1700 Calories? Isn't this too much?

jos_nic

So my profile has set me at 1700 calories at an aim to lose 1 pound a week. This sounds a lot, and I am concerned I won't lose anything. Should I stick to 1500 or consume 1700 with an aim of burning 200+
Confused

janejellyroll

If you correctly entered your starting weight and your activity level, then you shouldn't have to "aim" to burn anything -- MFP has already given you a deficit. Of course, you can do exercise in addition to that -- and then either add to the deficit or some (or all) of the exercise calories back.

craigschnell54

No, its not that much.

TavistockToad

jos_nic wrote: »

So my profile has set me at 1700 calories at an aim to lose 1 pound a week. This sounds a lot, and I am concerned I won't lose anything. Should I stick to 1500 or consume 1700 with an aim of burning 200+
Confused

1700 cals isn't 'a lot'

malibu927

I'm losing on 1800, so no

davis978

It's only too much if you didn't enter your stats right. Mfp uses the NEAT system, which means you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories, but I also recommend getting a heart rate monitor in order to accurately know how much you are burning. If I have to use the database for calorie burns I cut them at least in half, and sometimes as much as a quater. Example, last night I did 60 minutes of zumba which MFP told me was 600 calories but I know from my hrm it was only 150. I logged 150.

shadow2soul

If you set your profile up correctly, than it should be about what you need to lose 1lb per week without exercise.

AmandaHugginkiss

If you weigh and measure all the food you eat, you'll be surprised at how little 1700 calories can be.

ndj1979

eat to that number for four to six weeks and see what happens...

make sure that you are honest with your logging, and I would recommend getting a food scale to weigh all your solids...

and 1700 is not a lot ...

RavenLibra

IF you are interested at all... eat normally for a couple of days and LOG it all... weigh it and log it... THEN see what kind of a deficit 1700 calories is from where you "were" just remember.. a calorie is a calorie... BUT a bag of chips... is NOT the same as 200 grams of spinach... WHERE you get your calories, from here on out is FAR more important than the number you are getting.. best of luck to ye

debubbie

Yeah, I am on about 1800 and have been successfully losing on this much.

Make sure that you are accurately weighing and logging all food, drinks, and any oils or butters that you cook with to make sure that you are counting all of your calories. I struggles with this at first, but it makes a huge difference in your weight loss.

janejellyroll

RavenLibra wrote: »

IF you are interested at all... eat normally for a couple of days and LOG it all... weigh it and log it... THEN see what kind of a deficit 1700 calories is from where you "were" just remember.. a calorie is a calorie... BUT a bag of chips... is NOT the same as 200 grams of spinach... WHERE you get your calories, from here on out is FAR more important than the number you are getting.. best of luck to ye

Where I get my calories from is not far more important when it comes to losing weight. If I eat 1,700 calories of Lean Cuisines and chips, then I will probably lose weight. If I eat 2,700 calories of spinach, whole grains, and fruit, I will gain weight.

The sources of our calories are important. But when it comes to weight loss, you still have to consume at a deficit.

MKEgal

With only 23 lb to lose, it's going to go slowly. 1 lb a week would be a lot.
But you could try eating 1700 and see what happens in a month. If you're gaining, cut back.

Here's a post I did about realistic goal setting, including weight, calories, & macros.

This calculator from the Baylor College of Medicine will tell you not only your BMI, but how many servings of various foods to eat to maintain that weight. It takes into account your age, height, & weight.
https://www.bcm.edu/cnrc-apps/healthyeatingcalculator/eatingCal.html

At 39, 5'5" tall & 145 lb, your BMI would be 24.2 (on the high end of healthy) and if you were active about 1 hour per day you'd need 1837 calories to maintain that weight.
I'm just making a guess about an average height for a woman... go plug in your stats.

Personally, I tell MFP I'm inactive and don't eat back exercise calories. I'm 46, 5'9"-ish and aiming for 1400 cal/day.

esjones12

shadow2soul wrote: »

If you set your profile up correctly, than it should be about what you need to lose 1lb per week without exercise.

+1

MKEgal

davis978 wrote:

last night I did 60 minutes of zumba which MFP told me was 600 calories but I know from my hrm it was only 150. I logged 150.

There's no way an hour of zumba is only 150 calories, unless you're maybe 3'0" and 50 lb.
But no, the MFP calorie burns aren't accurate. If you're going to eat any back, have 1/3 to 1/2 at most, and not every day.
.

RavenLibra wrote:

eat normally for a couple of days and LOG it all... weigh it and log it... THEN see what kind of a deficit 1700 calories is from where you "were"

A couple of days is nowhere near enough time to see a real change.
For women, a whole month is better.
.

a bag of chips... is NOT the same as 200 grams of spinach

True. Very different macronutrients. But if they're the same amount of calories, they'll have the same effect on your weight gain/loss.
.

WHERE you get your calories is FAR more important than the number you are getting

Nope.
I can eat 1400 calories of oreos (27 cookies) or 1400 calories of carrots (well, maybe I could eat 1400 calories of carrots... that's 8.8 lb) and the effect on my weight will be exactly the same.
The health effects are going to be _very_ different.
And I'm going to feel fuller/unhungry longer with the carrots.

The possible exception to the "calorie is a calorie" law of nature is that sometimes the calories you put into your mouth are not the same as the calories which are absorbed by the body... protein, in particular, is not as easily absorbed.
So (just to make up some numbers) if you eat 100 g of pasta you might absorb 90% of the calories. If you eat 100g of protein, maybe you only absorb 75%. No, those are not real numbers, just an example.
But once it's in the body a calorie which comes from pasta is the same as a calorie which comes from tuna is the same as a calorie which comes from a carrot is the same as a calorie which comes from an oreo. They're all the exact same unit of energy.

jos_nic

Thankyou all for taking the time to reply. I have been doing this for just over a week and weighed myself and still weighed the same so was feeling deflated. Perhaps I should give it a month and see what happens...

mymodernbabylon

Yes, weight loss isn't linear. I'm eating 2100 calories to lose weight (near the end of my goal - only 5 lb to go). It's not better to eat less - why not eat as much as you can while still losing?

MiltonAFC

I know people that can cut on 2400 calories.

Sophsmother

davis978 wrote: »

It's only too much if you didn't enter your stats right. Mfp uses the NEAT system, which means you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories, but I also recommend getting a heart rate monitor in order to accurately know how much you are burning. If I have to use the database for calorie burns I cut them at least in half, and sometimes as much as a quater. Example, last night I did 60 minutes of zumba which MFP told me was 600 calories but I know from my hrm it was only 150. I logged 150.

You do realize that Heart rate monitors can be off by as much as 20 percent?

DawnieB1977

I eat between 1500-1700 and it's actually not that much. It's a good amount..I eat enough that I don't feel hungry, but not too much that I feel like I've stuffed my face! However, I exercise a lot and I don't eat back exercise calories.

Lythy89

I am currently on 2000 and under....working out 4 - 5 times a week and losing on average 2 - 2.5 lbs...Best bet is try it for a week and see what happens. Listen to you body and learn the amounts it needs to drop fat with exercise incorporated.