1350 calories a day...how do you do it?
Options
Replies
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
Well, just as an example, and using the Scooby calculator...I am a 40 year old, 5'4", 127 lb female. I have a desk job that keeps me sedentary 6 days a week for up to 14 hours a day. My TDEE is 1576, which is where I stay to maintain, so 1200-1300 to lose was where I needed to be.
My husband is a 6'0", 190 lb male. He has a very physical, active job 6 days a week. His TDEE is 2764. So, it really depends on the person and the lifestyle. You can't paint everyone with such a broad stroke.
Also keep in mind just opting to go for a 30 minute walk everyday would qualify you as being lightly active...most people I feel can fit that into their day. Rather than post on MFP at a computer for example they could post from their phone while walking. That 30min a day of walking would add a good 100 calories to your daily amount, can add 200 of you just make that 30 min in the morning and 30 min after work.
I get people are busy, but if health is the goal then health should recieve at least some priority. 1350 calories a day is not necessary except in the most extreme of cases.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
The biggest problem I see with your calculator is it doesn't take into account lean body mass. I have not tried it vs. this one, https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/ but it might be interesting to see. I am a 195 pound man with about 17% bf and I eat around 1900 a day.0 -
*.33 lbs not 3 (I wish)0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
Well, just as an example, and using the Scooby calculator...I am a 40 year old, 5'4", 127 lb female. I have a desk job that keeps me sedentary 6 days a week for up to 14 hours a day. My TDEE is 1576, which is where I stay to maintain, so 1200-1300 to lose was where I needed to be.
My husband is a 6'0", 190 lb male. He has a very physical, active job 6 days a week. His TDEE is 2764. So, it really depends on the person and the lifestyle. You can't paint everyone with such a broad stroke.
Also keep in mind just opting to go for a 30 minute walk everyday would qualify you as being lightly active...most people I feel can fit that into their day. Rather than post on MFP at a computer for example they could post from their phone while walking. That 30min a day of walking would add a good 100 calories to your daily amount, can add 200 of you just make that 30 min in the morning and 30 min after work.
I get people are busy, but if health is the goal then health should recieve at least some priority. 1350 calories a day is not necessary except in the most extreme of cases.
30 minute walk would be lucky to get me 100 extra calories.6 -
Also there is a difference between saying "my goal is 1350 calories net" per day and "I eat 1350 calories per day"
I think 1350 is a reasonable NET provided you are eating more than that based on your activity. But eating just a strict 1350 a day is pretty darn low.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »About twenty years ago (when I was still skinny) I overheard a pharmacist telling an overweight woman that you cannot diet without being hungry. That always stuck with me, and now I am her. I use his words as a mantra sometimes, though they might be a bit outdated. So either try and cope, look for more satiating foods, or up the kcals to a more comfortable level. But I guess the warm fuzzy gut feeling after a copious meal is no longer an option.
Well that isn't true at all. I lose a pound a week and I'm not hungry. It is very easy to disprove overgeneralizations like that because there are plenty of people who don't fit that "rule".
If you are active you can eat quite a lot and still lose weight.
That may be true for you. Congratulations. That may not be true for everyone.
I didn't say that it was true for everyone, the person making that claim was the person I was responding to if you note. If you read what I actually wrote you will note that I was making your point, that you can't make overgeneralized claims like that.0 -
Look. Here is my issue.
When someone is saying they struggle to eat 1350 calories a day and on that thread there are a couple of posts:
One post says: Its possible that you don't have to eat that little, many people lose weight and don't eat that little...you are a younger woman you probably can lose weight at 1 pound a week and eat considerably more than that
Another post says: Drink lots of coffee, its an appetite suppresent
Am I wrong to think there is an issue with the community if the critisism is lobbed towards the person who suggests you don't have to eat that little to lose weight and nothing is said to the person who suggests literally substituting a nutritionless appetite suppressent for food?
The point is to be healthier right?
I'm not going to fight about this, I stand by my point that a 36 year old woman looking to lose some weight does not need to be eating 1350 calories a day to lose that weight and if she is struggling to do so then one solution is to not eat that little, eat more...perhaps add some activity in and be more comfortable while also being healthier. I also suggested lean protein over carb to help with issues with hunger. My apologies for making that suggestion, apparently it was offensive in some way to suggest people don't need to eat so little that they are uncomfortably hungry while dieting.11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
Well, just as an example, and using the Scooby calculator...I am a 40 year old, 5'4", 127 lb female. I have a desk job that keeps me sedentary 6 days a week for up to 14 hours a day. My TDEE is 1576, which is where I stay to maintain, so 1200-1300 to lose was where I needed to be.
My husband is a 6'0", 190 lb male. He has a very physical, active job 6 days a week. His TDEE is 2764. So, it really depends on the person and the lifestyle. You can't paint everyone with such a broad stroke.
I agree you can't paint everyone with a broad stroke. But if you struggle to eat that little (not saying you do) another option would be to increase your activity level and eat more. That is what I am saying. My shock comes from how many people seem to choose to eat so little by default...and yes, it is a choice.
I am saying most people CAN eat 1900 a day and still lose weight, I stand by that.
I also have a desk job by the way. I am currently sat at a desk.
I'm 5'4" and currently at 146 pounds, with two more pounds to go until I reach my goal. My calorie limit right now - without exercise - is 1460 calories (set to lose a half pound each week, so not aggressive). On most days, I can get this without feeling hungry. I do excercise, but I have seldom exercised enough that I could eat 1900 calories in a day without going over my limit. My normal exercise gets me to about 1770 calories in order to still lose a half pound each week.
To the OP - I'm not sure what your goal is or how close you are to it. However, the best recommendation I have is to increase your activity level. That will help you be able to eat the 1600 calories you feel comfortable with while still being able to lose.1 -
I don't eat breakfast and have a pretty easy time sticking to 1350. I'm also not a big snacker. Eating larger meals twice a day helps my hunger. (Technically, it's 16:8 intermittent fasting, but also just when I'm normally hungry - around 1:00 and 6:00 or 7:00 PM.) It may or may not be for you, depending on how you feel and prefer to eat. But works quite well for me.
So around 500 calories for lunch, 800 for dinner, and maybe a piece of dark chocolate or something for 50. (Also really good if you're a fan of eating out at restaurants, as 800-900 calories can get you a decent meal.)
Standard workday for me on 1350:
Black coffee
Chopped salad with shredded rotisserie chicken breast, ranch
Apple
String cheese
Ginger cookie thins
(about 5-7 minutes fumbling around in the dark before work - thanks bagged salad mix!)
Ghirardelli Sea Salt Soiree dark chocolate square
Tea
Pork chop, BBQ sauce
Roasted red potatoes
Roasted Brussels sprouts
Olive oil, garlic, seasoning
(about 30 minutes of cooking time)
Everything is full-fat, except the string cheese. It's part-skim mozzarella.2 -
Another short woman here. I'm 5'4" weigh 172. MFP recommends I eat 1260 calories per day.
Okay got to stop you there. MFP doesn't have a brain, it isn't a doctor...it isn't "recommending" anything. It is a calculator. You put in numbers, it spits a number back out. The number it spits out is based on what you put in and nothing else. It refuses to go below 1200, that is the only "thinking" it does.
I could also have MFP "tell me" to eat 1260 a day, but that doesn't make it good.
People tend to way underestimate their activity level and put in sedentary when actually they get at least 5000 steps every day from just walking to and from things and they also tend to put in they want to lose 2 pounds a week even though that is for the extremely obese. If you do that MFP will then "recommend" a diet that isn't particularly sustainable, enjoyable or good for your health. It isn't intelligent, its a calculator.
ETA: I just tried it. With my current real bodyweight and height and gender stats I told MFP I was sedentary and wanted to lose 2 pounds a week. It told me to eat 1200 calories a day which is INSANE. It isn't intelligent, you have to know what is reasonable to ask.13 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
The biggest problem I see with your calculator is it doesn't take into account lean body mass. I have not tried it vs. this one, https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/ but it might be interesting to see. I am a 195 pound man with about 17% bf and I eat around 1900 a day.
Yes that is true it doesn't. I haven't found a calculator that does, do you know of one?
For example I'm very small framed and a bit undermuscled and so despite being 6' tall I only have 136 pounds of lean mass on me. My 175 pounds is overweight where as another 6' tall man with more muscle and a larger frame they might be at 12% bodyfat at 175. I get that.
My point though, that I still stand by, is that 1200 calories a day or even 1350 calories a day, is likely much less than what is required for weight loss for the majority of people including smaller women. If there is a woman with exceedingly low mass such that their caloric need IS that low for their health honestly they would probably be better off eating more and lifting heavy to try to put on more lean mass rather than dieting to the extreme.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I am saying most people CAN eat 1900 a day and still lose weight, I stand by that.
I can't.
Literally & figuratively.
5 -
Katch-McArdle uses lean body mass. Based on that my maintenance is 1550 sedentary and 2200 when very active (these stats seem about right for me, as I was maintaining at 2200 when actively tri training). Lightly active is 1775, but that's not going to mean just walking 5000 steps, I don't think--MFP's lightly active is different from the TDEE calculators that include exercise.0
-
I'll echo those who say petite women have little margin for error. The good news is you appear to be really young so that helps! It can be done. Perhaps without hunger, but that is pretty individual.
My TDEE is 1750 (4mi cardio 6x/week + weight training 3x/wk). When losing weight, I shoot for a daily average of 1500, but I bank calories for wine on the weekend, so many days I will do 1350-1400. I can eat 1350 with minimal hunger (only right before meals and at bedtime) IF I eat: 25g fiber, 50g fat and 100g protein.
As an example, I'm hitting those targets today with:
breakfast (285kcal)- 100g black beans+2 eggs+12g milk in coffee
lunch (310kcal)-broccoli soup (210g broc+1c stock, spices pureed)+50g chic breast+brownie fat bomb (150cal)
dinner (215kcal)- 140g salmon (weighed raw without skin)+60g spinach
snacks- 100g FAGE+100g banana+10g flax seed (200cal), 20g almonds+20g cheddar (200cal), 30g air-popped popcorn (115cal)
I track on nutritiondata, so sorry it's not a better format/open MFP log. Usually I have fewer snacks, but it's a light dinner (though one I really like). I eat legumes every day, usually for lunch. Helps tons as a filling fiber source. I struggle the most getting enough fat with a low calorie intake. Fat bombs (flourless sugarless treats baked with nut meal & artificial sweetener) help with that. Also nuts & seeds. You can do it. Take foods you like, work up the macros, and riff off the same basic pattern for variety.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
The biggest problem I see with your calculator is it doesn't take into account lean body mass. I have not tried it vs. this one, https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/ but it might be interesting to see. I am a 195 pound man with about 17% bf and I eat around 1900 a day.
Yes that is true it doesn't. I haven't found a calculator that does, do you know of one?
For example I'm very small framed and a bit undermuscled and so despite being 6' tall I only have 136 pounds of lean mass on me. My 175 pounds is overweight where as another 6' tall man with more muscle and a larger frame they might be at 12% bodyfat at 175. I get that.
My point though, that I still stand by, is that 1200 calories a day or even 1350 calories a day, is likely much less than what is required for weight loss for the majority of people including smaller women. If there is a woman with exceedingly low mass such that their caloric need IS that low for their health honestly they would probably be better off eating more and lifting heavy to try to put on more lean mass rather than dieting to the extreme.
I think most calculators don't use lean mass because most people don't know what it is.
If you are smaller and shorter you don't need to eat as much as someone half a foot taller and therefore what would feel like severe deprivation to you won't be for them. If someone has a physical disability their needs will be even lower. If you're not burning a bunch of calories it's not necessary to eat a bunch of calories to not feel deprived. I don't mean that in an extreme way but it's just science. Small cars go further distances with less fuel and vice versa.
If you look back you will see I asked about weight loss goal settings and exercise.
People do regularly challenge people who could be eating much less than is needed to lose weight. Where this bee in your bonnet has suddenly come from I don't know. Even the person saying they drink coffee to help hunger went on to say they still had 1000 calories left for dinner! That's probably why the community let it slide.
Come on, you have enough posts to know extreme and unnecessarily restrictive approaches are shot down every single time by the majority of users here.6 -
Just curious, to the people who actually do this - how the heck do you do it?
I plan my meals a day before and eat exactly what I have planned.
Are you hungry?
Not really. If I go on maintenance for a period, it takes some of the hungries-readjusting, but that only lasts about a week.
How much preparation do you take for your meals?
Depends on what it is. Breakfasts don't take prep, lunch is usually a smoothie so that's like 15 minutes of prep and a minute in the blender, dinners vary based on work and school load, but no more than 20-40 minutes for both prep and cook.
And what the heck do you eat?
My diary is open to friends
I eat a wide variety of tasty vegan meals. Cereal for breakfast usually, or oatmeal; lunch is usually a smoothie, some high protein quick meal, or a sandwich; dinner is often a veggie burger, Chinese food, salad, Indian food, frozen-bake-and-toss veggie fare with some vegetables.
I don't go above 1300 calories, and never intentionally below 1100, I have stuck with it for about a year consistently, lost over 100 pounds, and have done several periods of maintenance without losing my progress, I am also consistently satisfied with my meals and hunger levels.3 -
Some may underestimate activity but some don't, especially on MFP where many have a lot of weight to lose.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Another short woman here. I'm 5'4" weigh 172. MFP recommends I eat 1260 calories per day.
Okay got to stop you there. MFP doesn't have a brain, it isn't a doctor...it isn't "recommending" anything. It is a calculator. You put in numbers, it spits a number back out. The number it spits out is based on what you put in and nothing else. It refuses to go below 1200, that is the only "thinking" it does.
I could also have MFP "tell me" to eat 1260 a day, but that doesn't make it good.
People tend to way underestimate their activity level and put in sedentary when actually they get at least 5000 steps every day from just walking to and from things and they also tend to put in they want to lose 2 pounds a week even though that is for the extremely obese. If you do that MFP will then "recommend" a diet that isn't particularly sustainable, enjoyable or good for your health. It isn't intelligent, its a calculator.
I have to set the Body Weight Planner to a Physical Activity Level of 1.3 in order to get an accurate weight loss prediction. BWP is quite useful once you pin down your personal accurate data.
It's low but sedentary women need low if they want to lose weight. I'm 5'5 and in my mid-40's and I'd need to eat about 1300 per day to lose 19 pounds over the next 26 weeks.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also there is a difference between saying "my goal is 1350 calories net" per day and "I eat 1350 calories per day"
I think 1350 is a reasonable NET provided you are eating more than that based on your activity. But eating just a strict 1350 a day is pretty darn low.
For me, it's much easier and more sustainable long term not to eat the calories than it is to exercise them off.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
I know -- from months of careful logging and experience -- that my baseline to maintain, at a sedentary level of activity, is 1,460. So if I wanted to lose weight, at a moderate deficit of 250, I would be eating within the range that you define as too low.
Add in activity and many women can lose weight at 1,900 calories a day (given my current level of activity, I would also lose at this level). But not everyone is willing or able to be that active and that's okay -- this site is for them too. There are people for whom 1,200-1,400 is an inappropriate target, but there are some for whom it works. Before deciding something is way too low or too high, I think it's more useful to look at where someone currently is physically and how much they're burning. What you say is too low is actually pretty spot on to what I would need to maintain if my activity level dropped.
By assuming 3-5 hours a week of moderate activity, I feel like you're moving the goalposts a bit. I'm specifically talking about sedentary people and that isn't how you ran the numbers.
I just have to say this is spot on! To pull out all the fluff @arons statements, I am a sedentary 5'4" woman, 48 years old (next friday) and weight 115 now. I am not trying to loose now, however there are many smaller women in the 4'8" to 5'4" range that fit this exact scenario. I am a very unfortunate woman that I freaking maintain 1460 calories.
I just hate it when people say I am short, and I maintain at x calories or loose x calories, when every single "body" in the world is not the same. A women's age and actvity is a huge factor and omg hormones!!8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Another short woman here. I'm 5'4" weigh 172. MFP recommends I eat 1260 calories per day.
Okay got to stop you there. MFP doesn't have a brain, it isn't a doctor...it isn't "recommending" anything. It is a calculator. You put in numbers, it spits a number back out. The number it spits out is based on what you put in and nothing else. It refuses to go below 1200, that is the only "thinking" it does.
I could also have MFP "tell me" to eat 1260 a day, but that doesn't make it good.
People tend to way underestimate their activity level and put in sedentary when actually they get at least 5000 steps every day from just walking to and from things and they also tend to put in they want to lose 2 pounds a week even though that is for the extremely obese. If you do that MFP will then "recommend" a diet that isn't particularly sustainable, enjoyable or good for your health. It isn't intelligent, its a calculator.
ETA: I just tried it. With my current real bodyweight and height and gender stats I told MFP I was sedentary and wanted to lose 2 pounds a week. It told me to eat 1200 calories a day which is INSANE. It isn't intelligent, you have to know what is reasonable to ask.
I would suggest taking a screen shot of that and send it to customer support so they know there is an issue since it shouldn't go below 1500 for men. I know that you know better than to eat that low but it makes me wonder how many men are eating 1200 because that's the goal they were given. It happened before when there was a glitch that was giving women well below 1200 to eat.
3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but BMR is a function of lean mass which is basically a function of your muscle mass. Men do have an advantage in this (but a small advantage not a huge advantage) and size does add to this of course.
My lean mass is about 136 pounds and I weigh 173. I'm 6' tall so my BMR is around 1700. So if you are a 5'6'' woman you probably have a lean mass of around 100 (although it varies). So in theory your BMR is probably around 1400.
So the difference between a man and a woman on average is about 300 calories from BMR. Now if I go for a mile run I probably burn 20% more than that example woman but again, not a ton more...just some more.
It isn't that hard for an average sized woman to lose weight at 1900 calories a day (i lose weight at 2400 a day). So again it baffles me how many are on this site (from the forums) eating 1200 or 1300 a day.
Here is a TDEE calculator, can try it yourself.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
With my stats my TDEE from this calculator is 2800 which is pretty spot on because I lose about a pound a week eating 2300 calories a day. A 5'6'' woman at 155 pounds doing moderate exercise would lose 1 pound a week at 1900 calories a day.
Playing with this, thinking about a slightly overweight woman who wants to lose at a quick 1 pound per week I tried to figure out what size of woman that would be where 1350 would be the target. In otherwords were 1350 would be 500 calories a day under their maintenance.
Assumed 3-5 hours a week of light to moderate activity (because you can go for a walk now and again), 36 years old. Looked for what height and weight that person would have to be for 1350 calories to be their diet.
So 1350 calories for 1 pound a week loss (aggressive diet) is the diet of a 4'4'' tall 110 pound woman.
So yeah, do you really need to be eating 1350 calories a day?
Well, just as an example, and using the Scooby calculator...I am a 40 year old, 5'4", 127 lb female. I have a desk job that keeps me sedentary 6 days a week for up to 14 hours a day. My TDEE is 1576, which is where I stay to maintain, so 1200-1300 to lose was where I needed to be.
My husband is a 6'0", 190 lb male. He has a very physical, active job 6 days a week. His TDEE is 2764. So, it really depends on the person and the lifestyle. You can't paint everyone with such a broad stroke.
Also keep in mind just opting to go for a 30 minute walk everyday would qualify you as being lightly active...most people I feel can fit that into their day. Rather than post on MFP at a computer for example they could post from their phone while walking. That 30min a day of walking would add a good 100 calories to your daily amount, can add 200 of you just make that 30 min in the morning and 30 min after work.
I get people are busy, but if health is the goal then health should recieve at least some priority. 1350 calories a day is not necessary except in the most extreme of cases.
Yes, and I do when I can and eat back my exercise calories. My calorie burns are so sad now, though compared to when I was heavier. And I'd just use that extra 200 calories for wine, so... I'm hardly ever close to a point where I could lose at 1900 though. When I spend the day on my bike, I can eat that much, but that's not as often as I would like. 3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions