This is crazy (a food calorie comment)

Over the past week I ramped up my calories to account for (a) maintenance and (b) much more intense exercise.

It's been a minor adjustment so far, consisting mostly of almonds added in through the day, but the adjustment took me from 750 up to 1,100 calories.  Even without exercise this should still be below a true maintenance level.

Today I was playing around in MFP thinking that in a month or two I may add fruit back into my plan.  I've been on the low carb route and have mostly avoided fruits so far.  As a test, I added one medium apple and one 8 inch banana as snacks so I could compare alternatives for the future.

My big surprise was that adding both (and I was only considering one or the other) only took me up to around 1,325 calories.  Dang, that's still amazingly low.  Granted, I'm thinking in terms of maintenance, which makes it a lot for the loss phase.

What amazes me is that I think this would still be considered a lot of food to eat and yet the calories are still below a true maintenance point for most people.  I'd think basic metabolism levels would run around 1,500 for most people before factoring in exercise (unless you're really petite).

So, if there's a key here, it seems to be that eating right is it's own reward.  The minute you throw in the old favorites (fast food, chips, etc.) the formula would be blown to heck.

I always tell people that we did not get fat eating fruits and vegetables. It is really amazing how low ca most veggies are and fruit as well for that matter.

While fruit is low in calories, I think the more relevant point to consider is the high carb content - even in maintenance. Research is pointing to the importance of keeping carb grams around 80 or so to keep hunger at bay (more can trigger head hunger -especially over 100) so eating two fruits a day can use up a lot of those 80 or so carbs. The risk is that the head hunger can drive us back into old habits that lead to excess calorie intake.  In maintenance I eat one serving of fruit a day, often a lower carb choice, and use my extra carbs to eat more nuts, etc. 

I'm with you on this one. I find it so easy to keep my "hunger" at bay when I keep my carbs under 100 per day. Should I go over (as I did yesterday) I can definitely tell the difference in my hunger/craving level. I'll be fine by this evening, but I know I have to be ready for this afternoon when I'll be tired and wanting something. I have my egg, but I can already tell a coffee followed by a scone will be the draw..... LOL! 

Like you, I do only one serving of fruit per day, but usually 3 servings of vegetables. I believe we all have to find an individual balance. I know I can tolerate a few more carbs than some here on OH, but far, far fewer than most of my "normie" friends.

Yeah, I wasn't planning to eat both but was trying to figure out how each one would affect my numbers differently (down the road) if I choose it over the other.  The jury is still out though because each can do something for me the other can't.

It all just hit me as a funny commentary when I saw that adding them both to what I am eating today still left the number so incredibly low.  At roughly 7.5 months from the start, I don't think I could manage both, with my current restrictions, if I tried.  I would be a real chore to try that and still maintain my water consumption.

One reason I found it funny was that back in 2000 I lost 60 pounds strictly through exercise and better food choices.  I used only two general guidelines: (1) eat food with less than 30% fat and (2) eat about 2,000 calories a day.  From there I exercised enough to burn 600-1,200 calories five days a week.  Now that I'm moving back in that direction fitness wise, it's just weird to consider 1,325 calories vs. 2,000.  Not to mention that it's still 200+ calories more than I'm eating now.

MFP has been a total lifesaver!

Great post and thanks for sharing.