Can I lose on 1500 calories ....

sijomial

Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??

OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.

This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.

I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.

op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:

OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .

We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.

My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.

I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.

Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.

No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.
See Heybales' explanation above.

As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.

fortysixpounds

Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??

OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.

This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.

I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.

op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:

OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .

We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.

My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.

I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.

Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.

No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.
See Heybales' explanation above.

As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.

Gosh This forum is so argumentative.

I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.

I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.

sweetd6

I'm a 62 yr. old female and MFP told me that I would lose 1/3 of a lb. per week on 1200 calories. I guess it's because I'm female, short, not very active and already in the healthy weight range for my height but I'd like to be at least 5 lbs. lower in it. Vanity lbs. I guess. Interestingly, I have a scale that measures fat percentage, muscle poundage and gives an estimate of what calories I need to eat to stay the same, and it usually gives me from high 1800's to low 1900's as calories to eat to stay the same, so if I were using that, I think I could eat 1500 and lose weight. However I'm eating the lower amount and losing about what MFP says so I think the scale is wrong, lol.

paperpudding

Sweetd6, yes I agree 1200 would be the net amount MFP would give someone like you, even to lose at a slow rate.
Because of your age gender,height, starting weight and activity level.

You are the sort of person for whom 1200 IS right.

Of course if you exercise and eat back exercise calories, as MFP intends, then the actual amount you eat might be higher.

sijomial

Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??

OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.

This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.

I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.

op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:

OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .

We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.

My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.

I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.

Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.

No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.
See Heybales' explanation above.

As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.

Gosh This forum is so argumentative.

I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.

I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.

No you said 1200 is the default - it isn't.
If you are a scientist then I would have thought you would be more precise. Default and minimum are different things.

If you are a scientist that believes that sugar is more important than calorie balance for weight loss then I'd love to see these studies where people with a low sugar intake but in a sustained calorie surplus lost weight over a period of time.

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

paperpudding

Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??

OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.

This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.

I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.

op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:

OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .

We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.

My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.

I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.

Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.

No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.
See Heybales' explanation above.

As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.

Gosh This forum is so argumentative.

I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.

I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.

By " gosh this forum is so argumentative" I think you mean " gosh, everyone doesn't agree with me"

I don't think most people on MFP are using 1200, I don't think sugar or clean eating are the issues, and I don't automatically think you are right because you are a scientist (of some sort, but not a doctor) or because "studies".

BenjaminMFP88

even if at least 1000 of these calories are nit "clean" food? I have 50 lbs to lose.

Thank you.

Every person is different but generally speaking, everyone can follow the general rule that if you eat less then you burn, you will lose weight. Granted, many other factors play into this but this is the dominant principal to weight loss.

Sabine_Stroehm

even if at least 1000 of these calories are nit "clean" food? I have 50 lbs to lose.

Thank you.

I'm 5'3, 26 years old and eat about 1510 calories a day and have lost 12.1 lbs since 07/15/14. I have just under 32 lbs to go and feeling great! I do not eat clean what so ever, but i drink lots of water, exercise at least 3-4 times a week and stay under my calories during the week, and usually go over on the weekends! BUT this works for me

The OP is 64.

Sabine_Stroehm

OP: As has been mentioned, we'd have a lot better advice for you if you have us more information. Your profile says you're 64 and female. How tall are you? What is your current weight.

1000 may be ok. but without knowing more about you, versus the men, and 20something females on this thread telling you what works for THEM, we won't be able to offer much in the way of useful information.

If you don't want to post that, then yes, figure out what your BMR and TDEE are using a calculator like this http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ (but otherwise, ignore that site) and eat between those two numbers, or follow what MFP suggests, which I'd bet is 1200, or try eating a bit more than that. But again, this gets pretty random without knowing more about you.

ETA: Decide what you want about sugar.
Eat for the health you want.

Steve_Rance

It all just became clear to me!

None of this 'discussion' really has much point.

TDEE is an estimate (purely obtained from height/age/activity level)

Calories burnt from exercise is an estimate (whether it's your fitbit, your exercise equipment or a website saying you burnt x calories doing y for z minutes)

Calories consumed is an estimate (especially when eating out or takeaway)

Sticking to macronutrient goals on MFP is way out (if I eat 4 items each containing 1.4g of fat, due to rounding MFP will say I consumed 4g of fat instead of 5.6g etc)

Sure, it's all good as a guideline and a starting point but the real question is this:

Could a person think their net calorie intake was 1200 but due to all the estimates and different variables actually be on 1500?

fortysixpounds

To the op, I really wish you the best of luck, do let us know how you get on with your journey. :flowerforyou:

fortysixpounds

There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.

I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.

Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:

sijomial

There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.

I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.

Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:

Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.

I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!

If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.

fortysixpounds

There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.

I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.

Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:

Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.

I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!

If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.

If you could just show me your qualifications that entitle you to discredit Dr. Lustig, a leading pediatric endocrinologist, I will listen to your sneers. I might also point out that after speaking so condescendingly to me (I just don't think theres ever any need to be rude to people, theres lots of ways to get your point across without being hostile and mean)

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

after telling me that, you have cited a blog.

I won't return to this topic because I foresee it descending into mean snipeyness. If anyone wants to talk to me more on this please feel free to pm me. Once again, to the op, Id love to hear how you get on the best of luck to you and anyone trying to reach their weightloss goals.

sijomial

There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.

I recommend anyone who doesn't know about the sugar epidemic to go and read up on it. There are plenty of articles available on it. A good place to start is a youtube video called 'The bitter truth about sugar' I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this and there has been a lot more studies since to support this. Anybody who would like to hear more about it please feel free to pm me for more links to studies in this area of food science. It is a really interesting area and Im truly excited about what is currently happening there. I really hope that it will bring about positive changes in the food industry.

Listen I wish you all the best with your individual journeys.:flowerforyou:

Sorry but it is not mean spiritedness.
You posted factually incorrect information which I corrected. That's not being mean - it's trying to be helpful to both the OP and other readers of this thread.

I then asked you to post the studies that support your view on sugar with the caveat:

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

And you have come back with a Youtube video by Lustig!

If you have an open mind then you should watch Alan Aragon's riposte to Lustig

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I also wish the OP every success, but demonising food isn't the way forward in my opinion.

If you could just show me your qualifications that entitle you to discredit Dr. Lustig, a leading pediatric endocrinologist, I will listen to your sneers. I might also point out that after speaking so condescendingly to me (I just don't think theres ever any need to be rude to people, theres lots of ways to get your point across without being hostile and mean)

Studies, not blog posts by quacks by the way, I'm sure you know the difference.

after telling me that, you have cited a blog.

I won't return to this topic because I foresee it descending into mean snipeyness. If anyone wants to talk to me more on this please feel free to pm me. Once again, to the op, Id love to hear how you get on the best of luck to you and anyone trying to reach their weightloss goals.

Disagreement =/= rudeness or hostility.

Don't think I was condescending either - it was you that tried to use some unspecified employment or interest as a "scientist" to back up your views and vague references to studies you won't share or expose to scrutiny.

BTW - I haven't given my credentials, just like you haven't. So we are just two people on the internet with different views. You seem to think sugar is the big issue but I think over consumption of calories and lack of activity are the real issues.

And I didn't "cite" Alan Aragon's link as a study. I invited you to view it as a riposte from someone I respect against someone I feel is guilty of severe cherry-picking of information at the very least.

paperpudding

There is a mean spiritedness in this forum which is so sad because this used to be such a kind place. Now everybody seems to try and get one over on everyone else.

I don't think there is a mean spiritedness on these forums at all.

Just because people did not agree with you does not make them mean spirited.

I don't agree with you, as I already stated - and stated without any rudeness. :indifferent:

TheArchyBunker

I lose on 2300-2500 calories.

trogalicious

Have most people who are replying actually looked at OP's stat's??

OP you are a 64 year old female.
Keep in mind that many of those posters replying saying 1500 is fine for me, are not 64 year old females.. Depending on your height and your activity level, 1500 may be too much for you to lose on - or it may be about right.

This seems a rather arbitary question to me - you need to either proivde your full statistics (ie height, activity level, starting weight, as well as age and gender, which we have) so people can give a more informed answer - or feed those statistics into a calculator to get the answer.

I still hold you can lose on 1500cal if you're eating clean and a bit active. I think that most people who have weight to lose can lose on 1500. If you can't lose on 1500 calories, you probably don't have weight to lose. I've always thought 1200 was too extreme. It isn't about sticking to a magic number 1200, food is a lot more complicated. If you're avoiding the sugar and eating around 1500 and are even lightly active, you will more than likely lose the weight.

op, I think its much healthier way to lose weight. If you want results, worry less about the 1200 number and more about cutting down the sugar, eating clean and being consistent that's the message. good luck:flowerforyou:

OP didn't even mention 1200, not sure why you are bringing that magic number into this.
I agree most people can lose on 1500 - however this question was about a specific individual, not most people, and, depending on that individual's age, gender, height, activity level, starting weight - 1500 may or may not be right for them .

We know Op is a 64 year old female - if she is also short and not very active,then 1500 may be too much. If she is taller and more active and has a larger starting weight, then 1500, or more, may be right.

My point standing - until she provides that info, we just don't know.

I lost on less than1500 following amount calculator gave me ( at the slowest rate of 0.5 lb per week, I might add) and I did have weight to lose. My BMI was 28 and I was 10 kg overweight.

Well I'm not a doctor so I couldn't give tailored individual weightloss advice - thats why I've said *most people* I mentioned 1200 because I think thats the default setting on mfp. I mentioned 1500 because that was the ops question and having considered minimum bmr I think that if someone has weight to lose, they can on 1500 provided they are sensible. I mentioned sugar because I'm in Science and that's a bigger weightloss factor than calories. I think worry less about the calorie counting and more about cutting down on sugar, being consistent, exercising and eating cleanly and do this over time. Most people who do that will lose weight if they have it to lose. And I say most people because there are various health conditions which might affect weightloss. For individual tailored plans, people should consult their healthcare providers.

No 1200 isn't the default setting - it's the minimum setting that people often select by setting an aggressive weight loss target.
See Heybales' explanation above.

As for the sugar comments - just no, utterly false.

Gosh This forum is so argumentative.

I mentioned 1200 because it is what most people are using on mfp.

I mentioned sugar and cleaning eating because of studies. Are you a Scientist? I am.

....only when people are adamant about how wrong they are.

AmyRhubarb

It all just became clear to me!

None of this 'discussion' really has much point.

TDEE is an estimate (purely obtained from height/age/activity level)

Calories burnt from exercise is an estimate (whether it's your fitbit, your exercise equipment or a website saying you burnt x calories doing y for z minutes)

Calories consumed is an estimate (especially when eating out or takeaway)

Sticking to macronutrient goals on MFP is way out (if I eat 4 items each containing 1.4g of fat, due to rounding MFP will say I consumed 4g of fat instead of 5.6g etc)

Sure, it's all good as a guideline and a starting point but the real question is this:

Could a person think their net calorie intake was 1200 but due to all the estimates and different variables actually be on 1500?

True, TDEE is an estimate, but can be based on more information than what you listed depending on what calculator used, so you can get a little closer to the true number right off the bat. Devices like Fitbit help with this info as well. And then all it takes is some consistent logging - more accurate when using a food scale and measuring cups - and then tracking progress or lack of for a month or so, and adjusting cals as needed. After a solid 2+ years of losing the fat and keeping it off, I think it's safe for me to say that my numbers are more than just estimates.

It all comes down to logging cals in and out as accurately as possible, and making adjustments as needed.

And for what it's worth, I don't eat "clean" and have had good success. :drinker:

paperpudding

I lose on 2300-2500 calories.

Yes - but you are a 36 year old male, not a 64 year old female like OP.
OP has not given her height - fair bet you are taller than her too.

What you lose on is pretty irrelevant to the question.