No change on MyPlate; MPF's calorie limit?

AChelseaMorning
AChelseaMorning Posts: 5
in Food and Nutrition
Hi everyone! I am brand spankin new on MFP! I just switched over from Livestrong's MyPlate which had me at 1060 net cal./day. I was following that (for the most part) and exercising almost every single day for over a month and lost a grand total of 0 pounds. Awesome. Plus I always feel at least a little hungry, and I'm constantly thinking about food.

I've gathered that MFP won't let you go below 1200 cal, but that means it also won't let me lose more than 1.3 pounds per week. I even tried playing with the Goals exercise settings and that did nothing. And I know 1.3 pounds a week is good, but I just thought it odd that MFP wouldn't adjust calorie and exercise goals based on one's weight loss goals like MyPlate does.

I guess what I'm getting at is A) any ideas as to why cutting calories to 1060 and working out regularly would have no effect on my weight? and B) why am I unable to lose more than 1.3 pound per week according to MFP?

Thanks!

Replies

  • MyProgressISYour1Proof
    MyProgressISYour1Proof Posts: 376 Member
    that is really not a lot of food and you can lose more weight than that. It all depends on the person
  • Brandnewme150
    Brandnewme150 Posts: 43 Member
    I was at 1200 to start and exercising 5-6 days a week and I was losing 2 lbs/week. If you eat too few calories consistently your metabolism will adjust and slow down storing fat instead of burning it.
  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    Without knowing age, weight, height, how much exercise, eating back exercise calories, etc, it's really hard to say what your calorie intake should or shouldn't be. The most likely reason is that whatever goals you put in MyPlate permitted you to have a goal of 1060, which is most likely not enough calories per day.

    While eating at a caloric deficit is the key to weight loss, eating at too low of a deficit can and most often will put a stall on weight loss. You're body is going to become more efficient with the calories you feed it, which may mean a lowered metabolism or the body wanting to hold onto everything is has because you are eating so little.

    Also, give yourself more than a month. Give yourself at least two months before making any real changes.

    AND...1.3 lbs per week is a good and steady goal to have.

    1.3 lbs/per wk X 4 wks = 5.2 lbs

    5.2 lbs > 0 lbs.
  • HaleyxErin
    HaleyxErin Posts: 94 Member
    1060 sounds low enough to put you in starvation and I think you proved that didn't work. You can set your weight loss goal to 2 lbs/week and even then it tells you to eat far more than 1200 depending on your body weight.
  • Rhonnie
    Rhonnie Posts: 506 Member
    The reason MFP will not set calories lower than 1200 is that to go any lower is unhealthy without doctor supervision. Your body needs a minimal amount of calories per day to keep your bodily functions working. AND note that on MFP the program is set up to work that if you exercise you eat more than 1200 calories (you 'eat back' any calories you burn off doing exercise). Most people do not eat ALL their calories back, but at least 50% to 75% - this allows for the fact that MFP seems to overestimate how many calories you burn when exercising.

    As for why you weren't losing weight before, you were eating too little and your body was hanging on to every little fat cell of yours for dear life afraid you were going to starve to death.
  • DaniH826
    DaniH826 Posts: 1,335 Member
    First off, the MFP calorie goal is a goal, not a limit. Aim for someplace around a reasonable caloric deficit for you, and you'll be fine.

    Second off, I can't comment on what your actual caloric needs are, but 1.3 pounds a week goal is probably realistic if you're super overweight. Weight loss is usually not linear, but fluid, so look for long-term changes, and don't sweat over a week. And maybe focus more on fat loss over weight loss.

    And, MFP math is an approximation, not set in stone. 1060 every day, all the time seems super low (I hope you don't plan on eating that way for months and months). Maybe have a look at these:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/925464-fitting-it-in-giggity

    1200 calories is not a magic number. It works for certain people for a certain amount of time, but doesn't work for a lot of people for a long time.

    You could probably increase your caloric intake by quite a bit (based on your current weight, height and approximate body fat percentage) and loose weight quite effectively. Many of us do.

    The reason that MFP won't let you go below 1200 is because any less than that over a long period of time is far it's too little intake for most people depending on current stats and actual activity level. If yo'ure feeing yourself that little, your body is going to hang on to whatever it can since our bodies are great at adapting (maybe a little too great but I tend to not argue with the principle of survival :laugh:).
  • bearwith
    bearwith Posts: 525 Member
    Just go with what it tells you - I started in Jan and am at maintenance and I exercise hard once a week but try not to go over the cals.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I guess what I'm getting at is A) any ideas as to why cutting calories to 1060 and working out regularly would have no effect on my weight? and B) why am I unable to lose more than 1.3 pound per week according to MFP?
    Thanks!

    A. I can guarantee you that you're eating well below your BMR. Particularly if you're exercising...if you're eating 1060 calories and say burn 300 exercising, you're only netting 760 calories...I can guarantee you that's way, way, way below your BMR. Eating substantially below your BMR for long periods of time is dangerous and ultimately results in a stalled metabolism among other things.

    B. 1,200 is the lowest MFP will go as generally speaking, it isn't recommended to NET below 1,200 calories without close medical supervision. When I say NET, that means you should eat back exercise calories per the MFP method. MFP uses your NEAT in calculating your calorie goal rather than your TDEE...basically, this means that exercise is extra activity. Failure to do so will most likely result in a continued stall.
  • PetulantOne
    PetulantOne Posts: 2,131 Member
    If it wasn't working for you on the other site, why would it work here?
  • AChelseaMorning
    AChelseaMorning Posts: 5
    Wow, I did not expect to get responses back so quickly! Thanks, everyone! :D

    I don't know what it takes to put your body into the infamous ~starvation mode!~ but MFP estimates my BMR at 1463 and TDEE/Calories Burned From Normal Daily Activity at 1830. How much of a deficit is too much of a deficit? :/ shrug. Also that 1060 was NET, not gross (I'd probably cry is it was gross), so I'd usually eat 1300-1600 and work off the difference.

    Also a friend of mine suggested that maybe I was gaining muscle and losing fat at an equivalent rate and that's why my weight didn't change even though people have said I look thinner and more toned. (But really, what are the odds?) Do you guys ever get that, where other people are like, "Oh my god, you look great!" and you're like, "I think I look the same as I did two weeks ago."

    I'll feel it out. I'm excited about starting MFP (and Blogilates!); it seems like this helps a lot of people.

    On another note, Domino's ads are taking over the page right now and I want to punch them in the face!

    Thanks again!
  • Rhonnie
    Rhonnie Posts: 506 Member
    It is nearly impossible to gain muscle while eating at a caloric deficit, especially if you are not lifting weights, so your friend was incorrect. :)

    Have you taken measurements and pictures? They are usually a better indication of progress.

    Sounds like you have a good start, just might need a little tweaking. Be patient though!
  • AChelseaMorning
    AChelseaMorning Posts: 5
    It is nearly impossible to gain muscle while eating at a caloric deficit, especially if you are not lifting weights, so your friend was incorrect. :)

    That's what I was thinking. Plus I've pretty much just been doing cardio soooo.....

Categories