Is 1200 too much for me (a short person!)
ceastabrook
Posts: 13 Member
I'm right at the 1200 calorie limit and my scale reckons I need 1348 to maintain my current weight. If I want to lose 0.5kg per week officially I ah be looking at a total of 800ish, which sounds hard (easier with exercise but still not much fun at all). It explains why I'm not losing weight at a rate of 0.5kg per week I think! Anyone else short who has managed to lose weight at 1200? Did you need to cut it down or ignore exercise calories? Or should I just be patient and accept it will take me longer? I lost a significant amount of weight before and it took 18 months and I remember someone asking why it took me so long (rude!) and I'm sure this was why. I have less to lose this time thank goodness!
4
Replies
-
I should have said I'm 154cm haha3
-
Have you put your stats into mfp? 1200 is the lowest mfp will go and it’s set for a very sedentary short woman4
-
As a fellow short (152cm) woman I feel your pain! When you do the maths it does seem impossible at the numbers everything spits out at you.
You’ve not said how much you need to lose but I’d strongly suggest you reset your numbers and aim for half a pound a week rather than the half kg. It is slow but it’s much better to get there slowly than not at all by trying something that’s not sustainable.
I realise that the 1200 hard stop on MFP still means your calorie deficit seems tiny, but if you start out and maybe only eat half any exercise calories to see if that’s bearable, hunger wise, that should give you the extra little bit of deficit that will help.
It’s all a bit hit and miss to start with to see what’s going to be doable for you and result in the weight going in the right direction. As you found in the past, it is slow anyway, so don’t suffer more than you have to along the way!8 -
No, 1200 is not too much.
Not knowing anything but your height it is hard to say if 1200 is an apropriate goal, or too low.
1380 to maintain at your height indicates that you may be older, within the normal BMI range, or quite sedentary.
Sharing a bit more info would help us give you better guidance.
Cheers, h.
5 -
Your scale says your TDEE is 1348, or your scale says your BMR is 1348? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter . . . .8
-
Your scale says your TDEE is 1348, or your scale says your BMR is 1348? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter . . . .
I suspect that is actually NEAT at sedentary. I just put my stats into MFP and it came back with a NEAT of 1210. Granted I am 5 cm shorter than OP and already at maintenance but it wouldn't be far fetched if the OP got a NEAT calorie allowance of 1348 to maintain her current weight.
OP when you are short you really have to be patient and should not expect a loss of greater than 1/4 kg a week. I normally only ate back around 2/3's of my exercise calories though so that I could have a deficit of 250 calories most days. If I were hungry, however, I'd eat a higher percentage of them back. Eating more than 1200 calories was also a great motivation to get out there and get moving. This was the only way I could fit some treats into my diet and still meet basic nutritional requirements.8 -
Thanks all. It's NEAT at sedentary. I'm 34 (you tell me if that's older) and am aiming to get back into my BMI. Unfortunately I am 11kg off that currently. I exercise quite a bit - I'm a long distance swimmer and train for events each year so have to swim quite a bit and I also train in the gym a couple of times a week. I cycle to work and walk around 10k steps a day too. I'm not aiming for mid BMI or anything as I've never been able to maintain that. It sounds like I just should be patient. I did it before with around 20kg, I can do it again.8
-
You’re not old, and it sounds like you have everything right. Patience is key.4
-
ceastabrook wrote: »Thanks all. It's NEAT at sedentary. I'm 34 (you tell me if that's older) and am aiming to get back into my BMI. Unfortunately I am 11kg off that currently. I exercise quite a bit - I'm a long distance swimmer and train for events each year so have to swim quite a bit and I also train in the gym a couple of times a week. I cycle to work and walk around 10k steps a day too. I'm not aiming for mid BMI or anything as I've never been able to maintain that. It sounds like I just should be patient. I did it before with around 20kg, I can do it again.
That's interesting; if I assume you weigh around 70kg and are aiming for about 59kg (top of normal BMI), a multi-formula TDEE calculator (Sailrabbit) would give you 1300s-1400s for BMR, and around 1600-1700s for TDEE at sedentary. I think MFP uses a little lower multiplier for sedentary, but I'm surprised it would be low enough to give you a NEAT of 1348. (I think MFP uses Mifflin-St Jeor for BMR , which Sailrabbit says gives a BMR estimate of 1332 for the data noted above.)
It sounds like you're not very sedentary in daily life (which should be the basis for your MFP activity level setting), and that you do quite a lot of intentional exercise on top of that. I think it would be a good idea to eat back a reasonable estimate of your exercise calories at first, so that you fuel that activity and don't create unnecessary health risks. If all these exercise activities are something you've been doing for a while, there's a decent chance your body composition (body fat percent) is fitter than the average for your age. If so, your calorie requirements would likely be higher than the statistical average, too.
(BTW, 34 is not "older" - I'm 63
It's all relative!).
In you OP, you say "It explains why I'm not losing weight at a rate of 0.5kg per week I think!" Does that mean you've been working at weight loss for a while (at least a few weeks) already? If so, how long, and how much have you lost? You should be able to take your average weekly loss rate, multiply the average weekly loss in kg by 7700 (rough number of calories in a kg of stored body fat), divide by 7 (days in a week), and add that to your current calorie intake to get a rough current estimate of your actual maintenance calories at your current weight.
If you don't have 4-6 weeks of experience, then I'd suggest picking a conservative strategy and sticking to it for that kind of time period, then do the math and adjust if necessary.8 -
ceastabrook wrote: »Thanks all. It's NEAT at sedentary. I'm 34 (you tell me if that's older) and am aiming to get back into my BMI. Unfortunately I am 11kg off that currently. I exercise quite a bit - I'm a long distance swimmer and train for events each year so have to swim quite a bit and I also train in the gym a couple of times a week. I cycle to work and walk around 10k steps a day too. I'm not aiming for mid BMI or anything as I've never been able to maintain that. It sounds like I just should be patient. I did it before with around 20kg, I can do it again.
If you walk 10k steps a day, you are not sedentary. You are likely "active". So that would cause your maintenance calories to be much higher.11 -
ceastabrook wrote: »I'm right at the 1200 calorie limit and my scale reckons I need 1348 to maintain my current weight. If I want to lose 0.5kg per week officially I ah be looking at a total of 800ish, which sounds hard (easier with exercise but still not much fun at all). It explains why I'm not losing weight at a rate of 0.5kg per week I think! Anyone else short who has managed to lose weight at 1200? Did you need to cut it down or ignore exercise calories? Or should I just be patient and accept it will take me longer? I lost a significant amount of weight before and it took 18 months and I remember someone asking why it took me so long (rude!) and I'm sure this was why. I have less to lose this time thank goodness!
OP, for what it's worth, and if it helps you in any way, I'm the same height as you are (although older) and MFP also gave me a 1200 daily calorie goal. My activity is set to sedentary, and I usually eat back about 25 to 50% of my exercise calories. I've been doing this for nine months and already lost 18kgs. So, yes, patience and consistency are very important.
By the way, even if it took you 18 months to lose 20kgs previously, that's nothing to be ashamed of, it is an awesome accomplishment! It takes as long as it's needed. And it's much better than losing 0kgs in the same 18 months, don't you think?
Good luck, you can do this!
8 -
greyhoundwalker wrote: ». [quote if you don't have 4-6 weeks of experience, then I'd suggest picking a conservative strategy and sticking to it for that kind of time period, then do the math and adjust if necessary.
Agree with above, have you just started on your current weight loss? I know we are all different but I’m twenty years older and 7cm shorter than you, fairly active in daily life but sounds like you do a lot more exercise, and Im still losing weight on 1500 cals per day after 7 months. Very slowly now Im at BMI 27 but Im okay with that. [/quote]
I've been going for about five weeks now and actually, I have lost 2.5kg overall. But previously I've struggled to maintain this especially as the BMI comes down and I was looking into the maths on it especially given my height. Seems I have a lot more to learn and I'm really grateful for all these comments.
Practically speaking I don't think I can completely ignore exercise calories and stick with 1200 per day. Yesterday I was feeling hungry anyway (no clear reason as to why just one of those days), was in the office so sitting more but still walked 12000+ steps. I then did a half hour interval session in the pool and a 45 minute synchronised swimming class. I was really hungry after that and ended up eating a total of 1500ish calories yesterday. Given that amount of activity I think that's ok.
Last time I tracked calories like this I lost 5kg and got quite disheartened around the 64kg mark and somehow fell off the wagon so I want to avoid that. I found the first time that the last 3kg were really, really hard to lose. This is why I'm not aiming for a BMI of 22.5. I did get down to that before but it was due to being unwell and it was temporary. I have quite a bit of muscle and tend to put on muscle easily so I imagine that's keeping me at the top end.
And yes 20kg in 18 months is an achievement and I am proud of that. Plus that was well over a decade ago and I have not put it all back on, yes I have made some bad choices in the past year or so but it's been a stressful time. I realise now that has been the root of the issue. Which is information in itself that will hopefully help me going forward.3 -
You should be eating your 1200 calories plus your exercise calories. If you've told MFP that you're sedentary (assumes about 3000-3500 steps a day) but are then walking 10-12,000 steps a day, swimming and doing other classes that's quite a lot of exercise that you should be logging and then eating back. I'd have expected your half hour interval session in the pool and 45 minute synchronised swimming class plus about 9,000 steps over Sedentary, to have earned you far more than 300 extra calories. Your synchronised swimming on its own probably earned you that.
I'm a little taller than you at 5'2" (which I think is about 157cm) and also allocated 1200 calories. I eat pretty much all of my exercise calories and I've lost 12kg over the last year - but my weight loss has really slowed down in the last couple of months as my deficit is presumably quite small now. I used to weigh myself weekly but wasn't seeing any movement; now I weigh monthly and, every so often, get a nice surprise when the scales actually register another kg lost. At this point, I know it's going to be slow going.
Once, I played around with the settings in MFP and it didn't make any difference what I selected as my weight loss rate - I still got 1200, because MFP won't go lower.
Accurate logging of food & drink and careful tracking of exercise helps a lot when you don't have much deficit to spare. As someone on here once said, the winner is the person who can eat the most and still lose / maintain weight.5 -
ceastabrook wrote: »
<preceding quotes snipped by AnnPT77 because I can't figure out how to fix the broken attributions and quote tags>
I've been going for about five weeks now and actually, I have lost 2.5kg overall. But previously I've struggled to maintain this especially as the BMI comes down and I was looking into the maths on it especially given my height. Seems I have a lot more to learn and I'm really grateful for all these comments.
Practically speaking I don't think I can completely ignore exercise calories and stick with 1200 per day. Yesterday I was feeling hungry anyway (no clear reason as to why just one of those days), was in the office so sitting more but still walked 12000+ steps. I then did a half hour interval session in the pool and a 45 minute synchronised swimming class. I was really hungry after that and ended up eating a total of 1500ish calories yesterday. Given that amount of activity I think that's ok.
Last time I tracked calories like this I lost 5kg and got quite disheartened around the 64kg mark and somehow fell off the wagon so I want to avoid that. I found the first time that the last 3kg were really, really hard to lose. This is why I'm not aiming for a BMI of 22.5. I did get down to that before but it was due to being unwell and it was temporary. I have quite a bit of muscle and tend to put on muscle easily so I imagine that's keeping me at the top end.
And yes 20kg in 18 months is an achievement and I am proud of that. Plus that was well over a decade ago and I have not put it all back on, yes I have made some bad choices in the past year or so but it's been a stressful time. I realise now that has been the root of the issue. Which is information in itself that will hopefully help me going forward.
You've lost 2.5kg (5.5lbs) in 5 weeks, about half a kg (1.1pound) per week. The implication is that you have eaten about 550 calories (daily) below your current maintenance calories during that time period.
As far as I can see, you haven't yet told us how much you weigh, so I'm going to stick with a guess around 70kg (154lbs) based on logic I shared previously. You've been losing at about the fastest rate most of us would suggest for someone of that size, and slower might well be a more risk-averse choice for a very active person like yourself.
Yes, that would be a slower loss. What you have now is quite a fast loss. I definitely would not suggest you try to lose any faster than you are currently. Cutting to 800 calories would be a bad plan.
If what you've been doing so far is actually eating 1200 calories (every day pretty much without exception), then the implication is that you'd maintain your weight on 1750 calories daily, and lose on anything less than 1750 (faster if further below 1750, slower if closer to but still below 1750). If you've had any/many days in the last 5 weeks at that 1500 calories you mentioned, or some days at even more (celebrations or "cheat days" or whatever), then your current maintenance calories would be corresponding larger once those higher days were figured into your average daily intake. Similarly, any lower days would need to be averaged in, if you wanted to be more accurate.6 -
Happy new year just wanted to revive this as I've now had a few more months of data. I use a Garmin fenix which monitors my heart rate constantly and I also use this to track workouts. By Christmas I had lost 10kg (of fat, muscle mass has remained the same and, in fact, I'm now building muscle!) so am on track to lose 4 more kg by Feb and be within a healthy BMI range again. As it turns out it has been quite accurate as I've had weeks of staying within my range and the weight has averaged out perfectly. So if you are questioning or second guessing be patient and trust the system. If you are losing fat it is working!6
-
I am 5’2/145lbs and am losing weight eating 1400 calories a day. I have my calorie limit set at 1495 and have been eating less than that. I work out (10 minutes cardio plus weight lifting) but don’t add those calories. Hope that helps!2
-
ceastabrook wrote: »Happy new year just wanted to revive this as I've now had a few more months of data. I use a Garmin fenix which monitors my heart rate constantly and I also use this to track workouts. By Christmas I had lost 10kg (of fat, muscle mass has remained the same and, in fact, I'm now building muscle!) so am on track to lose 4 more kg by Feb and be within a healthy BMI range again. As it turns out it has been quite accurate as I've had weeks of staying within my range and the weight has averaged out perfectly. So if you are questioning or second guessing be patient and trust the system. If you are losing fat it is working!
How are you determining that your loss was purely fat and your muscle mass has increased?7 -
ceastabrook wrote: »Happy new year just wanted to revive this as I've now had a few more months of data. I use a Garmin fenix which monitors my heart rate constantly and I also use this to track workouts. By Christmas I had lost 10kg (of fat, muscle mass has remained the same and, in fact, I'm now building muscle!) so am on track to lose 4 more kg by Feb and be within a healthy BMI range again. As it turns out it has been quite accurate as I've had weeks of staying within my range and the weight has averaged out perfectly. So if you are questioning or second guessing be patient and trust the system. If you are losing fat it is working!
How are you determining that your loss was purely fat and your muscle mass has increased?
I have scales which weigh lean muscle and fat as well as total mass. Only the fat has gone down!1 -
ceastabrook wrote: »ceastabrook wrote: »Happy new year just wanted to revive this as I've now had a few more months of data. I use a Garmin fenix which monitors my heart rate constantly and I also use this to track workouts. By Christmas I had lost 10kg (of fat, muscle mass has remained the same and, in fact, I'm now building muscle!) so am on track to lose 4 more kg by Feb and be within a healthy BMI range again. As it turns out it has been quite accurate as I've had weeks of staying within my range and the weight has averaged out perfectly. So if you are questioning or second guessing be patient and trust the system. If you are losing fat it is working!
How are you determining that your loss was purely fat and your muscle mass has increased?
I have scales which weigh lean muscle and fat as well as total mass. Only the fat has gone down!
Home body fat scales are not very accurate.4 -
ceastabrook wrote: »ceastabrook wrote: »Happy new year just wanted to revive this as I've now had a few more months of data. I use a Garmin fenix which monitors my heart rate constantly and I also use this to track workouts. By Christmas I had lost 10kg (of fat, muscle mass has remained the same and, in fact, I'm now building muscle!) so am on track to lose 4 more kg by Feb and be within a healthy BMI range again. As it turns out it has been quite accurate as I've had weeks of staying within my range and the weight has averaged out perfectly. So if you are questioning or second guessing be patient and trust the system. If you are losing fat it is working!
How are you determining that your loss was purely fat and your muscle mass has increased?
I have scales which weigh lean muscle and fat as well as total mass. Only the fat has gone down!
Home body fat scales are not very accurate.
Sure. I also use one with hand and feet sensors at the gym. The one at the gym seems to think I have lost more fat than the ones at home.
However, I think it's worth tracking it on the same set of scales, as even if it's not totally accurate, if the numbers are moving in the right direction, it's showing progress.
Thanks for weighing in! (Sorry for that dad joke!)
1 -
ceastabrook wrote: »
Sure. I also use one with hand and feet sensors at the gym. The one at the gym seems to think I have lost more fat than the ones at home.
Those aren't very accurate either. Anything that just utilizes sensors can be used as a "guideline" at best. Just a change in hydration can throw those things off.
People are asking because it's hard.....I mean like really....really hard (especially when close to to lose fat and gain muscle. It takes an on point diet and on point tracking (minimal deficit at best) and on point progressive resistance training.
Please don't take this as a put-down. Just don't trust those scales for muscle gain/loss.
if the numbers are moving in the right direction, it's showing progress.
That's what matters.5 -
ceastabrook wrote: »Thanks all. It's NEAT at sedentary. I'm 34 (you tell me if that's older) and am aiming to get back into my BMI. Unfortunately I am 11kg off that currently. I exercise quite a bit - I'm a long distance swimmer and train for events each year so have to swim quite a bit and I also train in the gym a couple of times a week. I cycle to work and walk around 10k steps a day too. I'm not aiming for mid BMI or anything as I've never been able to maintain that. It sounds like I just should be patient. I did it before with around 20kg, I can do it again.
If you're doing all of that, 1200 is likely not enough. You aren't sedentary. If you're doing all of that consistently I would just use a TDEE calculator. I would assume the the 1348 NEAT calories are with a sedentary activity level setting...your actual maintenance TDEE would be quite a bit higher with your actual level of activity.3 -
ceastabrook wrote: »
Sure. I also use one with hand and feet sensors at the gym. The one at the gym seems to think I have lost more fat than the ones at home.
Those aren't very accurate either. Anything that just utilizes sensors can be used as a "guideline" at best. Just a change in hydration can throw those things off.
People are asking because it's hard.....I mean like really....really hard (especially when close to to lose fat and gain muscle. It takes an on point diet and on point tracking (minimal deficit at best) and on point progressive resistance training.
Please don't take this as a put-down. Just don't trust those scales for muscle gain/loss.
if the numbers are moving in the right direction, it's showing progress.
That's what matters.
Of course it’s going to be an estimate and/or a guideline rather than an absolutely precise measurement. I think what matters more than the numbers are the trends. I have a Fitbit scale with body fat measuring - I don’t give a *kitten* about the number, I care about which direction my graph for that data points to.5 -
Hannahwalksfar wrote: »Have you put your stats into mfp? 1200 is the lowest mfp will go and it’s set for a very sedentary short woman
I'm 5'9" and looking to lose around 20lbs and MFP put me at 1,200 a day. I put down that I was "sedentary" but that's because I have a desk job and sit a lot. I workout like 5 days a week though so maybe I did that wrong??0 -
Hannahwalksfar wrote: »Have you put your stats into mfp? 1200 is the lowest mfp will go and it’s set for a very sedentary short woman
I'm 5'9" and looking to lose around 20lbs and MFP put me at 1,200 a day. I put down that I was "sedentary" but that's because I have a desk job and sit a lot. I workout like 5 days a week though so maybe I did that wrong??
It put you at 1200 because you chose a 2 pound a week loss which is quite rapid. Change that to 1 1/2 or even 1 pound a week. This is a more sustainable (= greater chance of success) and healthier way to do it. Slower loss results in less muscle loss.4 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Hannahwalksfar wrote: »Have you put your stats into mfp? 1200 is the lowest mfp will go and it’s set for a very sedentary short woman
I'm 5'9" and looking to lose around 20lbs and MFP put me at 1,200 a day. I put down that I was "sedentary" but that's because I have a desk job and sit a lot. I workout like 5 days a week though so maybe I did that wrong??
It put you at 1200 because you chose a 2 pound a week loss which is quite rapid. Change that to 1 1/2 or even 1 pound a week. This is a more sustainable (= greater chance of success) and healthier way to do it. Slower loss results in less muscle loss.
Plus actual exercise calories are supposed to be eaten back in addition to the base daily goal as part of the total goal calories.1 -
Hannahwalksfar wrote: »Have you put your stats into mfp? 1200 is the lowest mfp will go and it’s set for a very sedentary short woman
I'm 5'9" and looking to lose around 20lbs and MFP put me at 1,200 a day. I put down that I was "sedentary" but that's because I have a desk job and sit a lot. I workout like 5 days a week though so maybe I did that wrong??
If you chose 2 pounds a week loss rate with only 20 total pounds to lose, I'd suggest that that's taking more of a health risk than is really ideal. One pound a week would be about the maximum sensible for most people with 20 total pounds to lose, and at 10 pounds to go, it'd probably be better to dial it back to half a pound a week.
I know we all want to lose all the weight really quickly, but that's a very questionable plan. There's only so much body fat a body can burn in a day, and the less fat we have, the lower the amount that is. Going further can potentially create health risks (fatigue, weakness, hair thinning, gall bladder issues and worse). It also is much more difficult to stick with. Losing slowly for 20 weeks or so, and getting to goal, is more effective than losing 4 pounds, giving in to temptation due to over-restriction, regaining, relosing, etc., etc.
You may be sedentary (typically < 5000 steps a day), but 2 pounds a week is probably not an ideal target. I'm 4' shorter, older**, and sedentary (outside of exercise), and 1200 was too low for me when I had that much or more to lose.
You should be eating back a reasonable estimate of your exercise calories on top of whatever your base goal is.
** Yes, you didn't give your age. I'm 64. Seemed like a good bet I'm older, but I could be wrong.
Best wishes!1 -
Hannahwalksfar wrote: »
I know we all want to lose all the weight really quickly, but that's a very questionable plan. There's only so much body fat a body can burn in a day, and the less fat we have, the lower the amount that is. Going further can potentially create health risks (fatigue, weakness, hair thinning, gall bladder issues and worse). It also is much more difficult to stick with. Losing slowly for 20 weeks or so, and getting to goal, is more effective than losing 4 pounds, giving in to temptation due to over-restriction, regaining, relosing, etc., etc.
Best wishes!
This is such a good point. When I lost 20+kg a decade ago, I didn't track too well, I basically tried to get fit by working out at the gym and eat as little as I could get away with,eat a bit more protein etc. I did do a bit of calorie tracking but I really had no idea about nutrition and probably didn't eat a very varied or healthy diet. I did lose the weight, it took 18 months as I said, and I found the last 5kg really really hard. I am sure this is why. And in my attempts to get that last 5kg off I started losing hair, and as it was so thick before it took ages to notice. I'd rather not go there again! Now again trying to lose the last 5kg and I think I will take my loss down to 1/2kg per week and do it more slowly. Thanks!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions