TimothyFish 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.
psulemon wrote: » TimothyFish 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.
Chewitz wrote: » psulemon wrote: » TimothyFish 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
psulemon wrote: » Chewitz wrote: » psulemon wrote: » TimothyFish 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.
galgenstrick wrote: » 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.
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
berlynnwall wrote: » 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.
TimothyFish wrote: » psulemon wrote: » TimothyFish 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?
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: » if you're able to, exercising will give you more calories. thats why i exercise. LOL
