Should I drop my calories again?

mrsmcmo

Hello everyone!
For those of you who don't know my story (which is probably most), in a nutshell here it is: Stats are 5'2, f, starting weight was 130lbs on July 28, current weight (as of Nov. 7) was 113lbs. I would like to lose a couple more lbs (110-112 I think would be good 'range' for me, I have a small frame). To lose the weight I followed the calorie limits that MFP set for me - getting down to 120lbs, it gave me 1510cals/day which I followed with no problem. In fact, most days I ended up somewhere around 12-1300 cals. After that, for the month of September give or take a few days, I ate at 1200 cals. I did have treat days about once weekly. I got down to 112lbs which was my 2nd goal weight, as I had surpassed my first gw which was 115lbs, so I began upping my calories ever so slowly - about 50 extra cals/day for a week or so. I have gained back a lb or two which I was expecting, and when that happened, I stopped upping cals and remained at 1450/day, which is what I am currently at. It is do-able for me, but a little low for what I would like to be my "forever maintenance", and I was hoping that I am still losing, just extremely slowly so I haven't noticed any actual fat loss yet.
My question now though is this: should I reduce my daily calories to again, to lose the last 3lbs or so, or stick at 1450? At this point in time, I am not sure if 1450 is my maintenance since it has only been a few weeks at this cal intake (and I have bounced between 113-114) or if I am still losing. One thing that I have read about on these forums is people saying that they were eating low calories for such a long time, that now their metabolism has slowed and maintenance cals are low as a result. I obviously don't want this to happen, so any input regarding that issue would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure how long one needs to spend eating x amount of calories before knowing if they are indeed still losing, or if they are maintaining.
If it makes a difference, my activity level is set to 'lightly active', and I log any extra exercise I do (usually running, a few times a week).
Thanks!

Liftng4Lis

stick with the 1450 and relax-you're doing great!

mrsmcmo

Thank you! You have been a great supporter - you probably don't remember but you have left me such uplifting and supportive messages on a few of my posts. Thank you, really.

queenliz99

mrsmcmo wrote: »

Thank you! You have been a great supporter - you probably don't remember but you have left me such uplifting and supportive messages on a few of my posts. Thank you, really.

WOW That is a very nice thing to say to someone Sometimes there doesn't seem to be enough of this on here.

Liftng4Lis

mrsmcmo wrote: »

Thank you! You have been a great supporter - you probably don't remember but you have left me such uplifting and supportive messages on a few of my posts. Thank you, really.

Thank you

LeonCX

^ Lis Rules!

Linnaea27

I think it sounds like staying at 1450 will be fine. That's probably 200-300 calories below your maintenance calories at 110 or so, so you definitely should still be losing weight-- 1/2 pound a week or so.

I'm of similar size (a little shorter) and have gone through similar things-- in fact I am presently trying to lose the last 3 pounds-- and I find that doing something like this works well for me.

mrsmcmo

Thank you! I will try sticking to 1450 for now and hopefully I will see at least a bit of a drop soon! According to MFP which has been giving me dead on # of cals/day thus far, at 112lbs I should be eating approx. 1650 (I think, I would have to double check) to maintain.

Linnaea27

I would think you'd be eating a little more than 1650 a day to maintain at 5'3" and 112. . . I'm 5'1" and maintain around 103-105 on 1650-1700 or so. Not sure if I'm just weird and have a fast metabolism though. Once you start maintaining, keep logging and weighing yourself for a month or two (if you want to eventually stop logging food) while eating at the prescribed level to see if it's accurate for you.

mrsmcmo

Well just an update, not sure if I will get any additional feedback here or if I should start a new thread. Anyway, I weighed myself today and once again the scale read 114lbs. So I went back and checked my actual dates, and I havent really lost anything since October 3 when I weighed in at 115. A week later (the 10th), I was 114 and since then every week I have been bouncing around between 114, to 113, 112, back to 114, 113 and then 114 (today). I am so discouraged. I know I could go ahead and drop my cals to 1200 or 1300 and lose the last few lbs but it is really depressing to think that 1450 could be maintenance for me.

MissJay75

If you have gone from 115 to 114 in 6 weeks, I'd say you are close to maintenance. It's possible the few pounds you put back on after you hit 112 was your body replacing glycogen stores in your muscles rather than fat. Do your clothes fit the same? I know a few pounds can make a difference on a small frame, but don't live and die by what the scale says.

Altogether you lost over 15 pounds in 15 weeks. I'd call that a win!

mrsmcmo

Yes, I am noticing a bit of a difference actually. My waistband is slightly tighter, I'm not sure if it's just bloat or what. Sigh. I guess I will lower my calories again to try and drop a couple more lbs. you're right that on a small frame, even a couple lbs makes a big difference.

MissJay75

Try not to be discouraged. Keep playing with the numbers, and give it time. You'll find what works for you!

GaleHawkins

mrsmcmo wrote: »

Well just an update, not sure if I will get any additional feedback here or if I should start a new thread. Anyway, I weighed myself today and once again the scale read 114lbs. So I went back and checked my actual dates, and I havent really lost anything since October 3 when I weighed in at 115. A week later (the 10th), I was 114 and since then every week I have been bouncing around between 114, to 113, 112, back to 114, 113 and then 114 (today). I am so discouraged. I know I could go ahead and drop my cals to 1200 or 1300 and lose the last few lbs but it is really depressing to think that 1450 could be maintenance for me.

Your concern about getting your maintenance cals below a healthy number in your first post may have come true. Remember our hormones work to keep us alive when we are not eating enough so it will keep slowing our metabolism as we cut our calories. While this does not happen overnight but over a longer period of time. Checking with your medical group may be in order. Eating long term below one natural needs can wreck one's health and wealth.

mccindy72

GaleHawkins wrote: »

mrsmcmo wrote: »

Well just an update, not sure if I will get any additional feedback here or if I should start a new thread. Anyway, I weighed myself today and once again the scale read 114lbs. So I went back and checked my actual dates, and I havent really lost anything since October 3 when I weighed in at 115. A week later (the 10th), I was 114 and since then every week I have been bouncing around between 114, to 113, 112, back to 114, 113 and then 114 (today). I am so discouraged. I know I could go ahead and drop my cals to 1200 or 1300 and lose the last few lbs but it is really depressing to think that 1450 could be maintenance for me.

Your concern about getting your maintenance cals below a healthy number in your first post may have come true. Remember our hormones work to keep us alive when we are not eating enough so it will keep slowing our metabolism as we cut our calories. While this does not happen overnight but over a longer period of time. Checking with your medical group may be in order. Eating long term below one natural needs can wreck one's health and wealth.

Stop using what you read in that JB book to give advice here on MFP, it's not sound advice.

mccindy72

mrsmcmo wrote: »

Yes, I am noticing a bit of a difference actually. My waistband is slightly tighter, I'm not sure if it's just bloat or what. Sigh. I guess I will lower my calories again to try and drop a couple more lbs. you're right that on a small frame, even a couple lbs makes a big difference.

It does take time to take weight off when you are close to goal weight. Drop your calories just a bit and give it a few weeks, add in some extra exercise rather than drop too many calories if that's more comfortable. This will make it easier to bring calories back to maintenance. Remember your weight will always fluctuate 3-4 pounds even at maintenance.

mrsmcmo

Thanks for all the replies I was wondering, lets say that my metabolism has slowed due to eating quite low calorie for a couple months now (well, I am assuming that it has). How long would it take for it to get back to 'normal'? In other words, would eating at 1450 for a month be long enough to be able to tell if it's my forever maintenance, or do you think that it might take awhile for my metabolism to speed up to what's normal? I would love to eat at 1450 and just hope that eventually my metabolism will speed up and I will drop the last of the weight I was hoping to lose, but a month or so at the same weight isn't giving me a lot of hope that it will. It is strange though, since every site that I have plugged my numbers into give me higher than 1450 for maintenance, by at least a couple hundred. At any rate, I have reduced my calories to 1350 for now.

MissJay75

I'm still not convinced those few extra pounds aren't your body replenishing glycogen now that you are at maintenance. Many people report a similar experience. (Do a forum search if you are curious)

I think you should keep it at 1350 for a good month. Weigh every day, but don't get hung up on fluctuations - they are going to happen. If maintenance for you really is 1450, a 100 calorie deficit a day will get you at *almost* 1 pound lost in a month. (If you scale doesn't measure to the tenth of a pound it may be hard to see this loss).
-

Are you seating back exercise calories? How do you know what your burn is, do you use a heart rate monitor? Have you changed your info on MPF and your monitor to reflect your current weight?

Be sure you are super accurate in your measuring, weighing, and logging of food. And most of all, be patient. You will get this sorted out if you give it enough time to get a good handle on the cause/effect your calorie numbers are giving you.

heybales

You mention a couple times MFP's recommendation of maintenance calories.

Just to emphasis in case that is missed - that is with NO exercise accounted for.

Also assuming you were honest about your daily activity outside of exercise. Many take Sedentary, to be "on the safe side", when they are clearly not with work, or sometimes work may be desk job, but they have kids and pets and outside exercise, there is no sitting time all evening. That is not sedentary either.

As to how long to get body to speed up again? It's more than just metabolism though, it's your whole day burn.

In this study, the group with extreme diet had their daily burn fall 500 below what it needed to based on lost muscle mass and reduced weight.
3 months eating at lab measured maintenance, it had gone up to being only 250 below what it could be.

So recovery is possible, also shows why maintenance fails for so many that went extreme.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

mrsmcmo

MissJay75 wrote: »

Are you seating back exercise calories? How do you know what your burn is, do you use a heart rate monitor? Have you changed your info on MPF and your monitor to reflect your current weight?

Be sure you are super accurate in your measuring, weighing, and logging of food. And most of all, be patient. You will get this sorted out if you give it enough time to get a good handle on the cause/effect your calorie numbers are giving you.

I usually eat back some exercise calories, but not all. Sometimes I don't eat any, it just depends on the day. For exercise I have been running on the treadmill, and my grand total given to me by the treadmill, I believe, is too high. So when I enter it into MFP, it gives me an automatic number of cals (depending on the time I ran), so I usually just log that number, but don't eat all of those calories - maybe half. Does that make sense? I just prefer to err on the side of caution, instead of eating too many calories back. I keep MFP updated on my weight every week.

Also, I'm quite diligent with my measuring/weighing, I hardly eat out and prep almost all of my meals at home so I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. I realize that as you get smaller, accuracy is even more important, so I am trying to be as accurate as possible.

heybales wrote: »

You mention a couple times MFP's recommendation of maintenance calories.

Just to emphasis in case that is missed - that is with NO exercise accounted for.

Also assuming you were honest about your daily activity outside of exercise. Many take Sedentary, to be "on the safe side", when they are clearly not with work, or sometimes work may be desk job, but they have kids and pets and outside exercise, there is no sitting time all evening. That is not sedentary either.

It's not only MFP's recommendation, I have calculated daily cals on a few different websites - none of which I can give you a link for ATM, but just some random ones I see thrown around on the forums often. I realize that exercise isn't accounted for with MFP. I am lightly active (I'm a stay at home mom, and do a lot of house work - both inside and out- , grocery shopping at least twice a week, errand running, playing outdoors, etc.) so definitely not sedentary. I do have a couple hours of downtime in the afternoon while my toddler naps though.
I will check out the link you provided, thanks!

AskTracyAnnK28

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

stick with the 1450 and relax-you're doing great!

Off topic - but OMG I can't beleive someone flagged this post!!!

mrsmcmo

You know, I've seen that quite a bit lately - is it possible that people on phones or iPads or whatever, just hit the wrong spot and "accidentally" flag someone? Or is it more of a process to do so?

heybales

mrsmcmo wrote: »

You know, I've seen that quite a bit lately - is it possible that people on phones or iPads or whatever, just hit the wrong spot and "accidentally" flag someone? Or is it more of a process to do so?

Perhaps the app doesn't make you go through the same process of picking which abuse you are flagging them for.

If it's someone thinking it's a positive thing, they don't know how to read what they are selecting.

Just saw who it was - they have a flag stalker. They flag anything that person writes. One of those abuse things the moderators should really kick the flag abuser out of the forums and make them read-only.

MaggiWuerze

I haven't read all the replies but if you are 5'2" (I am also 5'2") and you weigh around 114 lbs you may just be at the limit of what you should not weigh under. That is pretty darn light imho. I would definitely not eat under 1300-1400 calories.

Oishii

MaggiWuerze wrote: »

I haven't read all the replies but if you are 5'2" (I am also 5'2") and you weigh around 114 lbs you may just be at the limit of what you should not weigh under. That is pretty darn light imho. I would definitely not eat under 1300-1400 calories.

I was also wondering this. I have seen this again and again on mfp. I haven't seen any research backing it up, unfortunately.

Is upping your activity an option?

MaggiWuerze

I feel like if your energy level is up for it, upping the exercise/activities is never a bad thing. That being said though, I would maybe clarify with a doctor if going any lower in weight is really a good idea/necessary. 114 lbs at that height indicates to me that you either have really low body fat percentage already or not a lot of muscle mass. I don't mean to critizise the OP but I just happen to be the same height, but ideally sit at a 125lbs and feel great. If I weigh any less I usually start feeling really weak.

heybales

Just noticed that lower weight goal too. From several formula for healthy weight for height, 110 would be medium frame, so it's around where it could be.

But, the issue may be more what the remaining weight looks like.

If a decent amount of the 20 lbs lost was muscle mass, and it likely was, that will show up more on a smaller body as a negative. 4 lbs muscle lost instead of 4 lbs extra fat lost, on a smaller body is going to be more obvious than on a bigger one.

So while it's down to last 4 lbs, which should have as reasonable weight loss 250 deficit daily, or a goal of 1/2 lb weekly, it may be that there is more fat where not desired, and weight loss by itself won't take care of that anyway.

mrsmcmo

You now, I have seen that here and there also (about the body just not wanting to lose anymore once it's at a good weight), and wondered about that possibility, but I have no idea if it's a myth or what. If anyone has any insight on that I would love to hear it!

MaggiWuerze wrote: »

I feel like if your energy level is up for it, upping the exercise/activities is never a bad thing. That being said though, I would maybe clarify with a doctor if going any lower in weight is really a good idea/necessary. 114 lbs at that height indicates to me that you either have really low body fat percentage already or not a lot of muscle mass. I don't mean to critizise the OP but I just happen to be the same height, but ideally sit at a 125lbs and feel great. If I weigh any less I usually start feeling really weak.

No criticism taken. I honestly have no idea what my body fat percentage is, I think it is fairly low, but I am definitely not the strongest person either. I do have some muscle (I am happy with the tone that I see in my arms, etc.) but not a ton of it. My energy levels for the most part are okay, although I really only have the time to exercise (without children, now that the sidewalks are icy and I find it too cold to do any running outside anyway) at night after the toddler decides to stay in bed which is somewhere around 9-10pm these days, and I just don't have the energy then. I don't have the energy to wake up any earlier than he does either, so workouts in the morning are also not an option. With all that being said, I have been having some family/emotional issues - stress basically - for the past 10 days or so, which I believe has also drained my energy.

heybales wrote: »

Just noticed that lower weight goal too. From several formula for healthy weight for height, 110 would be medium frame, so it's around where it could be.

But, the issue may be more what the remaining weight looks like.

If a decent amount of the 20 lbs lost was muscle mass, and it likely was, that will show up more on a smaller body as a negative. 4 lbs muscle lost instead of 4 lbs extra fat lost, on a smaller body is going to be more obvious than on a bigger one.

So while it's down to last 4 lbs, which should have as reasonable weight loss 250 deficit daily, or a goal of 1/2 lb weekly, it may be that there is more fat where not desired, and weight loss by itself won't take care of that anyway.

So here is my thinking re: the lower weight goal. My original goal was 115, got there and decided I would be happier at about 112. Got there (for a week, ha) and felt really good, started upping calories, and gained back a lb or two, likely water weight/glycogen, from what I have been reading. So if I set my goal to 110lbs, gain back a couple pounds, I will be happy sitting at around 112. But if I go any higher than 114, I am not happy, and I am really not even sure if I was eating quite at maintenance (with the 1450), so perhaps I will continue to gain another lb or so in water/glycogen? I am not sure how it all works, but yeah, anything above 114 is too high for my liking.

heybales

Your body has some feedback loops to first keep the fat it once had, then some protection for going under a level it wants.
More you try to go under that level, the harder the fight will be to lose that weight. Genetics there.

And yes, any fast gain or loss is water weight, and going in to or out of a diet it's glycogen stores with water in the muscle, 1-2 lbs worth.
Otherwise it's usually change in sodium levels eaten.
Well, and stress elevates cortisol which retains water too. Upwards of 20 lbs actually possible there.
So watch those stress levels, or realize what the effect is, and don't add more stress by trying to tackle it with bigger diet.

Hence the reason you should have goal weight range, not single digit. Go batty trying to maintain a single number.

Besides, those water weight gains in the muscle would never be seen, because they'd be so spread out.
So don't be so tied to the scale that you miss the bigger picture which everyone else can see.
I doubt you carry your scale around on your back with sign for all to see what your current weight is, as if they'd have a clue.
They see you, and that is unrelated to weight.

Taajsgpm

Less calories = weight loss , simple math , drink lots of water, that curbs appetite and gives a feeling a fullness and detoxes all at once , and fight the urge get up and move , burn those calories dont intake them , good luck

mrsmcmo

heybales wrote: »

Your body has some feedback loops to first keep the fat it once had, then some protection for going under a level it wants.
More you try to go under that level, the harder the fight will be to lose that weight. Genetics there.

And yes, any fast gain or loss is water weight, and going in to or out of a diet it's glycogen stores with water in the muscle, 1-2 lbs worth.
Otherwise it's usually change in sodium levels eaten.
Well, and stress elevates cortisol which retains water too. Upwards of 20 lbs actually possible there.
So watch those stress levels, or realize what the effect is, and don't add more stress by trying to tackle it with bigger diet.

Hence the reason you should have goal weight range, not single digit. Go batty trying to maintain a single number.

Besides, those water weight gains in the muscle would never be seen, because they'd be so spread out.
So don't be so tied to the scale that you miss the bigger picture which everyone else can see.
I doubt you carry your scale around on your back with sign for all to see what your current weight is, as if they'd have a clue.
They see you, and that is unrelated to weight.

Thank you, great info here.