1500 cal Vs 1200
BoundaryQueen2020
Posts: 19 Member
I am currently 47 years old, CW: 95.4kgs (210), GW: 62kgs (140), 171cm (5'7")
Every TDEE calculator I use says I should be aiming for 1200 cal/day. However, I spoke to a dietician yesterday and she said that at 1200 cal I will be losing lean muscle and that I must increase to 1500 cal/day. She also said I need to have some capacity to lower the daily amount once I've lost some of the weight and I can't really go lower than 1200. She also said that I shouldn't aim any lower than 70kgs (154) at my age.
Now I'm a bit confused. I get what she's saying about having room to go down when I hit a plateau. But has anyone else been told they'll lose lean muscle at 1200 cal? Also, why no lower than 70kgs? The weight range for my height is 54 - 73kgs.
Be interested to hear any input.
Every TDEE calculator I use says I should be aiming for 1200 cal/day. However, I spoke to a dietician yesterday and she said that at 1200 cal I will be losing lean muscle and that I must increase to 1500 cal/day. She also said I need to have some capacity to lower the daily amount once I've lost some of the weight and I can't really go lower than 1200. She also said that I shouldn't aim any lower than 70kgs (154) at my age.
Now I'm a bit confused. I get what she's saying about having room to go down when I hit a plateau. But has anyone else been told they'll lose lean muscle at 1200 cal? Also, why no lower than 70kgs? The weight range for my height is 54 - 73kgs.
Be interested to hear any input.
0
Replies
-
"Every TDEE calculator I use says I should be aiming for 1200 cal/day."
TDEE calculators estimate your current weight maintenance and it's you selecting an aggressive rate of weight loss that is driving down the suggested weight loss number to 1200. That's a choice you are making and not an imperative or the calculator telling you to eat that low.
What did the calculator give as your maintenance number so that people can see what calorie deficit you are considering?
PS
I'm very dubious that at age 47 you should have a higher goal weight than if you were younger but bear in mind your initial goal doesn't have to be your final goal weight - you can reassess when you get there.20 -
Agreed but I have only entered 1kg/week (2lbs) which doesn't seem unreasonable? Yes, I thought the age and goal weight thing was odd too.
Maintenance is 2000cal/day.1 -
1kg/week is unreasonable and, frankly, not possible considering your maintenance level. If your maintenance is 2000 calories per day, you would lose about 0,8kg per week by eating 1200. Weight loss will be slower
For comparison, my weight and height are very similar to yours (96kg, 173cm), the main difference is I'm 28. I have experimented with a few different weight loss rates in the past, and I do best at 0,3-0,7kg per week. Anything more than that usually ends after a week or two because I get too hungry. You might feel differently while in deficit, but having a deficit that's too big commonly leads to fatigue, crash and burn.13 -
BoundaryQueen2020 wrote: »Agreed but I have only entered 1kg/week (2lbs) which doesn't seem unreasonable? Yes, I thought the age and goal weight thing was odd too.
Maintenance is 2000cal/day.
I actually think 1kg/week is aggressive and wouldn't use the word "only"!
It's also the fastest rate that MyFitnessPal will allow someone to select - not a moderate rate.
If you look beyond this dieting phase to long term maintenance at goal weight then losing fast recedes in importance compared to losing weight sustainably and learning new eating and moving habits along the way.
Your Dietician's professional advice that you are risking unnecessary muscle loss sounds sensible to me.
Do you really want to take the chance of getting to goal weight and being disappointed with how you look and feel? A smaller version of the current you rather than the best you can be.
Maybe not unreasonable to lose weight quickly at least for an initial period of weight loss but personally with 33kg to lose I think you really have to prioritise sustainability for many months ahead of short term rapid loss. Don't make the process harder than it needs to be would be my overall advice.23 -
I'm 40 so not that far behind! We're the same height. I'm just under 68kg at the moment. It's a vast improvement from where I was, but no way am I stopping here! I'm aiming for 63kg, but if I dropped a dress size and looked different i'd be less bothered by the exact number on the scale.
I've just upped my calories on the advice of people off here so I'm aiming for a smaller loss each week now, but I was eating 1200-1300 for the first few months. My goal now is 1440.
I would question the logic, set yourself a goal of 70 and see how you feel when you get there
0 -
Also, if I weighed what I do now, but my body fat was 10% lower I'd also be happy!0
-
I am 46, 5'7, and weigh 132. I'm not sure what age has to do with goal weight. I calorie cycle regularly to maintain. Some days I eat 1800 calories, while other days I eat 1200. I really like it, and it works for me.
Good luck!5 -
Everyone who loses weight loses some muscle.
I lost 80 pounds at age 54 (5'7", started at 220, now at 140-143) on 1500/1600 PLUS Exercise calories, like this site suggests. So I really was eating 1500-1600 on two days and 1800-2000 on five days per week.
Well, I started at 1200. I did that for a little while (about 2-3 months?) until I crashed. Hair loss, splitting nails, fatigue, irritability, over-sleeping, inability to exercise, periodic binging. I went up to 1600 (PLUS exercise calories) at that point and stayed there until I had 20 pounds to lose, when I lowered down to 1500 (PLUS exercise calories.)
I've kept my weight off for 12 years now.
Log food.25 -
I'm 61 and 210 today, 5'7-5'8 depending on who measures me (weird).
I originally set my loss to 2 lbs/week and was just too hungry. I didn't know I was too hungry b/c I hadn't figured out yet what it means to be a little bit hungry occasionally. I think this has always been a problem in my attempts to lose weight.
I set the calculator to 1lb/week and have been so happy and successful since (4+ months and counting, the longest time by far I've sustained weight loss). I've dropped from a budget of 1550 cals/week (starting weight was around 230 at the time) and is about 1450 right now. I use the MFP calculator and "sedentary" for activity, then log my activity separately. I aim to add about 300 cals/day from exercise. I use casual walking a lot--although I do vigorous exercise (jogging, kayaking upstream) at least 5 times/week. I eat about 300 above my budget on a regular basis, and I've been losing 1-1.25 lbs a week without any feelings of hunger or being deprived. It's been a revelation.
2 lbs/week or 1 kg/week is simply too much for anyone who is not well into the morbidly obese category, IMO. While the data says it's "ok" to aim to lose 1% of your body weight per week, I find that is unsustainable and I wonder how many others do, too. I think height matters, too. A 5'2 person at 230 lbs may be able to sustain 2/lbs a week more easily, but those of us a bit taller will find it more difficult. I've been reading these boards a long time and I know my experience isn't unique, so I truly caution most folks against that 2 lb/week goal. Perhaps that rate is more sustainable at a certain BMI and many of us--as big as we think we are, and as big as our own BMI is--may not be quite high enough for that rate of loss.
This is obviously just my opinion, but I hope you will listen to all of us saying that 1 kg/week is too much. I chafed at 1lb/week at first, but now that it is working so well, I'm so pleased and excited. I used to lose 20 lbs in 2 months over the summer and then fall off my plan--time after time. I didn't really care all that much then, so it was ok, and I'd do it again after putting back on 10-15 lbs. Then I hit a couple of summers where I didn't lose my usual 20, and realized my goal of being mobile and fit in retirement is at risk. So here I am, looking for a way that is truly sustainable, and I feel like I've found it. I hope you do, too.
14 -
Thank you, @mkculs13
I had exactly the same experience (also weird) and I've typed that out I don't know how many times.
Absolutely agree, 100% with all of it. Every word. 5 -
I agree with everything @mkculs13 said.
I actually did the 2 lbs/week thing for 4-ish months and lost ... well, 2 pounds per week. It does work. But it's very exhausting as a diet strategy. Even for me, starting out morbidly obese and therefore losing weight rapidly, it was hard. Because it just isn't enough food. When I started to burn out on the 2 lb week plan, I really felt burned out and knew I was within a hair's breath of starting a regain, as has happened to countless millions of people who pushed too hard. What saved me was dropping the goal to 1.5 lbs, later reduced to 1 pound. I've been very content at 1 lb/week. I highly encourage OP to moderate the goal, as the first step.
There is such a gigantic chasm between 1200 and 1500 calories. Unless one is so small that 1500 is just not viable for weight loss, that is just such a better number to work with. I am sure there are some people who did 1200 and then kept the weight off, but most of what you hear of people who did the bird feeding thing is that they gained it all back and then some, quickly. Deprivation is not a good diet plan.
Just my two cents.10 -
BoundaryQueen2020 wrote: »I am currently 47 years old, CW: 95.4kgs (210), GW: 62kgs (140), 171cm (5'7")
Every TDEE calculator I use says I should be aiming for 1200 cal/day. However, I spoke to a dietician yesterday and she said that at 1200 cal I will be losing lean muscle and that I must increase to 1500 cal/day. She also said I need to have some capacity to lower the daily amount once I've lost some of the weight and I can't really go lower than 1200. She also said that I shouldn't aim any lower than 70kgs (154) at my age.
Now I'm a bit confused. I get what she's saying about having room to go down when I hit a plateau. But has anyone else been told they'll lose lean muscle at 1200 cal? Also, why no lower than 70kgs? The weight range for my height is 54 - 73kgs.
Be interested to hear any input.
1200 cals is basically the bare minimum required to keep the body running assuming you arent moving much during the day. If you add in a walk or other exercises, you should be upping your calories. You'll still lose weight as long as you aren't entering maintenance (about 2000 cals) or weight gain (2000+) numbers.
You can stay at 154lbs but still LOOK like you're 140lbs if you add strength training to your workout arsenal. Muscle is heavier/denser than fat, so the aesthetic is a leaner trimmer look than if you were 154 with a higher fat %.
Best of luck in your journey!2 -
1kg per week is actually pretty aggressive, and 1200 is quite low - even for me and I'm 30, roughly 160cm and 57-58kg (trying to *very* slowly get to 54-55). Personally 1500ish is easier to stick to/more sustainable, and it's easier to keep things balanced.
Not sure about the goal weight thing but you can always reassess once you get there - that's what I've done recently, got down to my current weight and after a few months of maintaining decided I wanted to get just a bit lighter0 -
58 YO, started 10/18 at 222, and 5’7”. I am currently hovering around 131.
I started at 1470, that was waaaay too low, and I increased to 1700, still too low, eventually ended up at 2300 for recomp. I exercise extensively and do (frankly unimpressive) weights.
With the advice of my dietician and trainer, I chose to do fixed calories at or above maintenance, and not eat my exercise calories back. Its not quite MFP protocol, but it’s easier for me to wrap my head around a non-moving target calorie goal.
I know it’s frustrating thinking in terms of before and after. We are so conditioned by tv, magazines, Instagram etc to expect immediate and fabulous, toned results. It doesn’t work like that, but it does work, and the time will fly by, I promise.
Choose your goals wisely and sustainably. What’s the point in putting the work, to have a rebound that wipes it all out, or to suffer health problems. You’re doing this to GET healthy, not to suffer yourself into Twiggy.
And btw, my original “yah right like that’s ever gonna happen” goal was 160. TBH it was a nice round number I randomly picked because I never saw myself getting there- until I could.
I’ve re-evaluated several times since then. It’s your body, your comfort zone. There’s no legal limit line in the sand that says YOU can’t choose to go lower- or higher. I’m currently debating maintaining here versus going up a couple.
May you eventually have the “luxury” of same.
Best advice I ever had from this site was “Treat maintenance like you still have ten pounds to lose.”8 -
This is a really good thread, lots of good experiences to read 4
-
northviewvintage wrote: »northviewvintage wrote: »I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.
Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/
It's not that bone density is not important, it's just that you were guessing that it was the reason to raise calories. In fact most women need more than 1200 unless they are very tiny, very old and very sedentary.
Age is not the determining factor to "eat more." As a matter of fact, older women generally need less food due to lower activity levels.
The original post said her doctor advised 154 pounds for a 5'7" 47 YO woman. That is comfortably inside her healthy weight BMI. If she wants to be lower her range goes all the way down to 120 pounds, so it's not like there isn't some wiggle room. For instance, I'm happy at 5'7" 140-143. That puts me at 21-22 BMI. I'm not particularly muscular, so I like myself at that weight and it's not hard for me to maintain.
6 -
northviewvintage wrote: »northviewvintage wrote: »I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.
Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/
I would suspect that the highlighted is the source of disagreement as opposed to the fact you aim for 1200-1500. Plus the implication that age 44 or age 47 may be playing into this.0 -
northviewvintage wrote: »northviewvintage wrote: »I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.
Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/
I would suspect that the highlighted is the source of disagreement as opposed to the fact you aim for 1200-1500. Plus the implication that age 44 or age 47 may be playing into this. highlighted?
I have issue with the assertion that -doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women
- because I don't think that's generally true. I've never been told that by any health care professional. The DIETICIAN (it wasn't even a doctor) in this example is still suggesting a healthy weight in her BMI range (24.1) not some high weight that would be considered overweight.
In my opinion the higher recommendation may be for many reasons. I can think of four or five reasons this dietician may have said that, but I might still be wrong. Ask her, she's the one who will have the answer. It could be as simple as, "Well, it's a good starting goal."
I know I had a goal of 160. That was just inside my healthy BMI range. Then when I got there I lowered it. When I was starting at 220, 160 seemed not only unattainable but too low. How wrong I was...once I got there.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »northviewvintage wrote: »northviewvintage wrote: »I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.
Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/
I would suspect that the highlighted is the source of disagreement as opposed to the fact you aim for 1200-1500. Plus the implication that age 44 or age 47 may be playing into this. highlighted?
I have issue with the assertion that -doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women
- because I don't think that's generally true. I've never been told that by any health care professional. The DIETICIAN (it wasn't even a doctor) in this example is still suggesting a healthy weight in her BMI range (24.1) not some high weight that would be considered overweight.
In my opinion the higher recommendation may be for many reasons. I can think of four or five reasons this dietician may have said that, but I might still be wrong. Ask her, she's the one who will have the answer. It could be as simple as, "Well, it's a good starting goal."
I know I had a goal of 160. That was just inside my healthy BMI range. Then when I got there I lowered it. When I was starting at 220, 160 seemed not only unattainable but too low. How wrong I was...once I got there.
I believe the confusion here is that no, doctors do not recommend a higher weight for older people, BUT ... there is a new BMI-style formula out there which I've seen on a few sites, and it grants older people a higher weight to be within the Normal, Overweight, or Obese Class I ranges. For instance, according to old-school BMI, I can weigh 211 before being Obese, but the new formula says I'm not obese until 217. Whooptie-do, I know. The point being that there does appear to be some new thinking that as people get older, softer, and whatever else goes on in the aging process, telling a 55 year old they have to weigh exactly as much as a healthy, active 25 year old to not be Overweight or Obese is a losing battle, so now you get a few more pounds before you land in the next box on the chart.
But that is not a "recommendation" to weigh more. It seems more like an acknowledgement that older people do chub up a bit, so barking at them to achieve their freshmen year waistline isn't all that productive.
Me, I'm going for the freshman year waistline (eventually) so I don't really care what the new formula says, and I do prefer old-fashioned BMI as a yardstick for my hard work. But I'm kind of traditionalistic in general.3 -
IMU, there are some correlative studies that suggest that somewhat higher BMI with age is a factor in later mortality. However, there are further studies suggesting that the crucial part is not BMI per se, but rather lean mass: More lean mass, later mortality.
That would (IMO) be confirmative of the studies of what I think of as "stupid aging tricks", the kind of thing where they show that grip strength correlates with later mortality or better health in old age, as does the ability to perform X chair squats in Y time period, or ability to get up from seated on the floor without using hands. (I'm sure all of those are true correlations, but the LOL part is people who then go on to try to improve their grip strength in order to live longer. )
This article seems to have a reasonable summary of that view, and lists its sources. (Note: It also has editing problems - a miscopied paragraph & a missing chunk).
http://longevity.stanford.edu/beyond-bmi-assessing-weight-status-as-we-age/
OP: No need to worry about goal weight just yet. You'll have a better idea as you get closer, and as long as you don't have some severe form of body dysmorphia, you can identify a good body weight for you when you get there, or close.
The weight loss process is exactly the same, regardless of goal weight. MFP will give you the same calorie goal, no matter what ultimate goal weight you tell it (as long as it's less than your current weight). It just uses the goal weight you enter for some motivational-type messages. You can set it at some provisional value now, and change it later. Heck, you can even camp out at a goal weight for a while once you get there, then change your mind and gain/lose to a point you decide is better. Not irrevocable decisions, not worth fretting over (within reason).
Losing too fast is generally a bad plan, and 1200 might take you there. We always lose a little lean mass alongside fat loss (some things that are technically "lean mass", like blood volume, kind of need to be smaller if our body is smaller, so this is not some totally dire thing). Losing too fast will tend to cause more lean mass loss than losing more moderately. FWIW, 1200 was too low for me, even at age 59, 5'5", 150-some pounds; I lost well at 1400-1600 plus all exercise calories. It's very individual.
Best plan: Pick a sensible loss rate in your MFP setup, stick with that calorie goal for 4-6 weeks, then adjust intake based on actual average weekly loss experience, to keep things sensibly and sustainably heading in the right direction. Try it. Stressing about it in advance is optional, and (IMO) not very fun.
While I'm at it, this is worth reading, related to the 1200 calorie diet idea:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
More people think they need to eat 1200 to lose than do (or should); more "professionals" recommend it more broadly than they should.northviewvintage wrote: »I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.
I didn't click disagree. Estrogen levels affect bone density (and have other effects), and fat cells are part of the mechanism for estrogen production post-menopausally, but I doubt that's the reason one sometimes sees those "should be heavier when older" things. I think the "lower mortality among slightly higher BMI elders" idea is the basis. Underweight really is a mortality risk (though no one in this thread is proposing to be underweight, that I saw) - partly because some studies saying so included people who were already ill so at low weight, partly because ultra-low-weight people may not be as resilient for as long, when severe illness strikes, so die of those things at somewhat higher rates. (Speculating, here.)
I'd observe that weight goal and calorie goal aren't tightly linked, i.e., someone quite old/inactive might have a low calorie goal, but a goal weight higher in the BMI range, or vice-versa. Calorie needs for best health correlate with current body mass, of course, but exact numbers differ individually.
Some of the "shouldn't be as skinny" thinking, in my experience - in the form of social pressure, not professional advice - comes from fellow aging people who don't want to bother with losing when they're happy where they are.
And yeah, the implication that 40-something is aging might set some folks off. (I'm 64. 44 or 47? Just kids.
).
That said, loosely speaking based on my personal experience, one of the few differences I see between my younger self and my older self is that I'm less resilient to physical stress - recover less easily/quickly - than I did when younger. On that basis, I think losing weight at a moderate pace (not fast) may be even more a good idea as we age, because fast loss is definitely a physical stress.5 -
I wish that the first time I used MFP, I hadn't gone with the 1200 calorie route. I lost a lot of weight (yay!) but much of it was muscle mass (oh, no!). I also lost a lot of hair, which was dismaying to say the least. So, yes, I lost all the way to my goal weight in four months (24 pounds lost) but 18 months later I'd gained it all back and now here I am again. And this time I'm eating 1400-1500 a day and the weight is still coming off. And this time I'm less grouchy.8
-
Yeah, I'm glad you guys typed that all out, I've had this discussion quite a few times and - let's face it - Ann is a better faster typist.
:::flowerforyou:::1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Yeah, I'm glad you guys typed that all out, I've had this discussion quite a few times and - let's face it - Ann is a better faster typist.
:::flowerforyou:::
A cranky personality plus fast touch-typing skills (with a physical old-school QWERTY keyboard to support same) can be a wonderful but terrible thing. 4 -
cmriverside wrote: »Yeah, I'm glad you guys typed that all out, I've had this discussion quite a few times and - let's face it - Ann is a better faster typist.
:::flowerforyou:::
A cranky personality plus fast touch-typing skills (with a physical old-school QWERTY keyboard to support same) can be a wonderful but terrible thing.
Wait. There's some other form of keyboard than QWERTY?
I used to like to hear myself type. Now I'd rather drink iced tea on the porch.1 -
Anecdotally about elderly people weighing more... my maternal grandpa has always been chubby, but nothing that I would think of as "obese" (I don't know what he weighed). Since grandma died and no longer makes every meal for him, he has lost a lot of weight. The consensus with both family and his doctors is that without the extra energy reserves on him, he would have most likely died already or been forced to move to a nursing home due to weakness and deteriorating health. So, in his case, being overweight has protected him from severe health problems.
My paternal grandpa was morbidly obese. His kidneys failed so he missed a lot of big things like my graduation because it was on dialysis day, and died of a heart attack.
From these two examples, there are two note-worthy things: being a bit chubby/overweight is not the same thing as morbid obesity. Also, my paternal grandpa was ~75 when he died, my maternal grandpa is now 85. The OP is 47. That's a big difference, and personally I really don't think the "what's healthy for older people" discussion applies to anyone under 60, or possibly even 70.2 -
my fitness app says 1800 calories and when i walk a bit it goes up. On Sunday after my hike it said I could have 3800 calories ;-)
No idea what my diet calorie intake is at the moment (its high protein low carb) but last Monday I had lost 5.1kg (3.5kg fat) in 2 weeks.
Going to get weighed again today so wonder what it is after my 3rd week.
I am 57, 183cm tall and was 94.8kg but last weigh in 88.9.0 -
This is obviously just my opinion, but I hope you will listen to all of us saying that 1 kg/week is too much. I chafed at 1lb/week at first, but now that it is working so well, I'm so pleased and excited. I used to lose 20 lbs in 2 months over the summer and then fall off my plan--time after time.
This is what my experience has been as well. I was so stubborn with wanting to lose the 2 pounds per week and feeling like anything else was "too slow." When in reality, that was incredibly stupid because I literally wasted years just yo-yo dieting. I'd come on MFP and religiously follow my 1200 calorie goal for a month-6 weeks, lose 10-12 pounds, and then fall off the wagon for months at a time. A couple of times I really white knuckled it and made it several months- one time I even lost 25 pounds and got back down into a healthy BMI. Then the holidays hit and I just couldn't make the 1200 calories work. I put those 25 pounds back on in addition to about 25 more!
I finally decided to try a weight loss goal of 1 pound per week so I could get a lot more calories. When you think short term, it absolutely feels incredibly slow- only losing 4 pounds per month when I have a lot to lose. However, think just a bit longer term and then it seems like a lot. 25ish pounds in 6 months, 50ish pounds in a year. I've been going pretty strong since January 1 and now that I'm 7 months in, my results are huge. And I am so much happier with the way it's going. I'm not white knuckling it, killing myself in the gym, or obsessing over food and how I can get around events I want to do but involve too many calories. Now I get 1550 calories per day (started with a bit more when I was heavier). If I want more, I do a little more walking and eat my exercise calories back.
Many days I actually eat between 1600-1700 calories (just have to get my walking in, which is easy since most of it is done in front of the TV and at varied times throughout the day- doesn't feel stressful or strenuous), which just seems like a huge number after years of thinking I could only have 1200. And I'm losing weight- a lot of weight! Some days I feel like I'm cheating- still losing weight while eating food I actually want to eat, not feeling hungry or deprived, not letting my "diet" dictate my social life, etc. If only I had figured this out years ago!
5 -
swimmchick87 wrote: »
This is obviously just my opinion, but I hope you will listen to all of us saying that 1 kg/week is too much. I chafed at 1lb/week at first, but now that it is working so well, I'm so pleased and excited. I used to lose 20 lbs in 2 months over the summer and then fall off my plan--time after time.
This is what my experience has been as well. I was so stubborn with wanting to lose the 2 pounds per week and feeling like anything else was "too slow." When in reality, that was incredibly stupid because I literally wasted years just yo-yo dieting. I'd come on MFP and religiously follow my 1200 calorie goal for a month-6 weeks, lose 10-12 pounds, and then fall off the wagon for months at a time. A couple of times I really white knuckled it and made it several months- one time I even lost 25 pounds and got back down into a healthy BMI. Then the holidays hit and I just couldn't make the 1200 calories work. I put those 25 pounds back on in addition to about 25 more!
I finally decided to try a weight loss goal of 1 pound per week so I could get a lot more calories. When you think short term, it absolutely feels incredibly slow- only losing 4 pounds per month when I have a lot to lose. However, think just a bit longer term and then it seems like a lot. 25ish pounds in 6 months, 50ish pounds in a year. I've been going pretty strong since January 1 and now that I'm 7 months in, my results are huge. And I am so much happier with the way it's going. I'm not white knuckling it, killing myself in the gym, or obsessing over food and how I can get around events I want to do but involve too many calories. Now I get 1550 calories per day (started with a bit more when I was heavier). If I want more, I do a little more walking and eat my exercise calories back.
Many days I actually eat between 1600-1700 calories (just have to get my walking in, which is easy since most of it is done in front of the TV and at varied times throughout the day- doesn't feel stressful or strenuous), which just seems like a huge number after years of thinking I could only have 1200. And I'm losing weight- a lot of weight! Some days I feel like I'm cheating- still losing weight while eating food I actually want to eat, not feeling hungry or deprived, not letting my "diet" dictate my social life, etc. If only I had figured this out years ago!
1 pound per week is the best kept secret in the diet industry LOL
When I finally adjusted my attitude about dieting and set things to 1 pound per week, everything clicked and it was kind of like a religious conversion. I finally saw the light - things other dieters couldn't or wouldn't see. Namely, about how to do this right.
Of course, it wasn't like a billion people hadn't already said right here on MFP that 2 lbs or more per week is too aggressive and likely to end in a regain. Maybe some things you need to experience for yourself to really get it.
Not saying there aren't people who crush their 2 lb/week goals and achieve success, there obviously are. I think it's more about putting the odds in your favor, versus dealing in absolutes. It is really, really hard on body and mind to keep up a thousand calorie deficit every day - and unnecessary. A pound a week is plenty of weight loss; it adds up quickly as the months go by.3 -
BoundaryQueen2020 wrote: »Agreed but I have only entered 1kg/week (2lbs) which doesn't seem unreasonable? Yes, I thought the age and goal weight thing was odd too.
Maintenance is 2000cal/day.
I'm your height and weighed more than you when I started. I wonder if you, like me, were conditioned to think of 2 pounds per week as an "only" due to shows like The Biggest Loser.
That was certainly my thought process when I first came to MFP - "If they can lose double digits, I should be able to lose 2 pounds per week."
This goal didn't last through lunch my first day 2 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Yeah, I'm glad you guys typed that all out, I've had this discussion quite a few times and - let's face it - Ann is a better faster typist.
:::flowerforyou:::
A cranky personality plus fast touch-typing skills (with a physical old-school QWERTY keyboard to support same) can be a wonderful but terrible thing.
Wait. There's some other form of keyboard than QWERTY? /b]
I used to like to hear myself type. Now I'd rather drink iced tea on the porch.
Yes, several. Most well-known is Dvorak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_keyboard_layout
Y'all oughta be glad I didn't learn to touch-type Dvorak.
I can near-touch-type with just my left hand, so keep drinking my coffee (or tea ), too, after 30 years in an IT career where lots of my time was spent writing either code or documentation/emails. Scary! 2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions