2100 Calories?

sondeedun

Ok so.. I'm calorie counting. I'm female, in my late 20's, 5'10 and currently 242 lbs. I work in a railroad office.. I'm up and down, walking a good portion of my day and when I go home I'm dealing with a toddler. I set my activity as moderate - because I'm definitely not sedentary.
MFP says for 2 lbs/week I can eat 2100 calories. I definitely can eat less.. I'm pretty comfortable at 1200-1500/day.
Is that ok? Can I do that? Or will it cause issues in my weight loss?

ouryve

I'd stick with 2100. You need it and you're a lot less likely to fall off the wagon if you stick to a sensible deficit.

StealthHealth

At your body-weight you can afford to be pretty aggressive with your loss but generally I would say that "Losing weight on the highest possible calories is the ideal you should strive for".

My advice; Eat 2100 for 2-3 weeks and monitor weight and measurements. Adjust accordingly to hit your ideal rate of loss*

*You'll initially be OK on 2lbs per week but you will need to scale this back as you approach overweight BMI and move towards a normal range.

LivingtheLeanDream

Right now at your weight you'd be better to stick with the 2100 as you'll have to reduce your calories as you lose and get closer to goal. If you start off now only eating 1500 how low are you prepared to go? it's no fun eating less than 1500 imo.
If you lose weight too rapidly you will end up losing too much muscle which is hard to build up again. Ideally you want to retain as much of your muscle as possible.

Chef_Barbell

ouryve wrote: »

I'd stick with 2100. You need it and you're a lot less likely to fall off the wagon if you stick to a sensible deficit.

So much this. I never understand why people want to lose weight with as little calories as possible instead of as much as you can eat without gaining.

chapiano

It is best to lose 1-2lb a week so I would stick with what it suggest's. That way your skin can adjust as you lose otherwise your risking saggy skin in some area's

daniip_la

There's no reason to eat less when you can eat more and still lose 2lbs/week. You're much more likely to stick with this if you're eating at a reasonable deficit.

oolou

sondeedun wrote: »

Ok so.. I'm calorie counting. I'm female, in my late 20's, 5'10 and currently 242 lbs. I work in a railroad office.. I'm up and down, walking a good portion of my day and when I go home I'm dealing with a toddler. I set my activity as moderate - because I'm definitely not sedentary.
MFP says for 2 lbs/week I can eat 2100 calories. I definitely can eat less.. I'm pretty comfortable at 1200-1500/day.
Is that ok? Can I do that? Or will it cause issues in my weight loss?

I think you're getting some good advice here.

In the end the secret to weight loss is sticking with it; consistency and persistence.

At 2100 it may not even feel like you are on a diet, but if you are losing weight then hurrah! If you start at under 1500 cal, while you feel you may be able to manage that for now, you may get diet fatigue and quit, or get bored with it or demotivated. But if you are eating at the upper limit of what is possible and can still lose weight, you'll probably stick with your weight loss plan for longer.

Aaron_K123

Stick with the 2100 but I wouldn't worry if the scale doesn't go down for the first 5 weeks. If you just started changes to diet and activity level can change water retention in a way that masks fat loss if measuring by weight. It can't hide your fat loss forever but it might for long enough to make you second guess yourself and switch to a much less sustainable calorie level. Just stick with it, it will work...but be patient.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AliceDark

Two things...

1. If you're starting at 242, you're going to be losing weight for awhile and, at some point, you'll need to drop your calories to continue losing. If you start at 1200-1500, where are you going to drop them to?
2. When you say you're comfortable at 1200-1500, how are you measuring that? (Food scale, measuring cups/spoons, eyeballing?) If you're not measuring that using a food scale, you're not really eating at 1200-1500. Studies on perceived vs. actual calorie intake show that people underestimate their intake by up to 60%, so your 1500 calories could very well be more like 2100.

Aaron_K123

Frankly 2100 calories sounds like a lot to people because during the time they were becoming overweight or obese they weren't counting and had no concept how much they were actually consuming.

Sometimes before attempting weightloss it's good to first honestly track what you have been eating. 2100 might not seem like such a big number compared to that.

SkinnyGirlCarrie

I am also 5'10" and currently around 165 - I am set to slightly active (desk job def fairly sedentary during most of the day) but when factoring in to eat my exercise calories back I eat anywhere from 1800-2000 and still lose. Go for the 2100!

Editing to add - I am set at slightly active to lose 1lb a week and MFP gives me 1590 and then I eat almost all of my exercise calories back. I use a Fitbit to get my exercise cals from, try to leave a little for a cushion but generally leave less than 200. And I am 40, though I have not found hitting that age to affect my weight loss...only my love of baked goods and wine affects that

thatdesertgirl777

I agree with everyone, however I think "lightly active" is a better setting for you based on what you're saying. And don't eat 1200, you'll set yourself up failure.

kshama2001

sondeedun wrote: »

Ok so.. I'm calorie counting. I'm female, in my late 20's, 5'10 and currently 242 lbs. I work in a railroad office.. I'm up and down, walking a good portion of my day and when I go home I'm dealing with a toddler. I set my activity as moderate - because I'm definitely not sedentary.
MFP says for 2 lbs/week I can eat 2100 calories. I definitely can eat less.. I'm pretty comfortable at 1200-1500/day.
Is that ok? Can I do that? Or will it cause issues in my weight loss?

You're 5'10" and active. I'm 3.5" shorter than you, 20+ years older, and 1500 calories is not enough for me when I'm active. Give the 2100 calories a try.

Are you weighing your food on a digital food scale? If not, you are likely eating more than you think and that's why 1200-1500 feels comfortable.

savithny

the only thing I'd say is that lots of people *overestimate* their activity level. "Moderate" really is meant to indicate a level of activity that has you actually raising your heart rate and getting sweaty and a little out of breath on a very regular basis during the day. As others above said? Go with "Lightly active."

cee134

I would change your activity level to sedentary and follow that plan of losing 1-2 lbs a week for awhile. But adjust it as needed. You might not be burning as many calories as you think, and if you are, bonus. Losing weight isn't the hard part. Keeping it off tends to be the hard part.

Honestly, I would do sedentary, set it for 1lbs a week, and on days I felt like eating less (but more then 1200) I would. That way you can sustain what you're doing when you're closer to your weight goal.

cwolfman13

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Frankly 2100 calories sounds like a lot to people because during the time they were becoming overweight or obese they weren't counting and had no concept how much they were actually consuming.

Sometimes before attempting weightloss it's good to first honestly track what you have been eating. 2100 might not seem like such a big number compared to that.

Pretty much this...

And also take into account that as you lose weight you will have to drop calories...if you're starting on the floor (1200) then where do you really have to go when you need to drop calories.

kshama2001

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Frankly 2100 calories sounds like a lot to people because during the time they were becoming overweight or obese they weren't counting and had no concept how much they were actually consuming.

Sometimes before attempting weightloss it's good to first honestly track what you have been eating. 2100 might not seem like such a big number compared to that.

Pretty much this...

And also take into account that as you lose weight you will have to drop calories...if you're starting on the floor (1200) then where do you really have to go when you need to drop calories.

Yup, I miss those extra calories I had 40 pounds ago. I have to increase exercise if I want to have the same amount of food.

DaniCanadian

I think you should reevaluate the activity level you choose. "Moderate" is for people like mail carriers who walk most of their day, etc.
I'm 5'3, cw: 168, very busy stay at home mom with a preschooler and a 6 month old. I set myself to sedentary and .5lb per week for a goal and it sets me at 1610 cals per day. I'm also bfing so I add 300 cals for exercise.
I'm definitely not sedentary but those are bonus exercise cals.

aneedforchange

I'm 5'10 and i started at 238 this time around. I am a massage therapist, walk 5 miles a day on average to and from work and have been losing 2 to 3 pounds on 1670 per day without starving or losing weight too quickly. I would just see how you feel and adjust to where you are comfortable!

aneedforchange

oh also i set mine to lightly active... which may or may not be true but i cant really say what im actually burning at work but its working for me!

Aaron_K123

2100 calories only sounds like a lot because when you weren't calorie counting to see what you were actually consuming every day to put on weight the cultural perception is that 2000 calories is somehow a lot. It really isn't. If you are young, moderately active and overweight 2000 calories is a pretty strict diet.

I'd stick with what it suggests, over time you might find that eating 2100 calories consistently isn't as easy as you think.

Colorscheme

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

2100 calories only sounds like a lot because when you weren't calorie counting to see what you were actually consuming every day to put on weight the cultural perception is that 2000 calories is somehow a lot. It really isn't. If you are young, moderately active and overweight 2000 calories is a pretty strict diet.

I'd stick with what it suggests, over time you might find that eating 2100 calories consistently isn't as easy as you think.

IDK, I ate 2,000 calories and def felt stuffed [before exercising]. Like....Thankgiving Day stuffed.

kshama2001

Colorscheme wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

2100 calories only sounds like a lot because when you weren't calorie counting to see what you were actually consuming every day to put on weight the cultural perception is that 2000 calories is somehow a lot. It really isn't. If you are young, moderately active and overweight 2000 calories is a pretty strict diet.

I'd stick with what it suggests, over time you might find that eating 2100 calories consistently isn't as easy as you think.

IDK, I ate 2,000 calories and def felt stuffed [before exercising]. Like....Thankgiving Day stuffed.

Not me! 2,000 calories is wicked easy for me. I'm sure I was clearing 3,000 when in weight gaining mode.

sllm1

I'd go with 1800. It's not too high and not too low. No need to go to either extreme. Or you could try changing your activity level to lightly active and see what number you get. You just don't want to overestimate activity or underestimate intake or it just doesn't work.

I agree that you shouldn't go with 1200-1500. It's difficult to sustain longterm for an active person.

Aaron_K123

Colorscheme wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

2100 calories only sounds like a lot because when you weren't calorie counting to see what you were actually consuming every day to put on weight the cultural perception is that 2000 calories is somehow a lot. It really isn't. If you are young, moderately active and overweight 2000 calories is a pretty strict diet.

I'd stick with what it suggests, over time you might find that eating 2100 calories consistently isn't as easy as you think.

IDK, I ate 2,000 calories and def felt stuffed [before exercising]. Like....Thankgiving Day stuffed.

Depends what you eat. If I ate 2000 calories of chicken breast and broccolli I'm sure I could feel stuffed. But if you add in some pizza and icecream it really isn't that hard. After all, anyone trying to lose weight at somepoint manage to hit those calorie counts pretty reliably without effort.

Colorscheme

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Colorscheme wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

2100 calories only sounds like a lot because when you weren't calorie counting to see what you were actually consuming every day to put on weight the cultural perception is that 2000 calories is somehow a lot. It really isn't. If you are young, moderately active and overweight 2000 calories is a pretty strict diet.

I'd stick with what it suggests, over time you might find that eating 2100 calories consistently isn't as easy as you think.

IDK, I ate 2,000 calories and def felt stuffed [before exercising]. Like....Thankgiving Day stuffed.

Depends what you eat. If I ate 2000 calories of chicken breast and broccolli I'm sure I could feel stuffed. But if you add in some pizza and icecream it really isn't that hard. After all, anyone trying to lose weight at somepoint manage to hit those calorie counts pretty reliably without effort.

I ate 3 slices of pizza and an order of pizza hut breadsticks, lol. And this was on top of the other food I ate yesterday. Thankfully I did more exercise to counter balance it, otherwise I would have been 400 cals over for the day.

marissafit06

I am 5'11" and I think the least I had to eat was about 1650 when I got close to goal weight. At your height unless your goal is very low, you may never have to eat 1500. There really is not need to do it while dieting, it is better to take your time losing the weight in the long run.

savithny

Yeah, at 5"10' I'm never going to need to go below 1500 unless I aim for an unhealthy-for-me weight, and I'm pretty sure I maintain around 2000 without any exercise.