1200 is really low
Options
Replies
-
Age is nothing but a number and doesn't affect weight loss. I know research indicates that metabolism slows with age but I call that BS because it only becomes an issue if a person makes it an issue. Age doesn't change the fact that you must eat at a calorie deficiency in order to lose weight. It doesn't prevent a person from exercising for good health. I'll be 51 in two weeks and two days. Now, ask me if I am going to allow my age to stop me.
Really? What about the menopause?
What about it? I am in a weight loss group with women who either passed that point or are currently going through it. All of them are still losing weight.
Well, you said that age doesn't affect weight loss but weight gain is a factor of the menopause for most. That's not bull ****.
Yes, I stated it and I will state it again. Age doesn't affect weight loss. Just because a person gets older doesn't mean they can't lose weight despite getting older. I also stated that the causes of a slow metabolism are real but do not stop a person from losing weight. The same for menopause. Those issues will only affect you from losing weight if you allow those to stop you. Using those as excuses is absolutely bullsh$t.
Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.0 -
Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.
Age doesn't affect weight loss. Aging means a slow metabolism for some people but not necessarily a harder weight loss. Many people on this forum are doing much better at weight loss at their current "older" age than they did when they were much younger with a faster metabolism.0 -
Or older.1200 is too low unless you're very small and very sedentary. What is your height and weight?
No.
1200 is too low unless you're very small and very sedentary, no matter how old you are. You could be 85 and 1200 would still be too low unless you were very small and very sedentary.0 -
Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.
Age does not affect weight loss. Calorie delta does.0 -
Since they've learned that muscle only burns about 6 calories per day per pound, I think most of our reduction in burn as we age is due to reduction in activity. And that's totally under our control, especially in the age of Fitbits where we can see our NEAT over time easily. Anyone remember the old fitness author Covert Bailey? He theorized that decades ago, that we didn't burn less, we just move less unless we make sure we don't.
1200 calories is a lot of lettuce. My intake ranges from 1200-1500. I don't find it all that hard but I do forego a lot of 'normal' stuff because it's just too caloric-- alcohol, most traditional desserts, most fried foods, fattier meats, heavy snacking, huge restaurant meals, caloric drinks, etc. I don't eat much lettuce, though.0 -
Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.
Age does not affect weight loss. Calorie delta does.
Really? What about the menopause? It says here, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/menopause/Pages/Introduction.aspx, that putting on extra weight often occurs during menopause.0 -
Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.
Age does not affect weight loss. Calorie delta does.
Really? What about the menopause? It says here, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/menopause/Pages/Introduction.aspx, that putting on extra weight often occurs during menopause.
Yeah, and going through menopause is associated with massive changes in hormone levels that have significant effects on eating patterns and activity levels.
Age does not affect weight loss. At a given calorie deficit, you will lose weight at about the same rate no matter how old you are.0 -
Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.0
-
Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.
Saying "age affects weight loss" implies that it's harder to lose weight with increasing age. That's 100% bunk, and people use it as a BS excuse.0 -
I'm small, petite,older, and pretty much sedentary. Trying to change that part though. I'm finding 1200 calories just maintains my weight for me. I was on WW for a while, and they put me on 800 calories a day based on my weight. That was a starvation diet pretty much. But, I did lose weight.
I can't go back to 800 calories. It was just too hard, but it seems 1200 isn't working either. Most days I stick with it, some days I go over a little. But still, the weight doesn't change. Sigh.
eat 1200 cals/day as before, but try to be more active... maybe an extra workout, or walking instead of taking the car/bus, taking stairs instead of the lift, etc.
you can't change your size or age but you can change how active you are. Also, there's a lot of scientific evidence mounting about the health risks of being sedentary... one scientific article said that if being sedentary was a product that could be sold it'd come with a health warning. So by being more active, 1. you'd be able to lose weight without decreasing your calories and 2. you'd be improving your health a lot. A win win situation.0 -
I see both sides. In a way it's harder because our lives are usually easier and require less activity. So to keep our 'out' value constant, we have to consciously increase our activity as our lifestyle removes it.Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.
Saying "age affects weight loss" implies that it's harder to lose weight with increasing age. That's 100% bunk, and people use it as a BS excuse.0 -
Reading these threads sometimes one would think folks go out of their way not to understand each other lol.0
-
nope
Or older.1200 is too low unless you're very small and very sedentary. What is your height and weight?
No.
1200 is too low unless you're very small and very sedentary, no matter how old you are. You could be 85 and 1200 would still be too low unless you were very small and very sedentary.0 -
My doctor says not to eat back exercise calories; ignore "net".I started going to the gym and find that 1200 calories... well, I just can't seem to stay that low. Wondering if I should just adjust my numbers, perhaps to 1300. I never counted the exercice calories - my exercice routine was rather mild. Wondering if I should start counting exercice or not... I'd like to lose about 5 pounds
So if your calorie goal is 1200, and you've exercised for what MFP claims is 200, your total for the day should be around 1200, not 1400.
If you add cardio (walk, bicycle, swim, rollerskate, elliptical) you'll burn more calories in less time than weightlifting.
Weights are still important, esp. as you age, to keep bone density and overall strength.
They're just not very efficient at burning calories.
But since you have so little to lose, you're going to lose slowly. And actually 5 lb could be water weight fluctuation over a month. Set your info at sedentary, and your goal to lose 0.5 lb per week.
And here's a piece of advice that may sound a bit odd, but I'll give links to the scientific studies which support it:
eat a large breakfast, about half your calories.
This study compared eating a small breakfast, medium lunch, and large dinner, [200, 500, 700 cal]
with eating a large breakfast, medium lunch, and small dinner [700, 500, 200 cal].
"The [large breakfast] group showed greater weight loss and waist circumference reduction ... fasting glucose, insulin [&] triglycerides ... decreased significantly to a greater extent in the [large breakfast] group."
In addition, hunger was less and satiety was greater.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512957
Full text:
http://genetics.doctorsonly.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jakubowicz-at-al-Obesity-2013-oby20460.pdf
"subjects assigned to high caloric intake during breakfast lost significantly more weight than those assigned to high caloric intake during the dinner"
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24467926
Full text: http://www.tradewindsports.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nutrient-Timing-and-Obesity-2014.pdf
"data suggest that a low-calorie Mediterranean diet with a higher amount of calories in the first part of the day could establish a greater reduction in fat mass and improved insulin sensitivity than a typical daily diet."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/248094370 -
Age slows metabolism, so it affects weight loss. I haven't seen anyone claim that this can't be adjusted for, but that's quite different from saying there is no effect.Well, no, you stated, "age doesn't affect weight loss". It does, it gets harder. However, we appear to agree that it doesn't mean you can't lose weight.
Age does not affect weight loss. Calorie delta does.
If fewer calories are burned because of age, it's absurd to claim that age has no effect on weight loss. It forces a drop in calorie intake.0 -
But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.0
-
"This is because after the age of 25 — which is the age where we stop growing bone — the metabolic rate goes down by 2 percent or more per decade, she says. So, in order to stay at the same weight without a change to your level of activity, you would have to cut your daily calories by the same amount."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/basal-metabolic-rate-changes-as-you-age/2013/03/05/d26b1c18-80f1-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
Not a study by any means, but it appears to be an actual change in bodily function apart from any changes in activity or muscle mass.0 -
But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.0 -
It appears that you believe "affects" is a synonym for "determines."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
By your argument, eating disorders don't affect weight loss because plenty of people on this forum don't have that problem.0 -
It appears that you believe "affects" is a synonym for "determines."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
By your argument, eating disorders don't affect weight loss because plenty of people on this forum don't have that problem.
No, I believe as I posted.
This has nothing to do with EDs so your argument doesn't hold any water because one has nothing to do with the other.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions