I picked "I feel hungry no matter how much I eat, so it's more a matter of sticking to numbers." But, to me this is more of a emotional/mind hungry then a physical hungry.

I personally see nothing wrong with being hungry on occasion (not letting it go too far of course.) I find it helps keep me in tune with my body. Often, thirst is mistaken for hunger, so I find it good to feel real hunger sometimes to keep up the ability to differentiate.

However, if I get really hungry, I get really grumpy! So I usually I have lots of healthy snacks with me at work so that I don't stay hungry for long.

I have less than 10 pounds to lose, so in order to lose those pounds, I have had to cut my calories back to about 1400 per day. I do tend to get very hungry on this, so if I were to cut back to say, 1200, where I would definitely drop pounds faster, I think I would not be able to stay on plan. As it is, I am doing quite well, but the weight loss itself is slow as molasses in January.

Hey Thinfor5Minutes! Just my opinion--if you dropped to 1200, your loss would stall and you might even gain.

Jay

Huh? Stall or GAIN? By taking in less calories? :dunno::dunno::dunno:

If I were hungry on the 1400, I wouldn't lower it either. For me, being hungry is something I'm not willing to do. So, given the choice of slow or hungry - I'd pick the slow.

Yes, stall or gain. By depriving your body too much you can trigger compensatory responses that make it even harder to lose weight. Plus, by going that low, the weight you lose definitely will not be all, or perhaps even mostly, fat.

But who's to say that 1200 nutrient rich calories is depriving one self of anything? And of course as we get closer to goal, there will be more lost than just fat - that's a given.

Regardless, like I said earlier, given the OP is hungry on 1400, I WOULD stick with it, since it IS still resulting in a loss.

I've been on 1200 calorie plans before...the Weight Watchers plan I was on back in the 80s (which was an exchange plan at that time) was about 1200. I certainly did lose weight on it, but did not stick with it, since I was not satisfied at the end of the day. At slightly more calories, I can eat a few more satisfying things and find it easier to stick with it.

Your body doesn't just need nutrients, Robin, it also needs fuel. And if it gets too little of it, the fat reserves will not be the only thing to go. More muscle tissue will get wasted, and the body's metabolism will slow at a higher rate. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure most people on 3FC probably want to avoid that as much as possible. And frankly, though drastic calorie slashing will get quick results in the short run, it can have undesirable effects in the long run. That's why I choose to take a more conservative approach and suggest the same to others if they ask for advice.

By the way, Thin, now that I'm doing heavy weight training, I'm happily losing on 1800-2000 calories per day :)

Way to go, Drina! I have only been weight training for a few weeks...and I'm still at the "OMG I'm so sore!" stage.

My weight training philosophy is to lift heavy and hard! If I can get to 12 reps with an exercise, I increase the weight. If I can get to 10 with good form but struggle on the 11th, then I'm lifting the right weight (until I get stronger and it becomes too easy). Since I discarded my 8 pound dumbbells and started hitting the heavy weights, I've found I can eat much more and lose weight (while gaining muscle, which I find incredible). No more 1500 calories per day for me, and that suits me just fine :cool:

Best of luck to you on the last few pounds. I'll see you at goal! :carrot:

And that's what it's all about. Finding something that you can sustain and STICK with. Because we all know nothing will "work" if we can't stick with it. :)

I am more then aware that our body needs fuel, thanks for the heads up ;). Drina, I really don't want to argue with. But we've all got to realize that there IS more then one way to do things "right" and not use such blanket statements as xyz calories will DEFINITELY or even most likely, do this, this and this. Because it's not the case.

We are all experiments of one. You are 5 foot 7, I'm barely 5 feet tall - we are different. Just like we all have different definitions, such as the word that you used - drastic. For me, and yup there ARE others like me (lots in fact, some right here at 3FC, successful longtime maintainers), 1200 calories is not in any way, shape, manner or form considered drastic calorie slashing. Not by a long shot.

I'm so happy you've found something that works so beautifully for you. As I have for myself. And yet, they are different. You can talk to 20 different people and you can get 20 different "somethings that work so beautifully-s", (yes, I've resorted to making up my own words here ;))

Through trial and error, hopefully every single person here can as well. :smug:

rockinrobin and I have different approaches. She has consistently done OK on low calories. I don't--and I don't want to. But everyone sees the question differently, which is why I started the poll.

It's interesting that most people who've responded say that they would rather eat more even if it meant losing more slowly. And yet, there are people in every category--just shows we're all different.

I think I'll do another poll shortly! I'll post a link when I do.

Jay

Robin, I realize that we all have to do what works for each of us. But so often women are told that if they want to lose weight they have to CUT! MORE! CALORIES! and DO! MORE! CARDIO! Over and over again, I've seen this advice dished out to folks who are already eating an incredibly small number of calories for their weight. In fact, I followed this advice myself for a very long time. Even when I was over 200 pounds I was aiming for 1500! But through experience, a lot of reading, and a good deal of research I found that the slash-and-burn approach, while effective for losing weight fast, wasn't really necessary to lose weight permanently. It also has adverse affects on muscle mass and metabolism, which I didn't want. When I realized that I could lose fat while eating more food, I wanted to kick myself for not changing my approach earlier... it would have spared me a lot unnecessary calorie cutting.

Eating so few calories may work, but there's no denying the effect it has on one's metabolism. And frankly, I just don't want to spend the rest of my life eating mostly big, fluffy salads and diet yogurts, or minuscule portions of everything else. As you often say, Robin, uh uh, Nope. Not for me. And I think, also, not for many other people. For that reason I think it's important to provide a counterbalance for the argument that weight loss requires cutting way back on calories. And that's why I'm here :)