Is 1200 calories too little for me?

nct310379
nct310379 Posts: 10 Member
edited December 20 in Health and Weight Loss
Please could someone help me as I must be doing something wrong. I am 40, female and 5ft high. I have a sedentary job but I use a treadmill 5-6 times a week. My average steps are between 7800 - 10200 a day (because of the treadmill). I wear a garmin vivosmart HR and MFP does the calorie adjustment and I 'earn' 680 average calories a day. I am currently 124lb and would like to be 105lb (a nice size 8 for me as I have a short, petite frame). I entered these stats into MFP to lose 1.5lb a week and it calculated my calorie goal as 1200 - I believe my BMR is around 1290 so, especially with the calories earned, I think I am not eating enough? My weight has remained at 124lb for the last month. I re-adjusted the goals to lose 1lb a week and it set the calories as 1350, is this more beneficial/healthy? Any help appreciated.
«1

Replies

  • nct310379
    nct310379 Posts: 10 Member
    Thank you tinkerbellang83. I have printed out all those posts and will read them later :)
  • Pipsqueak1965
    Pipsqueak1965 Posts: 397 Member
    I'm the same height as you (5 foot), a bit older (54) and weigh around your goal weight I guess (104-105 pounds) - a couple of years ago I weighed a bit more (about 117 pounds think). I also have a desk job, but walk quite a bit and also do 3 weights based workouts a week. My maintenance calories are probably around 16-1700 calories, and to lose the weight, I never went under 1400 calories, so you will be fine on around 1350. You might like to change the stair master to some body weight/weight training - it will improve your shape far more than the stairmaster.
  • nct310379
    nct310379 Posts: 10 Member
    Thank you Pipsqueak1965 I will have to think about the change to weights as I only have a treadmill at home, not keen on going to a gym or anything like that. I do have some dumbbells somewhere... your insight is very helpful, I do think I am not eating enough :o
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    Careful with the calorie adjustment. 680kcal sounds a lot for those steps. If you walk 8000 steps on the treadmill and we assume that a step length is 70cm, then that would be about 5.6km, or 3.5 miles. Generally you could use the equation 0.3 * distance in miles * weight in lbs to get the calories for walking. Thus 0.3 * 3.5 *124 = 130kcal.

    Of course those 680kcal will also include other activities. Just trying to say that it's easy to overestimate calories from workouts.
  • Pipsqueak1965
    Pipsqueak1965 Posts: 397 Member
    Dumbbells and body weight - lots of squats, lunges, pressups, triceps pressups, chest and shoulder press - all easily done at home if you hate the gym. HIIT exercise is pretty good too - loads on Youtube, if you like someone telling you what to do! (I do!). Just be consistent and it will happen - don't get disheartened after a week or so - it has to be a lifestyle change, so make sure you are doing things you can see yourself keeping up into the future .... good luck x
  • WholeFoods4Lyfe
    WholeFoods4Lyfe Posts: 1,518 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    Careful with the calorie adjustment. 680kcal sounds a lot for those steps. If you walk 8000 steps on the treadmill and we assume that a step length is 70cm, then that would be about 5.6km, or 3.5 miles. Generally you could use the equation 0.3 * distance in miles * weight in lbs to get the calories for walking. Thus 0.3 * 3.5 *124 = 130kcal.

    Of course those 680kcal will also include other activities. Just trying to say that it's easy to overestimate calories from workouts.

    I disagree with this. The average person actually burns between 100-120 calories per mile, so if she is in fact walking 3.5 miles, that would be 350-420. Still lower than what the OP is saying, but I think that your calculation is way low. I'd be UPSET if I walked 3.5 miles and only burned 130 calories LOL

    That said, I'm 5'1" but significantly heavier than the OP coming in at 236lbs. My TDEE is 1988. I just looked at my FitBit stats. On the days that I am sedentary (less than 5k steps for the day), my actual calories burned per my fit bit are around 2,300, but on the days that I get 10K steps it's up between 2700-2900.

    All that to say, is what the OP is "earning" is likely from ALL activity of her day, so the 680 calories is likely on top of her TDEE, and is probably accurate.

    Hope that makes sense.
  • Fitnessgirl0913
    Fitnessgirl0913 Posts: 481 Member
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    WholeFoods4Lyfe wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Careful with the calorie adjustment. 680kcal sounds a lot for those steps. If you walk 8000 steps on the treadmill and we assume that a step length is 70cm, then that would be about 5.6km, or 3.5 miles. Generally you could use the equation 0.3 * distance in miles * weight in lbs to get the calories for walking. Thus 0.3 * 3.5 *124 = 130kcal.

    Of course those 680kcal will also include other activities. Just trying to say that it's easy to overestimate calories from workouts.

    I disagree with this. The average person actually burns between 100-120 calories per mile, so if she is in fact walking 3.5 miles, that would be 350-420. Still lower than what the OP is saying, but I think that your calculation is way low. I'd be UPSET if I walked 3.5 miles and only burned 130 calories LOL

    That said, I'm 5'1" but significantly heavier than the OP coming in at 236lbs. My TDEE is 1988. I just looked at my FitBit stats. On the days that I am sedentary (less than 5k steps for the day), my actual calories burned per my fit bit are around 2,300, but on the days that I get 10K steps it's up between 2700-2900.

    All that to say, is what the OP is "earning" is likely from ALL activity of her day, so the 680 calories is likely on top of her TDEE, and is probably accurate.

    Hope that makes sense.

    here's the thing - i'm slightly taller than the OP and weigh about 30lbs more and a 3 mile RUN - at an 10-11min/mile pace and i just broke 300cal - so i agree with Yirara, walking likely hasn't burnt more than about 130-150cal

    Can I ask what may be an ignorant question about walking, forgive me if the answer is obvious. Does speed at which you walk not matter for total calories burned on a walk? For example, say I walk 3 miles at 2.5 miles an hour then the next day walk 3 miles at 4 miles per hour, based on that calculation those walks would burn the same amount of calories, but I would think that walking almost double the pace would burn more calories? Again forgive me if this is a silly question but I am genuinely curious as to why speed does not factor in.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Fitnessgirl0913 wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    WholeFoods4Lyfe wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Careful with the calorie adjustment. 680kcal sounds a lot for those steps. If you walk 8000 steps on the treadmill and we assume that a step length is 70cm, then that would be about 5.6km, or 3.5 miles. Generally you could use the equation 0.3 * distance in miles * weight in lbs to get the calories for walking. Thus 0.3 * 3.5 *124 = 130kcal.

    Of course those 680kcal will also include other activities. Just trying to say that it's easy to overestimate calories from workouts.

    I disagree with this. The average person actually burns between 100-120 calories per mile, so if she is in fact walking 3.5 miles, that would be 350-420. Still lower than what the OP is saying, but I think that your calculation is way low. I'd be UPSET if I walked 3.5 miles and only burned 130 calories LOL

    That said, I'm 5'1" but significantly heavier than the OP coming in at 236lbs. My TDEE is 1988. I just looked at my FitBit stats. On the days that I am sedentary (less than 5k steps for the day), my actual calories burned per my fit bit are around 2,300, but on the days that I get 10K steps it's up between 2700-2900.

    All that to say, is what the OP is "earning" is likely from ALL activity of her day, so the 680 calories is likely on top of her TDEE, and is probably accurate.

    Hope that makes sense.

    here's the thing - i'm slightly taller than the OP and weigh about 30lbs more and a 3 mile RUN - at an 10-11min/mile pace and i just broke 300cal - so i agree with Yirara, walking likely hasn't burnt more than about 130-150cal

    Can I ask what may be an ignorant question about walking, forgive me if the answer is obvious. Does speed at which you walk not matter for total calories burned on a walk? For example, say I walk 3 miles at 2.5 miles an hour then the next day walk 3 miles at 4 miles per hour, based on that calculation those walks would burn the same amount of calories, but I would think that walking almost double the pace would burn more calories? Again forgive me if this is a silly question but I am genuinely curious as to why speed does not factor in.

    the difference is going to be minimal - if you look at the linke that WholeFoods posted above - there are 2 tables - one with like a 17min mile avg (3.5mpg) and then 15min mile age (4mph) and the calorie difference is negligible (like 5 calories over the course of a mile)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    Chelle8070 wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    nct310379 wrote: »
    Thank you Pipsqueak1965 I will have to think about the change to weights as I only have a treadmill at home, not keen on going to a gym or anything like that. I do have some dumbbells somewhere... your insight is very helpful, I do think I am not eating enough :o

    There are things that can mask weight loss such as water weight from starting a new exercise routine, ovulation and/or menstruation, or high sodium days. However, if you haven't lost any weight in a month, the reason would never be that you're not eating enough. Not eating enough calories does not cause someone to maintain their weight or gain weight.

    I disagree with the end of this statement, at least somewhat.

    I tried a 1200 calorie diet and was starving. I lost a little weight but my energy was low so I might be doing the motions of working out but that was it. I increased my calories to 1500, I feel properly fueled, my energy is through the roof and my workouts are much more intense and beneficial.

    So while it's not calories alone, it definitely plays into the bigger picture.

    Right, when one undereats, one might compensate by decreasing activity, either by not putting in as much effort during workouts, as you observed in yourself, and also by decreasing NEAT, for example, by vegging in front of a screen instead of doing something that, while active, is not logged as formal exercise.

    I am debilitated by my TOM and go up and down the stairs much less, if at all, and otherwise decrease my activity to sloth-level for a few days. When I was in the small apartment and had a fitbit, I failed to get more than 1,000 steps per day some months.
  • nct310379
    nct310379 Posts: 10 Member
    If it helps, my calories burned on the treadmill are calculated via a heart strap and through the wahoo app. I walk at 4km per hour for about 50 mins and then on alternate days (3/4 days a week) do the same but include 8 rounds of 30secs run at 12km/hr, walk at 4km/hr 90secs
    Thanks again, this is all helping :)
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    WholeFoods4Lyfe wrote: »
    I stand corrected :)

    https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154

    And this might even be gross calories, thus the calories from the activity + the calories you burn anyway from being alive.
  • dondotwinks
    dondotwinks Posts: 93 Member
    https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154

    This is consistent with my Apple watch. 5ft 1 and 140lbs
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Is there something you are still confused about OP? You've entered your stats and activity level in MFP (sorry which activity level did you choose - sedentary because of your job, right?) and chosen a rate of loss of 1 lb/week - which may actually be a little aggressive given that you only have about 20 lbs to lose, a goal of 0.5 lb/week may be better. That would give you another 250 cals on your baseline target.

    Are you logging accurately using a food scale? With little to lose, accurate logging will be important.
    Then let your garmin and MFP sync up your calorie burns from exercise and daily activity and eat back at least a portion of those.

    I think other respondents in the thread were debating a bit about the estimated calorie burns based on your stats and the feedback from the devices - but at the end of the day, what matters is your actual results. You need to pick a calorie target, and how much of your exercise calories you are going to log and eat back, and then by logging as accurately as possible, in several weeks (ie 6-8) you should have some data that you can rely on to determine if you need to make adjustments.

    Good luck!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    nct310379 wrote: »
    If it helps, my calories burned on the treadmill are calculated via a heart strap and through the wahoo app. I walk at 4km per hour for about 50 mins and then on alternate days (3/4 days a week) do the same but include 8 rounds of 30secs run at 12km/hr, walk at 4km/hr 90secs
    Thanks again, this is all helping :)

    HR-based devices have the potential to be misleading, especially for intervals.

    Here's a very oversimplified explanation of why: When you go faster (intense phase of intervals), your heart rate doesn't instantly increase to whatever its peak will be. It comes up more gradually as your body "notices" how you're challenging it, and tries to deliver more oxygen. On each intense interval, it's likely to respond a little more quickly (because of cumulative challenge, oversimplifying).

    When you drop the speed (easy phase of the interval), it also takes a bit of time to register than and have your heart rate slow down during the easy phase. That may also differ from one interval to the next. Your device is likely to think you worked harder on each successive interval, burning more calories, even if you went exactly the same speed. (Perceived exertion = how you feel; work = what you accomplished, in basically the physics sense of "work"; higher perceived exertion is not necessarily higher calorie burn).

    So, heart rate is lagging the triggering activity, be it fast or slow. The device doesn't know how hard you're working (how many calories you're burning), it only knows how hard your heart is beating (and some other inputs, none of them measurements of calories - they're all just roughly correlated things that your device will use to estimate calories).

    How fast your heart rate increases during the fast parts, and how quickly it recovers during the easy parts, is a function of fitness level. Given two similar-sized people, one very fit and one not, the fit person's heart rate will tend to climb more slowly, recover more quickly, and (at the same speed/resistance/incline/etc. work) average a lower bpm. That will tend to make the device estimate that the less-fit person has burned more calories, and the more-fit one has burned fewer . . . which is pretty inaccurate, if they're the same size and have done the exact same thing. This would be true even for steady-state activity, and a reason why HRMs can estimate calories inaccurately in general, but it's even worse for intervals.

    Some current devices strive to evaluate fitness (via things like resting heart rate, age, or performance on certain easier-to-quantify tasks), but that's another estimate, not a measurement. Further, unless you've had your maximum heart rate tested (via fitness test rather than diagnostic medical stress test), your device is likely estimating your maximum heart rate based on your age. Age is not a very reliable predictor of HRmax, so that's another potential confounding influence on calorie estimates. Also, heart rate tends to be higher when it's hot, when we're dehydrated, and more, none of which has any direct effect on calorie burn via exercise.

    If you have a way to estimate calories via calculations that involve measuring the actual work (like the distance- and bodyweight-based estimating formulas for walk/run on level ground, or machines that can measure watts for an exercise of relatively invariant efficiency), that could be more accurate.

    I think it's fine to use your HRM/tracker estimates as an approximation for calories, but useful to understand that they're estimates, not measurements, as background.
  • Chelle8070
    Chelle8070 Posts: 165 Member
    edited May 2019
    //Exercise isnt necessary for weight loss though. So, feeling fatigued and not working out as a result of not eating enough wouldn't mean that you stop losing weight.

    If someone is eating so little that they are too fatigued to exercise then I guarantee they will continue to lose even if they completely stop. They wouldn't even come close to maintaining.//

    Right, but OP mentioned working out 5-6 days per week so exercise is something to consider for this person.

    And I understand my goals are slightly different. I don't have weight-loss goals per say. I have muscle building and body fat reduction goals more than just strictly scale fluctuation.
  • gogetemrogue
    gogetemrogue Posts: 80 Member
    OP has received some good advice, but I wanted to advise OP to try to schedule her weigh ins for the morning after a sedentary rest day. I find that even light exercise can cause me to retain weight, even without any DOMS to speak of. I almost always see my "new low" the day after I was completely sedentary.
  • Teabythesea_
    Teabythesea_ Posts: 559 Member
    Chelle8070 wrote: »

    Right, but OP mentioned working out 5-6 days per week so exercise is something to consider for this person.

    And I understand my goals are slightly different. I don't have weight-loss goals per say. I have muscle building and body fat reduction goals more than just strictly scale fluctuation.

    OP walks 5-6 days a week, and even if they didn't, their deficit is still built into MFP's calorie goal... The only situation in which stopping exercise would cause weight maintenance is in a situation where the individual is eating at maintenance or slightly above and does not eat back exercise calories. In this situation a calorie deficit is being created entirely through exercise. However, eating at maintenance or slightly above is far from too little, bringing me back to my first point... under no circumstances will eating too little cause weight maintenance or gain, even if such a diet is accompanied by a complete lack of exercise.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories