How low is too low?
Options
achagpar
Posts: 493 Member
I'm new (again) and have a question. I religiously track everything that goes in my mouth including condiments, fruit, etc.. I also work out for 60 min six times a week. I'm 5'2", 130.8 lbs. I'd like to be 125. So here's my question. MFP gives me 1200 calories and then calories on top for exercise. Most people on this site say you should eat ~half your exercise calories. But then, people also say weight loss is about a calorie deficit. If you don't eat your exercise calories at all, and/or eat less than your 1200 calorie allotment, will you lose weight faster? People talk about fasting (I don't do that, but I tend not to eat a lot), but then some folks say if you don't eat enough, you go into starvation mode and your body hangs on to calories. What's the truth? I'd love to know what's optimal and get your advice... I really would love to get rid of these last 6 lbs! Thanks in advance!
1
Replies
-
Set mfp to lose 0.5lb per week, eat back half your exercise cals.
Simple....11 -
Hmmm... ok... then I must be eating too little. I set it to lose 2 lbs per week and eat back half the exercise calories...0
-
-
Hmmm... ok... then I must be eating too little. I set it to lose 2 lbs per week and eat back half the exercise calories...
At your lower weight you definitely should only be aiming for .5lb a week-2lbs is setting you up for disaster.
Weight loss means nothing, if you can't keep it off long term. This isn't a race-do things in a way that's sustainable and healthy.
eta: also realize that your goal weight doesn't mean a whole lot in maintenance, because you'll have a maintenance range of several pounds. And then remember your weight will fluctuate daily, due to all sorts of things and that's perfectly normal.4 -
MFP is set up to give you credit for exercise. Eat back at least half of the calories you're given, and you will still be in a calorie deficit and lose weight. So, if I'm set at 1200 calories and earn 300 calories for running, I would eat about 1400 calories for the day. Sometimes I actually eat all the calories allotted and I still lose weight. When I haven't eaten those additional calories, I tend to have lower energy and my workouts suffer. Don't go below 1200, losing too fast might just result in losing some muscle mass in addition to the fat you want gone.
"Starvation mode" is a myth. Your weight loss might stall for a few days for a variety of reasons (salt intake, not drinking enough water, a woman's menstrual cycle, etc.) but that's not because your body is in a panic that it will die of starvation. Just stick with the program, log everything, you'll do fine!
5 -
Edited, previous information was naive.3
-
DobbyWinky wrote: »Starvation mode is a myth. You have your BMR and TDEE. If you eat much too little and lose muscle, that can lower your metabolism but exercise will cure that. The real problem with restricting too low is that afterwards you might eat way too much and gain back because you're so hungry, even if during restriction you didn't feel that hunger as much. If you feel like you have energy and are eating healthy foods, you should be fine.
Exercise doesn't "cure" under eating.
Lean muscle "insurance" has 3 components - progressive strength training, adequate protein, and a MODERATE deficit.5 -
DobbyWinky wrote: »Starvation mode is a myth. You have your BMR and TDEE. If you eat much too little and lose muscle, that can lower your metabolism but exercise will cure that. The real problem with restricting too low is that afterwards you might eat way too much and gain back because you're so hungry, even if during restriction you didn't feel that hunger as much. If you feel like you have energy and are eating healthy foods, you should be fine.
How will burning more calories through exercise 'cure' undereating?! :huh: :noway:3 -
Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.0
-
DobbyWinky wrote: »Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Even strength training doesn't stop the damage that under eating can cause. Eating at a reasonable deficit is a better all round idea Especially when a lot of people aren't good at listening to their bodies which is why they become over weight in the first place.3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »DobbyWinky wrote: »Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Even strength training doesn't stop the damage that under eating can cause. Eating at a reasonable deficit is a better all round idea Especially when a lot of people aren't goid at listening to their bodies which is why they become over weight in the first place.
I did not suggest to under eat. I said if you have energy it's fine. Energy does not come from under eating. It's along the lines of listening to your body.2 -
DobbyWinky wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »DobbyWinky wrote: »Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Even strength training doesn't stop the damage that under eating can cause. Eating at a reasonable deficit is a better all round idea Especially when a lot of people aren't goid at listening to their bodies which is why they become over weight in the first place.
I did not suggest to under eat. I said if you have energy it's fine. Energy does not come from under eating. It's along the lines of listening to your body.
In the context of OP's question (" If you don't eat your exercise calories at all, and/or eat less than your 1200 calorie allotment, will you lose weight faster?"), she might not be fine even if she "listens to her body" if she is consistently netting less than 1,200. It would be awesome if everyone had the ability to listen to their body and correctly interpret what is going on, but lots of people think they're fine undereating. Before I understood what I was doing, I was netting less than I should -- I felt fine until suddenly I wasn't. Fortunately I was able to read some posts here and understand what I had to do.
Some people have a broken relationship to their hunger signals (either they're hungry when they don't actually need food or they don't feel hungry even when they do). What we can see is that OP is asking about netting less than is generally considered to be safe, so we should keep that in mind when advising more exercise or saying she will be okay if she feels okay.9 -
DobbyWinky wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »DobbyWinky wrote: »Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Even strength training doesn't stop the damage that under eating can cause. Eating at a reasonable deficit is a better all round idea Especially when a lot of people aren't goid at listening to their bodies which is why they become over weight in the first place.
I did not suggest to under eat. I said if you have energy it's fine. Energy does not come from under eating. It's along the lines of listening to your body.
Did you even read what I said?! :huh:0 -
The less body fat you have, the harder it is to lose. Setting a very aggressive goal to lose risks under nourishing. According to my dietitian (registered dietician, not nutritionist), one of the reasons why under 1200 calories a day is so bad is that it is incredibly difficult to get all the nutrients your body needs in order to function well. Yes, you'll lose weight, but at the risk of malnutrition and muscle loss.
Be patient with yourself, eat a nutritional sound diet under your maintenance calories and the weight will come off.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »DobbyWinky wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »DobbyWinky wrote: »Sorry, I meant strength training. I thought that was considered exercise too and would be assumed. (I'm new on this site.) I didn't think it would cure undereating, which is why I said you're fine if you feel like you have energy. People generally don't have energy on less than they need unless they're drinking lots of energy drinks. At least, that's my experience. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Even strength training doesn't stop the damage that under eating can cause. Eating at a reasonable deficit is a better all round idea Especially when a lot of people aren't goid at listening to their bodies which is why they become over weight in the first place.
I did not suggest to under eat. I said if you have energy it's fine. Energy does not come from under eating. It's along the lines of listening to your body.
In the context of OP's question (" If you don't eat your exercise calories at all, and/or eat less than your 1200 calorie allotment, will you lose weight faster?"), she might not be fine even if she "listens to her body" if she is consistently netting less than 1,200. It would be awesome if everyone had the ability to listen to their body and correctly interpret what is going on, but lots of people think they're fine undereating. Before I understood what I was doing, I was netting less than I should -- I felt fine until suddenly I wasn't. Fortunately I was able to read some posts here and understand what I had to do.
Some people have a broken relationship to their hunger signals (either they're hungry when they don't actually need food or they don't feel hungry even when they do). What we can see is that OP is asking about netting less than is generally considered to be safe, so we should keep that in mind when advising more exercise or saying she will be okay if she feels okay.
Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Sorry about that.4 -
Thanks all! So what I'm hearing you say is:
1) eat the calories allotted plus half your exercise calories
2) don't rush it; maybe target 0.5 lbs per week
3) listen to my body -- although you're quite right -- I can go through a day eating under 1200 without feeling hungry
4) starvation mode is bunk but the reason to eat your calories is to save muscle mass and get key nutrients
I'm gonna try your advice.... I'll keep you posted as to how I do. Thanks again!!!14 -
Interesting.... when I changed from 2 lbs per week to 0.5 lbs, it only made a difference of 40 calories! So went from 1200 to 1240.... does that make any sense? Maybe MFP has it built in that I can't lose too fast?0
-
Thanks all! So what I'm hearing you say is:
1) eat the calories allotted plus half your exercise calories
2) don't rush it; maybe target 0.5 lbs per week
3) listen to my body -- although you're quite right -- I can go through a day eating under 1200 without feeling hungry
4) starvation mode is bunk but the reason to eat your calories is to save muscle mass and get key nutrients
I'm gonna try your advice.... I'll keep you posted as to how I do. Thanks again!!!
This is a very reasonable plan - good luck! I mean, you'd lose weight a lot faster if you stopped eating entirely, but that's not going to get you to a very happy place.0 -
Interesting.... when I changed from 2 lbs per week to 0.5 lbs, it only made a difference of 40 calories! So went from 1200 to 1240.... does that make any sense? Maybe MFP has it built in that I can't lose too fast?
It makes perfect sense to me. MFP will never go under 1200. To lose 2 pound a week you would have had to be eating much less than this due to the fact that you are already quite small meaning your NEAT (calories before exercise) would only be around 1450. To lose 2 pound a week you need a 1000 calorie deficit.1 -
Interesting.... when I changed from 2 lbs per week to 0.5 lbs, it only made a difference of 40 calories! So went from 1200 to 1240.... does that make any sense? Maybe MFP has it built in that I can't lose too fast?
1200 is the lowest MFP will go and for us shorties it can mean ~1200 is all it will give us.
For example - I am just shy of 5"1' and am usually around 130 pounds and set as sedentary. If I tell MFP I want any to do anything but maintain it gives me 1200 calories because it thinks my NEAT is around 1400 a day. So no matter what I tell MFP I want to lose, the lowest it will go is 1200 because if I say 1 pound or 2 pounds it takes me below that floor.
In actuality I usually maintain at around 1700-1800 because I walk a lot.
I hope that made sense!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions