I’m getting a small chuckle at this, because, in the past we’ve had threads about going under the “magic” number of 1200. All these chicks were defending themselves, while plenty of women chimed in for being 1200-1400 and couldn’t understand going lower. Now, 1200-1300 is “extreme”? Well, clearly there are no hard rules for extremism, and where you are coming from makes your perspective very subjective.
My opinion: at 160, I don’t think 1200-1300 would have been “extreme.” But if your whole mentality was extreme, that's a bigger problem. Truthfully, my definition of extreme would have very little to do with numbers. It would be about mentality.
I find it really hard to believe that at 160 pounds, you could eat 2400 calories and not gain weight, cause I would. To make a long story short, I didn't lose weight for 2-3 years because of what calculators said. I had to go lower than their recommended 1-2 pounds lost magic numbers to get any results. At their "maintain" numbers, I gain. My point is, technology, calculators, etc, are flawed. Using those as a guide is merely a starting point at best. You have to listen to your body. Partly because our knowledge of what effects our ability to lose weight is still being developed, calculators are flawed.
That said.... I still appreciate the general warning about extremism. I think everyone should take time to evaluate themselves honestly about their plans. Extreme approaches will do more damage than good.
I also think that it is probably easier for people who are heavier to adopt a more moderate lifestyle and still lose weight, simply because the heavier you are, the more you burn just doing daily activities. So, if you weigh, say, 240 lbs, you will burn around 1,800 just by maintaining basic functions, therefore if you are at all active, you will burn 2,400 calories a day easily.
I am somewhat close to a healthy weight -well, within 20 lbs of a healthy weight. Therefore it is harder for me to lose weight unless I do the rather drastic measures of slashing my food intake and upping my exercise by a lot.
Believe me, I wish that I could take a more lackadaisical approach to it all, but I have found that I simply can't. If I am not diligent, I don't lose. I can maintain, but not lose.
I don't think the OP is advocating a lackladaisical approach. The issue isn't what you're doing, or how hard you're pushing yourself, or even how "extreme" your methods are (in comparision to "everyone else.") - it's whether or not your expectations and your efforts are reasonable for YOU. Are you biting off more than you can chew? Are you beating yourself up for reasonable mistakes? Do you feel like you're failing, if your success isn't what you were hoping for? Is weight loss the only "thing" in your life? Are you shutting out friends and family, turning down all social opportunities? Is your job or family suffering because of the effort you're putting into your weight loss?
I can't follow a "moderation" diet, as it seems to be commonly defined. I have to cut carbs to an almost ridiculous level in order to lose weight. There's nothing moderate about my food goals. Now my actual diet is more "moderate" than I'd like, in that I make a lot of mistakes.
If you eat an extra carrot stick and beat yourself up for it, that's probably extreme.
Are you putting in the effort and attention that is required to meet your goals - or are you shooting yourself in the foot by removing everything except weight loss from your life.
Only you can know where to draw the line. 1200 calories could be your "just right" or it could be your "too far."
Tremendous effort can yield tremendous results, but you've got to work with your own priorities. It's ok for weight loss to not to be your only priority in life. It's ok to make room for other people and other things.
When I was younger, I didn't know that. I thought I was supposed to have no fun at all while losing weight. I couldn't go out with friends or even on dates because it might jeopardize the diet. I couldn't date a guy who was interested in me, because he probably only likes fat chicks and I didn't want to be a fat chick.
There were so many things I thought I needed (and was obligated) to give up, in order to lose weight.
In some ways, some of my goals (at least my eventual goals) are even more "extreme" than ever before. It's my attitude that is more moderate. To get to my weight goals, my behavior is going to need to be ever increasingly extreme. But if I try to do now, what I probably will be doing at 150 lbs, it would probably kill me.
It isn't about whether you're taking big steps or little steps, it's about whether or not you are taking steps that YOU can handle.
Weight loss is a marathon, not a sprint. If you run at your absolute full speed, you may find that you run out of energy before you get very far. Only you know the speed you can maintain.
I'm disabled and sometimes I need a cane to walk. I also have COPD/asthma. Even I can walk the distance of a marathon (it might take me a week), but if I tried to RUN a marathon today, I'd have a heart attack before I made it three blocks.
Unlike a marathon, we all have different distances to travel. We also have different abilities. Some of us can walk/run faster than others. Even the best athlete can push him/herself too far, and end up with overuse injuries, even death (Nearly 200 people have died climbing Mount Everest, and people die every year climbing smaller mountains).
Our mountains are different sizes, and we're all climbers of different abilities. You have to know your mountain, and you have to know your abilities. That's the real issue, here.
I’m getting a small chuckle at this, because, in the past we’ve had threads about going under the “magic” number of 1200. All these chicks were defending themselves, while plenty of women chimed in for being 1200-1400 and couldn’t understand going lower. Now, 1200-1300 is “extreme”? Well, clearly there are no hard rules for extremism, and where you are coming from makes your perspective very subjective.
My opinion: at 160, I don’t think 1200-1300 would have been “extreme.” But if your whole mentality was extreme, that's a bigger problem. Truthfully, my definition of extreme would have very little to do with numbers. It would be about mentality.
I find it really hard to believe that at 160 pounds, you could eat 2400 calories and not gain weight, cause I would. To make a long story short, I didn't lose weight for 2-3 years because of what calculators said. I had to go lower than their recommended 1-2 pounds lost magic numbers to get any results. At their "maintain" numbers, I gain. My point is, technology, calculators, etc, are flawed. Using those as a guide is merely a starting point at best. You have to listen to your body. Partly because our knowledge of what effects our ability to lose weight is still being developed, calculators are flawed.
That said.... I still appreciate the general warning about extremism. I think everyone should take time to evaluate themselves honestly about their plans. Extreme approaches will do more damage than good.
Yes, thank you! You are right, it is the extreme mentality that the original poster was no doubt referring to. And you are also correct about the gaining weight eating 2,400 calories at 160 lbs. I know for a fact that I would gain if I ate 2,400 calories every day, probably a lot of weight, because my base metabolism is nowhere near that.
To each his own - one thing for sure, this topic sure has stirred up a lot of discussion!
Everybody's situation is different. A person needing to lose 150 pounds is going to have a way more drastic lifestyle change than a person needing to lose 30 pounds, if they both cut back to 1200 calories a day. The "extremist" behaviors would not be as difficult to maintain for a 30-pound-overweight person than they would be for a 150-pound-overweight person.
Here is a very generalized example: at 30 pounds overweight, you probably got that way by 200 extra calories a day for x amount of days. To get 150 pounds overweight, you would need to eat 1000 extra calories a day for the same amount of days. Therefore, reversing the pattern would require a 30-pound overweight person to cut back about 200 calories a day, were it would require a 150-pound person to cut back 1000 calories a day. The latter is far more likely to feel extreme.
I think there are too many factors involved to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach. It may be easier for a highly disciplined person to incorporate what a more free-form person might consider extreme. If you have a high-stress job and a fast paced life with four children in extra-curriculars, then you are going to have a different view of what lifestyle changes feel extreme than if you are a single person with no children who works part time.
I lost 70 pounds being an extremist, and I gained it all back. Now my approach is that I feel this needs to be less extreme if this is going to be a forever thing.
I completely get where Kelly is coming from - even though you are all correct that one person's extreme is another person's sustainable. I am enough like Kelly that I get it.
I could go the route of meticulous counting, of religious exercise, of declaring certain foods forbidden. I have done it before, and it does work really well - for a while. After about six months of that I have always burned out and started gaining the weight back - just as Kelly described.
When I started this time, I realized that I had to do something different or I would just repeat that pattern. I had to fight my instinct for obsessive focus because I know myself well enough that my obsessive focus always falls by the wayside after a while when it starts to focus on something else.
So this time, instead of meticulously tracking every single morsel I put in my mouth, wearing a little device that claims to compute my calorie consumption with unrealistic precision, and so on, I just promised myself I would stop being a pig. It's really that simple. I've done this enough times before that I know what healthy foods are. I know what healthy portions are. I know that the donuts on the conference table are not the last donuts I will ever see and I don't need to eat one. That's all I need to know.
It has worked for me. It hasn't worked as quickly as the super-obsessive meticulous route. I lose weight more slowly, for sure. But, you know, this isn't a race, and if it takes me two years instead of one to reach my goal, well, better than not getting there at all. And when work got really crazy for a couple of months, I managed to pretty much maintain my weight loss and pick up where I left off once things calmed down - because picking it up again only required a few small adjustments, not getting back into a meticulous mindset.
And once a month or so I will still do a few days of careful calorie-counting just as a reality check. But I don't need a reality check every single day. I have too much other stuff I want to do for that kind of focus to be sustainable for very long.
So while I respect those of you who can make meticulous - and, yes, obsessive - calorie-counting and monitoring a part of your daily lives for good, I know for a fact I just can't. And while Kelly maybe chose the wrong word (extreme) to describe that kind of lifestyle, I do understand where she's coming from.
I completely get where Kelly is coming from - even though you are all correct that one person's extreme is another person's sustainable. I am enough like Kelly that I get it.
How true! A couple weeks ago, I cut back to 1500 - 1600 cals a day (I want to hit 200 by 8/30/10) and that is extreme FOR ME. I know that I could not do 1200 a day. I find 2000 a day to be more comfortable and when I reach my weight loss goals, I have learned about what I think I can do to comfortably maintain forever.
Before cutting back, I had been working out and feeling great. Since I cut back to 1500, I have been getting sore muscles a lot easier. I am eating my protein, I am eating my veggies... but I can certainly feel that 1500 is extreme for me.
I think the OP makes a really good point about not going to extremes. Whatever feels extreme to an individual is not going to be sustainable or healthy. It's not only important to be physiclaly healthy, but also mentally and emotionally.
Every time I have over-restricted food and over-exercised in an attempt to be "disciplined" I have ended up bingeing and becoming hopeless.
For me - over-restriction leaves to bingeing. Every. Single. Time. It may not happen right away, but it will always happen eventually.
I am also more about making small, sustainable changes. Eating intuitively. When I counted calories meticulously I drove myself insane. I beat myself up. I wouldn't eat, even if I was still hungry. I can't live like that.
So while I respect those of you who can make meticulous - and, yes, obsessive - calorie-counting and monitoring a part of your daily lives for good, I know for a fact I just can't
For those who do this, and I'm not one of them, at this point I'm a calorie estimator - but I DO consider myself a calorie counter, they/we don't find it to be obsessive - as in a negative connotation - but a positive. So I prefer to call it dedicated, devoted, committed. Obsessive just sounds - weird and strange and nasty and - wrong. To me anyway.
I don't consider it obsessive to make sure that before I write a check, I know how much money is in my account. I don't find it obsessive to use my debit card only if I've got money to cover it. I don't find it obsessive to check a price on something before I buy it. And I think many would agree with that.
So I'm not sure why anyone would find it obsessive - in a negative way- to track ones calories. This is important stuff! After neglecting my weight, my health for decades I realized that *this* is worthy of the time, effort, thought and energy that is needed to get to a healthy weight and stay there.
I would pretty much bet that the large majority of people who have gotten to goal and has stayed there for years and years and years (and that's our aim, isn't it?) have done so by being vigilant, devoted and dedicated.
Ooh, just had another thought - I wonder if anyone would find it obsessive for a diabetic to check there blood sugar levels many times a day.
I thihnk SCraver said it best... " Whatever feels extreme to an individual is not going to be sustainable or healthy"
We can all argue till we are blue in the face about what is extreme to me and what is extreme to you
I cannot lose unless i am meticulous about tracking every morsel, and i cant lose above 1200. eh.....
i am also an "all-or- nothing" person. For instance, i CANNOT HAVE peanut butter in my house. i CANNOT HAVE cereal in my house. I CANNOT HAVE candy in my house. I cant even have a pack of GUM in my house. If i eat ONE piece of gum, i will have devoured the pack in 5 minutes, whether i am in a caloric deficit or not. i cannot have just ONE cigarrette, else ill smoke the pack. I accept that i am an addict (of everything!) and i cant do ANYTHING in moderation.
Word of warning to BodyBugg users, it is a great TOOL for giving you a general idea of how much you move in a day, but it is NOT the gospel truth. It is very innaccurate where smaller, conditioned females are concerned. It is VERY innaccurate if youve been a "yo-yo" dieter during your life, and thus have an "off" metabolism (SLOWED/Adapted) I frequently had days with a burn of over 3000, so i raised my cals from 1400 to 1700 (becasue i was trying to lose weight and had stalled) and i gained weight during that 6 weeks. It wasnt untill i dropped down to 1200 that i was able to lose again.
Use the BodyBugg to show how active you are. That running around doing errands on the weekend creates a HUGE burn compared to going to the movies and having lunch with friends. Compare the huge amount of cals you burned cooking and prepping food for a couple hours last night, compared with the night before when you did a quick, 10 minute box dinner. You get my point.
Oh, and it SEVERELY over-estimated the cals i burn running. I think it was an arm movement issue.
I don't have any forbidden foods. (I eat the world's best pizza weekly.)
I don't spend hours in the gym. (I actually haven't darkened the doorstep in longer than I care to admit.)
I eat 1700 calories a day. (Not every day, but that's been my average for the last 4 months now.)
This is actually the least obsessive I've ever been regarding my weight and health because it's so easy. I no longer diet. I eat the food that my body needs at a given time.
The calorie counting and GWF - they're tools. They are actually a very small and unobtrusive part of my life. I wear the display as my daily watch. I upload my data once a day, M-F, at the office. (I own the biz, so it's OK!) I log my calories on the nifty Droid that is always in my purse or pocket. Tools. I use them to help me make sure that my body is getting the food it needs.
I've tried "intuitive eating" and just eating healthy. My intuition sucks. I wake up one day a few years later 100 pounds overweight. I don't care to do that again.
Getting the GWF helped me to ID just what is going on. I have a crappy metabolism. I burn way fewer calories than online guides say I do. When I realized that eating an extra 250 calories a day means packing on 25# a year . . . it suddenly became clear to me what kept on going wrong before.
Do I plan to wear the GWF daily forever? Probably not, but I'll keep it around and pull it out if I hit a red line weight or when I am training for an event. (Before this last weight gain, I was a ironman triathlete and ultrarunner and I am so excited to have this tool for training now! Proper nutrition for endurance training and racing was always something that I was never able to get a handle on before - I'd always gain weight, training 20+ hours a week.)
This is just me, but being the child of an alcoholic and having an eating disorder , it always bothers me to hear weight loss/bingeing compared to alcoholism. IMO while they share similar addictive properties, they are not the same. Not all addictions are the same. Moderation for a food addict might be different because we can not completely abstain from food and in the end, we have to learn how to deal with that. Alcoholism is a very very difficult disease(as is compulsive overeating/bingeing), but it is on a different spectrum. Getting off my soapbox now...
I agree that extreme for one person is normal for another. I am glad that the OP recognized that her behavior for her was extreme. In the end, I found calorie counting to be extreme and that it was pushing me towards binges. But for many here, calorie counting is a normal, vital part of weight loss. Good luck to the OP on reaching your goals!
For those who do this, and I'm not one of them, at this point I'm a calorie estimator - but I DO consider myself a calorie counter, they/we don't find it to be obsessive - as in a negative connotation - but a positive. So I prefer to call it dedicated, devoted, committed. Obsessive just sounds - weird and strange and nasty and - wrong. To me anyway.
I don't consider it obsessive to make sure that before I write a check, I know how much money is in my account. I don't find it obsessive to use my debit card only if I've got money to cover it. I don't find it obsessive to check a price on something before I buy it. And I think many would agree with that.
So I'm not sure why anyone would find it obsessive - in a negative way- to track ones calories. This is important stuff! After neglecting my weight, my health for decades I realized that *this* is worthy of the time, effort, thought and energy that is needed to get to a healthy weight and stay there.
I would pretty much bet that the large majority of people who have gotten to goal and has stayed there for years and years and years (and that's our aim, isn't it?) have done so by being vigilant, devoted and dedicated.
Ooh, just had another thought - I wonder if anyone would find it obsessive for a diabetic to check there blood sugar levels many times a day.
I agree, Robin, 100%.
I think that some of the posters (me) are bristling about being labeled "obsessive" "extremist" and "borderline eating disordered" simply because we count calories and use a bodybugg. As I stated before, I tried the "I will just try to eat healthier and move more and see what happens" approach, and do not lose a pound. If counting calories and using a bodybugg is what works for me, then that's what works. It's not obsessive, extremist or borderline eating disordered, it's what works. For me.
As for the bodybugg, I am under no delusions that it is gospel. However, I am motivated to move more, because it shows me that even doing incidental things, like cleaning the house or going to Wal-Mart, adds up to a nice calorie burn at the end of the day. It is very motivating. For me.
While I agree that one man's extremist is another man's moderation, I think that I just took offense at the indirect labeling of me, and others like me, as borderline eating disordered, extremist and obsessive. Because I am not that, at all. I prefer to be labeled "meticulous."
Last edited by jillianfan; 07-26-2010 at 11:27 AM.
I think the OP was labeling herself, not anyone else.
Yes, but she stated that she considered eating 1,200 calories and using a bodybugg a sign of a "borderline eating disorder." Since this is EXACTLY what I do, I feel that I am being tarred with the same brush. I hope this makes sense.
