I’m trying to lose weight and was told that hwo I eat about 800-1000 calories a day is too low and lowers my metobolism which will prevent weight loss. I’ve looked up some meal plans and can’t really afford stuff like chicken breast, steak, or salmon every week. So that is why I’m wondering how I can eat 1500 calories a day. Are there some alternatives that I can do?
Also I’d like to ask, say I exercise and burn say 500 calories would I have to eat those calories back or no? I ask cuz I’ve been told yes and told no.
As someone who lost 60lb this year: just stop eating ultra processed garbage. Find real foods that you enjoy, and make meals out of those. Eat as much chicken, vegetables, fruits, unsweetened yogurt, fish, eggs, etc as you want and you will lose weight. Unhealthy stuff is fine to eat on occasion but only if you consider it well worth the calories and you are aware of how much you’re eating. Dont mindlessly eat a family size bag of doritoes that you dont even like that much. Dont drown yourself in vegetable oil. I stopped buying loaves of bread, sweets, cereals (why are entire aisles of grocery stores dedicated to this garbage?) , carb-based snacks, etc.
Also no, working out does not mean you can eat a snicker’s bar for free. The new Kurzgesagt video explains how that works. I dont believe you’re gaining or even maintaining your weight at 800-1000 calories, but im just a random person.
The costco rotisserie chicken is only $5, just dont eat too much skin. Yogurt can be affordable and high in protein. Almond milk too. Nuts & beans are decent. Just look at protein to calorie ratios on cheap stuff so you maintain muscle, im sure you can find plenty of foods that work.
Here is a site that has some good lists: https://survival-mastery.com/diy/food_preserv/high-calorie-vegetables.html
Also, the number of calories you eat should be based on your current weight and the types of activities you plan on doing through the day. Calorie intake is variable!
Here is a chart for weight vs calorie intake vs activity:
The implication of your post is that you’re struggling to get to 1500 calories, but you’re also trying to lose, presumably, a large amount of weight.
If you’re overweight, you clearly know how to eat enough calories. Eat more, like you were doing when you became overweight in the first place.
If you’re not overweight and you’re struggling to eat more than 1,000 calories, you should probably see a therapist about a potential eating disorder.
More broadly, eating 1,000 calories can make losing weight harder because you are likely to lower your basal metabolism and giving yourself less energy to burn calories through activity.
The math of 1,000 calories/day works out theoretically and may seem enticing (“I will lose an entire extra pound a week!”), but in practice it can often make things more challenging than it needs to be.
The simple fact is that losing weight is a long-term process. And, in general, you can gain a lot more weight in a month than you can lose, so weight gain/loss are not symmetrical processes.
In terms of your specific question about “eating back” calories from exercise: in general, you should indeed increase your calorie consumption if you are regularly exercising. Whether you should eat back every calorie you burn is far too nuanced a question related to exercise routine, health goals, basal metabolism, diet, etc. to answer in the abstract.
my approach is to focus on hunger, obviously presuming you don’t have some specific health issue regarding that.
Want to lose weight? Don’t sate your hunger fully, wait until you’re a bit hungrier than normal before you start eating.
Want to keep your weight? Eat when you’re hungry, stop eating when you stop being hungry.
Want to gain weight? You might be able to guess this one: Don’t wait until you’re really hungry to eat, and eat until you don’t want to eat any more.One important thing when doing this is to eat slowly and consider how different foods affect satiation.
It takes a while for your stomach to register how much you’ve eaten, the general rule is to put down your utensils between every bite and making sure to chew it really really well, it should be a homogenous mush.
And something like vegetables will fill more space in the stomach with less calories; complex carbs will keep you sated for longer than sugar, and getting a good amount of protein and fat together with carbs slows down the processing of the carbs even more so you stay satiated for as long as possible.
My go-tos are legumes: cheap, easy to cook, go well with a lot of stuff, filling and full of fibre. If I feel snackish I go for a can of peas, f.i…
Pair them with rice, more veggies and lean meat, when you can score a good deal.
You’re absolutely going to lose weight at 500-1000 kcal a day. It’s not particularly healthy, and you’re going to lose significant muscle mass, but you will absolutely lose weight rapidly. A significant caloric deficit will not prevent weight loss; its thermodynamics. You’ll lose muscle with that much of a deficit, which in turn decreases basal metabolic rate, but you’re not going to violate thermodynamics.
How are you tracking intake? If you’re not losing weight, I don’t believe you’re tracking calories correctly. Are you using a scale and weighing portions, or just eyeballing it?
Your body probably will go full panic mode and store back as much as possible as soon as you starts to eat normally again. I’d advice agains doing anything so violent, and just lower your food intake to a bit under normal.
Store back what? That’s not how physics works. If they continue to eat only what their body needs to maintain a set weight, they’re not magically going to gain weight because their body somehow is able to violate the laws of physics.
Did you miss the “when you start eating normally again” bit?
You can rant all you want about the laws of physics, but you might want to practice your reading comprehension.
Then you’re not eating normally… you’re eating more than you need.
Most people don’t count calories. You said it yourself, a few posts below. Are you going to start redefining “normal” now to meet your argument?
Wow…so you think my argument of CICO is bunk… because…most people don’t count calories…the fuck type of logic is this?
You really need to work on that reading comprehension. Valmond stated that people will regain weight when they return to eating normally after dieting.
You claim that’s not how physics work, then move the goal posts stating “if people only eat what they need, they won’t gain the weight back.” Well no shit Sherlock, but they’re not eating normally. They’re gaining the weight back if they go back to eating normally.
Quit being so quick to attack folk and read the fucking post.
It’s callef the yoyo effect (that’s why you should see a nutritionist when you want to lose weight). Also recent research hints at cells becoming more efficient when there is less energy available. There is even a Kurzhesagt video about it if you are interested.
It seems it is not so easy as calories in, calories out.
No…just no. You’re arguing against literal physical laws here. Most people do not accurately count their calories and end up posting antidotal garbage that gets passed off as science.
Dude, cells are not using up 100% of the energy you ingest, if they did you could live off a sugar cube a year. I think it might be you that doesn’t understand how the laws of physics work lol.
You have just argued that they do. You cannot magically create mass from eating less. That’s literally what you’re stating.
I didn’t state something along those lines, ofc you cannot gain 100gram eating only 50grams.
Let me expmain:
If your body gets 100 “energy” out of a burger, that doesn’t mean getting “200” energy out of a burger is against physics.
So first off, I don’t think you should bring the laws of physics into conversations of how human bodies store fat. I know it’s tempting - I’ve been there before - but it’s just too reductive to be useful in the conversation, and it leads to generally poor conclusions.
While it’s true that energy cannot be ‘conjured from nothing’ - human bodies don’t quite work on a fixed energy in/out model. They can be variably efficient in how much energy is required to perform certain tasks, and secondary systems can be turned off when the need to conserve energy becomes apparent (leptin is the signaling mechanism for this).
The main mechanisms that cause rebound weight gain after sharp dieting is a reduction in passive energy needs stemming from the change in leptin levels, along with leptins very strong effect on appetite.
I suggest to you, and anyone still under the impression that CICO is a useful model for understanding human metabolism, to read the book The Hungry Brain. It’s hugely useful for gaining greater insight into the subject.
So first off, I don’t think you should bring the laws of physics into conversations of how human bodies store fat. I know it’s tempting - I’ve been there before - but it’s just too reductive to be useful in the conversation, and it leads to generally poor conclusions.
Are you suggesting our bodies are more efficient and break thermodynamics?
While it’s true that energy cannot be ‘conjured from nothing’ - human bodies don’t quite work on a fixed energy in/out model. They can be variably efficient in how much energy is required to perform certain tasks, and secondary systems can be turned off when the need to conserve energy becomes apparent (leptin is the signaling mechanism for this).
What secondary systems get turned off? You’re body is going to utilize energy anyway it can if it needs it, if it doesn’t it stores it, usually in the form of fat.
The main mechanisms that cause rebound weight gain after sharp dieting is a reduction in passive energy needs stemming from the change in leptin levels, along with leptins very strong effect on appetite.
No it’s from eating way more calories…this is literally junk science your parroting here. The rebound in weight is because someone decides to stuff themselves again.
I suggest to you, and anyone still under the impression that CICO is a useful model for understanding human metabolism, to read the book The Hungry Brain. It’s hugely useful for gaining greater insight into the subject.
That book is about the psychology of overeating.
Hell here is a quote from his AMA:
There are many ways to lose weight, but they all involve either eating fewer calories or burning more.
Learn how to make alfredo sauce. Put it on everything. That will solve your lack of calories.
🤌
My brother.
Do not eat before 11am and do not eat after 7pm.
Drink water.
Weigh yourself daily, in the morning, right after you piss and shit, and then look at yourself in the mirror.
Eat as you please during your open window, don’t lie to yourself about what you are eating. Trash is trash.
Let this truth wash over you as you buy your food. The shame will drive you to make better purchases.
To be successful, you must hate yourself as you are and love yourself as you want to be.
Good luck.
Weight loss advice is nearly a religion. You’re going to have a million different people telling you that something absolutely is or isn’t a certain way. They’ll claim science isn’t science, that the body is magical and mystical and you won’t achieve your goals if you don’t do exactly X or y.
The body does some weird things when you start going into starvation mode but it’s not magic.
If you maintain a calorie deficit, eventually you will lose fat. You’ll also lose muscle.
The calculations for how many calories you actually burn doing something are kind of voodoo, they vary wildly per individual.
You create a calorie deficit so that your body will burn the fat. You work out so that your body will put more energy into building the muscle you’ll be losing. The only way you lose weight is through breathing out carbon dioxide. If you sit around sedentary that’s going to take a very long time.
Pick a target for how much weight you want to lose over a month. Pick a calorie deficit that makes sense to you. Weigh yourself every couple of days and calculate a sliding average. Tune the number of calories you’re eating after the first couple weeks to maintain your weight loss target.
You do need to be careful with extremely low calorie diets. You want to be monitored by a doctor and have regular blood tests to make sure stuff isn’t going awry.
If you want to go cheap, use a free intake monitoring app, eat eggs, beans and rice, try to cram some vegetables in there where you can. Don’t go out of your way to avoid fat but don’t guzzle it either. Shy away from processed carbs like bread and noodles. Don’t necessarily go keto, but keep your carbs in check.
Best advice in this thread. OP please read.
deleted by creator
but don’t beans and rice have carbs which should be avoided for weight loss? And same with pizza lol
You don’t need to avoid all carbs. Try to chose those that don’t absorb so quickly. Whole grain products are better for this reason (appart from the obvious fiber content). Also starch in rice or wholegrain pasta is better than regular sugar, because it takes the body more time and energy to break down.
A high carb diet isn’t healthy, but you will still very much lose weight if you count calories and stick to around 1500/day. At 1500 calories, you can eat nothing but twinkies and lose weight.
Too many carbs is bad, but zero carbs is counterproductive too. The goal is to get some protein and some carbs, but fewer carbs when you are losing and not exercising enough for your body to turn them into energy right away.
If you are eating a lot of fruits & vegetables and exercising, then a serving or two of rice and beans eat day will be used as your body needs to and the calorie reduction will take care of the weight loss.
As long as calories in < calories out, the source of those calories matter much less (within reason). You could lose weight eating nothing but oreos and hostess snack cakes as long as calories in < calories out. Not great for you for obvious reasons, not least of which vitamin deficiencies, but you’d lose weight.
While strictly speaking calories in < calories out is the most important factor in weight loss, what you eat can drastically affect your hunger and thus indirectly affect your calories in - or at least make you far more miserable in sticking to lower calories. Eating more protein can help but I also find blander food helps as well - which typically means avoiding sugars and sweet foods. You are going to find it extremely hard to stick to a calorie limit eating nothing bot oreos and hostess snack cakes.
I low-key hate the “calories in vs calories out” mantra because I believe it tends to disregard an important source of “calories out:” the ones that don’t get absorbed in the intestines and that you poop out instead. It’s still somewhat early days for the science, but there’s increasing evidence to suggest that a lot of the difference between skinny people and fat people isn’t necessarily that their calorie intake or calorie burn is wildly different, but that fat people’s digestive tracts are better at absorbing all the calories.
“Calorie in” means what your body absorbs. If it absorbs more, then the number is higher for the same amount of food, and vice versa.
How do you measure that for weight loss?
You cannot accurately measure just that. But measuring calories you eat is a good enough approximation to help you control how much you eat. You can estimate you calories out by your weight, if you are gaining weight you are eating (and adsorbing) more then you are using, if you are losing weight then you are eating less - and that is the most important part.
There is also water weight to account for, but realistically there is an upper and lower bound to that and over several weeks you can get a pretty good idea for what level of calories you ingest leads to weight gain or loss. And if that changes for any reason you can adjust the amount you eat in correspondence. We are just looking for averages over time and the overall balance here, no need to be super accurate with exactly what you adsorb and what you have accurately used during an exercise. I never even measure calories burnt as it does not give much value vs just weighting your self over time.
Of course, which is why I said within reason. As long as you’re making an effort to make your diet varied, I find trying to religiously track macros tends to be fairly counterproductive for most people, as it makes the whole process far more of a pain in the ass.
According to Dr Jason Fung, who does a lot of research on the pancreas and insulin, avoiding carbs and sugar is the most beneficial. The basic idea is that sugar and carbs trigger your pancreas to release insulin the most. Insulin is the hormone that tells your body to store fat.
As far as I know: forget this thing about the lowered metabolism. Your body needs the energy it needs for basic functionality.
You may feel less active, lowering the energy used above the basics, but still your heart, lungs, brain, temperature management and all the other stuff need roughly the same energy. If your body does not get it from food then it will use up the fat.
But eating this low level of calories you must make sure that you consume all needed vitamins, minerals and enough protein.
And being less active may end up in a decline of muscle mass. In the end that may lead to lower basal metabolsk hastighet, but not your metabolism shutting down.
So then that lower metabolism stuff isn’t true? I was told that because I’ve also lifted weights to get muscle and was told that since the calories i eat will lower my metabolism I won’t gain the muscle and lose the weight I want.
If you’re running on a deficit it will inhibit muscle growth yes because your body won’t have the materials it needs to build new muscle as quickly (this could also be the case if you weren’t on a deficit but eat a garbage diet) but that doesn’t mean you won’t make gains at all. Whoever’s telling you this metabolism stuff probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about and it shouldn’t be what you’re focusing on. Start with lowering your calorie intake and go from there. I’d suggest getting a calorie tracking app to help you figure out a diet plan that keeps your carbs/protein/fat in order and do moderate workouts while you’re dieting. I’ve used myfitnesspal in the past but I’m sure there are other options.
deleted by creator
Ik when I tend to use fat loss and weight loss interchangeably
Metabolism does play a part, but people of all metabolisms can lose weight.
There is a great book in German called " Fett Logik überwinden" ( Overcome fat logic) that scientifically clears up a lot of the myths around gaining and losing weight. What you write about are the classics mentioned in this book.
You need the protein and minerals as building blocks for the muscles. That is why you need to take special care to ingest enough of them with that low calories.
More muscles burn more energy even when idle, that helps losing weight. Looks like you did that right.
I see, looks like the book is available in English.
Conquering Fat Logic
How to Overcome What We Tell Ourselves about Diets, Weight, and Metabolism
Nadja Hermann
So then that lower metabolism stuff isn’t true?
No, it’s not. Just a coping mechanism for people to feel better about not being able to stick to a diet necessary for weight loss. Calories in, calories out. Maintaining a calorie deficit (i.e. consuming less than you burn) is what results in weight loss.
Look up the YouTube series on that very topic from Renaissance Periodization. It helped me loss 30 pounds and keep them off for more than 6 months now.
Extreme low calorie diet are not sustainable for long, especially if you are starting out.
First thing first, count your calories for a week or two to get the baseline calorie consumption for your current weight. Try to not change your normal food consumption while taking your first baseline calories because it will make the first weight loss cycle more difficult than it needs to be.
Then, start by removing 250 calories from your diet and burn 250 calories every day for 6 to 9 weeks.
Then, go into maintenance where you slowly add a bit more food and stabilize your weight. If you see that you are gaining weight during the maintenance, just cut back a little bit and keep that calorie intake as your maintenance intake. That will become your calorie baseline for the next cycle.
Repeat until your goals are met. Don’t hesitate to take a longer maintenance break if you feel like it.
That will give you a sustainable way to lose weight and you will also learn to count calories without weighing everything you eat.
If you can easily cut 250 calories without any problem, try to cut more calories the next cycle, and see how it goes. If it’s too hard, then go back to 250/250 calories cut.
As for the food, I don’t know where you live, but nutritional yeast is a cheap way to add protein to any meals and add a cheesy flavor to the meal.
As for fat, cheap nuts or neutral oil can help meet your needs.
And for carbs, seasonal fruits and vegetables are usually cheaper, so go with that.
The only thing you should take from this post is that slow and steady is the name of the game. You are fighting millions of years of evolution, so it won’t be easy.
TLDR: slow and steady. Cut 250 cal from your diet and burn 250 calories from activity for 6-9 weeks. Maintain for the same amount of time. Repeat.
Have you looked into animal-free alternatives like tofu, beans, or lentils?
Tofu has fewer calories than chicken per 100g, though it also doesn’t have as much protein for the same size.
I do eat beans and lentils on occasion maybe I should try more? I’ve tried tofu never cared for it lol.
More beans and fish. Skip the skin on chicken as well.
What’s wrong with chicken skin?
It’s very Calorie dense and not very filling.
Beans and lentils are great for protein as well as being much cheaper than meat. You should definitely have them every day.
If you have the time and energy to do so, get dry beans and soak them overnight then cook them; they’ll have less sodium and give you less gas that way.
this is not universally true, beans are about as expensive as ground pork here in sweden, and it’s not that rare to find the ground pork on sale and thus significantly cheaper than beans.
Frozen peas however are hilariously much cheaper and can simply be thawed in the microwave.
My bad, I was only thinking of my own experience. Cool that peas are so cheep though!
I’ll def look into that I never knew that :)
I have seen people eat it straight out of the package before, which is absolutely disgusting.
Not everyone will like every food, even when prepared correctly.Eggs. They’re the most perfect source of protein and they can be prepared a dozen different ways. They’re also dirt cheap. A large size egg is like 80 calories and 6 grams of protein. So $2 in eggs will get you 60 grams of protein a day and just over half your calories per day.
It’s hard for most people to eat and drink under 1500 calories a day. Are you saying you’re having issues getting up to 1500 calories a day?
Eggs are the cheapest and most perfect protein you can get. Just eat loads of those (around 80 calories an egg) and do some spinach or kale and bell peppers as well. That will cover your veggies and your protein. Then you can fill the rest out with a bit of rice or oatmeal. All of that listed is pretty super cheap.
To your other quaestion- no, you do not need to eat an extra 500 calories if you burn an extra 500 if weight loss is your goal. Eating too little calories (like less than 1200, depending on sex and height) makes your body try to keep your fat and will start removing your muscle in order to make your body have less upkeep. That’s really bad. However, if your body knows it’s getting more calories than that, and that your having to use a lot of your muscles (burning 500 extra calories per day) it will burn off the fat reserves and try to maintain the muscle you keep using.
Careful with the spinach though. Regular lettuce is safer.
Regular lettuce doesnt belong in eggs.
Oh, you mean it as a recipe. I’d still be careful with spinach. Eating a lot of it regularly can cause kidney stones.
Yep. Because it doesn’t seem plausible for me to get to that which is why I eat under.
That’s a good point for the eggs which I’ll eat more of.
Are you overweight? Really, it’s very easy to get to 1500 calories in a day if you throw in some carbs and some calorie dense foods. Heck, right now mcdonalds is selling a $5 meal deal that’s 1200 calories. Eat that and 4 eggs for breakfast and you’re already at your calories for the day. A few slices of pizza can be 1000 calories. Just one small breakfast sausage patty is 150 calories. A big bowl of cereal with milk can be 500 calories.
None of that is really a healthy way to go, but all I’m saying that is people who need to lose weight usually have issues getting down to 1500 calories. Someone overweight but having a hard time getting up to 1500 in a day is pretty strange.
Regardless, if you just aren’t that hungry and need some healthy foods with a lot of calories, pecans and macadamia nuts are 200 calories an ounce. Full fat Greek yogurt is really calorie dense. So are things like peanut butter. Trail mix is also a great and really high calorie snack. Also, avocado. Really, there’s a lot of foods that are super calorie dense if you look for them. These are just some of the high calorie healthier ones.
Beans are another good, cheap food.
Hey my guy, if you just need to increase your calorie count just add healthy fats to your diet. Fat is incredibly calorie dense so a little goes a long way.
Nuts are a good way to add calories to your day.
Can i ask you to describe a couple of typical meals you would make for yourself?
Ill tell you how i would modify it with what i have in my cupboards
800-1000 calories a day is not “slowing your metabolism”
I’m confused too. OP is trying to lose weight by eating more calories? I feel like I’m missing something.
OPs relationship with food is clearly problematic and they’re not actually cognizant of the food and calories going into their body.
I bet soda is a culprit here
There is a ton of bullshit out there from the HAAS groups, that say “your body will go into survival mode if you eat a calorie deficit and will make you gain weight”. It’s just bullshit pettled by people who don’t want to get healthy.
