To find it too hard to stick to 1200 calories a day

1200 is quite strict. Do you know what you actually need to be in a calorie deficit? What are you eating? Focus on protein which is satiating and other foods (veg and fruit) you can eat in bulk with minimal calories and make sure you're drinking plenty of water.

Weight loss jab is your friend if you can afford it.

Hunger is not an issue on that.

I went from size 16 to size 10 in 8 months.

Apparently lots of other health benefits too reported in press this week.

I think you've muddled BMR (basal metabolic rate) and TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). BMR is the calories burned by your body to keep you alive even if you didn't get out of bed. My BMR is around 1650kcal but I am unusually tall for a woman. My TDEE is more like 2200kcal.

Your metabolism doesn’t need less it’s just that you need fewer calories as you lose weight

This is exactly what I’ve been arguing for the whole thread.

Still no one is getting the real point here. Yes you can eat less calories, yes you may temporarily lose weight but you’ll also lower your metabolism into needing less -
so what then if you get hungry and/or can’t stick it the diet longer term.
Weights - cardio AND weights. Any woman in her thirties onwards is losing calcium from their bones each year. The only way to slow this down and change how your body uses calories efficiently is with some resistance in your exercise plan to build lean muscle and raise your resting metabolic rate.
This and a healthy diet will get you your best body. Take it from a PT.

No you don’t. Anything under 1650 will lead to weight loss. It just won’t be fast.

Walking for an hour makes you ravenous? Wow....

It all depends on your BMR, mines only 1650 so I need to go down to 1200 before I lose weight. But if you're taller and fitter, you can eat more and still lose.

Eggs and spinach as part of a recipe - yes.
As ‘a filler’ together? Nope.

Doesn’t sound like it. All those ingredients are food, yes. Combined like that they look more like a punishment.

I coulsnt manage on 1200 eating. I did cambridge instead which is fewer calories but wasn't as hard. Not sustainable tho.

No one does. But you are arguing something different now.
I was responding to a post that said eat non UPF and you will lose weight.
You are arguing that non UPF are healthier.
I think we can agree you are right there, but peddling the myth that they are the key to losing weight is a different matter.

I have no idea why people want to lose weight but not be healthy with it..

Of course nuts would fill you up more than crisps. They have a higher protein content.

If we are talking about losing weight no matter what the cost to our health then carry on. But it’s not healthy or sustainable.

I do think UPFs are fuelling the obesity crisis but that is a whole other, very complex thread. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Your basic argument of calories in versus calories out is correct. But at the cost of good health, it’s not something to aim for.

Though it does seem desirable on Mumsnet - be sedentary all day and consume 1243 calories, preferably in an eating window of 2 hours between 3-5pm. Sure you’ll lose weight. But it’s not healthy.

I agree that the nuts are certainly healthier. Would they fill you up more? Not sure.
I am not arguing about the comparative health benefits - I have clearly stated them in my post - what I am arguing about is the myth taking hold that UPF is in itself to blame for people being overweight, not the quantity of it they are eating.
You can't argue with the fact that you need to eat fewer calories than you expend. If you do that, whether the calories come from 19 bags of crisps and a bag of sweets or a home-cooked wholefood menu, you will loose weight. From a weightloss perspective, the nutritional content of the food does not matter. Obviously from a health perspective it does, but don't muddle the two.

The nuts and the crisp argument is exactly what I am arguing is wrong with all this. Nuts have more protein and will fill you up. You’ll be less likely to overeat later. Protein builds muscle. UPF food like crisps may have the same calories but they don’t satiate you, they make you crave more crap.

This is why reducing UPF can help you lose weight. The minimal calorie way (all calories are equal rubbish! is a miserable existence. And not very healthy.

Of course - you could survive on handful of sweets a day and lose weight. But would it be healthy and sustainable?

People are getting hung up on calories and weight loss and losing sense of what a healthy diet and lifestyle actually looks like.

All calories are not equal in terms of nutritional benefits, but they are equal in terms of calorific value.
I could eat 4 Brazil nuts or a bag of crisps. The nuts are certainly more nutritious but are still the same calories as the bag of crisps. If you eat 40 Brazil nuts you will have consumed 1300 extra calories, the same as if you had eaten 10 bags of crisps.
This myth that only eating non UPF somehow is a magic bullet to losing weight needs to be put to bed. You will definitely be eating 'better' more nutritious food, but unless you eat fewer calories than you expend, you will not loose weight, no matter how nutritious.

I eat my TDEE at sedentary lifestyle (1550) and then exercise on top of that about 700-800 calories a day to lose 1.5lb a week.

Would you describe yourself as slim @Delatron or in the “chubby but fit” category, just out of interest?

It’s not bollocks at all. All calories are not equal and there’s a risk of disordered eating and becoming obsessive over food and calorie counting.

Anyway, it’s far better to eat healthily, lots of protein, no UPF and exercise with heavy weights. That’s a long term solution that’s actually healthy and sustainable.

For some reason on Mumsnet everyone thinks it’s healthy to eat precisely 1237 calories or whatever they think they’ve worked out is their ‘limit’. It’s not.

Also I very much would choose eggs and sponach as they are very delicious and 'yummy' to me

🙄

This is actual food 🙄 I think the poster is referring to these as something to add to food or as a snack rather than a stand alone meal