Morbidly obese...

I think you will get the most benefit by starting with the recommendation and gradually cutting that down.

Please ignore this advice, it is terrible. 1700 per day will come sooner than you think. I do not think people fully understand the importance of being able to live life and enjoy it while losing weight.

I repeat, you do not want to lose so fast that you will have pounds and pounds of excess skin to cut off of your body. It does happen when someone that is morbidly obese loses weight to fast.

YOU WILL LOSE AT 3000 PER DAY!

That you can lose at 3000 calories per day doesn't mean it's the right caloric intake. In theory I can lose weight by eating 1 calorie less than my TDEE - that's probably not a great plan for weight loss though. As for excess skin, people lose weight slowly and end up with excess skin all the time, even when they lift and do everything right. That's just an unpleasant reality of losing a lot of weight, particularly if your body carried that weight around for a long time. It's disingenuous to suggest it only happens to people who don't lose 2 lbs/week starting off at 400+ lbs, and it's premature to start talking about someone's excess skin and the unpleasant side of weight loss before someone's even gotten started.

Anyways, I never suggested the OP be miserable, but rather to be as aggressive as possible while NOT being miserable with weight loss. There are many health reasons why the OP should look to lose weight at a more aggressive rate, and while the focus should be on the long-term and a sustainable weight loss plan, it does not have to be as timid as 3000 calories/day. If 3000 calories is what it takes for the OP to sustain a diet, then fine, but otherwise the OP should aim to be more aggressive in terms of weight loss for health reasons alone. Just like 2 lbs/week is too fast for someone that's only 10 pounds over weight, I'd argue that 2 lbs/week is too slow for someone that's 400+ pounds.

Edit: Typo. Day, week, same thing right?

Please ignore this advice, it is terrible. 1700 per day will come sooner than you think. I do not think people fully understand the importance of being able to live life and enjoy it while losing weight.

I repeat, you do not want to lose so fast that you will have pounds and pounds of excess skin to cut off of your body. It does happen when someone that is morbidly obese loses weight to fast.

YOU WILL LOSE AT 3000 PER DAY!

That you can lose at 3000 calories per day doesn't mean it's the right caloric intake. In theory I can lose weight by eating 1 calorie less than my TDEE - that's probably not a great plan for weight loss though. As for excess skin, people lose weight slowly and end up with excess skin all the time, even when they lift and do everything right. That's just an unpleasant reality of losing a lot of weight, particularly if your body carried that weight around for a long time. It's disingenuous to suggest it only happens to people who don't lose 2 lbs/week starting off at 400+ lbs, and it's premature to start talking about someone's excess skin and the unpleasant side of weight loss before someone's even gotten started.

Anyways, I never suggested the OP be miserable, but rather to be as aggressive as possible while NOT being miserable with weight loss. There are many health reasons why the OP should look to lose weight at a more aggressive rate, and while the focus should be on the long-term and a sustainable weight loss plan, it does not have to be as timid as 3000 calories/day. If 3000 calories is what it takes for the OP to sustain a diet, then fine, but otherwise the OP should aim to be more aggressive in terms of weight loss for health reasons alone. Just like 2 lbs/day is too fast for someone that's only 10 pounds over weight, I'd argue that 2 lbs/day is too slow for someone that's 400+ pounds.

Are you seriously suggesting that OP should aim to lose 2 pounds a day? I hope that's some kind of crazy typo. But a 450 pound person can lose 2 pounds a week on 3000 calories, which could add up to over 100 pounds in a year, so either way I think you're offering bad advice.

You could lose fast on 1200 calories, but a lot of what you lost would be lean muscle. Take it slow, learn to eat at 3200 calories and you'll be setting yourself up for long-term success and a loss of fat, not muscle or bone mass.

You only see a drastic loss of lean muscle mass when you are eating such an aggressive caloric deficit that your body cannot pull enough energy from your fat stores to make up the difference, with other factors including your protein intake and whether you're doing resistance training. But, at 455 pounds, that threshold is not eating 1200 calories unless the OP is also doing hours of exercise each day. I'm not saying 1200 calories is the right number, but only your advice is not entirely accurate.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! When I was on 1200, I lost a few pounds right away then stalled. It was hard for me to be full on that number so my binging got out of control. Thus putting my weight loss goals even further away. Now I NET about 1400-1600, sometimes more. Today I will probably net around 1900. I eat ANYTHING I want as long as I log and it fits within my calorie budget and I try to hit my protein and fiber macros too. Today is a spike day so my diary looks way out of whack, but thats kinda the 90/10 way of thinking!!! Today is my 10% bad kind of day I dont feel guilty when I eat "bad" foods. I dont fear food anymore. I exercise (intentional, not mopping the floor and saying I exercised) 30-40 minutes a day, and try to get in my water!!! That is all I have changed. The number one key in my opinion is PATIENCE!!!!!!! Its going to take some time, but who cares?!! If you are losing, you are immediately getting healthier and the rest will follow!!!

This is totally what I was trying to say good luck to you! We all believe in you!

Please ignore this advice, it is terrible. 1700 per day will come sooner than you think. I do not think people fully understand the importance of being able to live life and enjoy it while losing weight.

I repeat, you do not want to lose so fast that you will have pounds and pounds of excess skin to cut off of your body. It does happen when someone that is morbidly obese loses weight to fast.

YOU WILL LOSE AT 3000 PER DAY!

That you can lose at 3000 calories per day doesn't mean it's the right caloric intake. In theory I can lose weight by eating 1 calorie less than my TDEE - that's probably not a great plan for weight loss though. As for excess skin, people lose weight slowly and end up with excess skin all the time, even when they lift and do everything right. That's just an unpleasant reality of losing a lot of weight, particularly if your body carried that weight around for a long time. It's disingenuous to suggest it only happens to people who don't lose 2 lbs/week starting off at 400+ lbs, and it's premature to start talking about someone's excess skin and the unpleasant side of weight loss before someone's even gotten started.

Anyways, I never suggested the OP be miserable, but rather to be as aggressive as possible while NOT being miserable with weight loss. There are many health reasons why the OP should look to lose weight at a more aggressive rate, and while the focus should be on the long-term and a sustainable weight loss plan, it does not have to be as timid as 3000 calories/day. If 3000 calories is what it takes for the OP to sustain a diet, then fine, but otherwise the OP should aim to be more aggressive in terms of weight loss for health reasons alone. Just like 2 lbs/day is too fast for someone that's only 10 pounds over weight, I'd argue that 2 lbs/day is too slow for someone that's 400+ pounds.

Are you seriously suggesting that OP should aim to lose 2 pounds a day? I hope that's some kind of crazy typo. But a 450 pound person can lose 2 pounds a week on 3000 calories, which could add up to over 100 pounds in a year, so either way I think you're offering bad advice.

I agree ! 14 pounds a week is just way to much it's not at all healthy and can lead to serious health problems!

Did you set it to lose 2 pounds per week? That might have an impact. Other than that- take what they give you- as you lose they drop it anyway and you will miss the calories so enjoy them while you can... as I lament my daily 1450...

Just starting out, so any advice is appreciated.

You could probably really benefit by getting adopted by a mentor.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1161976-adopt-a-noob-official-mfp-thread

I used to be 235 pounds four months ago and now I'm 191 pounds...and I got there by reducing my calories to 1200 a day. No, I wasn't "miserable." No, I wasn't starving. In fact, I had a hard time getting ENOUGH calories because I was FULL all of the time...know why? Because I eat mostly vegetables, fruits, legumes, and little nuts/seeds. You have to eat more of this type of food in order to get the calories, so you feel full most of the time.

This is not an ad for my diet, I'm just saying there are people in existence who have had success on 1200 calories a day. I feel great, my headaches have gone away, I have energy, I feel motivated, muscle aches are gone, and I don't feel dizzy. Everyone has their own opinions about the 1200 minimum, but I haven't had problems with it. It just depends on how you feel. If you feel terrible on 1200, then please don't do it. I lost 4 pounds week. Many have said that's "unhealthy." I always figured my body would use up my fat stores if it was in too much peril. I just listened to my body. There were days when I did feel weird, I would just up my calories by 100-300. Just eat an extra banana or a piece of cheese or something. I haven't been miserable. It's not really that restrictive if you eat mostly vegetables. Please don't ask about protein because I get the recommended amount every day.

When you are obese, losing 4 pounds week or even more is NOT out of the ordinary. I would just get supervised by a doctor to monitor you and make sure you're healthy. A lot of people lose weight rapidly in the beginning, then get slower over time.

BTW-I did reach a plateau with my 1200 intake, but I kept it up and didn't change anything in my caloric intake. After 3 weeks, I started losing again. With time, if you keep it up, weight loss will continue.

This is my personal experience. I am in no way a nutrition expert. 1200 is not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not for ANYONE.

You could lose fast on 1200 calories, but a lot of what you lost would be lean muscle. Take it slow, learn to eat at 3200 calories and you'll be setting yourself up for long-term success and a loss of fat, not muscle or bone mass.

You only see a drastic loss of lean muscle mass when you are eating such an aggressive caloric deficit that your body cannot pull enough energy from your fat stores to make up the difference, with other factors including your protein intake and whether you're doing resistance training. But, at 455 pounds, that threshold is not eating 1200 calories unless the OP is also doing hours of exercise each day. I'm not saying 1200 calories is the right number, but only your advice is not entirely accurate.

Can you please tell us where you have received your education and what your experience is that you feel that you can give this advice and say that the rest of us are wrong and "not entirely accurate"? I am very interested in knowing where you gained all your knowledge.

You can take a look at J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13. Epub 2004 Dec 8 if you want to get a better understanding of when lean body mass occurs and when it doesn't. There are plenty of other sources out there that discuss how to spare lean body mass when eating a caloric deficit.

Oh I have an education in nutrition and exercise physiology. I am sharing knowledge from experience, not an opinion. I was wondering where you got your education and where you got your experience in order for you to feel confident in giving this advice, thats all.

I am 153 and I can't even live off of 1200 calories a day, I'll just go mad!

Anyways, I never suggested the OP be miserable, but rather to be as aggressive as possible while NOT being miserable with weight loss. There are many health reasons why the OP should look to lose weight at a more aggressive rate, and while the focus should be on the long-term and a sustainable weight loss plan, it does not have to be as timid as 3000 calories/day. If 3000 calories is what it takes for the OP to sustain a diet, then fine, but otherwise the OP should aim to be more aggressive in terms of weight loss for health reasons alone. Just like 2 lbs/week is too fast for someone that's only 10 pounds over weight, I'd argue that 2 lbs/week is too slow for someone that's 400+ pounds.

Edit: Typo. Day, week, same thing right?

Stopped reading here to post question, so if it has already been answered I'm sorry!

I'm also a woman, so very biased in my knowledge & experience , but isn't minimum daily recommended calories for men somewhere around 1800? I can get by on 1200 a day, but I'm a 5' 6," 130 lb. woman. It's rough even for me, so I can't imagine an overweight man being satisfied with that.

Also, doesn't MFP have rules about suggesting extreme or dangerous dieting? MFP only lets you choose losing up to 2 lb./week as an option, but it seems like you are arguing to lose more than 2 lb. a week? If that isn't an option in MFP, why are you advocating it? You aren't coming right out and saying he should stick to 1200 and do rapid weight loss, but you ARE implying it - at least that's how it seems to me. Maybe not outright against the rules, but skirting dangerously close to it in my opinion.

Not to be uptight or anything, but it's a shame when bad advice is given to new folks who (myself included) who might not realize it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, while someone suggested that if you eat 1200 calories then you can't go any lower when you plateau... I don't think that person understands how the body works. Plateaus are not inevitable, particularly when eating that aggressive of a caloric deficit. While you will see some metabolic slowdown when cutting weight, it's not so drastic that your body will adapt to only needing 1200 calories/day at a weight of hundreds of pounds.

I will grant I misspoke actually - I shouldn't have been so hooked on the 1200 number. Point taken and I agree - i was trying to make a broader point about metabolic adaptation that i still don't have a good grasp on. Was from Layne Norton's talk on it. His claims you can take two people at the same weight and bodyfat, have one of them cut at a higher rate, while the other cuts at a lower rate and when they both reach their goal weight the one cutting with higher cals will have a higher caloric intake for maintenance. (ill try and find the study he references - I just dont wanna sit through the 30 minute video right now LOL).

And you can imply I don't know how the body works (fair enough since I admit an erroneous statement) - but sustained weight loss from that size is actually pretty unique and there isn't a ton of research on it in general. I can't imagine many studies being able to get a good sample size of 450+lb plus people.

But most importantly - like oft is the case on MFP, people get caught up in the numbers.

You have never been that large (judging from ticker) and from someone that has been - there is a very bad relationship with food, that can't be ignored.

The kind of relationship with food that will kill you.

Drastically cutting calories is a terrible move for someone that big - psychologically speaking. It is going to contribute to the unhealthy relationship with food almost assuredly.

And I have no idea how you can claim 3000 cals isn't aggressive enough. Based on the OP's short post, I can't fathom how you can jump to that conclusion without knowing very basic things like his height or activity level.

Depending on how active he is, his TDEE will be much higher - and also keep in mind that any exercise he does will burn ridiculous calories.

At that weight - with exercise - he could easily lose 5-8 lbs a week on 3,000 calories. And potentially more depending on his activity levels. That's about 1-2% of total bodyweight, and that seems reasonable.

At 327 lbs Im losing on 3200 cals (this was set from a total pro too - who knows his ****) so can't see the OP not shedding weight at 3000 cals. (pending activity levels)

I used to be 235 pounds four months ago and now I'm 191 pounds...and I got there by reducing my calories to 1200 a day. No, I wasn't "miserable." No, I wasn't starving. In fact, I had a hard time getting ENOUGH calories because I was FULL all of the time...know why? Because I eat mostly vegetables, fruits, legumes, and little nuts/seeds. You have to eat more of this type of food in order to get the calories, so you feel full most of the time.

First off - amazing job on your weight loss.

Secondly, and I say this respectfully - you were a 235lb female...that isn't even remotely comparable to a 455lb male.

At that weight - with exercise - he could easily lose 5-8 lbs a week on 3,000 calories. And potentially more depending on his activity levels. That's about 1-2% of total bodyweight, and that seems reasonable.

At 327 lbs Im losing on 3200 cals (this was set from a total pro too - who knows his ****) so can't see the OP not shedding weight at 3000 cals. (pending activity levels)

I feel like we may be saying the same thing but talking past each other. If he's eating 3000 net calories, exercise is irrelevant because we're talking net calories. So if he burnt 2000 calories from 3 hours of exercise, he'd have to eat 5000 calories that day to hit his 3000 net calorie goal. What I'm saying is I don't think that's really necessary for weight loss, and surely there's a diet on which 3000 calories of food intake would be sufficient to satiate the OP in that situation. Now, if we're talking 3000 calories of food because he's eating back his exercise calories (and it's pretty easy to burn a lot of exercise calories at that weight), it's a different story because his net calories would be lower and he indeed would be seeing rapid weight loss like you're describing.

Never did I suggest 1200 calories (and that was when I assumed the OP was a woman, due to the reference to 1200 calories). I'm just saying you can be more aggressive than the standard MFP 2 lbs/week calculation when you have that much to lose. And it sounds like you're actually agreeing with me on that, when you reference losing 5-8 lbs week at his size. In short, I don't think we really disagree that much on the subject (but I could be wrong ).