1200 Calorie Diet Has Me At A Plateau

BreannaHayes1

Ok so I have been at this for a little over 2 months and it was the first month with a 15 pound weight loss. But now I lost about 5 pounds. This is my second try at weight loss. This happened last time and I gave up. I don't want to do that but I need help!!!

I am about 5 foot 5 179 pounds. I eat 1200 calories burn about 1200 and usually do not eat them back!

deksgrl

Set MFP to lose 1 pound per week, if it isn't already. Eat some of your exercise calories (burning 1200 calories seems high, where are you getting the calorie burn numbers?). Make sure you weigh/measure/log everything you eat. Report back in 6 weeks.

BreannaHayes1

I receive how many calories I burn from the machines at the gym.

AmyRhubarb

You eat 1200 and burn 1200 through exercise? Leaving your net cals at 0? :huh:

Zero net calories = out of fuel! You're asking for more problems beyond the stall in weight loss - there are many posts from people who eat too little with complaints of hair loss, brittle nails, lack of energy, lousy sleep, saggy skin, not to mention a slowed metabolism, screwed up hormones.....

Your daily goal that MFP gives you already has you at a deficit - meaning you could eat all 1200 calories, do zero exercise and you'll lose weight. Burning off more through exercise leaves you with a HUGE deficit, leading to all sorts of problems listed above. You are supposed to eat those burned cals back - at least a good portion of them. What exercise do you do that burns 1200 cals a day, and how are you getting that number? MFP and machines tend to estimate high. A good heart rate monitor would give you a better idea.

But you should do yourself a huge favor and start eating more. 1200 is the bare minimum suggested for women, and honestly even that is too low for most of us. If I were you, I'd start by adding those exercise cals back in. yeah, you might show a gain on the scale at first - your body will adjust and the weight will start to come off again, but in a much healthier way.

Food is fuel!

bellevie86

I receive how many calories I burn from the machines at the gym.

These are not always accurate, especially if you can't put you own stats into it. Get a heart rate monitor, that will help. If you truly are burning 1200 and eating 1200 you are netting 0 zero cals, which is not good at all. If you are eating 1200 and burning at least 400 you are still not netting enough. You def need to eat some exercise cals back. You will not only stay at a plateau but you're probably not feeling as good as you should by the lack of cals and nutrition you are giving yourself. Contrary to what some people believe you can lose just as well eating higher than 1200.

I_Will_End_You

My theory? You are eating more than 1200 calories and burning far less than 1200 calories. If you were truly netting 0, you'd be losing weight. While I agree that you can eat more than 1200 a day and lose weight, I'm not going to tell you to eat more. I'm going to tell you to start weighing and measuring your food and find out exactly how much you're consuming. If possible, invest in a heart rate monitor to get a more accurate read on your calorie burns. When you know exactly how much you're eating (eyeballing portions, using measuring cups and spoons can be waaay off), re-evaluate your calorie needs and log accurately.

19TaraLynn84

Not meaning to be rude here, but if you're not experiencing health problems by now, then you're not netting 0 calories. Underestimating calories eating combined with overestimating calories burned is usually the culprit.

BreannaHayes1

The machines do allow you to enter your info in such as weight and age (I'm 18) so that's why I'm confused. I will have to get a heart rate monitor this weekend. How many calories do you guys suggest I burn?

deksgrl

The machines do allow you to enter your info in such as weight and age (I'm 18) so that's why I'm confused. I will have to get a heart rate monitor this weekend. How many calories do you guys suggest I burn?

It doesn't matter how much you burn. The more you burn, the more you get to eat. The amount of calories MFP tells you to eat DOES NOT INCLUDE EXERCISE. You would lose weight eating this amount if you did NO exercise. When you do exercise, you need to eat more fuel.

BreannaHayes1

Noones being rude! I'm finding it very helpful. As in my original post I stated I usually don't eat them back. Some days I actually do eat calories back!

addictedtosweat

Ok so I have been at this for a little over 2 months and it was the first month with a 15 pound weight loss. But now I lost about 5 pounds. This is my second try at weight loss. This happened last time and I gave up. I don't want to do that but I need help!!!

I am about 5 foot 5 179 pounds. I eat 1200 calories burn about 1200 and usually do not eat them back!

1200 doesn't work for everybody. At this point, you need to up your caloric intake and maybe increase cardio I can guarantee if you increase to 1500 daily plus cardio (such as jumproping), you'll be losing weight.

whatthedeuce23

Your profile is wrong then - it says 21 - and the machines aren't accurate simply because they are set up to be a guideline. One of my best friends is considered overweight because she has a ton of muscle (she's a pro athlete) and therefore would be burning differently than me (mostly fat) even if we weigh the same! Heart rate monitors are the way to go.

19TaraLynn84

It works better for me when I only eat 1/2 to 3/4 of my exercise calories back. That way, it leaves a small cushion. My weight didn't start dropping until I quit believing what my treadmill said I burned and purchased a HRM. It was just a cheap one, but fairly accurate, I believe.

BreannaHayes1

Yes, I know it's wrong however which monitors are the best? Money is not an issue

bellevie86

Noones being rude! I'm finding it very helpful. As in my original post I stated I usually don't eat them back. Some days I actually do eat calories back!

Like the one previous poster said, I agree that you should do a couple things first....

- Measure like a crazy person and get an accurate reading on your burns (HRM I find is best, bout 100$) as well your food values. This should get you going in the right direction....

If it doesn't...

- THEN I would say you've lost what you're going to lose on 1200 cal/day diet. Then I would suggest upping a bit. Unless you are really inactive you can def afford to go up a bit in cals and still lose.

As for how much you should burn and eat when I started I aimed for 1400 net. Meaning I would have 400 cal burns (That I would eat back) plus the 1400 set for me. So at the end of the day I would eat 1800 but still net 1400.

BreannaHayes1

Ok! I'll give it a try. Also, I'm not sure what category I should put myself in. I am a nanny and a student and spend most of my time sitting down. Except the 2 hours I spend at the gym.

heybales

Your profile is wrong then - it says 21 - and the machines aren't accurate simply because they are set up to be a guideline. One of my best friends is considered overweight because she has a ton of muscle (she's a pro athlete) and therefore would be burning differently than me (mostly fat) even if we weigh the same! Heart rate monitors are the way to go.

Just so you are aware, the amount of mass being moved determines the energy needed to move it, not what the mass is.

That 10 lb dumbbell on the floor takes the same amount of energy to lift it free from the grasp of gravity straight up - the fact it may be easier for your friend than you, and require less muscle activation for them, and cause HR to go up less for the effort for them - is meaningless - it takes the same amount of energy young or old, male or female, easy or hard.

All the studies on treadmills walking and running have proven the body composition doesn't matter - merely the mass being moved and the pace. Your HR reflects how hard the effort was for you though, especially compared to you less fit, and later more fit.
Now, if you walk funny or have a club foot or such, you are throwing off the average efficiency most people have. Dance while you walk, you are burning more.

The majority of treadmills use these well established most tested formula's.
The problem comes in actually entering your weight correctly. Most don't walk nude, so why enter naked weight?
If they haven't been calibrated for the correct speed on the belt, the pace may be incorrect.

Those formulas are more accurate than HRM's actually, especially for women.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

19TaraLynn84

If money isn't an object, go for a Polar monitor. Never used one, but I hear it's the best.

I_Will_End_You

Ok! I'll give it a try. Also, I'm not sure what category I should put myself in. I am a nanny and a student and spend most of my time sitting down. Except the 2 hours I spend at the gym.

2 hours a day? I'd go with an activity level right in the middle. 2 hours is a pretty good amount of time to put in at the gym per day.

bellevie86

I would take the one above sedentary, then it will ask exercise. Mine was simple because I'm a waitress and they list my job in the examples :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: . With you I'd take the lightly active and see how that goes for a bit.

heybales

I'm going to disagree with the majority pointing out food logging problems being the culprit.

As you mentioned, you only sometimes eat back some exercise calories.

Therefore the amount you burn in exercise, or don't really burn, is meaningless noise in the discussion.

But it does mean you would have to be very sloppy and terrible in logging food to be eating more than your deficit of likely upwards of 700-1000 calories, and whatever you are burning in your exercise of probably at least 500-600. So total deficit from healthy metabolism would be probably 1200-1600.

To obtain that level of incorrect logging and eating more than you think would require a level of dishonesty on your part I just don't think is there.

Plus the fact you did lose weight for 1 month shows that obviously isn't the case, unless one day you got really bad and dishonest with logging foods.

I just don't see it. It may be part of an issue that could start effecting things, logging badly, but not bad enough now.

I think more you shocked your system, scared it to death. You caused it to adapt fast and hard, and you no longer have the deficit you once had, or frankly you could have.

From your comments of you did this prior, and attempting it again (never mind why would you do the same thing that failed last time), I'm assuming you jumped straight in to this level of exercise from close to or nothing.

And your eating levels prior to diet were maintaining your weight.

You likely took an extreme deficit, and made it even more extreme by the exercise. That's a tough stress on the body.

You lost some great water weight as all diets will cause, because you store less carbs in the muscles.
Likely lost some water weight from sodium being lower as most diets will cause.
You likely lost some muscle mass as most extreme diets will cause.

That last one is the killer - you are not getting that back until likely reaching goal weight now, perhaps 1 - 2 lbs could be gained back if you did serious lifting program at the start.

I'm betting you accomplished something similar to this in 2 months.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401

The net result here is you could try just eating less, or try to find out if you are perhaps 200 calories off in your logging accuracy.
But that still doesn't answer what happens later when you must eat even less to keep losing weight? Then what?

Do you really want to go down that road with a crashed metabolism and maintenance?
Lose more muscle mass?
Gain some fat back later or more of it when you get discouraged, and attempt this again next year?

You can read all kinds of posts on the forums of 50-60 year olds that have recognized they wasted possible enjoyable life away yo-yo dieting, having a terrible relationship with food and their bodies, and want to do it right.

Slower weight loss because of purposeful wise choices is much better than slow loss because your body forced it on you because of unwise choices.

jackielou867

Heybales is right. I am 47. Wasted 20 years yo yo dieting. Thinking 4lbs loss in a week is amazing. Let me tell you it is not. Maybe in the first couple of weeks, mainly water, but after that half or a pound a week is enough. Do it slowly. Make it a lifestyle. Keep it off. Look better, but feel better, not for a few weeks, for always :-)

FindingAmy77

Ok so I have been at this for a little over 2 months and it was the first month with a 15 pound weight loss. But now I lost about 5 pounds. This is my second try at weight loss. This happened last time and I gave up. I don't want to do that but I need help!!!

I am about 5 foot 5 179 pounds. I eat 1200 calories burn about 1200 and usually do not eat them back!

I have read all the responses and they are all great advice. we are around the same weight and exercise about the same. I think you need to defiately eat a little more to keep on losing. a loss of five lbs is a good loss for a month. the first few weeks are always water weight and easy to lose fast. you are now entered into the hard work part of losing weight. take it slow and one day at a time. it didn't get on you that fast so don't rush it. once you get the heartrate monitor then maybe you can explore the tdee eating method. it may work better for you. I have had better success with it now that I am in the 170's/ just don't give up. you don't want to be sitting there 18 years later and still wanting to lose that same weight... do it while you are young and it will sooo much easier to keep off. (I only say this because I wish I was told this 18 yrs ago) Be patient and do this the healthy way as much as you can. it will come off. :flowerforyou: :drinker: