How did you unlearn diet culture?

Yeah, if you're miserable you probably ARE undereating. I started at 1200, but I couldn't get through the day with any kind of equanimity while eating so little.

1200-1300 is pretty difficult. I switched to 1500-1600. It was much easier and still led to my losing weight at a good clip.

When I exercised, I got to eat more like 1800-2000, and that made all the difference.

The other thing is paying attention to macros. Making sure to get enough protein and fiber. Too many carbs makes me ravenous.

You'll find your balance. Less is not better, in most cases.

Almost all efforts to lose weight end in failure. Many of the failures, probably most, can be attributed to focusing on speed instead of sustainability.

In a nutshell you are following a path of statistical failure.

I doubt anyone, myself included, sets out to intentionally fail. However, that is what the cost is of sticking to popular ideas of getting weight off fast. It took me a long time, too long, to unlearn it. Now that I have I am in sight of being done with the weight loss portion of this deal.

Don't be the many. Be the few.

I'm also 5'2". I (re)started at 150lbs, am now down to 112 and switched to maintenance this week. It's taken over a year to get to this point but that's fine - I wasn't in a hurry. Now I just need to make sure I stay here, but I've had a year to learn proper portion sizes and what fills me up.

My daily net calories were around 1200 because that's what MFP told me to eat, but my gross calories were around 1700 because I also eat all of my exercise calories. I really hope you're quoting a net figure there and are eating your exercise calories. If not, start with doing that. It's how MFP is set up to work and you'll feel a lot better. Feeling better makes it easier to stay on track.

You can determine whether you're losing too fast by looking at your weight 6 weeks ago to what you weigh now. If you're going faster than planned, you're not eating enough. There's a chart shown in this forum that says you shouldn't aim to lose more than 1% of your weight, per week, so you may need to consider your weight loss rate and set it to lose at 1.5lb a week.

Although I never considered doing it, I've seen more than enough posts on here about the effects of under-eating to be put off the idea for life. I quite like being alive, having hair, having fingernails etc. Someone also posted, a while back, that the winner is the person who can eat the most and still lose weight. That helped shift any mental block I may have had.

For what it's worth, as you don't say what exercise you do, I find MFP is pretty accurate for calculating calories from walking and assume it would be for running too - as long as you're accurate about your pace. I took the figures from the cross-trainer when I was able to go to the gym.

If you use MFP the way it's designed, you should find it works.

I think one big key that's been touched on here is the mentality that we have to lose weight fast.

No, we don't.

We didn't gain all that weight fast, it crept on over years. Therefore it's perfectly acceptable to lose the weight slowly.

Too fast a weightloss just leads to someone being miserable all the time, except for weekly weigh ins. It's just not worth it.

Tell yourself you are going to allow yourself time to lose the weight. That losing 10-20lb in a year is perfectly fine. And eat at a calorie deficit that will allow that weight loss. You will feel more satisfied as you aren't starving yourself, and you will be more likely to achieve your goal.

It's about starting with the mindset that this is a marathon, not a sprint.

I am 5’10”, lived on a farm and worked hard. I joined weight watchers 3 times over about a 10-year period. 3 times they put me on 1200 calories (or the point equivalent). The first time I stayed with it and tried. 1 week strictly on the diet, one week trying, but feeling so bad I could hardly make it, one week in bed recovering, repeat. Finally had to quit. Second time, repeat of the first time, but I didn’t last as long. Third time, I confess, when they said 1200 calories, I just walked away. At the time, ww was all there was. I didn’t have the knowledge to do it on my own, pre computer days.
Years later when I decided to try again, there were lots of choices, and I stumbled on to a very good one. I was no longer young, no longer worked on the farm, but at a desk. A very wise dietician told me I would lose weight eating anything under 2500 calories, and judging by how much I usually ate, if I paid attention to WHAT I ate, I could probably be healthy and happy at about 1800 calories, so that’s where I started. It took me about a week to embrace it fully and know that this was going to be the BEST thing for me. I went on to lose about 60 pounds in about 6 months.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!!

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

georgieamber2 wrote: »

1,200 calories is the recommended for a 5 year old... that’s obviously not sustainable long term. Everything in moderation. People so say keto / paleo / plant based works, it all works because you’re in a calorie deficit!

Move more, but in ways you enjoy. Join a running group, a dance class, yoga group, CrossFit, but do it because you want to for you. Don’t kill yourself doing an exercise you hate, that just makes you not want to do it ever again. Have one glass of wine instead of 3 with friends, or make them spritzers, or have spirits and slim line tonics, or have a beer and just enjoy yourself.

It’s like shopping. Some days you spend loads of money (probably on the weekend) whilst other days you might not spend anything at all. Sometimes you’ll overeat, but be mindful and make it up in other areas. x

This is very much incorrect. At 4'11 and within a healthy weight range, my NEAT is only around 1,300 at sedentary. This means that 1,200 would have me losing weight very, very slowly! At 5'2 1,200 still would not be an unhealthy amount to eat for a slow and steady loss but she should be eating back at least half of those exercise calories so she is not hungry all the time.

well both could be true - 1200 may be the right amount for a 5 year old - 5 year olds are in rapid growth phase and are usually very active and not trying to lose weight.
and that would be total calories - because I'm sure nobody is working out the eat back calories for a 5 year old

It could also be the right net calories for a smaller older not very active woman to lose weight on..

What is not correct is posters implication that because 1200 is right for a 5 year old it could not be right as net calories for any adult in any circumstances