Goal each week - lbs to lose ?
Replies
-
lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant only 150-250 pounds, not 250+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks when exercising/lifting, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
Malnutrition usually takes much longer to develop than half a year of "unsafe" dieting. I'm one of those people that believe being fatter for longer is less healthy than just eating 1200 calories/day and losing it faster. I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance at 125 pounds will only be about 1500 calories.
That depends a lot on activity. A reasonable active average sized woman would be hurting herself eating 1200 cals. There are plenty of women here, tall and short, young and old, who maintain on over 2000 cals. Unless a person is morbidly obese, there is no reason to stress out the body by eating ata huge deficit. Just because your mom in her 60's has been able to eat at 1200 cals without repercussions doesn't mean that all women who are under 250 lbs can do so, and suggesting they can is irresponsible.
And 1500 is only her maintenance at sedentary, I'd assume. I'm 5'4", 125 lbs and lightly active, and I maintain at 1800 cals. A younger woman living a more active lifestyle at 5'3" 125 lbs could easily maintain at 2000 cals or more. You can't generalize numbers like that.
She didn't mention her lifestyle or any exercise so I assumed sedentary lifestyle since it's common with people that need to lose 50+ pounds. Most people don't live "active" lifestyles, so it's hard to assume they are active especially when they need to lose weight. I was talking about no exercise/sedentary lifestyles at <250 pounds, sorry I should have clarified that. I agree if you are actually active, 1200 calories/day probably isn't enough.
A woman doesn't have to be unusually active to need more than 1200 calories, just not completely sedentary.
I'm guessing you haven't seen a woman pass out and give herself a concussion from trying to stick to a generic lower calorie recommendation. I have and it isn't pretty. I've also counseled more than one woman who gave up on ever trying to lose weight because she couldn't stick to 1200 cals and believed that was a "standard" recommendation for all women. You are making generalizations that don't hold for all women, and not even for many sedentary women. I've seen the "1200 calorie is what women should eat" recommendation hurt too many IRL so it makes me passionate about it, sorry if I'm being argumentative.2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant only 150-250 pounds, not 250+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks when exercising/lifting, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
Malnutrition usually takes much longer to develop than half a year of "unsafe" dieting. I'm one of those people that believe being fatter for longer is less healthy than just eating 1200 calories/day and losing it faster. I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance at 125 pounds will only be about 1500 calories.
That depends a lot on activity. A reasonable active average sized woman would be hurting herself eating 1200 cals. There are plenty of women here, tall and short, young and old, who maintain on over 2000 cals. Unless a person is morbidly obese, there is no reason to stress out the body by eating ata huge deficit. Just because your mom in her 60's has been able to eat at 1200 cals without repercussions doesn't mean that all women who are under 250 lbs can do so, and suggesting they can is irresponsible.
And 1500 is only her maintenance at sedentary, I'd assume. I'm 5'4", 125 lbs and lightly active, and I maintain at 1800 cals. A younger woman living a more active lifestyle at 5'3" 125 lbs could easily maintain at 2000 cals or more. You can't generalize numbers like that.
She didn't mention her lifestyle or any exercise so I assumed sedentary lifestyle since it's common with people that need to lose 50+ pounds. Most people don't live "active" lifestyles, so it's hard to assume they are active especially when they need to lose weight. I was talking about no exercise/sedentary lifestyles at <250 pounds, sorry I should have clarified that. I agree if you are actually active, 1200 calories/day probably isn't enough.
A woman doesn't have to be unusually active to need more than 1200 calories, just not completely sedentary.
I'm guessing you haven't seen a woman pass out and give herself a concussion from trying to stick to a generic lower calorie recommendation. I have and it isn't pretty. I've also counseled more than one woman who gave up on ever trying to lose weight because she couldn't stick to 1200 cals and believed that was a "standard" recommendation for all women. You are making generalizations that don't hold for all women, and not even for many sedentary women. I've seen the "1200 calorie is what women should eat" recommendation hurt too many IRL so it makes me passionate about it, sorry if I'm being argumentative.
I never meant "all" women can be fine on 1200 calories. If it came across like that, I apologized. The sentence was vague because I was not expecting a single sentence out of my 2 paragraph post to be taken to heart. It was mainly directed to the OP who is 5'2" 182 pounds and should be fine with the 1200/day MFP recommends.
Nothing to be sorry about, much of this community is very argumentative and i'm becoming the same way now. Everyone here is so passionate about weight loss and the facts, i've been here only 2 months but I see constant "knowledge battles" about weight loss. People are quick to choose sides (and in the process usually making someone feel bad because they were wrong or less knowledgeable). It's honestly not been a great fit for me because I try to help, but I am not as knowledgeable as some on here. I have been debating just using the MFP app for logging and ditching the forums unless I need help or advice.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant only 150-250 pounds, not 250+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks when exercising/lifting, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
Malnutrition usually takes much longer to develop than half a year of "unsafe" dieting. I'm one of those people that believe being fatter for longer is less healthy than just eating 1200 calories/day and losing it faster. I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance at 125 pounds will only be about 1500 calories.
That depends a lot on activity. A reasonable active average sized woman would be hurting herself eating 1200 cals. There are plenty of women here, tall and short, young and old, who maintain on over 2000 cals. Unless a person is morbidly obese, there is no reason to stress out the body by eating ata huge deficit. Just because your mom in her 60's has been able to eat at 1200 cals without repercussions doesn't mean that all women who are under 250 lbs can do so, and suggesting they can is irresponsible.
And 1500 is only her maintenance at sedentary, I'd assume. I'm 5'4", 125 lbs and lightly active, and I maintain at 1800 cals. A younger woman living a more active lifestyle at 5'3" 125 lbs could easily maintain at 2000 cals or more. You can't generalize numbers like that.
She didn't mention her lifestyle or any exercise so I assumed sedentary lifestyle since it's common with people that need to lose 50+ pounds. Most people don't live "active" lifestyles, so it's hard to assume they are active especially when they need to lose weight. I was talking about no exercise/sedentary lifestyles at <250 pounds, sorry I should have clarified that. I agree if you are actually active, 1200 calories/day probably isn't enough.lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant 150-250 pounds, not 300+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories.
Bzzt, not true for all, as you earlier said it was.
I started weight loss at age 59, 5'5", 183 pounds, sedentary other than intentional exercise. When I first joined MFP, it gave me 1200 and I believed it. I even ate back nearly 100% of exercise on top of the 1200. Bad plan: Got fatigued & weak. Took weeks to fully recover. I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 1400-1600 net calories, to a healthy weight in the 120s.
Do some women need to eat 1200 calories to lose? Sure.
Should even more of them eat 1200, and will they stay strong and healthy if they do? That depends on lot of factors, many of which experienced, knowledgeable women are discussing here now.
Can all women lose safely on 1200? *Baby feline*, no
You set MFP to sedentary but you were exercising? That doesn't make MFP's 1200 calorie recommendation wrong, that means you set the profile wrong. Simply adding what the machine says and eating it back + 1200 calories doesn't factor in the extra calories burnt throughout the day that some exercises cause (especially things like HIIT). If you exercise, you should at least be on lightly active profile.
There's also the fact that everyone is very different, especially when we are talking 30 or 60 years old. Most sedentary females should be fine on 1200 calories/day. If you are extremely big, exercise, or feel weak on that many calories then probably not a good idea to eat the bare minimum.
I used MFP exactly as it is designed and documented to be used: I set activity level based on daily life, and ate back all exercise calories, mostly based on HRM calorie estimates. EPOC, even from HIIT, is negligible in the big picture: Of similar or less magnitude than the expected estimating error of either daily food or a normal exercise session.
Oh, and: I'm now set on 'active' - which is a total lie - and MFP still underestimates my calorie needs. That's the point: Everyone is different; the "calculators" don't calculate, they make statistical estimates (that have a standard deviation of 5-8% around the mean). There are many variables.
Your statement, with no further caveats, was "1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories." Any n = 1 to the contrary makes this false.
You added: "I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories."
I'm not much bigger than OP. I weigh about her goal weight. I'm 20+ years older. My maintenance is estimated at about 1500 calories (plus exercise). It's incorrect. Several other women here have reported similar stories to mine. . .which is statistically to be expected.
Losing too fast has health and strength risks. If those risked consequences occur, it's harder/slower to recover for women 40+. At OPs starting weight, the risk associated with losing too slowly is minimal (though it can be frustrating). Everyone should pick a sensible starting point based on calculator estimates, and adjust based on experience.
Experiences are what the women here were discussing, in suggesting 1200 could be a too-aggressive starting point for a woman who also said "that seems kind of drastic as a start". Most of us were saying that it was unnecessarily drastic as a start. Clearly, your opinion differs.2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant only 150-250 pounds, not 250+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks when exercising/lifting, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
Malnutrition usually takes much longer to develop than half a year of "unsafe" dieting. I'm one of those people that believe being fatter for longer is less healthy than just eating 1200 calories/day and losing it faster. I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance at 125 pounds will only be about 1500 calories.
That depends a lot on activity. A reasonable active average sized woman would be hurting herself eating 1200 cals. There are plenty of women here, tall and short, young and old, who maintain on over 2000 cals. Unless a person is morbidly obese, there is no reason to stress out the body by eating ata huge deficit. Just because your mom in her 60's has been able to eat at 1200 cals without repercussions doesn't mean that all women who are under 250 lbs can do so, and suggesting they can is irresponsible.
And 1500 is only her maintenance at sedentary, I'd assume. I'm 5'4", 125 lbs and lightly active, and I maintain at 1800 cals. A younger woman living a more active lifestyle at 5'3" 125 lbs could easily maintain at 2000 cals or more. You can't generalize numbers like that.
She didn't mention her lifestyle or any exercise so I assumed sedentary lifestyle since it's common with people that need to lose 50+ pounds. Most people don't live "active" lifestyles, so it's hard to assume they are active especially when they need to lose weight. I was talking about no exercise/sedentary lifestyles at <250 pounds, sorry I should have clarified that. I agree if you are actually active, 1200 calories/day probably isn't enough.lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant 150-250 pounds, not 300+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories.
Bzzt, not true for all, as you earlier said it was.
I started weight loss at age 59, 5'5", 183 pounds, sedentary other than intentional exercise. When I first joined MFP, it gave me 1200 and I believed it. I even ate back nearly 100% of exercise on top of the 1200. Bad plan: Got fatigued & weak. Took weeks to fully recover. I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 1400-1600 net calories, to a healthy weight in the 120s.
Do some women need to eat 1200 calories to lose? Sure.
Should even more of them eat 1200, and will they stay strong and healthy if they do? That depends on lot of factors, many of which experienced, knowledgeable women are discussing here now.
Can all women lose safely on 1200? *Baby feline*, no
You set MFP to sedentary but you were exercising? That doesn't make MFP's 1200 calorie recommendation wrong, that means you set the profile wrong. Simply adding what the machine says and eating it back + 1200 calories doesn't factor in the extra calories burnt throughout the day that some exercises cause (especially things like HIIT). If you exercise, you should at least be on lightly active profile.
There's also the fact that everyone is very different, especially when we are talking 30 or 60 years old. Most sedentary females should be fine on 1200 calories/day. If you are extremely big, exercise, or feel weak on that many calories then probably not a good idea to eat the bare minimum.
I used MFP exactly as it is designed and documented to be used: I set activity level based on daily life, and ate back all exercise calories, mostly based on HRM calorie estimates. EPOC, even from HIIT, is negligible in the big picture: Of similar or less magnitude than the expected estimating error of either daily food or a normal exercise session.
Oh, and: I'm now set on 'active' - which is a total lie - and MFP still underestimates my calorie needs. That's the point: Everyone is different; the "calculators" don't calculate, they make statistical estimates (that have a standard deviation of 5-8% around the mean). There are many variables.
Your statement, with no further caveats, was "1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories." Any n = 1 to the contrary makes this false.
You added: "I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories."
I'm not much bigger than OP. I weigh about her goal weight. I'm 20+ years older. My maintenance is estimated at about 1500 calories (plus exercise). It's incorrect. Several other women here have reported similar stories to mine. . .which is statistically to be expected.
Losing too fast has health and strength risks. If those risked consequences occur, it's harder/slower to recover for women 40+. At OPs starting weight, the risk associated with losing too slowly is minimal (though it can be frustrating). Everyone should pick a sensible starting point based on calculator estimates, and adjust based on experience.
Experiences are what the women here were discussing, in suggesting 1200 could be a too-aggressive starting point for a woman who also said "that seems kind of drastic as a start". Most of us were saying that it was unnecessarily drastic as a start. Clearly, your opinion differs.
I'm not going to address everything because I feel we've already derailed the thread a bit. I'm quoting what the calculators are telling me and trying to help the OP with that information. You seem to get the same results (1200/day to lose, 1500/day to maintain), but they were wrong for you so I have no idea if the calculators are just wrong for some people.
I 100% agree that the descriptions for activity on MFP are very badly written. Sedentary does not mean "Spend most of the day sitting" and lightly active does not mean "Spend a good part of the day on your feet." It's not that simple! By those definition, we could run 10 miles a day, sit the rest of the day, and the correct setting would be "Sedentary". Anyone would run into energy problems following that.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant only 150-250 pounds, not 250+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks when exercising/lifting, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
Malnutrition usually takes much longer to develop than half a year of "unsafe" dieting. I'm one of those people that believe being fatter for longer is less healthy than just eating 1200 calories/day and losing it faster. I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance at 125 pounds will only be about 1500 calories.
That depends a lot on activity. A reasonable active average sized woman would be hurting herself eating 1200 cals. There are plenty of women here, tall and short, young and old, who maintain on over 2000 cals. Unless a person is morbidly obese, there is no reason to stress out the body by eating ata huge deficit. Just because your mom in her 60's has been able to eat at 1200 cals without repercussions doesn't mean that all women who are under 250 lbs can do so, and suggesting they can is irresponsible.
And 1500 is only her maintenance at sedentary, I'd assume. I'm 5'4", 125 lbs and lightly active, and I maintain at 1800 cals. A younger woman living a more active lifestyle at 5'3" 125 lbs could easily maintain at 2000 cals or more. You can't generalize numbers like that.
She didn't mention her lifestyle or any exercise so I assumed sedentary lifestyle since it's common with people that need to lose 50+ pounds. Most people don't live "active" lifestyles, so it's hard to assume they are active especially when they need to lose weight. I was talking about no exercise/sedentary lifestyles at <250 pounds, sorry I should have clarified that. I agree if you are actually active, 1200 calories/day probably isn't enough.lucerorojo wrote: »OP, how much do you currently weigh? You might be better to heed the 1% of body weight.
I am 5'4'', a couple of inches taller than you. I have 68 pounds left to lose, I have lost 32. I started at the end of June, at 237, and I'm now 204. For the first 28 lbs. I was at 2 lbs. per week and it was doable--I did eat at maintenance for 3 weeks in September since I was on vacation for two weeks then. Otherwise the loss has been steady. HOWEVER, you need to realize that as you lose, you have less fat for the body to burn, so your calorie needs decrease. For me that meant to lose 2 lbs. I started at around 1400 calories I think, and by the time I hit 25 lbs. loss I was at 1200 calories. 1200 is the lowest MFP will go for women. I could not eat at 1200 calories. I walk at least 1.5 hours, 4 days a week, and also do zumba or swim 2-4 times per week. I could not sustain this exercise on 1200 calories even eating back all my exercise calories. For the 4 days I was at 1200 calories I felt fatigued and hungry. I have a demanding job (teacher) so I have to feel good during the day dealing with people. If you have a desk job and just sit there and don't really need to interact maybe 1200 can work if you feel hungry and low energy.
I went on a mini refeed to 1 lb. per week, which upped my calories to 1660. I stayed there for 2 weeks and felt good--I also cut back on exercise those two weeks. I then moved back down to 1.5 lb. and didn't like it--about 1320-50 calories per day. I manually changed it 1500 calories and I think this is where I"ll stay for a while. It will have me lose a tiny bit more than 1 lb. per week.
The reason why I couldn't deal with 1660 calories for more than 2 weeks is I felt like I was dipping back into old habits of eating sweets to reach my calorie goal. I decided that it was too big of a jump from 1200-1660 at this point and that I would rather go up in smaller increments while I'm still losing.
So, based on my experience, and you may be different, my recommendation would be to do 1.0 per week or 1.5 lb. per week at most. 65 lbs. might seem like a lot to you and it will make you look different, but if you currently weight between 160-180 (just guessing) then 2 lbs. per week is more than 1% of your body weight and could be a struggle.
I currently weigh 185 lbs (some days 187 lbs). I did a Biggest Loser competition at work 6 years ago when I weighed 144 lbs. For the competition, I started eating 1200 calories (I wasn’t using MFP, that was just a number my husband told me to hit), a day with no exercise & in 10 weeks got down to 124 lbs & won lol. I looked good at that weight & thats what I’d like to get back to. It was difficult sticking to 1200 & I started eating whatever I wanted again, never thinking I’d get as big as I am now. I should have just realized to maintain that weight, it WOULD be a continuous effort. I was at my heaviest 2 yrs ago when pregnant with my third child at 210 lbs.
Guess I am comparing my body now to back then when I did that competition & wondering why I would still be “ok” to start now at 185 lbs & only eat 1200 calories to lose when I am so much heavier? I would think my calorie needs would be a lot greater now? But maybe not because I am older? And maybe I am just so used to stuffing myself that I am not used to actually eating for my needs. Guess I am confused because if I set my goal as 2 lbs per week to start, it allows me 1200, but if I set it to 1/2 lb per week (which is what I should do closer to goal??), I would eat more and still lose?? But I thought my calorie needs are lower the lower I weigh? I’m sorry guys if I’m rambling! Haha just talking out loud here ;-)
I hate those type of competitions because weight loss is not a race, and they turn it into one. Most people who lose weight with the mindset "fast as possible" gain it back (and way more) in the next few years. I did the same back in 2012, and it seems you also did. Ditch that mindset completely this time, while 1200 calories seems like very little now, you'll probably end up only being able to eat ~1600 calories a day just to maintain weight when you are smaller. You will never be able to go back to eating the way you have been, and you likely won't be able to eat much more after switching from dieting to maintaining.
1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories. MFP will not go below 1200 calories for a female. When you select 2 pounds, what does is say you are expected to lose? If I select 2 pounds it shows me "1500" and says I will lose 1.7/pounds a week because MFP won't go below 1500 for males. My guess is 1200 calories won't get you 2 pounds/week because you are only 5'2", you'll need to eat 1200 calories a day and exercise if you want to lose faster.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true, in fact it's a dangerous myth that leads far too many women to undereat and crash and burn. There are plenty of women for whom 1200 calories is no where near enough energy to be supplying their body with.
Sorry I meant 150-250 pounds, not 300+. My mother has lost 40 pounds off 1200 calories/day, and she started at 5'3" 245 pounds (incredibly high 43 BMI) plus she's in her 60s. No downsides so far, doctor said her health and blood pressure problems have improved dramatically. I switched to 1200 calories a day (as a 6'2" 260 pound male) for a couple months and felt like a million bucks, but 3.4 pounds/week loss was alarmingly fast so I now try to eat closer to the male minimium of 1500.
I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories.
Bzzt, not true for all, as you earlier said it was.
I started weight loss at age 59, 5'5", 183 pounds, sedentary other than intentional exercise. When I first joined MFP, it gave me 1200 and I believed it. I even ate back nearly 100% of exercise on top of the 1200. Bad plan: Got fatigued & weak. Took weeks to fully recover. I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 1400-1600 net calories, to a healthy weight in the 120s.
Do some women need to eat 1200 calories to lose? Sure.
Should even more of them eat 1200, and will they stay strong and healthy if they do? That depends on lot of factors, many of which experienced, knowledgeable women are discussing here now.
Can all women lose safely on 1200? *Baby feline*, no
You set MFP to sedentary but you were exercising? That doesn't make MFP's 1200 calorie recommendation wrong, that means you set the profile wrong. Simply adding what the machine says and eating it back + 1200 calories doesn't factor in the extra calories burnt throughout the day that some exercises cause (especially things like HIIT). If you exercise, you should at least be on lightly active profile.
There's also the fact that everyone is very different, especially when we are talking 30 or 60 years old. Most sedentary females should be fine on 1200 calories/day. If you are extremely big, exercise, or feel weak on that many calories then probably not a good idea to eat the bare minimum.
I used MFP exactly as it is designed and documented to be used: I set activity level based on daily life, and ate back all exercise calories, mostly based on HRM calorie estimates. EPOC, even from HIIT, is negligible in the big picture: Of similar or less magnitude than the expected estimating error of either daily food or a normal exercise session.
Oh, and: I'm now set on 'active' - which is a total lie - and MFP still underestimates my calorie needs. That's the point: Everyone is different; the "calculators" don't calculate, they make statistical estimates (that have a standard deviation of 5-8% around the mean). There are many variables.
Your statement, with no further caveats, was "1200 calories a day for a female is fine whether you are 150 pounds or 250 pounds. As long as it's a balanced diet of 1200 calories." Any n = 1 to the contrary makes this false.
You added: "I think the OP is fine eating 1200 a day until she reaches her goal, given her height, her maintenance will only be about 1500 calories."
I'm not much bigger than OP. I weigh about her goal weight. I'm 20+ years older. My maintenance is estimated at about 1500 calories (plus exercise). It's incorrect. Several other women here have reported similar stories to mine. . .which is statistically to be expected.
Losing too fast has health and strength risks. If those risked consequences occur, it's harder/slower to recover for women 40+. At OPs starting weight, the risk associated with losing too slowly is minimal (though it can be frustrating). Everyone should pick a sensible starting point based on calculator estimates, and adjust based on experience.
Experiences are what the women here were discussing, in suggesting 1200 could be a too-aggressive starting point for a woman who also said "that seems kind of drastic as a start". Most of us were saying that it was unnecessarily drastic as a start. Clearly, your opinion differs.
I'm not going to address everything because I feel we've already derailed the thread a bit. I'm quoting what the calculators are telling me and trying to help the OP with that information. You seem to get the same results (1200/day to lose, 1500/day to maintain), but they were wrong for you so I have no idea if the calculators are just wrong for some people.
I 100% agree that the descriptions for activity on MFP are very badly written. Sedentary does not mean "Spend most of the day sitting" and lightly active does not mean "Spend a good part of the day on your feet." It's not that simple! By those definition, we could run 10 miles a day, sit the rest of the day, and the correct setting would be "Sedentary". Anyone would run into energy problems following that.
It's not just that the calculators are wrong for some people, but that we're pushing back against the idea that women should or must eat 1200 calories regardless of their starting size to lose weight. Your post appeared to say that any woman could do it, but skipped the more relevant point of whether or not it's a good idea. I tend to believe that it generally is not a good idea for most women, even if the calculators say it's technically possible to do so without losing one's hair.3 -
1200 is low
how about eating maintenance for a couple of weeks, learning to develop good habits, shopping, menu design, weighing, logging, batch cooking etc
Then you can look at your diary and work out how to trim your intake into a deficit by making smart choices.
Also whilst eating maintenance you could start increasing your activity level.
This might help you break yourself in without going into a drastic change that will be hard to sustain.
Good luck!4 -
I also don't agree with the statement that assumes that the OP is sedentary just because of her weight and that any woman over 200 lbs. can eat 1200 calories and sustain it since they are "probably not active." I weigh more than the OP, and I'm not sedentary--even when I weighed 237 I still managed to get to the gym a few times a week, and on my feet at work, since I don't have a desk job. Even if she doesn't work out she might work in retail, teacher, restaurant server, or nurse, or something else that requires more physical energy than sitting at a desk all day. I was athletic for most of my life, and an amateur dancer for several years at lighter weights. At my highest weights I was still probably more active than many people who weigh 50 lbs. less.
Also, I go to a gym and I see ladies who are big 200 + (some of them clearly bigger than me) and they are in the fitness classes several times a week, as well as on the exercise machines. They are clearly NOT sedentary. Exercise helps but one can still eat too much and be overweight and then some.2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I also don't agree with the statement that assumes that the OP is sedentary just because of her weight and that any woman over 200 lbs. can eat 1200 calories and sustain it since they are "probably not active." I weigh more than the OP, and I'm not sedentary--even when I weighed 237 I still managed to get to the gym a few times a week, and on my feet at work, since I don't have a desk job. Even if she doesn't work out she might work in retail, teacher, restaurant server, or nurse, or something else that requires more physical energy than sitting at a desk all day. I was athletic for most of my life, and an amateur dancer for several years at lighter weights. At my highest weights I was still probably more active than many people who weigh 50 lbs. less.
Also, I go to a gym and I see ladies who are big 200 + (some of them clearly bigger than me) and they are in the fitness classes several times a week, as well as on the exercise machines. They are clearly NOT sedentary. Exercise helps but one can still eat too much and be overweight and then some.
That’s a great point. Certainly most Americans are more sedentary than is healthy, but that includes plenty of people who aren’t overweight. And on the other hand, I know at least one woman who runs half marathons but struggles with her weight. And for whatever reason, most of the nurses I know are at least a bit overweight, even with crazy active jobs. Weight loss is largely diet, not activity.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions