Is 1043 calories a day too few?

Options
Rachel1534
Rachel1534 Posts: 7 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am 29 years old. Female. 5'1". Hashimoto's Thyroiditis. Two anxiety medications. A two year old child. I'm 158.5 right now. I'm wanting to get to 132 by September 27th. Quick I know, but I want to slim down some before my beach vacation. I've lost 15 pounds all together. I was doing it really slowly, but I got some motivation by planning this last minute vacation. I'm not having any trouble eating that amount of calories and I'm still able to ride my stationary bike for 30 minutes a day. I just keep reading things about "starvation mode" and the body hanging onto fat. I personally don't think 1043 calories are too few for me, but what is y'all's opinion?
«13

Replies

  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    Options
    It's probably too low...but depending on how you're calculating it, it's entirely possible you're eating more than that (most people terribly underestimate how many calories they're actually eating).

    That said, "starvation mode" - as you are using it - isn't a thing.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,564 Member
    Options
    Yes, it is. Minimum recommended intake to ensure you're getting adequate nutrition is 1200 calories. And 26 pounds in under nine weeks is too aggressive of a goal.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    What's your plan for getting your required nutrients at that extremely (and probably dangerously) low calorie level? For instance iron, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, Omega 6, etc.?
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    as mentioned depending on how you are calculating them...

    That being said...yes it's too few.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    It depends on your context. If you're not running low on energy, and you're not dropping weight too fast, you may be fine.

    I would suggest, however, opening up your diary so you can double-check whether that is what you're actually eating.

  • AnnaBellQ14
    AnnaBellQ14 Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    I am 29 years old. Female. 5'1". Hashimoto's Thyroiditis. Two anxiety medications. A two year old child. I'm 158.5 right now. I'm wanting to get to 132 by September 27th. Quick I know, but I want to slim down some before my beach vacation. I've lost 15 pounds all together. I was doing it really slowly, but I got some motivation by planning this last minute vacation. I'm not having any trouble eating that amount of calories and I'm still able to ride my stationary bike for 30 minutes a day. I just keep reading things about "starvation mode" and the body hanging onto fat. I personally don't think 1043 calories are too few for me, but what is y'all's opinion?

    I think your goal is a little aggressive. You have about nine weeks left to your goal, so you can probably lose about 9 to at most 18 pounds. Although, slow and steady wins the race in my opinion. So you should probably be aiming to lose 1/2 lbs a week though.

    As far as the amount of calories you are eating, I think the recommended minimum for females is 1200 so you can get properly nourished.
  • dubird
    dubird Posts: 1,849 Member
    Options
    General recommendation is no lower than 1200 a day for women. Make sure you're weighing EVERYTHING when logging, and if you do so and are still that low, I would suggest adding more just to at least hit that 1200 mark. If you're nervous about it, ask your doctor where they think you should be at. Given that they'll have your medical history, they're probably in the best spot to advise you.
  • Rachel1534
    Rachel1534 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    WBB55 wrote: »
    What's your plan for getting your required nutrients at that extremely (and probably dangerously) low calorie level? For instance iron, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, Omega 6, etc.?
    I'm taking a multivitamin with iron. I eat raw spinach in my egg white omelets in the morning. I'm eating lots of fresh, raw vegetables.
    malibu927 wrote: »
    Yes, it is. Minimum recommended intake to ensure you're getting adequate nutrition is 1200 calories. And 26 pounds in under nine weeks is too aggressive of a goal.
    I'm not going to keep up the 1043. It is just for this very short period of time. I went to the USDA.gov website and it and MyFitnessPal both tell me that 1000-1200 is recommended for me to get all of my nutrients, so I figure it can't be too unsafe.
    ceoverturf wrote: »
    It's probably too low...but depending on how you're calculating it, it's entirely possible you're eating more than that (most people terribly underestimate how many calories they're actually eating).

    That said, "starvation mode" - as you are using it - isn't a thing.

    I just still don't understand all of the "starvation mode" talk. I've read about it on these message boards. It made worry that I am going to be having the opposite effect of what I was wanting to achieve.
  • Rachel1534
    Rachel1534 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    as mentioned depending on how you are calculating them...

    That being said...yes it's too few.

    What do you mean how I am calculating them?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    I just still don't understand all of the "starvation mode" talk. I've read about it on these message boards. It made worry that I am going to be having the opposite effect of what I was wanting to achieve.

    There is no "starvation mode" in the sense you're thinking of. Just ignore it.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    as mentioned depending on how you are calculating them...

    That being said...yes it's too few.

    What do you mean how I am calculating them?

    Measuring cups/package serving sizes such as 1 slice etc vs weighing food on a scale

    for example:
    loaf of bread
    2 slices (41 g) = 70 calories
    I rarely (almost never) get 2 slices that weigh 41 g. Typically it's more like 46-50 g. That means my 2 slices is more than 70 calories. However, if I wasn't using a food scale I would just log 2 slices and be underestimating my intake by doing so.
  • levitateme
    levitateme Posts: 999 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    as mentioned depending on how you are calculating them...

    That being said...yes it's too few.

    What do you mean how I am calculating them?

    She means are you weighing your food.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Is there anything anyone could say here that would make you go, "Hmm, yeah, 1043 isn't enough"? Other than "1043 isn't enough for a 4'10" old woman in a coma"?
  • dubird
    dubird Posts: 1,849 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    I just still don't understand all of the "starvation mode" talk. I've read about it on these message boards. It made worry that I am going to be having the opposite effect of what I was wanting to achieve.

    A very good article on 'starvation mode'
    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
  • JoAnnRyan123
    JoAnnRyan123 Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    In 9wks time, a more reasonable goal would be to lose 5-15lbs IMO

    Dont stress about body size for a vaca- theyre supposed to be fun and a treat! Not to mention they usually involve yummy foods & drinks when you get there
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    The more aggressive weekly weight loss goals are the harder it is for your body to support existing lean muscle mass. If you want the number on the scale quickly.....without regard to future body fat percentage.....carry on.

    Unfortunately all weight loss isn't just fat loss (I wish).
  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    Options
    dubird wrote: »
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    I just still don't understand all of the "starvation mode" talk. I've read about it on these message boards. It made worry that I am going to be having the opposite effect of what I was wanting to achieve.

    A very good article on 'starvation mode'
    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

    Thanks for the article...so much easier to share than explaining over and over.
  • Rachel1534
    Rachel1534 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    The general consensus is, that yes, it is too few. I figured that much, but why do both MyFitnessPal and USDA.gov both say that for a woman of my age, height and weight that eating between 1000-1200 is safe and recommended for weight loss? I'm not trying to be argumentative because I know people can't know someone's tone on a message board. I just don't understand why it is being recommended if it is dangerous.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    The general consensus is, that yes, it is too few. I figured that much, but why do both MyFitnessPal and USDA.gov both say that for a woman of my age, height and weight that eating between 1000-1200 is safe and recommended for weight loss? I'm not trying to be argumentative because I know people can't know someone's tone on a message board. I just don't understand why it is being recommended if it is dangerous.
    Where does MFP say less than 1200 is safe or recommended? I thought there was a hard floor at 1200. Given than I am a gigantic man, I've never actually tried to put in numbers that a smallish woman would, but that's the way I understand it, anyway.

  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Options
    Rachel1534 wrote: »
    The general consensus is, that yes, it is too few. I figured that much, but why do both MyFitnessPal and USDA.gov both say that for a woman of my age, height and weight that eating between 1000-1200 is safe and recommended for weight loss? I'm not trying to be argumentative because I know people can't know someone's tone on a message board. I just don't understand why it is being recommended if it is dangerous.
    Yes it's too low. MFP doesn't recommend ever go below 1200, so I don't know where you see that. Additionally, they put your BASE at 1200 and you are earning more through exercise.
    My question to you is, what's the rush? Wouldn't you rather learn sustainability and do it in a healthy way? You definitely want to stay healthy for that little one.

Categories