Should I be eating less than 1,200 calories?

Don't go below 1200. In fact, I bet you could eat more than that and still lose. I eat 1600 calories a day and still lose. Also, when you are this early on in your diet, it's normal to not lose anything. Let your body adjust. When I first began, it took a few weeks before I started losing weight. And it's better to lose it slowly, it will stay off this way.

I'm trying to be patient as I knew it would be a matter of slow and steady weight loss, it would just be a lot easier if I had some indication that I had achieved anything at all in the past week and that even a pound was lost. I thought you lost weight more easily early in your diet and it's only later on that it gets hard to shift the final few pounds, so I guess I did kind of picture it as the weight would fall off in the first few weeks when my diet dramatically changes, but maybe that was the wrong assumption

Did you take measurements around your waist or look for changes in the mirror? Another important thing is to not obsess over the scale. Take pictures of your body and you will see so much difference in no time.

So if you really want some answers:

1) It takes your body 2-4 weeks at minimum (more like 2-6 weeks) to adjust to changes in eating. You're trying to reprogram your metabolism to lose weight. That doesn't happen overnight - or even in a week.

2) What is your age, height, current weight, exercise level (how often do you exercise, for how long?) and target weight? We can get a look at your Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Expenditures (all estimates) and help you set some appropriate goals.

3) Open your diary so we can see what you're eating. There are lots of things that affect weight within 2-5 pounds simply through water (for example, sodium, sugar, working out...)

4) Be patient. There are lots of times the body will drop a few pounds then wait a while...but just from your input here we don't have much idea about how you're going about it.

Hang in there!

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

When I make the recommendation to eat more it's not about "starvation mode." If you're on 1200 calories you have to be very careful to get adequate nutrition. It's really hard to get enough protein to maintain your muscle while you diet down. And for many people it's not sustainable. My personal belief is that a person should eat at a moderate deficit for adherence and to minimize muscle loss. I also think you should eat as much as you can while still losing weight so that if you do plateau you've got someplace to go.

Also, the link I posted above discusses cortisol, which may help explain why so many people stall out on 1200 calorie diets.

It does work for some, but it's not something I'd generally suggest.

The national guidelines in the USA recommend that doctors advise women to eat 1000-1200 calories a week for weight loss. That being said, I dont think there is anything wrong with 1000 cal/ a day. Everybody holds to be true mfp's magical 1200 number, fearful of a "starvation mode" that may or may not exist at that threshold; Mfp does not cite any research sources or supporting evidence.

What? 1000-1200 a week?

I am sure it was supposed to be a day. It's good info, so you can only attack the typo/misquote. What is the point in that?
I am a 54 yo male and I eat below 1200 many days, sometimes below 1000. I rarely eat above 1800, but I am adjusting toward my lightly active TDEE of around 2000 since I will soon be trying to maintain. What has this done to my metabolism? Not a darn thing. I have lost steadily.

When I make the recommendation to eat more it's not about "starvation mode." If you're on 1200 calories you have to be very careful to get adequate nutrition. It's really hard to get enough protein to maintain your muscle while you diet down. And for many people it's not sustainable. My personal belief is that a person should eat at a moderate deficit for adherence and to minimize muscle loss. I also think you should eat as much as you can while still losing weight so that if you do plateau you've got someplace to go.

Also, the link I posted above discusses cortisol, which may help explain why so many people stall out on 1200 calorie diets.

It does work for some, but it's not something I'd generally suggest.

You my dear are my hero

:flowerforyou:

No weight loss plan is sustainable; you would wink out of existence eventually. Whenever anyone pulls that term out, I get the feeling they are trying to win a debate with words instead of substance. Anyway, I still stand by medical science even if you have links to places on the internet that know better.

I mean sustainable in terms of the period of time in which you are losing weight. Many people find that eating so little causes them to break and binge.

The link is from Lyle McDonald, who is a pretty well-respected source. Of course you don't have to accept him as a credible resource, but I do.

ETA: It's not my intention to derail this thread with yet another 1200 calorie debate. I've put my POV out there for the OP, so she's got more than one option moving forward.

No weight loss plan is sustainable; you would wink out of existence eventually. Whenever anyone pulls that term out, I get the feeling they are trying to win a debate with words instead of substance. Anyway, I still stand by medical science even if you have links to places on the internet that know better.

I mean sustainable in terms of the period of time in which you are losing weight. Many people find that eating so little causes them to break and binge.

The link is from Lyle McDonald, who is a pretty well-respected source. Of course you don't have to accept him as a credible resource, but I do.

ETA: It's not my intention to derail this thread with yet another 1200 calorie debate. I've put my POV out there for the OP, so she's got more than one option moving forward.

I do respect Lyle; he has a lot of opinions, but has stated a few times that after a thorough examination of studies there is no point at which reducing calories does not increase the calorie deficit. He is based in reality.

Yes, it is difficult to stay on a reduced calorie diet. That's one reason the failure rate is so high. I think people are more likely to stay on it if they see results, so I do not encourage anyone to eat more than the medically accepted minimum for nutrition if they are willing to try that. If they can't stick with it, then they should eat a little more. But that's the only reason; not because it doesn't work as well as eating more.

So if you really want some answers:

1) It takes your body 2-4 weeks at minimum (more like 2-6 weeks) to adjust to changes in eating. You're trying to reprogram your metabolism to lose weight. That doesn't happen overnight - or even in a week.

2) What is your age, height, current weight, exercise level (how often do you exercise, for how long?) and target weight? We can get a look at your Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Expenditures (all estimates) and help you set some appropriate goals.

3) Open your diary so we can see what you're eating. There are lots of things that affect weight within 2-5 pounds simply through water (for example, sodium, sugar, working out...)

4) Be patient. There are lots of times the body will drop a few pounds then wait a while...but just from your input here we don't have much idea about how you're going about it.

Hang in there!

This^^ my reply

Absolutely NOT. Eating less than 1,200 calories is very unhealthy. In fact, for most women, 1,200 calories is too little. You have a BMR, or basic metabolic rate. This is how much you burn by doing nothing...like if you were in a coma. Since you are 161 pounds, it is definitely over 1,200. Plug in your height, weight, and age on a BMR calculator and eat roughly that number and MORE if you exercise. The most accurate equation for BMR I have found is the Harris-Benedict equation.

BMR for women: 655.1 + (9.563 x kg) + (1.850 x cm) - (4.676 x age)
or
655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age)

If you're sedentary, multiply the number you get from this formula by 1.2.
If you're lightly active, multiply the number by 1.375.
If you're moderately active, multiply the number by 1.55.
If you're very active, multiply the number by 1.725.
If you're extremely active (usually only if you're an athlete doing heavy training) multiply the number by 1.9.

When I first started losing weight, I was only eating around 900-1,200 calories at most per day (very healthy calories too with exercise) and could not figure out why I wasn't losing weight. Then I found out my BMR, ate that or a little over when I exercised, and the pounds dropped off and now I'm 25 pounds lighter. Also, calories aren't the only important thing. It's also the QUALITY of calories. Say your BMR is 1,500 and you eat that to lose weight. If you eat 1,500 calories of Taco Bell and McDonald's, you will hardly lose any weight. However, if you eat 1,500 calories of very healthy foods like eggs, quinoa, avocados, lots of fruits, lots of veggies, lean meat, lean fish, peanut butter, almond butter, raw honey, nuts, beans, whole wheat pasta, brown rice, and whole grain breads, weight loss will be MUCH more likely. In fact, when losing weight, exercise isn't even half of the equation. I've heard to lose weight, you need to focus 30% on working out and 70% on your diet. That's how important your quality of food is. It needs to be something you can stick to, also, or the weight will just come back on once you go back to the way you ate before. That's why people who go on fad diets often just gain all the weight back. It's not something they stick to.

noo!! lol google tdee's and bmi's and bmr's and eat what it suggests

When I lost 21 pounds last year on MFP, I started at 1330 and didn't lose anything. When I moved up to 1500, 1600, 1700 - that was when I lost 21 pounds.

Did your exercise increase ? or the type of food change ?