Hi lovesretirement.........I'll wander into this conversation because I am 65, although unfortunately, I'm not retired yet.....

It sounds to me like you need to do a metabolic reset, and no I wouldn't buy into the lower calories as we age theory. I think the reason that is recommended by some is perhaps some of us move less as we get older. I don't think you have to worry about that based on your exercise routine............I know I don't.

I lost most of my weight eating about 1400 calories and finally stalled out last year after losing about 45 lbs. I changed trainers and he helped me do a reset. I gradually increased my calories over the course of a couple of months and worked my way up to about 2000 calories. I didn't actually gain any weight there but maintained for awhile.

As my calories increased so did the intensity of my workouts and my hunger. It was exactly what he wanted. And then I began eating at a deficit again. I average about 1750 calories a day, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. I've lost another 15 lb doing this and am now only about 7 or 8 lbs away from my goal.

I'm working through a hip flexor injury right now so I've dropped my calories a little because I'm just not working quite as hard as I was before the injury.

Don't let people tell you what you can and can't do because of your age...........you know what you can and can't do already............trust yourself and maybe your trainer, it sounds like you might have found a good one.

Hope this helps....

Oops, got cut off.

....Once you get to TDEE, hang out there for a good while before cutting. When you do start your cut, start at 10-15%, returning to TDEE every 4-8 weeks.

Have you read the metabolism reset guide? It outlines the process on great detail. http://eatmore2weighless.com/the-metabolism-reset-guide/

I'll mention - if you are only going to give it a week - forget it right now - not going to work in one week.

And 3 lbs a month is great, that 0.75 lb weekly, but indeed with that activity level and that low level of eating, sounds like it should be more very easily.

But - if potential TDEE really is around 2500, and you have suppressed it by 20%, which is easily done, that means you have a suppressed TDEE of 2000.

Now, eating at average say 1300 (if between 1200-1400 really is avg 1300), that should be 1.4 lbs a week.

So you should still be losing something above 0.75 lb weekly. Unless the stress of undereating and that exercise is causing increased cortisol to be slowly packing on the water weight, masking some of that fat loss.

Or because of undereating enough, you have some binge meals or binge days that are not terribly accurate for logging and it wipes out a week of deficit, but actually packs on fat for that day.

So just saying - you won't see anything to what you'd consider positive in 1 week - you should see easy weight gain actually. Water weight.

heybales wrote: »

And 3 lbs a month is great, thats 0.75 lb weekly, but indeed with that activity level and that low level of eating, sounds like it should be more very easily.


Now, eating at average say 1300 (if between 1200-1400 really is avg 1300), that should be 1.4 lbs a week.

This is where you take the time to think about your die, which is exactly what you are doing. If you are slowly losing, that is great. But with your numbers, you should be losing a higher amount. If you aren't, then something is wrong.
Either, your body has adjusted and slowed down your metabolism.
Your body has increased your cortisol and slowed down your weight loss.
Maybe cheat meals are too cheaty or you aren't logging your food properly.
These are all just things to consider.

You may not have completely stopped losing yet, but you will eventually. Or it will keep slowing down.
First 1/2 pound per week lost.
Then 1/4 pound per week lost.
Then plateau and you lose nothing and nothing and nothing.
Then you'll have to make a choice, you either lower your calories below 1200 (NOT RECOMMENDED!)
Or you see it's time to fix your metabolism and you start eating more.

The longer you continue to eat a low calorie diet, the longer it will take to fix your metabolism.
I started my metabolism reset before I completely stopped losing. I had slowed down to about 1/2 pound a week, but with my calorie deficit being GIANT math wise, I should have been losing close to 2 pounds per week. Hindsight, that's not healthy, but the numbers were showing me something was wrong. Calories in were far less than calories out and my weight lose was slowing and slowing.

I put your numbers in Scooby, with your age, weight and height at the 5-6x/week strenuous activity because it's definitely more than 3-5 moderate.

TDEE 2825
A 10% defecit has you eating 2543/day
for a weight loss of 0.6lbs per week

Even with moderate activity
TDEE 2538
A 10% deficit has you eating 2285/day
for a weight loss of 0.5lbs per week

A 15% deficit has you eating 2158/day
for a weight loss of 0.8lbs per week

So if you are saying you are eating 1200-1400 a day, and only losing 0.75lb, the numbers show that there is something going on there.

Good luck figuring it out! Everyone here is only trying to help, because a lot of has been in your shoes and have also been very resistant to give it a go. I, in particular, have the first response of "No, I don't think so" when anyone, especially people on the internet give me advice. Just remember everyone's advice is coming from a good spot! If you are going to only be losing 0.75lbs a week, wouldn't it be better to do that eating more?

Well, just a little tear down, since that's the only way the body improves.
Tear it down, feed it well, let it rest, let it build it back up stronger!

Actually, the big deficits effect the recovery first, which is impaired in a diet anyway.
Eventually without getting needed repair, the workouts start becoming not so good, not tearing down anymore, because you don't have the strength or stamina to do that anymore.
So while the workout feels intense, it because it's with an unrecovered body, but in reality, it's mediocre and not asking for much.

So fuel those workouts, tear that body down, and let it rest!

But that doesn't sound nearly as inspiring as "no pain, no gain" or "work through the pain" or "_____ insert your own I'm tired ______". ;-)

Great questions Connie. I'm interested to see what responses are... I too have wondered the same things.

In addition - you changing MFP to Active is NOT the same Active (which there isn't) in the TDEE charts.

MFP activity levels are based on NO exercise being done - merely daily life. They are non-exercise TDEE basically.

Your guess from the 5 rough TDEE levels should have included daily life activity if above sedentary 45 hr deskjob/commute, and exercise added together.

Since setting a manual eating goal, selection of activity level on MFP and their weight loss goal isn't entirely useful for much of anything.

Don't try to combine 2 very different methods, it'll be confusing and you'll be eating too much.

Yes, same goal daily. Because you are looking at _weekly_ activity estimate, and then that is divided by 7 for average _daily_ TDEE level.

Then % off deficit of that daily TDEE level that is based on weekly average activity.

So some days the deficit is more, some days it's less. The average for the week (if all guesses were right) is the 25% (until down to 80 left, then 20%).


MFP when used normally and correctly is doing a literal daily TDEE level with deficit.

They estimate daily non-exercise calorie burn based on your selection of daily non-exercise activity.
Take a deficit off.
Then when you exercise it you log it, which increases the TDEE to that day's, and then deficit.

They just use blocks of calories rather than %.

And while the block can appear unreasonable on rest days, it could be more reasonable on workout days, and in fact if done right the weekly average could be exactly the same as weekly TDEE method you are talking about here.

Great work - it's nice to see positive changes so quickly that let you know this isn't the wrong path.