Calorie advice please

Heatherloulou87

Hi,

I am looking for some advice regarding daily calorie allowance to enable me to loose weight.

I am 5ft5 and currently 172 lbs. I work out 3 x a week for around 25/30 minutes. I’m a mum of a 3 year old and 6 month old twins (excercise in itself)

Would 1700 calories a day be enough or too much?

Thanks

cmriverside

With 20-30 pounds to lose, set your Goals at either "lose 1 pound per week" or at "lose 1/2 pound per week."

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

Then when you exercise purposefully on those three days, enter that into your Exercise page and eat a couple hundred calories more on those days.

We all have to run the experiment, so do the above for 4-6 weeks and see how your weight loss compares to your Goals. Adjust at that time if needed.

Heatherloulou87

Thanks very much for your advice!

I have set my goals to loose 1 pound per week and active and it says 1890 calories! That seems so much! Hopefully it works 🤞🏻

Vune

I'm 5'5" 135, lightly active, and I would lose on 1700/day. You'd lose just fine on 1890, if you're weighing your food and logging accurately. Don't deprive yourself if you don't need to!

collectingblues

Heatherloulou87 wrote: »

Thanks very much for your advice!

I have set my goals to loose 1 pound per week and active and it says 1890 calories! That seems so much! Hopefully it works 🤞🏻

Do you know what your step count is outside of activity? Because yes, that does seem high.

On MFP, your exercise activity doesn't count in your goal calorie calculations. If your non-exercise steps are less than 8000-10Kish, maybe take down to lightly active, and start from there, and readjust in 6 weeks or so...

lgfrie

"Active", "lightly active", "sedentary", etc., are really just general categories to help people get started; it does take a bit of fine-tuning over time to figure out if the # MFP provides in the Goals tool is on the mark for your particular lifestyle and level of activity. You could build on what you've already done by putting in "Lightly Active" into the Goals tool, see what number it gives you, which will be lower than the 1890 and perhaps a lot closer to the 1700 your intuition tells you you should be eating, and then just take it from there and pick one, or split the difference. The basic idea is that the less active you are, the less calories you can eat. If you underestimate your activity level, you'll get a lil less food than you should have and lose a lil more weight; if you overestimate it, you'll get a lil too much food and lose a lil less weight. Neither will kill you, or adversely affect you in any way, at the kind of calories you're looking at.

In my case, being kind of a sedentary person, I chose 'Sedentary' but discovered over 6 weeks that I'm really half way between Sedentary and Lightly Active. So I lost a little extra weight those first 6 weeks, no harm done, and tweaked my calorie goal once I had a good understanding of how much I really burn. I don't really think 4 weeks is enough; you really need to see what happens over 6 weeks minimum to develop an objectively accurate understanding of your caloric burn rate, imho.

Heatherloulou87

Thanks so much for all your helpful information!

I’m going to try about 6 weeks on 1700 calories and see how it goes. If not much is happening I’ll bring my calories down a little bit?

Thanks 😊

ReenieHJ

If they're giving you 1890 calories a day and you're finding you don't need that many, then why not just reduce it? If you find yourself happy eating 1400-1500 cal. daily then go for it or if you find yourself starving then up that count a bit. I find MFP goals to be a guideline, not written in stone. Right now, my daily count starts at 1200 but goes up depending on the exercise I add. I'm staying around 1200, for now. I feel whatever calorie intake you feel good at, and can still lose pounds, then you've found your magic number. Within reason, of course. But that's just my take on it. Good luck!!

Jthanmyfitnesspal

cmriverside wrote: »

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

cmriverside

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

Alright, well YMMV. I like the way you took just one sentence and disregarded the entirety of the rest of my post. :sigh:

I'm retired. I live in a 600SF condo, no kids to care for. I use Active + Exercise calories. It's still a little on the low side for me. I'd rather have enough food than not enough. She will figure it out. AAMOF, looks like she already did. I think 1700 sounds like a good starting point.

ReenieHJ

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

Yeh OP, everybody knows parents just stick their kids in front of the tv and chow down on bonbons all day. Oy

ElizabethKalmbach

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

I don't know what *your* experience with twins was, but last time I had my nephews, I had one with an ear infection in an Ergo on my back being soothed, one wanting to be held in my arms to see what I was doing, and the 3 year old experimenting with his mortality any time I turned my back. I got in 6k steps before their morning nap, just trying to soothe the 50 lbs of toddler I was carrying. The trip to Disney World was like 28k steps per day wearing an average of 65 lbs of child - up from a "lazy day" in the house where it was only 18k steps.

1700 calories may end up being a bit low, but if you're comfortable there and not losing weight too fast or getting too tired, it should be a good starting point, OP.

J72FIT

Depending on your activity you could lose in a range of 1400 - 2000 calories per day. 1400 would be lightly active and 2000 would be extremely active. So somewhere in the middle would do you just right...

tinkerbellang83

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

I am in a desk job, don't have kids and I still get in 8-12000 steps per day, which would be considered Active, so IMO suggesting someone with 3 kids to run around after is sedentary, seems a bit crazy to me. Additionally I'd be wanting the energy I need to run around after those kids and lower it if necessary to lose weight rather than under-aim and feel fatigued.

Itmustbu

FYI if you’re still breastfeeding that’s like 200-500 calories a day...not sure how much more for twins so error on the side of too many calories

Jthanmyfitnesspal

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

ElizabethKalmbach

My sister has two sets of twins. Any twin is an exponential effort modifier. It is a very different experience from looking after multiple children of reasonably diverse age.

krael65

You've received some good advice about calories. I just popped in to say, as a mother of twins myself, you have my respect! And you've got a 3 year old as well. Oy! Be kind to yourself, take care of yourself, and best of luck!

BarbaraHelen2013

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I would use the "Active" activity level in Goals.

"Active" is for someone that is a waiter or otherwise on their feet all day. Parenting is tiring, but nod a calorie burner. I'd start with "sedentary," adding in for your workouts, then bump up if you are losing too fast or are uncomfortabley hungry.

Best of luck!

With respect, from your profile picture you appear to be male? I can’t speak to your parenting style obviously, but I can speak of mine as a mother of 4. I promise you I was on my feet and very active all day, every day! I can’t help but feel somewhat incensed at your comment.

I was the thinnest I’ve ever been in those 10 years when I had a house full of young children! In retrospect, bordering on very underweight. Parenting is a calorie burner. None better in my experience!

lgfrie

Heatherloulou87 wrote: »

Thanks so much for all your helpful information!

I’m going to try about 6 weeks on 1700 calories and see how it goes. If not much is happening I’ll bring my calories down a little bit?

Thanks 😊

This seems like a solid plan. You'll definitely lose weight on 1700 calories, and down the road you can decide if you wanna lose weight a little faster by reducing the number, or wanna have a little more food by increasing the number. It's good to just jump in and get started with a reasonable, non-punitive number that you feel you can live with and 1700 sounds like it will fill that roll pretty well for you.

Caralarma

I wish I could lose on 1700. I feel like these days if I go over 1200 I stop losing! 😂 (I'm short)

Kelly9405

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Hey, I'm open to the disagreement! I've been through the parenting years and out the other side. I found the challenge of parenting more mental than physical. In fact, I got very heavy when I had young children. It was hard to stay active. It was also hard to get enough sleep. The one thing that wasn't hard was finding the brownies!

I think this really just depends on the person. I’m mainly a SAHM, I work part time as a nurse overnights. When my boys were toddler age, I was easily logging 12,000-15,000 steps a day, sometimes more. I’m a small person (5’5 and 110) but still burn at least 2,000 calories a day. We stay active though, and take walks all the time. It’s all in what you make of it. I hate sitting around the house, so that helps.

HoneyBadger302

This is very dependent on a lot of factors that can be really hard to measure. Add in slight variances on how you do or don't track your food, and little things can add up. The MFP numbers are a good place to start and give you a pretty (generally) accurate starting number. You may be able to adjust up or down over time.

Other than weekends when I'm likely to be puttering around the house, outside of the gym I'm pretty inactive (desk job where I'm pretty tied to the desk all day, commute via car, etc). My workouts right now are fairly intense/long, and I consistently make 4-5 days/week of cardio followed by lifting for a total of 90+minutes/day.

I'm slightly taller than you (just under 5' 7"), currently around 142ish pounds, and my calorie range I give myself is 1600-1900. If I'm making my workouts, I eat at the higher end of that range pretty much daily. I do NOT include things like cooking oil, or a little ketchup/siracha/etc in my calorie counting. I don't weigh my protein for my shakes (I have, and found the measurement to be on the light side if anything). I do include all salad dressings, and try to weigh all my foods raw/dry. I allow some wiggle room with veggies.

For me, this is a good range. I'm losing (trend-wise) right about where I should be, so that tells me it's on point. You may need to play around with your numbers a bit over time, since the kiddos could potentially sway your activity levels a fair bit.