I don want to beat a dead horse, but I found a large fairly well done study of measured not calculated Basal Metabolic Rate for 5300 females and 2000 males of varying degrees of body composition.

average for adult females was 1771 kcal per day +/- 301
Average for adult males was 2244 kcal per day +/- 413

these measurements are done with the patient in bed doing nothing, not even digesting a meal, regulating body temp, or concentrating or reading.

Two standard deviations down puts you just under 1200 kcal per day for BMR. So less than 5 per hundred people. But minimal activity is going to burn a few hundred calories more.

So if you are one of the unlucky to be 3 standard deviations below, i.e. maybe 3 per thousand, who burns less than 1200 kcals with activity, that really sucks. I doubt there are a lot of those posting

Link if you want to look at the details

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2009.162/full

I agree that your spouse should be more loving and supportive, and I can see how his comments are hurtful and not helpful at all. I totally understand that his comments are ruining your vacation.

But, I think there are two issues here that you need to address: 1) your DH's insensitivity; and 2) your DH is communicating to you that he really isn't very attracted to you. #2 is valuable information -- what are you going to do about it? Yes, he needs to respect you no matter what because you are his wife and the mother of his child. But you also don't want to just let yourself go. I think if he sees you making an effort to get healthy, he will be less afraid that you're sliding into permanent obesity. If you want your DH to be attracted to you, then you will have to put some effort into your appearance and your physical health. Men are very visual creatures.
If you're genuinely trying to get healthy, he should not be an ass and continue to make comments. But if you're just sitting around accepting that this is how you will look henceforth, I can understand why he's concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had some surgery a week ago - nothing major. But it did knock me out for the best part of the week and I just did not have much of an appetite so ate quite a bit less than I would normally.

I ended up losing 3 pounds.

Calories in/out .......... or was it something else?

Yep: thermodynamic laws obeyed, once again.

I'd bet also you did less than normal movement and zero exercise.
Yet you still lost weight!
Hence another truth proven that weight loss is 90% diet and 10% exercise.

of course, "fitness" would require much more exercise, but that's a different topic

Yup.

I posted earlier snd lost 40lbs with a hypothyroid. Once the weight came off and I exercised, thyroid went back to normal function.

I once got horribly stressed out. I did not eat much. I was 155lbs and dropped to 145lbs in a week. I remained moderately stressed and even when things calmed down o maintained the weight loss by taking it as a bonus and not eating as much Going forward.

After researching obesity along with science and nutrition for several years now the only thing I can say for certain is the more I learn the less I'm sure of. I started this absolutely KNOWING calories in/calories out was the only thing that worked. Then I saw people I know eat low carb, lose a ton of weight and gain it all back over the course of several years on the same diet. It was not sustainable. A co-worker found his stride running marathons only to put on 30 pounds during his training. Another person counted calories until she was at her goal weight and quickly gained it back even while getting her Zumba certification and teaching classes that helped her lose weight.

For every person I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off I can think of 5 people who starved themselves and never permanently reaped the "rewards" of losing that weight - by keeping it off. The problem has never been losing the weight. I think we all agree even with a little willpower you can starve yourself for a time. I really wish humanity in general was less focused on looks. Your happiness should not depend on the number you see on a scale. I think a much better strategy is to learn to love yourself and your body the way it is. It's hard to enjoy life when you are meticulously tracking every morsel of food that goes into your mouth. I can't help but think we are missing the bigger picture here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry guys. The biochemical reactions that keep you alive require a certain amount of energy to make them occur. Studies of large cohorts of adults show that that amount of energy is north of 1500 kcal for individuals weighing more than 60 or so kg. you cannot maintain a body weight of 70kg on 1200 kcal per day. You will wind up burning all of your adipose tissue as well as muscle.

Explain that to MY body. I am a veteran of calorie tracking. If I eat a tic tac, I record it. I hate this, because it borders on disordered, but I need to keep such careful track to face skeptics like you, pp. I eat 1200-1300 calories a day and I work out daily and take 10k-15K steps, 1/2 of which are stairs and vigorous dog walks.

Not only do I not maintain weight, or lose, I have been gaining steadily for three years.

My thyroid is perfect. I have muscle mass (not as much as I would have if I could eat more calories and not blow up). I suspect it is some combo of early menopause, by BCP, and my SSRI. I have no idea.

But you may want to believe your 1200 cal starvation theory, but it is simply not true for everyone. I used to be able to cut out a latte a week, work out for 15 minutes more and lose weight, but not anymore.

And all yours, and others', skepticism in the world doesn't change that and doesn't help me find a solution. Or others like me to find one.

As I said, the biochemical processes that keep you alive burn a certain number of calories daily. Studies on large numbers of people have shown it to be what I mentioned. If you truly are gaining weight at 1200 calories you are a medical anomaly.

You can have your resting metabolic rate measured. Find an anti-aging or functional medicine doctor in your area who does this test. You simply sit and breathe in to a mask, and the machine measures oxygen consumption, which correlates directly with caloric expenditure. They can test you at rest and at various degrees of exertion all the way up to maximum. If you really are burning less than 1000 kcal per day resting, you might decide screw it, I'll stay this weight. More likely you will see you are consuming more than you realize, not because you aren't meticulous, but because you are underestimating the caloric content of the food you are logging.

The reason slimfast works is you drink a shake for two meals you get less than 400 calories. You eat one meal, even if it's 1000 calories, you are only at 1400 if you don't cheat. The problem is it's not sustainable

I get it. It's hard. And the older you get the harder it is. My goal is 50 lbs. Realistically I will lose 20 and then my body will fight like hell to keep that last 30. But that will be because of hunger issues (very complex--your gut has its own nervous system, essentially its own BRAIN, that is very hard to consciously override), not because my body is manufacturing net calories

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry guys. The biochemical reactions that keep you alive require a certain amount of energy to make them occur. Studies of large cohorts of adults show that that amount of energy is north of 1500 kcal for individuals weighing more than 60 or so kg. you cannot maintain a body weight of 70kg on 1200 kcal per day. You will wind up burning all of your adipose tissue as well as muscle.

Explain that to MY body. I am a veteran of calorie tracking. If I eat a tic tac, I record it. I hate this, because it borders on disordered, but I need to keep such careful track to face skeptics like you, pp. I eat 1200-1300 calories a day and I work out daily and take 10k-15K steps, 1/2 of which are stairs and vigorous dog walks.

Not only do I not maintain weight, or lose, I have been gaining steadily for three years.

My thyroid is perfect. I have muscle mass (not as much as I would have if I could eat more calories and not blow up). I suspect it is some combo of early menopause, by BCP, and my SSRI. I have no idea.

But you may want to believe your 1200 cal starvation theory, but it is simply not true for everyone. I used to be able to cut out a latte a week, work out for 15 minutes more and lose weight, but not anymore.

And all yours, and others', skepticism in the world doesn't change that and doesn't help me find a solution. Or others like me to find one.

I am another one who can eat not very much and still gain weight. I had a metabolic workup done and was told I could eat no more than 1200 calories/day if I wanted to maintain my weight. This was to maintain, not lose. 1200 calories is not a lot. Although I have suspected thyroid issues my whole life, all of the tests I have taken say my thyroid is fine. I weigh 135 pounds, so it's not like I weigh 90 pounds or something. One thing that could help is if I built up more muscle, which burns more calories, but some people just have crap metabolism and some people have insanely speedy metabolism. I am sure we all have a friend who can eat a ton and still stay stick thin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not eat low-calorie items then?

You're a dick.

I agree. No matter if she is gained weight, it is not a spouse's job to be coach and nutritionist and critic, esp on vacation. Just be a loving spouse and take a break from the nagging, right?

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry guys. The biochemical reactions that keep you alive require a certain amount of energy to make them occur. Studies of large cohorts of adults show that that amount of energy is north of 1500 kcal for individuals weighing more than 60 or so kg. you cannot maintain a body weight of 70kg on 1200 kcal per day. You will wind up burning all of your adipose tissue as well as muscle.

Explain that to MY body. I am a veteran of calorie tracking. If I eat a tic tac, I record it. I hate this, because it borders on disordered, but I need to keep such careful track to face skeptics like you, pp. I eat 1200-1300 calories a day and I work out daily and take 10k-15K steps, 1/2 of which are stairs and vigorous dog walks.

Not only do I not maintain weight, or lose, I have been gaining steadily for three years.

My thyroid is perfect. I have muscle mass (not as much as I would have if I could eat more calories and not blow up). I suspect it is some combo of early menopause, by BCP, and my SSRI. I have no idea.

But you may want to believe your 1200 cal starvation theory, but it is simply not true for everyone. I used to be able to cut out a latte a week, work out for 15 minutes more and lose weight, but not anymore.

And all yours, and others', skepticism in the world doesn't change that and doesn't help me find a solution. Or others like me to find one.

Anonymous wrote:Why not eat low-calorie items then?

You're a dick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had some surgery a week ago - nothing major. But it did knock me out for the best part of the week and I just did not have much of an appetite so ate quite a bit less than I would normally.

I ended up losing 3 pounds.

Calories in/out .......... or was it something else?

Yep: thermodynamic laws obeyed, once again.

I'd bet also you did less than normal movement and zero exercise.
Yet you still lost weight!
Hence another truth proven that weight loss is 90% diet and 10% exercise.

of course, "fitness" would require much more exercise, but that's a different topic

Or you ate less salt than usual and dropped 3 pounds fast. As soon as you resume normal eating again you will gain those 3 back plus 2. The Law of the Butt

Anonymous wrote:Had some surgery a week ago - nothing major. But it did knock me out for the best part of the week and I just did not have much of an appetite so ate quite a bit less than I would normally.

I ended up losing 3 pounds.

Calories in/out .......... or was it something else?

Yep: thermodynamic laws obeyed, once again.

I'd bet also you did less than normal movement and zero exercise.
Yet you still lost weight!
Hence another truth proven that weight loss is 90% diet and 10% exercise.

of course, "fitness" would require much more exercise, but that's a different topic

Had some surgery a week ago - nothing major. But it did knock me out for the best part of the week and I just did not have much of an appetite so ate quite a bit less than I would normally.

I ended up losing 3 pounds.

Calories in/out .......... or was it something else?

Anonymous wrote:On a tangent, but related to that slate article... it's time for parents to step up and realize that raising fat kids is incredibly harmful. There's no way for an individual to conquer their biology once it is formed as a child. I consider it child abuse to raise fat children.

Unfortunately kids develop coping mechanisms - like overeating when given the opportunity , food hoarding, and binging , when their parents become restrictive or critical when it comes to food.

Anonymous wrote:On a tangent, but related to that slate article... it's time for parents to step up and realize that raising fat kids is incredibly harmful. There's no way for an individual to conquer their biology once it is formed as a child. I consider it child abuse to raise fat children.

Have you read Ellyn satter on this topic? It is interesting that whether a kid is overweight as a child is not correlated to adult obesity. However if a parent is concerned that his or her child is overweight, even if the kid is not overweight, the kid is more likely to end up overweight. shame doesn't work for kids, either, as it turns out!

On a tangent, but related to that slate article... it's time for parents to step up and realize that raising fat kids is incredibly harmful. There's no way for an individual to conquer their biology once it is formed as a child. I consider it child abuse to raise fat children.