Reducing calories

leasy1
leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
I apologise if this has been covered before and I am going over old ground but I was wondering as your weight drops should your calories?
For example if I am on say 1400 calories a day and I lose a stone (14lb), it is easier for me personally to use stones and lbs than lbs or kgs, should I reduced my calories to say 1350 and so on or should you remain on your "magic" number?
Many moons ago when I joined mfp I was given my "magic" number but for some unknown reason I entered my own and can not think of what I was originally told.

Replies

  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    I didn't like tweaking my foods to adjust my calorie intake. I found a workable calorie amount that was lower than the maintenance calories for my goal weight and set that as my daily goal. That has worked quite well for me.
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    I didn't like tweaking my foods to adjust my calorie intake. I found a workable calorie amount that was lower than the maintenance calories for my goal weight and set that as my daily goal. That has worked quite well for me.

    Thank you that's a big help.
    Can I ask if you set your own calorie number after playing around with numbers or did you use what they have suggested here?
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,750 Member
    edited July 2017
    Yes, as you get lighter you need fewer calories so you should gradually reduce what you eat.

    Myfitnesspal can calculate this for you. Just make sure all your details are plugged in correctly, then if it doesn't automatically update you goal, change your rate of loss to "maintain my weight" and then back to what it should be. That will force myfitnesspal to update your goal to match your current weight.

    This will work as long as you are recording your weight on myfitnesspal so that it knows how much you have lost.

    ETA @seska422 's method can work too, it's just preference, but make sure you're not eating too little for your current weight doing it that way.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,929 Member
    Yes, like CattOfTheGa...says,

    Go to MY HOME> Goals> View guided setup. You can make changes and/or update your goals.

    Here:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    Yes, as you get lighter you need fewer calories so you should gradually reduce what you eat.

    Myfitnesspal can calculate this for you. Just make sure all your details are plugged in correctly, then if it doesn't automatically update you goal, change your rate of loss to "maintain my weight" and then back to what it should be. That will force myfitnesspal to update your goal to match your current weight.

    This will work as long as you are recording your weight on myfitnesspal so that it knows how much you have lost.

    ETA @seska422 's method can work too, it's just preference, but make sure you're not eating too little for your current weight doing it that way.

    Thank you. I haven't logged religious and I want to start so hopefully that will make all the difference.
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    Yes, like CattOfTheGa...says,

    Go to MY HOME> Goals> View guided setup. You can make changes and/or update your goals.

    Here:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided

    I have just followed that link and hey presto it's all reset, thank you.
    One thing though, maybe this was the reason why I changed it in the first place, it says 1200 calories but I didn't think you should go under that number so I have no wiggle room when I lose.
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,750 Member
    How much do you have to lose, and what is your rate of loss set at? 1lb a week is plenty for most people unless you have a very large amount to lose. If you're quite close to goal, half a lb a week may be better. Losing too fast leads to undereating, which is counterproductive.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    If you maintain your weight, your intake matches your output. That is balance, but not where you want it, if you are overweight. A constant calorie intake, which is lower than what you maintain on, given enough time, will reduce, and then stabilize, your weight.

    To lose weight, you have to consistently eat less than you burn. The less you eat, the faster you lose. But we have the opportunity to eat whatever we want, in whatever amounts, at any time - and we want that, that's what we're designed to do, so to speak, we're just not meant to actually being able to do it - so in order to consistently eat less than you burn, you have to not eat too little. You have to find that balance between eating less and not eating too little. No number is better or more magic. It's just about finding "the sweet spot" - and your "spot" can be large or small.

    To consistently lose at the same rate, you would have to consistently lower your intake. But as you lose weight, your maximum rate of loss will slow down, because there is less fat on your body. Think of it as a funnel that gets narrower and narrower. Being very overweight is unhealthy, but you can lose weight fast; on the other hand, your eating habits would also be quite extreme, and changing habits is difficult. A few vanity pounds is in many ways harder to shed, but they don't pose a threat to your health, and you can take it slow; in fact, you have to take it slow and be very accurate, to lose the "last" pounds. Quotation marks because you decide which pounds are the last.

    Many words to say that you can't force weight loss. Don't undereat.
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    How much do you have to lose, and what is your rate of loss set at? 1lb a week is plenty for most people unless you have a very large amount to lose. If you're quite close to goal, half a lb a week may be better. Losing too fast leads to undereating, which is counterproductive.

    I have between 1-2 stone (14-28lb) it has come up 1lb a week.
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,750 Member
    leasy1 wrote: »
    How much do you have to lose, and what is your rate of loss set at? 1lb a week is plenty for most people unless you have a very large amount to lose. If you're quite close to goal, half a lb a week may be better. Losing too fast leads to undereating, which is counterproductive.

    I have between 1-2 stone (14-28lb) it has come up 1lb a week.

    You might consider reducing it to half a lb a week. I plan to do that when I get to less than 2st to go
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    If you maintain your weight, your intake matches your output. That is balance, but not where you want it, if you are overweight. A constant calorie intake, which is lower than what you maintain on, given enough time, will reduce, and then stabilize, your weight.

    To lose weight, you have to consistently eat less than you burn. The less you eat, the faster you lose. But we have the opportunity to eat whatever we want, in whatever amounts, at any time - and we want that, that's what we're designed to do, so to speak, we're just not meant to actually being able to do it - so in order to consistently eat less than you burn, you have to not eat too little. You have to find that balance between eating less and not eating too little. No number is better or more magic. It's just about finding "the sweet spot" - and your "spot" can be large or small.

    To consistently lose at the same rate, you would have to consistently lower your intake. But as you lose weight, your maximum rate of loss will slow down, because there is less fat on your body. Think of it as a funnel that gets narrower and narrower. Being very overweight is unhealthy, but you can lose weight fast; on the other hand, your eating habits would also be quite extreme, and changing habits is difficult. A few vanity pounds is in many ways harder to shed, but they don't pose a threat to your health, and you can take it slow; in fact, you have to take it slow and be very accurate, to lose the "last" pounds. Quotation marks because you decide which pounds are the last.

    Many words to say that you can't force weight loss. Don't undereat.

    This is what I thought about losing, as you said lowering your intake. I am just confused as mfp is saying 1200 calories, I have no room to go down so does that mean I up my activity and eat my activity calories or s :/ hall I plump for a number and go from there, tweaking along the way?
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    leasy1 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    I didn't like tweaking my foods to adjust my calorie intake. I found a workable calorie amount that was lower than the maintenance calories for my goal weight and set that as my daily goal. That has worked quite well for me.

    Thank you that's a big help.
    Can I ask if you set your own calorie number after playing around with numbers or did you use what they have suggested here?
    I started with the MFP suggestion and experimented with what and how much I was eating as I learned to log and tried to find a rhythm. After a while, I found a comfortable way of eating that had a sustainable calorie level for me so I changed to that.
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    leasy1 wrote: »
    How much do you have to lose, and what is your rate of loss set at? 1lb a week is plenty for most people unless you have a very large amount to lose. If you're quite close to goal, half a lb a week may be better. Losing too fast leads to undereating, which is counterproductive.

    I have between 1-2 stone (14-28lb) it has come up 1lb a week.

    You might consider reducing it to half a lb a week. I plan to do that when I get to less than 2st to go

    Okkie dokkie so I have just done that and it has come up 1490 calories, such a massive difference for 0.5lb but I would rather take it slow and lose 0.5lb a week than struggle to eat that small amount with no wiggle room and give up.
    Thank you for your help very much appreciated :)
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    leasy1 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    I didn't like tweaking my foods to adjust my calorie intake. I found a workable calorie amount that was lower than the maintenance calories for my goal weight and set that as my daily goal. That has worked quite well for me.

    Thank you that's a big help.
    Can I ask if you set your own calorie number after playing around with numbers or did you use what they have suggested here?
    I started with the MFP suggestion and experimented with what and how much I was eating as I learned to log and tried to find a rhythm. After a while, I found a comfortable way of eating that had a sustainable calorie level for me so I changed to that.

    That's what I want, just for it all to become natural, tweak if i have to adjusting to what is or isn't working for me.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    leasy1 wrote: »
    If you maintain your weight, your intake matches your output. That is balance, but not where you want it, if you are overweight. A constant calorie intake, which is lower than what you maintain on, given enough time, will reduce, and then stabilize, your weight.

    To lose weight, you have to consistently eat less than you burn. The less you eat, the faster you lose. But we have the opportunity to eat whatever we want, in whatever amounts, at any time - and we want that, that's what we're designed to do, so to speak, we're just not meant to actually being able to do it - so in order to consistently eat less than you burn, you have to not eat too little. You have to find that balance between eating less and not eating too little. No number is better or more magic. It's just about finding "the sweet spot" - and your "spot" can be large or small.

    To consistently lose at the same rate, you would have to consistently lower your intake. But as you lose weight, your maximum rate of loss will slow down, because there is less fat on your body. Think of it as a funnel that gets narrower and narrower. Being very overweight is unhealthy, but you can lose weight fast; on the other hand, your eating habits would also be quite extreme, and changing habits is difficult. A few vanity pounds is in many ways harder to shed, but they don't pose a threat to your health, and you can take it slow; in fact, you have to take it slow and be very accurate, to lose the "last" pounds. Quotation marks because you decide which pounds are the last.

    Many words to say that you can't force weight loss. Don't undereat.

    This is what I thought about losing, as you said lowering your intake. I am just confused as mfp is saying 1200 calories, I have no room to go down so does that mean I up my activity and eat my activity calories or s :/ hall I plump for a number and go from there, tweaking along the way?
    You can't lower indefinitely and you can't up your exercise indefinitely. The only way you can go, as you come closer to goal, is slower. If you pay attention, you will feel it when you're going too fast. Losing weight is difficult, but it's not supposed to feel like torture. You will have to limit your intake consciously, but if you do it smart, you won't suffer. This is a mind game as well as a math problem.

    1200 calories is a limit that is meant to ensure that you're getting in sufficient nutrition. All normal height and normal/overweight adult females will lose on 1200, but if you're tiny, you will lose slowly.

    All numbers presuppose correct logging of intake. It's so easy to underestimate intake.
  • leasy1
    leasy1 Posts: 172 Member
    leasy1 wrote: »
    If you maintain your weight, your intake matches your output. That is balance, but not where you want it, if you are overweight. A constant calorie intake, which is lower than what you maintain on, given enough time, will reduce, and then stabilize, your weight.

    To lose weight, you have to consistently eat less than you burn. The less you eat, the faster you lose. But we have the opportunity to eat whatever we want, in whatever amounts, at any time - and we want that, that's what we're designed to do, so to speak, we're just not meant to actually being able to do it - so in order to consistently eat less than you burn, you have to not eat too little. You have to find that balance between eating less and not eating too little. No number is better or more magic. It's just about finding "the sweet spot" - and your "spot" can be large or small.

    To consistently lose at the same rate, you would have to consistently lower your intake. But as you lose weight, your maximum rate of loss will slow down, because there is less fat on your body. Think of it as a funnel that gets narrower and narrower. Being very overweight is unhealthy, but you can lose weight fast; on the other hand, your eating habits would also be quite extreme, and changing habits is difficult. A few vanity pounds is in many ways harder to shed, but they don't pose a threat to your health, and you can take it slow; in fact, you have to take it slow and be very accurate, to lose the "last" pounds. Quotation marks because you decide which pounds are the last.

    Many words to say that you can't force weight loss. Don't undereat.

    This is what I thought about losing, as you said lowering your intake. I am just confused as mfp is saying 1200 calories, I have no room to go down so does that mean I up my activity and eat my activity calories or s :/ hall I plump for a number and go from there, tweaking along the way?
    You can't lower indefinitely and you can't up your exercise indefinitely. The only way you can go, as you come closer to goal, is slower. If you pay attention, you will feel it when you're going too fast. Losing weight is difficult, but it's not supposed to feel like torture. You will have to limit your intake consciously, but if you do it smart, you won't suffer. This is a mind game as well as a math problem.

    1200 calories is a limit that is meant to ensure that you're getting in sufficient nutrition. All normal height and normal/overweight adult females will lose on 1200, but if you're tiny, you will lose slowly.

    All numbers presuppose correct logging of intake. It's so easy to underestimate intake.

    Oh I totally agree, I have lost weight fast before ended up feeling very poorly, hair falling out and being very anemic and then putting weight on faster than I lost it so this time I am more about the marathon not the sprint and being healthy while doing good it.
  • ezekielsherrard205735
    ezekielsherrard205735 Posts: 42 Member
    You should be eating more than that. It's not healthy to lose weight that quickly. You'll also lose muscle, and the more muscle you have the easier it is to burn fat.45646474310.jpg:#