How many calories do you eat? How many do you burn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

I mean, is it though? Calories in vs. calories out is what determines your weight. Exercise is part of that. And types of calories do determine body composition and energy and health to greater and lesser extents, but 600 calories of watermelon vs. 600 calories of bread and butter is 600 calories.

I am 40, 5'7'', 140-145 pounds and I probably eat 1800 calories most days. I walk about 4 miles a day. Starting weights soon because I need to. Weight is stable, even if I'd like to be 10 lbs thinner. I do NOT deny cravings and love to eat.

This statement alone tells me you know nothing about nutrition, blood sugar, and what glucose does to the body. Please educate yourself.

Yes hello you're the nut who always talks about wearing a glucose monitor.

I know a decent amount about this though I doubt I'm as "educated" as you are. My point is that in general, certain types of nutrition that make you hungrier or affect appetite, though real, are not ADDING calories to your diet. They are making your brain choose to add additional calories to your diet via eating more.

[Anonymous]

53-year-old F
5’9” and 130-135 lbs
1400-1600 calories (no alcohol or dairy, Mediterranean diet)
Moderate exercise (walking daily, yoga 2x/week)
Not sure how much I burn but weight is stable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I agree. I am the same height and just reached 125. My stomach is huge, and I look like a bloated whale. Whoever is promoting this myth that 126 at that height is just fine is delusional.

You are promoting anorexia. You're either a troll or in serious need of mental health. Either way, you're dangerous and causing harm. Total b! tch.

[Anonymous]

Right now I am on a cut, so eat 1200-1450 a day. I don’t have anything that tracks calorie burn, but I know I burn around 200 through my daily workouts (running, weights, HIIT, depending on day). To maintain, I eat around 1700-1800. I am 42, 5’ 2” (or a bit less) and 115 lbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

I mean, is it though? Calories in vs. calories out is what determines your weight. Exercise is part of that. And types of calories do determine body composition and energy and health to greater and lesser extents, but 600 calories of watermelon vs. 600 calories of bread and butter is 600 calories.

I am 40, 5'7'', 140-145 pounds and I probably eat 1800 calories most days. I walk about 4 miles a day. Starting weights soon because I need to. Weight is stable, even if I'd like to be 10 lbs thinner. I do NOT deny cravings and love to eat.

This statement alone tells me you know nothing about nutrition, blood sugar, and what glucose does to the body. Please educate yourself.

Yes hello you're the nut who always talks about wearing a glucose monitor.

I know a decent amount about this though I doubt I'm as "educated" as you are. My point is that in general, certain types of nutrition that make you hungrier or affect appetite, though real, are not ADDING calories to your diet. They are making your brain choose to add additional calories to your diet via eating more.

Pardon? WTF are you even talking about? Where did I say anything about "wearing a glucose monitor"? Don't put that on me. And if you really do believe that calories in and calories out is how all this stuff works, I stand by my original statement. Get educated.

[Anonymous]

OP, please rethink this line of inquiry. You can find ballpark estimates for the calories your body needs at your current age/weight/height from reputable sources and then adjust in response to the signals you get from your body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

I think she said what she means. Plus 5'4" and 116 is well within the healthy range. Lots of folks have a preference for slimmer. Just watch a movie or open a magazine! Being mean won't change public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

I think she said what she means. Plus 5'4" and 116 is well within the healthy range. Lots of folks have a preference for slimmer. Just watch a movie or open a magazine! Being mean won't change public opinion.

That “preference” is unhealthy. PP even said her body doesn’t naturally fall at 116. She’s trying to force her body to be 10 lbs lighter than it wants to be because she wants to be “Hollywood slim.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

And your point is.?.?.?.?

Many folks do this. If you don't agree. Don't do it.
What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

I think she said what she means. Plus 5'4" and 116 is well within the healthy range. Lots of folks have a preference for slimmer. Just watch a movie or open a magazine! Being mean won't change public opinion.

That “preference” is unhealthy. PP even said her body doesn’t naturally fall at 116. She’s trying to force her body to be 10 lbs lighter than it wants to be because she wants to be “Hollywood slim.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

I think she said what she means. Plus 5'4" and 116 is well within the healthy range. Lots of folks have a preference for slimmer. Just watch a movie or open a magazine! Being mean won't change public opinion.

That “preference” is unhealthy. PP even said her body doesn’t naturally fall at 116. She’s trying to force her body to be 10 lbs lighter than it wants to be because she wants to be “Hollywood slim.”

Whoever said this thread would turn ugly was right… but I’ll bite.

Another 5”4/5”5 F here. 41 yo. I usually eat ~ 1800 and need to go down to 1200 to lose. Natural weight (meaning the weight my body tends to when I don’t watch what I eat) is 119, which is size 2. But I am an apple shape with all my weight in belly and hips so I feel and look much better at 109 (Which is what an average of 1200 cal + burning 200 cal in exercise will bring me to in 2 months)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can already tell you this thread won't go well. it's not always about the number of calories, but the quality of those calories. That said, I'll go first. I take in 1200-1300 cals a day. According to my apple watch I "burn" between 500-600 cals a day.

+1
I monitor all exercise and calorie intake. I gained weight this summer when I didn't monitor my intake for 2 months. I'm 5'4" and 126 (now). I want to go back to 116lbs so I have to monitor everything again. My body will stop gaining when it reaches 128, which I think is my "natural" weight.

What’s wrong with being 5’4’’ 126? That’s a 21.6 BMI.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm very athletic and notice a huge difference in performance with these extra 10 lbs. I also like the way I look when I'm slimmer. It's not natural for my body, but it is my personal preference.

I’m 5’4’’ 124 lbs and am a size 2. I can’t imagine you are much bigger than that.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Yes, I'm asize 2 like you. 10lbs lighter and I'm still size 2. I don't think I ever "look like a bloated whale" like the other poster. I think it's the difference between normal people slim and Hollywood slim; I prefer the latter for me. Also, I'm a runner and my times are faster when I'm slimmer. I also do yoga and i see a difference there too.

Hollywood slim? You mean unhealthy?

I think she said what she means. Plus 5'4" and 116 is well within the healthy range. Lots of folks have a preference for slimmer. Just watch a movie or open a magazine! Being mean won't change public opinion.

That “preference” is unhealthy. PP even said her body doesn’t naturally fall at 116. She’s trying to force her body to be 10 lbs lighter than it wants to be because she wants to be “Hollywood slim.”

Whoever said this thread would turn ugly was right… but I’ll bite.

Another 5”4/5”5 F here. 41 yo. I usually eat ~ 1800 and need to go down to 1200 to lose. Natural weight (meaning the weight my body tends to when I don’t watch what I eat) is 119, which is size 2. But I am an apple shape with all my weight in belly and hips so I feel and look much better at 109 (Which is what an average of 1200 cal + burning 200 cal in exercise will bring me to in 2 months)

And to add, as most people I have been losing and gaining the same 10 pounds over past 20 years. But at a reasonable rate and for valid reasons (2 pregnancies, 2 times in my life when I had a very very intense work year due to career transitions, and finally Covid). This thread makes me realize I maintain my 109 pounds ~ 3/4 years and every 5 years I need a bit of a reset. I am fine with that

[Anonymous]

47 years old. 5' 7", 124 lbs, size 2. I don't really track anymore, but I'd say I eat about 1900 calories. Burn? No one knows that for sure - all of those trackers are wildly inaccurate. But, I burn enough to stay a size 2 through high intensity strength training 3x a week.

[Anonymous]

42, F, 5’6”. Currently 153, but I’ve been working on my weight for 3 months. I have 23 lbs to go and have lost 26 already.

I eat 1200-1400 calories per day now. To maintain once I’m done losing I will not be able to eat more than 1600. I gain weight very easily if I don’t watch it and I didn’t watch it at all from the start of COVID until May. Not all COVID weight, still some leftover baby weight and other weight from having started a more sedentary job about a year before COVID. It all added up to a big problem.

I run/swim/HIIT/take a dance class 7 days a week right now. If I run I do 5 miles, if I swim I do 2 miles. My watch tells me I’ve burned an average of 1202 active energy calories per day over the last week. I suspect that’s a high guess on the watch’s part, so maybe more like 800 a day?

It will probably take me another 6 months to lose the rest, as each pound seems to be harder to take off.