Introduction and living on 1200 cpd

goatelope

Hello,

I am a female, aged 40, and 5 feet 4” tall.

I currently weigh 180.6 and none of my clothes fit, so I’ve decided to try to slim down.

MFP has calculated that to lose weight (2 lbs per week), I need to reduce caloric intake to 1200. Does anyone else struggle to do this?! I find I am very hungry fro 3/4pm onwards. 1200 seems very low to me but if that’s what it takes I will try.

I am planning to do some cardio and resistance work most days alongside dieting.

I’ve taken some measurements today - very upsetting.

Tips greatly appreciated.

gigius72

Try snacking on celery. Very low calories and full of fibers. It will fill you up immediately so you can reach supper.
Or you can slow down a little bit the loss per week and it'll give you a few more calories allowance.

AndreaTamira

Hey there.

Awesome that you want to lose weight. That said, why are you trying to lose 2 lbs a week if you end up suffering? You'll be fine with a less crazy loss rate. If you set MFP to a weight loss rate of 1 lb a week you can eat more which might mean that, in the long run, you may be better able to stick to this. - Let's be honest here, it matter less how fast you lose and far more that you can succeed in losing the weight and keeping it off.

Other/additional things you can try: filling up on high volume, low calorie, high fiber food. (Veggies, some fruit, mostly). - Making sure you get a good amount of protein. - Exercising and eating back (at least part of) your exercise calories. - Getting enough sleep.

AnnPT77

Assuming you mean 180 pounds, I'd suggest choosing a slower loss rate. Two pounds is maybe doable, but it's fairly aggressive, and 1200 can be a challenge.

I started weight loss at 183 pounds at 5'5", so I do have some experience in that zone. I don't know what your eventual goal weight is (and you don't need to know a final number now), but I suspect that it will take long enough (weeks to months) that finding a sustainable intake, one that results in steady gradual weight loss, will work out to be faster in the long run than an aggressive loss rate like 2 pounds a week. (Attempts at aggressive loss are more at risk of being punctuated with overeating incidents or even stops and re-starts that result in lower average weekly loss than one might get from just plugging along at a slow but sustainable rate).

Back in 2015, I lost 50+ pounds, obese to healthy weight, in less than a year, most of it eating 1400 calories and more *plus* all exercise calories. (And have stayed at a healthy weight since, 124-point-something this morning). Now, different people have different calorie needs, but it seems like more women dive into 1200 than might strictly need to do so. I know we all want to drop it quickly, but sometimes slow is quicker in practice, as compared with theoretically fast but unsustainable.

Even at a sensible (though reduced) calorie level, the first couple of weeks can be a little more difficult, in practice. Some of it is just one's body (and mind) getting used to a new routine. Much of it, though, IMO, is needing to experiment with what one eats, and when, to find the best personal pattern for satiation . . . and that's pretty individual, there's not a universal formula for feeling full and happy. Notice which days you feel a little more satisfied, which a little more hungry, think about what was different, and adjust your routine accordingly. It can even be good to try variations that others might suggest for a couple of days, see what the result is for you, when it comes to feeling less hungry. Even things like sleep duration/quality can affect hunger.

While underscoring that satiation is very individual, just as a personal example I'll say that I found I need to eat a solid breakfast with a good bit of protein, protein through the day, and some volume sometime during the day (usually a heap'o'veggies, usually at dinner). If I find myself getting hungry when a meal isn't coming up soon, I'm better off eating a small snack (usually with some protein), rather than letting hunger build (which for me tends to lead to over-eating at the next meal). Your formula will be different - different people follow all kinds of different patterns, from one meal a day (OMAD) to all-day grazing. You can figure this out, it may just take a little experimenting.

Hang in there, consider a little slower loss rate, experiment with different eating routines, and you can make this work. Wishing you much success!

goatelope

Thank you. I am happy to adjust and try for 1 pound a week rather than 2, just as long as I do see some loss - by loss I mean less the scale and more my clothing fitting / reduction in size.

callsitlikeiseeit

your stats are not that far off from mine. I lose between 1-2 pounds per week eating 1500 calories.

1200 is really low, and very hard to stick to. having a higher calorie goal that is still in a deficit, but allows you to eat more (and more of the things you want- like sweets or fitting in meals out), is better long term. it is easier to stick to. Better to lose slow and keep it off, than quickly and gain it all back or not at all.

clarab2021

Complicated!

Go_Deskercise

MercuryForce

goatelope wrote: »

Thank you. I am happy to adjust and try for 1 pound a week rather than 2, just as long as I do see some loss - by loss I mean less the scale and more my clothing fitting / reduction in size.

That's definitely a good indicator. For some reason I've been stuck at the same weight for a couple months with very, very slow loss. It's been driving me mad! Then, the other day I was going through some clothes to figure out what to get rid of and on a whim decided to try on my "goal pants". I could barely button them a couple months ago, but now I can comfortably button them.

I'm not sure what is going on with the scale, but there are clearly other changes happening, so I guess I'll just go with it for a while and see what happens.

gigius72

virginiajharris wrote: »

goatelope wrote: »

Thank you. I am happy to adjust and try for 1 pound a week rather than 2, just as long as I do see some loss - by loss I mean less the scale and more my clothing fitting / reduction in size.

That's definitely a good indicator. For some reason I've been stuck at the same weight for a couple months with very, very slow loss. It's been driving me mad! Then, the other day I was going through some clothes to figure out what to get rid of and on a whim decided to try on my "goal pants". I could barely button them a couple months ago, but now I can comfortably button them.

I'm not sure what is going on with the scale, but there are clearly other changes happening, so I guess I'll just go with it for a while and see what happens.

Muscles weigh more than fat. That is why it's a good idea to pair up scale and measuring of chest/belly/hip circumference.

AnnPT77

virginiajharris wrote: »

goatelope wrote: »

Thank you. I am happy to adjust and try for 1 pound a week rather than 2, just as long as I do see some loss - by loss I mean less the scale and more my clothing fitting / reduction in size.

That's definitely a good indicator. For some reason I've been stuck at the same weight for a couple months with very, very slow loss. It's been driving me mad! Then, the other day I was going through some clothes to figure out what to get rid of and on a whim decided to try on my "goal pants". I could barely button them a couple months ago, but now I can comfortably button them.

I'm not sure what is going on with the scale, but there are clearly other changes happening, so I guess I'll just go with it for a while and see what happens.

Stress-related water weight is in the running, as an explanation. Too big a calorie deficit is a stressor, stressing about the scale is . . . well, you get it. There are *so many* things that increase water weight, most of them fairly temporary, but stress-related water retention can be a long, slow creep of increase, as I understand it.

If you hadn't, I'd strongly suggest reading this:

https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations

I think pretty much anyone trying to lose weight should read and understand that.

These are also pretty good, though IMO less universally vital:

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

AnnPT77

gigius72 wrote: »

virginiajharris wrote: »

goatelope wrote: »

Thank you. I am happy to adjust and try for 1 pound a week rather than 2, just as long as I do see some loss - by loss I mean less the scale and more my clothing fitting / reduction in size.

That's definitely a good indicator. For some reason I've been stuck at the same weight for a couple months with very, very slow loss. It's been driving me mad! Then, the other day I was going through some clothes to figure out what to get rid of and on a whim decided to try on my "goal pants". I could barely button them a couple months ago, but now I can comfortably button them.

I'm not sure what is going on with the scale, but there are clearly other changes happening, so I guess I'll just go with it for a while and see what happens.

Muscles weigh more than fat. That is why it's a good idea to pair up scale and measuring of chest/belly/hip circumference.

Yes, measuring is a good plan. Another good plan is photos (full body, front, side, back) once a month or so, dressed in minimal or snug-fitting clothing (but not underwear, because a person may want to share the "before" pics someday, and sites like MFP forbit undies pics.)

But muscle mass gain is rarely the explanation for not losing scale weight, sadly.

Under ideal conditions, gaining a quarter pound per week of new muscle mass would be a really good outcome for a woman (maybe up to twice that for a man). Ideal conditions include a well-designed progressive strength training program faithfully performed, excellent nutrition (especially but not exclusively adequate protein), relative youth, and a calorie *surplus* (among other things). (I'm not saying no one can gain mass in a deficit; that would be false. I'm saying it will be even slower than it would be under ideal conditions.) We can quibble about exact numbers, but that's ballpark-ish.

On the other side of things, half a pound a week fat loss is about the slowest loss rate that will be observable on the scale (if not obscured by water retention or something), and because daily weights for most people fluctuate by 1-2 pounds daily if not more, it will take a month or more to be sure that that half-pound a week fat loss is actually happening, even with a weight trending app or equivalent. (Losing slowly is a thing I've been doing personally, for months now, to (re-) lose a few vanity pounds while maintaining a healthy weight. I also work out regularly, and fairly hard. I'm not speaking just from theory here.)

People sometimes believe they've gained muscle because they've gotten stronger, or because their body looks firmer. Both those things can happen without muscle mass gain. Early strength increases (in beginners, or experienced people restarting strength training after a long-ish hiatus) are mainly about central nervous system (CNS) adaptation: Basically, one is better recruiting and using existing muscle fibers. The firmness is usually related to the water retention in muscles, for repair. Actually creating new muscle fibers (the thing that would add real muscle weight) is much slower.

Bottom line: Any realistic rate of muscle gain is highly, highly unlikely to outpace any satisfying rate of fat loss.

I wish it were otherwise.

gigius72

@AnnPT77 very good points there