Question for all you "successful losers" out there - do I need to eat MORE?

[Luckyd609]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Thank you - and I had to laugh at the thing about anorexia, because if you knew how much I enjoy cooking - and eating - you'd know that is not likely to EVER be a problem I develop!

But you are so right about scrawny older people - they look awful. And I DON'T want any saggy skin (so far so good). Things don't spring back on us like they used to!

I agree with the too thin at our age. I am fifty and I do not look as good thin as I once was. Us older gals need a little bit of fat so we do not look older than we really are. But its a fine balance. My biggest body peeve are my upper arms. I have lots of definition from lifting, but the bat wings are starting to show. I am thin and toned, but gravity grabs certain areas and wont let go.

[AnonChick]

I'm shifting my body shape around, not really losing pounds much anymore. But the inches are coming off my waist, redistributing on the back of my butt (giving me a ROUND butt - woo!), and my bra cup seems to be a little loose. My upper arms are sort of beefy but they don't wobble like they used to.

I'm now eating MORE than I did previously, but I've been using myfitnesspal to help me understand more of the "what" and less of the "how much." It's sick how many days I come in under my 1200 pound max, by a few hundred pounds, but go over the protein, or over the fat. So I'm re-educating myself. I can eat a lot more food. They just have to be less fat (saturated or otherwise).

I still refuse to do the "low-fat diet" gig. If I'm going to eat food that normally has fat in it, I'll eat just less of it. I won't eat the low-fat version. Skim milk is not appetizing, fat-free yogurt is blechy and the artificial flavorings to mask the utter blandness of it is disgusting. Bear in mind of course, that normal yogurt is naturally low-fat anyway - full fat yogurt isn't common. Same with mozzarella cheese - it's normally made with part-skim. Whole-milk mozz is a rarety generally reserved for the making of manicotti and calzones

I think the trick really is to pay attention to the proportions of foods you're putting into your mouth. It's not that you can't have meat. It's that a single serving of meat should fit in the palm of your hand. A single fillet mignon is 3-4 ounces. That is a single serving of meat. If most of it is marbles of fat that you don't actually eat, then you're not getting enough nutrition from the meat, and need to eat a bigger piece. OR, you need to eat a leaner piece.

A single boneless, skinless chicken breast fillet, sliced halfway through, contains half the protein you need in an entire day, and has only the tiniest bit of fat in it. If you pan-cook it in a single teaspoon of oil (just enough to coat both sides), slice it into strips, and toss it over a variety of green-leaf lettuces, with some diced tomato and onion, and a splash of lime juice and chili powder, you'll have this - amazingly incredible FILLING lunch chock-full of nutrition and protein, but hardly any carbs or fat at all. Which means - you *can* have a slice of bread and butter with that meal. You just can't have half a loaf

I actually had some banana/chocolate-chip gelato for dessert last night; the first time I've dared to even *investigate* the idea of adding desserts to my menu since I started using myfitnesspal. Turns out, it's less fat and less calories than ice cream, less sugar, and if you've ever had gelato you'd understand how remarkably delicious it is. It's considered the Italian gourmet version of ice cream and really is a dessert delicacy, when made right. What I had was commercial packaged, but it was pretty darned delicious. And - it's not "low fat" anything. It's made with full-fat whole milk instead of heavy cream.

I ended up 10 grams over my protein max for the day, but under in carbs, sodium, fat, and calories. Plus, I woke up hungry, which is something I have struggled to do for awhile now. My digestive system has been on its own schedule for years, heh.

[gypsychic]

Originally Posted by Luckyd609

I agree with the too thin at our age. I am fifty and I do not look as good thin as I once was. Us older gals need a little bit of fat so we do not look older than we really are. But its a fine balance. My biggest body peeve are my upper arms. I have lots of definition from lifting, but the bat wings are starting to show. I am thin and toned, but gravity grabs certain areas and wont let go.

Yup, I'm with you. I am older than you, and I definitely would look TERRIBLE if I weighed what I weighed at age 30 (which would be 30 lbs less than now!) That said, I do need to lose about 15 lbs, mostly around my middle. I exercise a lot and work out, but I try to eat well. I was NOT losing weight when I tried to cut out meals or eat too little. I don't eat for the heck of it, I eat when hungry, and though I eat a little "junk" I make it "healthier junk" (like organic blue corn chips with flax, etc. that kind of thing) My arms look pretty good except for underneath (triceps are so WEAK!) but I'm sticking with the weight training and I expect it all to improve. My legs are very toned due to years of bike riding.

But yeah, no scrawniness for me - I'd rather have a few extra than not enough. I honestly believe it is BETTER for us more mature ladies to carry a bit extra. It's what nature intended!

[fibonacci]

3 pounds per week is starvation. One pound per week is reasonable, and if you will just be patient, you'll lose 12 lbs over 3 months.

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by fibonacci

3 pounds per week is starvation. One pound per week is reasonable, and if you will just be patient, you'll lose 12 lbs over 3 months.

This can be true, but it can also be not true. In the OP's case, it's closer to truth than not.

Morbidly obese people can eat the same amount of calories as people with just a little pudge, and lose significantly more weight than their less obese peers. And neither of them need to be starving.

A 150-pound person on a 1500-calorie diet will lose slower than a 400-pound person on the same 1500-calorie diet. The 150-pound person will probably lose around 1.5 pounds per week. The 400-pound person will lose closer to 3 pounds per week, and slowly lose -less- weight per week, as his own weight reduces.

[KathrynAragon]

Great posts so far - and I agree with just about everything everyone is saying.

The only thing I don't agree on is that losing three pounds a week is starvation. I think it's especially common on the front end of any dietary change that reduces calories - especially if a person is very obese or more than just "pudgy." I lost an average of 2.5 to 3 pounds each week the first 3 weeks of tracking food, and I had about 35 pounds to lose - not morbidly obese but definitely pudgy! I've lost nearly 12 pounds now and I've leveled off to about 2 pounds a week, and I feel great.

I fully expect the rate to continue to drop - I'll be happy with .5 to 1 lb loss per week, and even a couple of weeks of a plateau - as long as I'm feeling this good!

As for the other fifty somethings that commented about the upper arms -- YUCK! That is the SAME MAIN PROBLEM AREA that I have as well, and I freaking hate it! I also have this weird little fat lump at the very top of my inner thigh - even though my thighs in general are long and pretty lean and muscular, that wobbly little fat bump is NOT BUDGING! GAK!

I am, however, VERY pleased to report that the first place I lost my weight and inches was around my midsection - INCLUDING THE DREADED BACK FAT. That's just about nearly gone. Of course, so are my boobs but I honestly don't care! I'd rather have no boobs than back boobs!

Aging sort of sucks, now that I think about it.

[lubby]

I also don't agree that 3 lbs a week is starving. My husband is a big man and when he is watching what he eats he can easliy loose 3-4 lbs in a week. He is not starving himself by any means.last week he lost 3 pounds. I once lost 5 lbs in a week on WW last year. I ate food and even cheated but I was exercising more. It depends on you body and metabolism.Some people lose more per week than others but that does not mean they are starving.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by lubby

I also don't agree that 3 lbs a week is starving. My husband is a big man and when he is watching what he eats he can easliy loose 3-4 lbs in a week. He is not starving himself by any means.last week he lost 3 pounds. I once lost 5 lbs in a week on WW last year. I ate food and even cheated but I was exercising more. It depends on you body and metabolism.Some people lose more per week than others but that does not mean they are starving.

Right - the second week I was on WW I lost 4 pounds, and now I've settled into about 2 pounds a week. My husband, like yours, can easily drop 4-5 pounds in a week, even though he is not significantly overweight (he could lose a few pounds but he's not obese at all).