The 1200 calorie imperative.
Options
Replies
-
old people eat donuts and fries too- no need to stigmatize the young, they're actually a pretty healthy lot these days8
-
mountainmare wrote: »Slowfaster I want to support you. I am just shy of 70, started at 200 and at 1200 cal lost a the rate of about 1 lb a week. Now at 180 my 1200 cal will give me a loss of .7 a week, when I get to 170 it will be less than half a pound a week. for those people who say they would be STARVING and that 1200 is not substainable, the reality is that at my goal weight my maintenance calories are a whopping 1320----and that is still "overweight" So yes---at 1200 cal you have slowed down.
For the youngsters that are in their 60s or less, at 60 I started running and at 65 did 5Ks, trained my upper level dressage horse, biked and climbed. All it takes is a series of stupid injuries and major health issue to have you get the "not for sissies" idea.
To other youngins' The idea of taking your scale with you everywhere and weighing and scanning everything is what you are used to. I still need regular iPhone lessons to figure out how to get my messages and suri is not my best friend. Give those of us who are well aged a bit of a break!!!
not everyone commenting in this thread and on these boards are younguns...while i technically am - several people are in the 50's and 60's - and have been doing the MFP thing for while and had success6 -
50 and low 60s are young!!! The difference between 50 and 70 (for many people) is a big jump, for me it was 65-70 was a big jump.6
-
@Slowfaster
You should stop worrying about your apple. If you eat out regularly that is your problem. Eat 2/3rds of what you have been eating when you go out and you might be fine. You might think it is 1000 calories but odds are it will be more but it still might get you back to a deficit.9 -
I second this!! My weekly average is in the area of 1200---never over but under by about 100, I know that I'm probably close to 1200 even on days that are under. My sort of rule is stay above 1000---which in this heat and a house with no AC is hard. Do leave something on the plate when you eat out, start small--just leave a little at first.
You have been very successful so far, just keep tweeking and don't stress about it.0 -
It's interesting how everyone assumes that mistakes in calorie addition always result in people eating more calories than they record, why wouldn't it sometimes result in eating less calories than recorded? Some people are even assuming that a woman's doctor believes that, without knowing the woman or the doctor. Why so eager to think other people are cheating? Projection?
I learned very early that all women are different. Back in the 1960's my mother joined weight watchers. That was way before the point system and she was told to eat 1000 calories a day. She gained weight. She did not cheat. I ate every meal with her. She did not make mistakes, she was a book keeper. What she was, was a tiny 4'11" small boned woman who had dieted in one form or another most of her life and simply didn't need many calories to sustain her 120 lb, trying for 110 lb, body.@Slowfaster
You should stop worrying about your apple. If you eat out regularly that is your problem. Eat 2/3rds of what you have been eating when you go out and you might be fine. You might think it is 1000 calories but odds are it will be more but it still might get you back to a deficit.
I eat out regularly because my husband and I are retired and he really looks forward to getting out for lunch every day. I sometimes put other people ahead of myself. The fact that something like that didn't occur to you says more about you than me.
I have not asked you or anyone else what is wrong with my calculations so quit getting so huffy and pedantic about what I eat or how accurate my figures are. I already know why I'm not losing and it's the same reason I always, through many, many diets in the past, quit losing at around 1600 calories. It's because 1200 calories is no longer low enough to make me lose. If it was due to the fact that I eat out every day, or didn't weigh enough items, I wouldn't have lost 45 pounds in the past ten months.
My actual question was what people thought about the safety of going below 1200 calories. I think I'll just go with my instincts and try 1100 calories, making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
13 -
most people think that - however there was a study done a few years ago - asking people to estimate calories they believed they were eating compared to what they were
ultimately - i believe the results were - overweight ppl tended to underestimate calories consumed whereas underweight ppl tended to overestimate
but its been a while since i read the study - i'd have to find it again3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »most people think that - however there was a study done a few years ago - asking people to estimate calories they believed they were eating compared to what they were
ultimately - i believe the results were - overweight ppl tended to underestimate calories consumed whereas underweight ppl tended to overestimate
but its been a while since i read the study - i'd have to find it again
I definitely saw this study it was quite an interesting read3 -
Slowfaster wrote: »I have not asked you or anyone else what is wrong with my calculations so quit getting so huffy and pedantic about what I eat or how accurate my figures are. I already know why I'm not losing and it's the same reason I always, through many, many diets in the past, quit losing at around 1600 calories. It's because 1200 calories is no longer low enough to make me lose. If it was due to the fact that I eat out every day, or didn't weigh enough items, I wouldn't have lost 45 pounds in the past ten months.
My actual question was what people thought about the safety of going below 1200 calories. I think I'll just go with my instincts and try 1100 calories, making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Go with your instincts then. Chances are you will be eating a healthy amount because you don't really know what you are eating now. You might want me to be "huffy" but I assure you I am extremely matter-of-fact. I only care about you getting results not the backstory of why you do what you do.
If you start to feel poorly after a week or so increase your calories until you feel better.
ETA: BTW, eating 2/3rds of your restaurant meals was solid advice and something that I would do if I ate out a lot more and stopped losing weight.
5 -
If you're eating at out at restaurants every day, Go crazy, go to 900. Because your ACTUAL intake will remain well above 1200.Slowfaster wrote: »It's interesting how everyone assumes that mistakes in calorie addition always result in people eating more calories than they record, why wouldn't it sometimes result in eating less calories than recorded? Some people are even assuming that a woman's doctor believes that, without knowing the woman or the doctor. Why so eager to think other people are cheating? Projection?
I learned very early that all women are different. Back in the 1960's my mother joined weight watchers. That was way before the point system and she was told to eat 1000 calories a day. She gained weight. She did not cheat. I ate every meal with her. She did not make mistakes, she was a book keeper. What she was, was a tiny 4'11" small boned woman who had dieted in one form or another most of her life and simply didn't need many calories to sustain her 120 lb, trying for 110 lb, body.@Slowfaster
You should stop worrying about your apple. If you eat out regularly that is your problem. Eat 2/3rds of what you have been eating when you go out and you might be fine. You might think it is 1000 calories but odds are it will be more but it still might get you back to a deficit.
I eat out regularly because my husband and I are retired and he really looks forward to getting out for lunch every day. I sometimes put other people ahead of myself. The fact that something like that didn't occur to you says more about you than me.Slowfaster wrote: »I have not asked you or anyone else what is wrong with my calculations so quit getting so huffy and pedantic about what I eat or how accurate my figures are. I already know why I'm not losing and it's the same reason I always, through many, many diets in the past, quit losing at around 1600 calories. It's because 1200 calories is no longer low enough to make me lose. If it was due to the fact that I eat out every day, or didn't weigh enough items, I wouldn't have lost 45 pounds in the past ten months.
My actual question was what people thought about the safety of going below 1200 calories. I think I'll just go with my instincts and try 1100 calories, making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
The only person getting huffy is you, when you continue and persist in clinging to the idea that you "KNOW" why you're losing, and you're mistaken.
Keep doing the same old thing, and you'll get the same old results.
The reason you lost 45 lbs in 10 months is because the errors in your logging due to restaurant eating left you enough slack to lose weight.
You've run out of slack.
That's it. It's not complicated, and it's NOT because you can't lose at 1200 calories.
Oh, and I'm out since you clearly started this as a debate thread, but didn't put it in Debate.
16 -
Nevermind. The thread got away from me while typing. Set your goal to 1000 you'll be fine.5
-
Slowfaster wrote: »We eat out every day. We eat inside the restaurant. I am not going to take my scale to the restaurant with me, I am going to take the restaurant at their word so far as the calories in their food as listed on MFP. At home, I either weigh or measure depending on the food and how much difference it's likely to make. I have done that all along and it has worked for me for ten months. I know that taking my scale with me, taking my whopper apart and weighing the slice of tomato would be more accurate, but I am not willing to go that far. If I had to obsess about calories to the extent some of you seem to do I would quit dieting altogether because life is short and their really are other things.
1/2 TB more mayonnaise on the Whopper adds up to 350 extra calories/week. I don't weigh food when I eat out. But I know if I were to eat out frequently, I would have no way of knowing where I actually stood as far as my calories for the week, and thus no way to know my actual calorie needs, and I wouldn't expect to lose at my expected rate, if at all. That would be OK if that's how I wanted to do it, but I wouldn't then assume I was an outlier based on my data. Personally, I think you can eat 1000 calories if you want... whatever that means in this case.
I have had a couple of friends on my list that ate below 1200 (never as low as 1000) sometimes towards the end of their weight loss. It was driven by impatience though, not because they couldn't lose on more. I wasn't too concerned, because I knew it was a short-term thing, they were extremely sedentary, and they were very careful with their food choices to get adequate nutrition. They also ate out occasionally at restaurants with no calorie info, so I assumed they were probably making up the shortage.4 -
Slowfaster wrote: »...making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Here is a study you might find helpful in determining your protein goals.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
0 -
Slowfaster wrote: »It's interesting how everyone assumes that mistakes in calorie addition always result in people eating more calories than they record, why wouldn't it sometimes result in eating less calories than recorded? Some people are even assuming that a woman's doctor believes that, without knowing the woman or the doctor. Why so eager to think other people are cheating? Projection?
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
Along with the 1000 calorie suggestion, doctors also are known to give blanket direction to patients to "cut carbs", not because a patient's medical condition mandates it, but because they assume that's where many of the extra calories are coming from in peoples' diets. They aren't carefully studying every patient's history & diet before doling out this advice... they're just playing the odds.16 -
Oh, and even if the previous poster's doctor did give her a calorie allowance of 1000 based on a careful study of her medical history and personal situation, it would be highly irresponsible to extrapolate that to your situation. If you're concerned about safety, why not make an appointment to discuss it with your own doctor?5
-
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
That may be the reason the OP is taking this so poorly. People like you and me have learned from past failure but the OP has seemingly always had a working formula for weight loss. We have learned to be flexible and, more importantly, we have learned how to be wrong.
12 -
Ah... so you feel like any point being made as to accuracy is a moral judgment on an individual? Nah. Most of us have just learned from our own experience that accurate logging is a skill that requires some education & practice like any other, and that when people have issues with not losing at the expected rate, that's usually the culprit. I bemoaned my lack of progress for a long time, but surprise... when I really commit myself to accurate logging (even the couple of bites I might mindlessly finish off my kids' plates after a meal), and when I don't assume MFP's estimated calorie burns for exercise are accurate, I lose at the expected rate. Doesn't mean I was a liar and a cheater
That may be the reason the OP is taking this so poorly. People like you and me have learned from past failure but the OP has seemingly always had a working formula for weight loss. We have learned to be flexible and, more importantly, we have learned how to be wrong.
Boy, have I ever learned how to be wrong!
7 -
Slowfaster wrote: »...making sure I reach my goals for protein and fat, and take a daily vitamin.
Here is a study you might find helpful in determining your protein goals.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
I was really hopeful this study would provide insight into protein needs for older women, but despite the abstract's noting a study in premenopausal women that looked at benefits in muscle retention during calorie restriction that included 1.6 g/d/kg bw over .8 kg/d/kg bw, the study design inexplicably (to me) put the posmenopausal women in calorie restriction with protein intakes ranging from .47 g/d/kg bw to .8 g/d/kg bw. That's right, the "high protein" participants were actually getting a hair less than the RDA for protein!
0 -
This has been interesting! I'll admit right here that I don't weigh my food. Given that fact; when mfp tells me to eat 1200 calories, I just log my calories every day and shoot for 1000 to 1100 calories. I really do know that I underestimate how many calories I eat. A slow or stalled wieght loss for me can only be cured with more physical activity. I have learned that about myself. So, OP I am also pushing 70. I have two suggestions for you: Either just shoot for say 1100 cals a day and see how it goes, if you start losing more to your liking, problem solved. Otherwise find some daily activity that you can be relatively sure burns about 150 to 200 calories and stick with it every day, and see if that works to break you out of the slow losses.
After you've given those 2 suggestions a go, please come back here and let us know how it all went!
Also, I havent found my health is adversly affected with this method.
edit to be more clear3 -
I hadn't seen anyone mention it, so just for fun, I ran your stats through a TDEE calculator. At 200 lbs, it had you at about 1700 for a maintenance level of calories. So sure enough, 1200 calories would put you at a 500 calorie deficit, or a 1 lb/week loss rate, which you confirmed (45 lbs in 10 months, keeping in mind it would be faster in the beginning & slower more recently). Now, at 167, it gives you a maintenance level of about 1500. So on 1200 calories, this is a 300 calorie deficit, or about .5 lb/week. A little discrepancy in your logging may reduce that to a deficit of 150 or less. Loss at that rate could slow so as to be nearly imperceptible once you figure in natural scale fluctuations. The thing is, this is completely fine and to be expected. Most people would tell you the last 10-15 lbs can be maddening to lose, because the margin of error is so small and the lack of positive reinforcement on the scale can be discouraging and make it difficult to stay on track. "Why keep doing something that isn't (doesn't appear to be) working", I believe you said.
So it's not a problem to be solved, really, so much as an exercise in diligence and patience. Could you delve under 1200 true calories for a short time to hurry it up? Sure. Is that the most advisable thing? No. No one can really tell you any differently.
One other thing to consider is this: at 167, your maintenance calories are 1500. At 140, it would be in the 1300s. Do you foresee that fitting into your lifestyle permanently (assuming there are no changes in activity level)? If not, that goal may not be for you. You mention having lost large amounts of weight in the past, but apparently not being able to maintain it, so it's something to consider. Better to lose 40 lbs & keep it off than 60 and not be able to maintain it. There is a balance to be found between health and comfort. Wish you the best
13
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions