Is1300 cals too many for some people?
verycherrypie
Posts: 9 Member
In total over three weeks I have lost a measley 2.5lb and yet my husband has lost 18lb!! I know it's at least going in the right direction but this week I lost 0lb and it's hard not to feel a failure in comparison!
I didn't want a silly fast weight loss that just returns but I am so disappointed as I have stuck to the cals. Could 1300 really be too many calories for some people? I fear if I try 1200 I will be so miserable and give up anyway..
I didn't want a silly fast weight loss that just returns but I am so disappointed as I have stuck to the cals. Could 1300 really be too many calories for some people? I fear if I try 1200 I will be so miserable and give up anyway..
0
Replies
-
men normally lose weight faster than women, as their metabolisms are normally a bit higher. It's not a competition x0
-
Haha.. Thanks.. No it's not a competition that I ever want to get into as that's a guaranteed fail! He deserves a big weight loss as he has exercised much more than me but I am just disappointed as in the past it's always come off me much quicker too. I suppose my expectations were around 4lb to start with then maybe 1-2lb a week afterwards.. it just seems unusually slow but I am older now. I just wondered if some people just naturally need less than 1300 to lose weight..0
-
3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!4 -
Thank you! I appreciate your response.. I shall try to look ahead.. That does seem healthier1
-
Although it feels long to me..0
-
3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
Edit: to answer your question, OP. Yes, it can be too many if you are very short and very close to goal weight, but from your rate of loss it looks to be just right. Your husband is likely taller, heavier and a man. He might also be more active than you are. It's also obvious he has lost a lot of water weight. No surprise he would lose weight faster. Your rate of weight loss is well within the acceptable average loss. and is not slow at all.6 -
verycherrypie wrote: »In total over three weeks I have lost a measley 2.5lb and yet my husband has lost 18lb!! I know it's at least going in the right direction but this week I lost 0lb and it's hard not to feel a failure in comparison!
I didn't want a silly fast weight loss that just returns but I am so disappointed as I have stuck to the cals. Could 1300 really be too many calories for some people? I fear if I try 1200 I will be so miserable and give up anyway..
Your husband has not lost 18 pounds of fat in 3 weeks.5 -
I just was playing around with the TDEE calculator. I threw in 140 lbs and 5'5 with moderate exercise (3-5 times a week, because that's what I do) and it said maintenance was 2,367. I don't think exercising 3-5 times a week is "exceptionally active." Light exercise is 2,099. Sedentary was 1832. So...I can see where the number 2000 comes from.
OP, you don't have to eat so little. Google TDEE calculator and throw in your stats. It will tell you what you need to eat to have a 500 calorie a day deficit, but don't worry too much about it. MFP does it for you based on your "goal weight loss per week."2 -
Pocket__Cthulhu wrote: »I just was playing around with the TDEE calculator. I threw in 140 lbs and 5'5 with moderate exercise (3-5 times a week, because that's what I do) and it said maintenance was 2,367. I don't think exercising 3-5 times a week is "exceptionally active." Light exercise is 2,099. Sedentary was 1832. So...I can see where the number 2000 comes from.
We must be using different calculators. With that said, exercising 3-5 times a week and burning 800 to 1200 calories each session sounds a bit far fetched, even if base the calculations on the calculator you chose. I would call that exceptionally active.0 -
I'm 5'5", 136 pounds, 38, and my TDEE is 2200-2300. I burn 400 a day in average in exercise.. the rest is my normal activity. I don't find that 2000 average unrealistic at all, considering that I do spend a big chunk of the day sitting (and let's face it, I'm probably slimmer than the 'average woman' in the US too).
OP, it depends on how much your husband has to lose too. If he's eating 1300 too, it's WAY to little for a man. He'll crash and burn and burn some muscle too. Plus you're a woman and we retain water more than men too, so you won't see a consistent drop, it might come in chunks.
For what it's worth, I could NEVER have stuck to it if I was only eating 1300 calories. Just nope. I never ate under 1650.3 -
Does you husband have more to lose? If so, it will be easier for him to lose weight at first.
If he is heavier than you, he'll have more calories to play with.
And you said he exercised more.
What is the saying, comparasion is the thief of joy.
My suggestion would be to #1 stop comparing your weight loss with his.
#2 - adjust your expectations. 1lb a week is a very reasonable amount to lose. Having high expectations will likely lead to quitting when you don't hit them.3 -
I am 1.63m tall and I weigh 64kg. I maintain at about 1600 calories before exercise. Adding exercise and other activities puts me at 2000 to 2200 calories a day.1
-
OP, what are your stats -- age, current weight, height? Are you sure you're accurately weighing and logging your food?
For perspective, just in case it helps you any -- I'm 53, 4'10", hypothyroid and weighed 109 this morning. I would lose on 1300 calories a day (assuming accurate weighing and logging). My TDEE is right around 1650. I get in around 12,500 steps a day but in the past couple of months have done no working out.
Men will lose faster because usually they're taller, heavier, have more muscle mass (so a higher BMR) and usually have more to lose. If you want to compare then the best thing to do may be to compare percent of body weight lost.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
[
I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.
2 -
I maintain on a net of 1710 - I am about 5 ft 4 and 62 kg ( about 136 lb) and 52 years old.
Plenty of women are taller, younger, heavier and more active than me -can easily see them needing 300 more calories than me ergo 2000 calories.1 -
Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
[
I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.
I can understand that! It's just "the average woman" is likely not walking 10k steps or doing much exercise. I'm talking in the general sense. Of course it's not hard to maintain at 2000 calories and only takes a little bit of effort. What I don't understand is how they came up with this number as an average for all women outside of the weight loss and fitness community. I'm assuming it took into account more rural countries where women are fairly active, skewing the average?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
[
I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.
I can understand that! It's just "the average woman" is likely not walking 10k steps or doing much exercise. I'm talking in the general sense. Of course it's not hard to maintain at 2000 calories and only takes a little bit of effort. What I don't understand is how they came up with this number as an average for all women outside of the weight loss and fitness community. I'm assuming it took into account more rural countries where women are fairly active, skewing the average?
I agree. I'm 5'3" and between 111 and 112 pounds right now. My TDEE is between 1900 and 2400 depending on the day. However, I know I'm more active and have more muscle mass than the average woman. I normally get between 16,000 and 23,000 steps per day in addition to exercising for 30 to 45 minutes daily. I'm not the most active person I know, but my activity level and body stats are definitely not the average. A woman's average TDEE also varies by region of course.1 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?
How tall are you?
A 100lb 5'0 female age 21 at completely sedentary would maintain on over 1500.1 -
I'm 5'7, 153lbs and as I can't move much I maintain on 1600 on days I don't go out. On days when I can walk a bit I can go up to 1700.1
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?
How tall are you?
A 100lb 5'0 female age 21 at completely sedentary would maintain on over 1500.
1 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?
How tall are you?
A 100lb 5'0 female age 21 at completely sedentary would maintain on over 1500.
Oh, just to let you know that I used to use this calculator too and I stopped when I realised it's metric calculations are wrong. It assumes 1kg=2lbs. Which is not true
So since this was wrong I thought other things might be not completely correct too. I would use http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ if I were you. It is very accurate. I've tested it against all my experimentally acquired data since I started losing (which I play with in Excel) and it fits perfectly with the scooby calculator. 3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/2000-calorie-diet.htm
...This 2,000-calorie standard stemmed from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandate to include nutritional labels on packaged foods. The Nutrition and Labeling Act, introduced in 1990, was designed to standardize food labeling that previously had been at the discretion of manufacturers and individual states. The federal food labeling requirements meant manufacturers had to list information like ingredients, calories and serving sizes [source: FDA].
These labels also allowed consumers to compare the amounts of saturated fat and sodium, in addition to vitamins and minerals, to the "daily values," which are the maximum amounts of recommended intake per day. Before the FDA labels were instituted, there wasn't a standard caloric intake that remained the same across the board for every consumer, making this daily value difficult to determine.
The FDA realized that caloric needs varied by gender, age and activity level, but they also knew it would certainly take too much space on a label to print the daily values for consumers in a variety of calorie-intake ranges. So the FDA turned to USDA food consumption surveys, which reported the calorie intake of men, women and children. According to the surveys, men ingested 2,000 to 3,000 calories a day, women ate 1,600 to 2,200 calories a day, and children took in 1,800 to 2,500 calories a day. To simplify the food labels, the FDA proposed using a single amount on all labels: 2,350 calories a day [sources: Nestle].
Although several studies had shown that many men and women needed more than 2,350 calories on any given day, setting that amount as the standard was met with criticism by those who believed it would cause people to overeat or ignore the standards altogether. Instead, the formula was simplified to include a percentage of daily values based on a 2,000-calorie diet. That nice, round number that was a more effective tool for education, the FDA concluded. Plus, it mirrored the calorie requirements for postmenopausal women, who were viewed as a segment of the population most likely to have weight gain.
1 -
verycherrypie wrote: »In total over three weeks I have lost a measley 2.5lb and yet my husband has lost 18lb!! I know it's at least going in the right direction but this week I lost 0lb and it's hard not to feel a failure in comparison!
I didn't want a silly fast weight loss that just returns but I am so disappointed as I have stuck to the cals. Could 1300 really be too many calories for some people? I fear if I try 1200 I will be so miserable and give up anyway..
1300 is not too much for you obviously as you are losing weight. Stick to it.
2.5 lbs in 3 weeks is not measly loss.
18 lbs in 3 weeks is someone losing a lot of water weight or doing unhealthy things. That is not a rate of loss that will be healthy or easy to sustain.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10084670/it-is-unlikely-that-you-will-lose-weight-consistently-i-e-weight-loss-is-not-linear/p1
It is perfectly normal not to lose every week. For a woman, it is very common to gain a few pounds around your period with water retention. It goes away. If you haven't lost anything for 3+ weeks check your logging accuracy. If everything is correct then consider lowering calories or increasing activity or visiting your doctor.
Be patient. Don't compare... especially to someone of a different gender, height, weight, age and activity level.2 -
Wow what a lot of fabulous responses.. I feel quite emotional about that as I'm really struggling.. It's taken me literally months to start as I really struggle with motivation and past diets have only ever lasted a couple of days so as I seem to have found the motivation to start I don't want to give up now.. I will go and check these calculator things.. I am 5' 6" and I weigh 16stone 8lb.0
-
Oh and I am honestly even weighing a flipping lettuce and being very accurate!0
-
And I am 450
-
Keep at it, don't give up and never compare. Try and learn something new every week, make adjustments that feel right to you and any loss is good. I find myself comparing my current weight loss to what I accomplished a few years ago and feeling off put and I realize that the circumstances, my body, and even my daily diet are completely different now.1
-
kshama2001 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.
Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.
1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/2000-calorie-diet.htm
...This 2,000-calorie standard stemmed from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandate to include nutritional labels on packaged foods. The Nutrition and Labeling Act, introduced in 1990, was designed to standardize food labeling that previously had been at the discretion of manufacturers and individual states. The federal food labeling requirements meant manufacturers had to list information like ingredients, calories and serving sizes [source: FDA].
These labels also allowed consumers to compare the amounts of saturated fat and sodium, in addition to vitamins and minerals, to the "daily values," which are the maximum amounts of recommended intake per day. Before the FDA labels were instituted, there wasn't a standard caloric intake that remained the same across the board for every consumer, making this daily value difficult to determine.
The FDA realized that caloric needs varied by gender, age and activity level, but they also knew it would certainly take too much space on a label to print the daily values for consumers in a variety of calorie-intake ranges. So the FDA turned to USDA food consumption surveys, which reported the calorie intake of men, women and children. According to the surveys, men ingested 2,000 to 3,000 calories a day, women ate 1,600 to 2,200 calories a day, and children took in 1,800 to 2,500 calories a day. To simplify the food labels, the FDA proposed using a single amount on all labels: 2,350 calories a day [sources: Nestle].
Although several studies had shown that many men and women needed more than 2,350 calories on any given day, setting that amount as the standard was met with criticism by those who believed it would cause people to overeat or ignore the standards altogether. Instead, the formula was simplified to include a percentage of daily values based on a 2,000-calorie diet. That nice, round number that was a more effective tool for education, the FDA concluded. Plus, it mirrored the calorie requirements for postmenopausal women, who were viewed as a segment of the population most likely to have weight gain.
Thank you for explaining. It makes sense now. So this is not the average intake of the usual hypothetical 140 pound woman, but a complete population average for labeling purposes, and even these surveys the average woman is likely 20 or so pounds heavier.
Curiosity can be annoying. Sorry for derailing the thread
1 -
I think I do have to accept that being older it just must be harder but the poster that said adjust my expectations was wise.. My expectations were simply higher. I have never lost weight this slowly. First week I weighed I lost 0lb second week -2.5lb and third 0lb. I am trying to weigh once a week and to see another 0lb loss after a week of all that logging was just so disheartening. I appreciate everyone saying not to compare and actually I really am not competitive but it's just hard when my husband is doing quite so well and I feel I've tried so hard too. He was 18stone incidentally and I know that he has been doing it quite extremely. He gets quite obsessive about stuff and now it's the diet! He is on 1400 cals and exercising a lot. I think it's such a pressure to be losing weight against someone pushing themselves so much. I know I'm being a bit childish, impatient and catastrophising a bit but I probably do always get a bit depressed when I diet! Maybe the lack of sugar or something! I just know if I don't see some results soon I'm headed for a KFC soon in despondency! Even a half lb would be good! Anyway! Thanks all! Shall try to keep my head down and just look at my own scales!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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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