Is1300 cals too many for some people?

Options
verycherrypie
verycherrypie Posts: 9 Member
edited April 2016 in Health and Weight Loss
In total over three weeks I have lost a measley 2.5lb and yet my husband has lost 18lb!! I know it's at least going in the right direction but this week I lost 0lb and it's hard not to feel a failure in comparison!

I didn't want a silly fast weight loss that just returns but I am so disappointed as I have stuck to the cals. Could 1300 really be too many calories for some people? I fear if I try 1200 I will be so miserable and give up anyway..
«13

Replies

  • jen_bush
    jen_bush Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    men normally lose weight faster than women, as their metabolisms are normally a bit higher. It's not a competition x
  • verycherrypie
    verycherrypie Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Haha.. Thanks.. No it's not a competition that I ever want to get into as that's a guaranteed fail! He deserves a big weight loss as he has exercised much more than me but I am just disappointed as in the past it's always come off me much quicker too. I suppose my expectations were around 4lb to start with then maybe 1-2lb a week afterwards.. it just seems unusually slow but I am older now. I just wondered if some people just naturally need less than 1300 to lose weight..
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.

    Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.

    1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!
  • verycherrypie
    verycherrypie Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Thank you! I appreciate your response.. I shall try to look ahead.. That does seem healthier
  • verycherrypie
    verycherrypie Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Although it feels long to me..
  • Pocket__Cthulhu
    Pocket__Cthulhu Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    I just was playing around with the TDEE calculator. I threw in 140 lbs and 5'5 with moderate exercise (3-5 times a week, because that's what I do) and it said maintenance was 2,367. I don't think exercising 3-5 times a week is "exceptionally active." Light exercise is 2,099. Sedentary was 1832. So...I can see where the number 2000 comes from.

    OP, you don't have to eat so little. Google TDEE calculator and throw in your stats. It will tell you what you need to eat to have a 500 calorie a day deficit, but don't worry too much about it. MFP does it for you based on your "goal weight loss per week."
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    Pocket__Cthulhu wrote: »
    I just was playing around with the TDEE calculator. I threw in 140 lbs and 5'5 with moderate exercise (3-5 times a week, because that's what I do) and it said maintenance was 2,367. I don't think exercising 3-5 times a week is "exceptionally active." Light exercise is 2,099. Sedentary was 1832. So...I can see where the number 2000 comes from.

    We must be using different calculators. With that said, exercising 3-5 times a week and burning 800 to 1200 calories each session sounds a bit far fetched, even if base the calculations on the calculator you chose. I would call that exceptionally active.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'5", 136 pounds, 38, and my TDEE is 2200-2300. I burn 400 a day in average in exercise.. the rest is my normal activity. I don't find that 2000 average unrealistic at all, considering that I do spend a big chunk of the day sitting (and let's face it, I'm probably slimmer than the 'average woman' in the US too).

    OP, it depends on how much your husband has to lose too. If he's eating 1300 too, it's WAY to little for a man. He'll crash and burn and burn some muscle too. Plus you're a woman and we retain water more than men too, so you won't see a consistent drop, it might come in chunks.

    For what it's worth, I could NEVER have stuck to it if I was only eating 1300 calories. Just nope. I never ate under 1650.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Does you husband have more to lose? If so, it will be easier for him to lose weight at first.
    If he is heavier than you, he'll have more calories to play with.

    And you said he exercised more.

    What is the saying, comparasion is the thief of joy.

    My suggestion would be to #1 stop comparing your weight loss with his.
    #2 - adjust your expectations. 1lb a week is a very reasonable amount to lose. Having high expectations will likely lead to quitting when you don't hit them.
  • trjjoy
    trjjoy Posts: 666 Member
    Options
    I am 1.63m tall and I weigh 64kg. I maintain at about 1600 calories before exercise. Adding exercise and other activities puts me at 2000 to 2200 calories a day.
  • Pawsforme
    Pawsforme Posts: 645 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    OP, what are your stats -- age, current weight, height? Are you sure you're accurately weighing and logging your food?

    For perspective, just in case it helps you any -- I'm 53, 4'10", hypothyroid and weighed 109 this morning. I would lose on 1300 calories a day (assuming accurate weighing and logging). My TDEE is right around 1650. I get in around 12,500 steps a day but in the past couple of months have done no working out.

    Men will lose faster because usually they're taller, heavier, have more muscle mass (so a higher BMR) and usually have more to lose. If you want to compare then the best thing to do may be to compare percent of body weight lost.
  • angerelle
    angerelle Posts: 175 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.

    Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.

    1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!

    This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.

    [

    I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,072 Member
    Options
    I maintain on a net of 1710 - I am about 5 ft 4 and 62 kg ( about 136 lb) and 52 years old.

    Plenty of women are taller, younger, heavier and more active than me -can easily see them needing 300 more calories than me ergo 2000 calories.
  • foxygirl14
    foxygirl14 Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    angerelle wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.

    Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.

    1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!

    This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.

    [

    I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.

    I can understand that! It's just "the average woman" is likely not walking 10k steps or doing much exercise. I'm talking in the general sense. Of course it's not hard to maintain at 2000 calories and only takes a little bit of effort. What I don't understand is how they came up with this number as an average for all women outside of the weight loss and fitness community. I'm assuming it took into account more rural countries where women are fairly active, skewing the average?
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    angerelle wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    3 weeks is nothing in the great scheme of things and far too soon to start projecting if this rate of loss is going to continue. Just normal daily or monthly fluctuations will completely skew your results over such a short time frame.

    Raise your sights from day to day or week to week - think long term progress not seeking validation from what could be a fairly random number on your bathroom scales.

    1300 cals is very low compared to what is often stated as a 2000 average for a woman to maintain their weight - but no idea if you are average of course!

    This always boggled my mind. What average woman maintains at 2000? This has to be some tall, overweight or exceptionally active woman. The "average woman", defined as 5'5 and 140 lb, maintains at about 1600-1800 if sedentary to lightly active. The average woman does not do 400 calories worth of exercise every day.

    [

    I'm 1.69 m (5'6") and 74kg (163 lbs) and I maintain (or even lose slowly) at 1760 plus exercise calories. I don't need to do much over my 10k steps to burn 400 kCals, so I imagine there are lots of other women like me who can easily maintain on 2000 kCals.

    I can understand that! It's just "the average woman" is likely not walking 10k steps or doing much exercise. I'm talking in the general sense. Of course it's not hard to maintain at 2000 calories and only takes a little bit of effort. What I don't understand is how they came up with this number as an average for all women outside of the weight loss and fitness community. I'm assuming it took into account more rural countries where women are fairly active, skewing the average?

    I agree. I'm 5'3" and between 111 and 112 pounds right now. My TDEE is between 1900 and 2400 depending on the day. However, I know I'm more active and have more muscle mass than the average woman. I normally get between 16,000 and 23,000 steps per day in addition to exercising for 30 to 45 minutes daily. I'm not the most active person I know, but my activity level and body stats are definitely not the average. A woman's average TDEE also varies by region of course.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    foxygirl14 wrote: »
    Yes, it can be too many for some people. I MAINTAIN on 1400. How tall are you? What did MFP give you?

    How tall are you?
    A 100lb 5'0 female age 21 at completely sedentary would maintain on over 1500.
  • Seffell
    Seffell Posts: 2,222 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'7, 153lbs and as I can't move much I maintain on 1600 on days I don't go out. On days when I can walk a bit I can go up to 1700.

Categories