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

[Lilacdreamowl]

I’m two stone overweight. I’ve started calorie counting and upping up my steps and on couch to 5k in my third week.
i can’t stick to 1200 calories :( i find it very tough. I have one meal a day where i allow carbs that i like such as bread, rice or pasta as whenever I’ve tried very low carb it just doesn’t work. The other two meals I don’t have carbs.
im ranging between 1205-1500 this week.

Can I still lose weight if i do a smaller deficit instead? Wanted to hear other experiences on a smaller deficit and how long it took?

Try intermittent fasting. That helps cut calories down.

Worked, for me anyway. Lost over 5 stone doing it.

I think some of it is body shape. I always marvelled at women with 24 inch waist. Even when I was 7 stone my waist wasn't that small. On the original gladiators, they used to do stats for the female gladiators (glad to see they've stopped giving chest and waist measurements for women in the new one) and could never understand how on earth they got such tiny waists.

Yes Im like a little barrel!

I think you’ll find eggs, broccoli, spinach and veg are very nourishing actually. Maybe not as yummy as a pizza but real food nonetheless.

@pointswinprizes they are but the point was that boiled eggs and spinach on its own isn't exactly delicious, or plain microwaved veg

Absolutely correct. Add in unprocessed foods and you will be satiated. Do not calorie count, absolute waste of time. The calories are incorrect on foods and it doesn't take into account nutritional benefits.

I do think soft boiled eggs are delicious actually (have to have toast for dipping mind) but YMMV.

Is that correct though? I know UPFs are the current go-to thing to be avoided but to lose weight, the basic calculation is to use more calories than you take in.
Whole foods in themselves to not contain any magic that makes them fewer calories so it's perfectly possible to eat in a saintly no-Upf way and put away many more calories than you are using. Nuts for example are horribly calorific.
I am aware of the benefits of a non UPF diet but to state so categorically that you will lose weight if you only eat non Upf is wrong.

WFH is really bad at giving you a too low calorie target. I'd go more with the James Smith one.

I do nutracheck which has me on 1400 standard but more if I exercise - I probably average 1600 over the week a day. I lose anywhere between 1-2kg a week on that. (not sure what that is in lbs)

I have 3stone to lose and was aiming for a 1kg loss a week.

This is total bollocks

Eat well, within your calorie limit, and you’ll feel full and lose weight.

Counting calories is very much not a waste of time

As you well know I wasn’t referring to the ingredients butt the ‘recipes’ the poster suggested. There are indeed lovely ways to eat those ingredients. As real food. Not as whatever the hell the concoctions in the post were.
Not a fan of pizza really. And ‘yummy’ is a stupid word.

Also, nuts are hugely calorific

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

🙄

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.