Calorie Deficit Question
kallen771991
Posts: 54 Member
Ok so i'm thrilled after this week! I fell out of the diet for a bit but really cracked down this week and i could not be happier with the results.
Here are my specs. Currently i weigh 249.8lbs i'm 5"8, F, and 30 years old (closer to 31)
So i set myfitnesspall to the bare minimum activity level which puts me at a calorie goal of 1390 cal a day. Yes, i'm aware this is low for me personally BUT it is what i want to break even at. There is a method to my madness lol
I started eating mainly vegetarian this week. Breakfast and lunch are packed with rich nutrients and fiber, no table sugar, just truvia for my coffee and oats. I eat mainly veggies for lunch too, I have an apple every day because if my blood sugar go's low i get rather sick. I 'm not diabetic tho. I get checked for that bi annually.
So this week I ate a grand total.. and mind you this is monday through friday, 7454 calories. I eat when i'm hungry so i went over almost all week but i kept a 200 + calorie deficit each day. Currently i have a cal deficit of 2092 cal.
I take 30 min every day around 2pm to do a mix of workouts, part of them being low intensity weight lifting because i have pcos and its supposed to help that out.
I promise i'm not starving myself. I don't wake up hungry, if i get hungry i eat and logg it no issue. I was just curious how well i was doing and such.
Oh and i know the calorie amount isn't what normally pops up for my specs, but i don't hit 2000 plus calories unless i eat out or eat sweets and i've pretty well sworn off eating out with how expensive things are right now. And i attempted to have a blueberry fritter for breakfast this morning and got sick off of it so i don't think i'm going to do sweets that often. Saturday is going to be my cheat day but most likely going to be one i mow on and that burns quite a few calories all its own with the push mower.
sorry for the long post, trying to make sure i convey that i'm not starving over here. Just wanted to see what you all would say about this weeks triumph!
thanks in advance!
Here are my specs. Currently i weigh 249.8lbs i'm 5"8, F, and 30 years old (closer to 31)
So i set myfitnesspall to the bare minimum activity level which puts me at a calorie goal of 1390 cal a day. Yes, i'm aware this is low for me personally BUT it is what i want to break even at. There is a method to my madness lol
I started eating mainly vegetarian this week. Breakfast and lunch are packed with rich nutrients and fiber, no table sugar, just truvia for my coffee and oats. I eat mainly veggies for lunch too, I have an apple every day because if my blood sugar go's low i get rather sick. I 'm not diabetic tho. I get checked for that bi annually.
So this week I ate a grand total.. and mind you this is monday through friday, 7454 calories. I eat when i'm hungry so i went over almost all week but i kept a 200 + calorie deficit each day. Currently i have a cal deficit of 2092 cal.
I take 30 min every day around 2pm to do a mix of workouts, part of them being low intensity weight lifting because i have pcos and its supposed to help that out.
I promise i'm not starving myself. I don't wake up hungry, if i get hungry i eat and logg it no issue. I was just curious how well i was doing and such.
Oh and i know the calorie amount isn't what normally pops up for my specs, but i don't hit 2000 plus calories unless i eat out or eat sweets and i've pretty well sworn off eating out with how expensive things are right now. And i attempted to have a blueberry fritter for breakfast this morning and got sick off of it so i don't think i'm going to do sweets that often. Saturday is going to be my cheat day but most likely going to be one i mow on and that burns quite a few calories all its own with the push mower.
sorry for the long post, trying to make sure i convey that i'm not starving over here. Just wanted to see what you all would say about this weeks triumph!
thanks in advance! 0
Replies
-
Except you are slowly starving yourself. I put your stats in and to lose 1 lb a week, you should be eating 2,000 calories a day. You should be eating more. It will come back to bite you if you don't. Did you set up your profile in MFP? I'm guessing not.3
-
musicfan68 wrote: »Except you are slowly starving yourself. I put your stats in and to lose 1 lb a week, you should be eating 2,000 calories a day. You should be eating more. It will come back to bite you if you don't. Did you set up your profile in MFP? I'm guessing not.
Ya i use the app and fitbit. I have a hard time eating that much without having junk. One calculater say 2000 another says 1980.. hard to keep up with it all. I'm eating well though, and with all the veggies and whole foods i try to stick with, i'm just not hungry after so much.0 -
Adding whole foods to what you eat and displacing less filling, high calorie for the benefit it gives, food is a great strategy to employ in order to reduce weight in a controlled fashion and bring some balance to one's eating.
Too much of a good thing... that seldom ends up working out well.
Just putting it out there that if we always ate only when, and if, we were hungry neither of us at 5ft 8" (or 172.25cm as the case may be) would would have reached 250lbs (or topped it by a good 15%).
Not counting that "hunger cues" in a substantial deficit are totally NOT a thing. Not until you've actually spent quite a bit of time learning about them... and even then I would wonder about it if I were you!
Contrary to others I don't have a huge problem with you STARTING at 1500 Cal a day or so (which is what I am understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that you're doing).
HOWEVER, I will caution you that your understanding of what you're doing SOUNDS a bit off to me.
a) sedentary = person who will normally NOT hit 5000 steps on their fitbit. If you're going above that expect to get an adjustment and that adjustment is probably reflecting the truth, i.e. that you're more active than what is included in sedentary.
b) your weight lifting exercise if you're currently not in great shape and if it increases your heart rate disproportionately to the amount of work it actually requires (work being an abstract notion, not the amount of work it feels that it requires but the amount of energy it requires) it will elevate your apparent exercise burn beyond what is real. In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Your adjustment AT MIDNIGHT is only partially influenced by this extra burn (see (a) above)
c) don't get sucked in at going faster and faster and swearing off anything and everything. You want to experiment a bit and see how you can get things going so that you find a way of doing this day in and day out and day in and ....
d) your deficit is not what you're saying it is (200Cal). You are eating at a deficit any time you're eating less than what your Fitbit said you burned by the end of day (which at a guess is closer to 2500Cal, which would make your deficit during the week about 1000 Cal a day and unknown during the weekend). Whether your Fitbit is or appears to be accurate or not depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the quality of your food intake logging. But that can be corrected for if you keep good data. At that point your TRUE deficit will be your corrected with your own data Fitbit information! By disappearing your weekend you don't have good data.
e) Using MFP, Fitbit, and a weight trend application is a great combination approved by n=1=me!
Using other devices such as Garmin works too. Others will work too but may require extra steps.
I am sorry, but eating on plan is not something that happens Monday to Friday and then we don't care. The plan is what you make of it and if your plan includes eating more than maintenance that's a legitimate part of the plan too!
You're taking in and spending calories 24/7/365 and you're managing your weight consciously or unconsciously during the same time frame Managing your weight does NOT mean only eating green beans, which I currently am!
It includes the (full sized portion of) fish and chips I am going to eat later. And the "Dutch Pannekoek" breakfast I am going to have tomorrow, Though I will skip the Pannekoek and have a more regular breakfast with bacon and eggs and dry toast (butter on the side so I can choose when to apply instead of having soggy toast) instead.1 -
It's a bad plan, for reasons noted above.
Also, in what you say you eat, there's almost no protein. Protein is an essential nutrient. Our bodies can't manufacture it out of any other nutrient, we have to eat it. Vegetarians need a bit more protein than omnivores (it's an average protein quality issue), not less. I hope you're getting plenty, and just didn't mention it. (I'm 5'5", F, and target 100g minimum protein, usually exceed it.)
I've been vegetarian for 47+ years. There's no weight loss or health magic in vegetarianism. I was a thin vegetarian, got fat, then obese, stayed obese for quite a while (despite becoming a competitive athlete along the way), then got thin again . . . all as a vegetarian, eating whole grains and veggies and all kind of good stuff. (Plus, I feel compelled to add, adequate protein!). Vegetarianism is a fine thing, but I'd never encourage a person to go that route unless they have some ethical/moral reasons. It makes healthy eating a tiny bit more difficult, honestly - very manageable, but slightly more difficult.
Hunger is not a good guide to adequate calorie intake. I accidentally under-ate for a short time during weight loss (because MFP greatly underestimates my actual calorie needs). I felt great, energetic, not hungry . . . until I hit a wall suddenly, got weak and fatigued. Though I corrected quickly, it took multiple weeks to recover. No one needs that! Plus I was lucky that that was all that happened (other than maybe some hair-thinning a few weeks later - that tends to be a delayed effect).
Worse can happen, at extremes:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1
I know you're over 1200, but you should still read that: You're under what's sensible, frankly. I lost at a good clip, at a smaller height/weight than you (and twice as old) on 1400-1600 plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories, so gross intake of 1600-2000 most days. More importantly, I'm still at a healthy weight 6+ years later, because I learned how to eat in a long-term sustainable way, while I was losing.
If you're having trouble getting enough calories without feeling over-full, eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing. Lowballing calories is a bad plan.2 -
Adding whole foods to what you eat and displacing less filling, high calorie for the benefit it gives, food is a great strategy to employ in order to reduce weight in a controlled fashion and bring some balance to one's eating.
Too much of a good thing... that seldom ends up working out well.
Just putting it out there that if we always ate only when, and if, we were hungry neither of us at 5ft 8" (or 172.25cm as the case may be) would would have reached 250lbs (or topped it by a good 15%).
Not counting that "hunger cues" in a substantial deficit are totally NOT a thing. Not until you've actually spent quite a bit of time learning about them... and even then I would wonder about it if I were you!
Contrary to others I don't have a huge problem with you STARTING at 1500 Cal a day or so (which is what I am understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that you're doing).
HOWEVER, I will caution you that your understanding of what you're doing SOUNDS a bit off to me.
a) sedentary = person who will normally NOT hit 5000 steps on their fitbit. If you're going above that expect to get an adjustment and that adjustment is probably reflecting the truth, i.e. that you're more active than what is included in sedentary.
b) your weight lifting exercise if you're currently not in great shape and if it increases your heart rate disproportionately to the amount of work it actually requires (work being an abstract notion, not the amount of work it feels that it requires but the amount of energy it requires) it will elevate your apparent exercise burn beyond what is real. In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Your adjustment AT MIDNIGHT is only partially influenced by this extra burn (see (a) above)
c) don't get sucked in at going faster and faster and swearing off anything and everything. You want to experiment a bit and see how you can get things going so that you find a way of doing this day in and day out and day in and ....
d) your deficit is not what you're saying it is (200Cal). You are eating at a deficit any time you're eating less than what your Fitbit said you burned by the end of day (which at a guess is closer to 2500Cal, which would make your deficit during the week about 1000 Cal a day and unknown during the weekend). Whether your Fitbit is or appears to be accurate or not depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the quality of your food intake logging. But that can be corrected for if you keep good data. At that point your TRUE deficit will be your corrected with your own data Fitbit information! By disappearing your weekend you don't have good data.
e) Using MFP, Fitbit, and a weight trend application is a great combination approved by n=1=me! Using other devices such as Garmin works too. Others will work too but may require extra steps.
I am sorry, but eating on plan is not something that happens Monday to Friday and then we don't care. The plan is what you make of it and if your plan includes eating more than maintenance that's a legitimate part of the plan too!
You're taking in and spending calories 24/7/365 and you're managing your weight consciously or unconsciously during the same time frame Managing your weight does NOT mean only eating green beans, which I currently am!
It includes the (full sized portion of) fish and chips I am going to eat later. And the "Dutch Pannekoek" breakfast I am going to have tomorrow, Though I will skip the Pannekoek and have a more regular breakfast with bacon and eggs and dry toast (butter on the side so I can choose when to apply instead of having soggy toast) instead.
Ok, so I set my calorie goal to the lowest. like the app says little to no activity so on days i don't get to do much, i don't go too much over the predicted amount. I have all my info up to date on the app too. i just did measurements and new weigh in this morning.
As for A... my average is 5292 steps. I'm a housewife and i have a toddler thats mama driven and the weather isn't super great so getting out is hard sometimes. its why i defaulted to my exercises.
As for B... my exercises don't get my heartrate up but rarely, i get maybe one or two active minutes on my fitbit. I have pcos so low intensity is the goal because you don't want your heart rate up as much, like... i do get active minutes when i'm out doing yard work or mowing like i did today but when i do these exercises i'm trying to do it slowly and without getting my heart rate up. Cortisol is my enemy and i have enough on it with my ptsd and such.
C, I jumped up my game like i did because i have an eating disorder. Getting rid of sweets and trying to keep my activity up all week is hard because i have ptsd episodes and all i want is to eat when they happen... its a struggle so i feel i did well.
D, MFP doesn't flux what it says my calorie deficit is, it and my fibit are linked and they both are within a few calories of eachother at the end of the day as far as results.. and yes, my deficit was 2092 cal. i never over ate by much and tried to get 30 min each day, i was rather upset if i didn't reach 300 cal burned. I really want to loose the weight but for me its not as easy as all that.
Let me explain a bit... when i was 9 i started puberty, early? ya, but not uncommon.. now with the pcos i bloated BAD like.. bad bad.. i was little one summer and within a few months i went up a shirt and pant size and it was something i was teased for... had family issues too which lead tto food and eating being the only thing that i could control. My mom had me medicated at 9 too which never helped no matter which way you look back at it because they heavily misdiagnosed me... i was stuck like that for 9 years at the mercy of her input and her ramblings about what she thought i was doing and thinking and how i was behaving... anyways.. when i was 14 i was 265, doctors told me it was no big dea... in fact i fluctuated from 259 and 280 through my whole teen hood and they swore to me it was normal. I went from a size 14 to 18 and one summer i got fed up, played ddr like a fool, went and walked the treadmill an hour, ate cereal portioned out fully for breakfast, at a little at lunch and little at dinner.. no one batted an eye and by two months i was still in the 250's but down two pant sizes.
my weight fluctuates so much its hard to tell if i've lost any fat unless i do my measurements once a month. I have a "B" belly which sucks but i measure the two biggest parts of my tummy because honestly thats what i want gone the most and progress keeps me motivated. counting calories justs helps my eating habits more than anything. I made my own protein bars this week and munch on those when i feel hungry between meals, i get healthy fats. i have oats and chia seeds with fruit and i usually have an apple and peanut butter with lunch, sometimes almonds too. and for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese.. i'm not skimping out and i still logg on cheat days.. today for instance, i went over by 501 cal.. thats eating 2582 cal and burning 719... ya i went over but i had more cheese with dinner than i normally would because quesadillas suck with just a 1/4 cup split between two tortillas worth... it just sucks.. so i saved it for tonight.
i don't fully understand why its bad if i'm within ranges both apps give me... and i keep my watch on 24/7.. till it needs to charge then its off an hour and back on after.0 -
It's a bad plan, for reasons noted above.
Also, in what you say you eat, there's almost no protein. Protein is an essential nutrient. Our bodies can't manufacture it out of any other nutrient, we have to eat it. Vegetarians need a bit more protein than omnivores (it's an average protein quality issue), not less. I hope you're getting plenty, and just didn't mention it. (I'm 5'5", F, and target 100g minimum protein, usually exceed it.)
I've been vegetarian for 47+ years. There's no weight loss or health magic in vegetarianism. I was a thin vegetarian, got fat, then obese, stayed obese for quite a while (despite becoming a competitive athlete along the way), then got thin again . . . all as a vegetarian, eating whole grains and veggies and all kind of good stuff. (Plus, I feel compelled to add, adequate protein!). Vegetarianism is a fine thing, but I'd never encourage a person to go that route unless they have some ethical/moral reasons. It makes healthy eating a tiny bit more difficult, honestly - very manageable, but slightly more difficult.
Hunger is not a good guide to adequate calorie intake. I accidentally under-ate for a short time during weight loss (because MFP greatly underestimates my actual calorie needs). I felt great, energetic, not hungry . . . until I hit a wall suddenly, got weak and fatigued. Though I corrected quickly, it took multiple weeks to recover. No one needs that! Plus I was lucky that that was all that happened (other than maybe some hair-thinning a few weeks later - that tends to be a delayed effect).
Worse can happen, at extremes:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1
I know you're over 1200, but you should still read that: You're under what's sensible, frankly. I lost at a good clip, at a smaller height/weight than you (and twice as old) on 1400-1600 plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories, so gross intake of 1600-2000 most days. More importantly, I'm still at a healthy weight 6+ years later, because I learned how to eat in a long-term sustainable way, while I was losing.
If you're having trouble getting enough calories without feeling over-full, eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing. Lowballing calories is a bad plan.
eating less has been the only thing to get me results. From nov 2020 to nov 2021 i was down over 60lbs doing this without feeling off or tierd or any of that, then i let myself go free over the holidays and i'm still making up for it. Eating a goal of 1679 cal like the app said for my activity level led to more weight gain, i couldn't stand it... so i switched it up. i don't know why calories are so damning in terms of the way your viewed when you know what you have total and such. if i ate like this without calorie counting, no one would bat an eye.not even my own GP corrected me and i've been 100% with her from the get go. eating 2000 cal plus daily regardless of activity or calories burned will make me gain no matter what i do.. this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?1 -
It's a bad plan, for reasons noted above.
Also, in what you say you eat, there's almost no protein. Protein is an essential nutrient. Our bodies can't manufacture it out of any other nutrient, we have to eat it. Vegetarians need a bit more protein than omnivores (it's an average protein quality issue), not less. I hope you're getting plenty, and just didn't mention it. (I'm 5'5", F, and target 100g minimum protein, usually exceed it.)
I've been vegetarian for 47+ years. There's no weight loss or health magic in vegetarianism. I was a thin vegetarian, got fat, then obese, stayed obese for quite a while (despite becoming a competitive athlete along the way), then got thin again . . . all as a vegetarian, eating whole grains and veggies and all kind of good stuff. (Plus, I feel compelled to add, adequate protein!). Vegetarianism is a fine thing, but I'd never encourage a person to go that route unless they have some ethical/moral reasons. It makes healthy eating a tiny bit more difficult, honestly - very manageable, but slightly more difficult.
Hunger is not a good guide to adequate calorie intake. I accidentally under-ate for a short time during weight loss (because MFP greatly underestimates my actual calorie needs). I felt great, energetic, not hungry . . . until I hit a wall suddenly, got weak and fatigued. Though I corrected quickly, it took multiple weeks to recover. No one needs that! Plus I was lucky that that was all that happened (other than maybe some hair-thinning a few weeks later - that tends to be a delayed effect).
Worse can happen, at extremes:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1
I know you're over 1200, but you should still read that: You're under what's sensible, frankly. I lost at a good clip, at a smaller height/weight than you (and twice as old) on 1400-1600 plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories, so gross intake of 1600-2000 most days. More importantly, I'm still at a healthy weight 6+ years later, because I learned how to eat in a long-term sustainable way, while I was losing.
If you're having trouble getting enough calories without feeling over-full, eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing. Lowballing calories is a bad plan.
also, i do get my protein in, i have meat at dinner and i eat almonds and peanut butter and such i never have issues with my protein amounts at all, i keep track of it closely because with the pcos its pretty important with my exercises1 -
A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.5 -
paperpudding wrote: »A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.
I don't get how i could do better than i am... i get up around 8 or 9, have my coffee and breakfast, i eat lunch by 12, then i have dinner by 5,, then in bed by 9 and asleep by 10...
To anseer you, i started having veggies and fruit in place of chips and meat, meat is expensive but i eat broccoli, sweet potatoes, carrots... but i always have an apple with it..
I literally have 12 to 13 hr of awake time... idk what else i can do to meet what i'm told is normal calorie amounts without making myself sick....or eatting junk foods...1 -
so you have cut down your meat intake - you are not eating mainly vegetarian.
If you cut down your meat intake a lot, be aware of the need to source protein from alternative sources - like Ann said.
She is very knowlegable and experienced in that area - me, not being a vegetarian, am not.
I'm not sure what you mean by " I dont know how I could do better than I am"
Bottom line: to lose weight is a safe and sustainable way you need to eat the appropriate amount of calories, on average, per day - and eat a reasonably nutritiously balanced diet.
there is a threads with sources of calorie dense nutritious foods if that would help you - perhaps somebody could link it for you.1 -
kallen771991 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.
I don't get how i could do better than i am... i get up around 8 or 9, have my coffee and breakfast, i eat lunch by 12, then i have dinner by 5,, then in bed by 9 and asleep by 10...
To anseer you, i started having veggies and fruit in place of chips and meat, meat is expensive but i eat broccoli, sweet potatoes, carrots... but i always have an apple with it..
I literally have 12 to 13 hr of awake time... idk what else i can do to meet what i'm told is normal calorie amounts without making myself sick....or eatting junk foods...
Once again, quoting my PP: Eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »so you have cut down your meat intake - you are not eating mainly vegetarian.
If you cut down your meat intake a lot, be aware of the need to source protein from alternative sources - like Ann said.
She is very knowlegable and experienced in that area - me, not being a vegetarian, am not.
I'm not sure what you mean by " I dont know how I could do better than I am"
Bottom line: to lose weight is a safe and sustainable way you need to eat the appropriate amount of calories, on average, per day - and eat a reasonably nutritiously balanced diet.
there is a threads with sources of calorie dense nutritious foods if that would help you - perhaps somebody could link it for you.
I upped my calories for 2 months and i just kept gaining, both in measurements and weight.... i don't want to gain anymore by over eating
this is the first bit of progress i've had in months , i eat till i'm full. Eating when your full is unhealthy.. not to mention i don't understand why i can't eat like this long term without issue. Once i hit a certain weight my current eating will be what they say you should do. I don't get how your fatter, and you have to eat more when your just trying to loose fat you got from over eating in the first place. >_< i hate this... i don't want to gain again adjusting and eating more does that.. it won't work for me to go back up..... 0 -
kallen771991 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.
I don't get how i could do better than i am... i get up around 8 or 9, have my coffee and breakfast, i eat lunch by 12, then i have dinner by 5,, then in bed by 9 and asleep by 10...
To anseer you, i started having veggies and fruit in place of chips and meat, meat is expensive but i eat broccoli, sweet potatoes, carrots... but i always have an apple with it..
I literally have 12 to 13 hr of awake time... idk what else i can do to meet what i'm told is normal calorie amounts without making myself sick....or eatting junk foods...
Once again, quoting my PP: Eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing.
I do tho i eat almonds and peanut butter and beans and meat with dinners, i get enough protein i swear... i just can't eat when i'm full... i shouldn't, its what made me a blob to begin with 1 -
kallen771991 wrote: »kallen771991 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.
I don't get how i could do better than i am... i get up around 8 or 9, have my coffee and breakfast, i eat lunch by 12, then i have dinner by 5,, then in bed by 9 and asleep by 10...
To anseer you, i started having veggies and fruit in place of chips and meat, meat is expensive but i eat broccoli, sweet potatoes, carrots... but i always have an apple with it..
I literally have 12 to 13 hr of awake time... idk what else i can do to meet what i'm told is normal calorie amounts without making myself sick....or eatting junk foods...
Once again, quoting my PP: Eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing.
I do tho i eat almonds and peanut butter and beans and meat with dinners, i get enough protein i swear... i just can't eat when i'm full... i shouldn't, its what made me a blob to begin with
Do you log what you eat? Mayyyyyyyybe it would be a good idea to open your diary so the people who know what they're talking about can make more suggestions.
1 -
kallen771991 wrote: »kallen771991 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »A couple of things.
Starting puberty at 9 is the low end of normal and has been forever. I dont think that has any bearing on your weight loss calorie equation now, at age 30
If one app said 2000 calories and one said 1980 - that doesnt change anything either. Small variations between calculations to get basically same amount - realistically you won't be accurate to the exact 20 calories anyway.
Nothing wrong with avoiding sweets if that is what you want to do - just eat to the correct calorie amount with other calorie dense non-sweet foods
It isnt the calorie counting that is eye bat worthy - it is the low level of food intake - people would be concerned about you eating a low amount whether you counted the calories or not.
for dinner, i eat meat with some form of veggie and another side be it potatoes or mac n cheese..
- Im a bit lost as to how that constitutes 'eating mainly vegetarian'
What you mean is you have reduced your meat intake??
this week alone my measurements went down, my weight came back down.. i have to be doing something right?
Nobody disputes that you will lose weight doing what you are doing.
Will you lose it at a safe sustainable way and continue on your plan and then keep it off? - that is the question.
I don't get how i could do better than i am... i get up around 8 or 9, have my coffee and breakfast, i eat lunch by 12, then i have dinner by 5,, then in bed by 9 and asleep by 10...
To anseer you, i started having veggies and fruit in place of chips and meat, meat is expensive but i eat broccoli, sweet potatoes, carrots... but i always have an apple with it..
I literally have 12 to 13 hr of awake time... idk what else i can do to meet what i'm told is normal calorie amounts without making myself sick....or eatting junk foods...
Once again, quoting my PP: Eat more nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocados, olive oil or similar on salads/veggies, and that sort of thing.
I do tho i eat almonds and peanut butter and beans and meat with dinners, i get enough protein i swear... i just can't eat when i'm full... i shouldn't, its what made me a blob to begin with
Do you log what you eat? Mayyyyyyyybe it would be a good idea to open your diary so the people who know what they're talking about can make more suggestions.
Yes i log it, i log it all and accurately in ounces or grams. I was kinda hoping for a pat on the back, this week was far from easy.... did several calculators that say right around 1990 is what i'm looking at for extreme weight loss... but thats not counting exercise, so i guess i'm supposed to eat more and pray i start to loose at some given point... makes no sense to me how eating healthy amounts of healthy food isn't enough, i take supplaments, i gave up the meal shakes, trying so hard to not eat when i'm upset and stressed... one fraction says don't calorie count the others swear by it.. some say you can eat what you want, others say you have to eat certain ways.... i'm about to give up here.. whats the right answer? The 30 min a day is the only time i get for consistancy, i hate going to the gym, i feel so judged for how i look, i loose in wierd ways on my body, i hold water weight like crazy, i'm not supposed to enjoy anything i eat anymore, at the mercy of insulin resistance even tho i'm not diabetic, my doctor is no help, i can't afford to see a diatician, i can't just up my calories, that hasn't helped anything in the past year and a half now i know consistancy is key but have 2 kids and a husband that don't need my eating dramas restricting their diets so i can loose weight..... they don't need to. I don't want to hit 303 again and assume the best because i'm eating what a calculator says i'm supposed to... that mskes no sense at all. 1 -
You have come to the wrong place if you want a pat on the back for losing in the fastest possible way - MFP is not designed to do that and posters generally, for good reason, do not support that approach.
Yes - MFP system is not including exercise - so if your calorie allowance is 1990, you are expected to eat back exercise calories as well.
Just be mindful that some exercise calculations over estimate exercise calories - some people suggest eating back half (for example if the calculation says you burned 200 calories, just eat an extra 100) That is probably a good starting point.
calorie counting or not calorie counting - just different tools or approaches. You need to eat about the right calorie amount to lose at a healthy steady sustainable rate - whether you count them or follow some other method
MFP is basically a calorie counting site -so people here will support and explain that approach.
Glassyo is right - we can give general advice but if you want more help specific to you - Open your diary.
or if you dont wan't advice and "Just wanted to see what you all would say about this weeks triumph! thanks in advance! " - you are posting in wrong place, sorry for the disappointment, that isnt how MFP forum works. 2 -
Hey everyone! Are we all talking past each other?
Nobody disputes that in order to lose weight one has to/should/MUST eat less calories than they spend.
For an extended period of time.
NOT too many calories (because eating more than you spend won't get you anywhere)
NOT TOO FEW --balls to the wall only works for short while. then it backfires--
More than 5000 steps = lightly active. Not too far into it. But not quite sedentary. This is just FYI. Because PSOS COULD also reduce caloric needs
If you have lots of water retention and you can't really tell what your weight is doing using a WEIGHT TREND APP (and having sufficient observations for it to populate) is probably your best bet at figuring out your underlying weight change.
I don' t know whether calorie counting is the best method or the worst method to lose weight. It is A method. People have used manyo other methods. With varying degrees of success. TBH, mostly with low levels of success.
ONE of the reasons, in my own personal opinion and observation from the various attempts I made in the past to lose weight is because I always made it too difficult. Too complicated. And, paradoxically, tried too much as opposed to too little.
When I truly decided that in order to manage my weight I would have to manager my weight FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE then I moved beyond looking for ways to lose weight now, and started looking for changes and choices I was willing to make long term.
Was I willing to build up some extra movement in my day? YES. Woohoo! Let's go!
Was I willing to give up a previously sacred thing in order to do something else? YES? ALLRIGHT: that's an extra 20 minute that became available for a walk.
Was I willing to become conscious of the amount of protein I was eating and the calories it cost? Yup!
Was I willing to be conscious of the amount of fiber I was eating and make sure I ate enough? Woot-Woot!
Was I willing to count my calories before eating whatever it was that I was eating to make sure I had an extra incentive to stay within my limits and was conscious of the issue when I wasn't doing so? Still doing it 7.5 years later... so probably yes! Including when over-eating!
BTW peanuts are NOT a GOOD source of protein given their calories. Maybe in a pinch... but there's better. Neither are almonds. Or most of the calorically dense items mentioned above.
People are mentioning calorically dense items because you mentioned eating too few calories and creating too large of a deficit. Whether this is true and a correct understanding, that I don't know. But that's what I (and I suspect others) understood.
If you're creating a 500 Cal deficit.. I don't think any of us is going to call that excessive. If you are creating a 1500 Cal deficit. We probably will.
Fitbit gives you TOTAL CALORIES (TDEE) for the day. AT MIDNIGHT (not before). MFP gives you an "exercise" adjustment at midnight. The two work together so that your calories spent at midnight are equal to what your fitbit thinks you spent. The "exercise adjustment" is just used as the balancing mechanism, the reconciliation entry if you will.
Eating more vegetables and fruits, not drinking your calories and all that are EXCELLENT methods to make your calories count. So is finding foods that are more filling for you.
Eating with others is always tricky. You can make slightly different sides for the others as compared to yourself. You can make different sauces. You can use a smaller plate. You can just plate different portions or offer appetizers and deserts or extra snacks to the people who need more calories than you do.
I often cook for my father who is in his 80s and obese. He has a much lower need for calories but he is not willing to eat less. IF I am making a rice dish with cauliflower rice or rice vegetables I often give him 2/3 of the rice with 1/3 of the vegetables while I eat 2/3 of the vegetables and 1/3 the rice. Same goes for pasta and pasta-substitutions such as spiral cut beetroots or butternut squash or extra fine or frenched green beans. Same sauce over green beans vs over 125g (pre-cooked weight) of pasta = about 400 Cal. Add loads of cheese on one vs a sprinkling on the other and you can have similarly sized looking portions with a 500 Cal difference side by side on the same table. And your veggie based portion can actually look larger and be half the calories: THAT's a bargain!
Anyway. we digress.
Pat in the back for being in the game? ABSOLUTELY!
Double Pat in the back for taking the time to learn and to figure things out: More than a pat in the back. It is actually the path to success and that is way more rewarding in the end!
Basic numbers here. 68", 31yo, 250lb. I went to sailrabbit.com for an initial estimate. If you eat 1775 Cal a day on average you should end up dropping weight at a pretty good clip.
Cheat day? You don't need one to start. What you do need to do is try to figure out long term solutions. Which don't require cheating. Does this mean that you will have days with no deficit? YES. And that's NOT cheating. Will you have days with an overage? Probably. Because life DOES happen. And you will go somewhere or you will have that unexpected desert and you will eat more calories possibly up to your TDEE (daily burn), possibly even above it. And that's OK. Because you will continue with your normal eating the next day. The one where you eat at a normal deficit... and like the energizer bunny you keep on going
PS: ALL methods of eating that lead to weight loss do so by creating a caloric deficit. The various methods make it easier or more difficult for particular individuals to adhere to a plan that creates the deficit, but fat reserves only go away (or are created) because of an energy imbalance.
PPS: I, personally, find that calorie counting is more precise in that it allows me to create a more targeted (neither too small nor too large) of a deficit. As mentioned the "approximate" nature of the other methods tends to end up with me either creating an unsustainably large deficit (which usually ends with me over-eating as a reaction to the large deficit: it's called a restrict-binge cycle). Or, I would end up compascently eating till "almost" full enough to stop... which of course with me is either at, or just above, maintenance!
PPPS: the gym is good. A walk is good too. So is just walking for a few minutes every hour!
PPPPS: lower carb does work better with PCOS. What works absolutely the best though? The method of restricting calories that you can actually sustainably do!6 -
I was heading to bed a couple-few hours ago, and made the mistake of opening/reading this discussion... and every reply... and it made me so uncomfortable and I didn't know why. I read through the rest of your discussions trying to understand, then came back and re-read here.
And I think I get it. It hits too close to home.
You're saying all the things I was saying 5 years ago. People here are saying to you all the things people elsewhere once said to me.
I lost... a ton of weight over the last 5 years. In 2018 Iost around 50 lbs in a few months.
In 2019 I lost 40 lbs in the same amount of time.
2020 sucked, lol.
In 2021 I spent a few months losing 20 lbs.
But here I am, 5 years later... with a net *gain* of 55 lbs.
Because in between all those losses, I gained back everything I had lost and then a bit more.
I did the research, checked the math, methodically tracked numbers down to fractions of calories per gram of spinach. I checked the science. It's sound.
Caloric deficits control weight loss.
Less food means you lose faster.
It's possible to get all the macros and even the micros on the app to perfectly line up so that it looks like we are eating healthy even at the minimal "1200" for me (I'm short af) or "1500" for you (you're tall).
BUT
Those nutrients are calculated in relation to the number of calories in your goal per day. *Not* in relation to your actual body and its actual needs.
No, you're... *probably* not going to literally die because you ate at 1500. Or even 1200. But you *could* do permanent, unseen damage to your health. And you'll probably weigh more in 5 years than you do now. Like me.
At your stats, at your stated goal weight of 190, your tdee would be around 1800. Even your bmr ... what you'd need for basic life functions even if you were in a coma... would be around 1650? 1640?
Think about that, for a second. Say you do superspeed your weight loss eating the 1490 you averaged this week. (Much better than the 1200 you were averaging at the start!) Or the 1390 you set on mfp. Or the 1500 actual minimum for your height. Whatever you settle on for superspeed purposes.
What then? To maintain that weight, you would need to start eating more. You stated here that you struggle to eat more than you are now without eating "junk". You stated elsewhere that your overeating is tied to the *flavors* of the foods, and implied that junk causes you to overeat because of that.
If you haven't figured out how to eat more without eating junk, and you eat more when you hit your goal, you'll be eating junk. If you haven't given yourself time to deal with the issues which cause you to overeat when you eat junk, then you'll overeat.
But even if you manage somehow to work around *that*... losing weight too quickly means your body doesn't have time to adapt to the changes you're making. And bodies are weird. If not given adequate time to adapt, they tend to revert to the status quo.
I get a lot of that whenever I start losing weight. I'll do amazing for 5 to 10 days. Then I slack off tracking for awhile or tell myself one weekend, or one holiday won't make a difference and even *with* tracking, I eat a little too much, enough times that I undo any deficit I had banked.
I know that weight loss plateaus... sometimes for months at a time. Especially with my health issues. But somehow I always get frustrated enough to fudge the numbers when it happens to me...
Anyway... I trust the science, but... I don't. I keep thinking "I know the rules but I have a plan. I can superspeed this. I'm smart enough..."
I am. I can. I could... if it worked that way.
But that's my journey.
Meanwhile, your post this week is an improvement over the ones before. You have made progress. That's worth celebrating. I hope that you continue to make progress. Not just with your weight loss, but with your relationships with food, and with your health as well.
Probably rambling now... 2 am here, so I will say goodnight!8 -
I hesitated about replying to this thread, only because I thought the OP had done excellent.
Five days at a little over 1400 calories a day? Isn't that a good thing? Unless OP is out running marathons or burning 3K calories a day, etc. And OP admitted she's eating good nutritional food, getting her protein, etc.
MFP has me down for 1200 cal. a day, I'm 5'9", sedentary, weigh 144. I do eat 1/2-all of the calories back that I burn through any exercise I might do.
OP, maybe I missed it but did you just restart this, this past Monday? What does the scale say?
I'm sure, as you go along, and your tastes change, along with everything else, you'll probably change things around a bit. If you're allowed 1900-2000 calories a day, what about adding a protein fruit filled smoothie? Or more fruits, veggies and protein in your day? Or add a couple snacks throughout your day that are healthy?
If I could have 1900-2000 calories a day, I'd probably be filling up with more junk so I'm like you in that respect.
Good luck to you and please don't get disheartened. You have to do what works for you, as long as it's a healthy way of doing things and you can keep doing it for life. 2 -
I hesitated about replying to this thread, only because I thought the OP had done excellent.
Five days at a little over 1400 calories a day? Isn't that a good thing? Unless OP is out running marathons or burning 3K calories a day, etc. And OP admitted she's eating good nutritional food, getting her protein, etc.
MFP has me down for 1200 cal. a day, I'm 5'9", sedentary, weigh 144. I do eat 1/2-all of the calories back that I burn through any exercise I might do.
OP, maybe I missed it but did you just restart this, this past Monday? What does the scale say?
I'm sure, as you go along, and your tastes change, along with everything else, you'll probably change things around a bit. If you're allowed 1900-2000 calories a day, what about adding a protein fruit filled smoothie? Or more fruits, veggies and protein in your day? Or add a couple snacks throughout your day that are healthy?
If I could have 1900-2000 calories a day, I'd probably be filling up with more junk so I'm like you in that respect.
Good luck to you and please don't get disheartened. You have to do what works for you, as long as it's a healthy way of doing things and you can keep doing it for life.
Currently, OP is you plus 2/3 of another person, so comparing your calorie needs to their doesn't make sense.6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I hesitated about replying to this thread, only because I thought the OP had done excellent.
Five days at a little over 1400 calories a day? Isn't that a good thing? Unless OP is out running marathons or burning 3K calories a day, etc. And OP admitted she's eating good nutritional food, getting her protein, etc.
MFP has me down for 1200 cal. a day, I'm 5'9", sedentary, weigh 144. I do eat 1/2-all of the calories back that I burn through any exercise I might do.
OP, maybe I missed it but did you just restart this, this past Monday? What does the scale say?
I'm sure, as you go along, and your tastes change, along with everything else, you'll probably change things around a bit. If you're allowed 1900-2000 calories a day, what about adding a protein fruit filled smoothie? Or more fruits, veggies and protein in your day? Or add a couple snacks throughout your day that are healthy?
If I could have 1900-2000 calories a day, I'd probably be filling up with more junk so I'm like you in that respect.
Good luck to you and please don't get disheartened. You have to do what works for you, as long as it's a healthy way of doing things and you can keep doing it for life.
Currently, OP is you plus 2/3 of another person, so comparing your calorie needs to their doesn't make sense.
I do realize everyone has different calorie needs, according to height, weight, activity level, gender, age, etc., etc., but I also know MFP doesn't allow calories to be under 1200 for women. So, if she's getting over 1400 per day while eating healthy.....
*sigh* this is why I hate posting my opinions sometimes. Going back to my corner now and will await further fall-out. 7 -
I think you @ReenieHJ and @lynn_glenmont are talking slightly, but only slightly, past each other.
Lynn says that your needs are not directly comparable which is valid. But you say that the op is at above minimum, just starting, and probably not running marathons so can afford a larger deficit initially plus you add in taking account of exercise for the future.
Well, either that or we all need to clarify a bit more! 😹
I disagree with both of you and everyone else about the current reliability of the op's self reporting in terms of just the descriptions of "high protein" choices that I hear from them!
Peanuts have protein, yes, and lots of calories unless de-fatted. I didn't hear anything about weight of portions if I recall correctly. What you and I after years of logging might consider a good protein source didn't jump out of the descriptions I read. Over time with logging and reviewing of the logs that will change, I'm sure!
And the apparent endorsement of high calorie items? Though I guess they do serve as examples to the OP of how to increase calories without resorting to junk food I don't know that they ought to be the primary focus.
I'm more concerned about the OP settings out on a plan of 5 days a week of (harder) dieting as someone just starting instead of attempting a more even keeled approach especially with the NEED for long term perspective given the starting point!
Personally I see thoughtful disagreement and exploring of alternative views as a source of information 🤷🏻♂️
2 -
I don't think that was meant as an attack, @ReenieHJ ...
People on forums I used to go on were always hyper alert to potential misinformation and comparisons because no matter how neutral the comparisons may be... people take them on as personal standards and then do things which are detrimental to their health.
I'd imagine that happens here as well.I do realize everyone has different calorie needs, according to height, weight, activity level, gender, age, etc., etc., but I also know MFP doesn't allow calories to be under 1200 for women. So, if she's getting over 1400 per day while eating healthy.....
*sigh* this is why I hate posting my opinions sometimes.
Let's take opinions out of the equation for just a moment so I can explain.
My first accountability partner was 4'11. I'm 5'1", my daughter is 5'3", and you're 5'9".
IF we were all the same age... let's say 30, and we all weighed exactly 190 lbs, and we were all completely sedentary
Partner- tdee: 1766, bmi: 39.7
Me- tdee: 1823, bmi: 35.9
Daughter- tdee, 1861, bmi: 33.7
OP- tdee: 1956, bmi: 28.9
You- tdee: 1976, bmi: 28
But we aren't all the same everything.
There's a huge difference between a bmi of 39.7 and a bmi of 28.
My old partner at 28 bmi (your 190 lbs) would need to weigh 134 lbs, all other things being equal. At that weight her tdee would be 1461.
Still overweight, but eating around 1450 to maintain. At 30 years old, and 111 lbs, with a bmi of 23.2, her maintenance would be 1336. She would still have 5 lbs to lose.
But she's 47 years old, not 30. Changing just her age doesn't change her bmi. But it does drop her maintenance to 1234 calories per day.
The "minimum" recommended "for women" by doctors is for her. Thats the lowest amount its safe for her to eat. 1200 calories.
3500 calories is 1lb of fat, and she's getting a deficit of 34 cals a day, 238 per week. That's over 14 weeks to lose 1 lb. And then her tdee is 1228... 17 weeks to lose the second lb. Tdee down to 1223... 20 weeks for the third lb. Only 2lbs and 45 weeks to go.
That's what "minimum" means.
It's for women who are older and well below average height, who are sedentary, or worse, completely constricted in movement. Like me.
At my age, 42, and my height, 5'1", when I got to 5lbs over ideal, my tdee would be 1388. I don't need to eat at 1200. I would get *better* results than my friend, even eating at 1300.
1200 would still be safe for me, but *barely*.
It wouldn't be safe for my daughter, even as an adult. At 30 years old, at 5'3" with 5lbs left to lose, even if sedentary, her tdee would be 1530. Her minimum would be around 1450. Yes, she'd lose weight more slowly than eating at 1200, but that's the safe way to do it.
Mfp lets people set their goal as low as 1200 because they can. They could be legally liable if they let it be set below 1200, so they put a limit. That's the bare minimum considered safe for *any* woman. For the shortest, oldest, most inactive woman... 1200 calories is the extreme.
And it's not safe for anyone else.
It's confusing because often we hear stories or see media where a doctor has put someone on this extreme low cal diet for fast initial results before surgery or something and we think, "hey, I could do that!"
What they don't show is the extensive battery of tests before implementing that diet plan. Results showing that even though it's super dangerous to eat so little, *that* person is in more danger as a result of their current weight. It's the lesser of 2 evils, so they do it even though its dangerous. And that's with nutrient rich foods and supplements and under doctors supervision and for very short periods of time. And sometimes it still does irreversible harm.
The minimums go up with your height. They go up with your weight. They go down with your age. OP's stats put her at around 1600-1650 for *safe* weight loss. She likely shouldn't go under around 1500 *minimum*, even closer to goal weight. She's got mfp set to somehow list her target in the 1300s. That doesn't make that target safe. She's averaging 1490 calories per day, which would be under the *safe* minimum for *her* stats even within a few lbs of goal.
So... opinions...:
It's progress for her, based on her other posts, and that's amazing, but it's not safe long term, and people aren't going to encourage dangerous mindsets and behaviors.
I know it gets confusing. There were a group of us "short girls" on the other forums 5 years ago. We figured 1200 was the minimum for *all* women, and we were smaller so we could go lower and we even manipulated the math to where we believed it was true. It did so much damage...
It's confusing and complicated and it doesn't help that most doctors are not even sure how it all works. And most people don't want to understand it because it means no miracle results.
No one here can tell either of you what to do, or how to do it. We're all grown adults. We're all welcome to share our experiences and opinions. But other people will do the same. And correct our misconceptions. It's the nature of the internet lol. And we are all free to either take that new information in or not. To apply it to our own lives or to discard it.
2 -
Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »I don't think that was meant as an attack, @ReenieHJ ...
People on forums I used to go on were always hyper alert to potential misinformation and comparisons because no matter how neutral the comparisons may be... people take them on as personal standards and then do things which are detrimental to their health.
I'd imagine that happens here as well.I do realize everyone has different calorie needs, according to height, weight, activity level, gender, age, etc., etc., but I also know MFP doesn't allow calories to be under 1200 for women. So, if she's getting over 1400 per day while eating healthy.....
*sigh* this is why I hate posting my opinions sometimes.
Let's take opinions out of the equation for just a moment so I can explain.
My first accountability partner was 4'11. I'm 5'1", my daughter is 5'3", and you're 5'9".
IF we were all the same age... let's say 30, and we all weighed exactly 190 lbs, and we were all completely sedentary
Partner- tdee: 1766, bmi: 39.7
Me- tdee: 1823, bmi: 35.9
Daughter- tdee, 1861, bmi: 33.7
OP- tdee: 1956, bmi: 28.9
You- tdee: 1976, bmi: 28
But we aren't all the same everything.
There's a huge difference between a bmi of 39.7 and a bmi of 28.
My old partner at 28 bmi (your 190 lbs) would need to weigh 134 lbs, all other things being equal. At that weight her tdee would be 1461.
Still overweight, but eating around 1450 to maintain. At 30 years old, and 111 lbs, with a bmi of 23.2, her maintenance would be 1336. She would still have 5 lbs to lose.
But she's 47 years old, not 30. Changing just her age doesn't change her bmi. But it does drop her maintenance to 1234 calories per day.
The "minimum" recommended "for women" by doctors is for her. Thats the lowest amount its safe for her to eat. 1200 calories.
3500 calories is 1lb of fat, and she's getting a deficit of 34 cals a day, 238 per week. That's over 14 weeks to lose 1 lb. And then her tdee is 1228... 17 weeks to lose the second lb. Tdee down to 1223... 20 weeks for the third lb. Only 2lbs and 45 weeks to go.
That's what "minimum" means.
It's for women who are older and well below average height, who are sedentary, or worse, completely constricted in movement. Like me.
At my age, 42, and my height, 5'1", when I got to 5lbs over ideal, my tdee would be 1388. I don't need to eat at 1200. I would get *better* results than my friend, even eating at 1300.
1200 would still be safe for me, but *barely*.
It wouldn't be safe for my daughter, even as an adult. At 30 years old, at 5'3" with 5lbs left to lose, even if sedentary, her tdee would be 1530. Her minimum would be around 1450. Yes, she'd lose weight more slowly than eating at 1200, but that's the safe way to do it.
Mfp lets people set their goal as low as 1200 because they can. They could be legally liable if they let it be set below 1200, so they put a limit. That's the bare minimum considered safe for *any* woman. For the shortest, oldest, most inactive woman... 1200 calories is the extreme.
And it's not safe for anyone else.
It's confusing because often we hear stories or see media where a doctor has put someone on this extreme low cal diet for fast initial results before surgery or something and we think, "hey, I could do that!"
What they don't show is the extensive battery of tests before implementing that diet plan. Results showing that even though it's super dangerous to eat so little, *that* person is in more danger as a result of their current weight. It's the lesser of 2 evils, so they do it even though its dangerous. And that's with nutrient rich foods and supplements and under doctors supervision and for very short periods of time. And sometimes it still does irreversible harm.
The minimums go up with your height. They go up with your weight. They go down with your age. OP's stats put her at around 1600-1650 for *safe* weight loss. She likely shouldn't go under around 1500 *minimum*, even closer to goal weight. She's got mfp set to somehow list her target in the 1300s. That doesn't make that target safe. She's averaging 1490 calories per day, which would be under the *safe* minimum for *her* stats even within a few lbs of goal.
So... opinions...:
It's progress for her, based on her other posts, and that's amazing, but it's not safe long term, and people aren't going to encourage dangerous mindsets and behaviors.
I know it gets confusing. There were a group of us "short girls" on the other forums 5 years ago. We figured 1200 was the minimum for *all* women, and we were smaller so we could go lower and we even manipulated the math to where we believed it was true. It did so much damage...
It's confusing and complicated and it doesn't help that most doctors are not even sure how it all works. And most people don't want to understand it because it means no miracle results.
No one here can tell either of you what to do, or how to do it. We're all grown adults. We're all welcome to share our experiences and opinions. But other people will do the same. And correct our misconceptions. It's the nature of the internet lol. And we are all free to either take that new information in or not. To apply it to our own lives or to discard it.
Great post - and on top of that, it's all estimates. The estimates give us a "starting hypothesis" about our calorie needs, and we test that hypothesis to by using it as guidance for the first month or so of weight management efforts.
Most of us will turn out to be close to average, because all of this is based on scientific research, and the distribution of calorie needs in the population is fairly narrow, for similar people. (Tall, narrow bell curve; small standard deviation - another way of putting it.)
A few people will be noticeably far from average, either high or low. A very rare few will be surprisingly far from average. That's not so much the estimate being "wrong", but the person being non-average. That's just the nature of statistical averages.
At some point, it didn't matter that MFP estimated 1200 calories would give me a sensibly moderate weight loss rate, as a 59-year-old woman, sedentary outside of intentional exercise, 5'5", then weighing about 155 pounds (I'd already loss 25-30 before MFP). BMR estimate on joining MFP: Around 1300 calories, TDEE estimate (without exercise) maybe 1500-1600.
Turned out that I lost like a house afire, dangerously fast, more like 2 pounds a week . . . something that wasn't reasonable, at 155 pounds, and with a goal of losing only another 25 pounds or so. Now, MFP, most calculators and my good brand/model fitness tracker - that estimates usefully for others - suggest my maintenance calories for 125 pounds (with exercise) would be 1700-1800 calories, but actual practical experience suggests something more like 2100-2200.
Sometimes, we get threads around here with questions like "how many calories do other 5'X" women eat to lose". Not IMO a useful question, too much individual variation (from variables not mentioned, plus the "non averageness" possibility. Most people are going to be better off starting with a calorie estimate from a research based source (like MFP, a tracker, or a TDEE calculator), with inputs as accurate as they can make them; then testing that by following it for 4-6 weeks to compare weight expectations with weight results (whole menstrual cycles for women to whom that applies, so they can compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles).
Given my experience, which had some negative side effects, I usually encourage people to err on the "slow loss" side at first, unless so very materially overweight at the start that their body weight in itself is an acute health risk, and under close medical supervision for problems of various sorts. Shooting for extra fast fat lost just doesn't seem worth the health risk (given my experience), since 4-6 weeks of hypothesis testing will sort out what's really needful, in most cases. To me, it seems worth that time investment, prioritizing best health odds over fastest possible loss. Others' mileage may vary.
Admittedly, my advice is biased by my experience: I tend to be the worried (sometimes shocked) li'l ol' internet auntie who wants to see people take it easy at first, stay strong, energetic and healthy, even at the cost of maybe some frustration at slower weight loss initially. It seems likely that others' advice is biased by their experience, which can differ hugely from mine.
I feel like most people here mean well, in the advice they give . . . though we do all have differing communication styles, from gently soft'n'fuzzy to just-the-facts tough love.3 -
Blah. You gals are too touchy feely. The general sentiments of the analysis above I do agree with. Not necessarily for the same reasons. But the gist I think we agree on!
My primary concern is the difference between apparent short term result (yeah I'm dropping weight fast) and true long term results (yeah I lost yyy lbs of weight in zzzz and I still haven't found ab% of it xx years later!!!)
We probably don't need MFP and logging in order to achieve the good ol' reliable: "I'll eat the least I can--move the most I can--till something happens and I stop doing all this and then I will regain it all" which most of us are pretty good at by the time we get here...
So... like.. to make it worthwhile, for my anyway, well... with logging you can get real data that you can action for yourself. And you can also gain the ability to manage smaller *more appropriate for your current status* deficits effectively. Which, hopefully, will allow you to get past the point of "I stop doing all this and then".
But in order to do all that you do need real life data. A good 4-6 weeks in most cases. And it wouldn't hurt to start with a semi-good plan!
* I did say smaller because 19 times out of 20 people are trying to go 100 miles an hour instead of 10. You DO get the OCCASIONAL 5 mile an hour person who could use a push to 10. Not very often though! More often is the 100 miler who keeps stumbling due to speed and ends up going at 5 or less due to time spent on the ground!2 -
OP - you mentioned that you had an eating disorder in the past. Have you talked to your therapist about a good approach for you to make sure you stay healthy? Calorie counting may/may not be the best strategy for your situation. I really don’t know. But your therapist may have some good strategies for you.5
-
emmamcgarity wrote: »OP - you mentioned that you had an eating disorder in the past. Have you talked to your therapist about a good approach for you to make sure you stay healthy? Calorie counting may/may not be the best strategy for your situation. I really don’t know. But your therapist may have some good strategies for you.
Sorry trying to get caught up. I don't have a therapist.
The nearest one is in the city and i have severe driving anxiety on top of not being able to afford one.
My goal wasn't to puset anyone here, i just know with pcos your standard calorie calculator doesn't work the same because your metabolism is slower. I keep trying to gain more knowlege on these things all the time.
I end up leaving out info to make the posts short and end up getting people in a whir because i'm under eating.. im really not and this past week was the first i've done oats and berries more nuts and things like that. Got more stuff today to add in so i will be eating a bit morr but within my meals because of how my schedual is. But i defaulted to meal shakes because i thought it was gunna break my bad habbits and it did but really made me over eat most days at dinner. Trying to do better.
I mentioned my 30 min exercises, but i also clean house daily nd tend to kids. My toddler is 45lbs and i carry her a lot more than i probably should but it all builds up at the end of the day. I am in no way sitting long periods untill the end of the day. So ifk if what i'm getting in terms of calories burned is right either because idk if its ligbt or moderate i would settle under, the numbers just help me stay aware, thats all.
All a progressional thing2 -
"I'm sure, as you go along, and your tastes change, along with everything else, you'll probably change things around a bit. If you're allowed 1900-2000 calories a day, what about adding a protein fruit filled smoothie? Or more fruits, veggies and protein in your day? Or add a couple snacks throughout your day that are healthy?"
So I did quote this from my original reply to her, I did try to say what you'all are telling her, gently and tactfully and without all the scientific information included because frankly I get lost in all that. Touchy-feely? Of course!! I can only reply in ways that *I'd* want to be replied to and from my own perspective. IF I'd tried really hard for 5 days and thought I was doing great and wanted suggestions, thoughts, well......what can I say?
That's the challenging thing about talking to people on a forum, we all bring a different perspective from our own experiences, our own personalities and it's also hard to read everybody else's words and take them the way they're meant.
Have a great day everyone and good luck Kallen!2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I hesitated about replying to this thread, only because I thought the OP had done excellent.
Five days at a little over 1400 calories a day? Isn't that a good thing? Unless OP is out running marathons or burning 3K calories a day, etc. And OP admitted she's eating good nutritional food, getting her protein, etc.
MFP has me down for 1200 cal. a day, I'm 5'9", sedentary, weigh 144. I do eat 1/2-all of the calories back that I burn through any exercise I might do.
OP, maybe I missed it but did you just restart this, this past Monday? What does the scale say?
I'm sure, as you go along, and your tastes change, along with everything else, you'll probably change things around a bit. If you're allowed 1900-2000 calories a day, what about adding a protein fruit filled smoothie? Or more fruits, veggies and protein in your day? Or add a couple snacks throughout your day that are healthy?
If I could have 1900-2000 calories a day, I'd probably be filling up with more junk so I'm like you in that respect.
Good luck to you and please don't get disheartened. You have to do what works for you, as long as it's a healthy way of doing things and you can keep doing it for life.
Currently, OP is you plus 2/3 of another person, so comparing your calorie needs to their doesn't make sense.
I do realize everyone has different calorie needs, according to height, weight, activity level, gender, age, etc., etc., but I also know MFP doesn't allow calories to be under 1200 for women. So, if she's getting over 1400 per day while eating healthy.....
*sigh* this is why I hate posting my opinions sometimes. Going back to my corner now and will await further fall-out.
You seem to be suggesting that if 1200 is the bare minimum for all women, 1400 must be enough for every woman, and I don't agree, but you seem to be taking that disagreement very personally, so I'm not going to elaborate.6 -
@musicfan68
musicfan68 @PAV8888 @AnnPT77 @paperpudding @glassyo @Cluelessmama1979 @lynn_glenmont @emmamcgarity
I think i got everyone tagged that replied here over the last few days.
So i have to address a few things.
First thing is, i didn't meant to worry or upset anyone. I realize i'm not very good at writing these posts well. I was never cross with responses either.
second, I don't know if many of you understand that having a dignosis of PCOS changes the game pretty drastically in terms of calorie counting. Granted i'm still learning about it all but i know calorie counting isn't the preferred method now. We with PCOS have a slew of factors that make the calorie calculators wrong for us.. i've read a ton of literature in the last couple days trying to find answers.
Soooo... i finally asked my doctor about all of this. She said to aim for 1500 a day, which i now understand is with exercise. so basically i could eat 2000 cal in a day if i try to burn off 500 of it. I had told her my overall plan before, the staying between 1200 and 1700 calories and she never told me i was wrong for that at all or seemed concerned i was doing things that way.. so thats a reason why i was confused over reactions.
To give an update though. this week i've added turkey into my lunch meal, which boosts my protein and i also got some plant protein powder to go in my oatmeal in the morning. PCOS can make things difficult so they say to aim for plant proteins vs animal proteins because of insulin resistance. I take metformin for mind and also inositol for it.
So i promise i'm being healthy, and i'm paying closer attention. I understand why so many of you responded the way you did and i appreciate the concern. i will try to be better at giving the right information in the future. 3
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
- 426 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