I am a past Weight Watchers member. I had a lot of success there, lost almost 70 pounds, only to gain 30 pounds back. Then lost 40 pounds. Then got pregnant and gained A LOT. So here I am, needing to lose 85 pounds to be at a healthy BMI
I still believe in the Weight Watchers program, but needed a change so am doing calorie counting and trying to eat as clean as possible. But my second crack at Weight Watchers (when I lost 40 pounds) I lost it all quite quickly for my wedding by eating less than my daily points. I wanted fast results and I did get them. However, I do know (and knew when I was doing it) that it was a BAD idea, and that is why I gained all the weight (plus more) back. I restricted myself far too much and it was a recipe for disaster.
So this is my problem. I know that it was a bad idea, I know I failed at it because it was the wrong way to go about it, and I do not want to go down that road again. But I'm having a hard time getting out of that frame of mind. According to myfitnesspal.com, I should be eating around 1800 calories a day to lose weight (some say more, it's hard to get a straight answer!) but I find myself trying to save calories here and there so I eat less than 1800. I find it very difficult to I guess BELIEVE that I can still lose weight by eating that many (or a little more) calories.
Has anyone else felt like this? Any advice? Sorry for the long post!!

I have the exact same problem! I lost about 20 pounds in the past by eating way too little (and gained it all back), and it took me a long time to realize that I was actually hurting myself by not eating enough.

I still struggle with that, but to try to resolve the problem I set myself a daily maximum AND minimum of calories (I chose 200 less). My recommended calorie intake is around 1400, so I make sure I eat at least 1200 calories every day. And if it gets late in the day and I still haven’t reached my minimum, I have to eat something. And I just got into the mindset that I shouldn’t go over my maximum, and I absolutely can’t go under my minimum. It’s still a struggle sometimes, but I try to remind myself that I want to lose weight healthily and be able to maintain it long-term.

So maybe try eating between 1600 and 1800 for a few weeks and seeing how that works for you. After seeing the results, it does get a bit easier to believe that it’s actually working!

You might want to also try setting target meal amounts for calories. When I first started calorie counting (this is my second attempt after falling off the wagon in Spring) I took my 1800 calories and played around with different meal plans. I ended up making a plan that allows me to have 3 snacks during the day of 200 calories each PLUS a breakfast of 300 calories, lunch of 400 and dinner of 500. That way each time I go to eat a meal of snack, I have a guideline of where I should be aiming for. I ramped up my calories towards the end of the day because I love dinner and I find myself most often hungry in the late afternoon to early evening. There are some days when I run a huge deficit and I try to treat myself to a little something; it could be as minimal as a glass or two of juice, or it could even be some chocolate chips or a cookie if I have one around.

Thank you so much, those are great ideas. I'm definitely going to give those a try. It's just so hard to completely change your way of thinking, even when you know it's wrong.

I just have to say this, and please know I'm not trying to sound like a b*itch. The reason you gained some weight back has nothing to do with how quickly you lost it... You gained the weight back because you quit eating healthy and gave up. The same thing would have happened if it took you 3 years to lose it. When you go back to your old habits, you gain it back.

If you read the maintainers forum, there are lots of women maintaining who lost their weight rather quickly, there are women who lost it slowly and everywhere in-between. The reason they are maintaining is because they are focused and WORK at keeping the weight off every single day. They are mindful every single day and strive to stay healthy. To put it plainly, they don't give up.

Sorry, just a little pet peeve of mine. Keeping the weight off has nothing to do with how quickly or slowly you lose it, and everything to do with what you do once you get where you are going.

I agree completely and am so glad someone brought this up. It is a myth that losing weight slowly is a better guarantee of maintaining than losing weight fast. In fact, I recently read a study to that effect (sorry, can't find the link right now, but if I do, I'll post it). Also, my common sense tells me otherwise. In my life, I have not gone on very many "crash" diets. Rather, I've usually lost weight the "healthy" way---slow and steady, 1 - 2 lbs. per week. Nevertheless, in all cases, I've regained the weight. And I'm not the only one as statistics from Weight Watchers and many other programs of the type show. What's most important to maintaining a weight loss is sticking to the approximately calorie count for one's goal weight. Statistically, most people do not do that, which is why we regain the weight.

I think that the study that found fast weight loss to be better long-term was classifying 1-2lb/week as fast, whereas many people here think it's slow. I'm losing 1lb/week, which I think is great, but I have an awful lot of people here telling me it's slow.

Um...I didn't say that I gained the weight back because I lost it so quickly. I gained it back because what I was doing was impossible to keep up - it was too restrictive (which was why it came off so fast). I KNOW that the speed you lose the weight doesn't necessarily have bearing on whether or not you gain it back. I guess I could have explained myself better, but I'm not exactly sure where in my post you saw that I thought the only reason I gained it back was because I lost it quickly. I (genuinely) appreciate the help though.
(Sorry, edited to fix a typo and to try and defend myself better).

Hi Lotus! When I started counting calories I ate between 1750-1850 which seemed like a lot to me and I was very nervous, but I lost pretty consistently for two months at that calorie range. It can't hurt until you try it out! I could tell when I needed to lower my calorie range after at least 3-4 weeks of not losing any weight. Good luck to you!

Thank you so much Emme I really appreciate the advice!

Another thought on the fast/slow thing (sorry to get a bit off tangent, PinkLotus): maybe people tend to think that slow weight loss is more effective long-term because there's a one of those "correlation but not causation" things going on? Crash dieters are all losing weight fast, and tend to have the most trouble keeping it off long-term, so that's a sizable proportion of fast losers not doing well long term right there. I'd guess that a higher proportion of people who are dieting sensibly, in a way that they will manage to keep up long-term, are doing it slowly. This doesn't mean that you have to diet slowly for it to be effective long-term, and as everyone says we have a lot of successful fast losers on this forum to prove it, but if the majority of people who do well in the long term lost weight slowly, then it's easy to misread one as directly causing the other. There is presumably one group of people who find it easy to diet quickly, and another group (I'd guess larger, though I could be wrong) who find it easier to diet slowly, but I'd suspect that a lot of it could be due to dieting tending to be a repeat experience. Many people's first attempt at dieting will be quick weight loss, and if that doesn't work long-term and they decide to try something different in the hope that it will be a more sustainable alternative, you can see how they'd end up moving to slower weight loss, even if they could actually be one of the people who is fine with faster weight loss if it's done in a way that works for them. Er, does that make sense?

Thank you Esofia, that information is interesting!
I just want to reiterate that I did not only gain the weight back because of the speed in which I lost it, nor did I say I did. I gained it back because I was far too restrictive and ate way less than I should have, which was impossible to keep going long term. Someone misunderstood my original post and has now turned this thread into a different subject than intended. I do appreciate all the input, whether it be on topic or not though.

I totally get where you are coming from! I started out my journey (this time) gung ho, eating only 1200-1400 calories per day, usually less, and working out like a fiend. If I had been using mfp more religiously, I would have realized I was only netting 500-700 calories per day. I was starving my body of the nutrients it needed to support my workouts and daily life. Well, my body finally rebelled and I have now been stuck pretty much all summer around the weight I am at and have had to re-evaluate what I am doing. I refuse to eat less and starve myself more, and I still want to work out for the health of it. I am trying to eat more and am having a hard time convincing myself that eating more is actually beneficial and at the same time preparing myself for not being able to lose at the rate I did in the beginning. But I figure, I have been stuck for a few months now, bouncing around 185, so really, what is the difference? If I continue to plateau for another month or so, I will re-evaluate again. I would never be able to maintain any weight on 1200 calories a day and work out too, that is just not a reasonable long term goal in my mind. I figure my bmr is about 1580, why would I be eating any less than that? Soooo hard to convince yourself that you need to eat more! Good luck to you!

Thank you jomatho! It's so true...once you're in that frame of mind it's so hard to get out of it. It's such a strange thought, that eating MORE is better, even though you know it's true.
Thanks again and good luck to you as well

Pink Lotus, I am a new member of 3FC (again...) but I have a lifetime of experience with ...well, look at my username. I also lose weight on close to 2000 cals, though very slowly. A few years ago I tried to find out how many calories I need and I bought an item that indicated that I need approximately 1460 cals/day to maintain.
At my age and having been an athlete, I know what I can tolerate in terms of exercise. I "only" walk. I do not walk fast but do it at a comfortable pace, sometimes for 1-2 hrs. a day. I walk based on how I feel. Other than that I am not extremely active but I am not a complete couch potato either. I agree with the others who suggested that you experiment and see what works for you, while allowing yourself a range.
Seems you got some really awesome feedback from the veterans. I look forward to benefiting from the experience of these generous members as well