Is it better...?

anxietyfairy · January 18

to get used to eating far less, or eat as much as possible on as few calories?

anxietyfairy · January 18

Because I don't have a big food budget and I am really, really bad at staying within my calories.

I have no idea what to eat.

I've tried looking at certain threads on here and they suggest things that aren't easily available in New Zealand or are too expensive (seriously cant afford cherry tomatoes and a whole bag of lettuce every day, amongst other things suggested).

I have cut down on how much milk I was drinking, but I keep doing too much cardio to try and cancel out how much I ate that day and I'm not finding the food I eat satisfying.

There was this chocolate drink called avalanche (the sugar free one is repulsive) that I found really addictive so I have stopped buying it, which is a big step for me, but I'm still not doing enough to lose weight consistently.

I try to do 10,000 steps each day and sometimes get up to 25,000 steps but I feel like I'm overdoing it for someone who is only a third of the way to her goal. I don't like getting sore or sweating so walking has been good to me (mostly), and I get that I would burn off a lot more calories doing something faster and more intense. I am willing to walk faster when I lose another 10kg or so.

I am somewhere between 5'8 and 5'10, female, start weight was 126kg and currently I am 104ish kilos. My goal is 80kg or lower, I'll just see how things go.

AnnPT77 · January 18

I'm confused. I can't sort out, when you talk about eating more/less, when you're talking about volume of food vs. calories in the food.

In order to lose weight, we need to eat fewer calories. The volume is irrelevant from that perspective. Volume can be relevant to feeling full for some people, but that's a sustainability piece. Nutrition is important for health, but that doesn't specifically require lettuce and cherry tomatoes (or any other specific individual food).

Purely theoretically, it's "better", according to research on successful weight loss and maintenance, to eat relatively more and move relatively more, vs. eating very little and not moving much. But that's theory, and practice is individual.

Slow loss is fine. Fast loss is harder. Sometimes slower weight loss gets a person to goal weight in less calendar time than some more aggressive plan that causes bouts of deprivation-triggered over-eating, breaks in the action, or even giving up altogether.

Fast loss may be important for a minority of people, like someone who needs to reach a lower weight to have important surgery, or who has some serious health condition that requires weight loss to remedy. Otherwise, slow loss has some advantages, including learning and practicing new habits that will help the person stay at a healthy weight long term.

anxietyfairy · January 18

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I'm confused. I can't sort out, when you talk about eating more/less, when you're talking about volume of food vs. calories in the food.

I am talking about volume of food in the first part, and both in the second part. Sorry for the confusion!

anxietyfairy · January 18

Sorry/ not always a great writer, I can confuse people easily because I have trouble articulating what was meant

Corina1143 · January 18

I've benefitted from both. Some days I'm extremely hungry. Some days I just don't want to eat.
It's hard to keep my calorie count on a fairly even level.
You're right. You can't eat what others do--for various reasons. But you can use the general ideas. If you can't afford lettuce and tomatoes, what can you afford that's high volume and low calorie THAT YOU LIKE for those days when you are hungrier? Don't buy it if you don't want it. Just think of it now so when you have a hungry day, you already have an idea how to handle it. How will you handle days when you just don't feel like eating? That's when I pull out the protein powder.
But maybe it isn't a problem for you. No need to make it hard if you don't need to. Just don't worry about either if you don't need to.
Make it YOURS. The way that's easier, better and more enjoyable for YOU.

patriciafoley1 · January 19

Honestly I'd go for moderation. Eating a head of lettuce (which you can't afford easily anyway) may just stretch your stomach and get you to expect huge meals. Then if you go off your diet, you may not feel satisfied unless you have a stretched stomach of higher calorie foods. So I would try to eat now what you plan to eat on maintenance, only a bit less, so you lose weight. The idea being maintenance should be easier when you get to that point. A lot of people have no trouble losing the pounds, but maintaining is hard. You're not losing weight so you can go back to your old eating habits. You have to find eating habits that will help you lose, maintain your weight in the future. So eating high volume? Maybe not the greatest idea. Just my thought.

springlering62 · January 19

There’s a thread here called High Volume Eaters, or something similar. I learned some good things reading that one. Maybe someone who participates on it can post the link.

I do understand what you mean.

I’m a snacker. I accept it and I plan around it.

I allow myself a certain number of calories per day, solely for snacks and dessert. The more volume I can get out of it for that budget, the happier I am.

Those days when lunch or breakfast is lower cal than normal and I get an extra snack, those are the bestest days. 😇

You’ve just got to find “your” foods, much like you find your “people”- something you’ll be happy cozy satisfied and comfortable with. That’s why I seldom change up my snacks, once I found the combo that worked for me.

At least it makes logging easy. 😅

AnnPT77 · January 19

springlering62 wrote: »

There’s a thread here called High Volume Eaters, or something similar. I learned some good things reading that one. Maybe someone who participates on it can post the link.

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10563959/volume-eaters-thread/p1

It's in the Food and Nutrition area, Most Helpful Post subsection (stickies).

I don't participate despite being somewhat a volume eater, but I know many find it helpful so I know where to find it. I think I might even have been the one who stickie-requested it.

momlongerwalk · January 26

First, congratulations on sticking with things to this point. You've lost a lot of weight. Looks like still a ways to go to meet your goal. I'm with the "slow & steady" group. (I've done fast, and it's not good for one's body, trust me, if you don't trust the studies too much. Slow is safer when you are doing-it-yourself.)

Second, when one looks through the methods for "keeping it off" it's highly individualistic. Some people weigh & log every. single. bite. Some can judge by the waistband of their clothing and just "cut back" when needed.

Some of us are high-energy, run-it-off folks, and some are sedate. You've come this far, and you hopefully have a good idea about how much (calorie wise) you need to eat to keep the pace up. BUT, whether you like a few bites of higher-calorie things or more low-calorie things (or a mix!) is up to you. I really liked the 'gentle nutrition' (now gone) from Intuitive Eating principles . . . which is to say, when you are hungry for X, eat X. When you are simply "hungry"--lean into healthier choices (fruits & veg, whether fresh, frozen or canned, lean protein).

For example, you decided not to drink so much milk. I allow myself to drink as much 1% milk (which I like) as I want, in coffee, as a beverage, over fruit. I've evaluated it, and when I do this, it's about 2 c of milk a day, a solid source of protein, and it's creamy and I love it. In short, I've oriented my eating so it works for ME. I've learned to cook lean, with more spices & techniques that make my simple food taste fabulous for my dear husband and myself.

One last thing, try to add a modest amount of strength work to your exercise. Don't overdo, but building strength will make it easier to carry your body around, you may find walking easier, and lean muscle burns a smidge more calories than body fat. It takes time, but it looks like you ARE invested for the long haul, the rest of your life, to being a healthier weight. AnnPT is right (she posts often, and I'd seek out her posts) about making changes that are for the long term, lifestyle forever.

Best of luck!!

momlongerwalk · January 26

And if you are having problems identifying what's "healthy" and not--you will have to do some homework. Read labels of any food in a box or bag or can. Stick with foods that have content you recognize. Otherwise, go with foods that are recognizable as food closest to its source. Do some reading to compare different cuts of meat, for example. (Trimmed beef eye of the round is lean, as is pork tenderloin, chicken w/o skin. These things are easily found.) If you don't have a large $$ budget, beans & rice to the rescue. And see budgetbytes.com, which doesn't post nutritional guides, but is a good tasty simple cooking site.

varianval · February 5

Cheap, healthy eats and balanced meals can make weight loss stick.

neanderthin · February 20

I believe that the more nutrient dense the food is the more satisfied the body will be.

Just like when people eat in a deficit the urge to eat, driven by hunger, is one of the biggest reasons people fail, it just goes against our natural survival mechanisms and the machinery that dictates those actions and when we are not delivering the nutrients our body requires to maintain good health the body will also signal a person to continue to eat until those demands are met. Keep that in mind, is what I'm saying.

When we eat in a deficit it's more difficult to meet those nutritional demands and if the diet is comprised of calorie dense processed foods, it becomes even harder and of course if you've done any research a diet high in UPF drives hunger, a lot.

Is it better...?

Answers

Categories