1.5lb to 1lb a week

So much better

More calories to play with

Woohoo ;)
«1

Replies

  • Good to know. I have started with 1 lb per week but was thinking of switching to 1.5. Maybe I should just stay where I am. More manageable?
  • I was just more hungry... perhaps for you it will be fine :)
  • I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.
  • I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    this
  • I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia
  • I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.
    ^THIS.
  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    This is what I figured too
  • Unknown
    edited May 2015
    Chewitz wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    This is what I figured too

    But my goals are also set up around me getting ripped/fit, not just skinny. So for me, I try to preserve as much muscle as possible, so I eat about 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, I lift heavy and progressive and I don't have large deficits to help minimize the amount of muscle lost. Also, the additional calories I get from a less aggressive weight loss goals really has improved my lifting routine, which I suspect leads to higher burns. Not suggesting that you can't do this with a more aggressive goal.


  • psulemon wrote: »
    Chewitz wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    This is what I figured too

    But my goals are also set up around me getting ripped/fit, not just skinny. So for me, I try to preserve as much muscle as possible, so I eat about 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, I lift heavy and progressive and I don't have large deficits to help minimize the amount of muscle lost. Also, the additional calories I get from a less aggressive weight loss goals really has improved my lifting routine, which I suspect leads to higher burns. Not suggesting that you can't do this with a more aggressive goal.

    Good luck :)
  • I set mine to sedentary and 1 pound per week. I don't log my weight workouts and eat back half of my other exercise calories and lose about 1.8 pounds/week. Sometimes if I get really hungry or have cravings I'll either eat all my exercise calories for that day or just eat at maintenance for that day. I've only had to eat at maintenance once a month or so.

    Been doing that for 95 days and lost about 25 pounds so far.
  • I set mine to sedentary and 1 pound per week. I don't log my weight workouts and eat back half of my other exercise calories and lose about 1.8 pounds/week. Sometimes if I get really hungry or have cravings I'll either eat all my exercise calories for that day or just eat at maintenance for that day. I've only had to eat at maintenance once a month or so.

    Been doing that for 95 days and lost about 25 pounds so far.

    That's brilliant :) thanks for sharing
  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?
  • Chewitz wrote: »
    I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia

    It sounds like this is a good choice for you. I used to have mine at 2lbs per week, and I found that I was hardly ever hitting goal because I was just too hungry. When I moved to 1.5 instead, I could actually feel full while not going over and I started to lose consistently (22lbs since February). Every one is different. We all need to do what works for us.
  • if you're able to, exercising will give you more calories.

    thats why i exercise. LOL
  • Chewitz wrote: »
    I had 1380 calories on 1.5 lbs a week and found I had to be careful not to binge... so figured upping my calories to still loose 1 lb a week best for me. And I don't want to go down the same route of bulimia

    It sounds like this is a good choice for you. I used to have mine at 2lbs per week, and I found that I was hardly ever hitting goal because I was just too hungry. When I moved to 1.5 instead, I could actually feel full while not going over and I started to lose consistently (22lbs since February). Every one is different. We all need to do what works for us.

    That's great you have lost 22lbs :)
  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?

    For 1630 calories a day? Meh
  • if you're able to, exercising will give you more calories.

    thats why i exercise. LOL

    Good advice thanks :)
  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?

    Why would I want to starve myself, end up a weakling and not hit my goals to save a few dollars a week on groceries. And since my bill for my wife and I is around $100 a week, i'm good.

    The bigger question at the end of the day is, is having an inferior body worth saving a few dollars, a slower metabolism and less muscle? You can eat your 1600-1800 calories, I will eat my 2300-2500 and then in a few months, we can compare body composition and strength (I track all my lifting days) and lets see who has a more effective plan.
  • psulemon wrote: »
    I figure I'd rather be more hungry for a shorter period of time, rather than being a little hungry for an extended period of time.

    I'd rather be able to eat a ton of food and not be hungry at all and still lose weight than to have to suffer through weight loss.

    Not me. Have you considered what your grocery bill would be?

    Yup every week when I feed myself, my 21 yo son who is a welder and my husband a 33 yo power engineer who between the 3 of us eat 300$ worth of food easy ...a week.

    I will not be hungry while losing weight and I don't like cheap meat...it's about priorities.