Wanderland is 4'10". Maybe that's why her calories are lower?
Not by the calculations I put up. I have to use your age, current weight, and height to get the BMR numbers. Not even to maintain and do nothing all day, which means sleeping and not moving, do her calories need to be lower than 1300. Add any activity, just being awake, her body burns almost 1800. You can't cut that in half and still function.
I agree anything less than 1200 is not good and your body will just slow down.
I'm going to try this zigzag method myself! I'm going to try 1400/1400/1600/1400/1400/2000/1600. This gives me 1543 daily average. 1543 seems a bit high to me. I've been losing about 1 lb a week with 1400 daily, so will be interested to see what happens.
That's really weird. I use Lose it too, and it has me at 1500 cal/day. I've got 40 pounds on you, but that's still a HUGE difference. I wonder if you should go back into your settings and look at the info you inputed. You are on way too low of calories, (IMO) but that's weird with the lose it thing.
Cherbear I think it has to do with the fact that I'm over 13 inches shorter than you. Have you put your info into the other websites?
I eventually changed my settings to lose only 1lb a week in lose it, and it gave me a reasonable number 1400 calories, just to use it as a calorie tracker (which I love it for!)
I'm seeing a nutritionist (an actual nutritionist, RD with a master's degree) and she advised me against zig zaging calories. She said that consistency is best, that fueling your body regularly is healthiest and the best thing for creating an efficiently burning machine (thus, weight loss). So, that's what I'm gonna try and see how it works!
I'm seeing a nutritionist (an actual nutritionist, RD with a master's degree) and she advised me against zig zaging calories. She said that consistency is best, that fueling your body regularly is healthiest and the best thing for creating an efficiently burning machine (thus, weight loss). So, that's what I'm gonna try and see how it works!
The thing is, not every nutritionist will agree on everything. The problem is that they are all taught differently because they go to different universities. You can get a dozen in one room and there will still be a split of agreeing/disagreeing on zig zagging.
When I zig zag I don't go below my minimum and that's what's important. You have to stay above your minimum calories. A lot of people don't know that part of the equation.
Your statement "fueling your body regularly" implies to me that your nutritionist doesn't understand that when you zig zag you are relatively consistent you just go higher and lower but within your ideal range. Her statement makes it seem like she thinks when zig zagging you go below your lowest allowable every few days.
The thing is, not every nutritionist will agree on everything. The problem is that they are all taught differently because they go to different universities. You can get a dozen in one room and there will still be a split of agreeing/disagreeing on zig zagging.
When I zig zag I don't go below my minimum and that's what's important. You have to stay above your minimum calories. A lot of people don't know that part of the equation.
Your statement "fueling your body regularly" implies to me that your nutritionist doesn't understand that when you zig zag you are relatively consistent you just go higher and lower but within your ideal range. Her statement makes it seem like she thinks when zig zagging you go below your lowest allowable every few days.
Zig zagging broke my plateau. I now swear by it.
She understands; we discussed it extensively. Perhaps I didn't express it well here: consistently, as in the same amount on a regular basis.
I agree that every doctor, nutritionist, personal trainer, massage therapist, priest, babysitter, plumber (in other words PERSON ) will have their own spin on things.
Glad that zig zagging is something you enjoy and is workable for you!
She understands; we discussed it extensively. Perhaps I didn't express it well here: consistently, as in the same amount on a regular basis.
I agree that every doctor, nutritionist, personal trainer, massage therapist, priest, babysitter, plumber (in other words PERSON ) will have their own spin on things.
Glad that zig zagging is something you enjoy and is workable for you!
Okay. In my opinion, and this is based on what I learned in school as well, 1600 calories 5 days and two higher days IS consistent. You can't eat the exact same foods everyday, ergo you cannot get the exact same calories every day. Going up by 200 calories a couple days a week is pretty consistent in my opinion. I'd be curious as to what your nutritionist says about that.
Okay. In my opinion, and this is based on what I learned in school as well, 1600 calories 5 days and two higher days IS consistent. You can't eat the exact same foods everyday, ergo you cannot get the exact same calories every day. Going up by 200 calories a couple days a week is pretty consistent in my opinion. I'd be curious as to what your nutritionist says about that.
We actually discussed that very thing. She said for me, SOME variation (a couple hundred in my case, based on my allotment) is not problematic, then again, that doesn't match the "traditional" definition of "zig zagging", does it?
Some people do eat the same exact thing every day though, and that works for them; the same breakfast, snacks etc actually keep them on track. I like variety and flexibility, so I don't eat the exact same things every day, but it does work for some.
We actually discussed that very thing. She said for me, SOME variation (a couple hundred in my case, based on my allotment) is not problematic, then again, that doesn't match the "traditional" definition of "zig zagging", does it?
It matches the only definition of it that I've ever heard. Is there another definition?
For ME, based on MY allotment, as outlined in bold below, a variation of a couple hundred (that is, 200 or less) is permissible.
A "traditional" zig zagging week (as in, as directed by the site you faux-linked to) would include a gap (for me) between the highest and lowest days, as much as 894 calories for loss or 1482 for maintenance, both of which are more than the "couple hundred" (200 or less) I mentioned.
Again, YMMV and I think everyone should do what they (or they and their medical professionals) feel is best. Weight loss is (much like everything else ) a very individual thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passionista
We actually discussed that very thing. She said for me, SOME variation (a couple hundred in my case, based on my allotment) is not problematic, then again, that doesn't match the "traditional" definition of "zig zagging", does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hades Handmaiden
It matches the only definition of it that I've ever heard. Is there another definition?
This isn't about "biting" anything. I asked you a legitimate questions which you failed to answer. I don't know what you call "faux linking". It says "links may be removed" so I don't put links in because those are the instructions on the site.
And what is: YMMV??
The original question of the thread was to explain zig zagging. You claim my definition is not traditional. I'm simply asking what is the traditional definition of zig zagging that you were taught?
This isn't about "biting" anything. I asked you a legitimate questions which you failed to answer. I don't know what you call "faux linking". It says "links may be removed" so I don't put links in because those are the instructions on the site.
And what is: YMMV??
The original question of the thread was to explain zig zagging. You claim my definition is not traditional. I'm simply asking what is the traditional definition of zig zagging that you were taught?
Come on now ladies... tone it down. Just teasing!
The thread is still on topic, but it's starting to become a bit heated in here.
) will have their own spin on things. 
Just teasing!