1760cals too low to lose weight?

luiscmartins
luiscmartins Posts: 4 Member
edited November 19 in Health and Weight Loss
Hey there. First post here.

I have been working out and lifting weights for about 5 years with the intent of putting on weight. I had very good results since when I started I weighted 58Kg (128lbs) and I'm currently at 75Kg (165lbs). Since I am fairly young and never had the problem of putting on fat, I never really worried much about nutrition, so I ate pretty much everything I wanted in big quantities throughout the day just to make sure I had the right amount of food to grow. This philosophy worked good for my goal and I achieved very positive results.

However, my goals are now different, and for the first time during this journey, I decided to lose some weight, or "cut", as it is normally known, to lose the amount of fat that I have. I downloaded MyFitnessPal app because I think it will be helpful to track my calories. However, the app is telling me to go on a diet of 1760 calories to lose 0.5Kg (1lb) per week. Isn't this too low? I went to other different calculators and they estimate a diet of around 2300cals to lose the same amount of weight per week. Besides, MyFitnessPal doesn't seem to take into consideration the frequency and duration of my workouts for the calculation of the calories, even thou it asks for this information. Is the app to be trusted? Should I go this low on calories? My stats are below.

My stats are:
24 years old
75Kg
172cm (5'64ft) tall
13-15% body fat
4 or 5 intense weight-lifting workouts per week, about 90 to 120 minutes each.
Outside working out, my activity level is low, with a casual 1-2 hour walk every other day.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I'm a male!

Replies

  • TNoire
    TNoire Posts: 642 Member
    If your a guy then yes min for guys is 1800 a day, girls a min of 1200
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    172 cm is not 5'6"... it's almost 5'8"
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    TNoire wrote: »
    If your a guy then yes min for guys is 1800 a day, girls a min of 1200

    1800? where did you get that number from?
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    TNoire wrote: »
    If your a guy then yes min for guys is 1800 a day, girls a min of 1200

    1800 is a pretty arbitrary number (pulled from a**?). You have to account for age, height, and normal activity level.

    I don't work out regularly, so my estimated TDEE is < 2400. I'm right around 1550 and doing quite well.
  • JanetMMcC
    JanetMMcC Posts: 410 Member
    edited May 2015
    The way this calculator works with exercise is to consider it after the fact. That is, you put in the exercise you've done and it adds the calories burned to your total. So yesterday I walked for 71 minutes before breakfast and "earned" 266 calories beyond my daily goal of 1200 (sedentary old fart aiming for a pound a week) calories.

    Try this: Create a diary for yesterday. Put in everything you ate and all the exercise you did. See what that calorie total looks like.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    TNoire wrote: »
    If your a guy then yes min for guys is 1800 a day, girls a min of 1200
    Yeah, no.
  • luiscmartins
    luiscmartins Posts: 4 Member
    JanetMMcC wrote: »
    The way this calculator works with exercise is to consider it after the fact. That is, you put in the exercise you've done and it adds the calories burned to your total. So yesterday I walked for 71 minutes before breakfast and "earned" 266 calories beyond my daily goal of 1200 (sedentary old fart aiming for a pound a week) calories.

    Try this: Create a diary for yesterday. Put in everything you ate and all the exercise you did. See what that calorie total looks like.
    Yes, that makes sense! Thanks :)

    karintalley wrote: »
    172 cm is not 5'6"... it's almost 5'8"
    I'm pretty sure it is.


  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited May 2015
    I'm 5'8 = 172.7cm

    You're 5 foot 7 and 23/32 inches at 172cm :smiley:

    1760 plus Eat back exercise will be the same as cut from TDEE
  • luiscmartins
    luiscmartins Posts: 4 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    I'm 5'8 = 172.7cm

    You're 5 foot 7 and 23/32 inches at 172cm :smiley:

    1760 plus Eat back exercise will be the same as cut from TDEE
    Funny, every online converter I use says 172cm = 5'64ft :o
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    luiscmartins wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    I'm 5'8 = 172.7cm

    You're 5 foot 7 and 23/32 inches at 172cm :smiley:

    1760 plus Eat back exercise will be the same as cut from TDEE
    Funny, every online converter I use says 172cm = 5'64ft :o

    Yes but 0.64 of a foot = 7 and 23/32 inches because there are 12 inches in a foot and 12x0.64 = 7.68 = 7 and 23/32ths
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    edited May 2015
    Please link a converter that says 172 cm is 5 feet and 64 inches!

    172 cm = 67.7165 Inches to be exact. lol
    67 inches = 171.999 cm
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    edited May 2015
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".
  • loulamb7
    loulamb7 Posts: 801 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    1760 plus Eat back exercise will be the same as cut from TDEE

    ^^This^^ MFP does not count exercise calories until you add them back in by reporting exercise. TDEE includes your exercise calories in its calculation. If your exercise is consistent then go with TDEE minus 10% to 20% to lose weight. You can use custom settings to track using MFP.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".

    A pain for you. For those of us that grew up in the US inches are simple.

    You wanna be British ...we get the joy of feet, inches for height, metres, centimetres and miles on the roads and in our cars

    Oh and kilos in the gym as well as stones and pounds on the weighing scales and grammes and kg in food

  • minties82
    minties82 Posts: 907 Member
    Inches suc
    MrM27 wrote: »
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".

    A pain for you. For those of us that grew up in the US inches are simple.

    Metric units make a lot more sense.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    minties82 wrote: »
    Inches suc
    MrM27 wrote: »
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".

    A pain for you. For those of us that grew up in the US inches are simple.

    Metric units make a lot more sense.
    Luckily for me that opinion doesn't matter.

    LOL

    'Merricans
  • kuriakos_chris
    kuriakos_chris Posts: 48 Member
    If you could count the calories you were eating while bulking, then every other day go -100 calories.
    You should be like 300-500 calories under your mainentance calories
  • 460mustang
    460mustang Posts: 196 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    minties82 wrote: »
    Inches suc
    MrM27 wrote: »
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".

    A pain for you. For those of us that grew up in the US inches are simple.

    Metric units make a lot more sense.
    Luckily for me that opinion doesn't matter.

    LOL, Thanks for giving me my USDA recommended daily dose of laughter
  • wanttobefit300
    wanttobefit300 Posts: 157 Member
    edited May 2015
    With 13-15% body fat, why are you trying to lose? Are you a professional body builder or something?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • JanetMMcC
    JanetMMcC Posts: 410 Member
    By the way - you should not try to lose every ounce of fat. Like everything else, the body needs some to work right.

    Explained in the bottom half of this page.
    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/why-your-body-needs-some-fat-to-be-healthy.html

    According to this,
    http://www.shapeup.org/bfl/basics1.html
    a healthy range for men up thru age 39 is 8 to 16 percent.
  • JanetMMcC
    JanetMMcC Posts: 410 Member
    I'm curious to learn how calories + exercise compared to the gizmos. I just realized you don't even have to put in the menu - punching in the exercise you did should give you the total calories to reach your goal.
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".

    A pain for you. For those of us that grew up in the US inches are simple.

    You wanna be British ...we get the joy of feet, inches for height, metres, centimetres and miles on the roads and in our cars

    Oh and kilos in the gym as well as stones and pounds on the weighing scales and grammes and kg in food

    lol...

    the whole world should just go metric.
  • charlieandcarol
    charlieandcarol Posts: 302 Member
    There are only 3 countries in the world that aren't officially metric......
  • luiscmartins
    luiscmartins Posts: 4 Member
    edited May 2015
    karintalley wrote: »
    Please link a converter that says 172 cm is 5 feet and 64 inches!

    172 cm = 67.7165 Inches to be exact. lol
    67 inches = 171.999 cm
    karintalley wrote: »
    OP...
    Inches are a pain in the *kitten*. I am used to cm growing up in Sweden. It makes much more sense and easier to learn.
    5.64 is not the same as 5 feet 64 Inches. It just means 5.64 feet. You have to convert the inches to feet too.
    But be happy you are taller than 5'6".
    Yes. The converters say it's 5,64, which is very different than 5'6''. Unfortunately, I only realized that now after all those years lol.
    Just disappointed this topic is now an argument of metric vs imperial systems lol.

    wanttobefit300 wrote: »
    With 13-15% body fat, why are you trying to lose? Are you a professional body builder or something?
    Same reason everyone with my bf% wants to loose fat:
    I want to be able to see my abs the very least. Optimum goal is to get ripped.

    Day 3 of cutting cycle. Feeling good so far!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories