Question on long term calorie consumption

wmweeza

I am sedentary ( you would be too if you used a wheelchair!) but I do some weightlifting and track every calorie I eat. So far I've lost 72 lbs and have about 40 left to lose.
I was reading up on medical studies on weight loss, and as has been said here before people lose a lot of weight at first and then it slows down to a lower rate after the initial loss. Most of the studies say being bigger allows a person to lose more weight with a calorie cut initially, my question is as my metabolism adjusts to being smaller these studies say I need even less caloric intake to lose then I currently strive for, is that so?
In other words; I've already cut my calories to the bare bones and do what I can for exercise. Will my weight loss continue at a slow but steady pace or will it stop since I can't lower my intake any further?
FYI: I consume around 1250 calories a day. From reading the boards I know many wll say that's too low, but look again at guidelines: It's too low for someone who walks and moves around, but for SEDENTARY it's a good amount.
Thanks for reading, I just want to keep losing even if it's just 2 pounds a month

ccrdragon

As long as your intake is less than your output you will lose weight (even if it is very slow).

wmweeza

Thanks. I was just concerned since my needs are low that a low calorie consumption to match might stall things. Slow and steady is working so far for me

apullum

A smaller body does need fewer calories than a larger one. This is why you should update your MFP goals every 10 or 15 pounds--your calorie goal will generally decrease around that point.

You are going to lose weight as long as your calories eaten are less than your calories burned. Your deficit, however, will get smaller as you have less to lose, so your weight loss will slow down. It will not permanently stop as long as you're in a deficit.

It tends to get harder to ensure that you're in a deficit as you get closer to your goal, because a few errors in logging can erase a small deficit altogether. If you aren't using a food scale already, now is the time to start. Generally, stalls in weight loss are caused by small errors in logging that add up.

We can't say whether 1250 is appropriate for you or not, but being sedentary in itself is not necessarily all it takes to merit a goal that low. Unless you are also very short, you may not need to cut your calories so low.

jemhh

You'll have to cut calories further if you want to keep up the same rate of loss. But if you don't mind a slower rate of loss, you might not have to cut down in calories.

wmweeza

I'm okay with a slow rate

wmweeza

apullum wrote: »

We can't say whether 1250 is appropriate for you or not, but being sedentary in itself is not necessarily all it takes to merit a goal that low. Unless you are also very short, you may not need to cut your calories so low.

I'm 5'4, I started out at 263 pounds, I'm now around 187-188

amyepdx

wmweeza wrote: »

apullum wrote: »

We can't say whether 1250 is appropriate for you or not, but being sedentary in itself is not necessarily all it takes to merit a goal that low. Unless you are also very short, you may not need to cut your calories so low.

I'm 5'4, I started out at 263 pounds, I'm now around 187-188

Can I just say, that is quite an accomplishment! You should be so proud and feeling so much better!

Keep up your weighing and logging - even if your are losing slower, you’re still losing!

apullum

wmweeza wrote: »

apullum wrote: »

We can't say whether 1250 is appropriate for you or not, but being sedentary in itself is not necessarily all it takes to merit a goal that low. Unless you are also very short, you may not need to cut your calories so low.

I'm 5'4, I started out at 263 pounds, I'm now around 187-188

You can almost certainly eat more.