minimum calorie intake

AnnPT77 wrote: »

mooreks81 wrote: »

Hi everyone, I didn't know that lighter/smaller people needed the same nutrients as everyone else. That does make it harder to lose weight healthily. I should also probably be taking a vitamin, so I appreciate this tip.

It sounds like I might need to add more cardio (ugh--how to find the time!) and I'll also just expect some slower weight loss. To answer your other questions, I'm 37 yrs old and 5'7".

I know that winning this kind of challenge is unrealistic and I wouldn't consider it a possibility at all except that they have the challenge set up by team. As it turns out, I'm the only one who signed up for the team slot that I'm in, and there aren't that many teams. I guess I'm banking on the idea that each team might have a couple of slackers bringing down the average, so I'd have a shot at the "team" win. There is obviously no chance of winning the individual challenge because even though it's done by percentage in an effort to not disadvantage small people, I only have about 10% of my weight to lose, not 30% like other people probably do. And as a woman it's going to be so much harder to build up muscle mass. It will help me do well in this thing if I know I have a shot of winning, though, and I think that the prize might include some discount / membership to the gym, which would further my health.

Lighter/smaller people don't need the same nutrients as bigger people (current weight is less relevant than a healthy goal weight, BTW). The point is that almost no one is likely to get adequate nutrition on less than 1200 calories (1500 if male), not even smaller people.

(Some sub 5-foot women might be able to get enough nutrition below 1200, but that's something to figure out in conjunction with a doctor and registered dietitican. Smaller older women are actually potentially kind of screwed, because we statistically have lower TDEEs, but need just as many nutrients, in some cases more, than younger women of similar size who have bigger estimated TDEEs - it's just harder to fit them in the lower calorie goal. I'm old, but happily have a larger TDEE than most my age.)

If you're hitting your macro/micro targets as MFP defaults set them, that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting adequate nutrition. How much you need of certain very important nutrients is determined by your lean body mass or (with an arithmetic adjustment) your healthy goal weight. MFP sets your nutrient goals as a percentage of your calories. If you make your calorie goal too aggressive for your current size (i.e., you eat too little), that can put you in a position where you're hitting the right percent of your calories in each nutrient category, but you're not getting enough of that nutrient (as an absolute amount) for your body size. Don't let the math confuse you!

This is a good thread on nutrient targets:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

I'm willing to believe you should be on the lighter side for your height, depending on body type (I'm similar), and 26% body fat (depending on how measured) would seem to suggest you have a small amount of fat you could reasonably lose. But the trouble is that losing a pound a week is probably too aggressive for the weight you currently are, and for the small amount you have yet to lose. That you can do it, or that you can do it without feeling hungry, isn't a sure sign that you're not taking health risks.

I'm glad you're figuring out that you don't take your deficit off your BMR, but rather off your TDEE, at least. Eight-hundred-some net calories would be taking major health risks, an especially contrary thing to do in a workplace health challenge!

BTW, vitamins can be a bit of insurance, but they're not a substitute for adequate nutrition. Many recent research results are showing supplemental vitamins not being as effective as the same nutrients from food, and in some cases, the supplement forms have been found to be potentially dangerous (e.g., Vitamin A).