to eat 1200 calories or not.....
nikiwill77
Posts: 3 Member
My current calorie intake is supposed to be 1200. I want to lose 2 lbs a week,but i am not losing two lbs at all. I am only maintaining and that is not what I want. I am tempted to eat 1200 calories or less, I feel like my body is fighting me.I am currently 202 lbs at 5'4" and i have a desk job. I run 2 miles in morning and do a light strength training while maybe 20 minutes of the elliptical. My calories intake is normally 1250-1450...any suggestions guys? I really want to achieve these, but I would like to do it in a healthy way. Help anyone????
0
Replies
-
Look at the combination of foods you are eating. Carbs and sugars especially. You should be losing with the exercise regimen you have. Are you drinking water.0
-
There are mistakes that people commonly make that cause them to not lose weight that we might be able to spot if you change the settings on your food diary to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings0
-
Yes can you make your diary public? How you had any loss at all/how long has it been since you've lost?0
-
Look at the combination of foods you are eating. Carbs and sugars especially. You should be losing with the exercise regimen you have. Are you drinking water.
It isn't necessary for OP to look at the 'combination' of foods they are eating. It's irrelevant, as weight loss comes does to calories and nothing else. Exercise is also unnecessary for weight loss, but good for health and fitness.
OP, if you're maintaining at 202lbs, then you're likely eating far more than you think you are. Are you weighing everything in grams? Logging everything, including drinks? How long has it been since you started? If it's only been a week or two then it's probably a bit too early to tell.0 -
Sounds like you aren't taking enough calories in. I do 2 sets of cardio a day and weight training and I am 5ft 160lbs (was 183) I consume about 15-1700 a day. That puts me at loosing about a pound a week. Your body needs food about every 3 hours to keep your metabolism going so that your burn more fat. Especially if you sit down for most of your day.
Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner is what I do.
Hope this helps!! Good luck and don't give up!
0 -
1450-1800 might be ideal. Have you looked up tdee?0
-
are you weighing your food on a digital scale? You're probably eating more than you think.
I'm 5'2", older than you, and was able to lose while eating no less than 1450 calories, and more on days that I exercised.0 -
OP, do you use a food scale? Eyeballing portion sizes, using measuring cups when you can weigh, and choosing incorrect entries in the database are very common and can hide the possibility that you are eating more than you think. You don't mention how long you have been trying, whether you feel hungry or tired, and we can't see your diary, so it's hard to pinpoint much else.
How often to eat and what to eat are just personal preference, and if you were eating too little you would be losing weight.
When I first started using a food scale, I was shocked by how much I was underestimating my calories! It really makes a huge difference...0 -
At 202 lb your BMR is probably in 1700-1900 calories range - and that's the amount of energy your body needs at COMPLETE REST. You're sabotaging your own goal by not providing to your body enough energy and nutrients to function properly. Adaptive thermogenesis is your body response to server energy decrease and it will make your weight loss very very difficult. You will always be hungry and have no energy - it's very emotionally and physically exhausting - it's just a matter of time before you binge, and eventually give up.
You need to eat more, probably in 1800-2000 range and more on your exercise days, which would still result in 1.5-2lb per week loss.0 -
thank you guys for your comments. I just got a food scale, but I have to figure out how to use it properly. I'll keep all of your suggestions in mind while I am trying to find out what works for me. Thanks for the support.0
-
nikiwill77 wrote: »My current calorie intake is supposed to be 1200. I want to lose 2 lbs a week,but i am not losing two lbs at all. I am only maintaining and that is not what I want. I am tempted to eat 1200 calories or less, I feel like my body is fighting me.I am currently 202 lbs at 5'4" and i have a desk job. I run 2 miles in morning and do a light strength training while maybe 20 minutes of the elliptical. My calories intake is normally 1250-1450...any suggestions guys? I really want to achieve these, but I would like to do it in a healthy way. Help anyone????
You should definitely be losing on those calories. I started with really similar stats, calories, and exercise and was losing 2 lb/week.
Logging at first can be tricky, so I recommend: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33766330#Comment_33766330
I found this thread REALLY helpful in understanding how to use MFP most effectively.0 -
luv_2_runn wrote: »Sounds like you aren't taking enough calories in. I do 2 sets of cardio a day and weight training and I am 5ft 160lbs (was 183) I consume about 15-1700 a day. That puts me at loosing about a pound a week. Your body needs food about every 3 hours to keep your metabolism going so that your burn more fat. Especially if you sit down for most of your day.
Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner is what I do.
Hope this helps!! Good luck and don't give up!
This is completely false. Meal timing doesn't matter for weight loss. I don't usually eat until 4pm (wake up at 11) and I'm losing just fine.At 202 lb your BMR is probably in 1700-1900 calories range - and that's the amount of energy your body needs at COMPLETE REST. You're sabotaging your own goal by not providing to your body enough energy and nutrients to function properly. Adaptive thermogenesis is your body response to server energy decrease and it will make your weight loss very very difficult. You will always be hungry and have no energy - it's very emotionally and physically exhausting - it's just a matter of time before you binge, and eventually give up.
You need to eat more, probably in 1800-2000 range and more on your exercise days, which would still result in 1.5-2lb per week loss.
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't work like that. If she's not losing at 1450 (or what OP thinks is 1450 but is probably more due to logging inaccuracy) then she isn't going to lose on 1800-2000 (or what OP thinks will be 1800-2000 but will probably be more etc).0 -
The number of calories required is a best practice recommation, and it is generalized. It can be wildly off depending on what your true metabolic rate is. I recommend having your doctor send you to get your resting metabolic rate and your true body mass measured in a weightless environment. I did that and was stunned. I am also 5'4, and my rate is slow. My body only requires 1650 to maintain, per the official measurements. If the OP is measuring, recording and not losing, it could absolutely be that her natural rate is different than what is calculated for the GP. One size does NOT fit all. Also, she could have a hidden thyroid problem that is working against her efforts as well. Get real facts unique to you.0
-
MarziPanda95 wrote: »luv_2_runn wrote: »Sounds like you aren't taking enough calories in. I do 2 sets of cardio a day and weight training and I am 5ft 160lbs (was 183) I consume about 15-1700 a day. That puts me at loosing about a pound a week. Your body needs food about every 3 hours to keep your metabolism going so that your burn more fat. Especially if you sit down for most of your day.
Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner is what I do.
Hope this helps!! Good luck and don't give up!
This is completely false. Meal timing doesn't matter for weight loss. I don't usually eat until 4pm (wake up at 11) and I'm losing just fine.At 202 lb your BMR is probably in 1700-1900 calories range - and that's the amount of energy your body needs at COMPLETE REST. You're sabotaging your own goal by not providing to your body enough energy and nutrients to function properly. Adaptive thermogenesis is your body response to server energy decrease and it will make your weight loss very very difficult. You will always be hungry and have no energy - it's very emotionally and physically exhausting - it's just a matter of time before you binge, and eventually give up.
You need to eat more, probably in 1800-2000 range and more on your exercise days, which would still result in 1.5-2lb per week loss.
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't work like that. If she's not losing at 1450 (or what OP thinks is 1450 but is probably more due to logging inaccuracy) then she isn't going to lose on 1800-2000 (or what OP thinks will be 1800-2000 but will probably be more etc).
Accuracy is definitely a possibility but adaptive thermogenesis works exactly like that. When you severely reduce your body energy supply significantly below BMR, the body adapts on many levels to work with what it has, which results in either complete loss of progress with weight loss (that's why many plateau for months on measly number of calories) or very very slow progress.
"Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »luv_2_runn wrote: »Sounds like you aren't taking enough calories in. I do 2 sets of cardio a day and weight training and I am 5ft 160lbs (was 183) I consume about 15-1700 a day. That puts me at loosing about a pound a week. Your body needs food about every 3 hours to keep your metabolism going so that your burn more fat. Especially if you sit down for most of your day.
Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner is what I do.
Hope this helps!! Good luck and don't give up!
This is completely false. Meal timing doesn't matter for weight loss. I don't usually eat until 4pm (wake up at 11) and I'm losing just fine.At 202 lb your BMR is probably in 1700-1900 calories range - and that's the amount of energy your body needs at COMPLETE REST. You're sabotaging your own goal by not providing to your body enough energy and nutrients to function properly. Adaptive thermogenesis is your body response to server energy decrease and it will make your weight loss very very difficult. You will always be hungry and have no energy - it's very emotionally and physically exhausting - it's just a matter of time before you binge, and eventually give up.
You need to eat more, probably in 1800-2000 range and more on your exercise days, which would still result in 1.5-2lb per week loss.
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't work like that. If she's not losing at 1450 (or what OP thinks is 1450 but is probably more due to logging inaccuracy) then she isn't going to lose on 1800-2000 (or what OP thinks will be 1800-2000 but will probably be more etc).
Accuracy is definitely a possibility but adaptive thermogenesis works exactly like that. When you severely reduce your body energy supply significantly below BMR, the body adapts on many levels to work with what it has.
"Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Not to the point where she wouldn't still lose weight, and not in only a few weeks. It takes months of undereating to have any effect. Adaptive thermogenesis does not prevent you losing weight.0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »Not to the point where she wouldn't still lose weight, and not in only a few weeks. It takes months of undereating to have any effect. Adaptive thermogenesis does not prevent you losing weight.
While agree that more than a few weeks might be needed for adaptive thermogenesis to set in, the OP never said she was at it "just a few weeks". She is also very active, which makes her deficit even larger, which could make this process to set in quicker. Also, adaptive thermogenesis could and does exactly that - either slows down the weight loss or completely halts it for a very long while:
"The multiplicity of systems regulating energy stores and opposing the maintenance of a reduced body weight illustrate that body energy stores in general and fat stores in particular are actively “defended” by interlocking bioenergetic and neurobiological physiologies"
Here is pretty good story of a marathon runner who was "plateaued" for over a year for exactly this reason:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_journal_individual.asp?blog_id=54622200 -
OP hasn't been using a food scale, so before she starts scheduling doctor's appointments and playing with her calorie goal, she needs to start accurately logging her food to see what she is really eating every day. I bet once you get that squared away OP it will all make a lot more sense! Good luck :drinker:0
-
OP hasn't been using a food scale, so before she starts scheduling doctor's appointments and playing with her calorie goal, she needs to start accurately logging her food to see what she is really eating every day. I bet once you get that squared away OP it will all make a lot more sense! Good luck :drinker:
I think that's an excellent advice.0 -
It is noteworthy that you snipped only part of a sentence then took your snippet out of context in order to make a flawed point.MarziPanda95 wrote: »luv_2_runn wrote: »Sounds like you aren't taking enough calories in. I do 2 sets of cardio a day and weight training and I am 5ft 160lbs (was 183) I consume about 15-1700 a day. That puts me at loosing about a pound a week. Your body needs food about every 3 hours to keep your metabolism going so that your burn more fat. Especially if you sit down for most of your day.
Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner is what I do.
Hope this helps!! Good luck and don't give up!
This is completely false. Meal timing doesn't matter for weight loss. I don't usually eat until 4pm (wake up at 11) and I'm losing just fine.At 202 lb your BMR is probably in 1700-1900 calories range - and that's the amount of energy your body needs at COMPLETE REST. You're sabotaging your own goal by not providing to your body enough energy and nutrients to function properly. Adaptive thermogenesis is your body response to server energy decrease and it will make your weight loss very very difficult. You will always be hungry and have no energy - it's very emotionally and physically exhausting - it's just a matter of time before you binge, and eventually give up.
You need to eat more, probably in 1800-2000 range and more on your exercise days, which would still result in 1.5-2lb per week loss.
Adaptive thermogenesis doesn't work like that. If she's not losing at 1450 (or what OP thinks is 1450 but is probably more due to logging inaccuracy) then she isn't going to lose on 1800-2000 (or what OP thinks will be 1800-2000 but will probably be more etc).
Accuracy is definitely a possibility but adaptive thermogenesis works exactly like that. When you severely reduce your body energy supply significantly below BMR, the body adapts on many levels to work with what it has, which results in either complete loss of progress with weight loss (that's why many plateau for months on measly number of calories) or very very slow progress.
"Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »It is noteworthy that you snipped only part of a sentence then took your snippet out of context in order to make a flawed point.
Flawed? Substantiate, please.
I provided the link for a reason - anyone is welcome to read the full study. We're adults here, and capable of conducting our own research.
From the same study:
"This “adaptive thermogenesis” creates the ideal situation for weight regain and is operant in both lean and obese individuals attempting to sustain reduced body weights."
In other words, adaptive thermogenesis prevents, or makes it difficult, to lose weight and sustain the loss. Dont see how my first quote is "out of context" and "flawed".0 -
Adaptive thermogenesis does not create a condition where people need to eat more in order to lose. It is the result of long term undernourishment, not something that one sees in a matter of weeks. Your understanding of the entire concept is lacking which results in flawed posts. The reason for the easier regain is because adaptive thermogenesis causes a body to burn fewer calories at rest ... a lower BMR and RMR.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »Adaptive thermogenesis does not create a condition where people need to eat more in order to lose
When did I say that? Of course it doesn't. But increasing one's calorie intake is necessary to alleviate the condition and return to normalized state from which a sustainable healthy weight loss can be planned.
It appears that your critical thinking skills are lacking which result in incorrect conclusions and assumptions.
Furthermore, there have been documented studies of AT setting in in 3-4 weeks:
"AT may take weeks to develop (3,4), thus, it is not considered as an immediate adaptation. In the Minnesota experiment, four measurements of basal metabolism were performed within 24 wk with the first documented after 4 wk of semistarvation"
Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A, Mickelsen O, Taylor HL. The biology of human starvation. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Adaptive thermogenesis does not create a condition where people need to eat more in order to lose
When did I say that? Of course it doesn't. But increasing one's calorie intake is necessary to alleviate the condition and return to normalized state from which a sustainable healthy weight loss can be planned.
We have no evidence that adaptive thermogenesis is an issue in this case.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We have no evidence that adaptive thermogenesis is an issue in this case.
I agree with you @lemurcat12, that there is not enough information for that conclusion. But the facts OP indicated do not exclude that possibility. I think I wouldn't be out of line reiterating one more time that for a person weighing 202lb 1200 calories while being relatively active is just way too low and would neither be sustainable or healthy. I could've worded my initial reply a bit clearer to show that AT was just possibility and not OP's state.0 -
If you aren't losing weight, you're eating too much. That's it. Buy a food scale, weigh your food, and then you'll be sure you're actually meeting your calorie deficit. It doesn't matter what kind of food you're eating, or when you're eating it. Just weigh the food, and log it, and follow your deficit.
Also read the first post in this thread: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here0 -
The first and most likely thing to check is simply the accuracy of your food logging. You just bought a scale, so that will help you immediately to be more accurate. Before you worry about ANYTHING more complicated, just use the scale and be very careful about keeping track of things for 2 weeks. If you have any doubts about the things you're logging, you can ask. You will probably get lots of responses 0
-
Quit the exercising for a week or two and focus on accurate and full calorie counting. You'll be amazed. 0
-
This thread is a disgrace. OP: Adaptive Thermogenesis does not remotely mean what numerous posters say it means. You are eating far more than you think you are. Log accurately. Be honest with yourself.0
-
I weigh 206, 5' 3" and my caloric intake is 1200. Does that seem right??0
-
Trust me. It is highly likely that you're eating more than you think you are. I still lost weight through some flimsy estimations for calorie counting, but I wanted to get serious in order to make sure I wasn't eating too much nor too little. This is why I got myself a measuring cup, measuring spoons, and a food scale. All together, it cost a mere $10 (yay for ebay!), and since then, I've been seeing that quite a few of my estimates were WAY off. I under- and over- estimated the calories in a lot of foods. You're just starting out. Without practice, you will NOT know how to eyeball foods well. Measure carefully, and you WILL lose that weight.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions