Is1300 cals too many for some people?
Options
Replies
-
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
-
One thing you should also consider based on your last post - weight loss is not linear. Weight fluctuates.
These are my last weights (in lbs):
Wed 168.5
Thu 167
Fri 167
Sat 166
Mon 170
Tue 169
Wed 169
Thu 167.5
Fri 167.5
Sat (today) 165
Monday's 170 is likely some water retention due to the fact that I eat higher calorie on Saturdays. Weight fluctuates based on many things like higher sodium days than normal, higher calorie days than normal, where you are in your cycle, your exercise routine, etc. If you are only weighing once a week, be aware that you may simply be weighing on a high day and you missed a low day.
I'm not suggesting you should weigh every day, some people cannot handle those fluctuations. Others find the data useful or simply interesting. I actually find it places my mind at ease because I have all of that data to show me that one day doesn't matter, only the trend over a reasonable period of time matters. I also track my weight on trendweight.com. You are losing at a reasonable rate so far. The fact you saw "0" loss on the scale this week when you only weigh once a week isn't something to be concerned with yet.
ETA: My recent weights are actually a faster loss than I usually see. I have been off my usual exercise routine for about 4 weeks due to injury. So I actually consider the above kind of fast for where I want to be. I am, unfortunately, quite squishy and have no desire to lose more muscle than I have to. Even though, like a lot of us, I sometimes have days when I really wish I could speed up the process, I'm good with small losses that show a downward trend because I know that's important for my goals.1 -
Your husband is very possibly UNDER EATING.
No way should a man be eating only 1400 a day. With his amount of exercise he's probably not even netting 1400! Is he eating back some exercise calories?
I think you both need to slow down and adjust your expectations and view this as a lifestyle change and not dieting.1 -
This is not scientific it's just my own personal habit....If I am not seeing the results I desire, I cut 50 calories a day out for a week (350 calories a week) and see if that helps, if it doesn't I cut another 50 the next week until I start losing again. I exercise religiously, I'm in the gym for cardio and strength training daily. On the other hand if I don't want to lose I NEVER just eat the recommended calories, I increase my calories 50 calories a day until I stop losing weight. What one person can eat the next person can't.1
-
Frankly, I'd say you're doing better than your husband here. Weight loss isn't a race, and a whopping 6 lb/week - even accounting for some initial water loss skewing numbers - is too fast for someone that is around 250 lb. 1400 calories and "a lot" of exercise just isn't enough for a man.
Very rapid weight loss tends to be loss of lean mass, because your body can only physically burn fat so fast. That's why 1% body weight per week is touted as an upper limit - it tends to give you a rate of loss where you lose mainly fat and less lean mass.
Further, it's really not about the time you spend losing weight. All weight loss eventually ends. Weight maintenance lasts forever. You need to build habits now that will help you maintain the loss for your lifetime. Going at an unsustainable pace doesn't teach you good habits.2 -
OP, 1 lb per week is kind of perfect, so you are doing great! If your husband really lost 18 lbs in 3 weeks, he must have lost a ton of water weight.
I think you've realized now, but just wanted to emphasize that the only issue is your expectations. Also wanted to say, if your hubby keeps losing so quickly over time, he needs to eat more. Losing crazy fast like that is a recipe for losing muscle mass, and unless he is morbidly obese, there is a chance of nutritional deficiencies as well.
And don't compare your progress to other people! There are so many factors involved, and even if your perfect, you won't lose weight every week. Just stay on plan, keep track of your progress over time (not week to week), and keep your eyes on the prize, good luck :drinker: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 tall but not THAT tall (5'9") and maintain around 135 on about 2,000 calories a day. Desk job, work out about once a day for between 30-75 minutes, try not to use elevators and remember to get up and walk around at work but I don't do anything extreme. I'm 48. This doesn't seem like a whole lot to eat, either. I would be happy with more calories!1 -
Thanks for all the insightful comments.... I learned a lot from reading this.
Last week I noticed for the first time that there is a difference in the tracking of calories burned based on your activity level (sedentary, lightly active, active, athlete etc) .... I had thought that walking for 30 min at a moderate 3.5 pace would translate into the same calories burned for anyone....not so! So this week has been a huge learning curve with understanding the calorie in/calorie out nuances.
For me - office job - and workouts 3x 30 minutes a week a weight loss calorie target is 1200 .... .and a maintenance target would be 1500-1600..... 5'7' (CW 169 and GW 138) age 50+0 -
verycherrypie wrote: »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.verycherrypie wrote: »And I am 45
I'm your height, a few years older, and was about your weight when I started. I need way more than 1300 calories. For the first 30 pounds, I lost at about 1 pound per week, and now am going for 0.5 pounds per week for the next 30 pounds. I just plug my stats and goals into MFP.
I would be miserable if I tried to lose two pounds per week. Because I'm losing slowly, I haven't fallen in to the trap of undereating and erasing my deficit with a binge.
I've increased my activity level a lot. Not just for the calorie burn benefits, but because I feel better and sleep better the less I sit around.
That's it for now - off to the garden center to buy some plants.2 -
Thank you! So many helpful and insightful responses.. I have never posted before and feel really glad I did. I feel like maybe I am on the right track after all and my perspective has maybe been a bit skewed by the comparison with my hubby.. Which wasn't really an intelligent comparison as he is a guy being super strict and doing a lot of exercise!
Thank you so much xx0 -
verycherrypie wrote: »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.
It's not easy, but try not to despair.
My partner is down almost double the weight I am, in the same space of time.
I plateau'd for almost 3 weeks when he has been steadily losing 3lbs a week. It can be quite tough and frustrating, and sometimes i feel like I"m failing.
BUT.
Our bodies are very different, as are our activities.
He eats significantly less than I think he should, and I'm not prepared to compromise to the point of starvation.
He goes through meal substitution with protein shakes (again, I won't).
He is also more militant about the gym, whereas I try to build walks/jogs in to my daily commutes and the occasional swim as I want to change the way I beahve and move daily for longevity and not the speedy loss he is focused on.
In the end, he is happy doing it his way, and my scales finally moved again this week, so I have descended from the plateau!
Keep on doing what you're doing. Log your food, keep and the exercise, and weigh everything.
You'll get there!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions