I can't ever seem to stay under my calories!!!

chrisdraper90 wrote: »

NakeshiaBeard wrote: »

AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!

*pants*

1400 doesn't ever seem to be enough calories. I'm always going over! I'm short (5'2") and weigh 147lbs (so overweight according to most charts, I *should* weight around 130lbs) so every gram shows on my frame, and every weight loss calculator tells me I need to eat only 1200 calories AND exercise intensively to lose weight. One calculator even put my on 900 calories

I just can't go that low, I would either faint or kill someone from being so hangry!

Anyway, just venting my frustration. I guess all I can do is stick at 1400 calories and up my exercise. Hopefully the lbs start melting off soon!

That's because 1400 is stupid low.

I suggest going onto IIFYM.com using their calculator to work out your proper macros.

If I put her info in IIFYM's tdee calculator, it estimates she only burns around 1600/day before exercise.

I agree with most of the posters. I'm 5'0" and lost 40 lbs on about 1200 not usually eating back exercise. When I ate more veggies and other low GI carbs (like sweet potato, low carb bread, beans, yogurt) then I lost weight. Now that I'm trying to maintain and adding too many sweets back, I'm struggling. Meat and fish are lower calories and as much protein than treat balls. I used a low carb bread with a little sugar free jam as a treat, and found that filled me up sufficiently that I didn't really crave cookies and sugar.

If you are hungry on 1400 calories and willing to take some of the suggestions contained in the many helpful comments here, I would forgo the juicing and just EAT those veggies. Drinking juice will not take the edge off your hunger. It will give you a high sugar drink with no fiber.

chicagospizzaclermont wrote:

If your plan is to take in 1400 calories and do 400 calories off of excercise you are essentially only taking in 1000 calories and that is not enough for your body to run on so it kicks in to starvation mode and keeps every bit of fat it can onboard.

No. Just, no.
"Starvation mode" is when the body turns to burning muscle (which is biologically and energy-wise not a good choice) because there is no fat, no carbs.
If there are any bits of fat or carbs lying around, those will be burned first. It's more efficient to convert those to useful energy, and the body doesn't risk not being able to breathe or pump blood.
Fat is there to fuel us when glucose is nearly kaput, glycogen is being depleted, and we still need to move.

Eating below what your body needs is how you lose weight.
MFP says that my current BMR is just over 1700. My current calorie goal is 1550 (that's total, not net - I generally ignore exercise cal), and my doc suggested going to 1300.
When I started in January, BMR was about 1975, and my calorie goal was 1900. Once I met with my weight-loss doc, that was changed to 1700.
And still I ignored exercise calories, and my doctors are very pleased with my health & my progress. I'm not starving, and while losing so much weight means I will of course lose some muscle, I'm doing weightlifting to preserve as much as possible.

Strength training will benefit in the long run because every lb of muscle you add burns an additional 50 calories of fat at rest.

Nope. I notice you didn't say in what time period that's supposed to be burned, but usually people calculate per hour or per day.

http://www.ncsf.org/enew/articles/articles-poundofmuscle.aspx
"Sedentary muscle mass burns about 6 kcals per pound/day or 0.25 calories an hour per pound ...
Fat about 2 kcals per pound [per day]."

For a more thorough discussion, see the blog post, which links to articles & research saying that strength training does not appreciably change RMR.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-05-does-building-muscle-actually-increase-rmr-684479

We all know the adage - “Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dinner like a pauper” – but it has never worked for me. I usually eat a small breakfast and then pretty much divide remaining calories somewhat equally between lunch and dinner. I always save a few calories for those nightly desires.
-
I don’t always plan a full day in advance, but I do “plan” as the day goes on & base my decisions on my calorie status. I make no choices without knowing calorie content first. Before I actually sit down to eat, I know the calories. It would never work “for me” to eat a full meal and then compute calories.

Of course, all my groceries are low-calorie healthy choices – lots of broccoli, spinach etc. NO cold-cut’s just fresh meat, low-cal wraps etc.

When dining out, I go on-line & view their restaurant menu / nutrition guide and mentally make a couple selections. Doing it this way eliminates the whole drama of being out to eat with others and doing the hemming and hawing about what fits my diet. The people I am with are their own enjoyment too.

One suggestion might be to look at something like Medifast (a plan recommended by many doctors) and use it just as a guide (idea generator)to the right meals for you with the proper amount of lean protein and vegetables that fit the 1200-1400 range you mentioned – including water & exercise.

Talk to your doctor about healthy eating and physical activities.

Best wishes – and again these are just suggestions – everyone is an individual. It took me a long time to find out what was right for me.

1) if 1400 is too low for you to stay full, maybe you need more calories? I'm 5' 3", weigh 130, and I eat ~1800 calories a day (this is what mfp tells me to eat and what other calculators have told me to eat as well to maintain my weight).

2) that said, 1400 calories should be enough to keep you full if you're eating properly. Try eating more fiber and more protein. Lately, I have heavily increased the amount of protein in my diet (because I do a lot of heavy lifting) and I struggle to make it above 1200 calories because I am so full, whereas I normally have no trouble at all eating 1800.