Is 1200 too much for me (a short person!)

2»

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,735 Member
    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.
  • NicbPNW
    NicbPNW Posts: 47 Member
    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??
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,868 Member
    NicbPNW 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.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 10,485 Member
    edited January 2020
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    NicbPNW 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.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 24,401 Member
    NicbPNW 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!
  • ceastabrook
    ceastabrook Posts: 13 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NicbPNW 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!