Numbers of Calories per Day

I have a general question, and am looking for some advice.... MFP has set my Calories per day at 1950. I’m a 62 year old female, 5’10, 205 lbs. I’m lightly active, and I’ve set my goal to lose 1/2 lb per week. Mind you, I have been slacking quite a bit lately, and I’m trying to get back in the game. I think my calories are too high, and am wondering if I should lower them?

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,907 Member
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?
  • amyepdx
    amyepdx Posts: 750 Member
    I would suggest setting your activity to “not very active” and then add in purposeful excercise as you do it (unless you have an active job).
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,724 Member
    It doesn't sound crazy high, to me. (For background, I'm 64, 5'5", started at 183lbs and lost to mid-130s at 59-60).

    Since you say you've been "slacking quite a bit lately", I'm wondering why that encourages you to cut even more calories? (For me, that would be likely to trigger even more slacking. ;) ). If the issue is to create a bigger deficit to allow more variability (or looser logging), I can see the point, as long as you're not having difficulty with satiation or nutrition when you hit your goal now.

    If you're having trouble sticking with your goal, one option you'd have is to look at your average daily calories for a week, and let yourself have some higher and lower days as appetite and other factors (social events, etc.) might best accommodate, as long as you average your goal calories over the course of the week. I assume (hope) that if you're exercising, you're also eating back a reasonable estimate of your exercise calories?

    The half-pound a week goal really requires the long view. (I did it for a quite while when close to goal weight, and am recently shooting for a very slow loss - that half pound or even less - to go a bit lower in my healthy weight range). Careful tracking, as accurate as possible, is part of what I'd consider helpful, as the 250 calorie daily deficit can be wiped out pretty quickly by errors or omissions. If you're not using one, a weight trending app** is also helpful, as daily water-weight fluctuations and variable temporary digestive-system contents will easily mask a half-pound fat loss on the scale for quite a while. The app projects a statistical trend, over time, and makes that gradual down-slope a bit easier to see, once one has a few weeks of daily weights entered.

    ** Libra for Android, Happy Scale for iOS, Trendweight with a (free) Fitbit account (don't need a Fitbit device), and some others.

    Best wishes!
  • Kathryn41057
    Kathryn41057 Posts: 181 Member
    I have been told by different people that as I get older, I don't need as many calories... 1950 calories a day just sounded like a lot... I thought that I would ask others.
  • Kathryn41057
    Kathryn41057 Posts: 181 Member
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk
  • Kathryn41057
    Kathryn41057 Posts: 181 Member
    amyepdx wrote: »
    I would suggest setting your activity to “not very active” and then add in purposeful excercise as you do it (unless you have an active job).



    Would you suggest that I set it too "Sedentary"?
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,329 Member
    I have been told by different people that as I get older, I don't need as many calories... 1950 calories a day just sounded like a lot... I thought that I would ask others.

    Your body is not that small at the moment. If your weight is higher your body needs more calories for walking and any other movement, and to keep all the organs functioning. As you lose weight your body will need less calories.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,907 Member
    edited March 2020
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk

    I asked about your past logging and results because that's the way to determine if 1950 is a good number. You have to run the experiment.
    amyepdx wrote: »
    I would suggest setting your activity to “not very active” and then add in purposeful excercise as you do it (unless you have an active job).



    Would you suggest that I set it too "Sedentary"?

    You're not Sedentary with 13,000 steps as part of your daily work. If you're just using Myfitnesspal then stay at Lightly Active and log purposeful exercise separately. I get about 10K-11K steps and I'm set at the Active level

    Are you using a FitBit? If you use a Fitbit, then yeah - set it at Sedentary and let the Fitbit decide.

    Here's the Fitbit FAQs from the Fitbit group:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-amp-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1

  • Kathryn41057
    Kathryn41057 Posts: 181 Member
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk
    amyepdx wrote: »
    I would suggest setting your activity to “not very active” and then add in purposeful excercise as you do it (unless you have an active job).



    Would you suggest that I set it too "Sedentary"?


    You're not Sedentary with 13,000 steps. If you're just using Myfitnesspal then stay at Lightly Active.

    Are you using a FitBit? If you use a Fitbit, then yeah - set it at Sedentary and let the Fitbit decide.

    Here's the Fitbit FAQs from the Fitbit group:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-amp-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1

    I asked about your past logging and results because that's the way to determine if 1950 is a good number. You have to run the experiment.

    Thanks for the suggestion. I do wear a Fitbit, and I will set myself to Sedentary. My logging has been pretty good, but I know
    I can do better. I’m pretty good, but on the weekends, I get slack. My weight has been fluctuating by 5 lbs or so. I know I can do it. I just have to get my s/*& together
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,724 Member
    edited March 2020
    I have been told by different people that as I get older, I don't need as many calories... 1950 calories a day just sounded like a lot... I thought that I would ask others.

    At a population-statistics level, it's true that on average, as we age, we require fewer calories**. For any specific individual, it may or may not be true. Also, if MFP has given you your calorie goal, it is taking your age into account, and giving you fewer calories than it would give an otherwise similar but younger person.

    ** Expanding on that: Most of that age effect in the population is attributable to reduced activity as we age, and reduced muscle mass as we age. Both of those are factors very much under our personal control. If I go to a TDEE calorie calculator that allows body fat percent as an input, and input my personal stats (but not body fat percent) at age 64 (my actual age), then change the age to 24, there is a difference of a couple of hundred calories daily in BMR (basal metabolic rate, the estimated calories I'd burn motionless, in a coma). If I then add in a body fat percentage estimate (equalizing the muscle mass for the two ages), and repeat the comparison, the calorie difference disappears completely, in the formulas that utilize the body fat percentage as an input. (You can try this yourself at https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. Keep in mind that Sailrabbit is a TDEE calculator - it includes intentional exercise - but MFP is a NEAT calculator - does not include intentional exercise, because it expects you to log that exercise when it happens).
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk

    That would definitely not be "sedentary" or "not very active", if it's a part of your work and not intentional exercise that you'd log separately. That would be at least "lightly active", probably higher.
  • Kathryn41057
    Kathryn41057 Posts: 181 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I have been told by different people that as I get older, I don't need as many calories... 1950 calories a day just sounded like a lot... I thought that I would ask others.

    At a population-statistics level, it's true that on average, as we age, we require fewer calories**. For any specific individual, it may or may not be true. Also, if MFP has given you your calorie goal, it is taking your age into account, and giving you fewer calories than it would give an otherwise similar but younger person.

    ** Expanding on that: Most of that age effect in the population is attributable to reduced activity as we age, and reduced muscle mass as we age. Both of those are factors very much under our personal control. If I go to a TDEE calorie calculator that allows body fat percent as an input, and input my personal stats (but not body fat percent) at age 64 (my actual age), then change the age to 24, there is a difference of a couple of hundred calories daily in BMR (basal metabolic rate, the estimated calories I'd burn motionless, in a coma). If I then add in a body fat percentage estimate (equalizing the muscle mass for the two ages), and repeat the comparison, the calorie difference disappears completely, in the formulas that utilize the body fat percentage as an input. (You can try this yourself at https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. Keep in mind that Sailrabbit is a TDEE calculator - it includes intentional exercise - but MFP is a NEAT calculator - does not include intentional exercise, because it expects you to log that exercise when it happens).
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk

    That would definitely not be "sedentary" or "not very active", if it's a part of your work and not intentional exercise that you'd log separately. That would be at least "lightly active", probably higher.


    I should have checked my comments a bit closer before posting my comment... most days at work I average roughly 13,000 steps. But on the days I’m home, I usually get between 6-7000 steps

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,724 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I have been told by different people that as I get older, I don't need as many calories... 1950 calories a day just sounded like a lot... I thought that I would ask others.

    At a population-statistics level, it's true that on average, as we age, we require fewer calories**. For any specific individual, it may or may not be true. Also, if MFP has given you your calorie goal, it is taking your age into account, and giving you fewer calories than it would give an otherwise similar but younger person.

    ** Expanding on that: Most of that age effect in the population is attributable to reduced activity as we age, and reduced muscle mass as we age. Both of those are factors very much under our personal control. If I go to a TDEE calorie calculator that allows body fat percent as an input, and input my personal stats (but not body fat percent) at age 64 (my actual age), then change the age to 24, there is a difference of a couple of hundred calories daily in BMR (basal metabolic rate, the estimated calories I'd burn motionless, in a coma). If I then add in a body fat percentage estimate (equalizing the muscle mass for the two ages), and repeat the comparison, the calorie difference disappears completely, in the formulas that utilize the body fat percentage as an input. (You can try this yourself at https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. Keep in mind that Sailrabbit is a TDEE calculator - it includes intentional exercise - but MFP is a NEAT calculator - does not include intentional exercise, because it expects you to log that exercise when it happens).
    For a half pound per week it sounds reasonable.

    How long have you been logging food and exercise at that level? What has been your rate of loss?

    I have been logging for awhile now, and as far as exercise goes, I walk mostly at work. I have been averaging 13,000 per day, and now that our weather is starting to change a bit, I'm hoping to get outside and walk

    That would definitely not be "sedentary" or "not very active", if it's a part of your work and not intentional exercise that you'd log separately. That would be at least "lightly active", probably higher.


    I should have checked my comments a bit closer before posting my comment... most days at work I average roughly 13,000 steps. But on the days I’m home, I usually get between 6-7000 steps

    That'd be more like "lightly active", probably, but it would be realistic to average steps over a normal week.

    If you're linking a Fitbit (or similar good-quality tracker device that integrates accurately with MFP), and you have negative adjustments enabled, MFP and the tracker will take care of calorie adjustments up or down as needed based on MFP goal and tracker activity estimates. If you set at sedentary/not very active, and get lots of activity, you'll tend to get bigger upward calorie adjustments. Some people like that, some don't. Also, time of day of the activity can make a difference in when the adjustments show up, which can also work more or less well for different people.

    The tracker devices tend to be pretty close to accurate for many people, so it makes sense to start with a standard MFP goal and tracker sync. It's still important to compare actual loss rate to expected loss rate after a period of a month or two, given calorie compliance, because trackers are still just giving estimates based on population averages, it's just that they're customized to your specific activity level. (My good-quality tracker, a model that's accurate for many people, is several hundred calories low daily, because I'm some kind of statistical weirdo. I'd lose fast rather than maintain - my actual goal now - if I believed it. That experience is rare, but it can happen. ;) ).
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    amyepdx wrote: »
    I would suggest setting your activity to “not very active” and then add in purposeful excercise as you do it (unless you have an active job).



    Would you suggest that I set it too "Sedentary"?

    This is not good advice on light of your subsequent revelation that you're putting 13,000 steps a day, mostly at work. This qualifies as active.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    I think that calorie target seem about right given your stats and that you chose .5 Lbs per week. Keep in mind that .5 Lbs per week can be difficult to see on the scale in the short run as it is easily masked by normal fluctuations. It typically takes me about 6 weeks before I can see, "yeah...looks like I lost a real couple of Lbs" This can be discouraging for some, particularly if they don't trust the process.

    Also, it is a small deficit so there's not much wiggle room for a whole lot of error.