1,500 for maintenance? Really?

Rayman79

Michelle Bridges, one of the Australian Biggest Loser trainers suggests that for women 1,500 calories is a good number for maintenence, or 1,600 for women who want to put on weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V--HyBw07M&sns=em

(hope that works)

This freaks me out because I've just upped my calories to 1700, based on my BMR.

Let me break this down for ya:

Firstly, she is a PT, not a nutritionist, and would automatically go for a conservative (low) number to mean that most people will either maintain or lose on that figure... and lessen her hate mail from prescribing a number that is too high and having people blaming her for putting on weight.

One size does not, and can not fit all. Take two women as extreme examples. One is a 5' tall small framed woman who works in a sedentary desk job. The other is a 6' woman who has a naturally large frame, more muscle, and works in retail or on a production line etc etc.

Bottom line, take this type of advice with a pinch of salt. Figure out what is best for you personally.

bigredhearts

when i first decided to lose weight, i was using a different site that had me at 1800 cals, and i was losing 2 lbs a week. when i came here it had me at 1250. the first two weeks at 1250 i quit losing weight and couldnt find a way to fix it so i tried cycling, spiking etc. nothing worked. i stood at a stand still till i injured myself and gained all my weight back. im now, back at it again and have lost 2 lbs a week steadily at 2,000, WITH a sedentary lifestyle.

deniseearheart

I eat 1700 a day and I am loosing thank God. As soon as that slows I will lower my calories

Rayman79

Given that contestants on The Biggest Loser eat nowhere near enough to fuel their intensive workouts, or to have a safe, realistic weight loss, 1500 probably is all their contestants can end up coping with. Me, I ate more than 1500 yesterday, often do most days and am still losing weight.

As scary as it is, on the Australian version they were talking about their daily cal intakes and it was 1200 and 1000 for men and women respectively. This is on top of several hours of physical training! To me this is just damned irresponsible and does not teach them sustainable habits to take with them in real life.

Just goes to show that the drama and entertainment (read ratings and money) far outweigh morality and responsibility. Sad but true.

jenilla1

Baloney. ALL women are NOT the same. I hope she was just talking about some "average woman." At 1490 I'm in slow weight loss mode. I maintain (and have for 9 months) at 1750 and that's me being sedentary. It all depends on starting weight/height/body type (BMI) and activity level. That's why each person gets a unique number. A six foot tall woman at a healthy weight has to eat a lot more calories to maintain than a 4 foot tall woman at a healthy weight.

chrisdavey

One size does not fit all. IIRC you are 102kg? If so, there is no way that you're maintenance is 1500cals. That would be the maintenance for someone who weighs about 45kg. So yeah, no need to worry.

chrisdavey

Given that contestants on The Biggest Loser eat nowhere near enough to fuel their intensive workouts, or to have a safe, realistic weight loss, 1500 probably is all their contestants can end up coping with. Me, I ate more than 1500 yesterday, often do most days and am still losing weight.

As scary as it is, on the Australian version they were talking about their daily cal intakes and it was 1200 and 1000 for men and women respectively. This is on top of several hours of physical training! To me this is just damned irresponsible and does not teach them sustainable habits to take with them in real life.

Just goes to show that the drama and entertainment (read ratings and money) far outweigh morality and responsibility. Sad but true.

hence why biggest loser contestants rarely keep the weight off & also shed mass amounts of LBM during their time on the show.

Stazed

I think it's impossible to say that for every woman there's one magic number. Your BMR, your activity level, your body composition, these are all going to make a difference. MFP's suggestions take these into account so it's probably a better indicator, but the best indicator is if you are gaining/maintaining/losing weight on this intake. You can always adjust it accordingly.

Well said

Michelle650

Well I have been eating 1,500 calories for 1 month now and have lost 1 pound every week!

nz_deevaa

One size does not fit all. IIRC you are 102kg? If so, there is no way that you're maintenance is 1500cals. That would be the maintenance for someone who weighs about 45kg. So yeah, no need to worry.

You are correct.

I'm trying to chill out, do 1700 cals for a month and re-assess, just like you advised.

Surgeon gave me the all clear on my knee today, no-impact training for a month, then I'm back. He says I'll have 95% of full function. Huzzah!

tjradd73

MFP gives me 1540 plus my exercise cals for MNT...however if I eat my 1200 (goal to lose 0.7lbs) plus my exercise cals (bout 300 AVG/day) for a total of about 1500 (oooooohhhhahhhhhhhhh)...I end up maintaining for the most part!! IMAGINE that...exactly what she said!!!

don't get me wrong...everyone is different...but yes some people will have to eat that low to maintain...and I seem to be one of them!

heybales

MFP gives me 1540 plus my exercise cals for MNT...however if I eat my 1200 (goal to lose 0.7lbs) plus my exercise cals (bout 300 AVG/day) for a total of about 1500 (oooooohhhhahhhhhhhhh)...I end up maintaining for the most part!! IMAGINE that...exactly what she said!!!

don't get me wrong...everyone is different...but yes some people will have to eat that low to maintain...and I seem to be one of them!

Not really surprising, you've suppressed your metabolism, it is running slower.
Therefore all estimates of your daily activity calories and exercise calories are inflated for as slow as your system is running.

You just can't reach the spread or gap someone with a full burning metabolism could have.
Also makes it more difficult if exercise is enjoyed.

Just a choice. Yours is slower, and must be watched much more careful. Because if you eat extra, it's stored as fat.

Someone with full burning BMR, if they eat extra, body just burns it up.

Lozze

As scary as it is, on the Australian version they were talking about their daily cal intakes and it was 1200 and 1000 for men and women respectively. This is on top of several hours of physical training! To me this is just damned irresponsible and does not teach them sustainable habits to take with them in real life. [/quote]

Yup. And that's why Megan from 2009 is in Woman's Day this week having put it all back on. As have about half the contestants. I stopped watching this year after watching someone get abused for eating a ham, cheese and tomato toastie that was SO! MANY! CALORIES! It was 350.

I would t trust anyone who appears on that show for nutrition advice. Bob's latest book has a 'rule' that no carbs after lunch! Brilliant advice that!

Listen to them on exercise plans or even motivation. Listen to a dietician for advice on what to eat.

girl_afraid82

Would totally depend on the individual... after looking back on what I used to eat before I came on here, I was maintaining on about 1600-1700. But then I'm a shortie.

_HeathBar_

Have you guys seen Michelle?

She looks like she's maybe 4'11" and weighs no more then 100lbs, and that's being generous! For her 1500cal/day or below could very well be maintenance.

nz_deevaa

Have you guys seen Michelle?

She looks like she's maybe 4'11" and weighs no more then 100lbs, and that's being generous! For her 1500cal/day or below could very well be maintenance.

I don't know if you looked at the video I posted, but she's not saying that's her number, she's giving general advice.

madamepsychosis

Given that contestants on The Biggest Loser eat nowhere near enough to fuel their intensive workouts, or to have a safe, realistic weight loss, 1500 probably is all their contestants can end up coping with. Me, I ate more than 1500 yesterday, often do most days and am still losing weight.

As scary as it is, on the Australian version they were talking about their daily cal intakes and it was 1200 and 1000 for men and women respectively. This is on top of several hours of physical training! To me this is just damned irresponsible and does not teach them sustainable habits to take with them in real life.

Just goes to show that the drama and entertainment (read ratings and money) far outweigh morality and responsibility. Sad but true.

It's insane, isn't it? No wonder so many of the alumni end up gaining most - sometimes all - of their weight back! Some of the American contestants have said they still have very disordered thoughts about eating too. I hate how contestants are guilt tripped for only losing '1lb-2lbs' a week too, even though that's a healthy amount to lose per week. I've known so many people in real life get disappointed for losing that amount, then when I tell them it's good say 'Oh but on the Biggest Loser, they lose so much more!'

qtiekiki

It really depends on your weight and normal activities. I am 108lbs, and MPF gives me 1460 for maintenance with a sedentary lifestyle.

bluemorpho1247

MFP suggests 1500 to maintain and 1200 to lose for me

Sweet_Potato

According to MFP I need 1,490 to maintain, so this doesn't sound too far off base. However, a woman who's bigger and/or more active would obviously need more.

Shweedog

MFP tells me for my stats that 1830 ismaintenance. I actually maintain at about 1950. I am 5' 7" and 133 lbs.

militarydreams

There are numerous factors to BMR, the two most obvious are gender and weight. You could be 6 foot tall and healthy yet need more calories than a 5 foot person of equal BMI. The major flaw of BMI is another slightly less obvious factor: muscle mass, a hungry and wasteful beastie that'll gobble up calories all day long. The body also adjusts metabolism if it thinks it's starving and from what I've seen of the biggest loser that could be another player in the game here.

Bottom line is that just because someone on TV said something doesn't make it true :laugh:

delilah47

If she is *maintaining* at 1500 she is either comatose or never getting out of bed. Something ain't right.

keiraev

It really depends on your size (height, bone structure, build) activity levels and current weight, very simple. For example my maintenance is around 1200 and loss is 1000 yet most of you on here would find far too low at 1500 I would gain as I am short 5'2 and have a very fine and narrow bone structure (comparable to a 12 yr old child).

This cannot be right. 5ft 2 is fairly small but it's not tiny and NOBODY maintains on 1200. Even if you were 90lb your maintenance would still be at least 1400/1500.

ashimon

I'm 4' 10 1/2" and my maintenance is ~1500 calories. I just love reading about people eating 2000 calories to lose weight. Not fair!

Ouch, I'm usually somewhere between 3000 and 4000 and my weight fluctuates a couple pounds here and there based on whether I'm closer to the high end or the low end. I have trouble eating all that food some days, I find natural peanut butter helps, but when you eat healthy foods that can be a problem.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Ha!! I guess I'm a freak show because I eat more than a man "should" and I'm only 4'11 and ~100 pounds. Lol. Im sticking to 2200+

NovemberJune

1. Folks who have been obese for many, many, years. And I don't mean overweight, I mean obese. Usually morbidly obese. Often since childhood or young adulthood. These are the folks on the biggest loser. Both lab/clinical studies and population studies suggest that for these folks, once weight has been lost, they have to eat less or workout more than people who never got to that size, in order to maintain their weight loss. I am betting that a trainer for the biggest loser, whether they are basing it on science or simply on experience, are putting out a calorie number that works for this population, which would be lower than we'd think.

That's what I was thinking. But I still think my maintenance calories will end up being more like 1800 with exercise. 1500 would be a petite woman imo.

karinaes

Michelle Bridges, one of the Australian Biggest Loser trainers suggests that for women 1,500 calories is a good number for maintenence, or 1,600 for women who want to put on weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V--HyBw07M&sns=em

(hope that works)

This freaks me out because I've just upped my calories to 1700, based on my BMR.

i'm just under 5'4" .. i'm perfectly healthy MAINTAINING at netting 1840 calories. ..i think i'd still be hungry at 1500 . thank you.
netting only 1200 calories so consistently is just insane !

mes1119

sound about right. if you weigh under 100 pounds, have an incredibly slow metabolism, and have no muscle mass. my muscles need foooooooooood.

I ate well of 2000 calories a day last week and I only worked out 3 times AND I lost half a pound. Take that! booom.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

It really depends on your size (height, bone structure, build) activity levels and current weight, very simple. For example my maintenance is around 1200 and loss is 1000 yet most of you on here would find far too low at 1500 I would gain as I am short 5'2 and have a very fine and narrow bone structure (comparable to a 12 yr old child).

This cannot be right. 5ft 2 is fairly small but it's not tiny and NOBODY maintains on 1200. Even if you were 90lb your maintenance would still be at least 1400/1500.

In all seriousness--at my lowest weight (with an eating disorder) I ate ~1000 calories and I'm 4'11--so I really cannot buy the 1200 for maintenance unless you've starved yourself to get to your current weight.