It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Dont Think My Body Needs 2000 Calories Per Day, Lets Discuss?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
for an active male the recommended calorie intake is 2000 per day. however for certain lifestyles or jobs 2000 may not be enough. A sedentary male should probably limit intake to 1500 calories per day.

An active female needs 1500 calories a day. again there is wiggle room based upon activity level. A sedentary female can live on less than 1500 calories per day.

When you get down that low though you will have issues getting enough of all the various amino acids, vitamins, fatty acids, carbs and micro-nutrients you need. you would need a dietician's help to figure out how to manage a low calorie diet. Or you could just eat what you want and then exercise your butt off to manage it.

Bear in mind this is very generalized advice. you really should access your needs (with the help of a nutritionist/dietician) and if you are pregnant or plan to be pregnant discuss that with your Dr and other Subject Matter Experts because it changes dietary needs.


edit on 23-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
for an active male the recommended calorie intake is 2000 per day. however for certain lifestyles or jobs 2000 may not be enough. A sedentary male should probably limit intake to 1500 calories per day.

An active female needs 1500 calories a day. again there is wiggle room based upon activity level. A sedentary female can live on less than 1500 calories per da



Though this isn't -wrong- it's so vague and general, I don't see what the point is of posting that. No diss, just curious.

You can not talk about 'recommended' calories devoid of talking about the bodyweight. Maybe you left that out when you googled it.

An active female needs...Huh? How active? You mean other than bedridden?

Almost no sedentary females eat less than 1500. Even highly motivated, moderately active females whose ideal weight is about 120-130lbs have an extremely hard time staying below 1800 calories week after week.

The problem with nutritionists, people who google, is that IF they have no experience they are invariably wrong.

I've never met a nutritionist, a professional, a student, an advanced degree person in the 'field' of nutrition who didn't have experience who had anything worth saying, were mostly wrong, and would argue about what they read..

Remember the old 'Food Pyramid' - for YEARS they said 'do this'. Then when they got actual experience, did actual research the discovered they were wrong. They still have wrong elements in it.

We still don't know all the nutrients that are needed - that's why you take supplements if you like, and vitamins, if you like with foods containing the same compositions (for example) because we evolved to get nutrients from food.

If you want to know, if you want to be right, then track your eating and read PubMed. Don't google or go take 'nutrition classes' by itself. Sure if you know -nothing- and you're 18 years old in school sure. Just -remember- most ideas on food, medicine, taking statins, blood levels of various things are not 'proof' of disease causation, or proof of how things work.

Now they know 'statins' are dangerous. They know some NSAIDs are dangerous. In fact big pharma know they're selling things that are dangerous and just calculate the loss-benefit ratios of being sued, people dying and profit margin. Nutritionists and doctors are in it to make money. They don't even care if they have usable knowledge.
Having said that, 'school-bred' nutritionists totally ignore things like depletion of nutrients in stored food. Completely ignore establishing baseline (such as maintenance calories) because they have no idea what they're doing - they only know books and wiki-articles.

What is important is for each person to get their own experience go from there but the key is to pay attention to your experience, learn how to do that. It's rarely from taking vague advice, though I'm sure you were well meaning.

FWIW
edit on 26-12-2015 by Maverick7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

It's not the calories that matter so much as where they come from.

2000 calories from starches and sugars have much less value than the same 2000 from green leaves, good quality protein and fruits.

It's actually quite tricky to eat 2000 calories in a day if you cut out pasta, rice, potatoes and sugar.

Look up the Paleo diet if someone hasn't already suggested it.

It's a very easy way to establish and maintain a natural equilibrium for your body.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

It's not the calories that matter so much as where they come from.

2000 calories from starches and sugars have much less value than the same 2000 from green leaves, good quality protein and fruits.

It's actually quite tricky to eat 2000 calories in a day if you cut out pasta, rice, potatoes and sugar.

Look up the Paleo diet if someone hasn't already suggested it.

It's a very easy way to establish and maintain a natural equilibrium for your body.


Sorry, but in 'a vacuum' of knowledge of what is going on with the person, this is nonsense.

Look up what tour de france, or any long distance sport athlete eats. Carbs and sugar...and even primarily simple carbs in between events. There is no -bad- food. Just counter-productive timing of some foods, or mis-matched foods versus what you're doing.

Now, what is -bad- if you want to be technical are processed foods. Had you said 'stay away from processed foods, pre-baked pre-packaged, adulterated stuff with additives' then I'd agree.

Just be aware it's not the simple food, whether something is a basic carbohydrate or a protein or a fat, though 'type of fat' might be important to know. It's timing in that you don't want to heat high sugar then high fat because the insulin release will drive the nutrients into the fat cells and most people don't want to do that

-except- when they do.

For example long distance ocean swimmers. They want subcutaneous fat for insulation. You've never met a lean long distance swimmer, while in training and competition. (just an example).

HTH



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

It's not the calories that matter so much as where they come from.

2000 calories from starches and sugars have much less value than the same 2000 from green leaves, good quality protein and fruits.

It's actually quite tricky to eat 2000 calories in a day if you cut out pasta, rice, potatoes and sugar.

Look up the Paleo diet if someone hasn't already suggested it.

It's a very easy way to establish and maintain a natural equilibrium for your body.


Sorry, but in 'a vacuum' of knowledge of what is going on with the person, this is nonsense.

Look up what tour de france, or any long distance sport athlete eats. Carbs and sugar...and even primarily simple carbs in between events. There is no -bad- food. Just counter-productive timing of some foods, or mis-matched foods versus what you're doing.

Now, what is -bad- if you want to be technical are processed foods. Had you said 'stay away from processed foods, pre-baked pre-packaged, adulterated stuff with additives' then I'd agree.

Just be aware it's not the simple food, whether something is a basic carbohydrate or a protein or a fat, though 'type of fat' might be important to know. It's timing in that you don't want to heat high sugar then high fat because the insulin release will drive the nutrients into the fat cells and most people don't want to do that

-except- when they do.

For example long distance ocean swimmers. They want subcutaneous fat for insulation. You've never met a lean long distance swimmer, while in training and competition. (just an example).

HTH


oh, so every third person you pass on the street is in the Tour now?

Extreme atheletes need to eat these foods because they couldn't physically get enough calories any other way.
And before you start thinking about how wonderfully fit they all are, have a look at their long term health problems and massive drug use.

For a normal person, living a normally active life, there is no need to eat high carb diets, in fact, obesity and Diabetes rates would indicate that a high carb diet is possibly the worst option.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

I don't understand what is your goal with your diet. But you don't need to eat at correct time, you don't need breakfast nor dinner nor lunch and actually if you feel good you can have one big meal per day. Your body will and can adjust to anything.

But adjusting period can have some sideffects because your body is now adjusted to whatever style you use.

I don't eat sugar. It is easier than you think. By sugar I mean refined added sugar. I do eat fruits and other food rich in sugar, your body needs sugar.

Also if you wish to feel full sadly I need to inform you that you need to cut your meat intake and add fibber rich food. Not only this will make you healthier but you will feel full and energetic.

And I totally agree with you, every person have its own calorie intake. Easyest thing to make sure you are on optimal calorie intake is eat only when you are hungry and never be hungry.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

High carbs diet?

Please reread your material. Because you can't talk about good carbs which are high carbs and say they are bad and lead to diabetes.

Meat lead to diabetes and have zero carbs!!!

But I think you wanted to say bad carbs like donuts, candies, cookies, snacks and whatever other crap industry produce to make money.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: SprocketUK

High carbs diet?

Please reread your material. Because you can't talk about good carbs which are high carbs and say they are bad and lead to diabetes.

Meat lead to diabetes and have zero carbs!!!

But I think you wanted to say bad carbs like donuts, candies, cookies, snacks and whatever other crap industry produce to make money.


I already stated what I thought of them. Pasta etc are worthless in that they carry no other nutrients into your body.
If you eat a tomato salad, you are getting some carbs too, but also tons of anti oxidants and vitamins, minerals etc. Add in a few sardines and you have protein and essential fatty acids.

Filling up on starchy carbs is wasteful and, if you eat 2 big bowls of spaghetti every day, your carb intake will be stupidly high. It may keep you going if you are an endurance athelete, but for anyone who isn't, it's not needed or indeed healthy.

As for meat being linked to diabetes, BMI is the biggest risk factor in type 2 and that is almost entirely due to over consumption of carbs. You do know that protein cannot be metabolised into fat in the human body, don't you? So it's impossible to overeat protein, unlike carbs, which it's all too easy to overconsume.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
look up intermittent fasting. its a great and healthy way to cut calories and give your system a break from overeating . also an extended juice fast for 20+ days would help to get you past those cravings.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Every persons body is diffrent.

2000 cal is just a guide line to be honnest not a set rule.

Some people will need more some less.

Think of a bellcurve graph. A few very few one end will be able to eat 4000 cals and be healthy and a few the other end around 1000 and the majority in the middle will be around the 2000 mark. I have meet people both ends.


edit on 26-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

And you know that high protein diet increase chances of cancer?

There are many other types of pasta that are healthy and trust me you can't eat a lot of that pasta because it us full of fiber, so healthy high carb pasta with high fiber will make more good to your body than no fiber meat.

I m talking about buckwheat pasta, wholegrain pasta, kamut pasta and such pasta, no white wheat pasta.

I don't have problem with your sayings, except you put in same basket healthy carbs and bad carbs.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: SprocketUK

And you know that high protein diet increase chances of cancer?



EVERYTHING gives you freaking cancer.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: SprocketUK

And you know that high protein diet increase chances of cancer?

There are many other types of pasta that are healthy and trust me you can't eat a lot of that pasta because it us full of fiber, so healthy high carb pasta with high fiber will make more good to your body than no fiber meat.

I m talking about buckwheat pasta, wholegrain pasta, kamut pasta and such pasta, no white wheat pasta.

I don't have problem with your sayings, except you put in same basket healthy carbs and bad carbs.


Protein doesn't cause cancer anymore than eating a coconut will make you climb trees.

For someone so hooked up on avoiding stereotyping certain food groups you really do go to town on it.



It's a sad fact of life for some folks that protein and fats inhhibit appetite, not carbs and fibre. In fact, there is plenty of research that shows a low protein, low fat diet will leave you hungrier and ultimately fatter than one that falls into the paleo sphere and hence, why, anecdotally, lots of people swear by eating paleo in order to sort out their weight, cholesterol and blood sugar issues.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Following along with a couple posts Ive read here -- is there a proper/accurate way to calculate one's RMR?

I've seen a few online formulae for it but I'm not convinced as I can't see how they can be that accurate, or, are they?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Low carb/Ketogenic diets tend to reduce appetite so there is less temptation and a higher success rate.
Long term if you want to stay in a healthy 5 lb weight range some kind of carb cycling is probably a little healthier.
The carb restriction involved with cycling can take many forms, some people just water fast periodically, while others live on boiled eggs and tuna salads a few days a month. Just catch the weight gain early long before it becomes inconvenient.

They use ketogenic diets to control epilepsy so it does have an effect on your psyche. Your brain responds to a reduced glycogen environment rather negatively initially, after several days adaptation you will likely still be a little flat. The Buddha received enlightenment from fasting only after he started eating again.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK


Protein doesn't cause cancer anymore than eating a coconut will make you climb trees.



I already told you that your knowledge is outdated and old. And by your posting, i see you are ignorant. High protein diet increases chances of you dying from cancer. Scientist says it is bad as smoking.

You can ignore this research, but it is the latest one, and the bigest one and no I will not give you links, if you want to learn to go dig it up and read, it is not so had to find it.



EVERYTHING gives you freaking cancer.


I agree, only some things will give you more chance for a cancer and some will give you low chance...
And it is not so hard to drop that bad things from your lifestyle, you just need to have control over your self (body and mind), if you dont have that, then why bother... Many people are here on earth to be controled by others or are here for god knows what kind of a reson.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I know most women gravitate more towards aerobic exercise, but a high-intensity weight training regimen can do wonders for your fitness levels and physique - Many women (falsely) believe a heavy, resistance based work out will cause them to bulk up. It won't - as long as you are in a (very slight) caloric deficit (and not using any androgenic hormones).

The development of lean muscle will also help hide "problem" fat areas - You want a flat stomach? Planks (a much better exercise then situps/crunches) , and resistance training targeting your obliques will tighten your waistline much quicker, and more efficiently then any amount of cardio/dieting alone. A workout targeting 2-3 muscle groups 3 times a week - maybe 2-3 exercises per muscle-group, 3 sets, 6-8 reps to failure (you should be using a weight heavy enough that you must seriously compromise form to complete any reps past 6-8 - as soon as you can't move the weight with proper form, stop). My workouts usually last around 20-40 minutes, I hit it as hard as I can, then get out.

As for diet, it varies person to person - genetics, activity levels, etc, can all play a huge role in required caloric intake. I'm a fan of a more realistic balanced diet - I get most of my calories from a 50/50 split of protein to carbs, with a bit of fat thrown in for energy. Avoid soda, trans fats, and high caloric junk foods and you should be good. Adjust diet and training as you see fit, as any "hard" caloric numbers will vary person to person.

Another much overlooked weight-loss helper is proper sleep - it's as important as training and diet. If you're not getting 6-8 hours of proper sleep (around 3 REM cycles per night) it will seriously hinder your fitness and make it much harder to burn fat.

Moderation is key, though - if you find it hard to maintain your diet/training, throttle it back. People are much less likely to maintain an extreme diet/training regimen, and yo-yo dieting/over training can wreck havoc on your metabolism. Fitness should be a benefit to your life, not a hindrance.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad

originally posted by: SprocketUK


Protein doesn't cause cancer anymore than eating a coconut will make you climb trees.



I already told you that your knowledge is outdated and old. And by your posting, i see you are ignorant. High protein diet increases chances of you dying from cancer. Scientist says it is bad as smoking.

You can ignore this research, but it is the latest one, and the bigest one and no I will not give you links, if you want to learn to go dig it up and read, it is not so had to find it.



EVERYTHING gives you freaking cancer.


I agree, only some things will give you more chance for a cancer and some will give you low chance...
And it is not so hard to drop that bad things from your lifestyle, you just need to have control over your self (body and mind), if you dont have that, then why bother... Many people are here on earth to be controled by others or are here for god knows what kind of a reson.


You may be conflating PROTEIN with MEAT. There are non-meat, non-beef sources of protein.

You must have protein to live. Red meat, or Swordfish, now you might want to avoid too many servings of that per week. But the studies are not terribly conclusive, many are done on non-humans.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Every persons body is diffrent.

2000 cal is just a guide line to be honnest not a set rule.

Some people will need more some less.

Think of a bellcurve graph. A few very few one end will be able to eat 4000 cals and be healthy and a few the other end around 1000 and the majority in the middle will be around the 2000 mark. I have meet people both ends.



I don't understand why you keep saying that. It might be true but not true for anyone in the room.

It's vague and really explains nothing, yet people keep saying 2000 calories., 2000 calories. WHY? It's pointless, it's not useful.

Tell me, though. Do you know within 10% how many calories you ate last week for 7 days?

If not then you are not adding content to this thread, in my opinion.

What's the secret of dieting? It's NOT 2000 calories. Would you say that to Andre the Giant? To Willie Shoemaker? To Peter Dinklage?

I doubt it would be helpful. Talk about HOW you diet, maybe?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Every persons body is diffrent.

2000 cal is just a guide line to be honnest not a set rule.

Some people will need more some less.

Think of a bellcurve graph. A few very few one end will be able to eat 4000 cals and be healthy and a few the other end around 1000 and the majority in the middle will be around the 2000 mark. I have meet people both ends.



I don't understand why you keep saying that. It might be true but not true for anyone in the room.

It's vague and really explains nothing, yet people keep saying 2000 calories., 2000 calories. WHY? It's pointless, it's not useful.

Tell me, though. Do you know within 10% how many calories you ate last week for 7 days?

If not then you are not adding content to this thread, in my opinion.

What's the secret of dieting? It's NOT 2000 calories. Would you say that to Andre the Giant? To Willie Shoemaker? To Peter Dinklage?

I doubt it would be helpful. Talk about HOW you diet, maybe?



You obviously lack reading skills as you missed the point of what I said.

Because what I said was EVERYONE need calories will be DIFFRENT.
Andre the Giant would be one end of the bell curve and Peter Dinklage the other with most people in the MIDDLE.

So no if you had bothered to read I NEVER said that 2000 calories was the secret to dieting. Only it was a GUIDLINE.




If not then you are not adding content to this thread, in my opinion.

Thats for the mods and the OP to decide not you.



edit on 26-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join