Has any women lost any weight eating 1600 calories a day?
Options
Replies
-
newstart1988 wrote: »
I completely agree with you and I will do just that. thanks so much for understanding where im coming from.Marchmallow wrote: »The OP is only going on what others have told her, and I can vouch that up until a year or two ago, these forums used to be full of threads with things like "you need to eat more, you're in starvation mode". I've noticed trends in weight loss advice. I remember being told those things myself, and I remember thinking that it didn't make sense to eat more and yet lose more weight. It's the largely unregulated pool of peer advice and pseudo-science that gets people confused.
OP, my recommendation to you is to ask your doctor or a nutritionist.
MFP is suppose to be about support, I wish there was more of that on here. I love food and love to eat and I've been on a rollercoaster most of my life, the only time i lost a lot of weight (30lbs) was when I had a strict diet (I was a vegetarian for 5 yrs) and daily exercise (60-120min). But with life things change and you have moments of ease and obstacles. With my classes and minor injuries from car accident, Im mostly sedentary. I enjoy going to Youtube to get workout videos. Im no longer vegetarian but I'm trying to focus on eating more whole foods (greens, veggies, fruit etc) and less sweets, junk. good luck to you.0 -
I've lost weight on a lot more, but also a lot less. Because my metabolism adapted to lower calories. In 10 weeks I went from a bmr of 1300 (I'd already been dieting for 10 weeks) to 800. I dread to think what girls who undereat constantly do to their metabolism...
You need to log a certain amount consistently for a decent amount of time to see what effect its having on your body. You want to diet on as many calories as possible. If you can do that a 1600,great, don't drop lower.1 -
Sophiareed218 wrote: »
I haven't been able to confirm anything about the part you said about some subjects not losing weigh on a controlled diet. Could you provide a link or reference?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Sophiareed218 wrote: »Speak with a doctor if you must, but these people state the truth. Starvation mode is a big fat myth. How would holocaust get down to skin and bones? Wouldn't they be nice and plump since the body is holding onto calories? Also, someone else mentioned the minnesota starvation study, which mimicked the starvation like conditions of the holocaust to study the effects of starvation and also how to re-feed after the trials were over. The effect was the metabolism DOES slow down, but not nearly enough to compensate for a negative calorie balance. All test subject lost significant amounts of weight, and they were not even overweight to begin with. So eating more to lose weight is simply not true.
Back to your original question, can you lose weight on 1600. Most likely yes, but that is probably not much of a calorie deficit, so you'd have to be very careful not to exceed that number. If MFP recommends 1200, try that again but this time really look at accuracy of logging. These people have been on here a long time and when somebody comes on saying they are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight, it's ALWAYS because they are actually eating more than that without realizing. Once this is corrected, the weigh starts coming off, like magic.
How much weight are you looking to lose?
While you are right about the myth part (in this case), you are a bit off about the Minnesota Starvation Study. In that study, several of the volunteers stopped losing weight in calculated and controlled calorie deficits. They did ALL experience severe adaptive thermogenesis at low body fat percentage and during refeed.
The deficit, in Keys’ study, started off at 1,640 calories a day. Assuming that the deficit remained at 1,640 for the 24 week ‘starvation’ period, if the 3,500 formula were correct, during the 24 weeks, every man should have lost at least 78 pounds in fat alone and more on top of this in water and lean tissue. The average weight loss of the men was less than half of this – 37 pounds – 1.5 pounds per week. If the 3,500 formula were correct, the lightest man in the study, Bob Villwock from Ohio, should have finished the study below three stone (he would, of course, have died long before this).
3) The less you eat, the less you must continue to eat to have any chance of losing more weight and weight loss will stop, at some point, whether you like it or not.
As Keys showed, the men needed 3,200 calories, on average, to maintain their weight. As the men were given 1,570 calories a day in the ‘starvation period’, they lost weight and their energy need fell and therefore the calorie level needed to fall, to maintain the deficit.
Interestingly, Keys rejected the 3,500 formula from the outset and relied instead on adjusting the calorie intake every week to try to induce his desired weight loss of 25%. Keys found he needed to limit some men to 1,000 calories a day to try to induce further weight loss (the men should have been losing over 5lbs per week, at this calorie intake, having created a deficit of almost 2,500 calories a day from their original calorie need. In reality the body had adjusted energy need to resist any further weight loss).
All reached a plateau around week 20 and further weight loss could not be induced. At least one diary recorded weight gain in the final month of the ‘starvation’ period.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2009/12/the-minnesota-starvation-experiment/0 -
newstart1988 wrote: »
I completely agree with you and I will do just that. thanks so much for understanding where im coming from.Marchmallow wrote: »The OP is only going on what others have told her, and I can vouch that up until a year or two ago, these forums used to be full of threads with things like "you need to eat more, you're in starvation mode". I've noticed trends in weight loss advice. I remember being told those things myself, and I remember thinking that it didn't make sense to eat more and yet lose more weight. It's the largely unregulated pool of peer advice and pseudo-science that gets people confused.
OP, my recommendation to you is to ask your doctor or a nutritionist.
Okay lets start with nutritionist...you can become one by doing a course online in a weekend...not a good source of medical information.
Doctors take a semester course on nutrition GP's when asked shouldn't be giving nutritional advice. Unless they are a specialist.
OP the 1600 was that TDEE? if so make sure you understand that you only eat 1600 and don't eat exercise calories back.
If it's NEAT eat back some exercise calories.
Starvation mode does not exist in the way you are thinking.
OP logging accurately doesn't just mean weighing food it means choosing correct entries which will require you to double check against USDA website for most foods like meats etc.
Checking packages etc.
If you find entries that are incorrect make them correct.
At 170 I ate 1600 a day (TDEE-20%) and lost 1lb a week, consistently.
As for everyone else they all gave you good advice...but to be frank you came in here not looking for advice but looking for affirmation you were correct...sorry doesn't work that way.0 -
newstart1988 wrote: »Has any women lost any weight eating 1600 calories a day? I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating. So now im trying to eat 1600 calories a day instead. I would love your advice and experiences. Thanks. :-)
thats bologna but whatever.
eating more will not make you lose weight.
that said, I eat anywhere from 1200 to 1800 (and an hour of cardio most days) and lose a pretty consistent 2 pounds a week0 -
In my weight loss I was eating 1200, stopped losing so I upped to 1600 and started losing again, it is possible to be eating too little.0
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »In my weight loss I was eating 1200, stopped losing so I upped to 1600 and started losing again, it is possible to be eating too little.
to lose weight....no.
to be healthy and active yes...
0 -
You're supposed to eat back exercise calories with MFP. I used TDEE-20% and never ate under 1600 calories though (total). I weigh everything though (and measure liquids).Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »In my weight loss I was eating 1200, stopped losing so I upped to 1600 and started losing again, it is possible to be eating too little.
IMO when this happens it's just coincidence... someone hits a stall (which is completely normal), figure they are doing something wrong, then up their calories, and suddenly lose again... they would probably have lost anyway if they had kept their lower calories.1 -
I read that when you're undereating no matter how much it is low you muscles start to work more efficiently meaning you burn less calories per muscle mass. With eating more you just revert to burning like before but you will never burn more than your usual less efficient way.0
-
newstart1988 wrote: »
I will trust my doctor over an internet stranger. I don't need anymore of your advice thanksOh FFS a doctor couldn't help you
"Hello doctor I'm not losing weight but I'm guessing how much I'm eating by using spoons and cups and even though I think I'm consuming 1200 calories a day and putting in all the effort, this one easily fixable mistake, that many make, means I am more likely eating 2000 calories each day "
Watch the video link I posted and Weigh your food
First of all op, rabbit was just trying to help you. Don't ask for help if you don't want to hear the truth then.
Secondly no you are not weighing your foods properly so its very clear why you aren't losing weight
And yes, go talk to your doctor . maybe he will be able to talk some sense into you. People here where taking their time to try to help you and maybe you just aren't ready to listen.
Think about it , if you aren't losing at 1200 then why would eating more help you lose weight ? Its because you aren't actually eating 12002 -
Hi i started at 17st 2 and I'm now at 16st7 and lose 2lb a week generally. I eat 1600 cals a day. I rarely exercise due to health problems. I used to use spoons until I saw the video posted earlier. Now I weigh my crispbread then spread on my peanut butter or almond butter then weigh again and voila I now exactly what I've got in grams.
I do sympathise with you, it takes a while to unlearn myth and rumour and learn proper nutrition based on evidence. I promise you though, work out your bmi/ tdee from the sticky threads and then measure and weigh your foods so you log accurate ly and you'll lose in a safe way, whilst learning about portion control. Good luck0 -
If you're undereating, your body will start to consume more muscle and less fat (as muscle requires more calories for maintenance), but it has to burn SOMETHING for you to stay alive, and yes, you would lose weight if you were undereating.newstart1988 wrote: »
I thought your body can go into starvation mode If youre undereating and start holding onto fat for energynewstart1988 wrote: »I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating.
That's not how it works. Your body doesn't stop losing weight because you eat too little. That's impossible. You were probably underestimating calories if you weren't losing anything at 1200. Eating more will just make you gain weight if you weren't losing anything at what you measured as 1200.
0 -
tiffanybrooks530 wrote: »tiffanybrooks530 wrote: »newstart1988 wrote: »
I thought your body can go into starvation mode If you're under eating and start holding onto fat for energynewstart1988 wrote: »I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating.
That's not how it works. Your body doesn't stop losing weight because you eat too little. That's impossible. You were probably underestimating calories if you weren't losing anything at 1200. Eating more will just make you gain weight if you weren't losing anything at what you measured as 1200.
eating less than 1200 causes the body to eat on its muscle, and you will lose weight, but that is not the right or healthy approach. You want to burn fat and gain or maintain your muscle mass. One month is not enough time for 1200 calories you need to keep it up and incorporate some exercise if you have a sedentary lifestyle.
When i was sick for a week and could not eat whole meals only consumed 500 a day i ended up in hospital and when they tested me my body had gone into starvation mode, they had to put an IV in me to give me the electrolytes and other nutrients I had lost. The R.N. told me ppl try to do this as a diet, it is not a good feeling, don't go below 1200.
good luck.
Eating any deficit is going to cause muscle loss. The reason you don't want to eat less than 1200 isn't because of muscle loss. It's because it's difficult to get enough nutrients in less than 1200 calories without using supplements. There's nothing magical about 1200 besides the fact that it's just easier to get enough nutrients. Nothing special happens if you eat 1100 calories.
When they checked you out at the hospital, you weren't in "starvation mode." You were dehydrated. When you have a very low calorie diet, you likely aren't going to get enough sodium. So even if you drink a lot of water, you'll end up dehydrated. They give you saline in an IV to quickly hydrate you.
No you're wrong. No i was not dehydrated and yes my body was in a state of "ketosis".
I stated that muscle loss occurs in that state and I had also lost nutrients that had to be replenished via IV. It wasn't fun, and I'm sharing my personal experience, if you had a different one by all means share it, but you are not my Dr. to tell me what I did and did not go through.
My advice to her is to be consistent with her choice be it 1200 or 1600, since she said she only did it for one month. based on her comments there appears to be a number of reasons why she isn't losing. But no one should aim for starvation, no one is suggesting that.
Yeah.... No. A standard IV contains normal saline (salt water) at a similar concentration found in blood. Lactated ringers and D5W may also be used. These are ised for dehydration, blood loss, electrolyte imbalances etc. they are not for nutrition. They do have have IVs that contain soluble protein, but that is rare. Your IV fluid was clear, right? Then it was just for hydration (as well as electrolytes and if needed, sugar).0 -
I personally think being condescending IS NOT HELPFUL. I feel like half the people here are trying to force this magical 1200 number on you and the other half are trying to tell you (with a little too much attitude) that if you're being logical & simply doing the math that eating more calories will not create a bigger loss. My opinion on this is
1) Eating more calories will NOT create a bigger loss for you.
2) However, 1200 calories is not the amount of calories everyone should be eating. Based on your statistics and a little bit of trial and error find out what your intake should be. If I can eat 1500 calories and lose weight steadily there is no way I would opp to eat 1200. It's harder to sustain and I'd be constantly hungry.
3) To answer your original question- yes. I lose consistently by eating 1500-1700 most days and doing high intensity workouts 5x a week. I'm 5"10 in the 160's.
Also, if someone says they are logging properly after I ask them if they are, I take there word for it, as I am not in their kitchen cooking their meals. If it continues to be a problem I'm sure she'll switch it up. People love to argue this moot point of the forums and I don't understand it.1 -
I'm sure plenty of women have lost weight on 1600 cals but there are a ton of other things to factor in. How active is their lifestyle? What are they eating on the 1600? Water Consumption? and various other things..I think perhaps you should decide if MFP is how you want to lose the weight and then get all the tools needed to do MFP the way that benefits you..Keep it very simple...I would be curious to know how often you are working out and what type of exercise.0
-
I personally think being condescending IS NOT HELPFUL. I feel like half the people here are trying to force this magical 1200 number on you and the other half are trying to tell you (with a little too much attitude) that if you're being logical & simply doing the math that eating more calories will not create a bigger loss. My opinion on this is
1) Eating more calories will NOT create a bigger loss for you.
2) However, 1200 calories is not the amount of calories everyone should be eating. Based on your statistics and a little bit of trial and error find out what your intake should be. If I can eat 1500 calories and lose weight steadily there is no way I would opp to eat 1200. It's harder to sustain and I'd be constantly hungry.
3) To answer your original question- yes. I lose consistently by eating 1500-1700 most days and doing high intensity workouts 5x a week. I'm 5"10 in the 160's.
Also, if someone says they are logging properly after I ask them if they are, I take there word for it, as I am not in their kitchen cooking their meals. If it continues to be a problem I'm sure she'll switch it up. People love to argue this moot point of the forums and I don't understand it.
Shaunte, I'm just not seeing the condescension you're alluding to. Nor do I see anywhere where any of the knowledgeable posters said that 1200 calories is the amount *everyone* should be eating to lose weight.
And as to the logging issues, the OP may think she's logging correctly, and therefore say so, but if you just take her word for it, you may be missing the key to helping her actually resolve the issue behind her not losing weight currently. Which, I believe, is the reason the OP started this thread in the first place! Now whether she chooses to just continue *thinking* she's logging her food correctly is entirely up to her. Her diary definitely shows that she's not weighing things - or a least not entering things correctly. Why someone would weigh their food but then enter a generic measurement in their diary kind of eludes me.
Some amazing advice has been given here by people who have actually been in the OP's shoes at one time, made the same mistakes, learned, changed and LOST THE WEIGHT as a result, and are willing to take the time to share this hard-won info with the OP. I hope that she eventually realizes this and continues with more success on this journey of hers.
2 -
I personally think being condescending IS NOT HELPFUL. I feel like half the people here are trying to force this magical 1200 number on you and the other half are trying to tell you (with a little too much attitude) that if you're being logical & simply doing the math that eating more calories will not create a bigger loss. My opinion on this is
1) Eating more calories will NOT create a bigger loss for you.
2) However, 1200 calories is not the amount of calories everyone should be eating. Based on your statistics and a little bit of trial and error find out what your intake should be. If I can eat 1500 calories and lose weight steadily there is no way I would opp to eat 1200. It's harder to sustain and I'd be constantly hungry.
3) To answer your original question- yes. I lose consistently by eating 1500-1700 most days and doing high intensity workouts 5x a week. I'm 5"10 in the 160's.
Also, if someone says they are logging properly after I ask them if they are, I take there word for it, as I am not in their kitchen cooking their meals. If it continues to be a problem I'm sure she'll switch it up. People love to argue this moot point of the forums and I don't understand it.
Most people aren't being condescending.
She was provided good info that she ignored.
No one is saying 1200 calories is what everyone should be eating.
Also, you can look at the OPs diary and if a large number of entries aren't weighed then you know that she isn't ... weighing. It's that simple. And it's obviously NOT a moot point - suggest you go see the sticky which covers the issue of improper logging. It's quite common.
1 -
if u r exercising and eating 1200 calories u wont gain weight by going into starvation mode,bc 1000-1200 calories is the limit where u won't go into starvation mode.but u can still lose weight at a higher calorie goal like 1400-1600.0
-
I've been losing at 1800 cal no problem. But remember that everyone is different. That works for one may not work for another. Change your goals from a 2lb per week loss to something less restrictive like 1lb per week. That'll give you more calories to eat and work with. It's not a race. And as others are saying, use the food scale and log accurately. Stay away from generic entries where possible. Scan the barcodes and use the correct portion from weighting.0
-
yes , but ivee decreased it now i lose on 1560 cals i changed to 1560 after doing 1200-1410 cals for 6 months
and ive been losing weight better on 1560 cals then 12000
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions