The 1200 calorie imperative.
Options
Replies
-
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
That may be the reason the OP is taking this so poorly. People like you and me have learned from past failure but the OP has seemingly always had a working formula for weight loss. We have learned to be flexible and, more importantly, we have learned how to be wrong.
I think maybe what you've learned is how to tell other people they're wrong because you expect everyone to be just like you. I have never, ever, eaten after my child or my husband, or been a between meal nibbler, I don't even taste food when I cook, I just follow the recipe. And I've already stated that I don't track calories burned through exercise at all so I could hardly be overestimating there.
See? Your mistakes are not my mistakes. I have been tracking calories off and on since I was fifteen and can estimate a plate of food very accurately, the people in the study were probably not people who had weighed and measured food for any extended period of time. My mistakes are different than yours, I am "wrong," in other ways that have nothing to do with this thread.
You all need to get over your fear of restaurants. I'm not making 900 calorie mistakes at restaurants. We eat out at lunch time and I usually pick something that runs around 500 calories. If I only ate 2/3 of my six inch turkey &veg sub at Subway, or my roast beef at Arby's, I wouldn't be getting enough lunch and would be starving by dinner time. My son worked for McDonald's for several years and told me that they would get in trouble if they didn't use the exact measurements dictated by the chain. Too much means they don't make any profit and too little means they could be in trouble by law for not selling the patented sandwich as advertised. Sure some kids may be careless in spite of all that but I guess I'm still waiting for that giant hamburger at the same low price as the small one. Condiments like mayonnaise are squirted out by machine at exactly the same amount for each burger.7 -
Thanks, Gamliela!
0 -
Slowfaster wrote: »It's interesting how everyone assumes that mistakes in calorie addition always result in people eating more calories than they record, why wouldn't it sometimes result in eating less calories than recorded? Some people are even assuming that a woman's doctor believes that, without knowing the woman or the doctor. Why so eager to think other people are cheating? Projection?
I learned very early that all women are different. Back in the 1960's my mother joined weight watchers. That was way before the point system and she was told to eat 1000 calories a day. She gained weight. She did not cheat. I ate every meal with her. She did not make mistakes, she was a book keeper. What she was, was a tiny 4'11" small boned woman who had dieted in one form or another most of her life and simply didn't need many calories to sustain her 120 lb, trying for 110 lb, body.@Slowfaster
You should stop worrying about your apple. If you eat out regularly that is your problem. Eat 2/3rds of what you have been eating when you go out and you might be fine. You might think it is 1000 calories but odds are it will be more but it still might get you back to a deficit.
I eat out regularly because my husband and I are retired and he really looks forward to getting out for lunch every day. I sometimes put other people ahead of myself. The fact that something like that didn't occur to you says more about you than me.
I have not asked you or anyone else what is wrong with my calculations so quit getting so huffy and pedantic about what I eat or how accurate my figures are. I already know why I'm not losing and it's the same reason I always, through many, many diets in the past, quit losing at around 1600 calories. It's because 1200 calories is no longer low enough to make me lose. If it was due to the fact that I eat out every day, or didn't weigh enough items, I wouldn't have lost 45 pounds in the past ten months.
My actual question was what people thought about the safety of going below 1200 calories. I think I'll just go with my instincts and try 1100 calories, making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Well yeah....it's only logical to address the variables with the lowest degree of confidence. Calorie estimation is challenging for those with professional experience. It is extremely difficult for people with no professional training. To counter this how are you so sure and adamant that the error is not with your estimation? Describe the steps you take to ensure you are accurate and precise.
You can put your concerns about metabolism to rest. Metabolism is a cascade of biochemical reactions - there is no "slow" or "fast" it simply is. If something alters metabolism then this typically ends in death - not weight loss or gain.
To your final point. If you are so certain then why are you asking random anonymous strangers on an internet forum? You know this is a bad idea. Regardless of how many nays or yays you receive - still make this a really bad idea.7 -
Slowfaster wrote: »
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
That may be the reason the OP is taking this so poorly. People like you and me have learned from past failure but the OP has seemingly always had a working formula for weight loss. We have learned to be flexible and, more importantly, we have learned how to be wrong.
Your mistakes are not my mistakes.
Never said they were. I was just sharing an example of a mistake I was making, thinking it probably didn't make that much difference, when it actually did.
And also, I've eaten out a few times the past week, but not concerned about it because I am losing at my expected rate.
Glad you are good... maybe these points will be beneficial to lurkers. 4 -
Slowfaster wrote: »I think maybe what you've learned is how to tell other people they're wrong because you expect everyone to be just like you. I have never, ever, eaten after my child or my husband, or been a between meal nibbler, I don't even taste food when I cook, I just follow the recipe. And I've already stated that I don't track calories burned through exercise at all so I could hardly be overestimating there.
See? Your mistakes are not my mistakes. I have been tracking calories off and on since I was fifteen and can estimate a plate of food very accurately, the people in the study were probably not people who had weighed and measured food for any extended period of time. My mistakes are different than yours, I am "wrong," in other ways that have nothing to do with this thread.
You all need to get over your fear of restaurants. I'm not making 900 calorie mistakes at restaurants. We eat out at lunch time and I usually pick something that runs around 500 calories. If I only ate 2/3 of my six inch turkey &veg sub at Subway, or my roast beef at Arby's, I wouldn't be getting enough lunch and would be starving by dinner time. My son worked for McDonald's for several years and told me that they would get in trouble if they didn't use the exact measurements dictated by the chain. Too much means they don't make any profit and too little means they could be in trouble by law for not selling the patented sandwich as advertised. Sure some kids may be careless in spite of all that but I guess I'm still waiting for that giant hamburger at the same low price as the small one. Condiments like mayonnaise are squirted out by machine at exactly the same amount for each burger.
It takes about 3500 calories to burn a single pound of fat. If you, as you say, instinctively need to eat 1100 of your perfectly tracked calories as opposed to 1200 it will take you 35 days to lose a single pound of fat. Is that the rate of loss you were hoping for? I am not sure I would love trusting those instincts.
It makes sense that we are all wrong about restaurants and you are absolutely correct. That is the way most things work, right? McD is known for having the higher quality control and consistency so results will vary among chains I should know... I worked in 3 different ones for summer jobs as a teen.
I don't actually care about being right or wrong I want you to have whatever success you can have. Your maintenance calories are not 1200 though. Science says you are wrong.
6 -
I am 63 years old. I am 5'4" tall. I have lost 40 lbs with about 10 to go. I also have a Fitbit. On the days I do pretty much nothing (read, computer stuff, putter around the house, watch TV) - I burn about 1200 calories/day according to my Fitbit. Now I know the Fitbit isn't 100% accurate - but I think it is in the ball park. I realized that unless I wanted to live on 1200 calories/day for the rest of my life (and not lose anymore weight at that!!) I really needed to up my exercise. A LOT!!! So I did. Started running, boxing, doing calisthenics, weights, jumping rope etc.
I burn 600-800 extra calories a day now. So I have been able to up my intake from 1200 calories/day and still lose, albeit slowly now. My point is - maybe it is better to up the exercise rather than reduce the amount of calories per day you take in. Just a thought....1 -
Again---63 is not 70 and needing a cane. At 65 I was doing similar things, a few "overuse injuries" and a major health issue and surgery (and treatment) had me very heavy for the first time in my life at 70. I was young and super charged at 65,planning on staying that way. I think the OP probably with her cane and health problems can't plan on burning 600-800 a day. I walk and exercise most days and at your height get about 200 according to my HRM. Yep-- it sucks seeing that maintanence for an overweight goal is 13204
-
@Slowfaster
Ok, will try to answer OP’s question.
Just took a nutrition class...
NOTE: Assuming NO Exercise, ie no need for additional nutrients to help with lean tissue healing...
MINIMUM daily Protein: 0.6 x wt in lbs/2.2 =
0.6 x 167/2.2 = 46 grams x 4 cals/gram =
184 calories
(However, I’ve been told by my doctor and @AnnP also mentioned, that over age 60, it’s better to eat 1-1.2 gram per wt in kg, which I do.)
For you, that would be 76 g to 91 g or 302 to 364 calories..
MINIMUM daily carbs: Our BRAINS need 50 grams per day of carbohydrate fuel, ie not including insoluble fiber. 50 g dietary carbs = 200 calories.
MINIMUM daily fats:
1 T flax 50 cals or chia seeds 43 cals or 3oz salmon/sardine 130 cals or 4T walnuts 180 cals (Omega 3) Daily
40 - 180 calories, average ~ 120
1 T nut butter or 2T any nut/seed
(Omega 6) Daily
~ 90 cals
1T olive oil or 3 T olives or 4 T avocado/hummus
(Omega 9 - Mono Unsaturated) Daily
~120 cals
Total minimum fats ~ 330 calories daily
Teacher is ADAMANT that we should eat breakfast, ideally Very Soon after waking to keep us from losing our muscles gradually.
All of what I’ve posted is based on scientific studies.
330 Fats + 184 Proteins + 200 Carbs = 714 calories. Eat another 286 & you should be fine. Carbs would be best from vegetables to maximize anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals.
If you go with higher protein (1g per kg wt):
330 fats + 302 Proteins + 200 carbs = 832 calories You choose where to use the final 160 calories. Carbs would be best from vegetables to maximize anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals.
If you go with 1.2 g per kg wt:
330 fats+364 pro+200 carb= 894
You choose where to use the final 106 calories. Carbs would be best from vegetables to maximize anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals.
Track & keep your total sodium under 1500mg daily after age 60. This could help with your blood pressure increasing for chair exercise.
I would recommend a Vitamin pill as insurance.
The instructor’s approach was to help us compute our minimums based on solid science research, and then with the balance of calories go with our preferences in macros, as he feels that’s the only way for it to be sustainable.
And again, this is all computed with no exercise.
Best to you.13 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »...making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Here is a study you might find helpful in determining your protein goals.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
I was really hopeful this study would provide insight into protein needs for older women, but despite the abstract's noting a study in premenopausal women that looked at benefits in muscle retention during calorie restriction that included 1.6 g/d/kg bw over .8 kg/d/kg bw, the study design inexplicably (to me) put the posmenopausal women in calorie restriction with protein intakes ranging from .47 g/d/kg bw to .8 g/d/kg bw. That's right, the "high protein" participants were actually getting a hair less than the RDA for protein!
I, too, noticed that the protein intake was based on RDA of 15% to 20% of daily calories. This was a retrospective analysis of data from a previous weight loss study in which RDA guidelines were used. To me, the big takeaways from the study (along with other studies cited) are:
• there is a linear relationship between protein intake and loss of lean mass
• protein needs should be based on body size and not on caloric intake
• the RDA for protein may be inadequate for retaining fat-free mass during caloric restriction
I agree that it would be nice to have more information on protein needs of older women. This study does state the need for more studies in which protein intake is above the RDA.
0 -
Wow, MadisonMoll, thank you so much for doing all that for me!
I've already copied it to keep, it's such great information!
Off to do some research on that breakfast thing -- it's going to put an end to my intermittent fasting I think.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou!
0 -
Slowfaster wrote: »Wow, MadisonMoll, thank you so much for doing all that for me!
I've already copied it to keep, it's such great information!
Off to do some research on that breakfast thing -- it's going to put an end to my intermittent fasting I think.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou!
If that works for you: "teacher says . . . eat breakfast based on scientific studies", then god bless.
I'm an agnostic since forever.
I couldn't be more sincere in saying this, though: I truly hope for you to thrive. Best wishes!
5 -
Slowfaster wrote: »
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
That may be the reason the OP is taking this so poorly. People like you and me have learned from past failure but the OP has seemingly always had a working formula for weight loss. We have learned to be flexible and, more importantly, we have learned how to be wrong.
I think maybe what you've learned is how to tell other people they're wrong because you expect everyone to be just like you. I have never, ever, eaten after my child or my husband, or been a between meal nibbler, I don't even taste food when I cook, I just follow the recipe. And I've already stated that I don't track calories burned through exercise at all so I could hardly be overestimating there.
See? Your mistakes are not my mistakes. I have been tracking calories off and on since I was fifteen and can estimate a plate of food very accurately, the people in the study were probably not people who had weighed and measured food for any extended period of time. My mistakes are different than yours, I am "wrong," in other ways that have nothing to do with this thread.
You all need to get over your fear of restaurants. I'm not making 900 calorie mistakes at restaurants. We eat out at lunch time and I usually pick something that runs around 500 calories. If I only ate 2/3 of my six inch turkey &veg sub at Subway, or my roast beef at Arby's, I wouldn't be getting enough lunch and would be starving by dinner time. My son worked for McDonald's for several years and told me that they would get in trouble if they didn't use the exact measurements dictated by the chain. Too much means they don't make any profit and too little means they could be in trouble by law for not selling the patented sandwich as advertised. Sure some kids may be careless in spite of all that but I guess I'm still waiting for that giant hamburger at the same low price as the small one. Condiments like mayonnaise are squirted out by machine at exactly the same amount for each burger.
I've eaten at a lot of Subways all across the country and you can see your sandwich being made. I have never once seen a machine applying the condiments like mayonnaise.
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Slowfaster wrote: »...making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Here is a study you might find helpful in determining your protein goals.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
I was really hopeful this study would provide insight into protein needs for older women, but despite the abstract's noting a study in premenopausal women that looked at benefits in muscle retention during calorie restriction that included 1.6 g/d/kg bw over .8 kg/d/kg bw, the study design inexplicably (to me) put the posmenopausal women in calorie restriction with protein intakes ranging from .47 g/d/kg bw to .8 g/d/kg bw. That's right, the "high protein" participants were actually getting a hair less than the RDA for protein!
I, too, noticed that the protein intake was based on RDA of 15% to 20% of daily calories. This was a retrospective analysis of data from a previous weight loss study in which RDA guidelines were used. To me, the big takeaways from the study (along with other studies cited) are:
• there is a linear relationship between protein intake and loss of lean mass
• protein needs should be based on body size and not on caloric intake
• the RDA for protein may be inadequate for retaining fat-free mass during caloric restriction
I agree that it would be nice to have more information on protein needs of older women. This study does state the need for more studies in which protein intake is above the RDA.
You're missing my point. You cannot use a study of post-menopausal women in which the "high-protein" tops out below the RDA to argue that protein levels above the RDA would be better for muscle retention. It's like arguing from studies that show getting 95% of the RDA of vitamin C is better at preventing scurvy than getting only 50% of the RDA of vitamin C as proof for the beneficial effects of taking megadoses of vitamin C.
I'm not saying I don't think it's likely that protein above the RDA would be better for muscle retention in post-menopausal women in a calorie deficit. I'm just saying this a hopelessly badly designed study for testing that hypothesis2 -
I've eaten at a lot of Subways all across the country and you can see your sandwich being made. I have never once seen a machine applying the condiments like mayonnaise.
See what happens when you just read the bold parts and not the what's in between?
9 -
How tedious that you have been dieting since you were sixteen and are now seventy and are still overthinking it. If you eat more your body needs you will put on weight and less you will lose weight. Clearly dieting has not worked for you in the long term as it does not for most. I suggest a lifestyle change and an attitude change.
7 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include these items:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
alsoa) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
3. No Promotion of Unsafe Weight-Loss Techniques or Eating Disordersa) Posts intended to promote potentially unsafe or controversial weight loss products or procedures, including non-medically prescribed supplements or MLM products will be removed without warning.
b) Profiles, groups, messages, posts, or wall comments that encourage anorexia, bulimia, or very low calorie diets of any kind will be removed, and may be grounds for account deletion. This includes positive references to ana/mia, purging, or self-starving. Our goal is to provide users with the tools to achieve their weight management goals at a steady, sustainable rate. Use of the site to promote, glamorize, or achieve dangerously low levels of eating is not permitted.
c) Photos intended to glamorize extreme thinness will be deleted.
d) Those seeking support in their recovery from eating disorders are welcome at MyFitnessPal. A growing list of support resources can be found in our Eating Disorder Resources page.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Sugar
MyFitnessPal Moderator3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions