Short, old(ish), sedentary, 1200kcals and 15-20,000 steps a day
Replies
-
id personally eat some of the calories back. I try to eat a few hundred extra atleast every few days. It can lead to binging for me i feel fine fine fine then suddenly just dont and get WAY to hungry suddenly. Upping my calories to 1400-1500 every few days atleast helps me. But for the most part i save my calories for weekends. And if you can continue it long term go for it but dont try to lie to yourself to lose weight faster, Listen to your body.2
-
At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.2
-
Sorry, this is a resounding disagreement post to the previous MFPers whose consensus seems to be that you're doing fine.
I note that you just started this excess activity so you don't really know yet what the full effects are. 4 weeks is a much better gauge than 2 weeks.
Note that first of all the 15 to 20000 steps a day **if not logged separately as an exercise** puts you ABOVE the VERY ACTIVE category on MFP.
@bbell1985 you have already suffered a degree of adaptation because of under-eating to effect weight loss. Your step count of 12,500 steps a day yielding results for lightly active is NOT indicative of the general population. The general population is probably more represented in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 which clearly categorises individuals who take >12,500 steps as highly active.
Whether @tar2323 is seeing or not seeing results commensurate with being highly active and under-eating for that activity level could depend on many issues including her logging and intensity of the steps.
While a 3-6lb loss per month is not extreme and does not exceed the 1% mark many consider safe, it does potentially exceed the 0.07% of bodyweight lost per week which I personally consider to be even more safe in terms of lean mass preservation.
As an overweight individual (bottom of obese by WHO standards but at an age group where this is considered more overweight than obese) @tar2323 (http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/result.html?unit=1&hf=5&hi=1&wl=168&us=1&ua=55&gl=) would benefit from a deficit of up to 20% of her Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
A quick look through scooby and using more correct activity classifications for someone walking 15-20K steps a day yields a weight loss of 0.7 to 0.9lbs a week while eating 1800 Cal a day.
If you want to eat the least amount of food possible from now on and successfully reduce your food bill, by all means eat the least your can, exercise the most you can and lose weight as fast as you can. 1200 targets are great for that.
If you want to arrive at your target weight eating the most amount of food possible, something which I personally imagine will make maintaining your target weight a bit easier, then you win by meeting your goals while eating the most you can.
1800Cal a day correctly logged and assuming no health issues that change your predicted Calories In Calories Out equation (CICO), should have you losing weight at a more than adequate clip given the activity you stated.
Use a trending weight application or web site (libra android, happy scale iphone, trendweight.com, weightgrapher.com) to track changes to your long term weight level as opposed to daily water weight fluctuations.
Best of luck.
scooby: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
Activity levels differ from site to site.
MFP activity levels are
sedentary 1.25x
lightly active 1.4x
active 1.6x
very active 1.8x
Mifflin StJeor BMR
Excuse you. I don't undereat. My maintenance is 1800 calories. Possibly 1900.
Based on your own posts you are calling the 12500 steps a day you take lightly active. In reality with those steps you are highly active; but, eating based on the caloric allowance for someone who is lightly active.
You feel more cold than most, which could have many explanations, one of these explanations being adaptive thermogenesis.
That last part is reinforced by (and I could be wrong on this as it wasn't in a recent post that I recall directly) my general impression that you lost your weight in a fairly steep deficit generated by a 1200 type goal and a goodly amount of exercise.
Please don't consider that I have anything but admiration for your success, or that I don't think you've done a kick *kitten* job in terms of meeting your goals and in terms of the physique you have developed. You've done a 10x better job than me in terms of weight training.
I do think, however, that you have, perhaps, not optimised things so that you can maximise your eating and minimize your need to exercise at your new weight.
Whether you needed that buffer, or not, is a totally separate discussion and if you are currently eating hapilly as much as you want to and exercising in a happy manner without excess pressure on you... more the power to you!
My concern with going to the bottom with calories for a fast loss (something that happens often on MFP) is that it has the potential to leave people at a suboptimal future position.
The flip side of the coin is that it does give the fastest initial results. And that long term (permanent) success is generally seen to be low enough that an appreciable number of researchers consider fast vs slow rates of loss to have no effect on long term adherence. (I personally disagree with some of their findings; but have neither degrees nor research to counter them. Most research is short term in nature due to funding and publishing pressure so comparing the results of losing 50 or 100lbs in 6 months vs 2 years with no outside nutritional support and following up on the results 10 years later is not a research paper that is making the rounds....)
Which leads us to the fact that once all is said and done we all make choices based on our current knowledge and imperatives and live with the consequences
10 -
+1 to those saying to eat back at least some of the walking calories until you have a month or so's experience with your weight loss rate.
@VintageFeline is saying very sensible things about the importance of avoiding loss of muscle mass, especially for women, especially as we age. It's extremely slow, hard work to get it back. For a young, healthy woman doing aggressively progressive, regular weight training, and eating in a calorie surplus, a pound of muscle per month gain would be considered very fast progress. For us, the regain is slower & tougher. It's much easier just to hold onto what we have, and exercise while losing at a moderate rate to give ourselves the best chance of keeping the muscle we have now.
I don't know what your goal weight is, but I'd be thinking in terms of about a pound and a half loss per week at this point as a maximum, and I'd suggest cutting that to 1 pound a week when you get to around 25-50 pounds from goal, then 0.5 per week somewhere not far below 15-20 to goal.
Use your actual weight loss rate. Since the walking is kind of new, I'd encourage you to be conservative about loss rate until you see the effect for you. That means eating back some of the exercise calories, maybe 50% to start.
The calculators are estimates. At 61, sedentary outside of intentional exercise (which I eat back), weight in the 120s, I maintain somewhere a bit above 2000 net calories, when the calculators estimate more like 1600. This is unusual, but it means that when I went to 1200 at the start of losing (when I was heavier) based on their recommendations, I was seriously under-fueling, and paid for it (weakness, fatigue) until I saw what was happening & changed course. I can't recommend that experience to anyone.
Of course, no n=1 other person's experience tells you anything about your calorie burn rate (the calculators do better, on average). I'm giving you my specifics only as a caution about the possibility of estimates being wrong, and encouraging conservative approaches.
Good luck!5 -
Thank you to all who responded so knowledgeably. This insight from people who have been there and 'walked the walk' is exactly what I was hoping for.
I think I'm going to eat back some of the cals earned (maybe 100 or so to start with) and continue to monitor the scale for this first month of extra exercise. If it moves downwards faster than 1-1.5lbs a week, I'll up the cals further until it's no more than about 4-5lbs a month loss. Does that sound reasonable? I don't think I'm losing much more than that now, but these longer walking stints are relatively new, so that might change this month.
I'm concerned about losing too much muscle mass, which, as you point out, will be hard to get back (especially as I have no desire to lift weights etc). Is there a maximum weight loss per month/week to aim for to minimise this?
Also, what is the result of losing muscle mass? The heart is a muscle, can it affect that?
Thanks again.
ETA: I don't know what my goal weight is at the moment. I'm just aiming for where I feel comfortable in whatever I chose to wear and feel that I look healthy and as good as possible. I know it won't be low, and will probably always be heavier than someone else my height as I seem to hide weight well (always look lighter than I weigh, same as my son/mother). Probably around the 150lb area or maybe a little less (just under 168lbs today, down from 233lbs end of last March).
1 -
I'll also look to increase my protein intake. It's already pretty good, but I'll make a concerted effort to eat higher protein foods to help discourage muscle mass wastage. I'm on medication (for at least the next 10 years) which removes estrogen from my body, so I do need to take extra care over this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
0 -
0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.
2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.
0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.
The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.
WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.1 -
0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.
2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.
0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.
The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.
WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.
Thank you. I've been reading a lot this morning, after reading these posts and see that some form of resistance training is pretty much necessary, despite not being keen.
Do you know of anything that's relatively easy to do at home (resistance bands?) that might make a difference. I don't want to join a gym. I know myself well enough to know I'll do it at home, but won't keep up a gym membership.
Hopefully, this, added to increased protein and calories on the days I walk lots will make a difference.
0 -
At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.
I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.
OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.
I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.
OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.
I do take your word for it, I take it very seriously.
As I've written above, I'm going to start looking at some sort of strength/resistance exercise (I'm inherently lazy and prefer to do this at home, so not sure what would be best), I'm going to increase my calories/monitor the scale and also going to up my protein intake with those extra calories.
If you or someone could recommend what would be the best resistance training to get into at home without having to buy expensive equipment, I'd be most grateful.2 -
0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.
2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.
0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.
The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.
WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.
Thank you. I've been reading a lot this morning, after reading these posts and see that some form of resistance training is pretty much necessary, despite not being keen.
Do you know of anything that's relatively easy to do at home (resistance bands?) that might make a difference. I don't want to join a gym. I know myself well enough to know I'll do it at home, but won't keep up a gym membership.
Hopefully, this, added to increased protein and calories on the days I walk lots will make a difference.
you can buy a set of light weights from target (or similar) and use at home - lots of free videos on youtube (I use fitnessblender a lot); ditto with resistance bands - google online workouts1 -
If this is working for you and you are not getting sick or anything like that, I say continue doing what works for you. One thing I have learned is what works for one may not be the case for someone else. So, it seems that you found what works best for you. Best of luck!0
-
1200 calories is very very low... you're probably burning more than that just with the exercise alone. You have to be very careful you're getting enough micronutrients and protein otherwise you're going to start suffering the effects of anorexia. Hairloss, brittle nails, weakening teeth, all kinds of terrifying things. And these effects aren't just a quick "uh oh I better turn it around" type thing... they take about 2 months after the fact to start showing up, and take another couple of months to correct, if not even longer. I'd try to eat at least 1500 and make sure you're getting enough protein and vital nutrients. I strongly suggest working with a doctor and monitoring your blood and make sure your liver and kidneys aren't getting stressed as well.1
-
Yoga!2
-
Check out body weight exercises. There are several on line but I like Darebee. Also plenty of free on line yoga too.1
-
I've doubled my daily protein goals (120g), upped fat goals and will increase my calories. I'll also purchase some resistance bands (if you think that's a good way to go). I think I'd prefer these over dumbbells but would rather do whichever yields the best results.
I need to have a strong word with myself about increasing calories. My head wants to plow on and lose weight as quickly as I can, although I now know that at my age, that is a dangerous route to take. I think I'll increase cals by 100 to start with, with the intention of increasing further if I'm losing more than 1lb a week. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?3 -
Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).
Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.
The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!
As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).
Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.
The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!
As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.
Thank you! Glad to have an endorsement of my plan. Re the protein, the things I particularly like happen to be high in protein anyway (quark, chicken, turkey, pork etc), so it won't be hard to increase these. I won't stress it though, as you suggest. Heading to Amazon for some fitness bands now
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.
I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.
OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.
I do take your word for it, I take it very seriously.
As I've written above, I'm going to start looking at some sort of strength/resistance exercise (I'm inherently lazy and prefer to do this at home, so not sure what would be best), I'm going to increase my calories/monitor the scale and also going to up my protein intake with those extra calories.
If you or someone could recommend what would be the best resistance training to get into at home without having to buy expensive equipment, I'd be most grateful.
2 lbs/week at 5'1", 170 lb is too aggressive.. MFP would have given you the minimum 1200 cal since 2 lb/wk for a 170 lb female set at sedentary would have put you below the safe minimum. @ that number of calories, make sure you have either upped your activity level from sedentary and re-calculated calories or are logging at least the treadmill, walks to the stores as exercise (and eat them back) - walking/running are pretty well-characterized activities (by mile) so I would trust the burn estimates to be fairly accurate and eat them all back.
Starting out, I would buy a few dumbells (not too expensive) and youtube/check exercise apps for some exercises.1 -
I don't have a problem not eating them back - I don't feel the need. I log every mouthful, and am successfully losing weight at a rate I'm happy with. I just need to know if because of the kcals I must be burning through walking whilst sticking to my 1200kcals, if I'm endangering myself in any way.
Nope - you are doing great. Just keep doing what you're doing if its working well. At that calorie rate you should be getting plenty of the nutrients you need
I disagree wholeheartedly. If she's logging that kind of step count consistently, then she's likely netting well under 1200 cals. That is NOT good for her body over the long term. She should be netting 1200 at a minimum - which means eating back some of those exercise cals.
OP, I know at a shorter height, your total cals are reduced, but I do not think you should allow yourself to dip below 1200 NET.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43K Getting Started
- 259.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232.1K Fitness and Exercise
- 359 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.4K Motivation and Support
- 7.7K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 745 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions