Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

1400accurate maintenance?

2»

Replies

  • CharlieBeansmomTraceyCharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,497Member Member Posts: 7,497Member Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    not always true. the more active a person is the more they can eat in many circumstances.Im 5'6 1/2 and my BMR is a lot lower than others of my height and activity level. its even lower than what any calculator even mfp gives me. taller people dont need to be heavier per se. they may be able to weigh a bit more than say someone several inches shorter than they are but doesnt mean its a healthy weight.

    so ones person maintenance can differ due to activity levels.many women around my age and height can eat more than I can to maintain.even when I was very active I could not eat a lot. my maintenance is 1900 without exercise and around 2200 with exercise and thats burning wuite a bit of calories. even if I burn 3000 calories(including my BMR) I still cant eat more than 2200 or I gain weight. I dont know if its due to my health issue or not but thats how it works for me.

    I dont know if thats a rare thing or not but there are many women on here who are shorter than me who can eat more than I can.

    Hmm. I know BMI isn't the end all be all, but it's still a decent reference. It is not false that a tall person needs to be heavier; a 130 lb person is overweight at 4'11" but underweight at 5'11".
    Oh yes. I do know just how much activity affects TDEE. I'd be a miserable 5'2" lady on my sedentary 1400-1500 calories, but I'm active and eat around 2000 calories to keep between 110-120 lbs. I'm basing my statements from what I've read online and on a thread I made almost a year ago:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10641330/light-petites-maintaining-on-2000-calories#latest

    It's not unusual to be above 2000 calories, but people consistently pushing 3000 calories tend to be heavier.

    many who can eat around 3000 calories may also have a higher amount of muscle as well. since musle burns more calories at rest(not much but every little bit helps) . the thing with BMI is its very outdated and bodybuilders or even weight lifters are often classified as overweight according to the BMI im oerweight/obese yet Im wearing smaller clothing and have less fat than I was at 40+ lbs lighter. my blood work is also better than it was all those years ago. you can be overeight and be healthy it happens.

    sure a person 5'11 and only 130 lbs would be underweight according to the BMI and so on. but its possible they could be healthy otherwise .for the longest time my mom was 5'9 1/2 and never weighed more than 140. she was healthy(before she started drinking).she would have been considered underweight by the BMI scale but she had a good bit of muscle and low body fat(from lifting and carrying furniture since my dad worked for a moving company) she was always active and didnt eat a lot but she never lost or gained weight.

    now for me and my heigh and weight(and activity) I should be able to maintain on more than 2200 calories. but nope for me its not that way.heck when I was a kid and 120-140 lbs I know I was eating more than that then, I could eat all day and most were high calorie foods.I could put away a medium pizza for dinner and still have eaten lunch and then some.

    cant do that now of course. but everyone is different and BMI charts anymore should be done away with and they need to find a better guide. you being able to eat 2000 being active is just a little less than me. Im 4 1/2 inches taller and Im finding now that 2200 calories is too much for me even being active. so see how that works? I should be able to eat more being active. but the last 2 months Ive been slowly gaining after maintaining a loss for more than 4 years
  • Lillymoo01Lillymoo01 Posts: 1,743Member Member Posts: 1,743Member Member
    apullum wrote: »
    For a 4"11 female does this seem accurate?

    This may be accurate but depends on your maintenance weight and activity level. I am just under 5 feet tall and maintain at 112-115 on 1400 not counting exercise. I log all exercise separately.

    I am the same height as you but around 10 pounds lighter and maintain on around 1500 calories before exercise but closer to 2100 calories once my exercise is included.

    We are all different and the only way to work out your real maintenance calories is through trial and error. Start with what calculations you are given with, and if after a month or so you are gaining/losing at a pace that is different than expected then adjust accordingly.
    edited January 3
  • mk2fitmk2fit Posts: 718Member Member Posts: 718Member Member
    I have my maintenance set at 1800 and sedentary. I am anything but. I run on average 5 miles/day and walk a lot as well as other exercise. I probably eat somewhere between 2300-3000 calories/day and stay within the same 3 pounds and have for three years. I am 60 years old, female and lost 71#. Maintenance is a crap shoot - it took me several months to find my happy place.
    Listen to your nutritionist, doctor or other professional as well as your body. You will find what works for you eventually. Do not give up!
  • acoggacogg Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    I agree with others that it's weirder than that. Partly it's activity, but partly it's personal mystery. (Could have something to do with meticulousness of logging, but I'm not sure that even accounts for all of it.) All of these statistics tend to have some underlying bell curve (or analogous sort of distribution). I don't think we've captured all the things that put most people near the mean, and others out a standard deviation, or even two.

    I'm older (63), not tall (5'5"), not all that heavy (BMI 22-ish in mid-130s), and maintain hundreds of calories above the net MFP would give me as a sedentary to lightly active person (6,000 steps is a fairly big day for me; under 5,000 is common). I estimate and eat back all my exercise. I have no idea why this is true. I could speculate, but it would involve tacking together many factors each of which is only maybe worth a handful (<50) calories daily. My NEAT varies seasonally, but it seems to be averaging in the low 2000s, based on about 4 years of logging, when most calculators think 1500 +/-. Add exercise, 200-300 most days, and it can be mid-2000s.

    It's really individual, but (heh) most people are close to average.

    We are in almost the exactly situation. I am 58 years old and 5'5 and weigh in the 130ish range. I wear a size 6 and am naturally built like a barrel with stick legs. My BMI is exactly the same as yours. My maintenance is 1500 calories, give or take on a given day. It's a happy place for me and I feel satisfied with my calories.

    I agree that maintenance is very individual. I also believe that females are different according to age. I am obviously post menopausal. When I was still menstruating, I could gain 10 pounds in one week before menstruating. I assume it was a way to be more appealing and curvy at the time of being fertile. Yet I was also more cranky so that part doesn't make sense. Not sure. Sometimes the body does things we don't understand and will never understand. There is also a difference between activity. A person who doesn't track activity can be more active than a person who logs exercise constantly. Some people are busy all the time, but are so used to it that it doesn't seem like activity so they don't log anything. Others need to log their time off the couch. There are so many personal variables that each person needs to find their own happy place. There is no one size fits all for maintenance. It took me at least 2 years to find my happy place and to be confident enough to stop logging.
  • ritzvinritzvin Posts: 2,240Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,240Member, Premium Member

    Do you know if a slight deficit of 50/100, (if the 1400 is wrong) could pose any negative effects? Suffered hair loss at 1200, really dont want thT again
    How much weight were you losing on 1200?

    Depending on whether the 1200 was a large deficit or not (it might not have been if sedentary, 4'11", and within/near normal weight range), the hair loss may have been due to what you were eating rather than how much.. At 1200 calories, a lot of people tend to eat way less than the recommended minimum of fat intake (which can cause such health issues). You could have also been low on protein and/or certain vitamins/minerals.
  • Francl27Francl27 Posts: 26,371Member Member Posts: 26,371Member Member
    firef1y72 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I would be surprised if it's that low. My wife is only a couple inches taller and she typically maintains on 2200 calories per day...she's a runner though and lifts weights as well.

    I'd love to meet your wife, I don't think I know anybody irl that can eat as much as me and still maintain.
    op it's possible I guess, I would be miserable though, I'm 5'1.5 and maintain on around 2500-3000 Calories, I also run and lift

    You, lady, are amazing!
  • Sammylou40sSammylou40s Posts: 6Member Member Posts: 6Member Member
    I’m so jealous of some of the figures I’m reading here!
    I’m female 5’6”. Currently 136lbs. 49 and going through menopause. ( does anyone know if that affects weight loss?)
    My maintenance is set by mfp at 1570. I’m sedentary due to ill health
    But it’s clearly too much.
    I’ve lost 75lbs from jan 18 to July 18 and have been maintaining since then. But it’s creeping up slightly so I want to get back in control. I’ve only gained 4lbs but have to put a stop to it before it’s more. I’ll drop back to 1200 until it’s gone but the figures others are giving of 2000 and sedentary are mind boggling to me. I know we’re all different but how can it be so varied?
    If anyone can suggest what I may be doing wrong please let me know.
    Is it carbs, sugar, fat for example that’s hindering me?
    I’m not miserable at all on 1500 but as it’s too much then I need to make some changes somewhere to keep it off.
    Thank you!!
  • Lillymoo01Lillymoo01 Posts: 1,743Member Member Posts: 1,743Member Member
    I’m so jealous of some of the figures I’m reading here!
    I’m female 5’6”. Currently 136lbs. 49 and going through menopause. ( does anyone know if that affects weight loss?)
    My maintenance is set by mfp at 1570. I’m sedentary due to ill health
    But it’s clearly too much.
    I’ve lost 75lbs from jan 18 to July 18 and have been maintaining since then. But it’s creeping up slightly so I want to get back in control. I’ve only gained 4lbs but have to put a stop to it before it’s more. I’ll drop back to 1200 until it’s gone but the figures others are giving of 2000 and sedentary are mind boggling to me. I know we’re all different but how can it be so varied?
    If anyone can suggest what I may be doing wrong please let me know.
    Is it carbs, sugar, fat for example that’s hindering me?
    I’m not miserable at all on 1500 but as it’s too much then I need to make some changes somewhere to keep it off.
    Thank you!!

    It isn't so much what you eat but how active you are. I fidget all the time. There is always some part of me that seems to be moving and I stand way more than I sit. In this situation, I am not taking steps but am still burning more than if I were still. The more muscle you have the higher your BMR also as muscle takes more energy to maintain than fat. Here is a thread about ways to increase your NEAT (energy burn before deliberate exercise).
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
    edited January 3
  • ritzvinritzvin Posts: 2,240Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,240Member, Premium Member
    I’m so jealous of some of the figures I’m reading here!
    I’m female 5’6”. Currently 136lbs. 49 and going through menopause. ( does anyone know if that affects weight loss?)
    My maintenance is set by mfp at 1570. I’m sedentary due to ill health
    But it’s clearly too much.
    I’ve lost 75lbs from jan 18 to July 18 and have been maintaining since then. But it’s creeping up slightly so I want to get back in control. I’ve only gained 4lbs but have to put a stop to it before it’s more. I’ll drop back to 1200 until it’s gone but the figures others are giving of 2000 and sedentary are mind boggling to me. I know we’re all different but how can it be so varied?
    If anyone can suggest what I may be doing wrong please let me know.
    Is it carbs, sugar, fat for example that’s hindering me?
    I’m not miserable at all on 1500 but as it’s too much then I need to make some changes somewhere to keep it off.
    Thank you!!

    I don't think any of the people above maintaining at 2000 are sedentary though. (if I managed to miss one that is, it's likely that they are either a tall male and/or obese)
  • Lillymoo01Lillymoo01 Posts: 1,743Member Member Posts: 1,743Member Member
    Also, keep in mind that logging inaccuracies can explain a big difference because your perceived calorie intake and your actual calorie intake can be significantly different.
  • CharlieBeansmomTraceyCharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,497Member Member Posts: 7,497Member Member
    I’m so jealous of some of the figures I’m reading here!
    I’m female 5’6”. Currently 136lbs. 49 and going through menopause. ( does anyone know if that affects weight loss?)
    My maintenance is set by mfp at 1570. I’m sedentary due to ill health
    But it’s clearly too much.
    I’ve lost 75lbs from jan 18 to July 18 and have been maintaining since then. But it’s creeping up slightly so I want to get back in control. I’ve only gained 4lbs but have to put a stop to it before it’s more. I’ll drop back to 1200 until it’s gone but the figures others are giving of 2000 and sedentary are mind boggling to me. I know we’re all different but how can it be so varied?
    If anyone can suggest what I may be doing wrong please let me know.
    Is it carbs, sugar, fat for example that’s hindering me?
    I’m not miserable at all on 1500 but as it’s too much then I need to make some changes somewhere to keep it off.
    Thank you!!

    have you realculated your calorie goals since you lost the 75 lbs? if not you need to go back and put your stats in again. carbs/sugar or fat is not hindering you unless its putting you into maintenance calories. if you havent recalculated for your new weight thats most likely the issue. you cant eat the same amount of calories you did when you were heavier. also if you have been eating at a deficit for any length of time you may want a diet break for a week or two and eat maintenance calories,or a few weeks if needed then resume eating in a deficit.
  • neldabgneldabg Posts: 1,350Member Member Posts: 1,350Member Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    not always true. the more active a person is the more they can eat in many circumstances.Im 5'6 1/2 and my BMR is a lot lower than others of my height and activity level. its even lower than what any calculator even mfp gives me. taller people dont need to be heavier per se. they may be able to weigh a bit more than say someone several inches shorter than they are but doesnt mean its a healthy weight.

    so ones person maintenance can differ due to activity levels.many women around my age and height can eat more than I can to maintain.even when I was very active I could not eat a lot. my maintenance is 1900 without exercise and around 2200 with exercise and thats burning wuite a bit of calories. even if I burn 3000 calories(including my BMR) I still cant eat more than 2200 or I gain weight. I dont know if its due to my health issue or not but thats how it works for me.

    I dont know if thats a rare thing or not but there are many women on here who are shorter than me who can eat more than I can.

    Hmm. I know BMI isn't the end all be all, but it's still a decent reference. It is not false that a tall person needs to be heavier; a 130 lb person is overweight at 4'11" but underweight at 5'11".
    Oh yes. I do know just how much activity affects TDEE. I'd be a miserable 5'2" lady on my sedentary 1400-1500 calories, but I'm active and eat around 2000 calories to keep between 110-120 lbs. I'm basing my statements from what I've read online and on a thread I made almost a year ago:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10641330/light-petites-maintaining-on-2000-calories#latest

    It's not unusual to be above 2000 calories, but people consistently pushing 3000 calories tend to be heavier.

    many who can eat around 3000 calories may also have a higher amount of muscle as well. since musle burns more calories at rest(not much but every little bit helps) . the thing with BMI is its very outdated and bodybuilders or even weight lifters are often classified as overweight according to the BMI im oerweight/obese yet Im wearing smaller clothing and have less fat than I was at 40+ lbs lighter. my blood work is also better than it was all those years ago. you can be overeight and be healthy it happens.

    sure a person 5'11 and only 130 lbs would be underweight according to the BMI and so on. but its possible they could be healthy otherwise .for the longest time my mom was 5'9 1/2 and never weighed more than 140. she was healthy(before she started drinking).she would have been considered underweight by the BMI scale but she had a good bit of muscle and low body fat(from lifting and carrying furniture since my dad worked for a moving company) she was always active and didnt eat a lot but she never lost or gained weight.

    now for me and my heigh and weight(and activity) I should be able to maintain on more than 2200 calories. but nope for me its not that way.heck when I was a kid and 120-140 lbs I know I was eating more than that then, I could eat all day and most were high calorie foods.I could put away a medium pizza for dinner and still have eaten lunch and then some.

    cant do that now of course. but everyone is different and BMI charts anymore should be done away with and they need to find a better guide. you being able to eat 2000 being active is just a little less than me. Im 4 1/2 inches taller and Im finding now that 2200 calories is too much for me even being active. so see how that works? I should be able to eat more being active. but the last 2 months Ive been slowly gaining after maintaining a loss for more than 4 years

    The extra burn of muscle is indeed very real, but exaggerated. This concise, cited article explains the minuscule difference it makes in layman's terms:

    https://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/amp/

    Every extra bit matters to me, and I'd take it lol, but it's not going to make a huge difference between most people (i.e 2000 vs 3000 calorie maintenance). You yourself even acknowledge how tiny the extra boost is, so I don't understand why you included it in your argument for the wide range of calorie intake?

    My views of BMI are in the pro/neutral feelings of it discussed in these two most recent threads on this often debated topic:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10713113/bmi-controversy-️🤬


    Also, I'm not sure how it happens, but I find it odd when people calculate BMI incorrectly. It happens from time to time on MFP. Where did you calculate your mom's BMI? At 5'9 1/2 and 140 lbs, she was light, but not even borderline underweight.
    edited January 7
  • DilvishDilvish Posts: 178Member Member Posts: 178Member Member
    If you are losing hair then it is likely more than just calories. Typically hair loss stems from poor nutrient intake which is definitely associated with too few calories but it may simply be the type of foods you are eating. Low Iron and Low protein can also be responsible for hair loss as well as too much Vitamin A.

    Since we don't know your activity level, age and weight, it's hard to gauge whether 1400 calories is a maintenance level or not. These factors combined with your height can usually estimate where you should be in terms of calories for maintenance. Again just make sure that you are getting proper nutrition with those calories.
  • CharlieBeansmomTraceyCharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,497Member Member Posts: 7,497Member Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    not always true. the more active a person is the more they can eat in many circumstances.Im 5'6 1/2 and my BMR is a lot lower than others of my height and activity level. its even lower than what any calculator even mfp gives me. taller people dont need to be heavier per se. they may be able to weigh a bit more than say someone several inches shorter than they are but doesnt mean its a healthy weight.

    so ones person maintenance can differ due to activity levels.many women around my age and height can eat more than I can to maintain.even when I was very active I could not eat a lot. my maintenance is 1900 without exercise and around 2200 with exercise and thats burning wuite a bit of calories. even if I burn 3000 calories(including my BMR) I still cant eat more than 2200 or I gain weight. I dont know if its due to my health issue or not but thats how it works for me.

    I dont know if thats a rare thing or not but there are many women on here who are shorter than me who can eat more than I can.

    Hmm. I know BMI isn't the end all be all, but it's still a decent reference. It is not false that a tall person needs to be heavier; a 130 lb person is overweight at 4'11" but underweight at 5'11".
    Oh yes. I do know just how much activity affects TDEE. I'd be a miserable 5'2" lady on my sedentary 1400-1500 calories, but I'm active and eat around 2000 calories to keep between 110-120 lbs. I'm basing my statements from what I've read online and on a thread I made almost a year ago:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10641330/light-petites-maintaining-on-2000-calories#latest

    It's not unusual to be above 2000 calories, but people consistently pushing 3000 calories tend to be heavier.

    many who can eat around 3000 calories may also have a higher amount of muscle as well. since musle burns more calories at rest(not much but every little bit helps) . the thing with BMI is its very outdated and bodybuilders or even weight lifters are often classified as overweight according to the BMI im oerweight/obese yet Im wearing smaller clothing and have less fat than I was at 40+ lbs lighter. my blood work is also better than it was all those years ago. you can be overeight and be healthy it happens.

    sure a person 5'11 and only 130 lbs would be underweight according to the BMI and so on. but its possible they could be healthy otherwise .for the longest time my mom was 5'9 1/2 and never weighed more than 140. she was healthy(before she started drinking).she would have been considered underweight by the BMI scale but she had a good bit of muscle and low body fat(from lifting and carrying furniture since my dad worked for a moving company) she was always active and didnt eat a lot but she never lost or gained weight.

    now for me and my heigh and weight(and activity) I should be able to maintain on more than 2200 calories. but nope for me its not that way.heck when I was a kid and 120-140 lbs I know I was eating more than that then, I could eat all day and most were high calorie foods.I could put away a medium pizza for dinner and still have eaten lunch and then some.

    cant do that now of course. but everyone is different and BMI charts anymore should be done away with and they need to find a better guide. you being able to eat 2000 being active is just a little less than me. Im 4 1/2 inches taller and Im finding now that 2200 calories is too much for me even being active. so see how that works? I should be able to eat more being active. but the last 2 months Ive been slowly gaining after maintaining a loss for more than 4 years

    The extra burn of muscle is indeed very real, but exaggerated. This concise, cited article explains the minuscule difference it makes in layman's terms:

    https://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/amp/

    Every extra bit matters to me, and I'd take it lol, but it's not going to make a huge difference between most people (i.e 2000 vs 3000 calorie maintenance). You yourself even acknowledge how tiny the extra boost is, so I don't understand why you included it in your argument for the wide range of calorie intake?

    My views of BMI are in the pro/neutral feelings of it discussed in these two most recent threads on this often debated topic:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10713113/bmi-controversy-️🤬


    Also, I'm not sure how it happens, but I find it odd when people calculate BMI incorrectly. It happens from time to time on MFP. Where did you calculate your mom's BMI? At 5'9 1/2 and 140 lbs, she was light, but not even borderline underweight.

    I calculated it awhile back at the drs office because they have a chart there. whether its right or not I dont know. I also said she never weighed more than 140. she was most of the time under than she ranged from 125 -135. 140 was mostly when she was younger before she had kids. she has very low body fat too(but body fat isnt considered on most BMI charts,neither is muscle unfortunately).
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Posts: 4,658Member Member Posts: 4,658Member Member
    Possibly. Are you sedentary?

    Basically, samsung health says I burn 1322 and suggests I eat 1300, 1450 if i get 60+excersize mins [i definitely dont] but mfp says 1300 or 1460 [if active] . A dietician said anywhere between 1200-1500 but I'm trying to find a good number because I was losing hair at 1200.

    OK... I see your post! :smile:

    You were eating 1200 and losing hair, right?
    Presumably you were losing weight over a period of time while eating "1200".
    I mean if you were not losing weight then the hair loss would not be related to your caloric consumption, right?

    Now, eating 1200 is "big words".

    Because many people on MFP for some strange, to me, reason, insist on eating less than they should be eating in order to meet their targets.

    And then there's people like me. Who put up a target of "zzzz"; but who almost always eat more than that. Not just because it is a deficit target even though I am maintaining; but also because eating "zzzz" doesn't account for exercise and extra activity calories that also get eaten if you want to meet your targets.

    So your target eating of 1200 is not *necessarily* what you actually did eat. And what we care about is what you actually consumed!

    So.... look back as far as you can and compare how many calories you actually ate to what happened with your weight.

    As an approximation for every lb of trending weight you lost.... add 3500 Cal to your tally of total calories.

    Now total up all the calories, divide by the number of days... there you go: this is how many calories you START to EAT AT in order to approximate maintenance based on your very own data going back, hopefully, a few months.

    Keep at it for a few weeks. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

    edited January 8
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.