Please help

cnjg6677

Ok I’m 411 91 pounds 43 years old I was eating 1180 calories a day and was losing .5 pounds a week I upped that to 1200 calories and was losing .5 pound every couple weeks I’ve upped my calories to 1300 and have gained 2 pounds in a month ? I’m at a loss and I’m set to sedentary can someone shed some light please

kimny72

Your weight is never stable, it fluctuates up and down all the time. One scale reading doesn't tell you anything, you need to look at the trend over time.

I can't link on my phone, hopefully someone else will provide one of the links about weight fluctuations.

RodaRose

Take measurements and lots of photos so you can see progress without having to rely 100% of the scale.
Also, see this about weight fluctuations.
I hope that this helps: http://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations/

cnjg6677

Thank you both so much but my trend is going up over the last 4 months when I just want to maintain but don’t wanna stay at 1200 calories

lesdarts180

I hate to tell you this but I'm 5'1" and "lightly active" and my maintenance calories are only 1330. I choose to do quite a lot of exercise to increase my calorie allowance but it's not easy.

Also, at 91 lbs you are at the very low end of the "healthy BMI" scale - perhaps you could re-assess your goal?

I'm sorry not to have more encouraging suggestions.

kimny72

cnjg6677 wrote: »

Thank you both so much but my trend is going up over the last 4 months when I just want to maintain but don’t wanna stay at 1200 calories

That's not at all what your OP said, so I'm a little confused.

But if I ignore your OP, and just take that you've been gaining little bits of weight over the last 4 months, then you are in a very small calorie surplus.

Here's the thing - you are slightly underweight at the stats you posted. No judgement, but if you choose to stay so lean, you need to understand that yes, you will have to eat a smaller amount to stay there. Your sedentary TDEE with those stats is 1200 cals, that's just math. If you want to eat more, you need to burn more, either through gaining a few more lbs or becoming more active (IMHO the best answer is both). Please take care of yourself

PAV8888

The numbers, as given, are not consistent with the perceived weight changes. 20 calories do not equal .25 lbs week, 100 cal a day do not equal a swing of 3lbs in a month.

You are, to a large part, reacting to relatively small and normal water weight changes. This is even more likely if you've just started eating a bit more normally.

As you normalize your eating, such fluctuations tend to become more visible **without actually affecting your general underlying weight level**. It's just that without a persistent downward pressure from a deficit, normal water weight fluctuations start to become more visible.

With only an up-side in terms of health from becoming normal weight vs continuing to be under-weight, I don't see why there is any concern about over-doing things given your current weight trajectory and eating level.

If anything I would be concerned that you may need to increase calories well beyond your current 1300 to successfully get close to the 99+ lb mark where you would be considered weight restored.

jrwms714

OP, I am 5'0 and moderately active ... without taking into consideration that you are at the smallest end on the BMI and may have to take a look at that, I'd have to tell you that petite women have much smaller calorie needs than others, and a lot of exercise is needed for me to be able to eat more than 1300-1400. I am able to get to 1500-1800 with 5 workouts a week, including Pilates, weights, and cardio. My BMR is a mere 1200. I would suggest that some of the advice above is good, but also suggest that you look at joining the Petites in Maintenance group on here.

PAV8888

jrwms714 wrote: »

OP, I am 5'0 and moderately active ... without taking into consideration that you are at the smallest end on the BMI and may have to take a look at that, I'd have to tell you that petite women have much smaller calorie needs than others, and a lot of exercise is needed for me to be able to eat more than 1300-1400. I am able to get to 1500-1800 with 5 workouts a week, including Pilates, weights, and cardio. My BMR is a mere 1200. I would suggest that some of the advice above is good, but also suggest that you look at joining the Petites in Maintenance group on here.

You're 100% correct about everything except, I dare say, about the mere 1200 aspect of your BMR.

As a 5ft 7.5", 155lb, early/mid 50s male my BMR is ~1500. A mere 300 Cal above yours.

Broad worldwide level average female / male Calories per nutrition labels are 2000/2500.

300 Cal * 1.66 (just above MFP active) is equal to the 500 Cal difference between 2k and 2.5K

Not surprisingly, both you and I require an activity factor of about 1.66 to hit the broad average level of 2000/2500.

I maintain at about 2930 and do not exercise (the way most people understand the word) other than occasionally (but I do walk whenever I can!)

NEAT improvement strategies are your friend!

And 1200 is not exceptionally low for BMR!

Clairin

jrwms714 wrote: »

OP, I am 5'0 and moderately active ... without taking into consideration that you are at the smallest end on the BMI and may have to take a look at that, I'd have to tell you that petite women have much smaller calorie needs than others, and a lot of exercise is needed for me to be able to eat more than 1300-1400. I am able to get to 1500-1800 with 5 workouts a week, including Pilates, weights, and cardio. My BMR is a mere 1200. I would suggest that some of the advice above is good, but also suggest that you look at joining the Petites in Maintenance group on here.

I'm the same or very similar to you. Petite & have to BMR is 1200. Maintenance calories is around 1400 for me. I will join that petite group seems like the group for me.

SummerSkier

Hi CNJ, may I suggest changing up what you eat? I am petite and on the lower end of BMI at well. Also old. dammit. I set MFP to 1K base but I do eat at a steady TDEE state of around 1850 to maintain vs the #s MFP and Fitbit calculate which are about 200-300 cals too high. I am very active tho - running a few miles per day and avg just over 20K steps per day as well. I am not suggesting that it makes a difference as far as types of foods to CICO but if you are eating the same chips and nutri bars and such every day it could be that the cal estimate on those is off. Maybe just for a few weeks eat at 1200 and instead of those packaged items do veggies and fruits and other "natural" type foods? Just an idea....And more variety in your intake might also be more fun too?