PLEASE HELP calorie confused :(
Untilproud11
Posts: 297 Member
hello !
I've been eating 1700 calories for about 5 months now with no progress
I do religiously measure/weigh and count my calories prefectly , i was thinking in lowering my cals but im scared this will lead to failure as 1700 is already a litlle hard ...
I went to so many calorie calculators online they all tell me a whole different number !
So depressed right now
Nithing is working , i bounce between 176/174 for years never under that
How many cals should i eat ?
My stats :
176lbs
5'2
28yo
Female
Ligtly active
Want to be 160 (is that too much to ask for? Lol )
I've been eating 1700 calories for about 5 months now with no progress
I do religiously measure/weigh and count my calories prefectly , i was thinking in lowering my cals but im scared this will lead to failure as 1700 is already a litlle hard ...
I went to so many calorie calculators online they all tell me a whole different number !
So depressed right now
Nithing is working , i bounce between 176/174 for years never under that
How many cals should i eat ?
My stats :
176lbs
5'2
28yo
Female
Ligtly active
Want to be 160 (is that too much to ask for? Lol )
0
Replies
-
If you eat 1700 and know it's accurate and lose no weight then 1700 is by definition your maintenance intake.
Take off 250 calories a day for a month and see what happens. 160 is just under obese so by no means a lot to ask.0 -
A lot depends on exactly how sure you are eating 1700 per day. Are you weighing/measuring all portions? Are you allowing yourself "cheat" days - how many and how often?
Like the above poster said, if you are 100% satisfied you're eating exactly 1700 on average, and you're not losing weight, then start eating 1500 or even 1600 and try again for a couple months and measure your progress.0 -
hello !
I've been eating 1700 calories for about 5 months now with no progress
I do religiously measure/weigh and count my calories prefectly , i was thinking in lowering my cals but im scared this will lead to failure as 1700 is already a litlle hard ...
I went to so many calorie calculators online they all tell me a whole different number !
So depressed right now
Nithing is working , i bounce between 176/174 for years never under that
How many cals should i eat ?
My stats :
176lbs
5'2
28yo
Female
Ligtly active
Want to be 160 (is that too much to ask for? Lol )
Sorry, I am your height and weight and 1700 is too much unless you are doing some serious exercise. On days when I don't exercise my TDEE is under 1700. I find that about 1400 is good. It lets me lose without being super hungry. But I have to get in a walk/run every day or else my deficit is pretty minimal, the workout makes it a little better.0 -
With your stats I think you should spend a few weeks at 1200 and see if that does anything. I know you say it will be hard, but it's going to be hard
0 -
Are you cheating ever? My TDEE (around same stats) is 2100.
If you are 1700 for say 5 days, but 3000 on the weekends, you just put yourself back to step one.
Think of it as more of a weekly average than just a daily thing.
Also, are you counting your macros? You really should make sure that you are hitting protein, carb, and fat goals along with your calories. If you eat only 1700 of say, carbs, your body does not have a good balance.0 -
withaflourish wrote: »With your stats I think you should spend a few weeks at 1200 and see if that does anything. I know you say it will be hard, but it's going to be hard
Why such an aggressive deficit with so little to lose?0 -
16lbs seems to be not so little to the OP if she's been at it for 5 months with zero progress.0
-
withaflourish wrote: »16lbs seems to be not so little to the OP if she's been at it for 5 months with zero progress.
So you blindly assign a caloric intake without regard to a healthy rate of loss?0 -
Wasn't blind. Her stats support it just fine. How do you see it otherwise?0
-
withaflourish wrote: »Wasn't blind. Her stats support it just fine. How do you see it otherwise?
Her sedentary numbers and amount to lose put her at 1500 per day ... not 1200. There is nothing in her post to clarify is lightly active, her current setting, is the appropriate choice or if she is accurately logging ... both places to start before saying to eat the minimum.0 -
MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.0
-
withaflourish wrote: »MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.
She already said 1,700 was hard, so why jump right to 1,200? Going that low IS hard for many people.
0 -
withaflourish wrote: »Wasn't blind. Her stats support it just fine. How do you see it otherwise?
How do you come up with "her stats support it just fine"? Her stats (months of eating at 1700 with no change) suggest her TDEE is 1700, so TDEE - 10% would be 1530, and TDEE - 20% would be 1360. You're suggesting 1200, which is almost a 30% cut from TDEE.0 -
So... In addition to the forum, MFP can give you a calorie goal based on your stats. Perhaps, *cough* give that a whirl for a couple weeks? Also, remember that everything counts (drinks, butter, oil, ketchup, snacks, etc).0
-
withaflourish wrote: »MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.
If she's maintaining on 1700, 1500 or so would put her at just shy of 1/2 lb/wk lost on average...a perfectly healthy and reasonable rate for someone with only 16 lbs to lose.
Despite what some people seem to think...one doesn't have to completely starve themselves in order to lose weight. The winner is the person who can eat the MOST food he/she enjoys while meeting his/her health and fitness goals. Not the person who can make him/herself the most miserable and lose weight the quickest.0 -
withaflourish wrote: »MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.
OP says that 1700 is already a little hard........
1200 would be a lot hard. Besides, 1200 is a default minimum. I wouldn't be happy eating the minimum either and my stats are closer to 1200 (50+ YO).0 -
Ok, it was a suggestion.0
-
If you eat 1700 and know it's accurate and lose no weight then 1700 is by definition your maintenance intake.
Take off 250 calories a day for a month and see what happens. 160 is just under obese so by no means a lot to ask.
Or increase exercise. I agree that 1700 is obviously her maintenance so the only way to lose is either fewer calories "in" or more calories "out".0 -
At 5'3" and 187 lbs. I would not be losing at eating 1700 calories I am older, but am pretty active walking 4-5 miles a day and strength training 3 days a week. I eat between 1400 and 1600 to lose 1-1.5 lbs a week.0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »withaflourish wrote: »MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.
If she's maintaining on 1700, 1500 or so would put her at just shy of 1/2 lb/wk lost on average...a perfectly healthy and reasonable rate for someone with only 16 lbs to lose.
I'd start with a milder cut personally, not 1200, but people are over-focusing on the 16 lb goal when she's BMI 32. 1 lb/week is not overly aggressive.
Also lots of people find a deficit easier to keep when they see results. I found 1 lb/week an easier goal than .5 lb/week (although lots played into that, so I'm not assuming it will be true for OP).
Anyway, OP, I'd drop calories to 1400-1500 and also open your diary to see if you can pick up some logging tips.0 -
No need to panic OP youve done very weel for sticking it out for 5 months with no progress. Accept that the sum total of your efforts mean you are not at deficit.
To get yourself into deficit you should review the two aspects of cico, namely what you consume and what you burn.
Getting your food under control and being happy you are at an accurate deficit is the first step. Its very common people think they are eating less than they actually are hence you need to use a scale , weigh and log everything.
(I see from your OP you weigh and log everything) It needs to be with a scale not cups.
The calculator I looked at was 1895 calories just for maintenance for a sedentary female. I'd discount the lightly active and use this as your base figure. From what you are saying 1700, even if accurate is already hard for you, but it looks like you need to either eat less or move more or both.
I'd go for a deficit of 0.5lb a week considering you only have a small amount to lose and you are strugling on the calories you have. You will burn c100cals per mile you walk, which you can eat back, a walk for 30-60 mins a day could get you 150-300 cals if you walked at 3mph which is pretty leisurely.
the other thing you shoudl do is get someone to look at your diary and make suggestions on what you consume so you cna find foods hat give you more nutrition and satiety for your calories
0 -
I have a sneaking suspicion that the activity level you're reporting to MFP is what's causing you to maintain. What do you do that you consider yourself lightly active? One has to take more than 5000 steps per day to even move out of the sedentary level. If you set your activity level on MFP to lightly active and you're not truly lightly active, then the extra calories they're giving you to eat daily due to it are what's keeping you from weight loss. Then, if you have any set exercise routine and log it in MFP and eat the calories back, that's even more calories you're taking in on top of the "lightly active" setting that you've already chosen for yourself.
I workout once or twice per day and walk 10,000 steps per day but I keep my MFP activity level at sedentary. Why? Because that way I know they're not giving me any extra calories to eat and my Fitbit tells MFP exactly how many extra calories I can eat to still lose weight. If you don't have a Fitbit or some other tracking device, then what you do is log any exercise you get and then eat a maximum of 75% of those calories back. Most people do 50 to 75%; I would suggest you start at 50% and go from there.
Also, don't listen to the poster that told you to eat 1200 calories; that's rubbish. If it's hard for you to only eat 1700 then it will be too hard to eat 1200. However, you are going to have to eat less to see results. I suggest bumping your calorie intake down to 1450-1500 to start. We also can help you better if you make your diary public and tell us how you measure your food exactly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »withaflourish wrote: »MFP isn't the gold standard or only standard for calorie counting. She could spend a month at 1200 and see if it has an affect and it would not harm her.
If she's maintaining on 1700, 1500 or so would put her at just shy of 1/2 lb/wk lost on average...a perfectly healthy and reasonable rate for someone with only 16 lbs to lose.
I'd start with a milder cut personally, not 1200, but people are over-focusing on the 16 lb goal when she's BMI 32. 1 lb/week is not overly aggressive.
Also lots of people find a deficit easier to keep when they see results. I found 1 lb/week an easier goal than .5 lb/week (although lots played into that, so I'm not assuming it will be true for OP).
Anyway, OP, I'd drop calories to 1400-1500 and also open your diary to see if you can pick up some logging tips.
Yeah, 160 is still just shy of obese for our height. She may only be aiming for 16 pounds but she could easily lose another 30 past that to get to a normal BMI. So it's not a matter here of being "close to goal" in the sense that most people mean when they say that.0 -
Again, it was a suggestion. I don't think it was quite rubbish. Op has been at it for 5 months With no movement at all.0
-
I thought abouit that, but you have the other issue of her finding 1700 hard and difficult to sustain. Its the curse of the shortie.0
-
withaflourish wrote: »Again, it was a suggestion. I don't think it was quite rubbish. Op has been at it for 5 months With no movement at all.
Which means (if she is logging accurately) that she has found the calorie count that will allow her to maintain. There's no reason to drop 500 calories from that -- a milder deficit will create weight loss and be much easier for her to stick with.0 -
withaflourish wrote: »Again, it was a suggestion. I don't think it was quite rubbish. Op has been at it for 5 months With no movement at all.
There is a problem with her logging and telling to eat less is not solving her dilemma .0 -
daniwilford wrote: »At 5'3" and 187 lbs. I would not be losing at eating 1700 calories I am older, but am pretty active walking 4-5 miles a day and strength training 3 days a week. I eat between 1400 and 1600 to lose 1-1.5 lbs a week.
If you're losing 1 to 1.5 lbs a week eating between 1400 and 1600, of course you would still lose at 1700 calories -- just slower.
Anyway, it's pretty fruitless to compare. I'm 25 years older than the OP, 5'4", and around 178 lbs, with a desk job, and I can lose a pound a week netting 1900. The OP says she's been maintaining at a "religiously" logged 1700 calories for five months, and that that calorie level is already difficult to stick to. The fact that my logging at the same weight says I can eat more and lose weight doesn't change the conditions she's facing. Even telling her to tighten up her logging, if that's a problem, won't really help if she's already finding the current calorie level a big challenge.
OP, best advice I can offer is to try to move more, and experiment to find foods that you find are most filling for a sustained period for the amount of calories they "cost" you. Some find that to be more protein, others go for high-fiber, others for more fat, some will have success with lots of liquid (including clear soups and watery veggies, like summer squash and typical "salad" veggies). Then see if you move your daily calorie intake down to 1500, and be patient.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »withaflourish wrote: »Again, it was a suggestion. I don't think it was quite rubbish. Op has been at it for 5 months With no movement at all.
Which means (if she is logging accurately) that she has found the calorie count that will allow her to maintain. There's no reason to drop 500 calories from that -- a milder deficit will create weight loss and be much easier for her to stick with.
Exactly. Unlike most threads here that state "I'm gaining instead of losing!" OP actually has been staying between 174 and 176 for years which means she's found her sweet spot for maintenance. Because she finds even her maintenance calories to be hard to limit herself to, a 1200 intake would most likely cause her to crash, burn, then binge.
The problem here is that OP has apparently been at this for five months yet is still 176, which I find odd because she's maintaining the same weight in the past five months that she has been for years now. That's why I said her reported activity level is my suspicion as to what's stalling her because how could she possibly maintain the same weight as years before on what is supposed to be a deficit. We'll just have to hope OP returns and opens her diary because all the answers are going to be there.0 -
Hello everyone and thanks for all the advice given ... I really appreciate it
I've been using mfp for about 2 years now and i started very uneducated about all this
I used to always starve and think that thats the right way to do it , i would always start at 1000-1200 and after 1 hell of a bad week i would have a huge binge ...so no for sure i will not go to 1200 again , those days are over
After reading tons here i learned that eating more might be the key and i learned the hard way and believe it or not it took me a year and a half to have courage and start at maintnance which i though was 2100 so from there i lowered slowly to see whats the least i could do
I got to 1700 which is sometimes hard but ok
So i stayed there and the rest is what the discussikn topic is all about ...
I will try to go down to 1600 and see if it makes a difference , but im scared of going back to those days where i would be so hungry always and then get to one if those 3000 calorie binges
i hate to even think of that
The plus side is that i never binge like i used to at 1700 thats why i think i can do 1500 but not less
I will try that to start with
But i wish i could see what people with my stats are eating at ...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
- 96.4K 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