Lowering daily calories

thatshistorical
thatshistorical Posts: 93 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been tracking and logging for a month now, but my plateau has hit. I was eating/allowing 1580cal/day, that combined with my workout regime I was getting about .5lb loss/week. I'm not displeased, I'm usually full and I eat things I enjoy so I don't feel the need to have cheat days.

I'd like to up that to 1-1.5lb loss/week, considering I have so much to lose. Currently I'm 5'7" and 200.2lbs with a goal weight of 165. Once I've dropped the next 10-15 I expect to slow the progress back down to .5/week. As it stands it's really hard to run with the extra weight on my joints but I love running again so I'm trying to get a few lbs off to help me go longer without the pain from my old knee injury.

In addition to more strength training, would it be beneficial to drop my Cals to 1400? I rarely eat all of my burned Cals back, last night I still had 200 left but I was full so I just left them. I'd like hear from some folks about what might be the best route--

Dropping Cals to 1400 and increase strength training (currently I do 20 min 3x/week and 45 min cardio 5-6x/week)? I need to keep my cardio regime going bc I'm training for a 5k and later a 10k and I dance with a dance team in parades around Atlanta -- the longest being the pride parade which is 2 miles of kicks and leaps and turns. Yikes! Every year I'm out of breath after .5 mile. NEVER AGAIN.

Or

Keeping Cals the same when increasing strength training? Is there a detrimental effect by reducing the 180/day as long as I net close to 1400?

I measure EVERYTHING. Even one triscuit. I make portioned meals on the weekend and eat them through the week to help control impulse snacking.

Thoughts?

Kelly

Replies

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    You're more likely to see results from reducing your calorie intake than by increasing your exercise.
  • mae3599
    mae3599 Posts: 29 Member
    Hi if u are willing to challenge lower down intake calorie thats great I mean that could speed up yr weight loss due u also do many excersice ;) add me as yr fren thanks :)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited January 2015
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    You're more likely to see results from reducing your calorie intake than by increasing your exercise.

    Why? Cals in cals out. So whether she increased her calorie burn from exercise by 250 cals or ate 250 cals less the effect on weight would be the same. that said, cutting calories is usually easier done than burning the same amount from exercise. Or she could burn 150 more and eat 100 less.. all 3 will yeild the same weight loss results, may have different affects on body composition depending on macros and workout routine.

    OP you said you count everything, when counting solid foods, even triscuits, do you weigh it? using a kitchen scale to weigh all solid foods is the only way you really know how much you are eating.
  • makarickm
    makarickm Posts: 12
    80% diet 20% exercise, I would lower the calories to speed it up a bit but I would start with 1450 instead of 1400... Add me!
  • Revonue
    Revonue Posts: 135 Member
    edited January 2015
    I don't strength train, so I can't comment on that portion.

    If you want to increase your rate of loss, I don't think it will be detrimental if you drop to 1,400 as long as you eat back half of your exercise calories. However, if you find that you are too hungry eating that way I would move back up. Experiment, but remember that the most important thing is sustainability. There's no point in lowering calories if it makes you unhappy or want to binge.

    Just my two cents, hope it helped! :)
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Try it for a couple of weeks and see how you feel. If it's sustainable and you have enough energy, then go for it!
  • Lauren5280
    Lauren5280 Posts: 67 Member
    I'm 5'6" with less weight to lose. I strength train and do cardio and I eat around 1400 calories per day. I have been losing ~1lb a week consistently for the last 9 weeks. It is very attainable.
  • Ellaskat
    Ellaskat Posts: 386 Member
    Have you adjusted your goal in MFP to see what it suggests for calories? Also, be aware that MFP drastically overestimates calories burned from exercise. Many people on here don't any any exercise calories back, or only eat up to 50% back. I'm in the later category- I only eat up to half my calories back.
  • Ellaskat
    Ellaskat Posts: 386 Member
    Lauren5280 wrote: »
    I'm 5'6" with less weight to lose. I strength train and do cardio and I eat around 1400 calories per day. I have been losing ~1lb a week consistently for the last 9 weeks. It is very attainable.
    Agreed- I'm 5'6 and only have 20 pounds to lose, give or take... My goal on MFP is 1 pound a week loss, because the cals are so low - 1220 a day- but I've been very surprised- I'm rarely hungry because of my food choices, and I've actually lost more than 1.5 pound a week so far! I'm sure I'll hit a plateau at some point, but till then, Whoo-hoo!
  • Lauren5280
    Lauren5280 Posts: 67 Member
    Yeah, I don't eat back any exercise calories. Also, I'm not hungry. I have had to find creative ways to hit my caloric intake some days because I don't feel like eating. A mango smoothie with almond milk is my new best friend.
  • thatshistorical
    thatshistorical Posts: 93 Member
    erickirb wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    You're more likely to see results from reducing your calorie intake than by increasing your exercise.

    Why? Cals in cals out. So whether she increased her calorie burn from exercise by 250 cals or ate 250 cals less the effect on weight would be the same. that said, cutting calories is usually easier done than burning the same amount from exercise. Or she could burn 150 more and eat 100 less.. all 3 will yeild the same weight loss results, may have different affects on body composition depending on macros and workout routine.

    OP you said you count everything, when counting solid foods, even triscuits, do you weigh it? using a kitchen scale to weigh all solid foods is the only way you really know how much you are eating.

    Actually, you don't have to weigh all solid foods--the the slight differences in weight and volume end up being minimally varied. The difference in estimated exercise expenditures is much more likely to be a factor than intake.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited January 2015
    thatshistorical wrote: »
    erickirb wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    You're more likely to see results from reducing your calorie intake than by increasing your exercise.

    Why? Cals in cals out. So whether she increased her calorie burn from exercise by 250 cals or ate 250 cals less the effect on weight would be the same. that said, cutting calories is usually easier done than burning the same amount from exercise. Or she could burn 150 more and eat 100 less.. all 3 will yeild the same weight loss results, may have different affects on body composition depending on macros and workout routine.

    OP you said you count everything, when counting solid foods, even triscuits, do you weigh it? using a kitchen scale to weigh all solid foods is the only way you really know how much you are eating.

    Actually, you don't have to weigh all solid foods--the the slight differences in weight and volume end up being minimally varied. The difference in estimated exercise expenditures is much more likely to be a factor than intake.

    Not quite, measuring vs. weighing can be up to 50% off depending on what you are eating/weighing/measuring. It can be the difference from being in a small deficit or a small surplus. the only way to really know how much you are eating is to weigh solids and measure liquids.

    So say you are off by 25% and think you are eating 1500 cals, that would be another 375 cals you didn't account for, most exercise estimates would not be off 375 cals/day.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited January 2015
    double post

Categories