I’m trying to lose weight and was told that hwo I eat about 800-1000 calories a day is too low and lowers my metobolism which will prevent weight loss. I’ve looked up some meal plans and can’t really afford stuff like chicken breast, steak, or salmon every week. So that is why I’m wondering how I can eat 1500 calories a day. Are there some alternatives that I can do?

Also I’d like to ask, say I exercise and burn say 500 calories would I have to eat those calories back or no? I ask cuz I’ve been told yes and told no.

  • chrischryse@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    but don’t beans and rice have carbs which should be avoided for weight loss? And same with pizza lol

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      You don’t need to avoid all carbs. Try to chose those that don’t absorb so quickly. Whole grain products are better for this reason (appart from the obvious fiber content). Also starch in rice or wholegrain pasta is better than regular sugar, because it takes the body more time and energy to break down.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Too many carbs is bad, but zero carbs is counterproductive too. The goal is to get some protein and some carbs, but fewer carbs when you are losing and not exercising enough for your body to turn them into energy right away.

      If you are eating a lot of fruits & vegetables and exercising, then a serving or two of rice and beans eat day will be used as your body needs to and the calorie reduction will take care of the weight loss.

    • Irremarkable@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      As long as calories in < calories out, the source of those calories matter much less (within reason). You could lose weight eating nothing but oreos and hostess snack cakes as long as calories in < calories out. Not great for you for obvious reasons, not least of which vitamin deficiencies, but you’d lose weight.

      • nous@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 months ago

        While strictly speaking calories in < calories out is the most important factor in weight loss, what you eat can drastically affect your hunger and thus indirectly affect your calories in - or at least make you far more miserable in sticking to lower calories. Eating more protein can help but I also find blander food helps as well - which typically means avoiding sugars and sweet foods. You are going to find it extremely hard to stick to a calorie limit eating nothing bot oreos and hostess snack cakes.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          I low-key hate the “calories in vs calories out” mantra because I believe it tends to disregard an important source of “calories out:” the ones that don’t get absorbed in the intestines and that you poop out instead. It’s still somewhat early days for the science, but there’s increasing evidence to suggest that a lot of the difference between skinny people and fat people isn’t necessarily that their calorie intake or calorie burn is wildly different, but that fat people’s digestive tracts are better at absorbing all the calories.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            “Calorie in” means what your body absorbs. If it absorbs more, then the number is higher for the same amount of food, and vice versa.

              • nous@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                You cannot accurately measure just that. But measuring calories you eat is a good enough approximation to help you control how much you eat. You can estimate you calories out by your weight, if you are gaining weight you are eating (and adsorbing) more then you are using, if you are losing weight then you are eating less - and that is the most important part.

                There is also water weight to account for, but realistically there is an upper and lower bound to that and over several weeks you can get a pretty good idea for what level of calories you ingest leads to weight gain or loss. And if that changes for any reason you can adjust the amount you eat in correspondence. We are just looking for averages over time and the overall balance here, no need to be super accurate with exactly what you adsorb and what you have accurately used during an exercise. I never even measure calories burnt as it does not give much value vs just weighting your self over time.

        • Irremarkable@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Of course, which is why I said within reason. As long as you’re making an effort to make your diet varied, I find trying to religiously track macros tends to be fairly counterproductive for most people, as it makes the whole process far more of a pain in the ass.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      A high carb diet isn’t healthy, but you will still very much lose weight if you count calories and stick to around 1500/day. At 1500 calories, you can eat nothing but twinkies and lose weight.