1500 cal Vs 1200

BoundaryQueen2020 wrote: »

Agreed but I have only entered 1kg/week (2lbs) which doesn't seem unreasonable? Yes, I thought the age and goal weight thing was odd too.

Maintenance is 2000cal/day.

I actually think 1kg/week is aggressive and wouldn't use the word "only"!
It's also the fastest rate that MyFitnessPal will allow someone to select - not a moderate rate.

If you look beyond this dieting phase to long term maintenance at goal weight then losing fast recedes in importance compared to losing weight sustainably and learning new eating and moving habits along the way.
Your Dietician's professional advice that you are risking unnecessary muscle loss sounds sensible to me.
Do you really want to take the chance of getting to goal weight and being disappointed with how you look and feel? A smaller version of the current you rather than the best you can be.

Maybe not unreasonable to lose weight quickly at least for an initial period of weight loss but personally with 33kg to lose I think you really have to prioritise sustainability for many months ahead of short term rapid loss. Don't make the process harder than it needs to be would be my overall advice.

Everyone who loses weight loses some muscle.

I lost 80 pounds at age 54 (5'7", started at 220, now at 140-143) on 1500/1600 PLUS Exercise calories, like this site suggests. So I really was eating 1500-1600 on two days and 1800-2000 on five days per week.

Well, I started at 1200. I did that for a little while (about 2-3 months?) until I crashed. Hair loss, splitting nails, fatigue, irritability, over-sleeping, inability to exercise, periodic binging. I went up to 1600 (PLUS exercise calories) at that point and stayed there until I had 20 pounds to lose, when I lowered down to 1500 (PLUS exercise calories.)

I've kept my weight off for 12 years now.

Log food.

Thank you, @mkculs13

I had exactly the same experience (also weird) and I've typed that out I don't know how many times.

Absolutely agree, 100% with all of it. Every word.

58 YO, started 10/18 at 222, and 5’7”. I am currently hovering around 131.

I started at 1470, that was waaaay too low, and I increased to 1700, still too low, eventually ended up at 2300 for recomp. I exercise extensively and do (frankly unimpressive) weights.

With the advice of my dietician and trainer, I chose to do fixed calories at or above maintenance, and not eat my exercise calories back. Its not quite MFP protocol, but it’s easier for me to wrap my head around a non-moving target calorie goal.

I know it’s frustrating thinking in terms of before and after. We are so conditioned by tv, magazines, Instagram etc to expect immediate and fabulous, toned results. It doesn’t work like that, but it does work, and the time will fly by, I promise.

Choose your goals wisely and sustainably. What’s the point in putting the work, to have a rebound that wipes it all out, or to suffer health problems. You’re doing this to GET healthy, not to suffer yourself into Twiggy.

And btw, my original “yah right like that’s ever gonna happen” goal was 160. TBH it was a nice round number I randomly picked because I never saw myself getting there- until I could.

I’ve re-evaluated several times since then. It’s your body, your comfort zone. There’s no legal limit line in the sand that says YOU can’t choose to go lower- or higher. I’m currently debating maintaining here versus going up a couple.

May you eventually have the “luxury” of same.

Best advice I ever had from this site was “Treat maintenance like you still have ten pounds to lose.”

northviewvintage wrote: »

northviewvintage wrote: »

I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.

Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/

It's not that bone density is not important, it's just that you were guessing that it was the reason to raise calories. In fact most women need more than 1200 unless they are very tiny, very old and very sedentary.

Age is not the determining factor to "eat more." As a matter of fact, older women generally need less food due to lower activity levels.

The original post said her doctor advised 154 pounds for a 5'7" 47 YO woman. That is comfortably inside her healthy weight BMI. If she wants to be lower her range goes all the way down to 120 pounds, so it's not like there isn't some wiggle room. For instance, I'm happy at 5'7" 140-143. That puts me at 21-22 BMI. I'm not particularly muscular, so I like myself at that weight and it's not hard for me to maintain.

PAV8888 wrote: »

northviewvintage wrote: »

northviewvintage wrote: »

I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.

Wow, I just saw that a lot of people disagree! Just curious...Is it that I can't eat 1200 everyday? I am sure it's okay for some, but I tend to get a little hangry. Or is it my guess for why doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women?As I said, it's just a guess. I do think that bone density is important to consider! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016235/

I would suspect that the highlighted is the source of disagreement as opposed to the fact you aim for 1200-1500. Plus the implication that age 44 or age 47 may be playing into this.

highlighted?

I have issue with the assertion that -

doctors recommend a higher minimum weight for older women

- because I don't think that's generally true. I've never been told that by any health care professional. The DIETICIAN (it wasn't even a doctor) in this example is still suggesting a healthy weight in her BMI range (24.1) not some high weight that would be considered overweight.

In my opinion the higher recommendation may be for many reasons. I can think of four or five reasons this dietician may have said that, but I might still be wrong. Ask her, she's the one who will have the answer. It could be as simple as, "Well, it's a good starting goal."

I know I had a goal of 160. That was just inside my healthy BMI range. Then when I got there I lowered it. When I was starting at 220, 160 seemed not only unattainable but too low. How wrong I was...once I got there.

IMU, there are some correlative studies that suggest that somewhat higher BMI with age is a factor in later mortality. However, there are further studies suggesting that the crucial part is not BMI per se, but rather lean mass: More lean mass, later mortality.

That would (IMO) be confirmative of the studies of what I think of as "stupid aging tricks", the kind of thing where they show that grip strength correlates with later mortality or better health in old age, as does the ability to perform X chair squats in Y time period, or ability to get up from seated on the floor without using hands. (I'm sure all of those are true correlations, but the LOL part is people who then go on to try to improve their grip strength in order to live longer. )

This article seems to have a reasonable summary of that view, and lists its sources. (Note: It also has editing problems - a miscopied paragraph & a missing chunk).

http://longevity.stanford.edu/beyond-bmi-assessing-weight-status-as-we-age/

OP: No need to worry about goal weight just yet. You'll have a better idea as you get closer, and as long as you don't have some severe form of body dysmorphia, you can identify a good body weight for you when you get there, or close.

The weight loss process is exactly the same, regardless of goal weight. MFP will give you the same calorie goal, no matter what ultimate goal weight you tell it (as long as it's less than your current weight). It just uses the goal weight you enter for some motivational-type messages. You can set it at some provisional value now, and change it later. Heck, you can even camp out at a goal weight for a while once you get there, then change your mind and gain/lose to a point you decide is better. Not irrevocable decisions, not worth fretting over (within reason).

Losing too fast is generally a bad plan, and 1200 might take you there. We always lose a little lean mass alongside fat loss (some things that are technically "lean mass", like blood volume, kind of need to be smaller if our body is smaller, so this is not some totally dire thing). Losing too fast will tend to cause more lean mass loss than losing more moderately. FWIW, 1200 was too low for me, even at age 59, 5'5", 150-some pounds; I lost well at 1400-1600 plus all exercise calories. It's very individual.

Best plan: Pick a sensible loss rate in your MFP setup, stick with that calorie goal for 4-6 weeks, then adjust intake based on actual average weekly loss experience, to keep things sensibly and sustainably heading in the right direction. Try it. Stressing about it in advance is optional, and (IMO) not very fun.

While I'm at it, this is worth reading, related to the 1200 calorie diet idea:

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

More people think they need to eat 1200 to lose than do (or should); more "professionals" recommend it more broadly than they should.

northviewvintage wrote: »

I am 44, and I couldn' t make it on 1200 every day. I aim for 1200-1500. I am 5'1, though. My guess is because of estrogen levels or bone density, but I don't know why we're not supposed to get as skinny.

I didn't click disagree. Estrogen levels affect bone density (and have other effects), and fat cells are part of the mechanism for estrogen production post-menopausally, but I doubt that's the reason one sometimes sees those "should be heavier when older" things. I think the "lower mortality among slightly higher BMI elders" idea is the basis. Underweight really is a mortality risk (though no one in this thread is proposing to be underweight, that I saw) - partly because some studies saying so included people who were already ill so at low weight, partly because ultra-low-weight people may not be as resilient for as long, when severe illness strikes, so die of those things at somewhat higher rates. (Speculating, here.)

I'd observe that weight goal and calorie goal aren't tightly linked, i.e., someone quite old/inactive might have a low calorie goal, but a goal weight higher in the BMI range, or vice-versa. Calorie needs for best health correlate with current body mass, of course, but exact numbers differ individually.

Some of the "shouldn't be as skinny" thinking, in my experience - in the form of social pressure, not professional advice - comes from fellow aging people who don't want to bother with losing when they're happy where they are.

And yeah, the implication that 40-something is aging might set some folks off. (I'm 64. 44 or 47? Just kids. ).

That said, loosely speaking based on my personal experience, one of the few differences I see between my younger self and my older self is that I'm less resilient to physical stress - recover less easily/quickly - than I did when younger. On that basis, I think losing weight at a moderate pace (not fast) may be even more a good idea as we age, because fast loss is definitely a physical stress.