I’m hungry!!!
TBaebs
Posts: 10 Member
Hi! I am on day 11 and the system here gave me 1200 calories a day. Everything I eat pretty heathy - my indulgence is 15 Ritz crackers at night so my tummy isn’t rumbling at night. I am 5’7” and 35 lbs to lose. What do you all do so you don’t feel hungry? I drink a ton of water.
0
Replies
-
Nope. The system gave you the calorie limit YOU selected. If you're hungry and being given a 1200cal per day I'll bet my last dollar that you've selected an inappropriately aggressive rate of loss.13
-
Hi! I am on day 11 and the system here gave me 1200 calories a day. Everything I eat pretty heathy - my indulgence is 15 Ritz crackers at night so my tummy isn’t rumbling at night. I am 5’7” and 35 lbs to lose. What do you all do so you don’t feel hungry? I drink a ton of water.
I’m new to MFP and your post caught my attention because the calories I was given was also 1200. I am significantly shorter than you (5’1”). I went to my profile and changed my weekly goal to 1.5 pounds per week and it increased my daily calories. I’m guessing if you also increase your activity level your daily calories will also increase (but I wouldn’t change the activity level if you aren’t actually at the increased level - that could cause an over calculation of how many calories you can eat each day and affect your weight loss). Just my two cents’ worth without getting into your personal details. . .1 -
I will look at my goals0
-
Nope. The system gave you the calorie limit YOU selected. If you're hungry and being given a 1200cal per day I'll bet my last dollar that you've selected an inappropriately aggressive rate of loss.
I put 2lbs per week for my goal. Maybe that is too aggressive. But that is 10 lbs in 5 weeks- sounds reasonable- do you think?
2 -
I put 2lbs per week. Maybe that is too aggressive. But that is 10 lbs in 5 weeks- sounds reasonable- do you think?
2 lbs is really only realistic for someone who is obese and has a lot of weight to lose. With 35 lbs, you should be aiming for 1 lb per week. That will give you some extra cals. Also keep in mind that the MFP goal is formulated assuming you will log your exercise and eat back at least some of those cals.
Check out the Most Helpful Posts threads pinned to the top of each sub-forum, lots of great info there as well.
:drinker:15 -
Have a look at what your calorie goal looks like if you want to maintain your weight. This gives you a good idea of your maintenance calories. If you're female, your maintenance cals might be around 1700-1900 I guess.
You need enough food to fuel your body, otherwise you get not only hungry but also sick. That you are hungry when you try to eat 1200 calories is not surprising. Even children need more food than that. MFP will never give you less than 1200 calories per day as it's not healthy.
Lets just say your maintenance calories are 1800 calories per day. So you want to lose 2lbs per week. To lose 1lbs you need to eat 3500 calories less in any given time. Hence, to lose 2lbs you need to lose 7000 calories. Now per week:
2lbs = 7000 calories divided by 7 days = 1000 calories less per day. Maintenance 1800-1000 = 800 calories per day. Ouch! Not healthy at all!
1.5lbs = 5250 calories divided by 7 days = 750 calories less per day. Maintenance 1800-750 = 1150 calories per day. Nope, not healthy at all, and 1200 is too little for you, thus 1150 seems unlikely
1lbs = 3500 calories divided by 7 days = 500 calories less per days. Maintenance 1800-500 = 1300 calories per day. Ok, that's a bit more.
etc.
Also keep in mind that the more weight you lose the lower your maintenance calories will be as your body needs less energy. Thus at a certain time you'll lose weight slower.9 -
I put 2lbs per week. Maybe that is too aggressive. But that is 10 lbs in 5 weeks- sounds reasonable- do you think?
2 lbs is really only realistic for someone who is obese and has a lot of weight to lose. With 35 lbs, you should be aiming for 1 lb per week. That will give you some extra cals. Also keep in mind that the MFP goal is formulated assuming you will log your exercise and eat back at least some of those cals.
Check out the Most Helpful Posts threads pinned to the top of each sub-forum, lots of great info there as well.
:drinker:
x100
plus slow and steady will keep you satisfied and able to stick to this long term. do you want to be starving for five weeks? What are the odds you make it? or take a bit longer but make it feel much easier? (plus possible side effects of loosing too fast).5 -
Definitely recommend slowing down to 1lb/week. Otherwise it will be really hard not to fall totally off the wagon because it's just not maintainable. After a while with 1lb/week goal, if you are still feeling hungry too often, reassess what you are eating and try experimenting to figure out what helps you stay full - this is where looking at your carbs/fat/protein macros can help - they don't matter for weight loss, just calories do, but they can help you stay satiated. I personally found I can't stay full unless I get enough fiber.
3 -
If you're hungry all the time, then the plan you've chosen isn't going to be sustainable.
When I started here, I was on 1200 calories. It wasn't until I upped it to 1370 calories that I felt satiated and the weight started coming off.4 -
I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.15
-
I dialed back my original weight loss pace because I just could not live on 1,200 calories without intense hunger. My new goal has my calorie limit set to 1,500 cals per day, but I didn't need all of them yesterday. I'm also trying to make sure that as many calories as possible are "dense" calories and keep me full rather than junk (coffee creamer, etc.) that doesn't do much toward keeping me from being overly hungry.
And if I do get a little hungry before each meal? I actually welcome that feeling because if it's moderate and in the short term, I tell myself that it's the feeling of my body adjusting to eating less.2 -
I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.
What 'helps' is very individual. Some people experience satiety from crisps, others from protein, again others from pulverized white flour. Maybe TO craves a salty snack. Hey, I have an 'industrial crap' chocolate wafer bar every day. Twice. So what. I make space for it in my calorie allowance and look forward to it.7 -
Everyone else has good advice as far as adjusting your goals. But for hunger pains, I have found personally that a banana is the most filling thing. For some reason, it instantly makes me feel satiated. If I'm low on calories, I will just have like 1/2 a small one at night, and feel totally fine.
I think you just have to try different things and figure out what makes you feel the most satisfied.4 -
I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.
What 'helps' is very individual. Some people experience satiety from crisps, others from protein, again others from pulverized white flour. Maybe TO craves a salty snack. Hey, I have an 'industrial crap' chocolate wafer bar every day. Twice. So what. I make space for it in my calorie allowance and look forward to it.
But the point is she doesn't have space in her calorie allowance. 1200 is the lowest amount MFP will allow because it is the least amount of calories from which an adult woman can get adequate nutrition. And that is only if the food actually contains nutrition.2 -
At 5'7" and 1200 kcal, what is your weight loss goal? Everyone is different, but 1200 is low. I'm 54, 5'6", 171 lbs and have 10 lbs maybe 20 lbs to lose. I am at 1800-2000 kcal for .5 lbs a week. I've been sick, but when I start exercising again I'll have to look at upping my calories.
I can do 1800 calories without being hungry if all I am doing is walking, but I don't have much room for high calorie treats like 240 calories for crackers. That's basically 3 "servings". I will have a serving of potato chips for 130-150 calories until my son finds the chips. But mostly I eat meat and veggies, eggs and veggies, protein shakes, berries and an apple, add protein to my coffee, and a serving of bread a day.0 -
I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.
Oh no! Not chemicals!!
Just a quick tip for future reference. Everything is chemicals. Literally EVERYTHING.
10 -
Nope. The system gave you the calorie limit YOU selected. If you're hungry and being given a 1200cal per day I'll bet my last dollar that you've selected an inappropriately aggressive rate of loss.
I put 2lbs per week for my goal. Maybe that is too aggressive. But that is 10 lbs in 5 weeks- sounds reasonable- do you think?
10lbs in 5 weeks is an aggressive goal. I need to lose around 28 pounds and I expect it to take around 6 months, maybe longer.4 -
I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.
Oh no! Not chemicals!!
Just a quick tip for future reference. Everything is chemicals. Literally EVERYTHING.
Not going to go out drink a bottle of radiator fluid though. Yes, all things are chemicals... Some are better for your health than others.
Woo woo woo!6 -
If you don’t want to increase your calorie allowance, adding in exercise will enable you to eat back those exercise calories. For me, the difference between 1200 calories and no exercise versus 1600 calories and an hour of moderate exercise was like night and day - at 1600 you can eat something resembling a normal diet.
Some people find that exercise makes them hungrier and cancels out any benefits, but that wasn’t my experience.
I also agree with the poster who mentioned that Ritz crackers are unlikely to be a filling snack. For a bedtime snack, you want something slower digesting, which means fat or protein. Half the number of crackers plus a slice of cheese maybe.3 -
I was always under the assumption that eating before bed was bad for you. I used to do it all the time, mainly as I watch things at night and always associated entertainment with food. Sometimes eating in bed lol. Since stopping and having more substantial meals that fill you up, with the occasional healthy/healthier snack in between (such as Fibre One or some fruit), I don't feel quite so hungry.
If my stomach is genuinely growling at me, I eat regardless of the time. Even just a little snack with a drink of water or juice stops it from complaining.
Getting used to not eating lots of food, or having little and often, and having things that are more filling is just part of weight loss, I think. I would eat for the sake of eating, due to boredom or depression. Adding more activities to my routine and regular exercise means that most of the time I'm not even thinking about eating.
Also, I remember reading somewhere (no idea on source, it was ages ago) that your body can confuse being hungry with thirsty. If you drink a half pint of water about 15-30 mins before eating a meal, quite often I find that I'm nowhere near as hungry when it actually comes to meal time.
1 -
I’m always hungry, you kinda get used to it right guys?0
-
I’m always hungry, you kinda get used to it right guys?
I agree with Linda - not right.
Tweak your macros, tweak your meal timing. If you selected an aggressive weekly goal (no more than 1% of your current weight) then tweak your calorie target as well. Learn as you go.
Protein, fiber and fat are satiating components, but it's a different combination for every one. In the 1980's low fat diets were all the rage. I was always hungry. Now I make sure to include some fat at every meal. It makes all the difference....for me.4 -
I actually set my goal to really low.... .5 lbs per week. As a woman at 5’4” this puts me at about 1440 Caleries per day. Sometimes I am able to get it down to 1200 if I am eating a lot of fish. I do feel hunger at times but not intensely. Because the hunger is not intense I can stick with it.
When I get the tingly feeling in my body when I am hungry, I know that I am losing weight. I have lost 7 lbs in 7 weeks.0 -
Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I would switch out the Ritz crackers which although might be tasty are pulverized white flour and chemicals. If you want something crunchy and carby, try some whole grain crackers like Wasa or Lundberg rice cakes with a little cheese or a hard boiled egg or some oatmeal. Ritz won’t satisfy you in the long term. A little protein helps.
Oh no! Not chemicals!!
Just a quick tip for future reference. Everything is chemicals. Literally EVERYTHING.
Not going to go out drink a bottle of radiator fluid though. Yes, all things are chemicals... Some are better for your health than others.
Woo woo woo!
What I was refuting was the statement 'that food has has chemicals, it's bad'. A baseless argument which is only made worse by it's prevalence. It's a scare tactic circulated by people to dupe the ill informed and gullible.
What you've done there is present an apagogical argument. It's an appeal to extremes where to avoid addressing the actual point, you've attempted to refute sound information by employing a ridiculous false equivalence. This is akin to trying to argue the statement "Driving a car is generally safe" by saying "Yeah, but if you set your car on fire and drive off a cliff then it's not safe is it".
Your other misconception is that some chemicals are better for you than others. This also isn't the case or at least is a gross oversimplification. You may have come across the phrase 'The dose makes the poison' which basically means that a substance only becomes harmful at a certain concentration. Essentially that head of lettuce is composed of chemicals but in a concentration that is not harmful to humans so is a suitable substance for food. The radiator fluid is composed of chemicals in a concentration that is harmful (rendering it non-edible). Concentrate the chemicals in lettuce enough and it'll kill you dead. Dilute the chemicals in radiator fluid enough and it will be rendered harmless.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions