Damm it I do and Damm it I don't

lynndick2 · February 2021

I love the messages that they send you when you are either above or below your calorie content for the day. I struggle with being close to the 1200calories, if I have too many healthy snacks it pushes me over so than I cut back the next day and I'm under. I guess I need to see where I'm deficient and eat for that. I'm low tonight at 118 calories with protein, fat and carbs but over on my sugar content, I guess I will be having some cheese on a cracker.

PAV8888 · February 2021

1200 for women / 1500 for men represents minimum needs.

In many cases these low goals come about because an aggressive loss goal is selected and activity/exercise Calories are not fully accounted for.

That said, green and red should not be allowed to rule your day.

I too wish that color coding could be user selectable and based on percentages (e g. 0-5% off is green, etc)

corinasue1143 · February 2021

That’s a good idea! Green for close to goal, over or under, yellow if a little further, red for far away. How do you suggest that to the powers that be?

sijomial · February 2021

Maybe look at your calorie allowance as a weekly budget for more flexibility?
Maybe set your calorie goal to be 1300 to avoid "seeing red"?
Maybe eat back your exercise calories (as this site intends you to...) to give you a bigger and more flexible daily allowance?

Overall I get the feeling you are trying to be too perfect in hitting goals that don't require perfection. Beware of making a hard job even harder.

missysippy930 · February 2021

I don’t pay attention to it. Everyone doesn’t fit into a rigid number. It’s a general number. As long as you’re getting proper nutrition, and it’s working for you, who cares?

janejellyroll · February 2021

Given that we're all estimating our intake to varying degrees of accuracy, it's really not relevant if you have 1,220 calories on a goal of 1,200.

wunderkindking · February 2021

I am down to the last 10lbs. I have set my calories to maintain. Anything between 1200 and maintenance is fair game. I mostly eat at the middle of that range, with a 200-250ish calorie deficit which is what MFP would give me to lose .5lbs a week.

However, having that whole range to work within, and knowing I won't GAIN weight if I eat more because I'm having an extra hungry day relaxes my brain a lot. I need some flexibility and it keeps me listening to hunger cues and I'm body.

springlering62 · February 2021

Cheese on crackers? For those calories - or less- you could have a seasoned grilled chicken breast and a salad and/or roasted vegetables.

Not trying to be snarky, but that might be your problem. Apply some effort to the choices you make. (Meant with hugs because we’ve all been there and done that.)

lorrpb · February 2021

If you're within 50-100 per day you're doing great!

stglen333 · February 2021

I like the intermittent fasting route. Less time is wasted eating (prepping, cooking, washing). No snacks are necessary. The more meals and snacks we fit into our day, the more our bodies have that Ghrelin hormone rise up to make us feel hungry on all those set times. It's so nice to have my digestion track get cleared out instead constantly processing something. I started with a 16 hour fasting/8 hour eating window, and graduated to 1 meal a day. I rarely get hungry. A lot of those times a glass of water takes away the hunger caused by a little dehydration.

janejellyroll · February 2021

stglen333 wrote: »

I like the intermittent fasting route. Less time is wasted eating (prepping, cooking, washing). No snacks are necessary. The more meals and snacks we fit into our day, the more our bodies have that Ghrelin hormone rise up to make us feel hungry on all those set times. It's so nice to have my digestion track get cleared out instead constantly processing something. I started with a 16 hour fasting/8 hour eating window, and graduated to 1 meal a day. I rarely get hungry. A lot of those times a glass of water takes away the hunger caused by a little dehydration.

Digestion is a multi-step process than can take more than 24 hours as food moves through different stages of our digestive tract. Even if you're fasting for 16 hours, it's unlikely that you're clearing out your tract. Most of us are constantly processing food (unless we have some additional medical issues that are limiting absorption or we've had surgical alterations to our digestive tract). There's nothing wrong with this, it's just how our bodies work.

It actually wouldn't be IDEAL for us to clear it out quickly, even if we could make this happen. Some nutrients are absorbed only in later parts of the process and preliminary evidence shows that there are probably some components to satiety that are triggered by absorption of certain nutrients or food components in our intestines, which happens later in the process.

Poobah1972 · February 2021

janejellyroll wrote: »

Digestion is a multi-step process than can take more than 24 hours as food moves through different stages of our digestive tract. Even if you're fasting for 16 hours, it's unlikely that you're clearing out your tract.

Perhaps a little off track... However I know with certainty that a Kernal of corn can definitely get through my entire intestinal track in mere hours. It baffles me, and also a little disturbing really.

kshama2001 · February 2021

lynndick2 wrote: »

I love the messages that they send you when you are either above or below your calorie content for the day. I struggle with being close to the 1200calories, if I have too many healthy snacks it pushes me over so than I cut back the next day and I'm under. I guess I need to see where I'm deficient and eat for that. I'm low tonight at 118 calories with protein, fat and carbs but over on my sugar content, I guess I will be having some cheese on a cracker.

Are you sure 1200 calories is right for you? Unless you are very very short AND sedentary, you can lose weight less painfully with more calories.

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

Damm it I do and Damm it I don't

Replies

Categories