Calorie Deficit Question
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Thank you for replying, @kallen771991, and in such an understanding, conflict-soothing manner. A couple of comments/questions.kallen771991 wrote: »@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.
Not so much aimed at you, but a general comment: So many people consider that "calorie counting doesn't work" (a thing you didn't say!) because they find that the so-called "calculators" don't produce a calorie estimate that works for them.
There are really 2 different things: Getting a valid calorie estimate, and whether (once having one), calorie counting is a useful tool. (It sounds like you've internalized this distinction, and are using that knowledge in a sensible way, which is great.)
All the "calculators" do, essentially, is spit out an average calorie-needs value for people who are similar in terms of the variables the calculator knows about: The things like height, weight, age, activity level, etc. Actual people vary around that average. Most are close, a rare few are surprisingly far away. (Loosely, the further from average, the fewer people who fall in that range.)
Certainly, medical conditions, like your PCOS, can contribute to being "non-average", and finding the calculators not accurate for an individual. Lots of factors can make a person non-average in that way, some not obvious at all. (That "non-average-ness" is what the common "try it for a month then adjust" advice is about.)
For the majority of people, logging accurately, calorie counting can work as mechanics, once they have that adjusted, personalized estimate. (For some people, calorie counting is psychologically unsuitable for various reasons.) There are a few medical conditions I'm aware of that can cause calorie needs to be unstable enough for an individual that counting doesn't work as mechanics. Those are rare things, but possible.
(For example, one of my friends had an unusual cycling thyroid condition - not normal hypo/hyperthyroidism, but cycling wildly anywhere between extremes of each. When her thyroid was overactive, it was like taking stimulants: High heart rate, high energy, twitchy - burning many calories. When thyroid was underactive, she barely moved, was cold, slept/rested more - burning much lower calories. It could be one of those extremes, or anywhere in between, quite unpredictably. Calorie counting mechanics are less viable as a tool, in some rare case like that.)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.
That seems odd to me, speaking as a long term vegetarian. Protein can indeed raise insulin, but once broken down in the body, amino acids are amino acids, regardless of food source. Plant proteins can have a different protein profile (relative values of different amino acids), but plants tend (if anything) to be less complete in essential amino acids than animal proteins. Also, plant proteins in whole foods are more likely to bring carbs along with them, because many plant protein foods are less protein-dense, and often not high in fats, so a fair chunk of calorie content coming from carbs.
I'm not saying your doctor is wrong, and I admittedly know little about PCOS, but that advice seems strange, at least in terms of the explanation.
That said, the average person would be better off (according to most mainstream nutrition experts) getting more plant-source foods in general, for the micros, fiber, and prebiotics (loosely, certain types of fiber that help support a diverse gut microbiome).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.
Thank you for the reassurance - I think most people here really do care, really do want to help. We do have a range of different communication styles (most of us probably using a style that would work if the OP were us!). Some are warm'n'fuzzy, touchy-feely; others are science-nerd-y, maybe super blunt in ways that can come across to harsh. Also, we sometimes argue among ourselves!
Wishing you excellent results, going forward!1 -
@kallen771991 I think that few of us take things too personally and I certainly don't think anyone even remotely blamed you for asking OR for being unclear--and even if you were unclear in terms of a point or two, you took the time to come back and respond, while so many other people don't.
It is common in a forum for people to sometimes talk past each other. Or to latch on to something that is important to them while it may have been less important to the person who first wrote it. Or for one to not catch the shade of meaning the other one intended. Or for them to just disagree as to the importance of something. I mean... a forum is a free-for-all interaction and **kitten** happens!
Heck, we may sometimes even be wrong and instead of just admitting that we had a reading comprehension fail or flubbed it we end up entrenched in our position because the world is against us today! It happens! And I am in no way saying this thread is an example... I am just thinking of a thread related to weight fluctuations is all!
But, I think you will find that most of us who post here often are not even necessarily JUST responding to the thread we are posting in. It is fairly obvious that there is a good sized "unheard from" audience and often what is written is directed just as much to that audience as to anyone else.
Out of the people you've called out to I would bet that a clear majority is fully aware that people with PCOS may be "low level outliers" in terms of matching the expectation of caloric needs based on activity, height, weight, age, etc, because their BMR may be depressed relative to non PCOS women.
I don't know if the others are more aware than myself as to how much BMR could be depressed with PCOS.
I did a quick search earlier and I was very surprised to see a SIGNIFICANT drop between "control" "PCOS" and "PCOS with Insulin Resistance". Presumably it would depend on the level of insulin resistance cut off since many women with PCOS have some increase in IR. That was the Greek women study. We're talking 15% and 40% drops in BMR. I note that the controls were normal weight and the PCOS participants were low overweight. The BMR was "corrected" but I was just looking at summaries so I have now idea how.
HOWEVER. and this is important....
I also run just as many studies (I mean it was two in total so that's 50-50!) that flat out suggest that once corrected for age and BMI BMR was NOT different between PCOS and non-PCOS controls: https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20131025/bmi-may-be-most-vital-determinant-of-basal-metabolic-rate-in-pcos
SO WE GET BACK TO --PCOS women **MAY** exhibit depressed BMR and MAY be low level outliers-- BUT **INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY**.
And I think you will find most of us are aware that individual results may vary which is why many suggest that people should set-up a sane plan and then monitor their weight trend reaction over a 4 to 6 week period and evaluate how close their results are mirroring expectations based on averages... and adjust. (I note that this requires good record keeping. Optimally for EVERY day of the complete time period!)
There are many reasons why calorie counting may or may not work and why it may or may not be appropriate for an individual's mindset. But neither PCOS (nor any other reason for being an outlier) makes calorie counting something exotic or impossible to perform. All that being an outlier does is require some diligence to discover the DEGREE of "outlying" that you have to cope with. As you can then correct for it using your own data.1 -
@kallen771991 yay!!!! I'm glad you talked to your doctor and understand your exercise and intake calories better now! I was pretty concerned.
I don't think anyone was upset with you!!
I'm very familiar with how pcos works, but there are certain biological processes which use a set number or calories (energy) regardless of weight. It's the same even in tiny babies!
That's why there are minimums. Even an 18 year old girl at 4'10 and 99lbs has a bmr of ~1210
That's just basic life functions.
So yes, pcos affects tdee, and there's some studies to show certain types of pcos affect even bmr to an extent. But too many people overestimate how extreme that difference is and damage their health without realizing it. 😕
I think 1500 after exercise calories sounds good for you. But keep in mind that's a minimum too. On non-exercise days staying between 1500-1600 should still let you lose weight safely.
I'm a little confused by the protein stuff being debated here. I'm not sure why your doctor is discussing your protein choices. I know many people with pcos who are entirely vegan and others doing keto, lol. Not sure how that's coming up, but I am sure your doctor knows more about your medical stuff than we do, obviously.
Anyway, I am glad you got it sorted out, and I do appreciate the update!
Don't feel bad, either. It's a long process. If we just keep doing a lil better than we were before, we will get through it!0 -
Thank you for replying, @kallen771991, and in such an understanding, conflict-soothing manner. A couple of comments/questions.kallen771991 wrote: »@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.
Not so much aimed at you, but a general comment: So many people consider that "calorie counting doesn't work" (a thing you didn't say!) because they find that the so-called "calculators" don't produce a calorie estimate that works for them.
There are really 2 different things: Getting a valid calorie estimate, and whether (once having one), calorie counting is a useful tool. (It sounds like you've internalized this distinction, and are using that knowledge in a sensible way, which is great.)
All the "calculators" do, essentially, is spit out an average calorie-needs value for people who are similar in terms of the variables the calculator knows about: The things like height, weight, age, activity level, etc. Actual people vary around that average. Most are close, a rare few are surprisingly far away. (Loosely, the further from average, the fewer people who fall in that range.)
Certainly, medical conditions, like your PCOS, can contribute to being "non-average", and finding the calculators not accurate for an individual. Lots of factors can make a person non-average in that way, some not obvious at all. (That "non-average-ness" is what the common "try it for a month then adjust" advice is about.)
For the majority of people, logging accurately, calorie counting can work as mechanics, once they have that adjusted, personalized estimate. (For some people, calorie counting is psychologically unsuitable for various reasons.) There are a few medical conditions I'm aware of that can cause calorie needs to be unstable enough for an individual that counting doesn't work as mechanics. Those are rare things, but possible.
(For example, one of my friends had an unusual cycling thyroid condition - not normal hypo/hyperthyroidism, but cycling wildly anywhere between extremes of each. When her thyroid was overactive, it was like taking stimulants: High heart rate, high energy, twitchy - burning many calories. When thyroid was underactive, she barely moved, was cold, slept/rested more - burning much lower calories. It could be one of those extremes, or anywhere in between, quite unpredictably. Calorie counting mechanics are less viable as a tool, in some rare case like that.)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.
That seems odd to me, speaking as a long term vegetarian. Protein can indeed raise insulin, but once broken down in the body, amino acids are amino acids, regardless of food source. Plant proteins can have a different protein profile (relative values of different amino acids), but plants tend (if anything) to be less complete in essential amino acids than animal proteins. Also, plant proteins in whole foods are more likely to bring carbs along with them, because many plant protein foods are less protein-dense, and often not high in fats, so a fair chunk of calorie content coming from carbs.
I'm not saying your doctor is wrong, and I admittedly know little about PCOS, but that advice seems strange, at least in terms of the explanation.
That said, the average person would be better off (according to most mainstream nutrition experts) getting more plant-source foods in general, for the micros, fiber, and prebiotics (loosely, certain types of fiber that help support a diverse gut microbiome).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.
Thank you for the reassurance - I think most people here really do care, really do want to help. We do have a range of different communication styles (most of us probably using a style that would work if the OP were us!). Some are warm'n'fuzzy, touchy-feely; others are science-nerd-y, maybe super blunt in ways that can come across to harsh. Also, we sometimes argue among ourselves!
Wishing you excellent results, going forward!
Ty to clarify on the plant vs animal protein, my doctor didn't tell me that bit. But if you look into protein intake for pcos they advise to do more plant based proteins. If memory serves it has more to do with the fat in meat but its also because factory meats usually aren't as clean as like deer for instance( thats my dinner meat, my hubby hunts and we process ourselves). I'm still trying to figure things out though. I know dropping all dairy but plain greek yogurt and cheese helped majorly but gluten doesnt bother me as much, tho i avoid it because its so high in calories. Those two things are main ones to figure out if you have pcos because they mess with hormones. Anyway, i'm gunna keep at it, did my workouts every day so far. Burned over a thousand calories mowing my back yard today so taco night was awesome 0 -
Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »@kallen771991 yay!!!! I'm glad you talked to your doctor and understand your exercise and intake calories better now! I was pretty concerned.
I don't think anyone was upset with you!!
I'm very familiar with how pcos works, but there are certain biological processes which use a set number or calories (energy) regardless of weight. It's the same even in tiny babies!
That's why there are minimums. Even an 18 year old girl at 4'10 and 99lbs has a bmr of ~1210
That's just basic life functions.
So yes, pcos affects tdee, and there's some studies to show certain types of pcos affect even bmr to an extent. But too many people overestimate how extreme that difference is and damage their health without realizing it. 😕
I think 1500 after exercise calories sounds good for you. But keep in mind that's a minimum too. On non-exercise days staying between 1500-1600 should still let you lose weight safely.
I'm a little confused by the protein stuff being debated here. I'm not sure why your doctor is discussing your protein choices. I know many people with pcos who are entirely vegan and others doing keto, lol. Not sure how that's coming up, but I am sure your doctor knows more about your medical stuff than we do, obviously.
Anyway, I am glad you got it sorted out, and I do appreciate the update!
Don't feel bad, either. It's a long process. If we just keep doing a lil better than we were before, we will get through it!
Ty and as i told ann, i didn't get the protein debate from my doctor, i got it from research, it has less to do with the protein and more with the types of fats in relation to their effects on the insulin resistance. I eat lean meats for this reason the plant protein i got is to make sure i get my intake at the right level 0 -
Ahhh that makes more sense, lol
Glad you have it sorted out now!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions