ladyj779 said:
Seasonal1 said:
ladyj779 said:
Fwiw, I'm 46, in perimenopause, 5'6, and weigh 171lbs right now. My tdee comes out to roughly 1600. That means if 1500 calories is what I take in daily, I'm basically at maintenance, or losing at an extremely slow pace.
For weight loss, my daily calorie budget is about 1200. Most days I stay at or under that; roughly 1 time a week I'll land near 1300.
Week to week my loss is pretty steady, but not long ago I sat at 176lbs for about 11 days straight. After that, 3 or 4lbs came off in roughly 3 days.
Really do recalculate your tdee, and be very very self-aware every day of your calorie count, and don't factor in your exercise.
Every day, several times over, I come across these threads about stalling and wonder — where has ladyj779 gone? Any discussion involving tdee, cisco, a steady deficit, stalls, logging food, weighing food, or a plateau could really use her practical wisdom.
Naturally, plenty of folks both here and on YouTube are convinced the medication should carry 100% of the burden. When progress halts, the answer is to increase the dose or stack on something else. Just keep piling on and combining until goal weight is reached. According to that view, diet and exercise are never necessary as long as the drugs are handling everything. It's medication — you're supposed to let it do its job.
#-
There's also this: people spend basically their entire lives being told by "the experts" that 2000 calories per day is the average they should eat. So when they're told they need to eat less than that just to "be healthy" or simply to avoid being fat, it comes across as both unfair and unreasonable.
Yet much of what passed for nutrition and food science across the past hundred years or so is largely nonsense, and it was shaped in no small part by economic forces — agriculture, fuel, war, and so on.
On top of that, plenty of that guidance assumed a population that, on average, did far, far, far more physical labor than most people do now. And today's food differs enormously from anything before it in human history, in what it's made of and in how easily we can get it.
Setting aside all these modern shifts, there's another plain fact: with age, even the strongest among us lose muscle, metabolism gets slower, and all of that adds up to needing fewer calories. Be it at 45 or at 70, time eventually catches everyone.
I know I'm rambling, but lately I've also been turning over this thought: watching most civilizations worldwide grow heavier and heavier across three or four decades, I genuinely believe that those of us — the majority — are probably the metabolically normal humans. We're driven to eat constantly, and our bodies store fat efficiently. That would have made us the ones who flourished when food was briefly abundant, and therefore survived the scarce stretches — which, across year after year and age after age, was most of human history. Meanwhile, the people who "forget to eat" are the ones who, most of the time, fared worst — which also explains why there are fewer of them.
In the west, food is so wildly abundant that we subsidized much of the developing world for fifty years, and the result is lots and lots of fat people, even in very poor areas. I think that's how humans evolved — keep hunting for food, eat it the moment you find it, since you never know when famine will strike.
Blah blah blah, sorry for the essay