Folks who didn't have much to lose (and lost it!) - Advice seriously needed please!

Options
Jamaelsh
Jamaelsh Posts: 22 Member
edited February 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
Hey there!

To make it short and sweet on the introductories, my name's Jade - I'm 24 years old 5"5.5 and weigh in at 137lbs. I'm a UK size 10 (US 6?) and I tend to carry a good amount of natural muscle - especially in my legs! The muscle all appears to have gone to my pins though as I feel like I was born without abdominal muscles (I cannot do one proper sit-up, not one!)

So there you have it. I'm getting married in 16 months and I'd like to get back down to the only weight I've ever felt truly comfortable at, which is around 118-120 lbs, so only 17-19 pounds to lose.* I've had a very sporadic problem with binge eating ever since I was 15 - although I'm very lucky that I haven't actually gained any serious weight from this habit.

So to the question: Counting calories works well for me, always has done. I'm a bit of a type A personality and counting has always given me a feeling of control, which I like and works to my advantage. However, because I'm already at an average weight and don't have much to lose - I'm 99% sure that my calories need to be pretty low to achieve any weight loss. However, I find that if I try to stick to say, 1250 calories all week, I end up binge eating a couple of days and feeling really crappy about it. My question is this: If I stick to 1250 over 5 days and allow myself 2 days at around 2000 calories, do you think this will halt my weight loss? If I did this, my calories would average out at around 1450 a day. (NOTE: The most accurate calorie calculator I've come across estimates my daily burn at around 1900 as I work out for 3-4 hours a week.)

I know that the real answer to this question is probably 'suck it and see' but I just wanted to hear from anyone at all, for encouragement. Also, if anyone has any experience on whether carbohydrate intake has any overall effect on weight loss, I'm keen to hear it. Any advice at all is honestly appreciated!

*To anyone who is about to reply with 'you don't need to lose weight, get a grip!' - in the nicest way possible, please don't waste your time. BMI is seriously inaccurate and I know where I'm comfortable weight-wise.

Replies

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    I don't think you need to cut your calories that low. Theoretically, you could cut your calorie intake by 200 cals/day for the next year, taking a week off each month to eat at maintenence, and lose 16 pounds:

    (40 wks x 7 days x 200 cals)/ 3500 = 16 lbs.

    That's ignoring stuff like water weight, etc. Try going to a tdee calculator and figuring out your daily caloric needs and cut them by 200.
  • Jamaelsh
    Jamaelsh Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    I don't think you need to cut your calories that low. Theoretically, you could cut your calorie intake by 200 cals/day for the next year, taking a week off each month to eat at maintenence, and lose 16 pounds:

    (40 wks x 7 days x 200 cals)/ 3500 = 16 lbs.

    That's ignoring stuff like water weight, etc. Try going to a tdee calculator and figuring out your daily caloric needs and cut them by 200.

    Thank you for advice! Only thing is, I'd really like to reach my goal (if possible) in the next 6-7 months. I know it sounds trivial, but I'm going dress shopping in September and I'd really like to be close to my ideal by then. If I stick to 1700 (which is my supposed 'maintenance' -200) I don't think I'll have lost much at all by September. It just seems too much for someone like me with so little to lose.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Options
    Ok, serious question - do you really need to lose 20 lbs? I don't mean that in a "you don't need to lose weight" way, I'm asking in a goal-clarification way. Because if you don't have a lot to lose, you might be better off focusing on body composition than scale weight to achieve your goal "look."
  • Jamaelsh
    Jamaelsh Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    kgeyser wrote: »
    Ok, serious question - do you really need to lose 20 lbs? I don't mean that in a "you don't need to lose weight" way, I'm asking in a goal-clarification way. Because if you don't have a lot to lose, you might be better off focusing on body composition than scale weight to achieve your goal "look."

    Good question, and thanks for the reply! To answer... I know what you mean. I've had folks tell me that weight lifting etc would do the trick without losing any weight. The problem is, I still hold a good layer of fat around my muscles and I know that the only way to actually see the benefit of weight training is to do just that - but also to lose some fat. That's the only way the 'tone' shines through really. Also, I've been at my goal weight before (120lb) and I can honestly say that I was happy with my body composition at that time - and that was with very little in the way of strength training. Put it this way, if I never have a six-pack, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep every night - I am much more keen to be slim with a little tone here and there.
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    I'm a little smaller than you (including height) and losing weight just fine on what is maintenance minus 200-300 for me. Probably about a half pound a week average, which is what the math predicts. I work out, but I "eat back" most of my exercise calories. I haven't had any autopilot hunger semi-binges.

    Slow weight loss is ideal because it means you are more likely losing fat and preserving lean mass (muscle), and because statistically speaking, the slower the weight loss, the more likely you are to sustain it over time. :) I like increasing my chances of success, don't you?

    I eat yummy carbs, protein, and fat. Eliminating carbs is a great way to see a sudden drop on the scale, but that's just water weight (glycogen/sugar in your muscles makes you hold onto water in them); we want to be losing fat.

    Also, just a side note--core strength is actually really important to overall health (especially as you get older or if you're doing cardio stuff), so if you honestly can't do basic ab exercises, although a sit-up isn't the best measure, you might want to do, like, the 30-day plank challenge or something. ;) Just a suggestion.
  • Jamaelsh
    Jamaelsh Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
    I'm a little smaller than you (including height) and losing weight just fine on what is maintenance minus 200-300 for me. Probably about a half pound a week average, which is what the math predicts. I work out, but I "eat back" most of my exercise calories. I haven't had any autopilot hunger semi-binges.

    Slow weight loss is ideal because it means you are more likely losing fat and preserving lean mass (muscle), and because statistically speaking, the slower the weight loss, the more likely you are to sustain it over time. :) I like increasing my chances of success, don't you?

    I eat yummy carbs, protein, and fat. Eliminating carbs is a great way to see a sudden drop on the scale, but that's just water weight (glycogen/sugar in your muscles makes you hold onto water in them); we want to be losing fat.

    Also, just a side note--core strength is actually really important to overall health (especially as you get older or if you're doing cardio stuff), so if you honestly can't do basic ab exercises, although a sit-up isn't the best measure, you might want to do, like, the 30-day plank challenge or something. ;) Just a suggestion.

    Thank you! Very encouraging. =D And you have a very good point on the core strength - I'm very conscious that I'm not too great strength-wise in that area! The plank challenge is a good idea - although I do hate planks haha, they kill me! Also, thanks for your advice on the carbohydrates. I just read too much stuff on the internet (especially Mark's Daily Apple etc) which all make low-carb sound very ideal weight-loss wise. However, if I can still lose weight eating my bread and the occasional slice of cake, I'll take that route any day! I can't imagine life without carbs. D=
  • Jamaelsh
    Jamaelsh Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    Anyone else at all? (a.k.a bump)
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    Jademarielizabeth wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    I don't think you need to cut your calories that low. Theoretically, you could cut your calorie intake by 200 cals/day for the next year, taking a week off each month to eat at maintenence, and lose 16 pounds:

    (40 wks x 7 days x 200 cals)/ 3500 = 16 lbs.

    That's ignoring stuff like water weight, etc. Try going to a tdee calculator and figuring out your daily caloric needs and cut them by 200.

    Thank you for advice! Only thing is, I'd really like to reach my goal (if possible) in the next 6-7 months. I know it sounds trivial, but I'm going dress shopping in September and I'd really like to be close to my ideal by then. If I stick to 1700 (which is my supposed 'maintenance' -200) I don't think I'll have lost much at all by September. It just seems too much for someone like me with so little to lose.

    In that case, try eating at 1500, or maintenance less 400, for awhile. Or just aim to average that through the week. You may find yourself eating more one day or less on another. I alternate between 1700 and 2100 depending on my exercise but even then I may be a bit higher or lower based on my hunger.
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    Options
    Think of it this way: A pound is 3500 calories. If you want to lose 1 pound per week, then you cut 500 calories per day from your TDEE (500 cals x 7 days = 3500 cals or 1 lb per week).

    You want to give yourself 6-7 months to lose around 19 lbs...so lets say 6 months, or 24ish weeks. You'd only need to lose .8 lbs per week in order to make your goal in 6 months. So if you cut the 500 cals per day, you'll reach your goal a little sooner, plus you have an extra month just in case you have a bad week or a celebration or just need a break.
  • Abby2205
    Abby2205 Posts: 253 Member
    Options
    There is no difference to weight loss between eating 1250 five days a week and 2000 calories two days a week, and eating 1464 calories seven days a week (assuming that 10,250 calories a week is a deficit for you). You won't be tricking your body into holding onto all of the calories or reducing your metabolism or any of that nonsense. If you feel well with enough energy on the lower calorie days and you think it will help you stick to your weekly deficit, then try it.
  • onedayTHISYEAR
    onedayTHISYEAR Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    Good luck with it. I know I when was at my most comfortable and I am trying to get back there and fit in all the clothes that no longer fit.
    I also have a deadline to fit in certain clothing by a certain date.
    I can appreciate wanting/needing a break at the weekend but how about just one day OR work out what treat/s you actually NEED to keep going.
    There are certain things I need each day to help keep my sanity then everything else just has to fit in or be lost.
  • hillabeans23
    hillabeans23 Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    You posted this awhile ago and I'm not sure where you are goal wise now, but I have the same amount to lose. 17 pounds to be exact. On mfp, my calorie intake is really low, 1200. And it's hard sticking to that the first few days but now I've gotten used to it. I personally don't eat bread or pasta. If I do, I try to do it just once a week. Like as a weekend dinner thing. You just can't really go to the store here and get some healthy carbs lol. Everything is processed so I stick with what I know. Nuts, fruits and veggies, protein. Even potatoes. I've done this before a few years ago and I lost the weight. I ate what I just listed, experimented a lot with healthy eating and I exercised an hour a day, not even anything intense persae, just walking and a dance class 2x a week. I lost the weight in about 4 months, I plateaued after the first month, kept at it, lost a few pounds here and there over the next month or so. And by month four, i was below my goal weight! And I don't mean that I was underweight, I just still didn't really see how much weight I lost you know? Until I was getting ready for a wedding and my mom (whose a size small and petite) said I should wear one of her dresses and I actually laughed at her and was like, oh my god it won't fit! But I tried it on and it did! And then she told me to get on the scale and I was 137, which put me in a size 4-6 in U.S. Sizes. So, that's my input. Hope you've achieved your goal!
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,545 Member
    Options
    You say you can't do one single situp.
    Two things: start out slowly. It will take a while but after that I'm sure you'll be able to. You could for example put your feet underneath something solid in your house and get some support from your legs to pull you up. I learned doing abs exercises by using a big gymball first.
    Secondly: if you happen to have a hollow back then search online for stretching exercises. That might potentially help you get more flexible hips and back, which in return will make abs exercises easier. If you have a natural lordosic back then I'm afraid there's not much you can do. After a long time of stretching I realized I'm one of those: everything touching the ground with situps and similar are my shoulders and my *kitten*. There's a little space between my lower back and the ground, meaning I cannot press myself up there and roll down carefully again after a situp. It's more like falling down in a controlled way. But hey, I did manage in the end.
  • evileen99
    evileen99 Posts: 1,564 Member
    Options
    Jamaelsh wrote: »
    kgeyser wrote: »
    Ok, serious question - do you really need to lose 20 lbs? I don't mean that in a "you don't need to lose weight" way, I'm asking in a goal-clarification way. Because if you don't have a lot to lose, you might be better off focusing on body composition than scale weight to achieve your goal "look."

    Good question, and thanks for the reply! To answer... I know what you mean. I've had folks tell me that weight lifting etc would do the trick without losing any weight. The problem is, I still hold a good layer of fat around my muscles and I know that the only way to actually see the benefit of weight training is to do just that - but also to lose some fat. That's the only way the 'tone' shines through really. Also, I've been at my goal weight before (120lb) and I can honestly say that I was happy with my body composition at that time - and that was with very little in the way of strength training. Put it this way, if I never have a six-pack, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep every night - I am much more keen to be slim with a little tone here and there.
    No, weight training will "tighten" you up and you'll be smaller even if you're still at the same weight. And I agree that if your target is too aggressive, you end up bingeing. Eat at a small deficit and lift--I think you'll be really happy with the results.
  • iLoveMyPitbull1225
    iLoveMyPitbull1225 Posts: 1,690 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    You and I have a lot in common; I am 5'4, 24 years old and started at around 150 pounds; I am 120 now. I gained about 10 back over the last year mostly due to stress and dropped it in a few months eating at 1425 a day (not including exercise calories and I work about about 90 minutes a day 5 days a week) . I agree with others that 1250 is too low and it seems like that isn't enough for you by your own admission; maybe you should try it or something similar. It's only 175 calories but I think it makes a difference, at least it worked for me.

Categories