minimum calorie intake

mooreks81
mooreks81 Posts: 15 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I know this has been asked previously and I went ahead and read through the previous posts on this, but there were some mixed responses and I would appreciate some clarification.

Through a gym, I recently signed up for a weight loss / percent body fat loss challenge that lasts 6 weeks. I am not new to myfitnesspal, but I had been out of good habits for fitness and diet for at least the past year. As a part of this challenge, they performed a body analysis. That gave me the following information -- 141 lbs, 26% body fat, and 1382 BMR. Other than my new workouts through this program, which I log, I live a sedentary lifestyle. I'm mostly working on my computer, no walking for my commute, etc.

This week I started logging with the goal of 1200 (MFP must have set this as a minimum goal because the numbers don't add up) and noticed that once I'm paying attention, I'm pretty satisfied hunger-wise with this number of calories. (Before the challenge I had definitely been eating a lot more.) There were 1-2 days I purposefully added a snack at the end of the day that I wasn't hungry for, because I got the error cautioning against eating less than 1000 calories. But why the error? I finally noticed that BMR of 1382 reading and did the math and realized to lose 1 lb per week I needed to be eating 882 calories (plus exercise cals).

So here's the question -- why the 1000 calories (or 1200 as some people have said) cut-off for women? Women come in a range of sizes with a range of BMRs. Is it simply inappropriate for someone with a 1382 BMR to try to lose 1 lb per week? Do I need to reduce my speed of weight loss? People have said on here that you need more to meet nutritional goals. Do women of different sizes have the same nutritional goal? I can't imagine that a 5'0" woman weighing 95 lbs needs as many nutrients as a 5'10" woman weighing 200 lbs. I just wonder with my lower BMR maybe I don't need as many nutrients, also?

Whenever I've used myfitnesspal before I've been able to lose at least as fast as the goal calorie intake plan set me to do, so on the one hand I'm encouraged. But on the other hand I was breastfeeding last time (I logged it as exercise, but I didn't have that minimum calorie problem as a result because I always ate at least 1200 calories). Other times I've used myfitnesspal I've been leaner, i.e., a higher BMR.

The workouts for this fitness program are mostly weight lifting, which is great; I'd like to increase my muscle mass & BMR. But it means I'm not burning that many calories through exercise so I can't easily eat 1200 cals and then get to 882 through working out. Exercise is more like 150/day.

So, what do you think -- eat 1200 and hope the lbs come off faster than 0.5 lb/week (mathematically this shouldn't happen), or eat <1000 (882) to try for more rapid loss? I'm mainly doing this for my health, but I'd also really like to win the challenge if possible, so I don't want to be too slow with weight loss.

Replies

  • resplendent2121
    resplendent2121 Posts: 9 Member
    I mean the world isn't going to end if you eat slightly under 1200... but you may get so hungry that you loose control and binge, which would undo a lot go your progress. I don't think there is any way you could increase you muscle mass if you are eating that little though.
  • mooreks81
    mooreks81 Posts: 15 Member
    Hi everyone, I didn't know that lighter/smaller people needed the same nutrients as everyone else. That does make it harder to lose weight healthily. I should also probably be taking a vitamin, so I appreciate this tip.

    It sounds like I might need to add more cardio (ugh--how to find the time!) and I'll also just expect some slower weight loss. To answer your other questions, I'm 37 yrs old and 5'7".

    I know that winning this kind of challenge is unrealistic and I wouldn't consider it a possibility at all except that they have the challenge set up by team. As it turns out, I'm the only one who signed up for the team slot that I'm in, and there aren't that many teams. I guess I'm banking on the idea that each team might have a couple of slackers bringing down the average, so I'd have a shot at the "team" win. There is obviously no chance of winning the individual challenge because even though it's done by percentage in an effort to not disadvantage small people, I only have about 10% of my weight to lose, not 30% like other people probably do. And as a woman it's going to be so much harder to build up muscle mass. It will help me do well in this thing if I know I have a shot of winning, though, and I think that the prize might include some discount / membership to the gym, which would further my health.
  • evergreenlakegirl
    evergreenlakegirl Posts: 89 Member
    edited October 2018
    I am 5'3", started at 128.8 lbs.... and my goal weight is 118-120....MFP gave me 1200 daily calories to loose 1 pound a week. So far .....30 days- 3 lbs....so it's working. I've lost 3" off my waist and 2" off my hips.
    Moore wrote: "The workouts for this fitness program are mostly weight lifting, which is great; I'd like to increase my muscle mass & BMR. But it means I'm not burning that many calories through exercise"
    This put my antenna up......I do mostly weight/circuit exercise....and according to MFP I do burn calories doing this. I've been told by other fitness people that the only way to loose weight is to do cardio (and of course diet). Can someone clarify this point that Moore wrote?
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    edited October 2018
    Quick TDEE calculation using scoobysworkshop.com. It shows your BMR about the same -1402, and to lose with a 10% calorie deficit, eating 1735 calories per day. Your deficit needs to be small, because you don't have much if any to lose. I suspect you'd do better by lifting heavy and eating at maintenance at this point. Check out @mom23mangos' thread below.

    zc4zx1hbvz73.jpg


    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10698672/maintenance-failure-gained-all-the-weight-back-w-pics/p1
  • aurolena
    aurolena Posts: 18 Member
    The general consensus is that you cannot get enough nutrition at sub 1200. You can get by, and you might not binge or ever go over, but you're depriving your body because it's impossible to pack enough protein/fat/vitamins in from food at lower numbers.

    I've come in a lot lower a few days because I just don't feel like eating more and I can say the "crash" afterwards is awful. It's hard for me to get over 1200 but stay under 1400, and when I end up around 1000 for a couple days, I can hardly get out of bed. Everything hurts and I'm so weak I can't hold my head up to eat. My blood pressure and blood sugar are fine, but my body is just in dead stop mode.

    0/10 do not suggest.
  • evergreenlakegirl
    evergreenlakegirl Posts: 89 Member
    janejellyroll- I seem to be feeling best eating 1200 calories and also seem to get a good balance of macros and hit most of my nutrients....so I guess it is choosing the right foods.....
    When I put in Circuit exercise in my diary it shows I burn 400+ calories, but because it is general, I cut that in half. I'm new to this whole concept, so it surprises me that although weight training is meant to "sculpt" the body- I'm surprised that it also doesn't contribute to weight loss. I don't seem to have much stamina for cardio, hence why I went to the weights.
  • mooreks81
    mooreks81 Posts: 15 Member
    Thanks for the tips everyone! I will definitely go at higher than 1200 based on these tips. This is good because my intuition was that sub 1000 was really ridiculous.

    Thank you for the TDEE calculation. I really do have a sedentary lifestyle, but that's not quite "merely existing." I still get up and move around the house a bit. So I could buy that my minimal movement is worth about 300 calories a day. Going based on solely the BMR is a bad idea, so thank you so much for redirecting me.

    As for the comments about height and weight...I am extremely small-boned. When I first reached my adult height I only weighed 110 lbs. Granted I was very thin as a high schooler (though I probably ate 2500+ cals a day) and I'm happy to have more weight now! But my body is "meant" to be lighter based on my tiny bone structure (I wear child size watches and rings). I am obviously not overweight, but my joints and body feel much more healthy when I weigh about 125-130. I would not go under 125 though. If I gain substantial muscle, then my goal will not be to reduce my weight down to 125--that's too low.

    Also I know that I burn calories lifting weights of course, but usually 45 minutes of doing this will burn maybe 100 calories, whereas the same amount of time on the elliptical will burn at least double that. However, for my goals I would still like to spend the time on weights.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    evergreenlakegirl wrote: »
    janejellyroll- I seem to be feeling best eating 1200 calories and also seem to get a good balance of macros and hit most of my nutrients....so I guess it is choosing the right foods.....
    When I put in Circuit exercise in my diary it shows I burn 400+ calories, but because it is general, I cut that in half. I'm new to this whole concept, so it surprises me that although weight training is meant to "sculpt" the body- I'm surprised that it also doesn't contribute to weight loss. I don't seem to have much stamina for cardio, hence why I went to the weights.

    You say you're hitting most of your nutritional goals. I don't think anybody denies that it's possible to get *some* of the nutrition you need while eating 1,200 calories. I think most people would want to consistently get all of what they need, as well as eat in a way that supports their overall energy level.

    Anything that burns calories is, basically, "contributing" to your weight loss. In that respect, sitting on the couch and watching Netflix contributes to your weight loss, as your body is burning calories while you do it. The issue is that some people think that weight/circuit training is burning way more calories than it actually does. There are great fitness and body composition reasons to do weight training. It just doesn't, in and of itself, burn a lot of energy.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,052 Member
    mooreks81 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, I didn't know that lighter/smaller people needed the same nutrients as everyone else. That does make it harder to lose weight healthily. I should also probably be taking a vitamin, so I appreciate this tip.

    It sounds like I might need to add more cardio (ugh--how to find the time!) and I'll also just expect some slower weight loss. To answer your other questions, I'm 37 yrs old and 5'7".

    I know that winning this kind of challenge is unrealistic and I wouldn't consider it a possibility at all except that they have the challenge set up by team. As it turns out, I'm the only one who signed up for the team slot that I'm in, and there aren't that many teams. I guess I'm banking on the idea that each team might have a couple of slackers bringing down the average, so I'd have a shot at the "team" win. There is obviously no chance of winning the individual challenge because even though it's done by percentage in an effort to not disadvantage small people, I only have about 10% of my weight to lose, not 30% like other people probably do. And as a woman it's going to be so much harder to build up muscle mass. It will help me do well in this thing if I know I have a shot of winning, though, and I think that the prize might include some discount / membership to the gym, which would further my health.

    Lighter/smaller people don't need the same nutrients as bigger people (current weight is less relevant than a healthy goal weight, BTW). The point is that almost no one is likely to get adequate nutrition on less than 1200 calories (1500 if male), not even smaller people.

    (Some sub 5-foot women might be able to get enough nutrition below 1200, but that's something to figure out in conjunction with a doctor and registered dietitican. Smaller older women are actually potentially kind of screwed, because we statistically have lower TDEEs, but need just as many nutrients, in some cases more, than younger women of similar size who have bigger estimated TDEEs - it's just harder to fit them in the lower calorie goal. I'm old, but happily have a larger TDEE than most my age.)

    If you're hitting your macro/micro targets as MFP defaults set them, that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting adequate nutrition. How much you need of certain very important nutrients is determined by your lean body mass or (with an arithmetic adjustment) your healthy goal weight. MFP sets your nutrient goals as a percentage of your calories. If you make your calorie goal too aggressive for your current size (i.e., you eat too little), that can put you in a position where you're hitting the right percent of your calories in each nutrient category, but you're not getting enough of that nutrient (as an absolute amount) for your body size. Don't let the math confuse you!

    This is a good thread on nutrient targets:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    I'm willing to believe you should be on the lighter side for your height, depending on body type (I'm similar), and 26% body fat (depending on how measured) would seem to suggest you have a small amount of fat you could reasonably lose. But the trouble is that losing a pound a week is probably too aggressive for the weight you currently are, and for the small amount you have yet to lose. That you can do it, or that you can do it without feeling hungry, isn't a sure sign that you're not taking health risks.

    I'm glad you're figuring out that you don't take your deficit off your BMR, but rather off your TDEE, at least. Eight-hundred-some net calories would be taking major health risks, an especially contrary thing to do in a workplace health challenge!

    BTW, vitamins can be a bit of insurance, but they're not a substitute for adequate nutrition. Many recent research results are showing supplemental vitamins not being as effective as the same nutrients from food, and in some cases, the supplement forms have been found to be potentially dangerous (e.g., Vitamin A).
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,086 Member
    [/quote]
    So here's the question -- why the 1000 calories (or 1200 as some people have said) cut-off for women? Women come in a range of sizes with a range of BMRs. Is it simply inappropriate for someone with a 1382 BMR to try to lose 1 lb per week? Do I need to reduce my speed of weight loss? People have said on here that you need more to meet nutritional goals. Do women of different sizes have the same nutritional goal? I can't imagine that a 5'0" woman weighing 95 lbs needs as many nutrients as a 5'10" woman weighing 200 lbs. I just wonder with my lower BMR maybe I don't need as many nutrients, also?
    [/quote]

    Yes, women come in a range of sizes with a range of activity levels and TDEEs.
    1200 calories is a floor for smaller and less active women. Larger and more active women generally should be eating a good bit more than 1200 calories.
  • mooreks81
    mooreks81 Posts: 15 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mooreks81 wrote: »
    Hi everyone, I didn't know that lighter/smaller people needed the same nutrients as everyone else. That does make it harder to lose weight healthily. I should also probably be taking a vitamin, so I appreciate this tip.

    It sounds like I might need to add more cardio (ugh--how to find the time!) and I'll also just expect some slower weight loss. To answer your other questions, I'm 37 yrs old and 5'7".

    I know that winning this kind of challenge is unrealistic and I wouldn't consider it a possibility at all except that they have the challenge set up by team. As it turns out, I'm the only one who signed up for the team slot that I'm in, and there aren't that many teams. I guess I'm banking on the idea that each team might have a couple of slackers bringing down the average, so I'd have a shot at the "team" win. There is obviously no chance of winning the individual challenge because even though it's done by percentage in an effort to not disadvantage small people, I only have about 10% of my weight to lose, not 30% like other people probably do. And as a woman it's going to be so much harder to build up muscle mass. It will help me do well in this thing if I know I have a shot of winning, though, and I think that the prize might include some discount / membership to the gym, which would further my health.

    Lighter/smaller people don't need the same nutrients as bigger people (current weight is less relevant than a healthy goal weight, BTW). The point is that almost no one is likely to get adequate nutrition on less than 1200 calories (1500 if male), not even smaller people.

    (Some sub 5-foot women might be able to get enough nutrition below 1200, but that's something to figure out in conjunction with a doctor and registered dietitican. Smaller older women are actually potentially kind of screwed, because we statistically have lower TDEEs, but need just as many nutrients, in some cases more, than younger women of similar size who have bigger estimated TDEEs - it's just harder to fit them in the lower calorie goal. I'm old, but happily have a larger TDEE than most my age.)

    If you're hitting your macro/micro targets as MFP defaults set them, that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting adequate nutrition. How much you need of certain very important nutrients is determined by your lean body mass or (with an arithmetic adjustment) your healthy goal weight. MFP sets your nutrient goals as a percentage of your calories. If you make your calorie goal too aggressive for your current size (i.e., you eat too little), that can put you in a position where you're hitting the right percent of your calories in each nutrient category, but you're not getting enough of that nutrient (as an absolute amount) for your body size. Don't let the math confuse you!

    This is a good thread on nutrient targets:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    I'm willing to believe you should be on the lighter side for your height, depending on body type (I'm similar), and 26% body fat (depending on how measured) would seem to suggest you have a small amount of fat you could reasonably lose. But the trouble is that losing a pound a week is probably too aggressive for the weight you currently are, and for the small amount you have yet to lose. That you can do it, or that you can do it without feeling hungry, isn't a sure sign that you're not taking health risks.

    I'm glad you're figuring out that you don't take your deficit off your BMR, but rather off your TDEE, at least. Eight-hundred-some net calories would be taking major health risks, an especially contrary thing to do in a workplace health challenge!

    BTW, vitamins can be a bit of insurance, but they're not a substitute for adequate nutrition. Many recent research results are showing supplemental vitamins not being as effective as the same nutrients from food, and in some cases, the supplement forms have been found to be potentially dangerous (e.g., Vitamin A).

    This is such a helpful post, getting at the nuances of it all, and written in such a respectful manner. Thank you so much.

    Really thanks to all of you!

    As an update, I have been eating about 1200-1400 calories a day and about 2.5 weeks in I have lost probably about 2 lbs. I'm feeling healthy and great. Soon I will have a weigh-in with the body fat analysis machine and I look forward to seeing whether the percentage body fat has gone down at all (I think it has, given the training I've done!)

Categories