Do I need 1200 calories?

middlehaitch

kymmixxx wrote: »

That's why I said start at 1700 and see how it goes. I'm 4'9 and 133lbs currently losing 1lb a week eating between 1500 and 2800 a day

You are ~20lbs heavier than mittencat77 and didn’t include whether that was your TDEE or NEAT, and if your TDEE what your exercise routine involved.

1700 would be too high a calorie intake for weight loss given the information we have.

As far as I can tell, ‘active’as the MFP activity level is offsetting some of @mittencat77’s exercise calorie burn, therefore if she eats at her cal goal for losing 0.5lbs a week as an ‘active’ woman, and also eats her Garmin cals, she should be able to lose at 0.5lbs a week.

Of course monitoring and adjusting her cals up or down given her real world results/data after 6 weeks, or one full menstrual cycle, will help her hone in on her caloric needs/exercise burn.

Cheers, h.

Hannahwalksfar

kymmixxx wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Why?
why not start at something the calculators say is right for you and then tweak it, - why start at something clearly too high?

Could say the same thing about eating too low! I dont want to be stuck on 1500 maintence calories for thr rest of my life because I've lowered my metabolism so much

That’s not how your metabolism works.

Thinnyminime

It is helpful to have a body composition test done. Find out your percent body fat, Muscle Mass, bone mass, and hydration. This will give you an exact BMI and more importantly BMR which determines the appropriate calorie intake. The gym I go to has a Tanita scale but you can find relatively inexpensive body metric scales for the home. You may not need your body weight to go down rather convert some of your fat to muscle mass and get that lean, strong look. As well, 1200 calories of processed foods is certainly different than 1200 calories of fuel like raw vegetables and lean protein that your body gobbles up and puts to good use.

I am speaking from experience...over the last year I have lowered my BMI 5 points, dropped 6% body fat and elevated my BMR. I have lost 28 lbs in the year but in the last 4 months the scale hasn't moved but I went down a pant size which they say is equal to 10lbs. I think I have finally managed to rev up my metabolism and my body is working around the clock to tidy up the fat and build muscle. Hope this helps, feel free to add me.

middlehaitch

Thinnyminime wrote: »

It is helpful to have a body composition test done. Find out your percent body fat, Muscle Mass, bone mass, and hydration. This will give you an exact BMI and more importantly BMR which determines the appropriate calorie intake. The gym I go to has a Tanita scale but you can find relatively inexpensive body metric scales for the home. You may not need your body weight to go down rather convert some of your fat to muscle mass and get that lean, strong look. As well, 1200 calories of processed foods is certainly different than 1200 calories of fuel like raw vegetables and lean protein that your body gobbles up and puts to good use.

I am speaking from experience...over the last year I have lowered my BMI 5 points, dropped 6% body fat and elevated my BMR. I have lost 28 lbs in the year but in the last 4 months the scale hasn't moved but I went down a pant size which they say is equal to 10lbs. I think I have finally managed to rev up my metabolism and my body is working around the clock to tidy up the fat and build muscle. Hope this helps, feel free to add me.

BMI is a simple height weight equation, no testing needed.

The scales mentioned above are highly inaccurate. They may indicate movement trends if used consistently, but the numbers, except for weight, are unreliable.

1200 calories from ‘processed’ food has exactly the same effect as 1200 cals from raw veg and lean protein as far as fat loss is concerned. The nutritional profiles and maybe satiation effect differ.

Cheers, h.

mittencat77

Thanks everyone!!!! Here is what I am taking away. I need to set my level to sedentary and this will sync my Garmin properly. This explains the strange mismatch btw my Garmin version of events and MFP. I find when I look at the calorie adjustment it is projecting for over 1600 a day yet giving me 1200 to eat. When I used in the past I logged manually, found I ate more than usual and had great results. This time it has been a lot of frustration and I feel like I exercise hard and get nothing to eat. I will change my activity settings. Thank you!!!

kshama2001

NorthCascades wrote: »

mittencat77 wrote: »

MFP says I have a 90 calorie deficit today. My Garmin says I have a 436 calorie deficit today. I am not sure what to do with this conflicting information.

Pretty much what everyone else had said already. And it sounds like this is due to your activity level, MFP giving you your calories up front.

But I think there's something about one of them estimating your calories for the whole day and the other up 'til "now." What do yesterday's numbers look like?

Yes, I forget which is which, but one assumes you will live til midnight and the other is not so optimistic, so is stingier with calories.

Pipsqueak1965

ITs tough being little, isn't it?

debrag12

mittencat77 wrote: »

MFP says I have a 90 calorie deficit today. My Garmin says I have a 436 calorie deficit today. I am not sure what to do with this conflicting information.

your adjustment on MFP isn't your exercise calories, rather your activity level over what MFP has set for you and thinks you will burn for the day total with the deficit.

deannalfisher

out of curisoity i ran your numbers though a TDEE calcualtor - https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&g=female&age=50&lbs=114&in=59&act=1.55&f=1

assuming moderate exercise (2-3 times a week) - your daily maintenance is 1600cal and at 114lbs you are right at the upper edge of normal weight for your height - 10-15lbs lose at a normal weight range will require very dedicated logging

NorthCascades

ghudson92 wrote: »

I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that if you are syncing an activity tracker for calorie burn then you should have your activity level on mfp set as sedentary. That way it just gives you what you need to survive, and your tracker adjusts those accordingly throughout the day. E.g I am 5"1 and my daily calories are 1300, but most days my garmin ups them to around 1400. Double check what I have told you though, but it has worked for me!

If you (1) use a linked activity tracker, and (2) slow negative calorie adjustments, it doesn't matter what your activity level is. The system will reconcile predicted with actual and adjust from there.

If course this is assuming your tracker is reasonably good at calories.

Duck_Puddle

NorthCascades wrote: »

ghudson92 wrote: »

I do believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that if you are syncing an activity tracker for calorie burn then you should have your activity level on mfp set as sedentary. That way it just gives you what you need to survive, and your tracker adjusts those accordingly throughout the day. E.g I am 5"1 and my daily calories are 1300, but most days my garmin ups them to around 1400. Double check what I have told you though, but it has worked for me!

If you (1) use a linked activity tracker, and (2) slow negative calorie adjustments, it doesn't matter what your activity level is. The system will reconcile predicted with actual and adjust from there.

If course this is assuming your tracker is reasonably good at calories.

Yes in theory. But mfp will never adjust below 1200. I have times I should have a negative adjustment (that it won’t adjust) because it would put my goal below 1200. When maintenance calories aren’t very high and the actual calculated calorie goal for a deficit is below 1200, negative adjustments don’t work quite as well - especially if you need it to adjust for an entire activity level (all of which is happening below 1200 calories).

WinoGelato

kymmixxx wrote: »

That's why I said start at 1700 and see how it goes. I'm 4'9 and 133lbs currently losing 1lb a week eating between 1500 and 2800 a day

So rather than using the statistics and calculations that are based on her inputs, or her activity tracker that is also working off of her own specific details, you think she should just start with your numbers and adjust from there?

Look I’m a big proponent of eat more to lose weight, working off of an appropriate deficit for ones goals, proactively trying to elevate one’s NEAT to therefore increase TDEE and often quote the wise rabbit, “the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight.” I too am a bit of an outlier in that I’m petite, over 40 with a desk job and my TDEE with moderate activity is over 2100.

That said, there is nothing In the info that the OP provided that warrants starting at 1700 calories for weight loss and adjusting from there. She should start with trying to log consistently and accurately with her Garmin synced and get a true picture of her actual burn and actual results. Then if she’s losing at faster than 0.5 lb/week she could increase calories slightly. She could add more purposeful movement to her day to increase NEAT and TDEE as many of us do - this would also help keep her energy up and potentially impact her long term ability to maintain at a higher calorie intake. But immediately adding 500 or more cals to her day is likely to skew her results so significantly that she’s unable to glean any helpful information due to the myriad reasons why her weight would likely spike.

Psychgrrl

mittencat77 wrote: »

@middlehatch : thank you for your insights. My Garmin actually says I am in considerable deficit everyday. It gives me lots of exercise calories but when it syncs with MFP I seem to get very little in the calorie adjustment.

Thought I should follow MFP, but maybe I should follow what my Garmin is saying. Would make life much easier!! I would get more food and log more deficit each day. MFP seems to say my exercise is worth nothing. I see others logging huge calorie burns from exercise and see I do to when I log exercise in manually. But syncing with my Garmin result in MFP saying my exercise is worth very, very little.

I think the translation from Garmin to MFP might be due to your activity level settings in MFP. What did you choose? Sedentary, Lightly Active, Active, etc. I have a Garmin and my calories burned in MyConnect change when I adjust my activity level setting in MFP.

paperpudding

kymmixxx wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Why?
why not start at something the calculators say is right for you and then tweak it, - why start at something clearly too high?

Could say the same thing about eating too low! I dont want to be stuck on 1500 maintence calories for thr rest of my life because I've lowered my metabolism so much

well of course same could be said about starting too low - but 2 wrongs dont make a right and that is total strawman anyway as nobody is suggesting starting too low.

They are suggesting starting at correct level - as far as can be ascertained from calculators (MFP calculation or alternatives) and then tweak as required from results.

There is no point randomly picking a number clearly too high for her, like 1700, and then working backwards from that.


and 1500 net for maintenance could well be her long term maintenance number - not because of any so called metabolism changes but just because she is small, female, petite.

That seems highly likely.

I am about 5 inches taller than her and maintenance weight is 136lb (BMI of 23), about 20 lb more than her goal, and my maintenance calories are 1710.

I imagine hers will be in the 1500 ball park - which makes sense if 1200ish is a 250 calorie/day deficit.