1000 calorie diet for 2lb loss?

bethany_h_xx wrote: »

if my BMR is 1500 and I eat 1000 calories a day should this put me on the road for losing 1b per week?
And if I did 2 hours walking per day burning 500 calories will this help me lose another pound?
Really hoping for a 2lb loss per week

Oh dear.

What's the hurry? How many pounds total do you have to lose? What are your current stats (height/weight/activity level).

This is not a healthy or sustainable way to go about this process.

Read this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1235566/so-youre-new-here#latest

This content has been removed.

bethany_h_xx wrote: »

if my BMR is 1500 and I eat 1000 calories a day should this put me on the road for losing 1b per week?
And if I did 2 hours walking per day burning 500 calories will this help me lose another pound?
Really hoping for a 2lb loss per week

you're confusing BMR with TDEE. You don't cut from BMR...BMR is just what you "burn" by merely existing on this planet. I assume you do more than exist.

Example...your BMR is 1500ish...then you get out of bed and whatnot and do your daily stuff...let's say your day to day hum drum burns about 500 calories. That puts you at 2000 calories per day right there without deliberate exercise...now lets say you exercise and burn 300 calories per day...that puts you at 2,300 calories per day to maintain. You would cut from 2,300 calories, not 1,500....

MFP's calorie goals already include your deficit to lose weight...it takes all of the info you put in and estimates your BMR and your daily hum drum and cuts from that. Also, 2 Lbs per week is very aggressive and if you aren't obese and beyond, you're just going to torch a bunch of lean mass.

Not BMR, TDEE.

BMR = basal metabolic rate. It's the energy required to keep you alive.
TDEE = total daily energy expenditure. It's the BMR + activities-energy.

There are simple formulas you can use to estimate one from the other. For example if you're sedentary and don't exercise, but you're also not comatose, you might use BMR x 1.2 = TDEE. If your BMR is 1500 then your TDEE is approximately 1800 calories; lose 1 lb from dieting would mean eating 1300 per day, not 1000 as you'd calculated.

Beyond that, you've got the right idea. Every 500 calorie deficit equals approximately 1 lb lost per week.

Find out your TDEE via Google and subtract from that. Not from your bmr

Or just use mfp's calculations and do what it says, without trying to lose too quickly for your weight/height.

You can hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which fills up faster.

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Put your stats into this calculator: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ and find out what your approximate TDEE is. Subtract 500 calories from that number. Alternatively, set your MFP goals to 1 lb/week and set your activity level to lightly active (very few people are truly sedentary). Eat 50-75% of your exercise calories back, and you will lose at a healthy and sustainable pace.

Note also that weight loss is not linear. You will not lose exactly one pound per week every single week, but you should average about 1 lb/week over time.

Just be patient, and educate yourself. You didn't gain the weight overnight, so don't expect to lose it overnight.

This content has been removed.

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Based on what, exactly?

Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large. For example, let's assume that the OP is a 5'5" female, 25 years old, weighing 175 lbs and shooting for 130 (which is about the middle of a healthy range for a 5'5" female). If she's lightly active, her approximate TDEE barring any health conditions would be around 2200 calories. A 1,000 calorie per day deficit would put her at approximately 1200 net calories, which is hard to sustain long term for most people. That number would only get lower as she loses weight, so would she just keep lowering her net calories every day to sustain that deficit? Exercise more and more to keep that deficit going?

Furthermore, why on earth would you (general "you") want to eat that few calories each day if it isn't necessary? Wouldn't you want to eat as many calories as possible to lose weight healthily, retain muscle mass, and fuel your workouts?

Please read... take to heart... good luck

metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Based on what, exactly?

Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Based on what, exactly?

you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

Also this^^^

@Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

I don't understand.

I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

I seriously doubt that you're 30 years old.

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Based on what, exactly?

Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

Based on what, exactly?

you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

Also this^^^

@Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

I don't understand.

I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

But seeing that OP's math (albeit off since she is basing off BMR) positions that she believes she can net 500 calories and be good to go, that's not really relevant to this situation. I'd say that's a wee bit different than someone going for 1200 net.

This content has been removed.