Short, old(ish), sedentary, 1200kcals and 15-20,000 steps a day

Options
2

Replies

  • JaydedMiss
    JaydedMiss Posts: 4,286 Member
    Options
    id personally eat some of the calories back. I try to eat a few hundred extra atleast every few days. It can lead to binging for me i feel fine fine fine then suddenly just dont and get WAY to hungry suddenly. Upping my calories to 1400-1500 every few days atleast helps me. But for the most part i save my calories for weekends. And if you can continue it long term go for it but dont try to lie to yourself to lose weight faster, Listen to your body.
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,572 Member
    Options
    At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    Thank you to all who responded so knowledgeably. This insight from people who have been there and 'walked the walk' is exactly what I was hoping for.

    I think I'm going to eat back some of the cals earned (maybe 100 or so to start with) and continue to monitor the scale for this first month of extra exercise. If it moves downwards faster than 1-1.5lbs a week, I'll up the cals further until it's no more than about 4-5lbs a month loss. Does that sound reasonable? I don't think I'm losing much more than that now, but these longer walking stints are relatively new, so that might change this month.

    I'm concerned about losing too much muscle mass, which, as you point out, will be hard to get back (especially as I have no desire to lift weights etc). Is there a maximum weight loss per month/week to aim for to minimise this?

    Also, what is the result of losing muscle mass? The heart is a muscle, can it affect that?

    Thanks again.

    ETA: I don't know what my goal weight is at the moment. I'm just aiming for where I feel comfortable in whatever I chose to wear and feel that I look healthy and as good as possible. I know it won't be low, and will probably always be heavier than someone else my height as I seem to hide weight well (always look lighter than I weigh, same as my son/mother). Probably around the 150lb area or maybe a little less (just under 168lbs today, down from 233lbs end of last March).


  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    I'll also look to increase my protein intake. It's already pretty good, but I'll make a concerted effort to eat higher protein foods to help discourage muscle mass wastage. I'm on medication (for at least the next 10 years) which removes estrogen from my body, so I do need to take extra care over this.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665330/
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,867 Member
    Options
    0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.

    2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.

    0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.

    The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.

    WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.

    2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.

    0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.

    The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.

    WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.

    Thank you. I've been reading a lot this morning, after reading these posts and see that some form of resistance training is pretty much necessary, despite not being keen.

    Do you know of anything that's relatively easy to do at home (resistance bands?) that might make a difference. I don't want to join a gym. I know myself well enough to know I'll do it at home, but won't keep up a gym membership.

    Hopefully, this, added to increased protein and calories on the days I walk lots will make a difference.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.

    I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.

    OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.

    I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.

    OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.

    I do take your word for it, I take it very seriously.

    As I've written above, I'm going to start looking at some sort of strength/resistance exercise (I'm inherently lazy and prefer to do this at home, so not sure what would be best), I'm going to increase my calories/monitor the scale and also going to up my protein intake with those extra calories.

    If you or someone could recommend what would be the best resistance training to get into at home without having to buy expensive equipment, I'd be most grateful.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    tar2323 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.

    2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.

    0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.

    The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.

    WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.

    Thank you. I've been reading a lot this morning, after reading these posts and see that some form of resistance training is pretty much necessary, despite not being keen.

    Do you know of anything that's relatively easy to do at home (resistance bands?) that might make a difference. I don't want to join a gym. I know myself well enough to know I'll do it at home, but won't keep up a gym membership.

    Hopefully, this, added to increased protein and calories on the days I walk lots will make a difference.

    you can buy a set of light weights from target (or similar) and use at home - lots of free videos on youtube (I use fitnessblender a lot); ditto with resistance bands - google online workouts
  • ajoseph5
    ajoseph5 Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    If this is working for you and you are not getting sick or anything like that, I say continue doing what works for you. One thing I have learned is what works for one may not be the case for someone else. So, it seems that you found what works best for you. Best of luck!
  • butcher206
    butcher206 Posts: 61 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    1200 calories is very very low... you're probably burning more than that just with the exercise alone. You have to be very careful you're getting enough micronutrients and protein otherwise you're going to start suffering the effects of anorexia. Hairloss, brittle nails, weakening teeth, all kinds of terrifying things. And these effects aren't just a quick "uh oh I better turn it around" type thing... they take about 2 months after the fact to start showing up, and take another couple of months to correct, if not even longer. I'd try to eat at least 1500 and make sure you're getting enough protein and vital nutrients. I strongly suggest working with a doctor and monitoring your blood and make sure your liver and kidneys aren't getting stressed as well.
  • butcher206
    butcher206 Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    Yoga!
  • oldyogi66
    oldyogi66 Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    Check out body weight exercises. There are several on line but I like Darebee. Also plenty of free on line yoga too.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    I've doubled my daily protein goals (120g), upped fat goals and will increase my calories. I'll also purchase some resistance bands (if you think that's a good way to go). I think I'd prefer these over dumbbells but would rather do whichever yields the best results.

    I need to have a strong word with myself about increasing calories. My head wants to plow on and lose weight as quickly as I can, although I now know that at my age, that is a dangerous route to take. I think I'll increase cals by 100 to start with, with the intention of increasing further if I'm losing more than 1lb a week. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).

    Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.

    The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!

    As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).

    Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.

    The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!

    As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.

    Thank you! Glad to have an endorsement of my plan. Re the protein, the things I particularly like happen to be high in protein anyway (quark, chicken, turkey, pork etc), so it won't be hard to increase these. I won't stress it though, as you suggest. Heading to Amazon for some fitness bands now :)
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    tar2323 wrote: »
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.

    I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.

    OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.

    I do take your word for it, I take it very seriously.

    As I've written above, I'm going to start looking at some sort of strength/resistance exercise (I'm inherently lazy and prefer to do this at home, so not sure what would be best), I'm going to increase my calories/monitor the scale and also going to up my protein intake with those extra calories.

    If you or someone could recommend what would be the best resistance training to get into at home without having to buy expensive equipment, I'd be most grateful.

    2 lbs/week at 5'1", 170 lb is too aggressive.. MFP would have given you the minimum 1200 cal since 2 lb/wk for a 170 lb female set at sedentary would have put you below the safe minimum. @ that number of calories, make sure you have either upped your activity level from sedentary and re-calculated calories or are logging at least the treadmill, walks to the stores as exercise (and eat them back) - walking/running are pretty well-characterized activities (by mile) so I would trust the burn estimates to be fairly accurate and eat them all back.

    Starting out, I would buy a few dumbells (not too expensive) and youtube/check exercise apps for some exercises.
  • KickassAmazon76
    KickassAmazon76 Posts: 4,637 Member
    Options
    solieco1 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    I don't have a problem not eating them back - I don't feel the need. I log every mouthful, and am successfully losing weight at a rate I'm happy with. I just need to know if because of the kcals I must be burning through walking whilst sticking to my 1200kcals, if I'm endangering myself in any way.

    Nope - you are doing great. Just keep doing what you're doing if its working well. At that calorie rate you should be getting plenty of the nutrients you need :)

    I disagree wholeheartedly. If she's logging that kind of step count consistently, then she's likely netting well under 1200 cals. That is NOT good for her body over the long term. She should be netting 1200 at a minimum - which means eating back some of those exercise cals.

    OP, I know at a shorter height, your total cals are reduced, but I do not think you should allow yourself to dip below 1200 NET.