Going over Goals
pattywedge
Posts: 39 Member
I have a problem. I don't usually get 1200 calories without going in the red with my goals. I know it's important to eat my 1200 calories but I don't like going in the red. What should I do?
0
Replies
-
well I would start with eating more than 1200 but that's another thing...
As for your goals ie carbs, protein etc you have to remember those are minimum requirements...don't worry about it unless you have a medical condition and you are required to watch things like sugar etc.0 -
How long have you been aiming for 1200 calories? Are you losing anything with how many calories you are eating now?
I'm thinking your goal might be too aggressive. But I have no info to go on.0 -
I have been on 1200 calories for almost 3 weeks now. I have lost 6 pounds so far. My goal is to lose around 1 to 2 pounds per week. I have 39 pounds left to lose.0
-
1- 1200, is probably not enough.
2- if you are going over your proteins and fats, i wouldn't worry about it, the app is a suggestions not a law, especially if you are using the ridiculous default macro breakdown.0 -
Why is 1200 calories not enough?0
-
It's pretty much the bare minimum required to remain healthy, there is no room in a 1200 calorie diet for indulgences EVERYTHING you eat should provide you essential nutrients or you will end up being deficient.
1200 is a *magic* number propagated by a lot of marketing and nonsense. Eat real food, be active, easy.0 -
Congrats on the weight loss so far. I wouldn't worry a lot about the macros unless you are way over on sodium or sugar. Kind of impossible for it to be perfect anyway, just keep close to them.
And those who say 1200 net calories is not enough wouldn't say that if they were short, older, and have a desk job. Everyone is different. That is why MFP gives some of us that amount for a day. A little more and we don't lose and only a couple hundred calories more than that and we gain.
OP, keep doing what you are doing!0 -
I avoid going into the red because i set mfp to lose 1 pound a week but I eat to lose 2 pounds a week. So as long as i eat under 1730 calories I never go into the red.
0 -
@lisac195 I'm 5'1, work a office/desk job and eat 1800 calories (more if i'm working out hard) and still lose weight at a rate of 0.5-2lbs per week (many factors attribute to weight loss on the scale-ex hormones). It's all about what you choose to eat. No matter what, being on a 1200 calorie diet requires excellent planning.0
-
Congrats on the weight loss so far. I wouldn't worry a lot about the macros unless you are way over on sodium or sugar. Kind of impossible for it to be perfect anyway, just keep close to them.
And those who say 1200 net calories is not enough wouldn't say that if they were short, older, and have a desk job. Everyone is different. That is why MFP gives some of us that amount for a day. A little more and we don't lose and only a couple hundred calories more than that and we gain.
OP, keep doing what you are doing!
^I agree. Protein, fat and carbs I just try not to go far *under* - don't worry about over. And if you eat basically any fruit at all, you'll be over on your sugar as well which is silly.
I agree also about the 1200 calories - especially if you're hitting all of your macros, that makes me think you have a nice balanced diet with nutrient-rich foods. Calories are the most important thing for weight loss, but I don't think they're the best way to gauge the health of someone's diet.0 -
pattywedge wrote: »Why is 1200 calories not enough?
It might be enough if you are short and sedentary. The important question to ask first is: How did you come up with 1200 calories? did you use a calculator or just pull it out of the air because it's the generic number in lots of magazine articles? If you did use a calculator, which one? Are you eating back your exercise calories?
Also, in which categories are you usually ending up "in the red?" I don't worry about some as much as others. In fact, I've changed which nutrients I monitor, I dropped sugar and sodium and put fiber and calcium in their place.0 -
Extra walks keeps me out of the red. I'm on 1200/day and lost 8 lbs so far. Congrats on the loss
0 -
I do have an office job. I am 5'5" 47 years old and pre menopausal. I am walking at least 1 hour a day and I do use some of my extra points. I have noticed that some fruits are very high in sugar and don't eat them, I look for low point fruits. I also try not to eat after 8:00pm.0
-
pattywedge wrote: »Why is 1200 calories not enough?
It might be enough if you are short and sedentary. The important question to ask first is: How did you come up with 1200 calories? did you use a calculator or just pull it out of the air because it's the generic number in lots of magazine articles? If you did use a calculator, which one? Are you eating back your exercise calories?
Also, in which categories are you usually ending up "in the red?" I don't worry about some as much as others. In fact, I've changed which nutrients I monitor, I dropped sugar and sodium and put fiber and calcium in their place.
Listen to this wise woman!
I'm on 1240, but I'm short, sedentary, and a bit older than you. It's an appropriate calorie goal for me.
How tall are you and what's your activity level?
Regarding being in the red, what numbers are you seeing there? I never worry if I go over in protein or fiber or sugar (because it's set very low, and I know I don't eat a lot), for example. Some might be concerning and show your diet is out of balance OR that you might simply benefit from resetting your dietary goals in MFP through customization.
0 -
With less than 40 pounds to lose you would probably be better off setting your weekly weight loss goal to 1 pound a week. That should give you more calories to consume.0
-
pattywedge wrote: »I do have an office job. I am 5'5" 47 years old and pre menopausal. I am walking at least 1 hour a day and I do use some of my extra points. I have noticed that some fruits are very high in sugar and don't eat them, I look for low point fruits. I also try not to eat after 8:00pm.
What is your current weight?
In what categories are you "in the red?"
You keep referring to "points." I assume you have used Weight Watchers in the past? MFP and calorie counting work a bit differently, so set aside what you know about "points" and just log everything you eat.0 -
-
I have similar stats. I'm 43 yrs, 5'4" and work a desk job from my home office. I'm 35 pounds overweight. My equilibrium calories if I don't get out and exercise is between 1500-1600 calories. When I had 12+ months of strength training under my belt 2 years ago, my muscle mass was bigger and I was burning more like 1700. I'm pretty confident of these numbers because I have a Fitbit, a heart rate monitor, kitchen scale and I have some pretty solid logging streaks under my belt where I can see actuals for calories in/calorie burned/weight changes.
If I target 1200 net calories, that only puts me at 1 pound loss a week. 1200 net calories is a PERFECTLY HEALTHY calorie goal for someone with our stats. It is less likely to be a reasonable target for someone taller, younger and in their 20s.
Just sayin'0 -
pattywedge wrote: »Why is 1200 calories not enough?
It might be enough if you are short and sedentary. The important question to ask first is: How did you come up with 1200 calories? did you use a calculator or just pull it out of the air because it's the generic number in lots of magazine articles? If you did use a calculator, which one? Are you eating back your exercise calories?
Also, in which categories are you usually ending up "in the red?" I don't worry about some as much as others. In fact, I've changed which nutrients I monitor, I dropped sugar and sodium and put fiber and calcium in their place.
It's probably what MFP calculated for her, and she trusted the site, as most of us do on here. I doubt she just pulled it out of the air. I'm on 1,200 as well (as per MFP's recommendation for me to lose 2lbs/week). I'm 5'7" and have a desk job and I work out (hard!) 5 days a week minimum & walk 1.5+ miles each day on my lunch...so I net 1,200 but I usually get to eat more than that. On "rest" days I try to stick to the 1,200.0 -
I was eating 1200 calories per day and was gaining weight. Si I added more exercise, still the same thing. I went to a nutritionist and had my resting metabolic rate checked (which measures the # of calories your body needs for basic functions). Turns out my RMR is 1700. My body was in starvation mode because I was eating 500 below my RMR. And on days where I ran 6-7 miles? Good lord, it was a full-on revolt. Once I started eating more, the weight gain stopped, and now the weight loss has started.
Just a word of advice - you can do a lot of damage if you assume the "standard" guidelines work for everyone.
Getting my RMR measured answered a lot of questions. I highly recommend it - it's a 10 minute test that any RD or nutritionist should be able to do. Totally worth it.0 -
lburnett66 wrote: »I was eating 1200 calories per day and was gaining weight. Si I added more exercise, still the same thing. I went to a nutritionist and had my resting metabolic rate checked (which measures the # of calories your body needs for basic functions). Turns out my RMR is 1700. My body was in starvation mode because I was eating 500 below my RMR. And on days where I ran 6-7 miles? Good lord, it was a full-on revolt. Once I started eating more, the weight gain stopped, and now the weight loss has started.
Just a word of advice - you can do a lot of damage if you assume the "standard" guidelines work for everyone.
Getting my RMR measured answered a lot of questions. I highly recommend it - it's a 10 minute test that any RD or nutritionist should be able to do. Totally worth it.
LOVE THIS! Great share!0 -
Based on information provided and assuming you are somewhere in the 160s for weight given a goal of 39 more lbs to lose, your basal metabolic rate (the number of calories burned if you lay in bed all day) is around 1450. Most people will not recommend to eat below BMR (although MFP will recommend calorie intake lower than BMR if you select 2 lbs loss/week). I think what I saw was if you have less than 75 lbs to lose, you should set for target loss of 1 lb/week. Congrats on the loss so far, but pay attention to how you feel and how your body is responding. If you're hungry a lot, tired more often/need more caffeine, your walks aren't getting easier/faster with repetition, you may want to think about increasing calories to fully fuel your body.pattywedge wrote: »Why is 1200 calories not enough?
Agreed with what others have said about macros. I quit paying attention to sugar because it was mostly fruit, which I know isn't a bad thing. I get really excited when I go over on protein, but try to stay under on my carbs most of the time (seems to work better for me to cycle a bit with carbs; may or may not be true for others). Good luck with your continued journey to a healthier you.
0 -
lburnett66 wrote: »I was eating 1200 calories per day and was gaining weight. Si I added more exercise, still the same thing. I went to a nutritionist and had my resting metabolic rate checked (which measures the # of calories your body needs for basic functions). Turns out my RMR is 1700. My body was in starvation mode because I was eating 500 below my RMR. And on days where I ran 6-7 miles? Good lord, it was a full-on revolt. Once I started eating more, the weight gain stopped, and now the weight loss has started.
Just a word of advice - you can do a lot of damage if you assume the "standard" guidelines work for everyone.
Getting my RMR measured answered a lot of questions. I highly recommend it - it's a 10 minute test that any RD or nutritionist should be able to do. Totally worth it.
No. There is no such thing as starvation mode.
0 -
brisingr86 wrote: »
Based on information provided and assuming you are somewhere in the 160s for weight given a goal of 39 more lbs to lose, your basal metabolic rate (the number of calories burned if you lay in bed all day) is around 1450. Most people will not recommend to eat below BMR (although MFP will recommend calorie intake lower than BMR if you select 2 lbs loss/week). I think what I saw was if you have less than 75 lbs to lose, you should set for target loss of 1 lb/week. Congrats on the loss so far, but pay attention to how you feel and how your body is responding. If you're hungry a lot, tired more often/need more caffeine, your walks aren't getting easier/faster with repetition, you may want to think about increasing calories to fully fuel your body.pattywedge wrote: »Why is 1200 calories not enough?
Agreed with what others have said about macros. I quit paying attention to sugar because it was mostly fruit, which I know isn't a bad thing. I get really excited when I go over on protein, but try to stay under on my carbs most of the time (seems to work better for me to cycle a bit with carbs; may or may not be true for others). Good luck with your continued journey to a healthier you.
It's fine to eat below your BMR.
0 -
It's fine to eat below your BMR.
YOU ARE SO WRONG IT HURTS!!!!!0 -
A goal is meant to be met and (sometimes) exceeded. Going over your goal a smidge is not going to hurt you at all. It's all about perspective.0
-
melanieliving wrote: »
It's fine to eat below your BMR.
YOU ARE SO WRONG IT HURTS!!!!!
No, I'm really not.
I'll edit to explain. You need so many calories to function. That's your BMR. If you don't consume them, your body gets them from somewhere else. If you have fat stores...
Yes, it could also use muscle tissue. That's where exercise comes in.
It's the same as the calories used for daily calories burned up for the functional difference between BMR and TDEE. If you're not eating them, your body finds a way to burn them.
0 -
lburnett66 wrote: »I was eating 1200 calories per day and was gaining weight. Si I added more exercise, still the same thing. I went to a nutritionist and had my resting metabolic rate checked (which measures the # of calories your body needs for basic functions). Turns out my RMR is 1700. My body was in starvation mode because I was eating 500 below my RMR. And on days where I ran 6-7 miles? Good lord, it was a full-on revolt. Once I started eating more, the weight gain stopped, and now the weight loss has started.
Just a word of advice - you can do a lot of damage if you assume the "standard" guidelines work for everyone.
Getting my RMR measured answered a lot of questions. I highly recommend it - it's a 10 minute test that any RD or nutritionist should be able to do. Totally worth it.
If undereating makes you gain weight, please explain how anorexics die.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »
It's fine to eat below your BMR.
YOU ARE SO WRONG IT HURTS!!!!!
No, I'm really not.
I'll edit to explain. You need so many calories to function. That's your BMR. If you don't consume them, your body gets them from somewhere else. If you have fat stores...
Yes, it could also use muscle tissue. That's where exercise comes in.
It's the same as the calories used for daily calories burned up for the functional difference between BMR and TDEE. If you're not eating them, your body finds a way to burn them.
There is another figure based on your TDEE-your Maximum Fat Metabolism per day. For many, that's considered the minimum that you shouldn't go under. Mine just happens to be roughly equal to my BMR, so I wouldn't go below BMR for me. But, for people with a lower bodyfat %, there is more of a difference between the numbers.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »melanieliving wrote: »
It's fine to eat below your BMR.
YOU ARE SO WRONG IT HURTS!!!!!
No, I'm really not.
I'll edit to explain. You need so many calories to function. That's your BMR. If you don't consume them, your body gets them from somewhere else. If you have fat stores...
Yes, it could also use muscle tissue. That's where exercise comes in.
It's the same as the calories used for daily calories burned up for the functional difference between BMR and TDEE. If you're not eating them, your body finds a way to burn them.
There is another figure based on your TDEE-your Maximum Fat Metabolism per day. For many, that's considered the minimum that you shouldn't go under. Mine just happens to be roughly equal to my BMR, so I wouldn't go below BMR for me. But, for people with a lower bodyfat %, there is more of a difference between the numbers.
Yeah, you need to have a bit of body fat to get away with it, true.
But it's not a hard and fast rule like some people think it is.
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