Keeping lower calorie intake.... this is hard!!! page 2

[AdamK]

Not an unfamiliar story, been repeated endless times.

Your body knows better what it needs than you do, it has reached an equilibrium and now there is work to be done before that equilibrium shifts, by trying to artificially push it by calorie restriction, your body will counter the move and end result is "Fad diet" frustration.



That's my view, eat well, build up positive aspects in your life, reduce negative aspects, feed your body, mind & soul with the healthy elements and it will find the right balance.

As far as hormonal imbalances and the complexity of the human body go, it's a bit like Donald Rumpsfelds quote:

It's that last one that causes well meaning actions to result in negative outcomes. this is the very failing of modern medicine, the very simplistic idea that we can add one chemical to the body to remedy a symptom and not cause imbalances, just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

By all means try to manage this as best you can, but if you are getting hungry and you are eating right, then best to listen to your body and be patient.

This is brilliant advice! The calories-in-calories-out folks have convinced us all that losing fat is something that we can do if we have enough willpower/control. But our fat tissue is a highly regulated endocrine organ that's in many ways acting of its own accord, much like a fetus or our other organs in our bodies.

The goal for all of us is fat tissue health, not minimal fat tissue It's a long term proposition!

One of the reasons why Mark and other smart people stress "real food" and good exercise, etc, is that fixing your diet and these other environmental factors can repair (perhaps!) the damage done to this organ (the fat tissue), much like alcoholics can fix their livers (or at least stop damaging them) by laying off on the vodka.

To quote Gary Taubes quoting Bob Kaplan:

"There is nothing magical about restricting carbohydrates, rather it’s closer to the kind of diet that we’ve been eating and are presumably genetically adapted to eat, and any loss of weight and water, any beneficial effects on serum lipids are just a correction rather than an improvement in health.

Benefits v. Correction:

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t make you lose weight; it corrects your weight."
_______

The Black Box: A New Way of Thinking About Fat Loss

[AdamK]

Not an unfamiliar story, been repeated endless times.

Your body knows better what it needs than you do, it has reached an equilibrium and now there is work to be done before that equilibrium shifts, by trying to artificially push it by calorie restriction, your body will counter the move and end result is "Fad diet" frustration.



That's my view, eat well, build up positive aspects in your life, reduce negative aspects, feed your body, mind & soul with the healthy elements and it will find the right balance.

As far as hormonal imbalances and the complexity of the human body go, it's a bit like Donald Rumpsfelds quote:

It's that last one that causes well meaning actions to result in negative outcomes. this is the very failing of modern medicine, the very simplistic idea that we can add one chemical to the body to remedy a symptom and not cause imbalances, just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

By all means try to manage this as best you can, but if you are getting hungry and you are eating right, then best to listen to your body and be patient.

This is brilliant advice! The calories-in-calories-out folks have convinced us all that losing fat is something that we can do if we have enough willpower/control. But our fat tissue is a highly regulated endocrine organ that's in many ways acting of its own accord, much like a fetus or our other organs in our bodies.

The goal for all of us is fat tissue health, not minimal fat tissue It's a long term proposition!

One of the reasons why Mark and other smart people stress "real food" and good exercise, etc, is that fixing your diet and these other environmental factors can repair (perhaps!) the damage done to this organ (the fat tissue), much like alcoholics can fix their livers (or at least stop damaging them) by laying off on the vodka.

To quote Gary Taubes quoting Bob Kaplan:

"There is nothing magical about restricting carbohydrates, rather it’s closer to the kind of diet that we’ve been eating and are presumably genetically adapted to eat, and any loss of weight and water, any beneficial effects on serum lipids are just a correction rather than an improvement in health.

Benefits v. Correction:

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t make you lose weight; it corrects your weight."
_______

The Black Box: A New Way of Thinking About Fat Loss

[Damiana]

You should probably drop the coconut oil in your coffee and the random spoon of coconut oil during the day too if you're trying to reduce the calories.

[14emom]

You didn't give the times during the day when you eat the 4 meals. I'd recommend spacing them regularly and dropping the snack. If necessary you could also drop one of the carbs at lunch. I do think your calories are too high. About 1200 would be good.

OP: Do not drop your calories to 1200, this is a recipe for disaster. Your diet looks great, your activity level is better than most, keep up the good work. Keeping the calories under 2000 is a great idea, 1500 is probably too low with your activity level. The changes will come. Do you lift weights?

[j3nn]

Three things: intermittent fasting (16-18hours) a few days a week, reduce fat and increase carbs for better satiety (potato instead of extra coconut oil or extra fish), and to increase a deficit, try to add another hour of activity each day.

I disagree with the notion that a female over 30 cannot lose weight on 2000 calories/day. I've known many women over 30, myself included, who can lose or maintain on 2000-2500/day depending on activity level, etc. don't fall into the low-cal myth. Modify what you're working with. Not everyone has to be very low cal.

[JoanieL]

I'm on the opposite end as j3nn. I've never known a thin woman who ate much more than 1500-1600 cal/day. Nor one who ate three full meals a day.

Also, from Atkins to Primal, I've read (here) and heard in real life over and over that just going low carb with no calorie restriction works for about 40 pounds and then levels off. That 40 pound number (actually 43) was also my personal loss if I didn't restrict calories and only restricted carbs.

Exercise is good for many things, and not exercising will probably make life tougher with each decade that passes. But it pretty much sucks for burning calories. Building muscle will make you more of a calorie burner (because muscle is more metabolically active), but lifting weights doesn't burn a lot of calories. There are a few exceptions. Scuba burns a lot of calories.

The easiest way for me to adhere to 1200 calories per day is to build it around the meal I like best. For me that's dinner/supper. Maintenance is the same - build the 1500 cal around my favorite meal. Also, remembering that it's calorie deficit over time. So, plan for social events. Thin people occasionally overeat; most likely they compensate for a couple of days afterward. There was also a PBS show many years ago that claimed that naturally thin people showed a slight metabolic uptick after overeating while people who gained easily didn't. It ain't fair, it just is.

Lastly, once you find something that works for you, whether it's calorie restriction, carb restriction, or hey, even telling society that 140 pounds at five feet tall is just fine, put your fingers in your ears and listen to yourself. What works for me might not work for anyone else, and what works for you is all you need to know.

[j3nn]

I'm on the opposite end as j3nn. I've never known a thin woman who ate much more than 1500-1600 cal/day. Nor one who ate three full meals a day.

I think it's actually more common than not. The Harris-Benedict equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is based on the typical man or woman with "average" body fat to lean mass ratios; it gets skewed when body fat is higher or lower and/or hormonal irregularities change the metabolic rate. But it's a pretty good estimation for most people. I've always found it to be accurate (even when I weighed over 300 lbs) if I am honest about my activity AND diligent about measuring/weighing portions. If you play with the calculator (Harris Benedict Equation), you'll find that the estimation for most women over 30 is close to or over 2000 calories per day unless very light and/or very sedentary. Not saying that it is accurate for everyone, but I do believe the formula was created based on what the average is, which means more often than not women, even over 30, can maintain or lose on more than the standard 1200-1500 recommendation, which usually equates to one's BMR, not their TDEE.

[14emom]

Exercise is good for many things, and not exercising will probably make life tougher with each decade that passes. But it pretty much sucks for burning calories. Building muscle will make you more of a calorie burner (because muscle is more metabolically active), but lifting weights doesn't burn a lot of calories. There are a few exceptions. Scuba burns a lot of calories.

I disagree. Lifting weights burns a ton of calories. And the after burn is crazy!! I wear a bodybugg, and on the days I lift weights my calorie expenditure is considerably higher than my cardio days.

[gopintos]

I've known many women over 30, myself included, who can lose or maintain on 2000-2500/day depending on activity level, etc. don't fall into the low-cal myth. Modify what you're working with. Not everyone has to be very low cal.

How very timely. I have been struggling to eat enough calories. I got use to low, I was full, thought I was doing a good thing. But weight loss isnt really happening. Up, down, up, down is happening, just enough to keep me happy, but really only masking the non-existence of real progress.

I thought I would try zig-zagging. From the calculator, the numbers for a low day, were hundreds and hundreds of calories higher than I normally have. Red flag. So now I am thinking hmmmmm. So I have been trying to increase.

Result: Weight gain. But I have also increased exercise. I was/am bummed a bit about the weight gain about 7lbs but I figure I will just have to suck it up for a bit and then maybe I will start losing again. And I think I am on the downward side of things now, hopefully.

Then I have been reading that I might should be eating closer to BMR, and I have been 500-900 under BMR (much less TDEE) for over a year! Now THAT bummed me out. Big time. ugghhh

[j3nn]

Then I have been reading that I might should be eating closer to BMR, and I have been 500-900 under BMR (much less TDEE) for over a year! Now THAT bummed me out. Big time. ugghhh

I think a lot of people confuse BMR with TDEE. BMR is (an estimate of) what your body needs to lie in a coma, more or less. I think the best method is to eat freely for ~6 weeks and track every calorie you consume and your activity level while tracking your weight's behavior. This is how you find your true maintenance level. If you find it to be lower than average, I think there are many ways to improve it, from investigating hormonal balance to building muscle and even just adding in a little extra activity.