1200 calories works for me!

What's your diet history like? Back in January, was that the very first time you restricted calories to lose weight? If you restricted before, how much were you eating then?

Anyway, if you are 5'8" and started at 175 with a goal of 140, then a 1 lb per week goal would have been more suitable. A goal of 2 lbs per week is for those who have 75+ lbs to lose. Thus, I'm not surprised that you gained much of your weight back after rapidly losing 15 lbs in two months.

Two months of an overly aggressive deficit may not seem like a long time, but it's enough to cause a noticeable drop in adjusted TDEE which would require you to eat even less to lose weight. Thus, it's not really fair to say the TDEE method didn't work for you when your initial plan caused your energy expenditure to drop a bit beforehand.

I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?

It's not a magic number but simply the lowest MFP goes on recommended calorie intake. Most people set their weight loss on 2 lbs a week, which is a drastic loss in many cases.

I am 5 foot 2 and MFP has me at 1200 calories a day. Its working for me! I am very comfortable at this intake and have learned what to eat so I am not ever hungry. It also makes me exercise so I can eat more. At first it was a challenge but I got this!

I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?

With only 20 lbs to lose, set your goal to 0.5 lbs per week, though you are closer to 0.75 lbs per week. You simply do not have the fat mass to warrant a larger deficit.
[/quote]
Thanks for the tip - makes sense. I just want to lose weight a bit faster this time around...which is why I selected the 2lbs a week route (which I still think is a reasonable loss goal for me). I might try for one lb a week instead. I know I could do 1200 cals...it just seems SO low. Almost unhealthy. And scares me because I know there is NO WAY I'd be able to maintain that once I've lost the weight I want to lose.

MyFailurePal fails to inform people during the weekly weight loss goal option that the "choice" is based on how much total fat mass one has and wishes to lose. Basically, we all have a limit to how much fat mass that can be oxidized in a 24 hour period. The less total fat mass one has, the less fat mass can be oxidized in a single day; the more fat mass one has, the more fat mass can be oxidized in a single day. This is why people with a very large amount of body fat lose weight at a faster rate than a leaner person only wanting to lose a few lbs.

Very interesting. MyFailurePal...lol. Hey - be nice. I actually quite like it so far (the tracking/diary part anyhow). I'm going to see how things go and adjust accordingly. I am overweight - so I do have some work to do. 20 lbs might not seem like a lot...but it's a lot to me and I feel like at a rate of 0.5lbs per week it will take forever.

Very interesting. MyFailurePal...lol. Hey - be nice. I actually quite like it so far (the tracking/diary part anyhow). I'm going to see how things go and adjust accordingly. I am overweight - so I do have some work to do. 20 lbs might not seem like a lot...but it's a lot to me and I feel like at a rate of 0.5lbs per week it will take forever.

Keep in mind that rapid weight loss puts you at certain risks. One, it causes your TDEE to decline at an accelerated rate compared to a smaller deficit. Secondly, it causes greater decline in serum leptin levels - the key hormone that regulates energy balance through hunger cues. Thirdly, you'll lose excessive lean body mass (muscle, connective tissue and bone mass).

Because of these, you run the risk of replacing most if not all the weight you lost rapidly when upping calories to adjusted maintenance - which, would be considerably lower than baseline even if you return to your previous weight. However, despite returning to your original weight, you will actually have more fat mass because you will recover only a very small portion of the lost lean mass - thus the difference comes entirely from additional fat mass.

That's why those who do semi-starvation diets gain all the weight back and have to eat less to maintain their original weight and less the next time they try to lose weight. Essentially, their body is burning far less calories throughout the day.

This content has been removed.

I have no problem in general with a 1200 diet IF you eat back exercise calories. However, I do see so many posters saying things like "it worked for me last time and it's working for me again". It worked for ME before too, and my entire purpose this time around is to make sure there is no again again. I don't disagree that one will lose weight on it. But based on what I see here and what I've personally experienced it makes it so much harder to KEEP the weight off.

It's not a magic number but simply the lowest MFP goes on recommended calorie intake. Most people set their weight loss on 2 lbs a week, which is a drastic loss in many cases.

Also, consistency matters before you tout a claim. Pseudoscience on inconsistent data amuses me though.

So, please! Carry on . . .

My only concern is how you are going to maintain as you said you gained weight at 1700. Your metabolism must really be shot. Do you lift weights at all?

I rarely post on the forums, but this seems like an intelligent, informed discussion so I'm going to jump in and ask a question largely based on the comment above. Please note I am NOT trying to hijack this thread and if that's what I'm technically doing, please ignore my post. I lost almost 100 lbs doing 1200 cals per day and eating back exercise calories. My exercise increased as I became more fit. Last summer, I started going through a major depression after being devestated by something that happened in my life. I've pretty much been "playing" at being healthy for a year and that has caused a 40 lb weight gain. I am struggling with consistency with eating below daily goal which is currently set at 1500. I just couldn't go back to 1200 cals...I was hungry and thinking about food all the time. My only exercise is currently walking a couple of hours per week and if I eat 1700 cals a day every day, I gain, gain, gain. Have I damaged my metabolism with my "yo-yo dieting" in the last year? And if so, how can I repair that damage?

Now, that is interesting! I do not think you have damaged your metabolism, but something isn't being logged or measured right. You need to do your measurements, calculate your body fat %, find your current TDEE, and then minus 250 calories or 500 calories (whatever you're comfortable with) off that. Or if you're doing MFP guided, just make sure you are accurate with the numbers you put in and stick with your net calorie goal.

Great site for getting your body fat percentage and other data: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Very interesting. MyFailurePal...lol. Hey - be nice. I actually quite like it so far (the tracking/diary part anyhow). I'm going to see how things go and adjust accordingly. I am overweight - so I do have some work to do. 20 lbs might not seem like a lot...but it's a lot to me and I feel like at a rate of 0.5lbs per week it will take forever.

Keep in mind that rapid weight loss puts you at certain risks. One, it causes your TDEE to decline at an accelerated rate compared to a smaller deficit. Secondly, it causes greater decline in serum leptin levels - the key hormone that regulates energy balance through hunger cues. Thirdly, you'll lose excessive lean body mass (muscle, connective tissue and bone mass).

Because of these, you run the risk of replacing most if not all the weight you lost rapidly when upping calories to adjusted maintenance - which, would be considerably lower than baseline even if you return to your previous weight. However, despite returning to your original weight, you will actually have more fat mass because you will recover only a very small portion of the lost lean mass - thus the difference comes entirely from additional fat mass.

That's why those who do semi-starvation diets gain all the weight back and have to eat less to maintain their original weight and less the next time they try to lose weight. Essentially, their body is burning far less calories throughout the day.

Yeah - in theory it makes total sense ...and they say patience is a virtue and I do want to do it the healthy way. With that being said (and to play devils advocate), I've been told that losing up to 2lbs per week is a normal/healthy rate of weightloss when it's done through eating right and exercising (no starvation). Thoughts? Also - what is TDEE? (Sorry - I'm new here, I'm still trying to work out all of the acronyms).

Yeah - in theory it makes total sense ...and they say patience is a virtue and I do want to do it the healthy way. With that being said (and to play devils advocate), I've been told that losing up to 2lbs per week is a normal/healthy rate of weightloss when it's done through eating right and exercising (no starvation). Thoughts? Also - what is TDEE? (Sorry - I'm new here, I'm still trying to work out all of the acronyms).

The mantra that 2 lbs per week is "normal/healthy" pertains to the maximum amount of weight a very obese person is recommended to lose without strict, medical supervision. It does not pertain to individuals with much less to lose in comparison. Such persons should adhere to a 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 lbs weight loss goal depending on degree of adiposity. This is why those options are given on MFP - unfortunately, as I mentioned, it is not explained to new members...

As I mentioned before, we all have a limit, or max deficit, to how many calories per day goes to burning fat. It is based on this research:

A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

Cliff notes:
This limit is based on total fat mass, which is multiplied by 31 to be established. For instance, I have 20 lbs of total fat mass. Thus, 20 x 31=620 calorie maximum deficit. Since I maintain at 2900 calories, the least I can eat where fat mass is burned is roughly 2300 calories. If my deficit is larger than this number, no additional fat mass is burned - the energy from the excessive deficit thus comes solely from lean mass.

However, I do not create such a large 600 calorie deficit since the closer I get to that limit, the more lean mass is lost. My goal is to preserve as much lean mass as possible while maximizing fat loss. Thus, from prior experiments, my max deficit is 300 calories. It also isn't just about preserving lean mass, your TDEE and hormones are also affected by chronic calorie restriction.

TDEE:
Total Daily Energy Expenditure - the total amount of calories your body burns throughout the entire day which allows one to relatively maintain their body weight. In other words, it's the maximum amount of calories you can eat to maintain weight relative to activity.

When chronically restricting calories, your metabolism adapts to less energy being available by burning less calories in an effort to conserve energy. The smaller the deficit maintained,with minimal loss of lean mass, the smaller the decline in energy expenditure potential (eg: TDEE drops from 2900 to 2800). Conversely, the larger the deficit maintained, with excessive loss of lean mass, the result is a much greater decline in energy expenditure potential (eg: TDEE drops from 2900 to 1900). Thus a person with a greater decline in TDEE will need to eat considerably less to maintain weight and will burn far less calories through exercise, for instance.

Let me guess OP, the 'everything back' that you gained was like what, 5 lbs? Because that's totally normal, from water going back in your muscles after you started eating more. I can pretty much guarantee you that it wasn't 5 lbs of fat.

There's really no reason for you to starve yourself, but if you want to maintain at 1600 calories later, be my guest I guess.