Does the calorie deficit work?
Replies
-
@yirara why are you against the 1200 calorie setting?
have been on the 1200 calorie allotment for a month now and was seeing great results ( the last week I haven't seen scale changes but my pants are fitting better). It hasn't been too hard to stay at that with some of the great (whole foods, produce and lean protein) and filling recipes I have found and some that I ammended. There are days I find myself adding a snack to get closer to 1200 calories since I don't want to go under. My macros aren't always perfect but they are pretty close and I don't feel deprived. I actually don't feel hungry either, but sometimes I have to fight off a sweet tooth but the sugar addiction is greatly improving.3 -
MFP bottoms out at 1200 cals as the minimum calorie intake, usually because people choose too agressive a rate of loss or because they have incorrectly set their activity level (so many new people choose 2lbs per week which is only really suitable for those who are obese and Sedentary activity level that only accounts for around 3000 steps per day, rarely are people truly sedentary).4
-
@tinkerbellang83 I dont think 2 lbs per week sound too agressive, I'm willing to do the work and I still get 1200 after upping my activity level.
Could this setting be stalling my progress?2 -
No it won't stall your progress directly, but it may make it less sustainable in the long run. 2lbs per week is only suitable if you're obese.
I wrote this a couple of years ago, it's now in the Most Helpful posts https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p17 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »No it won't stall your progress directly, but it may make it less sustainable in the long run. 2lbs per week is only suitable if you're obese.
I wrote this a couple of years ago, it's now in the Most Helpful posts https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p1
On top of that, I think it might seemingly stall progress for some people, in the sense that being in a calorie deficit puts stress on the body (higher deficit = more stress) and stress can cause water retention weirdness.6 -
@tinkerbellang83 I guess I just don't find it too limiting. I am usually around 1300-1400 calories intake since it gives me around 300-800 calories for exercise from My fitbit steps usually 10,000 -14,000 per day) but I don't like to use it all. Just enough to get by1
-
@Lietchi that does make sense. Earlier on I had some days where I only at like 800 calories (even tho I was eating breakfast lunch and dinner) and I found that I didn't lose as much weight those days. That is when I started trying to get no less than 1200 calories in (and it did make room for snacks or even a small treat)0
-
nicolewalter16 wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 I guess I just don't find it too limiting. I am usually around 1300-1400 calories intake since it gives me around 300-400 calories for exercise from My fitbit steps usually 10,000 -14,000 per day) but I don't like to use it all. Just enough to get by
You may not find it too limiting for a month, maybe two but if you have a bit to lose, then it needs to be sustainable long-term and that is where the problem lies for many people.
10-14,000 is pretty active, and you need to be fueling that activity, or eventually you'll just burn out. If you're getting a 300-400 cal adjustment, eat to what your new calorie goal is not just 1300-1400 calories.
7 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »nicolewalter16 wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 I guess I just don't find it too limiting. I am usually around 1300-1400 calories intake since it gives me around 300-400 calories for exercise from My fitbit steps usually 10,000 -14,000 per day) but I don't like to use it all. Just enough to get by
You may not find it too limiting for a month, maybe two but if you have a bit to lose, then it needs to be sustainable long-term and that is where the problem lies for many people.
10-14,000 is pretty active, and you need to be fueling that activity, or eventually you'll just burn out. If you're getting a 300-400 cal adjustment, eat to what your new calorie goal is not just 1300-1400 calories.
Yup, I can confirm (from reading others' experiences here) that you are still in the 'honeymoon period', I've seen a lot of people state that they are fine on low calories, but after the first few weeks/months their body started to protest.
Personally, I don't understand how people can manage on such a low calorie budget. I've always eaten 1600+ calories and still lost weight (although not as fast as most people would like, but I didn't mind losing at 'only' 0.5-1lbs per week if it meant I got to eat more8 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »nicolewalter16 wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 I guess I just don't find it too limiting. I am usually around 1300-1400 calories intake since it gives me around 300-400 calories for exercise from My fitbit steps usually 10,000 -14,000 per day) but I don't like to use it all. Just enough to get by
You may not find it too limiting for a month, maybe two but if you have a bit to lose, then it needs to be sustainable long-term and that is where the problem lies for many people.
10-14,000 is pretty active, and you need to be fueling that activity, or eventually you'll just burn out. If you're getting a 300-400 cal adjustment, eat to what your new calorie goal is not just 1300-1400 calories.
Yup, I can confirm (from reading others' experiences here) that you are still in the 'honeymoon period', I've seen a lot of people state that they are fine on low calories, but after the first few weeks/months their body started to protest.
Personally, I don't understand how people can manage on such a low calorie budget. I've always eaten 1600+ calories and still lost weight (although not as fast as most people would like, but I didn't mind losing at 'only' 0.5-1lbs per week if it meant I got to eat more
Yeah, same after years of failed attempts I set myself to 1lb per week loss and was losing weight on around 2400 calories on active days/ 1800 on sedentary days.
@nicolewalter16 perhaps look at your stats in TDEE calculator (tdeecalculator.net is one) with Light or Moderate exercise and see what your approximate daily calorie burn is to understand how far below it you're eating.
2 -
@tinkerbellang83 thanks for the clarification. I'm nervous I am going to sabotage myself on accident.
I fully plan to switch over to a new goal of 1 or 1.5 lbs per week loss if I feel limited and am looking forward to switching over to the maintain weight goal when I get to my goal.
I have such a hard time know what "obese" even means the BMI charts seem so tough. My goal is 150 lbs. That is the smallest I would have ever been. But I would still be "overweight" according to BMI. However 145 lbs would be "normal" on BMI.0 -
nicolewalter16 wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 thanks for the clarification. I'm nervous I am going to sabotage myself on accident.
I fully plan to switch over to a new goal of 1 or 1.5 lbs per week loss if I feel limited and am looking forward to switching over to the maintain weight goal when I get to my goal.
I have such a hard time know what "obese" even means the BMI charts seem so tough. My goal is 150 lbs. That is the smallest I would have ever been. But I would still be "overweight" according to BMI. However 145 lbs would be "normal" on BMI.
BMI is just a range and it's not right for everyone, I was pretty happy and had a healthy hip-to-waist ratio at 200lb which is still "Obese" in BMI terms, I do however weight lift and do long distance rowing, so I am all muscle across the shoulders and upper arms. You can always adjust your goals as you go, you don't have to be rigid in them.
The only way you'll end up not losing weight is eating over maintenance. Weight loss neither has to be complicated or miserable2 -
No she is horribly wrong.
Calories are a uniform unit of measurement of energy, the phrase "calories are not the same" identifies someone who either cannot understand that food and calories are not the same thing or they believe in myths.
Would you trust someone who said watts, miles or grams are not all the same?
Being overweight you will have a high metabolism, all of the component parts of your body require energy to work. Another sign your family member doesn't know what they are talking about. Eating 6 times a day would be foolish for someone trying to lose weight unless grazing all day actually helped them stay within their calorie allowance. Imagine filling up the fuel tank of your car - does it matter how many times you top it up or is the total amount of fuel you put is the really important factor?
You don't eat more to lose weight, you eat less. Frequency of eating is personal and only really a factor for adherence to make the process as easy / less difficult as possible.
Your excess body fat is due to you over-eating calories for a long period of time, that excess of energy is stored as fat. To use up that energy you need a calorie deficit. Simple as that, there's no tricks or shortcuts.
The only way to lose weight is to be determined and accept you have to change. Keeping it off also requires determination and discipline. It's not easy but it can be very simple.
This is gold (as usual). Tinkerbell and Lietchi are also giving great advice. OP read the success threads when you get discouraged, they can pick you up. There are people that have lost over 100 lbs and they are in a wheelchair. As for a bikini competition, that takes a lot of discipline and a certain mindset. The same rules of CICO apply, but have to be used in a different way. It's not for you. I'd suggest you take your measurements weekly or monthly and when the scale doesn't move you can pull out that tape measure and physically see your loss. Your mind will play tricks on you as you move along.
And ,yes, you have to change your calorie goal as you move along and your weight changes. A lighter body burns fewer calories. I am also concerned that it's already at the lowest you can have--no wiggle room. Remember, he wins who eats the most and still loses. Good luck.8 -
nicolewalter16 wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 I dont think 2 lbs per week sound too agressive, I'm willing to do the work and I still get 1200 after upping my activity level.
Could this setting be stalling my progress?
2lbs per week is massive! I'm not sure you've told us what your current weight, size and age is. You said you want to lose 40lbs. Lets say you're 180lbs, ok? I take 168cm and an age of 40 for the heck of it.
This would give you roughly 1870 calories per day to maintain your weight if you were sedentary.
In order to lose 2lbs per week you'd need to eat 1000 calories less per day.
1870-1000 = 870 calories to lose 2lbs per week.
You should never eat below 1200 calories because it's not healthy, your body burns through muscles and won't have enough energy to power your organs well enough. Again: you might feel fine on that for a while, but it's not healthy. That's why MFP gives you 1200 calories if you chose a too aggressive goal.
Thus, unless your current maintenance calories are at least 2200 calories per day there's no way you will lose 2lbs per week. As you get lighter the calorie need of your body goes down: there's less energy needed to move blood around, to actually move your body when you move, etc. So at a certain time your maintenance calories will be 1700 calories. So what then? You eat 1200 calories then your daily deficit is 500 calories, or a loss of 1lbs per week. No, you still should absolutely not go below 1200 calories then because it's still unhealthy.5 -
a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. it doesn't matter if its bread, chocolate, or broccoli. But one of those has more NUTRITION.
not all calories are nutritional.
I lost 130 pounds, eating the same things I pretty much always have, with very few modifications, other than HOW MUCH I ate and increasing my activity level. But you do not need to exercise to lose weight. a calorie deficit is all that is needed.
you lose weight in the kitchen.
you gain fitness in the gym.10 -
@yirara
I am 29, I will turn 30 in August. I am 5'4" and currently sitting at 189, my goal is to reach 150 (even though I will still be considered oberweight, I'm trying to be realistic). All of those facts hard for me to admit.
I know I need to be patient (never a strong suit of mine) but I am staying at 189 on the scale for a week seems like I am probably doing something wrong. If my calories in are correct and my out are correct I should be losing consistently. I have thought and re-thought how I am measuring but I am using a food scale and measuring as accurately as I feel I can.
I have seen other sources say that my fitness pal often over calculates how many calories you should get back for exercise so it is best not to use those calories.
Your explanation of calories as I lose weight seems to only support that I should keep my calorie goal at the lowest 1200 especially since I may be making errors in measuring or my fit bit as I hear might be over counting my exercise.3 -
One thing I have been trying to reassure myself with is a post someone made on here about the phases of being on MFP. This time line would put me in phase 2 where you don't lose scale weight but see body changes for the whole second month of your journey.
Did you also find that true?0 -
nicolewalter16 wrote: »@yirara
I am 29, I will turn 30 in August. I am 5'4" and currently sitting at 189, my goal is to reach 150 (even though I will still be considered oberweight, I'm trying to be realistic). All of those facts hard for me to admit.
I know I need to be patient (never a strong suit of mine) but I am staying at 189 on the scale for a week seems like I am probably doing something wrong. If my calories in are correct and my out are correct I should be losing consistently. I have thought and re-thought how I am measuring but I am using a food scale and measuring as accurately as I feel I can.
I have seen other sources say that my fitness pal often over calculates how many calories you should get back for exercise so it is best not to use those calories.
Your explanation of calories as I lose weight seems to only support that I should keep my calorie goal at the lowest 1200 especially since I may be making errors in measuring or my fit bit as I hear might be over counting my exercise.
There is only one amount that is likely to be absolutely incorrect when it comes to calories burned due to exercise (hint - it's zero). MFP can be out, as it's all estimates. The only way to find out is to eat some of them back and see how your weight loss looks over 4-6 weeks. But 400 calories for exercise doesn't seem like a huge amount for someone doing as many steps as you're doing.
Not seeing weight change on the scale doesn't mean you aren't losing consistently, it just means the scale hasn't yet caught up, you really need to try and work on this patience thing. There will be times the scale doesn't show a loss, there'll be time it shows a gain too possibly. TRUST THE PROCESS!
At your stats, even at Lightly Active (which only accounts for around 5000 steps per day) your maintenance would be around 2200 calories so as long as you're eating below that, you will lose weight. I'd also point out you are doing double those steps per day.
When you get to your last 15-20lbs you'd be maintain at around 2050, but you'd also be needing to drop your rate of loss down to 0.5lbs per week.
2 -
Hey hun, I understand that you want to lose the weight as quickly as possible. It's great you're using a foodscale. If you want to open up your diary then we could have a look on whether there are some obvious mistakes, like wrong database entries (yes, the database is entered by users).
And yes, one week is totally not a plateau. Are you weighing once per week or daily? If once per week then you might be hitting a day where you just happen to hold onto a bit more water (about 60% in our bodies is water! and it constantly fluctuates a bit), more food waste in your intestines, maybe the start of your menstruation, a bit more salt on food, or maybe the scale is not on a solid hard surface or needs new batteries. Thus one week really is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.
You know, when I was losing weight I'd not lose for about 2 weeks, and then I had 1-2 nights where I constantly had to pee at night. This is how my body seems to lose weight: constantly lose a bit of fat, but store a roughly similar weight of additional water. So nothing happened on the scale until that odd night came.5 -
nicolewalter16 wrote: »One thing I have been trying to reassure myself with is a post someone made on here about the phases of being on MFP. This time line would put me in phase 2 where you don't lose scale weight but see body changes for the whole second month of your journey.
Did you also find that true?
I personally didn't find that true at all. I think I posted this already in your other thread but this is from my first 6 months of weight loss. The overall trend was quite consistent.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions