Does ~1600 sound reasonable for a 180lb woman trying to lose weight
Replies
-
.sleeplessinsparks wrote:Is your body changing? Have you taken body measurements? I haven't lost
much weight lately, but I've still lost inches. If you are adding a lot of muscle that could account for
at least part of your lack of weight loss.
While you're both right, you're also both wrong.relic61 wrote:The reason why the scale isn't moving is because your (sic) adding new muscle. Muscle is more dense
Yes, people should be taking measurements every few weeks (I do mine every 2 weeks),
and yes, someone could be losing inches while not losing weight because their fat is shrinking away
while they're retaining or possibly gaining some muscle,
and yes, muscle is more dense than fat. For the same _volume_, muscle weighs more. For the same
_weight_, muscle takes up less space.
But it's _highly_ unlikely that the OP is in that group because she's said nothing about her exercise
which leads us to believe that she's doing weightlifting, let alone regular, progressively more
difficult / heavy lifting, which is what's needed to gain strength &/or muscle.
Also, it's difficult for a woman (normal, natural woman with normal hormones) to gain muscle mass.
It won't happen accidentally, and it won't happen quickly, and it won't happen doing a little cardio.
While eating at a calorie deficit, it's nearly impossible.
Eating at a calorie deficit while not lifting weights? Not gonna happen.
Doing the above with only 30 lb to lose? Definitely not gonna happen.
I've used a calculator which takes into account measurements as well as weight, and it thinks I've
gained (IIRC) 4 lb of muscle while losing over 80 lb of fat. I've been lifting weights all along, so it's
possible I've gained a little muscle in the past 15 months, but more likely it's measurement error &
I've simply maintained. And that's perfectly OK with me!0 -
I'm a bit taller & older than you, currently hovering between 196-200, and have a goal of 1400 cal/day.meghanduprey wrote:I have a desk job but do a step class or body pump/try to do 10k steps/day and
MFP estimates that i should eat around 1600 cals per day, does this seem reasonable? I'm 34, 5'6" and
180lbs hoping to get down to 150.
My initial weight goal is 165, though depending on how I feel & look I am considering possibly dropping to 150.
When I started, I was 275 lb and had a goal of 1700 cal/day.
Those are actual, absolute calories, not net. Ignore net. Exercise is good for you, but for most people ignoring
exercise calories offsets the errors they make in measuring / estimating food intake.
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.
If you enter your healthy goal weight, this will help you plan your calories & food.
https://www.bcm.edu/cnrc-apps/healthyeatingcalculator/eatingCal.html
That says that at your current weight, you need 1500 cal/day to maintain weight.
If you were 150 lb and inactive, you'd need 1360 cal/day to maintain weight. Once you get to goal, take exercise
into account so you don't lose too much, go too low. If you were active about 1 hour per day, you'd need just over 2200.
Edited to make it readable with the extra-wide screen due to oversized pictures above
I did the calculator and it said for low to eat 1860 and moderate to eat 2200 (i do about 1hr of exercise/day about moderate intensity). i would guess you minus 500 for losing 1lb a week right? so that would be between about 1400 and 1700 to lose yes?0 -
.sleeplessinsparks wrote:Is your body changing? Have you taken body measurements? I haven't lost
much weight lately, but I've still lost inches. If you are adding a lot of muscle that could account for
at least part of your lack of weight loss.
While you're both right, you're also both wrong.relic61 wrote:The reason why the scale isn't moving is because your (sic) adding new muscle. Muscle is more dense
Yes, people should be taking measurements every few weeks (I do mine every 2 weeks),
and yes, someone could be losing inches while not losing weight because their fat is shrinking away
while they're retaining or possibly gaining some muscle,
and yes, muscle is more dense than fat. For the same _volume_, muscle weighs more. For the same
_weight_, muscle takes up less space.
But it's _highly_ unlikely that the OP is in that group because she's said nothing about her exercise
which leads us to believe that she's doing weightlifting, let alone regular, progressively more
difficult / heavy lifting, which is what's needed to gain strength &/or muscle.
Also, it's difficult for a woman (normal, natural woman with normal hormones) to gain muscle mass.
It won't happen accidentally, and it won't happen quickly, and it won't happen doing a little cardio.
While eating at a calorie deficit, it's nearly impossible.
Eating at a calorie deficit while not lifting weights? Not gonna happen.
Doing the above with only 30 lb to lose? Definitely not gonna happen.
I've used a calculator which takes into account measurements as well as weight, and it thinks I've
gained (IIRC) 4 lb of muscle while losing over 80 lb of fat. I've been lifting weights all along, so it's
possible I've gained a little muscle in the past 15 months, but more likely it's measurement error &
I've simply maintained. And that's perfectly OK with me!
I do step class 3xs a week and a class called body pump which is weight training to failure (lots of reps) 2-3xs a week plus walking 10k steps a day. there are a lot of posts in here so it probably got lost...0 -
I'm 180 lbs too, 5'8". For me to lose weight I have to eat 1200 calories a day, and only eat back max 150 exercise calories. The only way I can do that and not feel hungry is if I fill up on veggies and keep my bread and pasta to a minimum. The way I see it is that at my goal weight my maintenance calories will be 1500, so I should eat at or below that to set a good foundation for eating habits for the rest of my life. If you want an accountability buddy PM me!
0 -
When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.0
-
meghanduprey wrote: »
.sleeplessinsparks wrote:Is your body changing? Have you taken body measurements? I haven't lost
much weight lately, but I've still lost inches. If you are adding a lot of muscle that could account for
at least part of your lack of weight loss.
While you're both right, you're also both wrong.relic61 wrote:The reason why the scale isn't moving is because your (sic) adding new muscle. Muscle is more dense
Yes, people should be taking measurements every few weeks (I do mine every 2 weeks),
and yes, someone could be losing inches while not losing weight because their fat is shrinking away
while they're retaining or possibly gaining some muscle,
and yes, muscle is more dense than fat. For the same _volume_, muscle weighs more. For the same
_weight_, muscle takes up less space.
But it's _highly_ unlikely that the OP is in that group because she's said nothing about her exercise
which leads us to believe that she's doing weightlifting, let alone regular, progressively more
difficult / heavy lifting, which is what's needed to gain strength &/or muscle.
Also, it's difficult for a woman (normal, natural woman with normal hormones) to gain muscle mass.
It won't happen accidentally, and it won't happen quickly, and it won't happen doing a little cardio.
While eating at a calorie deficit, it's nearly impossible.
Eating at a calorie deficit while not lifting weights? Not gonna happen.
Doing the above with only 30 lb to lose? Definitely not gonna happen.
I've used a calculator which takes into account measurements as well as weight, and it thinks I've
gained (IIRC) 4 lb of muscle while losing over 80 lb of fat. I've been lifting weights all along, so it's
possible I've gained a little muscle in the past 15 months, but more likely it's measurement error &
I've simply maintained. And that's perfectly OK with me!
I do step class 3xs a week and a class called body pump which is weight training to failure (lots of reps) 2-3xs a week plus walking 10k steps a day. there are a lot of posts in here so it probably got lost...
Yeah. It's harder to build muscle. Body pump class is not going to do it. As a 133 lb woman who squats 180 and deadlifts 210 in a deficit, even I can safely say that I haven't gained any muscle. The scale should be moving downward.0 -
When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, what is net? does that mean including workout calories?0 -
When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, i am not getting what "net" means... does that mean you're eating your workout calories?0 -
arditarose wrote: »meghanduprey wrote: »
.sleeplessinsparks wrote:Is your body changing? Have you taken body measurements? I haven't lost
much weight lately, but I've still lost inches. If you are adding a lot of muscle that could account for
at least part of your lack of weight loss.
While you're both right, you're also both wrong.relic61 wrote:The reason why the scale isn't moving is because your (sic) adding new muscle. Muscle is more dense
Yes, people should be taking measurements every few weeks (I do mine every 2 weeks),
and yes, someone could be losing inches while not losing weight because their fat is shrinking away
while they're retaining or possibly gaining some muscle,
and yes, muscle is more dense than fat. For the same _volume_, muscle weighs more. For the same
_weight_, muscle takes up less space.
But it's _highly_ unlikely that the OP is in that group because she's said nothing about her exercise
which leads us to believe that she's doing weightlifting, let alone regular, progressively more
difficult / heavy lifting, which is what's needed to gain strength &/or muscle.
Also, it's difficult for a woman (normal, natural woman with normal hormones) to gain muscle mass.
It won't happen accidentally, and it won't happen quickly, and it won't happen doing a little cardio.
While eating at a calorie deficit, it's nearly impossible.
Eating at a calorie deficit while not lifting weights? Not gonna happen.
Doing the above with only 30 lb to lose? Definitely not gonna happen.
I've used a calculator which takes into account measurements as well as weight, and it thinks I've
gained (IIRC) 4 lb of muscle while losing over 80 lb of fat. I've been lifting weights all along, so it's
possible I've gained a little muscle in the past 15 months, but more likely it's measurement error &
I've simply maintained. And that's perfectly OK with me!
I do step class 3xs a week and a class called body pump which is weight training to failure (lots of reps) 2-3xs a week plus walking 10k steps a day. there are a lot of posts in here so it probably got lost...
Yeah. It's harder to build muscle. Body pump class is not going to do it. As a 133 lb woman who squats 180 and deadlifts 210 in a deficit, even I can safely say that I haven't gained any muscle. The scale should be moving downward.
that's what i thought
i think the class is strength training/cardio. i do think it helps with body composition but definitely NOT like heavy lifting.0 -
meghanduprey wrote: »When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, i am not getting what "net" means... does that mean you're eating your workout calories?
If you would have bothered to read the post where you asked me that 2 pages ago you would know what it means.
i am trying to keep up with the posts, the only one i remember is the one where you told me if i didn't know what it meant then i was eating too much.0 -
meghanduprey wrote: »When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, what is net? does that mean including workout calories?
Yes, it includes workout calories. If you eat 1800 calories, but do 300 calories worth of exercise, you net 1500 calories.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »meghanduprey wrote: »When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, what is net? does that mean including workout calories?
Yes, it includes workout calories. If you eat 1800 calories, but do 300 calories worth of exercise, you net 1500 calories.
thank you, that's very confusing
i GET it but i don't if that makes sense.... soooo let me try the math, that means the poster in this quote would really be eating 1700 calories PLUS workout calories? right?
Thank you so much for answering this question without judging.
0 -
meghanduprey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »meghanduprey wrote: »When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, what is net? does that mean including workout calories?
Yes, it includes workout calories. If you eat 1800 calories, but do 300 calories worth of exercise, you net 1500 calories.
thank you, that's very confusing i GET it but i don't if that makes sense.... soooo let me try the math, that means the poster in this quote would really be eating 1700 calories PLUS workout calories? right?
Thank you so much for answering this question without judging.
Yes. She'd be eating more actual calories, but burning some through exercise.
0 -
I am about your age and height and have gone from 190 to 146 in the last six months. I average between 1400-1500 calories/day, my estimated TDEE is 2000, and so far I have been losing about a pound a week. So yes I think 1600/day sounds pretty reasonable, and assuming you are a little more active than me you will probably find you lose about a pound a week without starving for it, which is nice!0
-
I am about your age and height and have gone from 190 to 146 in the last six months. I average between 1400-1500 calories/day, my estimated TDEE is 2000, and so far I have been losing about a pound a week. So yes I think 1600/day sounds pretty reasonable, and assuming you are a little more active than me you will probably find you lose about a pound a week without starving for it, which is nice!
what is TDEE? is the 1400-1500 before your exercise calories? congratulations on the weight loss!!!!!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »meghanduprey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »meghanduprey wrote: »When I started earlier this year (January 5th) I weighed 183 lbs. I am 5'3. I started out netting 1700 calories. I weigh all of my foods and I make sure that I pick a reasonable weight loss goal and I pick the right activity level. I am now 169 lbs. I eat about 1600 calories now though.
ok seriously, what is net? does that mean including workout calories?
Yes, it includes workout calories. If you eat 1800 calories, but do 300 calories worth of exercise, you net 1500 calories.
thank you, that's very confusing i GET it but i don't if that makes sense.... soooo let me try the math, that means the poster in this quote would really be eating 1700 calories PLUS workout calories? right?
Thank you so much for answering this question without judging.
Yes. She'd be eating more actual calories, but burning some through exercise.
Thanks!!!!! that makes sense now.
0 -
meghanduprey wrote: »I am about your age and height and have gone from 190 to 146 in the last six months. I average between 1400-1500 calories/day, my estimated TDEE is 2000, and so far I have been losing about a pound a week. So yes I think 1600/day sounds pretty reasonable, and assuming you are a little more active than me you will probably find you lose about a pound a week without starving for it, which is nice!
what is TDEE? is the 1400-1500 before your exercise calories? congratulations on the weight loss!!!!!
No, the 1400-1500 is total calories eaten. I think without exercise I would burn about 1750 calories per day and usually exercise adds approximately 250 more.0 -
meghanduprey wrote: »I am about your age and height and have gone from 190 to 146 in the last six months. I average between 1400-1500 calories/day, my estimated TDEE is 2000, and so far I have been losing about a pound a week. So yes I think 1600/day sounds pretty reasonable, and assuming you are a little more active than me you will probably find you lose about a pound a week without starving for it, which is nice!
what is TDEE? is the 1400-1500 before your exercise calories? congratulations on the weight loss!!!!!
TDEE is your total daily energy expenditure. It's how many calories your body burns in a day doing its basic job of keeping you alive, plus moving around going throughout your day, plus purposeful exercise.
There are two ways to calculate a calorie deficit. One is them is called the TDEE method. It's very good for people who get consistent exercise. There are online calculators for this. You can go to one of the sites hosting these calculators, plug in your stats, and your weekly exercise activity and it will give you the figures you need to eat every day to lose weight. Since your exercise is already included in the calculations, you ignore exercise activity from that point onward.
The other method, the one used by MFP, is called the NEAT method. NEAT stands for non-exercise activity thermogensis. What that means in plain talk is the amount of calories your body uses keeping you alive plus the amount you use moving around and going throughout your day but NOT including your exercise. On days you do exercise, you add those calories "earned" to your daily caloric intake allowance.
0 -
just found this post! exercise calories since i'm using MFP to calculate my calories then i should eat back the exercise calories. i'm still going to keep my fitbit disconnected for the time being but i'm going to log my step class and my body pump class because i work hard in them 0
-
I'm 5'6 and weigh around 177 right now. My calorie goal is set at 1450, and I eat all of my exercise calories given to me by my Fitbit which can add up to around 1600 per day fairly often. If I stick to that, I lose pretty easily.
Honestly, I have a food scale and rarely use it. I use measuring cups, spoons, food scale periodically and eyeball portions sometimes. I don't have a problem when I do that, but I hear that some people do. Maybe I burn more calories than I realize, so it doesn't hinder my weight loss. I don't know.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions