Extra cals not working despite patience= hmmmm!

1246789

Replies

  • astartig
    astartig Posts: 549 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.
  • astartig
    astartig Posts: 549 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

    no, that is all mostly myth. there are various reasons stalls and what not happen and only in very extreme cases is it based on metabolic change. it takes a LOT to change your metabolism by any great degree. It's mostly user error in calculation that causes these things.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.

    Lol.

    Just lol.
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    Actually it will only give 1200 if the weight loss goal you give MFP would require you to eat less than 1200 cals (or 1200 on the dot). But since MFP won't give you a daily calorie goal that is under 1200, it gives 1200. It's the cut off.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    The OP has hypothyroidism, btw :) Personally, I think that matters a great deal.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:
    If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

    Iron_Feline,
    This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

    Thank you.

    I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

    But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

    In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

    Isn't that the same thing as eat more food to reducing the size of the deficit to make weight loss both successful and sustainable compared to eating a severely restrictive diet... Because that sounds an awful lot like what we are saying in regards to eating more to lose weight....


    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Which is why I keep saying we are in agreement with that regard.

    What I'm arguing against is the automatic assumption that someone is eating too little and has damaged their metabolism, without regard to the possibility of that perhaps they are actually eating more than they think, or are logging. Which is significantly more likely than metabolic damage.

    And before this argument is perpetuated any further by you saying "But we said for her to buy a scale" - I'm not arguing the point against you. I'm arguing it against the people who originally convinced OP to start eating more, despite not having an accurate log of her food to prove the extremely unlikely hypothesis that she has metabolic damage.

    Fact of the matter is that in the vast majority cases, if a person isn't losing weight, they are eating at or above maintenance. So in the absence of proof to the contrary, the only rational conclusion is that they are eating at or above maintenance. So my advice to OP stands. Best thing to do is to better track intake, and go from there. But if she can't possibly measure her food and discover how much she is actually eating, she should slowly reduce her intake until weight loss occurs over a prolonged period. The chance of it being a metabolic disorder is statistically so low that it shouldn't even be considered until all else is exhausted.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    Ah, you must be male.

    Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

    If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:

    You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:
  • angelamangus1
    angelamangus1 Posts: 164 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    I agree, she is probably not being accurate!

    Or perhaps she has not given the higher calorie intake more time. Your body needs 2 to 3 weeks to adjust to the change, depending on the length of the deficit. To log ones foods accurately, one needs to be totally honest and put down exactly what they put in their mouth. You have to add everything, oils, seasonings, weight of grains, vegetables, even that little nibble of carrot before dinner...etc! Extreme I know, but in the beginning it is necessary to see what calories you are consuming. Weighing food is vitally important because the size of a piece of meat can be well over or under 4oz. I had a chicken breast this evening that was the size of a deck of cards and it was below 4oz.

    As another post stated it is all trial and error and you need to find your happy medium on your path. :wink:
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    Ah, you must be male.

    Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:

    <----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.

    eta: I did the whole 1200/day thing (because, like someone else said, that's what MFP gives you most of the time). The only thing that I lost was my athletic ability (and a whole lot of muscle). I looked awful, I felt awful, but hey, who cares, I was down to 140! And I only wanted to lose 10 pounds to begin with.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.
    So you're saying that 90% of women, statistically, are outliers who have substantially less total energy expenditure than the average? The research on self-reported food intake vs measurable doubly labeled water would strongly suggest otherwise.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

    If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:

    You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:

    Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?
  • Hildy_J
    Hildy_J Posts: 1,050 Member
    I don't have measuring equipment and eat in public with people who wouldn't understand but I do my best based on palm etc size visuals yes

    It might be an idea to buy a kitchen scale. Do you still live at home - is that why it's awkward?

    You'll get there, it's just a case of tweaking, here and there.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    Ah, you must be male.

    Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:

    <----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.

    Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    If 90% of women are given 1200 as their budget it's because 90% of women are choosing the 2 lb/week loss rate when they probably shouldn't be. MFP only does math. If you ask it to give you a 1,000 calorie deficit it will go down to the cut off point of 1200. Unfortunately, the developers seem to think that common sense is rampant among dieters which is definitely not the case.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

    If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:

    You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:

    Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?

    It seems pretty evident to me (and I believe studies exist that support this) that people who eat at a large deficit are not nearly as active as those who eat at a reasonable deficit...perhaps not on any given day, but over time, at a substantially different level. It isn't "metabolism" that is the big difference (although I suspect that will eventually decrease as well), but overall calorie burned.

    I also believe people who eat at a reasonable deficit are nicer, friendlier, better looking...just intrinsically better people, but that's just my personal opinion and may not be supported by science. :flowerforyou:
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    If 90% of women are given 1200 as their budget it's because 90% of women are choosing the 2 lb/week loss rate when they probably shouldn't be. MFP only does math. If you ask it to give you a 1,000 calorie deficit it will go down to the cut off point of 1200. Unfortunately, the developers seem to think that common sense is rampant among dieters which is definitely not the case.

    Heck, I'm a 5'11 dude, and with a sedentry activity level it started me out on 1,200 calories. Thankfully I quickly realized that I'd be much happier losing 1 pound a week for a year of flexible dieting, than 2 pounds a week for six months of eating nothing but rabbit food.
  • angelamangus1
    angelamangus1 Posts: 164 Member
    OH

    Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

    No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

    I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

    I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

    Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

    you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

    I gave the op good advice,

    You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

    I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

    So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

    If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:

    You didn't completely answer the question I asked.... My definition of starvation mode has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa and everything to to with eating in a severe calorie deficit WILL overtime time cause Metabolic damage.... Would you not agree?? (Just so we are perfectly clear here I am referring to the metabolic damage cause from eating at a unsustainable calorie deficit over a extended period of time.... Just to be clear.....:flowerforyou:

    Humans are remarkably durable. Your metabolism is really hard to break. And I haven't seen anything conclusive to prove the thesis that people can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit. And it's funny how nebulous this "metabolic damage" is. Why don't you give us the complete breakdown of all the biological processes involved, Dr. Eatmore?

    Thread regarding your question

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage

    Articles regarding your question

    http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/weight-loss/weight-loss-myth-yo-yo-dieting-will-wreck-your-metabolism.html#b
    http://www.burnthefat.com/metabolic_damage.html

    We all take from information differently, some believe in it fully, others do not and think it is BS, and a few take bits of it ( not all of it) and incorporate into their lifestyle.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    Ah, you must be male.

    Guess what? Women tend to be shorter and less massive than men. Women have slower resting metabolism than men. Women can't eat as many calories as men if they want to lose weight, not unless they want to run themselves ragged with exercise. So yeah, if you're a woman who is a) on the short side, or b) on the more mature side) or c) on the sedentary side, MFP is probably going to throw you into the 1200 calorie end of the pool. And if you meet more than one of those criteria, well, you're definitely going to be Team Twelve Hundred. Why? Probably because that's the arbitrary lower limit allowed by the software. It's not terribly mysterious. I know people would love the fantasy of being able to lose weight while eating massive quantities, but isn't that how we all ended up needing to lose weight in the first place? :huh:

    <----woman.5'9. 145. Maintains on 2400/day. Would kill and eat the neighbors at 1200/day.

    Ah, so you're on the tall side. And you're not exactly thin as a rail if you're 145 lbs. You're an inch taller than me, and 6 pounds heavier, so we're probably similar enough at the moment. And if you're maintaining at 2400 a day, you're either young, or you exercise a fair amount, or both. How am I doing with my precognition?

    I'm 5'3 and while lifting only 3 days a week (so less than 3 hours of exercise a week) lost over a pound a week at 1725 calories. This puts my maintenance around 2100-2200 calories. I was also sedentary (for real sedentary, as in unemployed and cruising the internet all day.) So I hit 2 of 3 of those points.


    I suppose I'm just lucky.
  • aakaakaak
    aakaakaak Posts: 1,240 Member
    I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

    Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.
    It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

    if there weren't a cut off at 1200 there would be more variance. I'd be at 900 calories for instance. It's because 90 percent of women need to eat very few calories in order to lose. 1200 calories is a slow variable rate for many of us.

    Um...I think you might find this to be untrue for just about any active woman. If you're going to do absolutely nothing physical then maybe, but if you're an active person, go to the gym three times a week, go for walks or bike rides on the regular, I highly doubt this would be the case.

    For example, here are a bunch of active females that are eating 1500+ calories a day and are succeeding:
    bumblebums
    Sarauk2sf
    graysmom2005
    elly1979
    Ssaraj43
    catfive1
    j99li
    tkcasta
    lindsswack
    lisaissasa
    pspetralia
    ...and I'm getting tired of hunting down more. There are a bunch.

Categories