I want to loose faster. Is this healthy?
marialou891
Posts: 20 Member
I mean healthy as in is it healthy/normal to want to loose faster? the last couple of days I've been eating 200 less calories a day then what MFP says. Is this going to turn on me?
0
Replies
-
What is your goal set to?0
-
Lose faster than what? You say you need to lose 161 lbs, so certainly it's okay for you to lose at a rate of a couple of pounds a week, and you'll do fine.
I do not hit a specific calorie count every single day, and to be honest, as long as my week averages out to about a 3500 calorie deficit, I'm all good.0 -
We can't judge whether it's healthy or not because we don't know your calorie goal...0
-
It's normal to want to lose fast, but it's not necessarily healthy I'm afraid...0
-
marialou891 wrote: »I mean healthy as in is it healthy/normal to want to loose faster? the last couple of days I've been eating 200 less calories a day then what MFP says. Is this going to turn on me?
:noway:
0 -
If you are trying to lose more than 2 pounds a week then it probably isn't a healthy plan.0
-
Your calorie deficit is already built in to your daily calorie goal. There is no need to go further under that.
I always ebb on the side of "no". Rushing the process may derail you. With the amount you have to lose, stick to the 2lb/week plan. Some weeks you will lose more than others, especially in the beginning. You want sustainable changes, and to use this time to learn how to keep your new lifestyle up.0 -
It's important to have realistic expectations. Wanting to lose faster, while sometimes can be done, will not always equal the results you want either. Also, the more you cut, the harder it is to adhere to. Don't forget as well that you need to keep your body fueled properly so that you do not become malnutritioned and/or leave yourself open to illness/injury.0
-
Thank you so much everyone for yor kind words! I just want so badly for this to be the time that I succeed. I guess taking it slow is the best way to see that happen.0
-
For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 20700
-
marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
You're completely fine, lol.
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
Because bodies need calories to function, and no one is recommended to eat under 1,200 unless under close medical supervision and under doctor's orders.
You really shouldn't be eating under your BMR. Those are the calories your body burns every day functioning and keeping you alive.0 -
Eat your calorie goal the MFP gives you! We all want to lose quicker but, the slower you lose, the more likely you are to keep losing and keep it off. Slow and steady. Trying to lose too quickly can increase the amount of muscle you lose along the way.
0 -
Why? Because.
Unless doctor/dietician supervised, a low calorie diet can damage organs, and not provide enough nutrition for long term health.
Cheers, h.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
Because bodies need calories to function, and no one is recommended to eat under 1,200 unless under close medical supervision and under doctor's orders.
You really shouldn't be eating under your BMR. Those are the calories your body burns every day functioning and keeping you alive.
I've always wondered this.
So a 4'10" woman has the exact same minimum calorie goal as a 5'9" woman?
OP: the goal is to eat as much as you can, and still lose weight. Eat what MFP tells you to!0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
Because bodies need calories to function, and no one is recommended to eat under 1,200 unless under close medical supervision and under doctor's orders.
You really shouldn't be eating under your BMR. Those are the calories your body burns every day functioning and keeping you alive.
I've always wondered this.
So a 4'10" woman has the exact same minimum calorie goal as a 5'9" woman?
OP: the goal is to eat as much as you can, and still lose weight. Eat what MFP tells you to!
A 4'10" woman should probably still be eating close to 1,200. You shouldn't eat under your BMR period, but eating over your BMR does not automatically mean you are suddenly going to gain weight.
No one's calorie goals are the same, and shouldn't be adjusted so low in any case without a doctor.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
Because bodies need calories to function, and no one is recommended to eat under 1,200 unless under close medical supervision and under doctor's orders.
You really shouldn't be eating under your BMR. Those are the calories your body burns every day functioning and keeping you alive.
I've always wondered this.
So a 4'10" woman has the exact same minimum calorie goal as a 5'9" woman?
OP: the goal is to eat as much as you can, and still lose weight. Eat what MFP tells you to!
A 4'10" woman should probably still be eating close to 1,200. You shouldn't eat under your BMR period, but eating over your BMR does not automatically mean you are suddenly going to gain weight.
No one's calorie goals are the same, and shouldn't be adjusted so low in any case without a doctor.
That wasn't really my question. I've been at this for a while now, and I've lost a good amount of weight (8 months, 65 pounds). I know what I need to eat.
I was asking because the 1200 has always seemed arbitrary to me. I don't understand how a minimum could be the same for such a wide variety of shapes, sizes and weights. I thought maybe you had some insight
(I think this sounds sarcastic, and I really don't mean it to be). 0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »IsaackGMOON wrote: »marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
Eating anything less than 1,200 is unhealthy.
Why?
Because bodies need calories to function, and no one is recommended to eat under 1,200 unless under close medical supervision and under doctor's orders.
You really shouldn't be eating under your BMR. Those are the calories your body burns every day functioning and keeping you alive.
I've always wondered this.
So a 4'10" woman has the exact same minimum calorie goal as a 5'9" woman?
OP: the goal is to eat as much as you can, and still lose weight. Eat what MFP tells you to!
A 4'10" woman should probably still be eating close to 1,200. You shouldn't eat under your BMR period, but eating over your BMR does not automatically mean you are suddenly going to gain weight.
No one's calorie goals are the same, and shouldn't be adjusted so low in any case without a doctor.
That wasn't really my question. I've been at this for a while now, and I've lost a good amount of weight (8 months, 65 pounds). I know what I need to eat.
I was asking because the 1200 has always seemed arbitrary to me. I don't understand how a minimum could be the same for such a wide variety of shapes, sizes and weights. I thought maybe you had some insight (I think this sounds sarcastic, and I really don't mean it to be).
Most likely if someone is 4'10 and has a significant amount to lose, their BMR is going to be over 1,200, so 1,200 is appropriate. Like I said, it's something the person should be discussing with a doctor, because they will be advised of an appropriate amount to eat for their specific body type. MFP picks that minimum to be safe and broad across the board, to account for everyone.0 -
(Edit: For the above poster; formatting got all messed up so I had to delete most of the quoted post to get it to work.)
Most likely if someone is 4'10 and has a significant amount to lose, their BMR is going to be over 1,200, so 1,200 is appropriate. Like I said, it's something the person should be discussing with a doctor, because they will be advised of an appropriate amount to eat for their specific body type. MFP picks that minimum to be safe and broad across the board, to account for everyone.
I also was answering your question, and was not implying you didn't know what you were asking of me. Sorry if it came off that way.
0 -
Oh gosh, no apology needed
0 -
0
-
It's not just BMR that is in question, 1200kcal is around about a good number for minimum because it would be extremely difficult to get all essential micro-nutrients from less than that number per day. We're talking your potassium, iron, vitamins to help those minerals work correctly - all of that business. 1200 is an average, it's around about what the average body needs in energy to survive in a comatose state. Everyone has a different BMR & TDEE, that's why its important to work out your own numbers for these, to ensure you don't eat below the first; make a deficit from the latter.0
-
Slow and steady wins the race :-)0
-
The stuff about not eating below BMR is flat wrong. The stuff about not eating below 1200 (for women, 1500 for men) is correct. But it isn't because our bodies need calories. If we're overweight, we already have calories. The 1200/1500 minimum is because the nutrients contained in that amount of food is about the minimum we need to be healthy. Of course, if a person were consuming nothing but sugar to reach their 1200, they still wouldn't be getting everything they need, but with a balanced diet, 1200 is the number.0
-
marialou891 wrote: »For example I was eating about 1870 am when it said I should be eating 2070
With 161 pounds to lose, (the early stages of dieting) this is not going to be a problem. When you have less to lose, you want to make sure you're maintaining as much lean muscle tissue as possible, therefore the rate of loss should be slowed.0 -
The more fat you have the safer it is to lose fast. I don't think 200 less calories will be a problem.
In general, a loss of 1% of your body weight every week is acceptable, so if you weigh 300 pounds it's safe to lose 3 pounds and reduce your calories up to 500 calories under what MFP sets for you to lose 2 pounds (provided you eat your exercise back).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions