Should I be eating less than 1,200 calories?

Frelling_Tralk

I started off at 11 and a half stone (161 pounds) and when I first started dieting 2 weeks ago I was eating less than 1000 calories in the first week. I did lose a few pounds from that and I now weight about 11 stone 2 pounds. Since then I joined myfitness, was told that I was eating too little, and upped my calories each day to 1,200. But in the week since I started doing that I haven't lost a single pound? It just seems odd to me when I am eating way better than I used too and really keeping track of how many calories I'm eating, yet the scales aren't even going down a pound. Nor does my waist seem any smaller. So should I go back to that first week of eating a lot less, or what is the best option?

Most days I am actually eating more than 1,200 calories because I am now trying to eat a bit extra when I exercise, but I don't think that I'm really overestimating the amount of calories I've burned or anything, so it is ending up at around 1,200 or 1,300 most days, yet I already seem to be stuck on losing any more weight which I didn't expect this early on? I'm fine with slow and steady progress and just losing a pound a week, it's the fact that I seem to have achieved absolutely nothing in the past week that is really disheartening for me when I have made huge changes to my diet and am really trying with exercise as well

55in13

In a word, no. 1200 is about as low as you should go. It's an OK amount (some will say it is too low, but it is the lowest generally suggested by docs) and you should lose at 1200. If you don't, you either have some rare ailment or your recording of calories isn't accurate.

EDIT - I don't eat back exercise calories. That was not factored in when the docs came up with 1200.

MayaSPapaya

Don't go below 1200. In fact, I bet you could eat more than that and still lose. I eat 1600 calories a day and still lose. Also, when you are this early on in your diet, it's normal to not lose anything. Let your body adjust. When I first began, it took a few weeks before I started losing weight. And it's better to lose it slowly, it will stay off this way.

Emisole

When I lost 21 pounds last year on MFP, I started at 1330 and didn't lose anything. When I moved up to 1500, 1600, 1700 - that was when I lost 21 pounds. Don't be surprised if you don't see the scale moving the first month. It's not an indication to eat less. In fact, it may be an indication to eat more.

Frelling_Tralk

EDIT - I don't eat back exercise calories. That was not factored in when the docs came up with 1200.

Hmm okay maybe that's where I'm going wrong then, myfitness is just telling me to eat more calories to make up for it when I do add in the exercise I do? I don't burn a lot of calories through exercise though honestly, it's just walking for a few miles and then eating around 200 extra calories those days

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

You need to work on patience. It's only been 2 weeks. You do need to eat back your exercise calories since your intake is so low. Use a food scale, log accurately, and be patient. This is not a quick process.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Frelling_Tralk

Also, when you are this early on in your diet, it's normal to not lose anything. Let your body adjust. When I first began, it took a few weeks before I started losing weight. And it's better to lose it slowly, it will stay off this way.

I'm trying to be patient as I knew it would be a matter of slow and steady weight loss, it would just be a lot easier if I had some indication that I had achieved anything at all in the past week and that even a pound was lost. I thought you lost weight more easily early in your diet and it's only later on that it gets hard to shift the final few pounds, so I guess I did kind of picture it as the weight would fall off in the first few weeks when my diet dramatically changes, but maybe that was the wrong assumption

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Also, when you are this early on in your diet, it's normal to not lose anything. Let your body adjust. When I first began, it took a few weeks before I started losing weight. And it's better to lose it slowly, it will stay off this way.

I'm trying to be patient as I knew it would be a matter of slow and steady weight loss, it would just be a lot easier if I had some indication that I had achieved anything at all in the past week and that even a pound was lost. I thought you lost weight more easily early in your diet and it's only later on that it gets hard to shift the final few pounds, so I guess I did kind of picture it as the weight would fall off in the first few weeks when my diet dramatically changes, but maybe that was the wrong assumption

Well, it can be true but if you just started exercise you may be retaining water and since you're only 161 lbs you're probably not that far from a healthy weight for your height (how tall are you?) so that makes it come off more slowly.

Some weeks you'll probably gain too, so just be prepared for that. Weight fluctuates a lot, even in the course of one day. Your scale weight doesn't just tell you how much fat you have, it's also weighing any water you may be retaining and any food in your digestive tract.

MayaSPapaya

I'm trying to be patient as I knew it would be a matter of slow and steady weight loss, it would just be a lot easier if I had some indication that I had achieved anything at all in the past week and that even a pound was lost. I thought you lost weight more easily early in your diet and it's only later on that it gets hard to shift the final few pounds, so I guess I did kind of picture it as the weight would fall off in the first few weeks when my diet dramatically changes, but maybe that was the wrong assumption

Did you take measurements around your waist or look for changes in the mirror? Another important thing is to not obsess over the scale. Take pictures of your body and you will see so much difference in no time.

BellaVegas

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

dittmarml

So if you really want some answers:

1) It takes your body 2-4 weeks at minimum (more like 2-6 weeks) to adjust to changes in eating. You're trying to reprogram your metabolism to lose weight. That doesn't happen overnight - or even in a week.

2) What is your age, height, current weight, exercise level (how often do you exercise, for how long?) and target weight? We can get a look at your Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Expenditures (all estimates) and help you set some appropriate goals.

3) Open your diary so we can see what you're eating. There are lots of things that affect weight within 2-5 pounds simply through water (for example, sodium, sugar, working out...)

4) Be patient. There are lots of times the body will drop a few pounds then wait a while...but just from your input here we don't have much idea about how you're going about it.

Hang in there!

Cp731

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

Frelling_Tralk

Edit

Frelling_Tralk

So if you really want some answers:

1) It takes your body 2-4 weeks at minimum (more like 2-6 weeks) to adjust to changes in eating. You're trying to reprogram your metabolism to lose weight. That doesn't happen overnight - or even in a week.

2) What is your age, height, current weight, exercise level (how often do you exercise, for how long?) and target weight? We can get a look at your Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Expenditures (all estimates) and help you set some appropriate goals.

.

Thank you! I will try and remember that now. I was just so frustrated and thinking that something must be wrong when you hear stories about the weight dropping off at first and it only getting harder later on,so I couldn't understand why I seemed to have stopped losing weight already

I'm in my 30's, I'm 5 feet five inches, and my current weight is 11 stone 2 pounds (156 pounds). My target is 119 pounds. And exercise is what I need to work on more...I don't do anything hardcore at all, I take my dog for 2-3 mile walks most days and try exercising that way, but I am a pretty slow and plodding walker!

55in13

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

tbetts23

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

How about hunger? Holy moly! Suggesting to a new person to cut below 1200 calories! For the love of Mike ( yah, I don't know who he is) calculate your TDEE - 20%. Good luck to you!:flowerforyou:

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

When I make the recommendation to eat more it's not about "starvation mode." If you're on 1200 calories you have to be very careful to get adequate nutrition. It's really hard to get enough protein to maintain your muscle while you diet down. And for many people it's not sustainable. My personal belief is that a person should eat at a moderate deficit for adherence and to minimize muscle loss. I also think you should eat as much as you can while still losing weight so that if you do plateau you've got someplace to go.

Also, the link I posted above discusses cortisol, which may help explain why so many people stall out on 1200 calorie diets.

It does work for some, but it's not something I'd generally suggest.

tbetts23

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

You my dear are my hero

When I make the recommendation to eat more it's not about "starvation mode." If you're on 1200 calories you have to be very careful to get adequate nutrition. It's really hard to get enough protein to maintain your muscle while you diet down. And for many people it's not sustainable. My personal belief is that a person should eat at a moderate deficit for adherence and to minimize muscle loss. I also think you should eat as much as you can while still losing weight so that if you do plateau you've got someplace to go.

Also, the link I posted above discusses cortisol, which may help explain why so many people stall out on 1200 calorie diets.

It does work for some, but it's not something I'd generally suggest.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

When I make the recommendation to eat more it's not about "starvation mode." If you're on 1200 calories you have to be very careful to get adequate nutrition. It's really hard to get enough protein to maintain your muscle while you diet down. And for many people it's not sustainable. My personal belief is that a person should eat at a moderate deficit for adherence and to minimize muscle loss. I also think you should eat as much as you can while still losing weight so that if you do plateau you've got someplace to go.

Also, the link I posted above discusses cortisol, which may help explain why so many people stall out on 1200 calorie diets.

It does work for some, but it's not something I'd generally suggest.

You my dear are my hero

:flowerforyou:

55in13

No weight loss plan is sustainable; you would wink out of existence eventually. Whenever anyone pulls that term out, I get the feeling they are trying to win a debate with words instead of substance. Anyway, I still stand by medical science even if you have links to places on the internet that know better.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

No weight loss plan is sustainable; you would wink out of existence eventually. Whenever anyone pulls that term out, I get the feeling they are trying to win a debate with words instead of substance. Anyway, I still stand by medical science even if you have links to places on the internet that know better.

I mean sustainable in terms of the period of time in which you are losing weight. Many people find that eating so little causes them to break and binge.

The link is from Lyle McDonald, who is a pretty well-respected source. Of course you don't have to accept him as a credible resource, but I do.

ETA: It's not my intention to derail this thread with yet another 1200 calorie debate. I've put my POV out there for the OP, so she's got more than one option moving forward.

cingle87

If you need to have some form of achievement to say how its going, the best and easiest way to use a tape measure and measure yourself. Although you may not be loosing lbs you still may be loosing BF while gaining alittle although unlikely LBM. When you are at the lower end of the ideal scale you will have a slow lost of weight comparing to those who have alot to loose, they will loose it quickly due to their higher BF%, so be paitent it will come off, just will take time for your body to adjust to the new routine.

55in13

No weight loss plan is sustainable; you would wink out of existence eventually. Whenever anyone pulls that term out, I get the feeling they are trying to win a debate with words instead of substance. Anyway, I still stand by medical science even if you have links to places on the internet that know better.

I mean sustainable in terms of the period of time in which you are losing weight. Many people find that eating so little causes them to break and binge.

The link is from Lyle McDonald, who is a pretty well-respected source. Of course you don't have to accept him as a credible resource, but I do.

ETA: It's not my intention to derail this thread with yet another 1200 calorie debate. I've put my POV out there for the OP, so she's got more than one option moving forward.

I do respect Lyle; he has a lot of opinions, but has stated a few times that after a thorough examination of studies there is no point at which reducing calories does not increase the calorie deficit. He is based in reality.

Yes, it is difficult to stay on a reduced calorie diet. That's one reason the failure rate is so high. I think people are more likely to stay on it if they see results, so I do not encourage anyone to eat more than the medically accepted minimum for nutrition if they are willing to try that. If they can't stick with it, then they should eat a little more. But that's the only reason; not because it doesn't work as well as eating more.

dalgal26

Here we go, again:sad:

LexiAtel

So if you really want some answers:

1) It takes your body 2-4 weeks at minimum (more like 2-6 weeks) to adjust to changes in eating. You're trying to reprogram your metabolism to lose weight. That doesn't happen overnight - or even in a week.

2) What is your age, height, current weight, exercise level (how often do you exercise, for how long?) and target weight? We can get a look at your Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Expenditures (all estimates) and help you set some appropriate goals.

3) Open your diary so we can see what you're eating. There are lots of things that affect weight within 2-5 pounds simply through water (for example, sodium, sugar, working out...)

4) Be patient. There are lots of times the body will drop a few pounds then wait a while...but just from your input here we don't have much idea about how you're going about it.

Hang in there!

This^^ my reply

hilaryhill

Figure out your TDEE. Then subtract 20%. Try that as your calorie goal.

http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

jessicafunkyy

Absolutely NOT. Eating less than 1,200 calories is very unhealthy. In fact, for most women, 1,200 calories is too little. You have a BMR, or basic metabolic rate. This is how much you burn by doing nothing...like if you were in a coma. Since you are 161 pounds, it is definitely over 1,200. Plug in your height, weight, and age on a BMR calculator and eat roughly that number and MORE if you exercise. The most accurate equation for BMR I have found is the Harris-Benedict equation.

BMR for women: 655.1 + (9.563 x kg) + (1.850 x cm) - (4.676 x age)
or
655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age)

If you're sedentary, multiply the number you get from this formula by 1.2.
If you're lightly active, multiply the number by 1.375.
If you're moderately active, multiply the number by 1.55.
If you're very active, multiply the number by 1.725.
If you're extremely active (usually only if you're an athlete doing heavy training) multiply the number by 1.9.

When I first started losing weight, I was only eating around 900-1,200 calories at most per day (very healthy calories too with exercise) and could not figure out why I wasn't losing weight. Then I found out my BMR, ate that or a little over when I exercised, and the pounds dropped off and now I'm 25 pounds lighter. Also, calories aren't the only important thing. It's also the QUALITY of calories. Say your BMR is 1,500 and you eat that to lose weight. If you eat 1,500 calories of Taco Bell and McDonald's, you will hardly lose any weight. However, if you eat 1,500 calories of very healthy foods like eggs, quinoa, avocados, lots of fruits, lots of veggies, lean meat, lean fish, peanut butter, almond butter, raw honey, nuts, beans, whole wheat pasta, brown rice, and whole grain breads, weight loss will be MUCH more likely. In fact, when losing weight, exercise isn't even half of the equation. I've heard to lose weight, you need to focus 30% on working out and 70% on your diet. That's how important your quality of food is. It needs to be something you can stick to, also, or the weight will just come back on once you go back to the way you ate before. That's why people who go on fad diets often just gain all the weight back. It's not something they stick to.

Puffingmuffin

Don't eat less than 1200 calories, you will be prone to binge eating attacks. Calculate your TDEE and minus 20%, like the previous posters say. Or if you are too lazy, at least aim for 1400 calories.

Thena81

noo!! lol google tdee's and bmi's and bmr's and eat what it suggests

yarwell

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

Very true. The apocryphal 1200 doesn't appear to be "a thing" in many other countries either.

yarwell

When I lost 21 pounds last year on MFP, I started at 1330 and didn't lose anything. When I moved up to 1500, 1600, 1700 - that was when I lost 21 pounds.

Did your exercise increase ? or the type of food change ?