1000-1200 a day

2»

Replies

  • PrincessMel72
    PrincessMel72 Posts: 1,094 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    indigoblue9572 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    And for those suggesting that being petite is a guarantee that one will have to eat 1200 or less in order to lose...

    I'm 5'2, lost >30 lbs eating b/w 1600-1900 calories. Desk job and over forty...

    As a wise rabbit used to say, the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight...

    I wish that were the case for me. I'm 5' with a desk job and over 40 and if I ate 1600-1900 calories a day I'd gain like crazy! I'm at 1000-1200 with a little more on weekends, but no where near the 1600-1900 you are. I WISH!

    It's possible to increase your NEAT and thus your TDEE with focus on getting in additional activity. When I started I was far more sedentary than I am now - now I average 15K steps/day and my appetite thanks me for it!

    I work out 5x per week at moderate intensity (60-65% of max heart rate) for 30-45 mins per day. I set mine to sedentary because of the desk job.
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,571 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    And for those suggesting that being petite is a guarantee that one will have to eat 1200 or less in order to lose...

    I'm 5'2, lost >30 lbs eating b/w 1600-1900 calories. Desk job and over forty...

    As a wise rabbit used to say, the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight...

    Yeah. That's not the norm. I'm taller, heavier and lighter than you and no way I'm losing eating 1900. Will barely lose at 1600.

    It may not be the norm but I venture to guess that more people could still lose while eating more than they are currently, than needing to cut to below 1200. For me, rather than assuming I had to go low, I tried to figure out how I could help myself go higher. It probably helps that I don't have a long history of dieting that created some metabolic adaptation from me cutting cals too low for results. This endeavor from four years ago was my first concentrated effort in my adult life to lose weight, and maybe I'm lucky that I stumbled onto veteran posters early on here that helped me learn to work to increase my NEAT and fuel my body so that I could sustain more activity. It's a happy self fulfilling prophecy that I think many (especially petite women) dismiss without ever trying for themselves.

    I know there are a lot of people who aren't interested in getting 15K steps/day, or who have medical conditions that impact the CICO equation. I'm just saying that rather than defaulting to the lowest possible calorie target, maybe more petite women (and everyone really) should work to try to "eat more to weigh less" as some of the most successful and inspirational folks on this site promote.

    This is a very nice way to write it. I've been here awhile and though I know the basic principles of CICO will always apply, I have learned that it is not one size fits all, especially as one gets lean.

    I personally have 12-14 hour days including training, and get 12k steps. I still maintain on less than you lose. Sometimes I feel like posters are just rubbing in our faces, honestly. Maybe I'm sensitive but so it is.

    And when it's time for me to lose, I do choose a semi-aggressive goal, and that's okay because-it's not one size fits all.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories