Is 1,700 calories too much?

Depends on your activity level. One of my best friends is a runner (I personally loathe cardio). He gets up every morning and runs anywhere from 5-10 miles depending on the weather, and cruises a 6 minute mile. He also eats 4000 calories a day, because he burns them all off!

So yeah, if you're active then 1700 is just fine.

Be careful with the eating less... most women need about 1,200 just to fuel the body's basic functions (heart, digestion, growing hair and nails etc) so it's best not to eat below this once you've taken exercise calories into consideration.

Do try and keep eating minus exercise at least at 1,200 to avoid storing up potentially invisible problems for the future!

I doubt it's too little. MFP generates these goals based on your details, and your target loss rate. MFP plugs that information (height, weight, sex) into some calculations developed through scientific study of people and their calorie needs. There are outliers in either direction, but until you have evidence to the contrary, assume you're not.

Remember that the bigger a person's body is, the more calories they need each day to stay the same weight. That applies to weight, not just height. That four stone you want to lose increases your calorific needs in two ways: first- it needs fuel itself, and secondly, participating in daily activity burns more calories the more of you there is to move. It's like strapping a heavy backpack to your back and walking for a mile, versus a light leisurely stroll over the same distance without it.

1700 is my maintenance for sedantary activity level, I'm 5ft 3 and I weigh 150lbs (10st 10lbs). If you weigh more than that then eating 1700 should definitely put you in a deficit, even if you aren't very active.

Mezzie1024 wrote: »

Sounds about right to me. Give it two to four weeks and then adjust as needed.

I agree with this. Try it out for a couple of weeks, and if you're not seeing the results you want, then you can look into lowering your calories/raising your activity level.

I'd maybe consider changing your activity level to sedentary though. I always think that the activity level correlates with how you spend the majority of your day, so if you work in an office sitting down for most of the day, you're spending most of your day sedentary. You can add the calories you burn from exercise manually.

xLucha_Dorax wrote: »

I mean that I would eat over 1200 but not go as so far as 1700. I just feel that I won't loose weight. Isn't that a bit high? Sorry I'm just unsure

It really depends on activity and stats. A few weeks ago I was eating 1800-2200 calories and lost weight because I was more active than usual .

If you are unsure of your activity level, just follow these recommendations and watch how your weight behaves for a few weeks, and adjust your calories up or down accordingly.

Hi guys, I started this program 14 days ago, at 172.2 lbs (67 in). I am 70.5 yrs old, and wanted to get back to about 158 lbs. The program assessed my caloric need at 1700 and set 1500 as the limit to reach my goal with about at 1.1 lb loss per week (average). I am averaging around 1000 - 1400 over the period, and after 14 days I am at 165 lbs. I also balance food with intense walking (4 - 5 miles per day at 4.0 mph) and am losing well. If you keep hydrated (important!) and focused, you can exceed the amount, but you have to "read" your body. If you feel excessively weak or strained, then you have gone too far. How you feel, balanced with your losses, is probably the best way to go...A lot of folks seem to be at the 1700 range as a maintenance caloric intake.

TavistockToad wrote: »

xLucha_Dorax wrote: »

I set it to light I work in an office but try to work out 5 days a week. Looking to lose 4 stone

i would set it to sedentary and then eat back your exercise cals.

This.

The activity level on mfp doesn't include exercise.

Yeah, as others have said, just give it a go and see how it works. I've been losing weight starting at 2400 kcal (I weighed 14.8 stone at the time, assuming Google converted correct) and have been gradually reducing about 100 calories a month. It's not an enormously high rate of loss, maybe 2-3 lbs a month because I'm not especially active, but it's been insanely doable and low stress. My target weight is 9.6 stone, which MFP estimates would have me eating about 1700 kcal to maintain. The real key here is logging accuracy. With your stats and activity level you almost certainly can lose weight for some time eating 1700 kcal, but you have to make as sure as possible that's what you're actually eating. Way too many people end up logging inaccurately and overshooting their goals, then blaming their failure to lose weight to not enough exercise/too much bread/sugar/having too high a goal. The problem is almost always their logging.

jrotando wrote: »

Hi guys, I started this program 14 days ago, at 172.2 lbs (67 in). I am 70.5 yrs old, and wanted to get back to about 158 lbs. The program assessed my caloric need at 1700 and set 1500 as the limit to reach my goal with about at 1.1 lb loss per week (average). I am averaging around 1000 - 1400 over the period, and after 14 days I am at 165 lbs. I also balance food with intense walking (4 - 5 miles per day at 4.0 mph) and am losing well. If you keep hydrated (important!) and focused, you can exceed the amount, but you have to "read" your body. If you feel excessively weak or strained, then you have gone too far. How you feel, balanced with your losses, is probably the best way to go...A lot of folks seem to be at the 1700 range as a maintenance caloric intake.

Just because you feel okay doesn't mean its advisable. Excessive deficits increase the chances of muscle loss. No one wants to lose more lean mass than they have to when dieting. Its a hard and slow process for females to regain muscle mass.

not sure who said it, but its true - the winner is the person who can eat the most and still lose weight

deannalfisher wrote: »

not sure who said it, but its true - the winner is the person who can eat the most and still lose weight

A wise rabbit used to say that.