I will confess this is just stuff that I've found helpful, and I'm going to try out some other snack foods as well. The rough thing about nuts (lol) is that, without the over-abundance of salt, they tend to be rather dry and bland as well (double lol). So while I figure I may as well just buy myself some peanuts to snack on at work, they'll only be a mild improvement to Goldfish. I'm actually curious about what sort of stuff Nature Box provides or if they, too, use all kinds of ingredients that ultimately defeats the purpose of being healthy.
I find pecans are the best non-salted nut. They're rich and creamy compared to the wooden-like flavor of a peanut. Pistachio is probably my number two non-salted and getting them with the shell adds eating time to your snacking, which helps cut down on how many you eat and pushes when the next snack or meal begins.
Checking in today to get MORE PUMPED
Starting 1/8/2015: 172
Current 1/29/2015: 169
Goal: 155I have been stuck at this weight for 2 weeks now. I've had a few splurges, but overall have been eating healthier than I did all last year which is positive. In order to lose I really need to stay in the 1000-1200 calories/day range, so my eating focus will be not to mindlessly eat empty calories.
I'm realizing I need to add exercise, so am planning to do some basic cardio/strength workouts this weekend while watching tv (jumping jacks, burpees, running in place, core stuff, etc). Stating here to make myself accountable.Wish me luck, and the power to not O.D. on pita chips.
I hate this. It's just not right! That's nowhere near enough calories to be healthy. If you cut calories to lose weight and then stop cutting calories what happens? I had a friend who hired a personal trainer who had her on a 700 calories a day diet. 700! Cause that's healthy...
I'm more a fan of eating better and being active. It's simpler and something that can be easier to do as a lifestyle change, which is what this all really comes down to.
That said, you don't need luck, you can do this!
I think 1200's not bad for a short, sedentary woman. I'm 5'8" and I'm 200 lbs. My budget is something like 1770.
DiscoDriveby wrote:Checking in today to get MORE PUMPED
Starting 1/8/2015: 172
Current 1/29/2015: 169
Goal: 155I have been stuck at this weight for 2 weeks now. I've had a few splurges, but overall have been eating healthier than I did all last year which is positive. In order to lose I really need to stay in the 1000-1200 calories/day range, so my eating focus will be not to mindlessly eat empty calories.
I'm realizing I need to add exercise, so am planning to do some basic cardio/strength workouts this weekend while watching tv (jumping jacks, burpees, running in place, core stuff, etc). Stating here to make myself accountable.Wish me luck, and the power to not O.D. on pita chips.
I hate this. It's just not right! That's nowhere near enough calories to be healthy. If you cut calories to lose weight and then stop cutting calories what happens? I had a friend who hired a personal trainer who had her on a 700 calories a day diet. 700! Cause that's healthy...
I'm more a fan of eating better and being active. It's simpler and something that can be easier to do as a lifestyle change, which is what this all really comes down to.
That said, you don't need luck, you can do this!
Yes, sadly this is my loss calorie intake (honed after years and years, so unfortunately it's accurate) but with maintenance I can eat more, closer to 1500. Considering how much fruit and veggies I can eat for that amount, there's really no reason I should feel deprived except for missing out on foods I crave. In the past I've stuck WAY too seriously to the loss intake every day, burned out (because I love food), and by the time maintenance comes around I go back to old habits. So I allow off days and forgiveness to prevent burnout this time and have set a higher end goal than I've reached before since I know it's more realistic long term. That weight will not be super skinny, but will keep me eating healthier and comfortably active (less knee pain, sore back, able to get up and down 2,000 times per day chasing my kid).
I think 1200's not bad for a short, sedentary woman. I'm 5'8" and I'm 200 lbs. My budget is something like 1770.
I'm only 5'4" and currently my only exercise is walking the dog and walking up about 10 flights of stairs at work per day, so what Larry said 
On exercise days, if I stick to that, I can add a bit more.
I've found it's easier to stick to budget when you allow for wiggle room and only tally up accountability at the end of a week. This way, you can splurge on some items on some days and then make up for it next day or the day after by eating mainly low-calorie fiber food. It's not like your body's going to balloon one day and then slim down the next. Daily intake tally is mainly concerned with getting enough fluids to keep you hydrated, enough carbs not to shut down your brain, and enough protein to repair any damage you're doing.
I've found it's easier to stick to budget when you allow for wiggle room and only tally up accountability at the end of a week. This way, you can splurge on some items on some days and then make up for it next day or the day after by eating mainly low-calorie fiber food. It's not like your body's going to balloon one day and then slim down the next. Daily intake tally is mainly concerned with getting enough fluids to keep you hydrated, enough carbs not to shut down your brain, and enough protein to repair any damage you're doing.
I don't weigh or count calories (ED history), so this is mostly how I stay on track.
I've found it's easier to stick to budget when you allow for wiggle room and only tally up accountability at the end of a week. This way, you can splurge on some items on some days and then make up for it next day or the day after by eating mainly low-calorie fiber food. It's not like your body's going to balloon one day and then slim down the next. Daily intake tally is mainly concerned with getting enough fluids to keep you hydrated, enough carbs not to shut down your brain, and enough protein to repair any damage you're doing.
Yeah, my "sometimes splurge and forgiveness plan" basically equates to this (with less detailed reasoning). At times, like now, when I go several weeks and see no loss, I know that I'm overeating too often. The daily calorie count isn't too stressful for me and I mainly only think about it once when I plan my meals. When I was on Weight Watchers and wrote everything down and tracked obsessively it was way too much, so I learned from going overboard that way and now mainly think over a basic plan of what meals I'll eat that day to avoid getting too wrapped up in the numbers.
And thanks for sharing, Clover. Sorry to hear you've struggled with ED.
DiscoDriveby wrote:In order to lose I really need to stay in the 1000-1200 calories/day range, so my eating focus will be not to mindlessly eat empty calories.
I hate this. It's just not right! That's nowhere near enough calories to be healthy.
I'm going to second this. Maintenance at 172 lbs should be in the neighborhood of 2200 calories for an almost entirely sedentary individual. 1200 calories represents a 1000 daily calorie deficit which is about the absolute maximum you can do safely. This level of deficit would represent two pounds a week loss.
Do not try to run a deficit more than that (either by adding exercise or by reducing calories) without consulting with a physician.
I'd mention that such extreme deficits are difficult for most people to maintain. I'd certainly strongly recommend a more attainable goal personally.
garion333 wrote:DiscoDriveby wrote:In order to lose I really need to stay in the 1000-1200 calories/day range, so my eating focus will be not to mindlessly eat empty calories.
I hate this. It's just not right! That's nowhere near enough calories to be healthy.
This level of deficit would represent two pounds a week loss.
Do not try to run a deficit more than that (either by adding exercise or by reducing calories) without consulting with a physician.
I'd mention that such extreme deficits are difficult for most people to maintain. I'd certainly strongly recommend a more attainable goal personally.
The daily calorie count isn't too stressful for me and I mainly only think about it once when I plan my meals. When I was on Weight Watchers and wrote everything down and tracked obsessively it was way too much, so I learned from going overboard that way and now mainly think over a basic plan of what meals I'll eat that day to avoid getting too wrapped up in the numbers.
Pretty sure she's got a good handle on what her plan is, guys. This ain't her first rodeo with diet & exercise.
Totally feeling an Ally Sheedy, Breakfast Club, "dumped my purse out on the couch" moment 
Didn't realize it'd be so controversial folks, and sorry for hijacking the thread a bit today!
Pffff I think that's what these threads are for... it's cool. People vary, metabolisms vary, and it sounds like you're already good at experimenting with what works for you.
For instance, I have a second set of personal "guidelines" for those regular... estrogen spikes. Normal dude-targeted metabolism calculations definitely don't work during that time window, so pretending they should apply is useless 
I think you also have to keep in mind that women generally need a lot less calories than men for dieting and maintaining. Add me to the 1200 cal/day in order to lose weight group. And being active does not really add a lot of calories to my allowed total. In fact I'm not losing right now in spite of consistently walking 3 miles a day, that's just keeping the weight gain at bay, and I'm probably getting a bit under 2000/day currently.
Sedentary at 2200/day would shortly have me buying a new larger wardrobe.
Ditto. See also hormone-regulated muscle/fat ratio, etc.
Thanks for chiming in, ladies.
I do not envy anyone having to modify calories when they're not too far from their target goal. At my weight the daily calorie requirement, based on every health calculator I've used, is 3,000. So to lose weight I am advised to reduce to around 2,200. I aim for 2,000, the standard for a male my height. This means I basically am just learning to eat proper portions. I don't calculate precisely, either, and in truth my exercise may mean I'm getting fewer calories than is healthy. But I'm essentially just struggling with a lifestyle change that will gradually become routine.
Right now, a single sandwich for lunch is actually enough. I'm getting used to it. But I'm still used to seeing one and thinking "that doesn't look like enough".
The brain is my greatest enemy, not the body.
Garion, I'll have to give pecans a try.
Well, I don't want to seem antagonistic. Everybody is unique. But I want to note that extreme caloric restriction should be run by a physician. If the doc gives you the all clear, have at it!
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/dail...
If you scroll down to sedentary and overweight sections I think you'll see that it is not extreme restriction.
Seeing what 1200 calories a day looks like might help. This is really a reasonable meal plan for someone my weight trying to lose, and a good way to get my body accustomed to normal portion sizes instead of overdoing it. I do the guesstimate thing with calories too, so some days I'm sure I go over (I'm not weighing my salmon -- if it's healthy it's fine if it pushes me over a bit).
Days where I fall under 1200 calories are typically when I am not hungry enough to have a snack I'd planned or just got busy and didn't get around to it in the evening (or couldn't put down the ipad to stop playing Threes while watching tv). Pretty easy to allow splurges a few times a week when this is the general every day goal, and should set up healthy food choices for maintenance mode.
Exactly. It may be extreme for men, but that's not relevant to this particular conversation.
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/dail...
If you scroll down to sedentary and overweight sections I think you'll see that it is not extreme restriction.
OK, I am really sorry for using that word. I'll amend my statement:
Everybody is unique. Any caloric restriction should be run by a physician. If the doc gives you the all clear, have at it!
I'm coming at this from the perspective of somebody who went to the doc, told him what I was thinking, and he basically went "WTF" and talked me out of it. He set me up with a more modest goal that was easier for me to reach.
So it's obviously all very personal, and whatever target you arrive at will be unique to your own situation. But I got a lot of value from asking a medical professional who put me on a good course so I'm probably now really quick to recommend that other people do the same.
In my case taking it easy and losing verrrry slowly (80 pounds in 2.5 years) was what worked rather than trying to lose more quickly, but I shouldn't want to presume to tell anybody else they have to do that.
I agree that in general when making a major change running it by your doctor is a good idea. I guess I just bristle a bit when there's a bunch of dieting advice in a thread and then suddenly it's "omg, check with your doctor before you do anything"
I know it started probably as a knee jerk reaction to what appeared (to you) to be a really low calorie goal. And I know you well enough that it wasn't intended to imply that we women don't know what we're doing. But I just wanted to say that's how it came across. (at least to me, don't want to speak for others)
And I know you well enough that it wasn't intended to imply that we women don't know what we're doing
Good to know; that's how it was coming off to me since this isn't a very doctor-recommendation-heavy thread, mostly common sense and evidence-based links.
I agree that one should see a doctor when embarking on an organized loss goal, if only for benchmarking and lab work, but trimming cal counts and empty carbs doesn't have to be that hardcore.
I agree that in general when making a major change running it by your doctor is a good idea. I guess I just bristle a bit when there's a bunch of dieting advice in a thread and then suddenly it's "omg, check with your doctor before you do anything"
I know it started probably as a knee jerk reaction to what appeared (to you) to be a really low calorie goal. And I know you well enough that it wasn't intended to imply that we women don't know what we're doing. But I just wanted to say that's how it came across. (at least to me, don't want to speak for others)
Man the last thing I ever meant to do was appear that way and I'm really sorry.
If it helps I will explain my perspective a bit:
The equivalent level of deficit for me was far too hard to maintain. In the end I ended up settling on about a 250-300 calorie per day deficit and that was just the most I could could handle. But I didn't stop to think: just because that approach worked for me does not mean it is good or right for others.
I bet if you look back through the thread you'll see that I have this pattern of encouraging almost everybody to take it easy who intends to lose faster than that. I now completely understand that it's not welcoming to new participants so I'll try to knock it off. Maybe I'm just jealous of people who can be more effective?
I switched to "just ask a doctor no matter what" because that feels like that's what sent me down a good path in my own journey. It seems general enough to be unarguably good advice, but as advice goes it's pretty lame, because everybody says it.
So seriously, I'm really sorry guys. I just was trying to be helpful but it's dumb to take my own experience and try to force it upon others. We all have to find our own path to what works. This thread is here to be supportive and not confrontational and I hope I have not made it unwelcoming.
Even at fairly active levels, my wife's target is around 1600 per day, and she's 5'7", 39 years old. The differences in requirements are pretty big between men and women. Some of it is the difference in BMR due to muscle density. If it works and it isn't slowing your BMR due to your body thinking it's "starving" and have the opposite or greatly reduced weight loss effect, go for it. I know when I get too low, I can get dizzy spells when I stand up quickly or come up from an inverted type exercise. That lets me know I'm running on fumes and should bump up the intake.
I like to find the low calorie fillers like broccoli and cauliflower. You can pretty much eat as much of that as you want and it has a minimal caloric impact while still making you feel really full. There's a fairly reasonable tzatziki at Costco that makes a great dip and is 60 calories per two tablespoons. Goes very well with the broccoli.
Yellek wrote:And I know you well enough that it wasn't intended to imply that we women don't know what we're doing
Good to know; that's how it was coming off to me since this isn't a very doctor-recommendation-heavy thread, mostly common sense and evidence-based links.
I agree that one should see a doctor when embarking on an organized loss goal, if only for benchmarking and lab work, but trimming cal counts and empty carbs doesn't have to be that hardcore.
I think the defensiveness for me is the thought that maybe woman dieting = crash dieting and eating disorders so I keep replying to show that this is not not an unhealthy extreme (even though I'm in this terrible circle of "conversation should end!" "must reply!" ).
Obviously you are making your recommendations out of care and I appreciate that, and see doctors for health assessments multiple times per year so changes such as these do not exist in a vacuum.
Edit: And thanks for that reply, Gore. That's true, we all come at this with our own experiences about how weight loss worked/works for us.
Also as always thank you guys for letting me know that I was being a jerk. I really welcome these times for introspection.
Ladies and gentlemen of the thread, you ALL kick ass. Now carry on.
Since holidays and surgery, the hunger after exercise is getting the better of me. I'm up about 10 lbs, but only 1-2% body fat, so some of it is muscle. I'd really like to get back under 200. I'm going to weigh back in tomorrow morning and get a little more serious about my evening eating. Accountability +1 back to posting.
Also as always thank you guys for letting me know that I was being a jerk. I really welcome these times for introspection.
I hesitated to say anything since I do know you in person and know you didn't mean anything bad by it. Very glad you took the criticism as constructive as I intended.
Hugs all around!
Start 1/15/15: 256.6lb
Current: 1/29/15: 250.4lb
5% goal by 3/15: 243.8
I was sure I was going to gain this week, since I haven't quite gotten back to tracking foods, since last week's gastro-explosion. When it comes to meals, I've been measuring out serving sizes, but I haven't been measuring snacks at all, including the biggest culprit: bedside candies.
I'm now moisturizing my hands and placing them in cotton gloves at night, not only for softer hands, but because it's more difficult to unwrap candy if you have to unwrap your hands first. Maybe all of this is helping. Maybe it's just a fluke. We'll see.
Sunday is the Super Bowl, but I'm not sure what we're going to eat for it. Wings would be nice, but they're buttery as all heck.
Start 1/15/15: 256.6lb
Current: 1/29/15: 250.4lb
5% goal by 3/15: 243.8I was sure I was going to gain this week, since I haven't quite gotten back to tracking foods, since last week's gastro-explosion. When it comes to meals, I've been measuring out serving sizes, but I haven't been measuring snacks at all, including the biggest culprit: bedside candies.
I'm now moisturizing my hands and placing them in cotton gloves at night, not only for softer hands, but because it's more difficult to unwrap candy if you have to unwrap your hands first. Maybe all of this is helping. Maybe it's just a fluke. We'll see.
Sunday is the Super Bowl, but I'm not sure what we're going to eat for it. Wings would be nice, but they're buttery as all heck.
Good work!
Parties/Events are always the hardest for me. Anything that allows for grazing is a challenge. I've gotten to the point where I don't overfill my plate and pick healthier options, but if I'm standing around a table full of food idly chatting, I am eating. Continuously. I can make the conscious decision to not eat until I stop concentrating - like when actively listening to someone else.
Pages