Am I "lightly active"? Calories seem high.

pippywhippypipps
pippywhippypipps Posts: 7 Member
edited June 2020 in Getting Started
I've lost 60 pounds so far, just through cutting down portions, lessening junk and moving more. I'm ready to get serious and lose the last 75 pounds (I'm at 205 now). I just want to make sure I've got my settings right so I don't accidentally mess up!

My stats: Female, 31, 205lbs, 5'3". MFP has me set at 1790 calories (losing 1 lb a week)- it seems a little high?

I work as a cashier and I'm on my feet and constantly moving for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I bike to and from work (10 min ride each way) and on my days off I go on 1.5-2 hour bike rides as my workout.

Am I correct in putting myself as "lightly active"? Do these calories seem okay? Thanks.

Replies

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    edited June 2020
    I think that's fine, but of course you won't know for sure until you try it out :smile:

    I started at 145 and pretty much sedentary and I lost at 1500-1600, so since you are a bit heavier and way more active it makes sense.

    Log accurately and consistently using a food scale whenever possible, vet all the database entries you choose, and keep looking for that general downward trend over weeks. And congrats on 60 so far, that's awesome!
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    On feet 8hrs a day constantly moving - I’d argue pittntisllg even active would be appropriate

    Monitor your food/weight for a month and adjust as needed
  • bigblues11
    bigblues11 Posts: 203 Member
    I'm 50, 5'3, 178 pounds (started at 224) and am losing about a pound a week on 1700 Calories.
  • digestibleplastic
    digestibleplastic Posts: 27 Member
    edited June 2020
    I'd say maybe your calories are slightly low actually.

    I'm 37 yrs, 5'4" 170 lbs and I just walk ~2-3 miles a day for exercise and have a very sedentary desk job. I literally don't move a muscle (okay, maybe not *literally* 😂) for 8-10 hours a day. I've been losing weight at 1800 calories a day.
  • jessesbabe
    jessesbabe Posts: 3 Member
    How is everyone getting over 1200 calories a day. I am 5'2" , 72 yrs old, sedentary...gives me 1200 cal. Am I missing something? Even if i up my weight and move to lightly active, I still get 1200 cal.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    jessesbabe wrote: »
    How is everyone getting over 1200 calories a day. I am 5'2" , 72 yrs old, sedentary...gives me 1200 cal. Am I missing something? Even if i up my weight and move to lightly active, I still get 1200 cal.

    If you asked for, "Lose 2 pounds per week," that will be your result most likely - or even at "Lose one pound per week." At 5'2" and given your age, the stats say you don't need a lot of calories to maintain, even at a healthy weight.

    Even at 130 pounds Lightly Active your Maintenance calories are around 1600.

    So, change your goals or change your energy expenditure through more exercise/activity. That's the only way to "earn" more calories.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,204 Member
    jessesbabe wrote: »
    How is everyone getting over 1200 calories a day. I am 5'2" , 72 yrs old, sedentary...gives me 1200 cal. Am I missing something? Even if i up my weight and move to lightly active, I still get 1200 cal.

    What @cmriverside said above in reply to you is more important than what I'm about to say, but I'll add it anyway:

    There are a few people who may need to eat 1200 to lose weight, and who can do so healthfully: They are typically going to be female, small (short and not very overweight), quite inactive, and older.

    None of those factors are a sure sign that 1200 is required. (I'm female, light (128-point-whatever this morning), not super tall (5'5", so medium), sedentary outside of exercise, and 64, and I maintain - improbably, I admit - at around low 2000s before exercise. I'm losing slowly at around 1850.). But a few women will find themselves in that place where 1200 is both necessary and appropriate.

    Cmriverside makes an excellent point, that one ought to be cautious about selecting aggressive weight loss rates (for one's current size).

    Personally, I'd add that unless there are overriding health concerns that make fast loss really vital (and one is getting the close medical supervision to make that happen safely), then being older might be a reason to be even a bit more conservative about picking a weight loss rate. I won't speak for others in saying this, but one of the few differences I notice in myself with age, so far, is that I'm not quite as resilient to stress as I was when I was 20: I don't bounce back from physical stress as quickly, for example. Weight loss is a physical stress.

    Please don't take this as criticism or disbelief of you, personally: It isn't intended as such. I'm adding these things because there are others reading, and there is so much bad information out there saying that pretty much all women commonly or generally need to eat very small numbers of calories in order to lose weight. Some need to do that. Most don't.

    Cmriverside also makes a good point about the value of increased exercise (also a stressor, but health-promoting when well-planned/managed) and of increased daily life activity's role. There's more about the latter in this thread:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1

    Best wishes!
  • vipmo6288
    vipmo6288 Posts: 1 Member
    Very interesting information, I am in the over 50 club and has me at 1200 also. So far with tracking I'm losing slowly and happy for that loss. I'm still amazed how calories add up quickly.

Categories