Can the calories be increased to 1,800 which is more realistic

ToriJTam

Is there anyway to have more than 1,200 calories? I am mature, with arthritis and sleep apnea. It is discouraging and very hungry/depriving to only have 1,200 calories. Please help!

MaltedTea

ToriJTam wrote: »

Is there anyway to have more than 1,200 calories? I am mature, with arthritis and sleep apnea. It is discouraging and very hungry/depriving to only have 1,200 calories. Please help!

Consider running your details in here...

https://tdeecalculator.net/

...to get another estimate of your current caloric needs and long-term weight loss goals.

If you want to eat more, while still losing you may need to compromise on your timeline (or amount of weight list per week).

It'll just take a but longer, is all.

You may also want to have a chat with your doctor about your nutritional/weight loss goals and the best approach for you.

janejellyroll

You can set your calorie goal to whatever you want.

heybales

ToriJTam wrote: »

Is there anyway to have more than 1,200 calories? I am mature, with arthritis and sleep apnea. It is discouraging and very hungry/depriving to only have 1,200 calories. Please help!

It was your choice of Activity level which may or may not be correct, and your selection of rate loss rate.
Those 2 things with your physical stats led to 1200 being the result of the math.

And even if you are short and selected honest activity level and reasonable rate of loss and still got that 1200 - that goal is ONLY on days you do no exercise.
When you do more you eat more.

I doubt you are doing 600 cal of workouts daily, could be.

And then as mentioned manually creating the eating goal.

But you should have a good idea of what you need for weight loss. Eating less than you burn.
Is 1800 really less than you burn, or just how much you want to eat?

nanastaci2020

Go back thru the guided setup and change the goal to maintain. This is to get an idea of what your total daily calorie needs are (before exercise) based on your current activity level. You need to eat less than that to lose weight. Other options include increasing activity level (picking up some on-your-feet active type hobbies) and/or exercising more and eating a portion of the burned calories back.

rheddmobile

What have you set your weekly goal to? Most people, unless they are petite and completely sedentary, can lose weight on more than 1200 calories, 1200 is just the lowest number MFP gives. Try picking a smaller weekly rate of loss and see what it gives you.

Also, make sure you add your exercise in. Especially for mature women we need to avoid losing muscle while losing weight. I know arthritis makes it harder, but every little bit counts - do what you are capable on your good days, and a little bit more tomorrow! I started my weight loss journey using cans as weights and walking slowly, and gradually built up. If you can find an activity like swimming, stationary bike, or elliptical that doesn’t hurt your joints, it may help.

kshama2001

You got 1200 based on what you inputted to MFP

Go here:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided

And update "What is your goal?" to lose less per week.

I started off with 1200 too, and I realized by lunchtime the first day that wasn't going to work for me

HeidiCooksSupper

You get to decide how many calories you will eat. You don't have to use the MFP settings. If I use them and put in 2 pounds a week and sedentary, I get a number way too small for me to be satisfied. I eat 1725/day and walk a couple of miles most days. This means I've been losing 1.5 pounds a week pretty consistently since early May. You do what works for you. Trying to stick to a calorie number that is too low just results in frustration and quitting. I started out with more calories and no exercise. I will diminish calories and/or increase exercise slowly to try to maintain the 1.5 pounds a week until I find that rate too much to maintain. Right now, my BMI is still over 40 so I have plenty of weight to lose.

callsitlikeiseeit

you can eat however many you want.

I would gain weight on 1800 calories, but that is not true for everyone lol

lgfrie

As others have said, you can set your calories to whatever you want. There is no reason to adopt a rule like "1200 calories" if it isn't working for you. Go to the MFP goals tool, enter your stats, and play around with the weight loss per week field - put in 0.5 lb per week, 1 lb per week, etc., and see how many calories you'd get to eat in those different scenarios. Then you'll have a better sense of direction with this.

One thing is for sure - being excessively hungry is NOT a solid path for losing weight. 1200 is not a lot of calories, and if it's leaving you excessively hungry, it isn't going to fly as a diet plan anyway, so you may as well change it now. If you can still lose weight on 1400 or 1500, those kinds of numbers would be WAY easier to keep going with.

I eat 250 calories per day more than I started my diet with - I was just too hungry using my initial targets. One point being, maybe sometimes we start off too aggressive and have to listen to our bodies and realize we have to back off a bit. The other point being, you can adjust your calories any time you want - they are not written in stone. You can start doing 1400 today, see how it goes, and take it from there. You can spend weeks experimenting to find the right balance between feeling "full enough" vs losing weight at the pace you want.

But importantly, I think for many people, certainly for me, there's a break in period with a diet where you just have to get used to it. Being hungry and feeling deprived at first can pass in a few weeks once your body and mind get used to it. So if you are at the very start of a diet, you may need to give yourself a little time to get used to it. If you've already been at it 3+ weeks and are still ravenously hungry, then it's probably time to increase the cals.

AnnPT77

Good advice above, and I endorse considering picking a slower rate of loss, or adding some exercise if you can (even quite gentle exercise if that's what's manageable - it's a myth that exercise has to be intense to be useful).

I'd also add that it may be worth a look at *what* you're eating - most people find some foods more filling than others. What is filling is very individual, but here are some common things (not univeral things!) to consider:

Some people find filling things to be:
* Protein foods. It's fairly common among us mature folks (I'm 64), especially women, to get lower than ideal protein. Getting more *might* be more filling, and contribute to health, if you're on the low side.

* Fats. Many people cut fats way, way down because they're calorie dense. But we need some. For some people, they're especially filling, besides. (It can be useful to favor sources like nuts, nut butter, seeds, avocados, olive oil, fatty cold-water fish, etc.), so not exclusively fats from red meats and full-fat dairy, though some should be fine.

* Whole foods. I'm not doctrinaire about this, and think processed foods, even highly processed foods, can have a place in nutritious eating. But it's unquestionable that many people here on MFP report finding that for them, personally, including more veggies, fruits, whole grains, and that sort of thing in their eating helps them to feel more full on their reduced calories. If your eating now tends to be high in processed foods, it might be worth shifting that balance a bit, if you can think of whole foods you enjoy.

* Volume. Some people find "big" foods filling. This can be high-fiber but not high-calorie things like veggies, foods (not just drinks) with high fluid content (like soups, stews, juicy veg/fruit like tomatoes or watermelon, etc.), whipped-up things (people sometimes make a fluffed-up pudding-style things from protein powder, for example), and more. There's a whole thread in the food part of the forum, where volume eaters share ideas.

Another thing that can help with feeling full/satisfied is trying different eating schedules. I wouldn't urge doing something truly extreme at a mature age, but people here do anything from all-day grazing to very structure 3-meals-plus-snacks, to one meal a day, and everything in between. Some people do better skipping breakfast and going for a brunch/dinner setup with bigger meals, others (I'm one) can't get through the day without a solid breakfast soon after waking. It's all very individual, and can take some experimenting.

So, yes, increasing calories above 1200 sounds like a good idea, if you're struggling at 1200. Slower but reliable loss gets us further than theoretically speedy but in reality unsustainable loss. I was able to lose pretty well, at quite a bit over 1200, even at age 59-60 when I lost 50+ pounds. For various reasons, I don't think my exact calorie levels would generalize to others, but more than 1200 ought to be workable for most women, even more mature women, at a slower but sustainable loss rate.

Best wishes!

zebasschick

ToriJTam wrote: »

Is there anyway to have more than 1,200 calories? I am mature, with arthritis and sleep apnea. It is discouraging and very hungry/depriving to only have 1,200 calories. Please help!

without knowing your height or weight, hard to say.

i slowly gain weight on 1800 pounds, but i'm 5' 3" with low muscle mass.

i found it can be helpful to eat tiny protein snacks between meals if you get hungry. well, i used to do that till i stopped eating meals altogether and started eating only snacks LOL