RobD520 Member

Actually, I was merely pointing out what usually happens on this board when people propose losing at an unhealthy rate. The admins shut down the thread. Pointing out that what you propose to do is unhealthy is not hateful.

This thread will likely shut down some time today as this is not a healthy plan, especially given the OP is not that heavy to begin with.

No one has ever explained to me how someone burns calories different with activity based upon whether or not it is "purposeful". Why does activity that is not "purposeful exercise" not count? I usually get 15000-20000 steps in addition to my workouts just going through life. My net calories would be VERY low were I not to…

OP has not posted her weight. I am curious as to whether she is actually overweight.

Part of doing this correctly involves learning what your actual net calorie burn is for exercise as many resources are unreliable. This involves keeping good records as well as trial and error. This is one reason why some suggest start by eating back half calories. My solution is to adjust everything down. Taking my BMR…

If you have been steadily at 2 pounds per/week you probably have been underestimating your calories since you don't measure. Food scales are inexpensive and make this all a GREAT DEAL easier. (My electron scale was under 15 bucks....)

MFP will not allow you to set your calorie goal at a number that is too low and, therefore, unhealthy. You haven't given your stats; but it sounds like you would have to eat below 1200 to get a 1000 calorie deficit. MFP settings will not allow you to do this as it is not healthy.

The meat is not going to absorb much after cooking. I marinate very often and never count it.

Every statement made in the post above is totally wrong. The challenge with eating back calories is that some burn estimates are two high. I have to dial my burnes for cycling and Taekwondo back.

If weight is not important then why are you trying to lose weight?[/quote] To look better[/quote] In the long term looks are maximized by a healthy lifestyle.

It seems like every time this question comes up, someone says not to count exercise that is not "purposeful." This is probably going to sound more snarky than I intend; but I don't understand the distinction. Does the body process "purposeful" activity differently? Consider my admittedly extreme example: Outside of my…

I did a bit of research and found zero positive things about this diet. Honestly, what are the positives?

I would eat back 50 to 75% to start. If you are playing a straight hour that estimate may be close.

Where is the scientific evidence that the body "gets used to things" such that it stalls weight loss-even at a deficit? I would love to read the studies!

Are YOU kidding??? This person who dumps a bunch of water weight the first couple weeks does feel good. That same person will wake up one morning retaining some of that lost water, having gained several of those pounds back and wonder what he or she did wrong. People trying to lose weight are intending to lose fat.

You also are trying to sell phase 1 of the South Beach, in part, on the strength of the water weight loss. That may have been the most foolish statement I have ever read on an internet board dedicated to weight loss or fitness.

At 5 6 and 215, your estimate of calorie burn sounds close. I would probably eat 75 percent back and monitor. All calorie burns are estimates; we can never be certain.

I would start by eating back half. For me to burn that many net calories, it would take over two hours of pretty strenuous cardio. 1100 seems high.

That is why it's best to lose weight without going on a "diet". What happens on day 91?

If I read the original post correctly, the OP is EXTREMELY frustrated after not having lost weight in the last TWO DAYS. I don't think we can say this is a case of "not losing weight."

Doing the math, provided your numbers are accurate, two pounds would be the approximate expectation.

I have seen people on this site who never were overweight dieting aggressively. I never assume the person was heavy.

While I absolutely agree that there is a great deal of mythology around artificial sweeteners-and I do have Diet Coke from time-to-time, this very same argument was presented to me in the 70's, but about Lucky Strikes. The fact that product-X hasn't harmed me is not strong evidence that product-X doesn't pose health risks.…

If you were to speak to an eating disorder specialist and allow them to read every one of your posts on this board, they WOULD NOT laugh you away. I am not suggesting anyone can diagnose you from reading your posts. But seeking a consult would be time well spent.

From another post, OP is 5'4''. Her BMI at 111 is 19.1. It was NOT outside the normal range when she started losing weight. Yet she ate 800-900 calories per/day for ~four months. She started a thread earlier that inspired a large number of people to urge her to seek professional help. After reading that thread, my sense is…

IF the OP is taller than 5'5'', she is underweight by BMI standards right now. She would be at the top of the normal range even if she were 4'6''. She ate a VERY low calorie diet to reach her goal. She said she lost 5/pounds per/month, implying that she ate 800-900 calories for multiple month. I DO NOT think it's…

I think the information is not complete enough to be confident that this advice is good. She reports that she is 111 pounds now. It is difficult to put this into context without knowing height right?

No number 2 is false. Late calories are only problematic when they are extra calories that reduce deficit or cause a calorie surplus.