When I go on a diet, I REALLY go on a diet. Here's what I'm eating:
9-10 am - Piece of fruit in morning
1 hr later, some milk tea
2-3 pm - meal: usually salad with chicken or fish
7ish - carrots or another fruit or cucumber
9-10 pm - tea (only cuz its friggin' cold right now)
Is that bad? Oh I sip water all day. I used to eat all day, sweets, big meals 3 times a day.
My exercise routine right now:
Morning Jog/walk (mostly walk) for 30mins to an hour. Right before bed, some light weights and sit ups and stuff.
What say you?
Diet is a personal path. Some people do great with low carb. Others do great calorie counting. Some people do well on medically supervised very low calorie. You just have to figure out what works for you and is sustainable.
You're 270 lbs per the info you have posted under your avatar. I'm sure you've read enough to know that you can lose a healthy amount per week on 1400-1800 calories. I'm sure you've read that going below 1200 calories isn't particularly healthy. I'm sure you have some sort of idea how many calories you're ingesting.
Heather, when you say "needs calories to carry you through the day" are you talking about having low energy and stuff? Because honestly, when I'm doing a diet like this, I have MORE energy than I would when I eat a whole 3 meals a day. Could it be that my body is different?
No, I mean that when you weigh 270 pounds, your body is going to burn more calories than when you weigh 165. So, in order to maintain it's functions, a 270 pound body needs more calories than a 165 pound body.
For instance, all of us having something called a basal metabolic rate (bmr). It's the number of calories our body basically burns at rest. Some consider it the bare minimum number of calories you need in a day. People who weigh more tend to have a higher bmr than people who weigh less.
And people who weigh more also burn more calories in all their activity than a smaller person. You might burn 150 calories walking a mile, but a 150 pound person might burn 100.
If you're not giving your body enough calories to even meet its most basic needs, especially if you aren't being supervised by a physician, then you may be setting yourself up for trouble.
Also, eating too few calories often means you aren't getting in enough nutrients.
It seems from your response that you feel fine, and not deprived. I guess I'm wondering why you asked if you were eating enough if you think you are?
As for a weight tracker, you can get one when you've been here 20 days and have 20 posts.
Calorie trackers, there are a lot of them. A lot of people like dailyplate.com or fitday.com. If you poke around the calorie counters forum you'll find a lot of discussions on this and on estimating the number of calories.
I think everything that needs to be said has already been said, but a good calorie counter is sparkpeople.com! They have a fun little wheel you spin and get points if you count your calories. What you are eating is WAY too little and sparkpeople will give you a calorie estimate based on your weight and activity level.
Hello Ladies!
Does anyone know where I can find a good calorie counter? Maybe that would help me figure out what zone I need to stay in.
Beerab, thanks for that - that looks like a good plan as well. Although I might feel like I'm eating too much and get out of control. That's my fear.
I use sparkpeople.com but there are many other trackers.
If you feel you are eating too much that's the great thing about the tracker, it can show you that you are eating on target, OR like you said too much.
Your plan looks like at best 500-800 cals - that my friend is unhealthy, sorry. We all can render opinions on how many cals you should be consuming for your weight and height until the cows come home, but in the end only you'll be able to determine how many you need to lose weight and what will be a sustainable lifestyle for you to maintain that loss. I've always been a fan of starting at the highest number of healthy cals possible that render a 1-2 lbs per week loss, and hang out there for as long as possible. If and when you stall change your exercise and remove more processed foods and incorporate more whole foods before dropping your cals.
I know this theory is also debated, but IMO you should be eating smaller meals and snacks 5-6 xs a day to keep your metabolism functioning at it's peak performance. Barely eating 3xs a days is going to bring your metabolism to a halt.
You have to have been a memeber for 20 or 30 days before you can get a weight ticker.
John, exactly. I read somewhere that kick starting your system for weight loss isn't as bad as its made out to be. That was the idea. In a way, I'm testing myself to see how much I can endure. And really - its not difficult.
My only problem is sliding backwards.
Thanks again everyone - I'm going to try the FitDay calorie counter. Hmm seems like I'm eating less than a thousand calories.
Heather, when you say "needs calories to carry you through the day" are you talking about having low energy and stuff? Because honestly, when I'm doing a diet like this, I have MORE energy than I would when I eat a whole 3 meals a day. Could it be that my body is different?
I don't think your body is different, at least not different than mine, because what you're describing sounds very familiar to me. I've seen it in myself and in many of the posts of members here, but you need to see the bigger picture. The extra energy may actually be a warning sign. Crash dieting (most diets under 1,000 calories) stress the body to the point that endorphins are released. You can actually get an endorphin "high" from crash dieting - almost euphoric. That euphoria may feel good, but it isn't necessarily a good sign. It's also terribly addictive (if you get used to a diet-high, you don't want to diet without it, even knowing that it's a sign of damage, doesn't necessarily stop you from wanting that diet high).
I think it's the real reason so many popular diets start with a crash phase. The euphoria and rapid weight loss get you "hooked" on the diet. The diet plan creator may give other reasons (breaking craving/addictions, purifying or detoxing the body, providing a "jump start"...), but essentially that euphoria and instant gratification get you hooked.
Endorphins are the body's pain-killers, natural narcotics in response to stress and injury. The euphoria is masking the damage. You feel great because of those natural pain killers, but like prescription pain killers, they eventually wear off as you become used to them (or you need more and more to get the same rush).
It can be hard to break the crash diet addiction, because of those endorphins. I know that from experience. I was addicted to crash dieting because of that euphoria. I mistook the euphoria for high energy levels (mentally I felt amazing - almost high, but physically I was also dizzy and lightheaded - not a sign of high energy. In fact, I even passed out a few times, which is definitely not a sign of high energy, but I still felt "too good" to give up the crash dieting easily).
The biggest problem with endorphin release is that if you don't allow the body to heal, more and more endorphins are released, and you become more and more resistant to them - you have to starve yourself more and more extremely to get the same effects. If you were getting a rush from 1000 calories crash dieting, you'll eventually have to eat 500 to get the same effects, and eventually even starvation may not do it.
Starvation and crash dieting have many negative effects. Muscle loss was already mentioned (and as you lose muscle, you also slow metabolism, as muscle tisue burns more calories than fat), but there are other effects as well - hair loss, dry skin, organ damage (most dangerously the heart, because you can't choose which muscle is lost), and immune system problems (calorie restriction lowers your resistance to infection and illness. It's likely that the more you restrict calories, the greater the impact on immune function).
Rebound hunger is also a huge problem with crash dieting. If you do have a higher calorie day, or even a serving of a high carb/sugar food, it can trigger what I call "rabid" hunger. You go from feeling not hungry at all, to "I will die of starvation if I don't eat everything in sight."
I spent most of my life (from age 5 to at least 35) crash dieting, to the point that any weight loss under 5 lbs a week was discouraging enough to be demotivating. Dieting without the euphoria and dieting without the instant gratification of huge losses was pure misery. Even when I knew that crash dieting did more harm to me than good, I still couldn't give it up. I knew I needed to learn a different way, but the temptation of quick weight loss and endorphin euphoria were just too darned tempting "Just a few days," I'd tell myself "just to jump start."
I know that no one could tell me that I was making a mistake. I had to learn the hard way, and maybe you will too. I hope not, because I think some of the negative effects of crash dieting are long-lasting if not permanent (my metabolism is erroded to the point that I lose less than a pound per week on a calorie level that once resulted in regular weekly losses of 5 to 7 lbs).
It's incredibly hard to diet "sensibly" after you've habitually crashed dieted. No matter how much I lose, in the back of my mind, I'm comparing it to the 11 and 12 lb losses I experienced in the first week, and the 7-8 lbs on a regular basis on crash diets. I also miss the euphoric "I can do anything" feeling, but I know it's a fleeting and misleading feeling. It's not worth the inevitable "crash" that occurs when the euphoria dissipates (and it always does).
I think this is everyone's point - you can deprive yourself and lose weight all you want, but at some point you will snap and you will rebell. Some people can recover gracefully from that, others will go the opposite and gain back all they've lost and then some.
It's a marathon not a sprint and it's about persistance and consistancy.
It sounds like your mind was already pretty much made up when you posted.
You say it's not difficult to test yourself to see how much you can endure, yet in the next sentence you say that your only problem is sliding backwards. To me, this is like saying, "It's not that difficult to endure hitting myself on the head with a hammer, my only problem is that eventually my arm gets too tired, so I just need more arm strength to keep at it!" The problem with the behavior isn't the lack of strength, it's with the "egad, why are you doing that to yourself when you don't have to!?" nature of extremely low calorie consumption (unless under a doctor's orders).
Sometimes it's best just...not to hit yourself in the head with that hammer, y'know?
Forgive me if my post comes off a bit know-it-allish. I don't know much, but I DO know what it's like to push myself to dietary extremes, then eventually break from the strain of it and regain all I'd lost (and then some--which is how I got to 232 in the first place). I never thought it was difficult either, until I broke over and ate--and sooner or later, I always did.
I also know, thanks to spending a lot of time reading here, that there are healthier ways to lose weight that'll let me enjoy my life and my meals. It feels unbelievably good to free myself from the punishment via severe diet/craving/eat-fest/guilt/punishment cycle that got me to my high weight.
Eating super-low calories isn't a point of pride or a sign of superior will, it's a potentially dangerous behavior. Read through the maintainers' forums here; I don't think you'll find a single long-term maintainer who ate super-low-calorie over the long haul and has kept her weight off. Not one. That should tell you something about the success rate of the "hit yourself in the head with a hammer" method.
John, exactly. I read somewhere that kick starting your system for weight loss isn't as bad as its made out to be. That was the idea. In a way, I'm testing myself to see how much I can endure. And really - its not difficult.
My only problem is sliding backwards.
Thanks again everyone - I'm going to try the FitDay calorie counter. Hmm seems like I'm eating less than a thousand calories.
ncuneo - wow your journey is amazing.
If this plan worked and was sustainable, you wouldn't slide backwards. You'd lose weight forever and you wouldn't be here.
You are here because something you are doing isn't working.
Check out the folks in the maintenance forum. My guess is not one of them will say "I lost all the weight by alternating deprivation and binging and I'm happy and healthy and can sustain this for life!"
Reasonable and slow and steady might not be sexy but it will get you where you want to go. I lose a pound a week on weight watchers. But in 8 months I'll be at my goal. Will you be still eating like this 8 months from now? A year from now?
Kaplods, jebus that's one way to scare the heck out of someone. Yea, I don't want to go down that route - where I'm damaging myself.
Nola, no I'm on here for advice. I just told you guys what I'm doing right now. From the responses I've gotten thus far, its obvious that my calorie intake is too low. So I'll incorporate some other healthy things into my diet to be eating at least 1500 calories a day.
When I said I slide backwards - I meant that I go back to eating sweets and stuff. But amazingly, I don't really gain the weight back. The last time I did a 2 week diet, lost 10 lbs and went back to eating junk. I gained back a total of 2 lbs of the 10 that I lost in 3 months of regular eating habits.
I hope I don't come across as closed off or unwilling to take advice, trust me, that's not the case.
I hear you seagirl - thanks.
Thanks again for helping me out all of you.
Next question - is it okay to weigh myself only once a week? I find that weighing myself every single day discourages me, especially if the needle doesn't move at all. Thanks!
It is OK to weigh yourself once a week, many people prefer to this so as not to see the normal fluctuations. Weighing yourself every day and to some several times a day causes a lot of confusion and anxiety.
Nah, I don't think you came off as unwilling, just in search of some more convincing. And I hope I didn't come off as overbearing or snarky. If I did, I blame the fact that it took me decades to realize what I was doing to myself with diets that cut my calories to the bone or eliminated food groups (works for some, not for me). I wanted to be emphatic about just how rotten it is for your body and your psyche in the long term to go so low. If I came off rough in the process, I'm sorry. I'm usually only a jerk in traffic.
I honestly believe I dieted myself to 232 pounds and wonder what size I would've been if I'd attempted moderation from the beginning. The one moderate plan I ever did, I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for four years...you'd think I'd have remembered what I learned from that experience. Nope, I've had to re-learn it. Reading posts here has helped a ton with that.
As for weighing yourself, anything goes. Some people on here weigh monthly. Others weigh in daily. Plenty go for the once-a-week weigh-in. I used to do weekly weigh-ins, but I went to daily precisely because I wanted to get used to the discomfort of seeing the same or even--horrors--a higher number on the scale.
It IS discouraging if you look only at weight loss as success, but (and I learned this from Kaplods) if you begin to see just maintaining a loss as a victory and as an important lesson, you'll find that you don't get discouraged. (Frustrated? Yeah, sometimes, but not discouraged enough to go off the plan.)
Daily weighing means getting used to what your body's doing. Ate a few salty pickles? There they are on the scale the next day as water weight. Had a good workout that left your arms sore? Yep, the scale agrees, you worked out hard and gained two pounds of fluid as your muscles rebuild. The scale's just a tool; it doesn't tell you how much fat you lost, just how the earth's gravity is affecting you that day.
On an entirely different subject, your avatar image is lovely.
