we really don't need a lot of food....

[JustPinkFinch]

Are any other females 40+ quite surprised - after taking MJ or similar - at how little they actually need to eat in order to lose weight?

I am eating a healthy lunch, healthy dinner and a snack (either fruit or nuts). On this I am losing 1-2lbs a week.

It feels restrictive vs what I am used to and there is no way I could have done this without MJ.

Once I reach my target, I can increase intake a bit in order to maintain. That I can probably do without MJ, but if not I will stay on the drug long term.

I am very grateful this drug is available, but at the same time a little sad at how little food I actually need.

I am active too. I do not lead a sedentary life.

All my thin friends eat like birds, so I shouldn't be surprised. But I am!

I agree, I feel I'm eating barely anything and losing average 1.4lb per week. I'm mid 30s and 5ft 5 (I.e. I'm not super short).

Typical day would be:
B: Protein shake
L: oatcakes, hummus and veg sticks. Or a salad with protein.
D: Fish or chicken, with rice and green veg.
A biscuit or fruit.

It feels like nothing compared to what I would expect a 'normal' person to eat, but if I upped my calories I wouldn't lose anything. Without MJ it would be impossible to stick to. Been on it for 6 months, have lost 36lbs, have about 50lb to go.

Yes, I’m the most extreme version of this as I’m very short.

my maintenance is 1000 calories, obviously completely impossible without MJ.

I agree, OP, and I've exercised all my life and have very good muscle tone so my metabolism should be fast. I remember when I was like, BMI 20 aged 23 and a gym assessment told me, with the amount of exercise I did, I could eat 2500 calories a day before I lost weight. Absolute nonsense!

Even now, if I put my details into the James Smith calculator it tells me to eat over 2,100 calories a day to "lose fat". In reality the scales don't shift unless I eat around 1200-1400. I do try and hit 90-100g protein but the 180g protein he suggests is double, and ridiculous, in my opinion.

Most of us who go to the gym regularly also sit down a lot for work and I don't think that is factored in. Plus the effect of peri/menopause.

I hear you op.most days I now eat 800-1000 cals. In my 50s.

In my 20s I could manage 2500 and be a size 8. It’s very depressing.

Slim, older people do not eat much- regardless of what they tell you. I used to scoff at the ‘just a sliver’ people when the cakes came out.

I agree! I do 10000 steps a day and 5 workouts a week. In order to lose 2lb a week I need to eat about 1400/1500 a day. Lots of these fitness Apps suggest I should be able to eat over 2000 and still lose weight but I can't. Its depressingly easy to over eat by 200cals a day and not lose anything.

I wonder where these statistics come from - the science I mean - that give these predicted calorie intake requirements?

I suspect they are mostly actually made up! Eg. they extrapolate something from one study - which simply doesn’t truly and accurately reflect the reality and impact of women’s age, activity, hormones, etc etc. (They possibly even use men as a standard)

They do. Read ‘Invisible Women’ by Caroline Criado-Perez. Virtually every drug that you take and safety measure that you encounter is designed for and tested on male bodies.

MFP says I should be losing on 1950 calories a day. I’ve just worked out that my average weight loss over the past 6 weeks comes to an average of 1.5 lb a week on around 800-1100 calories a day, so if I stuck to 1950 I’m sure I’d gain weight.

@thinkfast yep - I can lose around 1.5lb a week on 1100 or 1200 cals, maintain at around 1400 to 1650 and gain over that - and I’m 3 stone overweight

Yet there is so much 'bland' disinformation that says the average woman can eat 2000 cals per day.

Bcs overweight people are used to eat much more.
It is quite obvious.

If you lived on 2600 or 3600 a day, 1600 IS significant food reduction

I think people would combust if the official advice changed to around 1600 or 1800 or something

Really there shouldnt be a given figure on a package of food or restaurant menu or something for daily intake. Its completely arbitrary.

Thats 2 different things though, a reduction doesnt necessarily mean restriction

Its a huge reduction. Doesnt equal that a person feels restricted.

@LondonFox I genuinely wasn’t eating over 1700 any days apart from maybe on holiday and was gaining -slowly - but still gaining , over several years- the only days I had more were Friday and Saturday when I had half a bottle of wine each day and probably hit 2000 to 2200 ( I ate a bit less those days too to try to balance it) I am 63 though - at 36 I could have not gained an ounce on this - I do think age and post menopause particularly makes a difference as do certain medications. The idea anyone overweight particularly if they haven’t always been heavy is constantly overeating isn’t necessarily true at all

And also, anyone who gains a pound a year genuinely thinks they are staying the same weight. But... that pound a year, every year between 35 and 55, that's 20lbs. A stone and a half.

I wonder what people think they mean by overeating?

Of course you are overeating if you put on weight, that is how you put on weight.

Your maintenance is x but you eat x + y, therefore you're putting on weight.

Bcs 2000kcal a day for women was from the times when most women did all day running around, physical work etc.
It was never aimed at sit and walk 10min a day. Even then you can easily find suggestions that women should eat less if they want to stay slim (not strong muscular field working type).

Most people slow down with age and start having more regular meals.
In my 20s I easily danced all night, walked home for 1.5h and lived on half a sandwich bcs I was stressed about some bloke.
I'd collaps now as my body is used to less physical activity and much more regulation about meal time.

Yes I do think that’s the big difference- running after kids can help too and you are right I didn’t always have an evening meal as was ‘doing something’

@20bloodypounds I think I was gaining 3lbs a year for about 15 years - and I stopped weighing myself

Yes a lb a year from 20 and by forty you've gained a stone and half without even knowing it.

And yet in another thread a mother who was concerned her daughter had put on weight was told in no uncertain terms not to mention it.

I was told (kindly) by my mother when I put on a stone in my first term at university that maybe we should cut out cakes. We were a foodie family, but I just stopped eating puddings and cakes during the week and it fell away (and my parents joined me). No big fuss.

Hear you and agree OP.

Given how little I actually need to eat calorie wise I
find it very hard eating out these days as often eating one meal means I need to barely eat anything else for the rest of the day if I want to attain a loss that week

I’ve never used WLI but I agree. I spent most of my life being able to eat well and stay slim. Mid 40s, that has changed and I now can’t eat over 1000 calories - and that’s with exercising most days and walking everywhere.

I’m used to eating this way - no breakfast, soup with no bread for lunch, a normal dinner.

I’ve seen discussion on here where people eating like myself (without WLI) are accused of having eating disorders. I don’t - I’m not even slim eating like this, but I put on weight if I eat more!

It's fascinating. I've noticed the weight creeping on since I hit my mid-40s so I've cut out sugary snacks and reduced portion sizes. Rough calorie estimate suggests I've gone down from 1700-1800 calories a day to 1200-1300. And I feel... absolutely fine. Barely hungry at all. Losing weight very slowly.

This suggests middle-aged women are some sort of superheroes, converting food to energy with maximum efficiency. This must have been incredibly useful in past times when food supplies were tight. I wonder if there's an evolutionary reason for it?

That would make a lot of sense Joan. My ancestors are from rural wales so built for harsh conditions.

There was an interesting interview on More or Less this morning with Dr Kevin Hall on how many calories you need to eat to lose weight, and how our bodies adapt to using fewer calories when you’re losing weight, in which he said that over time a reduction of c200cals becomes equivalent to a reduction of c40 cals, as the number of calories the body uses also reduces over time during periods of weight loss.