Going crazy on 1300 cals/day

Options
Radnt1
Radnt1 Posts: 3 Member
in Food and Nutrition
It's 1 am and I want to eat.
How do I stick to 1300 cals/day? On most days I'm too busy to care and I manage okay on filling and nutritious food limited to 1300 cals. Today, I just want to collapse. Or eat someone's face off. Or both -.-
26 yo woman, 190 lbs ( started at 196 3 weeks ago) 5'6.
I work out every day. Had a 1 hour Cardio strength circuit class today at the gym. Followed by another hour of alternating treadmill, bike, crossfit trainer and elliptical.
So ate 1500 cals today.
I need to eat. If I weren't staying at someone else's house today, I would have. Need to wait till the morning now. Facepalm.
«1

Replies

  • jayemes
    jayemes Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'8". I started at 205 in June and I'm 187 now. In June I did 1200 calories but ate back a good portion of my exercise calories. Now I switched to 1 pound a week loss and I start with 1430. I also eat back a portion of my exercise calories.
    MFP gave you 1300 because of how much you told it you want to lose. So you'll lose on 1300. But the 2 hours of exercising is burning off extra calories that MFP didn't account for (unless you said you're highly active) So you have to eat at least some of them back or you're eating way less than 1300 in reality
  • Old_Cat_Lady
    Old_Cat_Lady Posts: 1,193 Member
    Options
    I'm losing weight without exercising. To quote someone else: Weight loss begins in the kitchen.
  • kwtilbury
    kwtilbury Posts: 1,234 Member
    Options
    Healthy, sustainable weight loss takes patience and diligence. Stick with a caloric deficit that provides for 1 to 2 pounds lost per week (daily deficit of 500-750 calories).
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Healthy, sustainable weight loss takes patience and diligence. Stick with a caloric deficit that provides for 1 to 2 pounds lost per week (daily deficit of 500-750 calories).

    1-2lbs may be too aggressive for the OP - if she is hungry on 1300cal (likely a 500-1000 cal deficit)
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    Options
    This doesn't need to be a painful quick fix. You want something that is going to be sustainable for the rest of your life. You only need a slight deficit to lose weight and exercise can add to the deficit but if you are too low you will feel bad. Ease up a bit and enjoy the ride, this ain't no sprint.
  • AliciaC81
    AliciaC81 Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    Have you tried IIFYM (if it fits your macros) to see what it recommends? Likely because of the amount of working out that you're doing you're eating far too few of calories. I am 233, and 5'6" so a bit bigger than you..but I eat 2046 calories a day regardless of whether I work out that day. It stays the same each day, so when I work out I do not eat back the calories I burn because it's already factored in. I work out 6 days a week (some cardio classes, some lifting, some HIIT) for about 60 minutes each time and am otherwise not too active (desk job 10 hour days). I'm losing about 1lb a week at that level of calories. I am eating about 30% protein, 35% carbs and 35% fat and making sure that those 2046 calories fit into my goals and are giving me the fuel I need to be able to feel good, complete my work outs, not be hungry and still lose weight. If you put your numbers to low you won't be able to keep it up long term..or you may be able to but you won't want to. Eating more helps get your metabolism working and will help in the long term so that you don't end up gaining everything you lose back.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    AliciaC81 wrote: »
    Have you tried IIFYM (if it fits your macros) to see what it recommends? Likely because of the amount of working out that you're doing you're eating far too few of calories. I am 233, and 5'6" so a bit bigger than you..but I eat 2046 calories a day regardless of whether I work out that day. It stays the same each day, so when I work out I do not eat back the calories I burn because it's already factored in. I work out 6 days a week (some cardio classes, some lifting, some HIIT) for about 60 minutes each time and am otherwise not too active (desk job 10 hour days). I'm losing about 1lb a week at that level of calories. I am eating about 30% protein, 35% carbs and 35% fat and making sure that those 2046 calories fit into my goals and are giving me the fuel I need to be able to feel good, complete my work outs, not be hungry and still lose weight. If you put your numbers to low you won't be able to keep it up long term..or you may be able to but you won't want to. Eating more helps get your metabolism working and will help in the long term so that you don't end up gaining everything you lose back.

    IF you use MFP recommendations and eat back purposeful exercise calories on top of the recommended; and compare to a TDEE calculator - they should come out roughly the same - only TDEE accounts for purposeful exercise in your calorie count (works great if you have a standard workout schedule); if you are more hit/miss with your workouts then MFP works better
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    It's been mentioned - but not why.

    MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

    You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
    And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

    Life lesson there:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

    In a diet a tad less in both cases.

    Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    It's been mentioned - but not why.

    MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

    You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
    And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

    Life lesson there:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

    In a diet a tad less in both cases.

    Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

    I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

    I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Options
    Lots of nonstarchy vegetables. If this is salad, be sure to measure the dressing so you don't add all the calories right back in. Strawberries are also particularly low cal.
  • madisonrmartinez
    madisonrmartinez Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    rsclause wrote: »
    This doesn't need to be a painful quick fix. You want something that is going to be sustainable for the rest of your life. You only need a slight deficit to lose weight and exercise can add to the deficit but if you are too low you will feel bad. Ease up a bit and enjoy the ride, this ain't no sprint.
    I absolutely agree! If you want to lose weight and keep it off for good this has to be a gradual change, not an aggressive, miserable one. Otherwise, you're just crash dieting. Change your goal to be a little less intense, and make sure you're eating back at least half of those calories you worked off during workouts! Slow and steady truly does win the race when it comes to weight loss. If you're still hungry try breaking up your eating patterns into less big meals and more snacks; that works wonderfully for me and leaves me never feeling like I'm truly hungry. Good luck and good job!!
  • rmgnow
    rmgnow Posts: 375 Member
    Options
    Gotta up those calories.
    Surely mfp gave you more than 1300 with your height and. Weight.

    A crash course is not the way
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    It's been mentioned - but not why.

    MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

    You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
    And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

    Life lesson there:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

    In a diet a tad less in both cases.

    Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

    I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

    I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't

    Because they think desk job - never mind the 4-5 hrs each night or all weekend long being averaged in.

    Activity tracker folks usually recommend setting to Sedentary - because MFP attempts correction then.

    But I've seen many times failure to recognize why they did that, and just blanket recommend others to without any comment of syncing activity tracker being involved.

    But it's those same folks when they started seeing how they easily were more than Sedentary before being inspired to move more. It would be nice if MFP mentioned that - but then they are referring to steps and with tracker synced, sedentary is best usually.

    And you are correct - MFP's list of job types could be improved - the study that gives the multiplier has more complete description they could easily include in their text somewhere.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    somewhere there is a list that is like
    sedentary - 4k steps
    lightly active - 4k-8k steps
    active - 8-12k
    very active 12+

    or something like that...but then the whole purposeful exercise thing is also missed by a lot of people (I also pay for premium, so MFP doesn't count my exercise calories from my FITBIT or POLAR)
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    It's been mentioned - but not why.

    MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

    You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
    And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

    Life lesson there:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

    In a diet a tad less in both cases.

    Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

    I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

    I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't

    Sedentary works well for a lot of people, which makes it a good default for those who are seeking advice. I've seen a corollary step count and I think it's about 5000 for sedentary, then add about 2500-5000 for each additional level. If you sync with your activity tracker, it doesn't matter where it's set because everything will get adjusted through syncing.

    http://www.fitnessforweightloss.com/rate-your-activity-level-based-on-steps-per-day/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    lorrpb wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    It's been mentioned - but not why.

    MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

    You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
    And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

    Life lesson there:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

    In a diet a tad less in both cases.

    Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

    I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

    I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't

    Sedentary works well for a lot of people, which makes it a good default for those who are seeking advice. I've seen a corollary step count and I think it's about 5000 for sedentary, then add about 2500-5000 for each additional level. If you sync with your activity tracker, it doesn't matter where it's set because everything will get adjusted through syncing.

    http://www.fitnessforweightloss.com/rate-your-activity-level-based-on-steps-per-day/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    why does a sedentary recommendation work well is the person isn't sedentary - that is my point! people seem to recommend it, even when someone says that they walk 8-10k a day (I kid you not)

    a lot of the people who are claim to be starving, are likely using that which is reducing their calories even more than they need to be which can potentially lead to binging because of hunger...

Categories