So calories

tryingtobehealthy37
tryingtobehealthy37 Posts: 17 Member
in Getting Started
I’m new to all this calorie counting and have gone on 1,200 calories does this seem right?
I feel like I’ll have no where to go when my weight loss hits a plateau

Replies

  • Lildarlinz
    Lildarlinz Posts: 276 Member
    What is your height and weight?
    And how much do you want to lose per week?

    I’ve set mine to 1lb a week loss and I can have 1450.I find that suitable for me so I can keep up with it.:) slow loss is good as it’s maintainable :)

    Good luck with your weight loss journey xx
  • tryingtobehealthy37
    tryingtobehealthy37 Posts: 17 Member
    I’m female 5ft 3 I weigh 14st 3lbs. I work in a sen school. And run around after my 2 children. Not started my exercise yet.
  • tryingtobehealthy37
    tryingtobehealthy37 Posts: 17 Member
    Sorry I’d like to loose 1-2lb a week.
    Thankyou for your help guys.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    edited July 2020
    2 pounds a week is only appropriate when you have 75+ pounds to lose. If you dialed your weekly weight loss goal back, you would get more calories. You can always over-ride the calories to something else, say 1400. See how that goes.

    Also keep in mind that with My Fitness Pal your calorie goal is before exercise and based on your weekly weight loss goals. Log a workout and you will earn additional calories. If you put in sedentary for your activity level, but your activity level is actually higher, then you've got more wiggle room.

    At 5'3" your calories aren't going to be really high, but you are not elderly (not chasing grandchildren). I would think you could go higher.
  • Lildarlinz
    Lildarlinz Posts: 276 Member
    I agree with the above comment
    I work as a healthcare assistant so I put my lifestyle as lightly active
    I’m 5ft 6 and weight 10.11 I only want to get to 10 stone so 11lbs off
    I put to lose 0.5-1lb per week :) and it’s given me 1490 calories per day
    The slower you lose it the more you are likely to stick to it :smile:
    It really has shown me health wise the choices of foods I used to have, to now eating more healthier
    I used to eat a lot of junk foods.I can still have a little bit of junk but in moderation :) I’ve swapped it for good stuff like veggies or fruit xx
    I would put yours to lightly active or even active if you are running around after little ones :) and you will get more of a calorie allowance and still lose weight xx
  • lucidchroma
    lucidchroma Posts: 57 Member
    I am not OP but I have seen somewhere that its better to start from your goal body weight*12 (probably Jordan Syatt's video)

    I am not sure how accurate it is. I hope someone here has some insight.
  • tryingtobehealthy37
    tryingtobehealthy37 Posts: 17 Member
    Thanks everyone that’s really give me some insight.
    I actually did put sedentary as my activity level. But when I’ve seen my steps wracking up at work I’ve noticed that maybe isn’t the case.
    I’m wanting to loose about 56lbs to begin with
  • lucidchroma
    lucidchroma Posts: 57 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    lucidchroma wrote: »
    I am not OP but I have seen somewhere that its better to start from your goal body weight*12 (probably Jordan Syatt's video)

    I am not sure how accurate it is. I hope someone here has some insight.
    @lucidchroma
    Sorry but that requires a huge amount of luck for it to be even an adequate choice and has a chance of being totally hopeless.
    It takes zero account of someone's activity or exercise. Or age, or gender etc. etc.

    There's no benefit to take such a random guess when much better methods are easily available at the touch of a keyboard.

    Example
    I'm currently 170lbs. 170 x 12 = 2,040 cals but I'm actually maintaining over 3,500cals.

    I totally get it. I am the same. 109 * 12 = 1308, but maintaining on over 2300+
  • Xiaolongbao
    Xiaolongbao Posts: 854 Member
    I'm guessing you're quite a bit younger than me (I'm 46) but I'm exactly the same height and started this round at almost exactly the same weight you are. I usually get around 12000-15000 steps a day (well I did until the last few days when an injury has seen me stuck on the couch). 1200 calories per day + additional for any extra exercise (on top of the steps) has seen me losing an average of just under a pound a week.
    tryingtobehealthy37 wrote: »
    Thanks everyone that’s really give me some insight.
    I actually did put sedentary as my activity level. But when I’ve seen my steps wracking up at work I’ve noticed that maybe isn’t the case.
    I’m wanting to loose about 56lbs to begin with

    How many steps are you racking up? Like I said I need to have quite a large number to see my weight drop (but I'm also in peri-menopause so I can't get away with much).
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,168 Member
    tryingtobehealthy37 wrote: »
    Thanks everyone that’s really give me some insight.
    I actually did put sedentary as my activity level. But when I’ve seen my steps wracking up at work I’ve noticed that maybe isn’t the case.
    I’m wanting to loose about 56lbs to begin with

    Then finding a loss rate and method that's as easy and sustainable as possible would be a good strategy, IMO, because realistically even fast weight loss will take literally months. Sometimes a moderate weight loss rate gets a person to goal faster, when the alternative is an aggressive loss rate it's hard to stick with.
    tryingtobehealthy37 wrote: »
    I’m new to all this calorie counting and have gone on 1,200 calories does this seem right?
    I feel like I’ll have no where to go when my weight loss hits a plateau

    You may never have a plateau. I didn't, from 13st 1lb to to around 9st 4lbs now.

    And even if you do experience a plateau, you needn't necessarily reduce calorie intake to break through it. On top of that, 1200 is estimated to be less than weight-maintenance calorie level until a 5'3" 30-year-old sedentary woman drops somewhere below 75 pounds . . . which would be ridiculous, right, given that your goal weight is well above that? (You didn't mention your age. It'd be around 100 pounds, at age 60, and you're not that old, I'm betting.)

    No need to borrow improbable troubles from the future, to worry about now.

    Best wishes!
  • msapplek
    msapplek Posts: 95 Member
    lucidchroma wrote: »
    I am not OP but I have seen somewhere that its better to start from your goal body weight*12 (probably Jordan Syatt's video)

    I am not sure how accurate it is. I hope someone here has some insight.

    I've also recently come across Jordan Syatt's formula, and to clarify for others, he is suggesting you multiply your GOAL weight x 12, and that is the amount of calories for weight loss (NOT for maintenance). The number that I get from that formula is in the same range for weight loss that I got from 3 other calorie calculators (ex: Calorie Calculator, USDA), so I think Jordan Syatt's simple formula is on the right track.

    I'm having difficulty, though, because MFP gives me only 1270, which is the lowest out of all of them (I set up for 1lb/week weight loss and indicated sedentary lifestyle, although I do about one hour of intentional, vigorous exercise 6days/week). All the other calculators give me a range of 1700-1800 calories for weight loss. And although you can eat back your exercise calories per guidelines from MFP (though opinions seem to vary in the forums), it still seems less than what the other calculators are saying. To be honest, more info has led to more anxiety that I'm going to screw it up.





  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    msapplek wrote: »
    lucidchroma wrote: »
    I am not OP but I have seen somewhere that its better to start from your goal body weight*12 (probably Jordan Syatt's video)

    I am not sure how accurate it is. I hope someone here has some insight.

    I've also recently come across Jordan Syatt's formula, and to clarify for others, he is suggesting you multiply your GOAL weight x 12, and that is the amount of calories for weight loss (NOT for maintenance). The number that I get from that formula is in the same range for weight loss that I got from 3 other calorie calculators (ex: Calorie Calculator, USDA), so I think Jordan Syatt's simple formula is on the right track.

    I'm having difficulty, though, because MFP gives me only 1270, which is the lowest out of all of them (I set up for 1lb/week weight loss and indicated sedentary lifestyle, although I do about one hour of intentional, vigorous exercise 6days/week). All the other calculators give me a range of 1700-1800 calories for weight loss. And although you can eat back your exercise calories per guidelines from MFP (though opinions seem to vary in the forums), it still seems less than what the other calculators are saying. To be honest, more info has led to more anxiety that I'm going to screw it up.





    Are the other calculators designed for you to eat back your exercise calories?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,168 Member
    edited July 2020
    msapplek wrote: »
    lucidchroma wrote: »
    I am not OP but I have seen somewhere that its better to start from your goal body weight*12 (probably Jordan Syatt's video)

    I am not sure how accurate it is. I hope someone here has some insight.

    I've also recently come across Jordan Syatt's formula, and to clarify for others, he is suggesting you multiply your GOAL weight x 12, and that is the amount of calories for weight loss (NOT for maintenance). The number that I get from that formula is in the same range for weight loss that I got from 3 other calorie calculators (ex: Calorie Calculator, USDA), so I think Jordan Syatt's simple formula is on the right track.

    I'm having difficulty, though, because MFP gives me only 1270, which is the lowest out of all of them (I set up for 1lb/week weight loss and indicated sedentary lifestyle, although I do about one hour of intentional, vigorous exercise 6days/week). All the other calculators give me a range of 1700-1800 calories for weight loss. And although you can eat back your exercise calories per guidelines from MFP (though opinions seem to vary in the forums), it still seems less than what the other calculators are saying. To be honest, more info has led to more anxiety that I'm going to screw it up.

    I'd lose too fast at my goal weight times 12, even at my goal weight, since it's around 600 under maintenance calories (even before exercise!).

    Really, an "X times goal weight" method isn't going to work universally, for everyone from a 20-year-old bricklayer's apprentice carrying hods of bricks all day and training for triathlons at night, to a 63-year-old librarian who staffs the answer line at the reference desk all day and knits in the evening. (I exaggerate in the examples, but the principle applies.)

    If you set MFP based on your daily life activity level - which it sounds like you did as an hour of intense exercise near-daily would be beyond sedentary - then yes, you should add your exercise to the 1270. Anyone who says otherwise, as generic advice, either doesn't understand how MFP is designed to work, or thinks it's a good plan for everyone to lose "as fast as possible" by creating an extra-large sized white-knuckle deficit, which is not a universally great plan.

    Assuming your intense exercise burns - what - 300 or 400 calories, maybe more? - 1270+300=1570, which is 130 under the low end of your low TDEE estimate of 1700. The implication that the difference in weight loss rate between MFP's estimate+exercise and the TDEE estimate is around a quarter of a pound a week. I don't think you need to worry about that difference majorly screwing up any standard amount of weight loss.

    Regardless of method, you should be sticking with the plan for 4-6 weeks at the start, then re-evaluating intake against actual loss rate, and adjusting intake as needed. (If female and premenopausal, comparing weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles.)

    I'd also point out that some of the TDEE calories calculate your weight loss goal by subtracting a percentage (often 20%, in the ones I've seen) from maintenance calories, whereas MFP subtracts a flat number from your pre-exercise maintenance calories (250 for half a pound a week, 500 for a pound, etc.). So, be sure you're comparing apples to apples in that respect, too. If MFP gave you 1270 for a pound a week, it thinks you'd burn 1770 to maintain (before exercise). You can't necessarily compare MFP's "sedentary" to any random TDEE calculator's "sedentary", because different ones use slightly different activity multipliers, even when they use the same words to describe the activity level.

    It's all estimates. It can work anyway. Don't worry, just pick a method, stick to it, run your 4-6 week experiment, then adjust based on results. It'll work fine.

    Best wishes!

  • msapplek
    msapplek Posts: 95 Member
    @AnnPT77 - Thanks for your detailed response. I've been tracking for the first time last month on MFP and managed to lose more than 10+lbs (I did eat back an additional 50% of calories earned from exercise per common advice on the MFP forums). That's nice, of course, but for sustainability, I want to slow down.

    Towards the end of the month, I looked at the other calculators again to see what calories they would give. Unlike MFP, they do ask for you to choose your level of exercise activity (I chose 3-5 workouts/week), and the results were all in the range of 1700-1800 cal.

    I thought Jordan Syatt's formula was interesting because the number was in the same ballpark as the other calculators. And yes, like you said, there can be huge variances between people that would not make this a one size fits all type of formula, BUT because the data I got from this formula is clustered around the same data points of the other calculators, it makes me think that it may be accurate enough (I think his formula is just to simplify the math of it all).

    The next step would be to test it out, and eat 1700-1800 calories a day. But there is definitely a psychological hurdle when one is in the middle of their weight loss journey to think eating more would still result in weight loss.

    @tryingtobehealthy37 - Sorry for hijacking your thread! I totally have the same concerns as you (like the plateau, and even going lower in calories).
  • msapplek
    msapplek Posts: 95 Member
    @heybales - I chose the sedentary level because MFP seems to distinguish base activity level on your day to day job: for me, I work a desk job and mostly sit all day. Apart from my daily workout, I am sitting even more than usual because of the stay at home quarantine.

    I think a common mistake is that people will overestimate their exercise output and eat back a lot more than they should. So not necessarily a simple: eat more when you do more. Therefore, I can understand why a good many people on these forums will advise it's not wise to eat back all of your exercise calories (recommending 25-50%). Meanwhile, a few saying don't eat back any of the exercise calories, while others claim they do eat back all of their exercise calories.

    In short, I guess it's all trial and error on an individual level. MFP is one of many tools and can be manipulated to benefit your goals, or unfortunately, take you off track. I'll see this month!
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,839 Member
    msapplek wrote: »
    To be honest, more info has led to more anxiety that I'm going to screw it up.

    It's actually easy to both succeed and "screw it up" but neither is permanent. All you need do is eat few calories than you expend over the long terms and you will lose weight over the long term. To gain weight, just reverse that and eat more than you expend. For maintenance, eat an amount that maintains your weight.

    So don't worry about "screw[ing] it up." You really can't in any major way. Just determine your calories and adjust as necessary to meet them.

    As to diet information overload, just say this to yourself, "No one diet, way of eating, timing or size of meals, or anything other than a calorie deficit has correlated with weight loss in the long run." Do what works for you.
  • tryingtobehealthy37
    tryingtobehealthy37 Posts: 17 Member
    Hi everyone thanks so much for all your replies. Sorry I haven’t been back on before now I have two children, one with severe autism non verbal in nappies etc. So don’t always get a lot of time to catch up.
    So am 34 years old so sorry I forgot to put that in.
    So I’ve worked out over a few sites and this and set my calorie goal at 1,450. I don’t eat all of these every day but it is definitely giving me a security net for the days I need them.
    Some days I only get a hours sleep 💤 so may need a piece of fruit or something through the night to keep me going as when I say no sleep I mean up and as active as we would be during the day.
    I am on weight loss shakes morning and lunch at the minute as I’m a total novice at calorie counting so this takes some of the work out.
    Got to admit I’m struggling with working out home cooked meals.
    I’m sure I’ll get there eventually but never struggled with my weight before so this is really all new to me.
    Thanks again
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    tryingtobehealthy37 wrote: »
    Sorry I’d like to loose 1-2lb a week.
    Thankyou for your help guys.

    Did you set MFP for 1 pound weight loss per week, or 2? Put in 1 and see if that gives you a # that is more realistic. The goal is to do this for an extended period of time, so you want it to be something you can work with for months, not just days.
  • Go_Deskercise
    Go_Deskercise Posts: 1,630 Member
    f0zykgrqio72.png

Categories