First time trying to lose weight - hoping for some advice + also just wanted to say hi :)

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Not true. If it were true, no one would ever starve to death. Sadly, many people starve to death every day around the world, and they aren't fat when that happens.

What can happen:

As you get lighter you'll burn slightly fewer calories because it takes a little less energy to move a lighter body through the world.

If you were to under-eat dramatically - have too big a calorie deficit - you'd get fatigued and burn fewer calories than expected, basically through fatigue and subtly reduced activity.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Sekaiwacrazy wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Not true. If it were true, no one would ever starve to death. Sadly, many people starve to death every day around the world, and they aren't fat when that happens.

What can happen:

As you get lighter you'll burn slightly fewer calories because it takes a little less energy to move a lighter body through the world.

If you were to under-eat dramatically - have too big a calorie deficit - you'd get fatigued and burn fewer calories than expected, basically through fatigue and subtly reduced activity.

Thank you I’ve never thought about it like that! I’ll make sure not to have too big of a calorie deficit.

Lately I’ve been feeling really full even after not even meeting my daily calorie goal (which is from 1300-1400 cal - although I track 1100 because apparently it’s common to underestimate how many calories you’re consuming + I don’t always take into account oils/ sauces I use when cooking) which kind of scares me

I’ve heard stories of people who went on long term diets and ended up with a reduced stomach size which led to them continuing to lose weight even after reaching their goal. I don’t want that to happen so I might try to eat more even if I’m full - unsure if that’s a good idea though since it goes against intuitive eating

I don't think that's a thing, either. I suspect there'd be something else in the picture. Stomach size is only one possible factor in feeling full or hungry. There are also hormones that govern hunger and satiation.

Psychological factors can also enter into it. For example, we sometimes see people here who reach goal weight, start eating a little more to maintain weight, but panic when they see the scale jump by several pounds. They think they've regained several pounds of fat that took many weeks to lose, so cut calories again . . . and keep losing weight, of course. What's really happening is that upward adjustment of calories causes some water weight gain (multiple pounds), plus there's a little more food residue in the person's digestive system on the way to becoming waste . . . none of which is fat, all of which is normal, and it's a thing to expect when going to maintenance calories. The overreaction and mis-reaction to it leads people to keep losing weight, pretty much out of anxiety.

It's hard to give you advice about what to do when you acknowledge that you don't actually have a good handle on how many calories you're eating. Not trying to log oils and condiments can be particularly problematic, because they're often very calorie dense.

If you've started eating fewer processed foods, and more things like meats, fish, veggies, that can lead to feeling full on too-few calories at first, for some people. In those cases, the right answer would be to eat more calories, and we'd usually suggest not-filling calorie dense things to add like nuts, nut butter, avocados, seeds, butter or oil, etc. But since your logging is approximate, we don't really know if that's helpful or counterproductive.

It's also somewhat common to have a honeymoon period early in a low calorie regimen where one isn't hungry . . . but appetite later comes back with a vengeance. Again, if you're actually not hungry because you're eating at a reasonable calorie level (just counting somewhat approximately), then that wouldn't be expected.

At 67kg (147 pounds) shooting for 57kg (125 pounds), and 170-172cm (5'6"-5'7") half a kg per week is about as aggressive as you'd want to be for best odds of continuing good health and energy, IMO. Slower would be fine, too. If you go on as you are, and lose faster than that 0.5kg per week (averaged over a whole menstrual cycle, or 4-6 weeks if you don't have cycles), I'd recommend eating a bit more. If that's something calorie-dense and not filling, that's fine.

pony4us wrote: »

I'm 75, lost 35 pounds. Lost the first 20 quicker but the last 15 did the practice maintenance thing. Took me a total of 10 mnths or so. For the last 3-5 pounds we were snowbirding in Florida for two months. No scale, didn't weigh food but practice tracked by being mindfull, fully expecting to have a bit of a gain and planned on getting back to the business of weighing myself and carefully tracking food when we got home. I was thrilled that I was at goal weight, like magic. I've been able to easily maintain (true only 6 months) but we just had a week of house guests and big celebrations, I have enjoyed every meal (without being that annoying picky eater) and am still at the bottom of my range.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Sekaiwacrazy wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Sekaiwacrazy wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Not true. If it were true, no one would ever starve to death. Sadly, many people starve to death every day around the world, and they aren't fat when that happens.

What can happen:

As you get lighter you'll burn slightly fewer calories because it takes a little less energy to move a lighter body through the world.

If you were to under-eat dramatically - have too big a calorie deficit - you'd get fatigued and burn fewer calories than expected, basically through fatigue and subtly reduced activity.

Thank you I’ve never thought about it like that! I’ll make sure not to have too big of a calorie deficit.

Lately I’ve been feeling really full even after not even meeting my daily calorie goal (which is from 1300-1400 cal - although I track 1100 because apparently it’s common to underestimate how many calories you’re consuming + I don’t always take into account oils/ sauces I use when cooking) which kind of scares me

I’ve heard stories of people who went on long term diets and ended up with a reduced stomach size which led to them continuing to lose weight even after reaching their goal. I don’t want that to happen so I might try to eat more even if I’m full - unsure if that’s a good idea though since it goes against intuitive eating

I don't think that's a thing, either. I suspect there'd be something else in the picture. Stomach size is only one possible factor in feeling full or hungry. There are also hormones that govern hunger and satiation.

Psychological factors can also enter into it. For example, we sometimes see people here who reach goal weight, start eating a little more to maintain weight, but panic when they see the scale jump by several pounds. They think they've regained several pounds of fat that took many weeks to lose, so cut calories again . . . and keep losing weight, of course. What's really happening is that upward adjustment of calories causes some water weight gain (multiple pounds), plus there's a little more food residue in the person's digestive system on the way to becoming waste . . . none of which is fat, all of which is normal, and it's a thing to expect when going to maintenance calories. The overreaction and mis-reaction to it leads people to keep losing weight, pretty much out of anxiety.

It's hard to give you advice about what to do when you acknowledge that you don't actually have a good handle on how many calories you're eating. Not trying to log oils and condiments can be particularly problematic, because they're often very calorie dense.

If you've started eating fewer processed foods, and more things like meats, fish, veggies, that can lead to feeling full on too-few calories at first, for some people. In those cases, the right answer would be to eat more calories, and we'd usually suggest not-filling calorie dense things to add like nuts, nut butter, avocados, seeds, butter or oil, etc. But since your logging is approximate, we don't really know if that's helpful or counterproductive.

It's also somewhat common to have a honeymoon period early in a low calorie regimen where one isn't hungry . . . but appetite later comes back with a vengeance. Again, if you're actually not hungry because you're eating at a reasonable calorie level (just counting somewhat approximately), then that wouldn't be expected.

At 67kg (147 pounds) shooting for 57kg (125 pounds), and 170-172cm (5'6"-5'7") half a kg per week is about as aggressive as you'd want to be for best odds of continuing good health and energy, IMO. Slower would be fine, too. If you go on as you are, and lose faster than that 0.5kg per week (averaged over a whole menstrual cycle, or 4-6 weeks if you don't have cycles), I'd recommend eating a bit more. If that's something calorie-dense and not filling, that's fine.

Thank you again for commenting and putting so much thought... after reading through it, it seems more likely to me that I'm probably going through the "honeymoon period" you spoke about. I'll continue eating the way I currently am since I don't feel like I have less energy than before going on the calorie deficit. However, if I do end up feeling more tired I may increase the caloric intake a bit.

Something that is worrying me a bit is how fast I've lost weight... I started calorie-restricting around Sept 1 and have lost 4kg since then. Hoping its mostly water weight???

The first couple of weeks can see a fairly major water weight drop, especially if a person has reduced carb and/or sodium intake significantly. If that's happened, you might see a period that looks weight-stable (little/no loss), basically from rebalancing of water retention, even though fat loss continues (hidden on the scale by a re-increase in water retention).

If the fast loss continues for a full 4-6 weeks, I'd encourage you to consider eating more, even if it feels manageable. Weight loss rate (averaged over 4-6 weeks) is the best estimator of actual calorie deficit, not some calculator or fitness tracker.

If you're actually losing fat faster than 0.5-1% of current body weight per week, there could be a "hit the wall" effect in the semi-near future. "The wall" might be weakness, fatigue, rebound major hunger/appetite or - at a lower probability - some hair thinning or health issue.

I'm not saying that there would inevitably be bad consequences, just that there would be higher odds of something like that alongside fast loss.

I accidentally lost too fast at first, because I'm apparently one of the relatively rare people for whom MFP (and a good brand/model fitness tracker that estimates well for others) give a surprisingly major underestimate of calorie needs. I got weak and fatigued, then it took multiple weeks to recover back to normal, though I corrected (ate more) as soon as I realized. No one needs that.