Am I deluded?

What activity level are you using on MFP?

By BMI i'm pretty much dead... hence the 1200 calculation - a nutritionist also said 1200 but short-term it worked and long-term I failed (again) so am wondering if 1500 more realistic to lifestyle change.

I am not sure what 'activity level' means but I entered 6 hours a week at moderate if that answers your Q?

MFP asks you if you are sedentary, lightly active , moderately active, etc. what did you choose?

MFP puts me on 1200 because I chose sedentary (desk based job too) but I found my weight loss slowed right down to non-existent on that level of calories and I'm actually doing better on 1400-1500 calories (i.e. pretty consistent 1lb off a week).

I wore a pedometer for a week and found that I do about 7,000-10,000 steps a day getting to and from work and pottering about the office which worked out at about 250 cals. So when I was sticking to 1200 cals, my body was only getting 1000ish net. I reckon that was enough to slow me down.

What I am doing each day, whilst not enough for me to raise my heart rate generally, is probably enough to move up to 'light activity'.

Maybe it's worth having a think about what your levels of activity are like when you aren't at your desk?

I eat back some/not all as I think some of the estimates are ridiculous e.g. there is no way I lose 900+ calories training for a sport similar to basketball for 2 hours. Usually I would say on 1200 I eat back around half unless I think the estimate is more realistic then I eat back all. But on 1500 I may not eat back all. As I have said 1200 did work, but I couldn't maintain it and yet had more weight to lose so perhaps 1500 will be more realistic?

Running drills, shooting drills, etc? I bet you are burning 400-450 an hour!

If you are training at least five times a week, it makes more sense to set your level to moderate and only worry about additional exercise.

For me I do not think of it as diet. I am on a journey to be healthier by eating the right things and exercise. Sometimes I make bad choices. I just keep moving as it does not impact my next meal.

Figure out your BMR (lots of online calculators) and eat at least that. Most people can't be happy long term eating 1200 calories. MFP only does math so if it's giving you 1200 that's because you've ask for too aggressive of a weight loss goal.

Do this^^ I am also short. After couple of years of working on my lifestyle change (and falling off the wagon for several months) I find that I do much better at 1400-1500 calories or so. This is sustainable for me and only a bit under what daily requirements will be once I reach my goal weight. As such, I think it's sustainable because my body is getting enough nutrition at this level and thus does not fight against the loss. Essentially, I am trying to eat as the person I am working to become. My BMR based on various calculators puts me at 1325-1500. I suspect I'm on the low side of that just due to age and underactive thyroid. Good Luck. Hope this helps.

Figure out your BMR (lots of online calculators) and eat at least that. Most people can't be happy long term eating 1200 calories. MFP only does math so if it's giving you 1200 that's because you've ask for too aggressive of a weight loss goal.

Do this^^ I am also short. After couple of years of working on my lifestyle change (and falling off the wagon for several months) I find that I do much better at 1400-1500 calories or so. This is sustainable for me and only a bit under what daily requirements will be once I reach my goal weight. As such, I think it's sustainable because my body is getting enough nutrition at this level and thus does not fight against the loss. Essentially, I am trying to eat as the person I am working to become. My BMR based on various calculators puts me at 1325-1500. I suspect I'm on the low side of that just due to age and underactive thyroid. Good Luck. Hope this helps.

sounds like we are on the same plan like dress for the job you want, not the job you have

Hi! you asked are you deluded? I'd argue, no you're fine! But if you might be, then it definitely wouldn't be you're fault! You should be applauded for taking your health into your own hands! Perhaps, though, instead of looking only at numbers, answering some questions about caloric *content* is in order? Do you feel comfortable at your current caloric intake, eating the kind of foods you do? Have you been able to remain healthy there, pretty effortlessly? Do want to perhaps want to get leaner (less body fat %)? Get more nutrients? Or do you care about any of that? ... Your opinion there absolutely deserves respect and any way you feel is perfectly fine.

Without being able to see your food diary, but just form observing your concerns and forgetting all the numbers for the moment, I'd assume you're intake is moderate to high on carbs, almost none to low on fat and moderate on protein? If that's even close to correct, then I'll take a general stab at it:

I would move your carb intake more towards non-starchy, leafy vegetables, like mustard greens, kale, swiss chard, collard greens, etc. Then I'd pretty much eliminate alcohol, and nix the pasta, refined sugar and most grains (I say *most*, in the sense of staying on the perimeter of your grocery store, avoiding the isles of "fake" food, cereals included). After the starch/sugar/carb reduction of whatever degree, I'd replace the vacancy with *high quality* fats found in stuff like nuts, oils (virgin olive, red palm, etc) and fish (salmon, sea bass, etc), grass-fed beef and free-range poultry, organic or local pork, following with as much butter and cheese as you prefer. If you were at, lets say, 55% carb, 15% fat, 30% protein before, doing the above would probably move you towards 5-15% carbs (of the mostly complex, fibrous variety), 50-70% fat and 15-35% protein, depending upon the balance with which you find yourself naturally most comfortable.

Overall, I think that would help break your "plateau", while at the same time help pull you away from having to count calories as meticulously as I suspect you are (which, if you think about it, our ancestors, who were all naturally more healthy and "fit" than most of on average, never had to do, nor did they even know what a calorie was, haha!). Anyways, the foods you'll be consuming will be more satiating (fill you up better and keep you full longer), less aggressive (ie. less likely to be stored as body fat), more nutrient dense (excellent on many levels) and less efficient (lower % consumed likely to become body fat). And the overall pattern of your eating will move from mathematics to the simple notion of "eat when you're hungry, and eat until you're full".

Understand, though, that all of the above comes with a few things you might not be used to, or perhaps might be startled to see. Your total caloric intake will most likely go up, probably violating MFP's strict calorie counting approach to weight loss; and your %fat / %carb balance will be flip-flopped against the numbers MFP uses. In short, there's a bunch of backstory and tons of supporting study as to why I think that is perfectly ok, but keeping to the point, I have a feeling if you gave it a try, you might like the results. That's just been my experience. Whatever route you pick, do keep us posted!