Help Clear up Confusion on Calories

JAJinAK

Hello. I restarted my efforts towards achieving a healthy weight and am looking for a bit of guidance on calories. I am currently 191, started at 215. I am 52F and 5' 10". I am fairly sedentary but try to walk at least 2 miles a day with my dog and I have started a small strength routine 3X weekly. I have my calories set at 1350 and find that to be plenty with planning of healthy nutritional food. Is that fine to stay there or should I be trying to eat at the higher calorie level of 1450 - 1600 depending on exercise? I am losing about 1lb a week so I am inclined to stay the course but am reading so much information on eating too little. Thanks for any suggestions.

mjglantz

That sounds about right if you are losing 1 lb/week. When I started I set my calorie goal higher (heavier than you and I knew how many calories I had been eating). What makes sense to me is if the calorie goal is letting you get all the nutrients you need, you aren't hungry, & you're losing weight. If you up the exercise you might want to add 100 calories/day and see how that goes. It wouldn't be strange to hit a plateau in a week or two and then you might want to tweak the calories and up the exercise. JMHO

goal06082021

Are you eating back exercise calories and NETTING 1350, or is 1350 your GROSS calorie intake, meaning you're netting closer to 1150 (1350 in minus ~200 out)?

Either way you can probably eat more, why not try increasing to 1450 and see how you feel/what the scale looks like in a month or two?

JAJinAK

mjglantz: Thanks for your input.
goal06082021: The 1350 is my gross calorie intake for the day. I will try to add maybe a bit more and see what that does to my loss. Thank you.

AnnPT77

It's important to avoid undereating, but actual loss rate, averaged over a period of 4-6 weeks, is the best guide to loss speed. For premenopausal women, comparing weights at the same relative point in at least two different menstrual cycles, and determining average weekly weight loss from that, can be more reliable than just plain weeks.

*However*, that assumes the person is not feeling weak, fatigued, depleted, or other bad symptoms - which can be a sign that loss rate is distorted (slowed) by reduced daily activity, plus perhaps water retention beyond normal due to stress hormones (which hides some fat loss on the scale). If any symptoms like that appear, for otherwise unexplained reasons, it's a good idea to increase calories eaten.

Best wishes!

JAJinAK

Thank you very much for your post AnnPT77. I am feeling great so might up it to 1400 or 1450 and just see what that does for a few weeks. I am in no rush and want to lose at a nice steady rate. I think that will help me maintain better than I have been able to.

AnnPT77

JAJinAK wrote: »

Thank you very much for your post AnnPT77. I am feeling great so might up it to 1400 or 1450 and just see what that does for a few weeks. I am in no rush and want to lose at a nice steady rate. I think that will help me maintain better than I have been able to.

Good plan.

Losing any meaningful amount of weight is a long-term proposition - weeks to months, even years, even if "fast".

Finding a steady, but relatively easy route can be a powerful strategy. I think it increases odds of success (less risk of derailing temporarily or giving up entirely, particularly if some other part of life becomes demanding).

On top of that, it's better practice for staying at a healthy weight long term, after one reaches goal weight . . . a phase that many people find more challenging than the loss itself. Learning relatively-easy eating and exercise strategies while losing is a good start on the habits one needs to stay at a healthy weight.

Someone who makes lots of sacrifices to lose weight fast, and keeps that approach the whole way, is going to need to figure out those manageable habits once they reach goal weight, when they don't have the cushion of a small calorie deficit to make up for any small failed experiments.

Now, obviously, the above is a cartoon-ish dichotomy, when the actual strategies available are more variable and nuanced. But I think there's an element of truth. I think you're thinking of this in a good way.

Personally, while losing (at whatever rate), I decided I wasn't going to do anything I wasn't willing to continue permanently, except for the moderate calorie deficit. I didn't put any foods totally off limits "during the diet", didn't eat salad-only at holidays, didn't do desperate amounts of unpleasant exercise, etc.

Going to maintenance was just a matter of adding back the few hundred calories that then constituted my calorie deficit, and going on with sustainable habits that were already in place. 5+ years later, I'm still at a healthy weight, after around 3 previous decades of overweight/obesity, and still happily eating/exercising in about the same ways I did during weight loss. For me, that's worked out pretty well, so far.

Wishing you success!

JAJinAK

What a great way to look at it and this is the approach that I am using, after reading your insightful posts on this forum

batman4121

If you are losing weight steady (your rate of loss looks perfect) and you are eating well, balanced and don’t feel hungry then don’t change it.

Once you reach you bf % goal then increase your calories gradually to maintain that weight and bf.

JAJinAK

Batman 4121: Thanks! I appreciate the people on this site providing feedback. I really want to try to avoid pitfalls that I otherwise wouldn't think of.

annliz23

sounds like your on the right path, good luck, slow and steady!

ChristopherLimoges

I'd you're focused on strength, you're going to be eating more calories, resting 10-15mib per set, focused on lower reps for maximum weight and gaining more weight in a more inflated form/body makeup...

JAJinAK

Thanks for all of the replies. I have upped my calories to 1450 and feeling pretty good. Overall down this week about .5 so seems good to me. I am not eating back my exercise calories yet but my exercise is only walking and very beginning strength training. Will just keep on the plan

AnnPT77

ChristopherLimoges wrote: »

Urine color does NOT determine your real healthfulness. 🤣

You can have a UTI, drink plenty of water, an reduce the color of your urine. just one very simple example.

Water intake is not soley based on your urine colors. 🤣

You asked about water needs, i.e. hydration as a generality, not total health. No one indicator signals health. An infection is going to require more attention than just modifying hydration.

Specifically, you asked "do you . . . even know what your personal water intake should be per day?" I don't have a UTI, so that's irrelevant to my water intake at this time.

wunderkindking

I have never had a UTI and had normal colored urine regardless of hydration status at the time, as a totally irrelevant aside to hydration level in a healthy person. It is always AT LEAST cloudy.

Not that having a UTI is determined by color of urine. My tip off is usually, you know, pain and frequency. After which my urine turns bright orange because like heck I'm suffering through without both antibiotics and that lovely urinary tract painkiller that results in the magic color changing pee thing.