1,500 for maintenance? Really?

Helenatrandom

I agree with everyone here who is stating that activity level and size cause a variance in what is necessary for individuals.

However, I recently went to a nutritionist for some advice, and she gave me advice that is totally opposite of what mfp suggests. She said that people who are larger have messed up metabolisms so we need to eat between 1200 and 1600 calories. in order to lose. I thanked her, walked out, and left. On some days I feel like I could gnaw on a chair leg at 2,000 calories. I was hoping for information on what to eat to be satisfied with 2,000 calories, but my willingness to listen to her shut down when I heard her tell me to do what I can not yet do.

My point? People with credentials are still saying stuff like that. This public figure is not alone. I'm so glad I am here.

I'm glad you discounted what she said. Since you are my friend, I feel totally justified in saying you rock!! If you need food ideas to keep from eating furniture and small children, just PM me. :flowerforyou:

Thank you! You are one of the reasons I am so happy to be here! :flowerforyou:

hexrei

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 wouldn't buy any info from someone that throws out a number like that without knowing what your height, weight, and activity level are already. This is really basic stuff. A 5' woman lounging on the couch is going to respond very differently to that 1500 calories than a 5'8" woman who works out regularly.

moonsforeyes

I am 124 pounds and I maintain at 1800-2000 calories. I think it all depends on the person!

fteale

Sorry, I haven't read all the replies, but yes I am maintaining at 1500 cals net at the moment. I upped to 1600 for a bit and put on 4 lbs, so back down to 1500 now.

cstrods

Geez I thought this was supposed to be a supportive website? I am not pulling theses numbers from thin air, yes 5'2 is NOT minuscule but my FRAME is, (currently 93 pounds but 21.5% body fat) further to this I work in a sedentary desk job and have suffered from an eating disorder in my teenage years where I living off 600 and was 83 pounds at my lowest. So don't judge, I was simply pointing out a fact that everyone is different and not all women have the same BMR.

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.

Well exactly I just do not buy the "I am petite therefore I must starve theory" either.

My MUM is 4ft 11 and yes probably would gain weight eating over 1500 calories but she is 59 years old and her metabolism has slowed down hugely with age.

5ft 2 is not miniscule.

I am 5ft 3.5, 118lb and need to eat around 1700 NET (ie. + exercise calories) or I do keep losing.

1200 is what most SMALL people need to stay ALIVE not maintain.

LorinaLynn

1500 is probably an accurate estimate of maintenance for someone who trashed their metabolism doing "Biggest Loser" style crash-dieting.

Rae6503

My maintenance is 2300. She's wrong.

CoryIda

I've been eating around 2300 calories a day for the past month, have done very little cardio (but quite a bit of strength training), and dropped several pounds.
Clearly, 2300 isn't even enough for me to maintain. I'd starve on 1500.

One size does not fit all.

Riverofbeauty

That is a complete generalisation. I maintain around 1850-1900 net (I eat back exercise cals).

Goal_Seeker_1988

I eat 1550 calories a day to lose .5lb a week..... :noway:

MissNations

I am eating 1650 to lose 1 lb a week. One number cannot work for EVERYbody. There's no way.

poppadop89

"The average person will have a maintenance caloric requirement somewhere between 14 and 16 calories per pound of current bodyweight or so. If you feel that you have a slow metabolism, pick the lower value. If you feel that you have a high metabolism, pick the higher value. If you think you're in the middle, use the middle value. Women are typically at the lower end of the range and you'll have to play with the calorie levels a little bit anyhow." - Lyle McDonald

Bodyweight x (14, 15, or 16) = Maintenance

tequila09

My bmr is 1500 and I've been eating around there and I'm losing, I think that lady doesn't know what she's talking about. I wouldn't worry about it.

raevynn

I've been eating around 2300 calories a day for the past month, have done very little cardio (but quite a bit of strength training), and dropped several pounds.
Clearly, 2300 isn't even enough for me to maintain. I'd starve on 1500.

One size does not fit all.

You I believe. Someone on TV, not so much.

lauehorn

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 calling BS. My BMR alone is over 1500 cals and maintenance at my current and goal weight are above 1800. Is she even a qualified nutritionist? Doubtful.

lauehorn

it really depends on your weight what maintanance is. If you rbody is using more energy, maintaining more weight then it's going to be a higher number. Smaller people need less food to maintain a smaller weight, and if they're maintaining a larger weight they'll need more energy input because their body uses more calories just staying alive.

Yes, but it's not as much more as you think. My delta is only 40 cals from CW to GW with a loss of 30lbs.

lauehorn

I was told... take your goal weight..... so mine is 128lbs..... and add a 0 to it..... so my intake should be 1280 cal a day. That's what I SHOULD be using to reach my GW. Problem is here has a different idea.... 1430??? but that could be smaller GW to take it down a little at a time.

So if Michelle wants ppl to weigh 150lbs by station 1500 cal is maintain then that's not so good cause if you are short, that means you are overweight still

That sounds totally off-base and unfounded. I would be starving if I followed that method. It doesn't take into account height, activity level, bone structure, % body fat, and so many other factors. Don't follow that.

nz_deevaa

Absolutely false and she should be publicly flogged for such a generalized statement. A 35 year old woman who weighs 150# and is 5'6" and gets absolutely no exercise has a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 1743.84 calories per day. A 45 year old active woman (works out 3-5 days a week) who has the same measurements would have a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 2179.61 calories per day. There is no "blanket" solution, and it is irresponsible for such a public figure to say that.

That's why I posted it here. For public flogging.

I also agree it's irresponsible for a public figure (who many people will blindly follow) to make such a blanket sweeping statement.

I ALSO think it's wrong that people blindly follow 'celebrities' but that's a completely different argument.

I got some advice on the forums this week about BMR, and based on that advice I'm moving my weight loss calories up to my current BMR (1700), doing it for a month and then re-evaluating. If I need to adjust my numbers up or down I will. There isn't any point only doing it for a week or even two, you have to give your body time ... I think that's good advice.

littleredfairy

but for the last two days you have eaten just 800 calories, isn't that dangerous?

lauehorn

My BMR is 1,550 apparently... I don't see how it's accurate, though, as it surely doesn't take into account activity levels etc? Or muscle... Cause if you have more muscle, it takes more calories to maintain etc, right? Hmm... Having said that, I don't agree with the BMI malarkey either.

You are correct, all BMR calculators are based on formulas derived from studies on participants at HEALTHY weight, already.
Extrapolated from there for other weights.

The real healthy BMR for overweight or very muscular are actually HIGHER than the calc estimates.

So yes, your healthy potential BMR is probably higher than 1550.

BMR has nothing to do with activity level, as that is the energy your body uses dealing with all the cells, feeding them and dealing with fluid movement. It is energy required to be brought in, otherwise we would have a little perpetual motion machine in our systems, and that is not possible.

But your metabolism, whether burning at full steam, or suppressed because of underfeeding, is also the basis for all other activity calories - daily end exercise.

If you have suppressed your metabolism 25% (BMR could be 1600, you net at 1200), now your daily activity calories actually use 25% less (could be 320, now at 240), your exercise calories are less (could be 500, now 375).
And not surprising, your deficit that on paper could be 720 (1920-1200) is now in reality 240 (1440-1200).

No wonder weight loss slows when you slow your metabolism!

Throw exercise in there, and don't feed your workouts, now how low is your true BMR?

This response, all the way.