Is 1500 calories too little to eat to lose weight?
Replies
-
amber2funke wrote: »I have done a little research on this and most things I come across says you should take your weight and times by 12 that's how many calories you need. You can stray from that but you shouldn't go too far until you start to see the scale drop and keep lowering then you can reverse diet to maintain.
Are we talking kilos or pounds? because just with that question, your theory fails.0 -
livcrabtree wrote: »Okay so, 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound.
roughly
Exercise is a key element to losing weight, but diet is just as important.
wrong..weight loss is 80-90% diet and exercise for overall health
Calories are not necessarily the key to dropping pounds, but in fact what you eat is significant
rubbish ...what you eat is significant to overall health not weight loss. Weight loss is absolutely calories
. If you eat 1500 calories of junk food a day, or 2000 calories of healthy food a day, you're certainly more likely to loose it by eating healthier.
holy cow ...what rot! CI<CO that's the science ...that's the maths
Cutting back on calories can be hard as you're not used to it, so aim for 6 meals a day: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner and night snack.
meal timing is completely irrelevant ...you could eat it all in one meal and have the same result
Snacks are essential as they'll prevent craving junk food during the day.
for some
Try and snack on apples as they're equivalent to 0 calories as your body burns off the amount of calories in them trying to digest it.
holy cow! You seriously believe that ...an apple is about 80 calories and is the same as eating 80 calories of chocolate...seriously how can you even think that
Remember 3500 calories = 1 pound.
roughly
Therefore if you're eating 1500 calories a day, it would be ideal if you could burn off 200, which would make you lose it faster!
I hope this helped, good luck
That didn't help anyone because it was almost complete nonsense
Wow, just wow...way to set them straight
0 -
amber2funke wrote: »I have done a little research on this and most things I come across says you should take your weight and times by 12 that's how many calories you need. You can stray from that but you shouldn't go too far until you start to see the scale drop and keep lowering then you can reverse diet to maintain.
Lolwha? If I did that I would certainly be eating too much.
BMR/TDEE calculations take into account gender, weight, height, age, and some use BF%. They're based on models based on population statistical studies.
MFP is designed around the Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenisis model, and does those calculations for you. That's why it prompts for those things.0 -
livcrabtree wrote: »Okay so, 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound. Exercise is a key element to losing weight, but diet is just as important. Calories are not necessarily the key to dropping pounds, but in fact what you eat is significant. If you eat 1500 calories of junk food a day, or 2000 calories of healthy food a day, you're certainly more likely to loose it by eating healthier. Cutting back on calories can be hard as you're not used to it, so aim for 6 meals a day: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner and night snack. Snacks are essential as they'll prevent craving junk food during the day. Try and snack on apples as they're equivalent to 0 calories as your body burns off the amount of calories in them trying to digest it.
Remember 3500 calories = 1 pound. Therefore if you're eating 1500 calories a day, it would be ideal if you could burn off 200, which would make you lose it faster!
I hope this helped, good luck
So much NO!amber2funke wrote: »I have done a little research on this and most things I come across says you should take your weight and times by 12 that's how many calories you need. You can stray from that but you shouldn't go too far until you start to see the scale drop and keep lowering then you can reverse diet to maintain.
I would be eating 3290. I'd gain a pound every three days. Again. SO MUCH NO!0 -
omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.0
-
amber2funke wrote: »I have done a little research on this and most things I come across says you should take your weight and times by 12 that's how many calories you need. You can stray from that but you shouldn't go too far until you start to see the scale drop and keep lowering then you can reverse diet to maintain.
Lolwha? If I did that I would certainly be eating too much.
BMR/TDEE calculations take into account gender, weight, height, age, and some use BF%. They're based on models based on population statistical studies.
MFP is designed around the Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenisis model, and does those calculations for you. That's why it prompts for those things.
ETA: The weight x 12 formula for lbs would be 2340. Excess. In kg it would be 1062, dangerously low. Fails either way.0 -
I hope Liv comes back to defend her post. My Friday is dragging.
And doh, if I multiply my weight (113) by 12 I get 1356 and I've been eating at 1350. (For now anyway. On weekdays. It's not really enough but we are getting married in September and dang it we've been doing a lot of eating on the weekends.)0 -
Wow! Just wow. The amount of misconception regarding Calories, nutrition and CICO is amazing. It really does explain all the "I'm not loosing weight" posts. Everyone tries it make so complicated when it really isn't. Just eat less calories than you burn. Finding out what that is might be a little tricky since we're not all the same but start with what MFP recommends and then based on your results add or subtract accordingly.
0 -
-
steponebyone wrote: »
Also, I am a swimmer, so an hour swim can easily burn 500 or more kcals.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.0 -
Timelordlady85 wrote: »omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.
That sounds reasonable. Last night I went to bed SUPER hungry, so I probably need to add 200 lbs when I burn that much. For me, I'm big on using different machines at the gym, and they have the amount on them of calories burned.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.0 -
amber2funke wrote: »I have done a little research on this and most things I come across says you should take your weight and times by 12 that's how many calories you need. You can stray from that but you shouldn't go too far until you start to see the scale drop and keep lowering then you can reverse diet to maintain.
No, there's too much variability based on activity level, bodyfat, etc.
MFP will give a better initial estimate.
You are correct that people should adjust based on results.0 -
The bolded statement is a misunderstanding. While some foods require more digestion than others, the metabolizable energy of food is already accounted for in the Atwater method of determining caloric content, particularly when using the standard adjustements of soluble fiber to 2 calories/g and insoluble fiber to 0 calories/g.livcrabtree wrote: »Okay so, 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound. Exercise is a key element to losing weight, but diet is just as important. Calories are not necessarily the key to dropping pounds, but in fact what you eat is significant. If you eat 1500 calories of junk food a day, or 2000 calories of healthy food a day, you're certainly more likely to loose it by eating healthier. Cutting back on calories can be hard as you're not used to it, so aim for 6 meals a day: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner and night snack. Snacks are essential as they'll prevent craving junk food during the day. Try and snack on apples as they're equivalent to 0 calories as your body burns off the amount of calories in them trying to digest it.
Remember 3500 calories = 1 pound. Therefore if you're eating 1500 calories a day, it would be ideal if you could burn off 200, which would make you lose it faster!
I hope this helped, good luck
Why would the human body have metabolic pathways designed to net 0 energy out of food? There would be no evolutionary advantage to such, and there would be some possible disadvantages to it. It just doesn't make sense.
Thanks for taking the time to explain, rather than mocking a newbie who was trying to be helpful, however misguided her advice.
So much more helpful than "lol, just nope".0 -
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/exercise-calorie-counters-work/story?id=9966500steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
0 -
steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
According to an experiment, ellipticals were found to over-estimate as much as 42%. Believe me, if I was just having opinions, I would have an opinion that gave me a great calorie burn on gym equipment.
http://www.details.com/blogs/daily-details/2014/07/how-accurate-are-cardio-machines-calorie-counters.html0 -
steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
I have the same informed opinion based on lots of experience around here, as well as reading about the topic.
If you are an experienced, skilled swimmer, then yes you could be burning 500 calories from that. I doubt you are from the elliptical in an hour, and brisk walking won't burn calories at that rate.
That's why people recommend eating back only half until you see results and can adjust. You should eat back some, though.
If you think the machine is right for you, totally fine to start with eating them all back, though, and just adjust down if you don't like the results.0 -
If you're consistent with your activity, consider using TDEE-15-20%. Way easier to think about.0
-
steponebyone wrote: »Timelordlady85 wrote: »omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.
That sounds reasonable. Last night I went to bed SUPER hungry, so I probably need to add 200 lbs when I burn that much. For me, I'm big on using different machines at the gym, and they have the amount on them of calories burned.
gym machines don't know who you are, individually, even if you put in your information. I have a Fitbit Charge HR and an elliptical that I entered all my personal statistics into. My Fitbit is very accurate at tracking my calorie burns during my workouts, and my elliptical is consistently giving me readouts of 100 calories higher than my Fitbit for my workouts. You can't trust gym machines. MFP's estimates aren't much better. Get either a Fitbit or a heart rate monitor with a chest strap if you want to be accurate with your workout calorie burns.0 -
steponebyone wrote: »Timelordlady85 wrote: »omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.
That sounds reasonable. Last night I went to bed SUPER hungry, so I probably need to add 200 lbs when I burn that much. For me, I'm big on using different machines at the gym, and they have the amount on them of calories burned.
Id highly recommend getting a heart rate monitor device such as polar or garmin with chest strap to get a better idea of how many calories and intensity your workouts are. I don't go by the machines, they over estimate calorie burns.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »The apples bit is my favourite...
Mines to....lls0 -
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....I'm loving MFP *kitten* just made my day....I was bored.....TY lls0
-
I am 5'2 woman I have been eating 1200 calories a day. Is ir correct to lose weight?
I need to lose 20lbs. Need help0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
I have the same informed opinion based on lots of experience around here, as well as reading about the topic.
If you are an experienced, skilled swimmer, then yes you could be burning 500 calories from that. I doubt you are from the elliptical in an hour, and brisk walking won't burn calories at that rate.
That's why people recommend eating back only half until you see results and can adjust. You should eat back some, though.
If you think the machine is right for you, totally fine to start with eating them all back, though, and just adjust down if you don't like the results.
Thatlemurcat12 wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
I have the same informed opinion based on lots of experience around here, as well as reading about the topic.
If you are an experienced, skilled swimmer, then yes you could be burning 500 calories from that. I doubt you are from the elliptical in an hour, and brisk walking won't burn calories at that rate.
That's why people recommend eating back only half until you see results and can adjust. You should eat back some, though.
If you think the machine is right for you, totally fine to start with eating them all back, though, and just adjust down if you don't like the results.
OK thsteponebyone wrote: »Timelordlady85 wrote: »omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.
That sounds reasonable. Last night I went to bed SUPER hungry, so I probably need to add 200 lbs when I burn that much. For me, I'm big on using different machines at the gym, and they have the amount on them of calories burned.
gym machines don't know who you are, individually, even if you put in your information. I have a Fitbit Charge HR and an elliptical that I entered all my personal statistics into. My Fitbit is very accurate at tracking my calorie burns during my workouts, and my elliptical is consistently giving me readouts of 100 calories higher than my Fitbit for my workouts. You can't trust gym machines. MFP's estimates aren't much better. Get either a Fitbit or a heart rate monitor with a chest strap if you want to be accurate with your workout calorie burns.
I might consider getting one! I heard they're great. & yeah that makes sense about the gym machines, but I do try to stick to higher intensity ellipticals. The stair machine also makes me sweat like crazy, so I know it's burning something. But thanks everyone for the input. I think I need to find a more reliable method of finding out how many calories I burn, or just stick to swimming and Zumba of course!
For the most part people answered my questions. Lol. This post turned ridiculous and entertaining real fast. But also, just remember some people have grown up thinking different things about nutrition, so like me we are still learning. If you comment, "Just no", that isn't going to help at all, especially since I had a valid and perfectly reasonable question. Thanks for all who didn't butcher it though.0 -
I am 5'2 woman I have been eating 1200 calories a day. Is ir correct to lose weight?
I need to lose 20lbs. Need help
Perhaps you should start your own thread, you'll get more specific advice to your situation. But 1200 cals for a 5'2" woman is probably reasonable, depending on your current weight.0 -
steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
It's not really an opinion more countless people's experience that both machines and MFP database are best taken at 50-75% of their calorie burns and then judge based on whether weight loss matches up to expectations over 6-8 weeks (assuming good logging)
Using my HRM and steady state on an elliptical ....At 160lbs and resistance of 17 out of 25 with a HR of 145-155 it takes me 14 minutes to burn 100 calories on an elliptical ...could I keep that pace up for an hour? Doubtful ...if I did I would burn around 400 calories
I'm pretty sure 500 is a too many0 -
steponebyone wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
I have the same informed opinion based on lots of experience around here, as well as reading about the topic.
If you are an experienced, skilled swimmer, then yes you could be burning 500 calories from that. I doubt you are from the elliptical in an hour, and brisk walking won't burn calories at that rate.
That's why people recommend eating back only half until you see results and can adjust. You should eat back some, though.
If you think the machine is right for you, totally fine to start with eating them all back, though, and just adjust down if you don't like the results.
Thatlemurcat12 wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »steponebyone wrote: »
Gym machines are notorious for over-stating calorie burns.
Hmm, that sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
I have the same informed opinion based on lots of experience around here, as well as reading about the topic.
If you are an experienced, skilled swimmer, then yes you could be burning 500 calories from that. I doubt you are from the elliptical in an hour, and brisk walking won't burn calories at that rate.
That's why people recommend eating back only half until you see results and can adjust. You should eat back some, though.
If you think the machine is right for you, totally fine to start with eating them all back, though, and just adjust down if you don't like the results.
OK thsteponebyone wrote: »Timelordlady85 wrote: »omg, apples have no calories hooray! j/k, but I input my activity level and stats in MFP and aim for half my exercise calories back. How are you tracking your calories burned? I use a polar chest strap, I noticed that MPF tends to over estimate calorie burns.
That sounds reasonable. Last night I went to bed SUPER hungry, so I probably need to add 200 lbs when I burn that much. For me, I'm big on using different machines at the gym, and they have the amount on them of calories burned.
gym machines don't know who you are, individually, even if you put in your information. I have a Fitbit Charge HR and an elliptical that I entered all my personal statistics into. My Fitbit is very accurate at tracking my calorie burns during my workouts, and my elliptical is consistently giving me readouts of 100 calories higher than my Fitbit for my workouts. You can't trust gym machines. MFP's estimates aren't much better. Get either a Fitbit or a heart rate monitor with a chest strap if you want to be accurate with your workout calorie burns.
I might consider getting one! I heard they're great. & yeah that makes sense about the gym machines, but I do try to stick to higher intensity ellipticals. The stair machine also makes me sweat like crazy, so I know it's burning something. But thanks everyone for the input. I think I need to find a more reliable method of finding out how many calories I burn, or just stick to swimming and Zumba of course!
For the most part people answered my questions. Lol. This post turned ridiculous and entertaining real fast. But also, just remember some people have grown up thinking different things about nutrition, so like me we are still learning. If you comment, "Just no", that isn't going to help at all, especially since I had a valid and perfectly reasonable question. Thanks for all who didn't butcher it though.
Just as a point of information
A fitbit is not good on ellipticals
A HRM is only good if steady state cardio
Sweat does not equate to calorie burn unfortunately ...I kinda wish it did0 -
livcrabtree wrote: »Okay so, 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound.
roughly
Exercise is a key element to losing weight, but diet is just as important.
wrong..weight loss is 80-90% diet and exercise for overall health
Calories are not necessarily the key to dropping pounds, but in fact what you eat is significant
rubbish ...what you eat is significant to overall health not weight loss. Weight loss is absolutely calories
. If you eat 1500 calories of junk food a day, or 2000 calories of healthy food a day, you're certainly more likely to loose it by eating healthier.
holy cow ...what rot! CI<CO that's the science ...that's the maths
Cutting back on calories can be hard as you're not used to it, so aim for 6 meals a day: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner and night snack.
meal timing is completely irrelevant ...you could eat it all in one meal and have the same result
Snacks are essential as they'll prevent craving junk food during the day.
for some
Try and snack on apples as they're equivalent to 0 calories as your body burns off the amount of calories in them trying to digest it.
holy cow! You seriously believe that ...an apple is about 80 calories and is the same as eating 80 calories of chocolate...seriously how can you even think that
Remember 3500 calories = 1 pound.
roughly
Therefore if you're eating 1500 calories a day, it would be ideal if you could burn off 200, which would make you lose it faster!
I hope this helped, good luck
That didn't help anyone because it was almost complete nonsenselivcrabtree wrote: »Okay so, 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound. Exercise is a key element to losing weight, but diet is just as important. Calories are not necessarily the key to dropping pounds, but in fact what you eat is significant. If you eat 1500 calories of junk food a day, or 2000 calories of healthy food a day, you're certainly more likely to loose it by eating healthier. Cutting back on calories can be hard as you're not used to it, so aim for 6 meals a day: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner and night snack. Snacks are essential as they'll prevent craving junk food during the day. Try and snack on apples as they're equivalent to 0 calories as your body burns off the amount of calories in them trying to digest it.
Remember 3500 calories = 1 pound. Therefore if you're eating 1500 calories a day, it would be ideal if you could burn off 200, which would make you lose it faster!
I hope this helped, good luck
No. No, no, and... NO. To 100% of this idiotic comment...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions