1200 calorie a per day help!

Options
jesmustloseweight
jesmustloseweight Posts: 2 Member
edited February 2017 in Health and Weight Loss
I had a few rough days this past weekend while I was visiting my in-laws.. So much food! But prior to that I had been logging in daily and staying under my goal of 1200 cal net per day. (I'm back on track now as well) I did this with or without working out. However, I was only losing on average about .6-1.5 pounds every week, but according to the math I should be losing 2 pounds per week. Now I know that's nothing to get too hung up over but I'm just not sure if I'm doing something wrong.

It seems on days that I eat higher carbs, I am predicted to loose less than 10 lbs in 5 weeks. Or another thing that confuses me is the way I burn calories. Is burning 200 calories walking on a tredmil just as effective as jogging 200 calories on a treadmil or eliptical? I don't know if thats silly or not to ask?!

Am I at a plateau? I started Jan 1st and I've lost 15 pounds since. My starting weight was 190, I'm now just under 175. I am 5'8". My goal is to get to a toned 160. Is my calorie intake too low, am I working out too little, should I weight lift more, should I eat less carbs...? Any comments appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

Replies

  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    successgal1 wrote: »
    Two common comments around here: the mfp prediction is useless, and, weight loss is not linear. Also, working out can make your muscles retain water, skewing the scale. And, OK make it 4 common comments, 1200 is the minimum mfp will give you for healthy weight loss, your 2 lb goal is probably too aggressive.

    Just to expand on that a little, if a person chooses a 2 lb/week goal, and the deficit required to achieve that would take them under 1200 calories, MFP will still give them 1200 calories.

    That being said, you *have* lost an average of 2 lbs/week over the last 2 months. That's nice for you, but with only 30 lbs to lose, it really was too aggressive. People can't typically achieve the same rate of loss as they approach their goal. Now that you are only 15 lbs away, you should really be shifting to a goal of .5, and certainly no more than 1 lb/week, and focus on your lifting. Hope it goes well.
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    Options
    Yep, ignore the prediction. (Which has nothing to do with your carb intake and is purely based on calories, as far as I can tell - and only if "every day was like today"... i.e. the exact same number of calories.)

    A plateau is, I think, at least 6 weeks with no movement on the scale at all. You're doing fabulously! Look at the overall loss and not just week to week. And like the others have said, aiming for 2lbs per week is too aggressive for the amount you want to lose. Readjust your expectations, take it slowly, and the weight will still come off.

    Also, 200 calories burned is 200 calories burned. Why would it make a difference to your weight loss whether you walked or ran in order to burn them? (Not intending to be snarky, just curious why you might think that.) The only thing the type of exercise makes a difference to, in my opinion at least (and I'm prepared to be educated if necessary!), is if you were training for a specific event in which you needed to walk, run, or any other form of locomotion you might want to practice. :)

    Eat as much as you can to still lose weight. You don't get a medal for eating as little as possible! :) I'm shorter than you at 5'6", but currently 162lbs and still losing eating >1400 per day.
  • jesmustloseweight
    jesmustloseweight Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the feedback! I think a better question for me to ask about the 200 calories walking vs 200 calories running would be how does fat burning/ heart rate affect loosing weight. For example, running would raise my heart rate more than walking, and even though I would have burned the same amount of calories on paper, would running show more fat loss results because of a higher heart rate while burning those 200 calories.
  • preshalin
    preshalin Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    jesmustloseweight wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback! I think a better question for me to ask about the 200 calories walking vs 200 calories running would be how does fat burning/ heart rate affect loosing weight. For example, running would raise my heart rate more than walking, and even though I would have burned the same amount of calories on paper, would running show more fat loss results because of a higher heart rate while burning those 200 calories.

    You burn more calories running than you do if you walk for the same amount of time.

    If you walk 20 minutes. lets say you burn 100 amount of calories.
    If you run 20 minutes. You would burn 150 amount of calories.

    These are just rough numbers with absolutely no accuracy at all. I just randomly picked numbers.

  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 385 Member
    Options
    jesmustloseweight wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback! I think a better question for me to ask about the 200 calories walking vs 200 calories running would be how does fat burning/ heart rate affect loosing weight. For example, running would raise my heart rate more than walking, and even though I would have burned the same amount of calories on paper, would running show more fat loss results because of a higher heart rate while burning those 200 calories.

    Ok so this is going to get a little technical so tell me if it confusing.

    If you run for 20 minutes vs. walk for 20 minutes, you will burn more calories overall running.

    However, you will burn more fat calories while walking during the exercise. The reason for this is because fat metabolism requires oxygen. If you are out of breath, you are burning carbohydrates, not fat. However, when you slow down to catch your breath, your body will switch back to fat metabolism.

    Bottom line: working at a higher intensity will burn more calories overall.
  • phill_143
    phill_143 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    As I understand it, you burn a slightly higher _percentage_ of calories from fat at lower intensity vs higher intensity (e.g. 50% vs 35% of calories burned might come from stored fat), but the overall calorie burn for higher intensity exercise is greater.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    jesmustloseweight wrote: »
    Thanks for the feedback! I think a better question for me to ask about the 200 calories walking vs 200 calories running would be how does fat burning/ heart rate affect loosing weight. For example, running would raise my heart rate more than walking, and even though I would have burned the same amount of calories on paper, would running show more fat loss results because of a higher heart rate while burning those 200 calories.

    It really doesn't mater. If you burn 200 cals doing either, it really doesn't matter whether it is from blood sugar, glycogen, fat or whatever. Your body will replace it the next time you eat. What matters is that 200 calories is gone and needs to be replaced, instead of storing 200 excess.

    Drop your weight loss rate to .5 lb, eat what fits, make sure to get adequate protein (maybe shoot for 100g). If you want to get more toned, my understanding is you will need to lift weights.
  • jessiebethin
    jessiebethin Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    You mentioned that "Is burning 200 calories walking on a tredmil just as effective as jogging 200 calories on a treadmil or eliptical? I don't know if thats silly or not to ask?!" . How you burn your calories does matter, especially as you approach your goal and weight loss becomes harder. Weight lifting, high intensity, and interval training workouts prompt your body to release human growth hormone (HGH). People that are younger naturally have higher HGH levels, but as you age your body produces less. Getting adequate sleep and working out at a high intensity level increase your HGH levels, which helps your body reduce/redistribute adipose tissue (ie. less fat stored around waist).
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    Options
    I found this older thread that seems to address your question.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10278139/fat-burning-zone

    What I took away from it was, what your body draws on for calories during exercise simply doesn't matter as much as the overall calorie burn, which is a product of intensity & duration. 30 minutes of walking doesn't burn the same number of calories as 30 minutes of running, but if you can walk 3X as long as you can run, that would be the way to go.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    ditto's to above.

    And don't make your workouts about burning calories - make it about doing something that transforms the body.

    If you are a little tiny lady with a very small daily calorie burn - then ya, burning extra just to eat close to "normal" levels might be very desired - so more cardio is done, and the type that burns the most in time available.

    But most of us are limited for time, so if you can jog for 20 min or walk for 20 min - and the jogging won't make you injured, or ruin a lifting workout, then jog.

    Then again legs could be sore from prior day good lifting workout, and jogging could interfere with recovery, in which case walking could be better choice.

    But not for the calorie burn - but to have good workouts.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    jesmustloseweight wrote: »
    I had a few rough days this past weekend while I was visiting my in-laws.. So much food! But prior to that I had been logging in daily and staying under my goal of 1200 cal net per day. (I'm back on track now as well) I did this with or without working out. However, I was only losing on average about .6-1.5 pounds every week, but according to the math I should be losing 2 pounds per week. Now I know that's nothing to get too hung up over but I'm just not sure if I'm doing something wrong.

    It seems on days that I eat higher carbs, I am predicted to loose less than 10 lbs in 5 weeks. Or another thing that confuses me is the way I burn calories. Is burning 200 calories walking on a tredmil just as effective as jogging 200 calories on a treadmil or eliptical? I don't know if thats silly or not to ask?!

    Am I at a plateau? I started Jan 1st and I've lost 15 pounds since. My starting weight was 190, I'm now just under 175. I am 5'8". My goal is to get to a toned 160. Is my calorie intake too low, am I working out too little, should I weight lift more, should I eat less carbs...? Any comments appreciated.
    Thanks in advance!

    Well, burning the 200 calories by running is a lot faster (as in ~20 minutes versus ~50 minutes)(and will up your endurance).
  • cbelc2
    cbelc2 Posts: 762 Member
    Options
    You didn't say your gender or age, but it sounds like you are doing well! I 'm also 68 inches, late 50s, female. I started the year at 200 even. Then I went on a cruise. Right now I'm at 190. For the past 2 weeks I've lost 1.6 lb per week. I'm eating Mediterranean mostly but sans alcohol or much bread, about 1200 calories per day. I walk about 13000 steps per day and do zumba or the gym circuit three times a week. My weight loss also feels slow, but I think I'm on track. Hoping for a toned 160 by my birthday in July!

Categories