Has any women lost any weight eating 1600 calories a day?

124678

Replies

  • Sophiareed218
    Sophiareed218 Posts: 144 Member
    Speak with a doctor if you must, but these people state the truth. Starvation mode is a big fat myth. How would holocaust get down to skin and bones? Wouldn't they be nice and plump since the body is holding onto calories? Also, someone else mentioned the minnesota starvation study, which mimicked the starvation like conditions of the holocaust to study the effects of starvation and also how to re-feed after the trials were over. The effect was the metabolism DOES slow down, but not nearly enough to compensate for a negative calorie balance. All test subject lost significant amounts of weight, and they were not even overweight to begin with. So eating more to lose weight is simply not true.

    Back to your original question, can you lose weight on 1600. Most likely yes, but that is probably not much of a calorie deficit, so you'd have to be very careful not to exceed that number. If MFP recommends 1200, try that again but this time really look at accuracy of logging. These people have been on here a long time and when somebody comes on saying they are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight, it's ALWAYS because they are actually eating more than that without realizing. Once this is corrected, the weigh starts coming off, like magic.

    How much weight are you looking to lose?
  • paulaviki
    paulaviki Posts: 678 Member
    Love Bill Hicks! :)

    OP I am losing weight on 1500-1600 a day (my goal is 1500 but I often go over!). I've lost 21lbs since January. So it is doable but that depends on your height and weight to start with. Plus you do need to be as accurate as possible in your logging and that means using a food scale wherever possible. You'll be amazed how small different serving sizes are when you actually weigh out the recommended amount.
  • CherokeeBabe
    CherokeeBabe Posts: 1,709 Member
    I lose on 1500 a day pretty easily and steadily, sometimes I go over and it's closer to 1600-1700, still losing. I believe the starvation mode myth is just that - a myth. I used to have a fairly severe eating disorder, I ate 600-800 on a good day and often quite a bit less than that. I lost weight easily (and badly - looked gaunt and pale with low energy and felt terrible, also became very anemic). If 'starvation mode' was triggered by a 1200 calorie daily goal, I wouldn't have lost much weight.
  • cmg3004
    cmg3004 Posts: 8 Member
    OP, good luck - I am sorry you didn't receive the support here that you asked for. I can't see anything in this thread that makes me think you don't want to lose weight 'enough'! Keep your eye on the prize, hun! Wishing you very well :)
  • newstart1988
    newstart1988 Posts: 154 Member
    Speak with a doctor if you must, but these people state the truth. Starvation mode is a big fat myth. How would holocaust get down to skin and bones? Wouldn't they be nice and plump since the body is holding onto calories? Also, someone else mentioned the minnesota starvation study, which mimicked the starvation like conditions of the holocaust to study the effects of starvation and also how to re-feed after the trials were over. The effect was the metabolism DOES slow down, but not nearly enough to compensate for a negative calorie balance. All test subject lost significant amounts of weight, and they were not even overweight to begin with. So eating more to lose weight is simply not true.

    Back to your original question, can you lose weight on 1600. Most likely yes, but that is probably not much of a calorie deficit, so you'd have to be very careful not to exceed that number. If MFP recommends 1200, try that again but this time really look at accuracy of logging. These people have been on here a long time and when somebody comes on saying they are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight, it's ALWAYS because they are actually eating more than that without realizing. Once this is corrected, the weigh starts coming off, like magic.

    How much weight are you looking to lose?
    thank you so much. im at 220ish and want to get down to 130

  • kindrabbit
    kindrabbit Posts: 837 Member
    I eat 1610 and am loosing. You do have to log very accurately though. If I eat 43g of grapes I log 43g. If I eat an Apple I'll weigh it, then weigh the core and log the amount I actually ate. I dont just log '1 Apple'
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Most probably do. Not me, but if a person is young (ish? lol) and healthy then yes.
  • dgirllamius
    dgirllamius Posts: 171 Member
    I'm quite short (5ft 1") and am somewhat sedentary so you'd think that I wouldn't lose eating 1500 - but I've been eating between 1500 and 1600 calories a day and have been losing a steady 1lb a week for some time now.

    Before I started logging though, I "thought" I was eating those 1500-1600 a day without weighing, just making silly guesses but I wasn't losing weight. I rattled my brains trying to figure out why nothing was happening even though I was CONVINCED I was eating the right amount.

    So I started weighing and logging every single god damn thing I was eating - right down to that barbeque sauce I like with my chips. Once I started doing this, the weight started to drop off. You need to weigh everything or else it just isn't going to work. It doesn't take much to overestimate and not create a deficit. I know first hand! After seeing what I WAS eating in black and white, I could clearly see where I was going wrong. Since logging and weighing, it comes off easy.

    I also don't even trust some of the entries that are in the database of this web site so I have made all my own - some of the entries I have used with the barcode scanner aren't even correct. The information on the calories differed quite significantly between what was in the database and what was in front of me - another thing that can seriously cause an impact.

    I thought it was just me, I can't lose weight no matter what I do blah blah blah, I've seen so many doctors I've lost count and they all said the same thing and I just wasn't doing it right.

    So yeah, it works for me.
  • Sophiareed218
    Sophiareed218 Posts: 144 Member
    Ok. I was also at 220 (5'4) and lost weight steadily on 1200, about 2 pounds a week. You could lose at 1600 I think, but it's gonna be slower. I was not exercising at the time...like not at all. Now I'm doing 1400 because I was having binge issues on 1200 after 3 months of that. 1400 seems a bit better for me, more sustainable. I think the most important thing is just accuracy in logging. No sneaking bites, no over measuring, avoid estimating unless you absolutely have no other choice. Yes, people will look at you funny when you whip out a food scale at a restaurant.
  • DawnieB1977
    DawnieB1977 Posts: 4,248 Member
    I used to eat 1200-1300 a day then increased to 1500 and lost more. I exercise a lot and I think the extra calories meant I could do a more effective workout as I had more energy, and the strength training started to take a real effect. It may also have been something to do with losing weight after a baby though, as I've found now I'm losing after my third, once she got to nearly 1, I started to lose weight faster.
  • JordisTSM
    JordisTSM Posts: 360 Member
    Op, you might not like what she has to say, but Rabbit knows what she's talking about. Reading the advice that she, and others, have given to many, many, posters such as yourself has been what has given me the knowledge to lose 50lbs in the last four months.

    First step is honestly to forget everything you have ever learned, or thought you learned, about weight loss, as chances are you have bought in to the same nonsense that the rest of us did. Listen to the veterans on this site, they have been here a long time, and know what works. I would trust the advice of successful people far more than any other source. Read the stickies at the top of each forum, they are full of invaluable, and most importantly, accurate, information.
  • tiffanybrooks530
    tiffanybrooks530 Posts: 140 Member
    edited May 2015
    mch2829 wrote: »
    I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating.

    That's not how it works. Your body doesn't stop losing weight because you eat too little. That's impossible. You were probably underestimating calories if you weren't losing anything at 1200. Eating more will just make you gain weight if you weren't losing anything at what you measured as 1200.
    I thought your body can go into starvation mode If you're under eating and start holding onto fat for energy

    When i was sick for a week and could not keep meals down only ate maybe 500 a day i ended up very weak. Went to hospital and when they tested me my body had gone into ketosis, they had to put an IV in me to give me the electrolytes and other nutrients I had lost. The R.N. told me ppl try to do this as a diet, it is not a good feeling, don't go below 1200.

    eating less than 1200 you risk throwing your body into "ketosis" aka starvation mode. One side effect is the body to eating on its muscle for energy, you'll lose weight, but that is not the right or healthy approach. You want to burn fat and gain or maintain your muscle mass.

    One month is not enough time for 1200 calories you need to keep it up and incorporate some exercise if you have a sedentary lifestyle. It took me months at 1200-1400 to lose weight and that was with exercise. Im 5'9 160lbs sedentary lifestyle. I love to eat and i go over calories all the time, my issue is the exercise since I'm in school with online classes Im glued to computer 10hrs+ sometimes.

    good luck.

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/now-entering-starvation-mode-what-happens-your-metabolic-processes-when-you-stop-feeding-280666
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,255 Member
    Speak with a doctor if you must, but these people state the truth. Starvation mode is a big fat myth. How would holocaust get down to skin and bones? Wouldn't they be nice and plump since the body is holding onto calories? Also, someone else mentioned the minnesota starvation study, which mimicked the starvation like conditions of the holocaust to study the effects of starvation and also how to re-feed after the trials were over. The effect was the metabolism DOES slow down, but not nearly enough to compensate for a negative calorie balance. All test subject lost significant amounts of weight, and they were not even overweight to begin with. So eating more to lose weight is simply not true.

    Back to your original question, can you lose weight on 1600. Most likely yes, but that is probably not much of a calorie deficit, so you'd have to be very careful not to exceed that number. If MFP recommends 1200, try that again but this time really look at accuracy of logging. These people have been on here a long time and when somebody comes on saying they are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight, it's ALWAYS because they are actually eating more than that without realizing. Once this is corrected, the weigh starts coming off, like magic.

    How much weight are you looking to lose?

    While you are right about the myth part (in this case), you are a bit off about the Minnesota Starvation Study. In that study, several of the volunteers stopped losing weight in calculated and controlled calorie deficits. They did ALL experience severe adaptive thermogenesis at low body fat percentage and during refeed.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,236 Member
    edited May 2015
    Starvation mode aside, why not just try the 1600 as people have suggested and see for yourself? Please make sure its an accurate 1600 though.
  • NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner
    NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner Posts: 1,018 Member
    When I first came to MFP I thought I knew it all.
    Turns out I didn't know much.
    What I did know was not all that true or accurate.

    Listen to the advice you are being given. WEIGH foods. Don't pretend to yourself that you ARE weighing when your diary states otherwise. 1200 may not be a comfortable calorie allowance for you to sustainably lose weight on. It's a fairly aggressive loss of calories when you have been used to troffing 3000+ calories a day (been there, done that). Set a goal of 1lb a week loss. Depending on your stats you will probably get between 1400-1600 calories allowed which is much more doable if you love your food. I'm losing on 1480. I didn't lose on 1200 because I was forever hungry and eating extra and pretending I wasn't.

    To lose weight you cannot pretend to weigh. You cannot pretend that you are following it to the letter when you aren't. Weight loss starts with brutal honesty. From yourself and from others that want to help you succeed. Your doctor won't help. They will tell you to eat less than you burn and to get moving. Well any decent doctor would. It really is that simple.

    I know you may not like the blunt approach but sometimes it gives you the shake up you need. It worked for me. I'm 1/2lb away from 2 stone loss since January. It's doable. Just reduce your weekly loss, enjoy the extra calories and log honestly. The only person you cheat and disappoint is yourself.

    Good luck.

    P.s... Weigh everything. Seriously. Everything.
  • mch2829
    mch2829 Posts: 70 Member
    mch2829 wrote: »
    I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating.

    That's not how it works. Your body doesn't stop losing weight because you eat too little. That's impossible. You were probably underestimating calories if you weren't losing anything at 1200. Eating more will just make you gain weight if you weren't losing anything at what you measured as 1200.
    I thought your body can go into starvation mode If you're under eating and start holding onto fat for energy

    eating less than 1200 causes the body to eat on its muscle, and you will lose weight, but that is not the right or healthy approach. You want to burn fat and gain or maintain your muscle mass. One month is not enough time for 1200 calories you need to keep it up and incorporate some exercise if you have a sedentary lifestyle.

    When i was sick for a week and could not eat whole meals only consumed 500 a day i ended up in hospital and when they tested me my body had gone into starvation mode, they had to put an IV in me to give me the electrolytes and other nutrients I had lost. The R.N. told me ppl try to do this as a diet, it is not a good feeling, don't go below 1200.

    good luck.

    Eating any deficit is going to cause muscle loss. The reason you don't want to eat less than 1200 isn't because of muscle loss. It's because it's difficult to get enough nutrients in less than 1200 calories without using supplements. There's nothing magical about 1200 besides the fact that it's just easier to get enough nutrients. Nothing special happens if you eat 1100 calories.

    When they checked you out at the hospital, you weren't in "starvation mode." You were dehydrated. When you have a very low calorie diet, you likely aren't going to get enough sodium. So even if you drink a lot of water, you'll end up dehydrated. They give you saline in an IV to quickly hydrate you.
  • tiffanybrooks530
    tiffanybrooks530 Posts: 140 Member
    edited May 2015
    mch2829 wrote: »
    mch2829 wrote: »
    I was eating 1200 calories a day but my body was holding onto the weight because I was under eating.

    That's not how it works. Your body doesn't stop losing weight because you eat too little. That's impossible. You were probably underestimating calories if you weren't losing anything at 1200. Eating more will just make you gain weight if you weren't losing anything at what you measured as 1200.
    I thought your body can go into starvation mode If you're under eating and start holding onto fat for energy

    eating less than 1200 causes the body to eat on its muscle, and you will lose weight, but that is not the right or healthy approach. You want to burn fat and gain or maintain your muscle mass. One month is not enough time for 1200 calories you need to keep it up and incorporate some exercise if you have a sedentary lifestyle.

    When i was sick for a week and could not eat whole meals only consumed 500 a day i ended up in hospital and when they tested me my body had gone into starvation mode, they had to put an IV in me to give me the electrolytes and other nutrients I had lost. The R.N. told me ppl try to do this as a diet, it is not a good feeling, don't go below 1200.

    good luck.

    Eating any deficit is going to cause muscle loss. The reason you don't want to eat less than 1200 isn't because of muscle loss. It's because it's difficult to get enough nutrients in less than 1200 calories without using supplements. There's nothing magical about 1200 besides the fact that it's just easier to get enough nutrients. Nothing special happens if you eat 1100 calories.

    When they checked you out at the hospital, you weren't in "starvation mode." You were dehydrated. When you have a very low calorie diet, you likely aren't going to get enough sodium. So even if you drink a lot of water, you'll end up dehydrated. They give you saline in an IV to quickly hydrate you.

    No you're wrong. No i was not dehydrated and yes my body was in a state of "ketosis".
    I stated that muscle loss occurs in that state and I had also lost nutrients that had to be replenished via IV. It wasn't fun, and I'm sharing my personal experience, if you had a different one by all means share it, but you are not my Dr. to tell me what I did and did not go through.

    My advice to her is to be consistent with her choice be it 1200 or 1600, since she said she only did it for one month. based on her comments there appears to be a number of reasons why she isn't losing. But no one should aim for starvation, no one is suggesting that.
  • cincysweetheart
    cincysweetheart Posts: 893 Member
    Just a note on your question about how to measure PB if not using what it says on the label…. it is true that it will probably say a serving size is 2 tablespoons on the label… but if you look, there will almost ALWAYS be a weight (usually in grams) listed right next to it in parentheses. THAT is the measurement you should go by. It'll be a much more accurate measure than using Tablespoons or measuring cups.

    But I do agree with the others that state that starvation mode is a myth. You do need to eat enough to fuel your body properly… but you won't magically stop losing weight because you're eating too little. Especially at 1200 calories… that's not starvation calories.

    Without knowing your stats… I would say you probably could still lose weight eating 1600 calories. But you DO need to be vigilant and accurate with your logging and your portion sizes. If you have a food scale, there is essentially no need to ever use tablespoons or measuring cups, unless you are measuring liquids (and for the record, the only food I eat that I've found doesn't have a weight listed is milk. All other liquids do). And be careful with eating back your exercise calories. A lot of calorie burns are overestimated. So, you may want to only eat back a portion of them. Start with 50% and see how it goes. You may need to still adjust.
  • aubiefan122013
    aubiefan122013 Posts: 21 Member
    It depends a lot on your size and activity level. I am a runner, and drop weight very quickly if I get down to even 1800/day.
  • Sophiareed218
    Sophiareed218 Posts: 144 Member
    Speak with a doctor if you must, but these people state the truth. Starvation mode is a big fat myth. How would holocaust get down to skin and bones? Wouldn't they be nice and plump since the body is holding onto calories? Also, someone else mentioned the minnesota starvation study, which mimicked the starvation like conditions of the holocaust to study the effects of starvation and also how to re-feed after the trials were over. The effect was the metabolism DOES slow down, but not nearly enough to compensate for a negative calorie balance. All test subject lost significant amounts of weight, and they were not even overweight to begin with. So eating more to lose weight is simply not true.

    Back to your original question, can you lose weight on 1600. Most likely yes, but that is probably not much of a calorie deficit, so you'd have to be very careful not to exceed that number. If MFP recommends 1200, try that again but this time really look at accuracy of logging. These people have been on here a long time and when somebody comes on saying they are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight, it's ALWAYS because they are actually eating more than that without realizing. Once this is corrected, the weigh starts coming off, like magic.

    How much weight are you looking to lose?

    While you are right about the myth part (in this case), you are a bit off about the Minnesota Starvation Study. In that study, several of the volunteers stopped losing weight in calculated and controlled calorie deficits. They did ALL experience severe adaptive thermogenesis at low body fat percentage and during refeed.
    I haven't been able to confirm anything about the part you said about some subjects not losing weigh on a controlled diet. Could you provide a link or reference?