Never hungry

rtopper0211 wrote: »

Let me start by saying even before dieting I hardly ever got hungry and would eat just because it was the right time of day. I'm 6 weeks into my diet I'm 5' 7" and I've gone from 230 to 218 in those 6 weeks. I've been doing intermediate fasting only eating between 11am and 5pm. For lunch I have a protein shake and banana and for dinner I usually have what the rest of the family is having just a smaller amount. I've also only been drinking water and use a stationary bike 6 days a week for at least 30 minutes. My calorie intake has been around 1000-1200 a day. I've noticed even after cutting back calories im still never hungry. Does this mean I have a very slow metabolism? Is there something else I should be worried about?

Not being hungry doesn't mean you have a slow metabolism. Hunger generally isn't a great guide to whether one is eating enough or not. (In significant ways, hunger is mediated by hormones, which are affected and affect many things.) It's not unusual here to see people lose unhealthfully fast, and/or have negative consequences from fast loss, while not being hungry (I was one).

If you're losing weight alarmingly fast for your current weight, and aren't under close medical supervision for nutritional adequacy, it would be a better idea (lower health risk) to eat more, and lose more slowly IMO. Around here, most would say that something in the range of 0.5-1% of current weight per week would be the maximum amount to be losing if needing to do it for more than a couple/few weeks, and maybe slower than that if within 25 or so pounds of a healthy goal weight.

If undereating, the consequences aren't immediate, they're delayed. It's fairly common for someone undereating to feel great for a while, then hit a wall. For me, I got weak and fatigued, and it took several weeks to recover. Not a good idea. It's not unusual to see hair loss many weeks later as a consequence, and there can be worse health effects. I'm not saying you're in that situation - can't tell - but it would be a bad situation to enter into. Unless so obese that weight itself is a major, urgent health risk, fast loss isn't worth the health risk it creates. (Weight loss rate is a better indication of whether you're eating enough than theoretical/estimated calorie numbers.)

1000-1200 calories would be a low amount to eat, but if you're losing 2 pounds a week doing it, the implication is a TDEE with your current exercise/activity level around 2000-2200 calories, which is within the range of plausible for women, though I can't give a personalized opinion because you don't mention height/weight/age. Also, without intending any personal criticism - calorie counting is a skill that needs to be learned - it's not unusual to see people claiming to eat very low calories, but not logging very precisely so they don't really know, or to see some "fall of the wagon" or intentional "cheat days" in the picture that change average daily calorie intake from what's a more common daily number.

So, no, you don't have any particular likelihood of a "slow metabolism", and you haven't given enough info to render an opinion about whether you're losing too fast, or not.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

rtopper0211 wrote: »

Let me start by saying even before dieting I hardly ever got hungry and would eat just because it was the right time of day. I'm 6 weeks into my diet I'm 5' 7" and I've gone from 230 to 218 in those 6 weeks. I've been doing intermediate fasting only eating between 11am and 5pm. For lunch I have a protein shake and banana and for dinner I usually have what the rest of the family is having just a smaller amount. I've also only been drinking water and use a stationary bike 6 days a week for at least 30 minutes. My calorie intake has been around 1000-1200 a day. I've noticed even after cutting back calories im still never hungry. Does this mean I have a very slow metabolism? Is there something else I should be worried about?

Not being hungry doesn't mean you have a slow metabolism. Hunger generally isn't a great guide to whether one is eating enough or not. (In significant ways, hunger is mediated by hormones, which are affected and affect many things.) It's not unusual here to see people lose unhealthfully fast, and/or have negative consequences from fast loss, while not being hungry (I was one).

If you're losing weight alarmingly fast for your current weight, and aren't under close medical supervision for nutritional adequacy, it would be a better idea (lower health risk) to eat more, and lose more slowly IMO. Around here, most would say that something in the range of 0.5-1% of current weight per week would be the maximum amount to be losing if needing to do it for more than a couple/few weeks, and maybe slower than that if within 25 or so pounds of a healthy goal weight.

If undereating, the consequences aren't immediate, they're delayed. It's fairly common for someone undereating to feel great for a while, then hit a wall. For me, I got weak and fatigued, and it took several weeks to recover. Not a good idea. It's not unusual to see hair loss many weeks later as a consequence, and there can be worse health effects. I'm not saying you're in that situation - can't tell - but it would be a bad situation to enter into. Unless so obese that weight itself is a major, urgent health risk, fast loss isn't worth the health risk it creates. (Weight loss rate is a better indication of whether you're eating enough than theoretical/estimated calorie numbers.)

1000-1200 calories would be a low amount to eat, but if you're losing 2 pounds a week doing it, the implication is a TDEE with your current exercise/activity level around 2000-2200 calories, which is within the range of plausible for women, though I can't give a personalized opinion because you don't mention height/weight/age. Also, without intending any personal criticism - calorie counting is a skill that needs to be learned - it's not unusual to see people claiming to eat very low calories, but not logging very precisely so they don't really know, or to see some "fall of the wagon" or intentional "cheat days" in the picture that change average daily calorie intake from what's a more common daily number.

So, no, you don't have any particular likelihood of a "slow metabolism", and you haven't given enough info to render an opinion about whether you're losing too fast, or not.

Actually, you did. That's why I shouldn't post until I've been awake for many hours.

You're probably OK with 2 pounds a week for a short time. Depending on your daily life activity level (before exercise), it would make sense for your TDEE to be somewhere maybe 2000-2500, so not out of synch with your current eating level and loss rate. Eating 1000 calories is iffy, in terms of getting good nutrition, though.

Apologies for mistreading/misstating earlier.

Have to agree with Igfrie here, when you start a new diet you need to make sure you're eating enough to cover any exercise as your body needs time to adjust to the deficit. You can do this by either eating the extra needed on the day(s) you exercise or add the extra over the whole week. I do both depending on what the exercise is, how intense and how many sessions per week. On a heavy week I up calories on the day and for the days leading up and away from that day to cover the extra energy i'll need for the day and the extra hunger I'll feel for a few days afterwards (i'm talking a full day of doing 1 intense sport, dh'ing or 2-3 sessions of karate). And unlike Ifgrie I feel starved at the start of a diet, takes a few weeks to adjust and I often have to up calories by 50 to 100 extra on days where I can't cope with the deficit.