bit, I was just told that bones and muscle were heavier than fat. When I was in a "normal" body-fat range I weighed around 110 and my measurements were 34-22-34. Even now at 167lbs my back and waist is much more narrow than many women my same weight. I just feel like I'm much "fatter," than my friends of similar weight who have broad shoulders and big calf muscles. It's like the difference between Venus Williams and Lucy Liu. Neither one is fat, neither one is overly skinny, they're just very different.8 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Thanks Crafty_camp, I see what you're saying, but I think I tend to err on the other side of things. For example, my "favorites," list says the Kroger lunch box Gala is fifty calories and that's what I click each time, even though I don't weigh them but just pick out the smallest ones from the bin each time. Plus, since Dr. Oz did a whole show about insecticides -- apples being one of the worst things with the poison going down the core _- I cut my apples so that a very wide center section gets throw out.
With the Arby's sandwich (or any patented sandwich like the Whopper -- I don't weigh it myself, but go with what's listed and trust that if it's a little big one week, it might be a little small the next.
I rarely eat every last bite of anything -- that goes to my dog, yet I don't minus it off.
Bottom line is that since I eat the same group of foods every week, and this menu plan worked for me six months ago, it should average out the same now.
I really just think my metabolism has slowed down a little, adjusting to the smaller amount of calories it's been getting for the last ten months. That and the fact that I weigh less now, so I burn fewer calories.
AnnPT, Thanks for the small boned explanation, I never thought of the "meat wrapped around," bit, I was just told that bones and muscle were heavier than fat. When I was in a "normal" body-fat range I weighed around 110 and my measurements were 34-22-34. Even now at 167lbs my back and waist is much more narrow than many women my same weight. I just feel like I'm much "fatter," than my friends of similar weight who have broad shoulders and big calf muscles. It's like the difference between Venus Williams and Lucy Liu. Neither one is fat, neither one is overly skinny, they're just very different.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid. Nutrition labels associated with any food product list the portion weight as the minimum it can possibly be. The actual weight of the portion will range from bang on to significantly higher than what's listed. But it will not be lower. You can give people more for "free," basically, but you cannot legally give them less food than what's stated on their nutrition label and that they're paying for.
The only accurate way to know how many calories are being consumed (especially important as you near your goal weight or if rate of loss slows down or stops) is to weigh everything you eat, using the gram values on nutrition labels as your guide.
When I eat out and can't weigh my burger and fries or whatever, I just add 10% to the stated calories to allot for this overage.
Also, please don't listen to Dr. Oz. The man is a quackadoodle of the highest order.
11 -
Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html12 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html
buy organic or peel your apples7 -
Quote: Not going to happen, I'm afraid. Nutrition labels associated with any food product list the portion weight as the minimum it can possibly be. The actual weight of the portion will range from bang on to significantly higher than what's listed. But it will not be lower. You can give people more for "free," basically, but you cannot legally give them less food than what's stated on their nutrition label and that they're paying for.
The only accurate way to know how many calories are being consumed (especially important as you near your goal weight or if rate of loss slows down or stops) is to weigh everything you eat, using the gram values on nutrition labels as your guide.
When I eat out and can't weigh my burger and fries or whatever, I just add 10% to the stated calories to allot for this overage.
Also, please don't listen to Dr. Oz. The man is a quackadoodle of the highest order.
[/quote]
Good case for measuring. Take bagels sold in a package. The package says 81 grams per serving. One bagel may weigh 89 grams and one may weigh 77 grams. But the total package has to equal the serving size times the number of units.
3 -
walking2running wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »Apples are right at the top of most lists of foods with dangerous levels of pesticides.
https://cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/apples-pesticides-wash-study/index.html
buy organic or peel your apples
Organic sometimes has more pesticide use (no one tests it nearly as much as conventional in these studies), not to mention organic pesticides tend to be less effecting and can have more of an impact on human health than their synthetic counterparts. Regardless, most produce be it conventional or organic is for the most part under the threshold where it should be. Buy organic if you like wasting money.9 -
Slowfaster wrote: »I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.
Sounds like you have a smart doctor and I like your suggested menu. My vegetarian son just brought home some almond milk!
A smart doctor would have referred their patient to a dietician. Telling someone to eat no more than 1000cal a day is seldom appropriate advice.7 -
Vaya!! es una interesantísima conversación, son todos personas muy al tanto del tema salud y peso corporal, y no me atrevo ni a postear casi porque a pesar de mis años recién comienzo a aprender de verdad... gracias a conversaciones como esta
La información cobra una importancia vital a la hora de revertir los hábitos alimenticios y la búsqueda de una mejor calidad de vida o vejez en mi caso...
Respecto del tema, y esto es pura experiencia, en los casi 8 meses que llevo en esta "odisea" de cambiar mis malos hábitos alimenticios y sedentarismo, he podido ir notando que cada cierto tiempo es bueno ir alterando o alternando, cada vez que cambio algo en mi dieta (saludable por cierto), vuelvo a perder peso como al principio, y claro en mi caso se ha dado porque al ir estudiando, leyendo e informándome he ido conociendo nuevas cosas, y al ponerlas en practica pues funcionan, al principio sólo seguí las instrucciones de mi nutricionista, la que el estado pone en mi barrio, y q sólo da instrucciones muy generales, así q al ojo no más comía por aquí y por allá, perdí peso bien con eso los 2 primeros meses, luego pareció parar el asunto, y me encontré con a dieta 3x1 de Metabolismo TV, conocí el veneno que son los carbohidratos refinados o procesados, así q los abandoné del todo, dejé la leche de vaca por ejemplo, empecé a perder peso de nuevo, volvió a parar el asunto, y conocí el Ayuno Intermitente y además conocí esto de las aplicaciones para controlar la ingesta diaria, volví a perder peso considerablemente, en casi 8 meses son poco más de 30 kilos menos (66 libras), irreconocible me dicen algunos.. fallo un poco (en este mes invernal terriblemente frio), un poco en ejercitarme, pero hoy descubrí los vídeos de Leslie Sansone's Walk at Home así q supongo q esto será lo nuevo en mi rutina q hará lo suyo. hasta q llegue de nuevo el sol y pueda volver a la piscina... parece q hay q ir alternando, cambiando, algo produce eso en el cuerpo con una buena respuesta. No sé cuántas calorías se queman o gastan con estos vídeos
pero bueno al menos me muevo harto con ellos
Gracias por compartir tanto conocimiento y experiencia, de verdad se agradece mucho. Saludos
2
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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