I think the vast majority of members of 3FC are going off of, and giving each other, opinions and theories rather than facts.
ncuneo had a great idea to pitch this question to maintainers, who can give you the long-term perspective of what helped. I have heard what she heard, that those who went too low and lost weight too quickly gained it back quickly too. The ones who lost weight slowly burned a higher percentage of fat than muscle, which is much healthier than the body attacking the muscle for fuel (which is what happens when weight is lose too quickly).
There are a few users on here who do a lot of scientific research on nutrition, dieting, etc. They are JohnP and kaw. Search for them and perhaps send them a private message for their insights.
Even better, a nutritionist would be far better than 3FC for seeking factual explanations rather than theory and personal experience. It looks like you are seeking to loose 100 lbs, and a nutritionist better than other fat chicks, may be the best source for planning out a way to do so healthily.
I am working with a bariatric physician, and see a nutritionist in his clinic. They both told me I could choose my calorie level between 1,200 - 1,600 .. whatever I was comfortable with. I am trying to figure out the pro's and con's of everything. While I am not taking anything anybody here says as medical advise.. I do like to learn from others, and try to find out where they get their knowledge and idea's from.
I will look elsewhere for help on this, thanks for the advise indiblue. =]
1200 plus exercise was basically what I shot for. If I was actually hungry, I would eat more--up to 1500 or so. I began walking and eventually went into running several miles a day. That said, I did have some hair loss but it did return so no worries there. Overall, I felt wonderful, satisfied and comfortable. I also was eating extremely clean and whole foods.
A diet of 1200 cals leaves very little room for nuts...
just sayin This assuming the avg calorie count of each meal (b/l/d) is 300 cals. That's only 300 cals for snacks? Uhhhh...I know people around here do that...but it seems mighty restrictive...
As far as calorie cycling goes...if you start low (1200), what room is there for calorie cycling? I'm no "science major", but calorie cycling involves alternating high and low days but staying within your weekly calorie intake range for weight loss. If your body stops losing at 1200 cals...it would seem you have no room for any cycling.
Healthy bods are made in the "kitchen", not in the "science lab", and everyone is different. I'd start high (let's face it...we ALL like food here...that's how we got here) and work my way down. I eat at least 8-9 times a day now and I've literally turned my body into a "fat burning" furnace by doing so....I'm SOLD..FOOD..YES..nomnomnom!!!
All the best!
Last edited by joyfulloser; 03-10-2011 at 09:02 AM.
I know there are a lot of opinions, and theory's about calories, and whether it changes your metabolism, and requires you to eat lower maintenance than if you had dieted down with a higher calorie limit. That's the main reason I made this post, I was looking for some actual evidence instead of theory, myth or opinions. I mean of course, if in the end 1,200 calories will lower my maintenance calories, and slow my metabolism then I would take the slower route, and up my calories. I would just like to see some data that supports this.
Well I have done a lot of research, and unfortunatly it's seems to be a mixed bag just like 3FC. Google away and you'll find tons of info. My best source is the New Rules of Lifting for Women, it has a very good "diet" section that explains why eating too little is bad. If I have time over the weekend I'll try to dig up some info.
I guess I just choose to be cautious. I'd rather find out I was wrong and eating too little does nothing to your metabolism then have gotten to maintenance and have to maintain at 1600 or less.
. I have heard what she heard, that those who went too low and lost weight too quickly gained it back quickly too. The ones who lost weight slowly burned a higher percentage of fat than muscle, which is much healthier than the body attacking the muscle for fuel (which is what happens when weight is lose too quickly).
Are you talking about maintainers here at 3FC? Which ones gained it back fast? From the BIG losers, (100+) there are many of us who have lost a great deal of weight, did it fairly quickly in the scheme of things, and have been maintaining the loss. A few for YEARS now. Meg and Robin come to mind...and I'm coming close to the 2 year mark.
It doesn't matter how fast or how slow you lose the weight. What matters is what you decide to do once you hit goal. You can start eating, (Which is what 98% of all losers do, no matter how fast or slow they lose it), or you can maintain. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it took to get there.
Lori, can I ask how much exercise you do now? I don't eat at 1200, but some days I get as low as 1300 and my high is 1600. I know a lot of people on here say that the lower you go to lose the lower you'll have to go to maintain. I realize everyone is different and we each have to find what works best for us. The fact that you lost at 1200 and can maintain at 1900 is great and encouraging, just wondering how much of your maintenance is physical. =)
Lori, first of all HUGE congrats on the loss. It's incredible stories like that that keep me motivated here.
You'd know better than I would about how the majority of maintainers lost weight. And I'd agree with you that it doesn't matter how quickly you lose the weight as to whether one keeps it off. That said, I have read several "big losers" state that the method of maintaining higher calories (which caused them to lose weight more slowly) did enable them to keep the weight off more permanently than lower calorie dieters (which caused them to lose the weight quickly). What I've interpreted from them is that the method is critical for long-term success, and the length of time it took them to lose the weight is a byproduct of the method. Thus, I was incorrect in implying the quickness/slowness of weight loss was the direct cause of long-term success- I should have clarified that better in my original post.
That said, I am just relaying what I've read from others' experiences at 3FC, since the OP suggested she wanted a variety of opinions/inputs. Again, as I said in my earlier post, I defer 100% to her nutritionist/physician if they think 1200 is appropriate!
Lori, can I ask how much exercise you do now? I don't eat at 1200, but some days I get as low as 1300 and my high is 1600. I know a lot of people on here say that the lower you go to lose the lower you'll have to go to maintain. I realize everyone is different and we each have to find what works best for us. The fact that you lost at 1200 and can maintain at 1900 is great and encouraging, just wondering how much of your maintenance is physical. =)
Hi Kim. I don't go to a gym and excercise, and during the winter the majority of my excercise comes from indoor physical activity. I don't run on a tread mill, or spin around on a bike, but I am constantly doing things. I rarely sit at the computer and I only watch TV a couple of hours a week. Other than that and sleeping, I am going. Either house work, or DIY projects, and just recently within the last 6 months a very physical part time job (now 24 hours week). I am constantly moving...doing all kinds of physical stuff. Once spring hits, There will be a whole new realm of activity...push mowing several acres, garden, pruning,raking, etc. Now with a job, I don't know how I'm going to get it all done. Oh geez, I'm giving myself an anxiety attack just thinking about it!
It doesn't matter how fast or how slow you lose the weight. What matters is what you decide to do once you hit goal. You can start eating, (Which is what 98% of all losers do, no matter how fast or slow they lose it), or you can maintain. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it took to get there.
This was a question I worried about in the early days of my wl phase. I was given this same advice and have found it to be very true. Be grateful, as I am, that we can lose weight easily and quickly. There are some here at 3FC who cannot. And by all means, put a lot of effort into thinking about how the maintenance phase is going to be. After all, it is going to be the longest phase, right?
Last time I lost weight thats how I did it. 1200cals daily plus excerise 6x a week. Im 5ft2 so im short too. May I suggest a cheat meal (not a whole day just 1 meal) like 1x a week or every 2 weeks. I eventually plateued like that when I was 20lbs from my goal and thats how I broke the plateau. Thats not to low I lost about 8-10lbs a month like that
I started out at 200lbs Jan 1st and no exercise and only eating 1200 calories and then Feb started to walk (found a intermediate trail with hills) and now its march, I still eat 1200 calories, I am now able to run a mile (don't laugh) found another trail and walk 7 miles, do ab crunches and arm exercises with weights and 16lbs lighter and feel fantastic. I will never go back to eating when I am stressed, instead if I am stressed, I go and run. Feels great and I feel incredible.
[You'd know better than I would about how the majority of maintainers lost weight. And I'd agree with you that it doesn't matter how quickly you lose the weight as to whether one keeps it off. That said, I have read several "big losers" state that the method of maintaining higher calories (which caused them to lose weight more slowly) did enable them to keep the weight off more permanently than lower calorie dieters (which caused them to lose the weight quickly). What I've interpreted from them is that the method is critical for long-term success, and the length of time it took them to lose the weight is a byproduct of the method. Thus, I was incorrect in implying the quickness/slowness of weight loss was the direct cause of long-term success- I should have clarified that better in my original post.
I agree with this. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember reading that a HUGE percentage (like over 80) of people who lose weight end up gaining it back. Of course on 3FC we see maintainers who have been able to keep it off, but we don't see many of the folks who lost and then re-gained. I think losing more slowly gives you more time to get used to the fact that this is, indeed, a lifestyle change as opposed to a "diet". When you get to maintenance, it's more of a "transition" than an "event" like it might be for someone who lost very quickly.
I only have anectodal evidence to support this, but from what I've observed in "real" life, the yo-yo dieters tend to be fast losers (and fast gainers) and successful maintainers seem to have lost more slowly. Again, it's probably not the actual SPEED of losing that makes the difference, it's probably more about the "retraining" aspect and the time it takes for those changes to get hard wired into your brain. Some fast losers CAN transition to maintenance fairly easily, but many of us cannot.
Of course the danger of losing TOO slowly is losing motivation along the way. Again, as we hear time and time again on 3FC, everyone IS different and we all have to find the "happy medium" that works for us.
Good luck!
Last edited by NorthernExposure; 03-18-2011 at 09:10 AM.
This assuming the avg calorie count of each meal (b/l/d) is 300 cals. That's only 300 cals for snacks? Uhhhh...I know people around here do that...but it seems mighty restrictive...
