How do you do it on 1200 calories?

Are you eating your exercise calories? When you say "change your goals," you mean you told MFP you wanted to lose .5 a week?

Even if losing .5 a week puts you at 1,200 a day, you should also get some additional calories from exercise.

Generally I feel 1200 is too low for anyone - if you google search for some calorie calculators, put in your data and see what they come out with. Check out 3-4 different sites, and take an average, then modify the number in your MFP to represent that number.

Do this for a week or two, and check your results. If you think youre losing too quick, add some more calories on. If you think you arent losing much, take some calories off (only by small margins, such as 100-200 calories)

Ive not trusted MFP calorie intake - ive taken the approach stated above and its worked well for me.

Consuming 1200 means that your body is under so much stress from such little intake, that it will hold on to what it has - stress doesnt help with weight loss.

I hope this helps!

Yes, 1200 is your sedentary TDEE, I'm guessing. If you run a few days a week and walk around a bit every day to boot, then you're over that estimate. What to do? Eat a little more and see what happens.

(E.g., Don't let a machine tell you what to do!)

Best of luck!

MsOpus wrote: »

To answer everyone's questions, I am 5'1". I need to lose at least 50 lbs but 60 or 70 would be great too.
I do weigh and measure food. Not my first rodeo.
And I have to eat back my excercise. I tell people that I run just so I can eat. I seriously am so famished after running its hard to stay within the calories.
I never have counted calorie burn with strength training but I also haven't been able to keep up with that as well since gyms are closed.
I have a sedentary desk job. I miss being on my feet all day. Trying to learn how to compensate for that too.

If you're eating 1,200 plus exercise calories and struggling with excessive hunger, I would suggest a couple of things:

1. Is your deficit goal too aggressive? If you told MFP you wanted to lose 2 pounds a week, you can change it to 1 or .5 per week and probably get more calories per day.
2. Are you focusing on the types of foods that make you feel more satiated? For many people, getting enough protein or fat helps them feel more satisfied. For others, it may be fiber. You may have to experiment to find out what works for you. I know if I don't get enough protein or if my days are lower fiber, I tend to struggle more with hunger. You could also play with meal timing. For me personally, I don't really mind feeling mildly hungry in the AM as long as I have a big satisfying dinner, so I plan my average day to fit that pattern.
3. Are you noticing any patterns with meals or snacks on especially hungry days? This is another one that can be really individual, but I realized that if I have just fruit for a snack, I get really, really hungry for the next few hours. So now I just include fruit as part of meals (where it doesn't cause that issue).

Mine is set at 1240. I exercise daily and eat back some of those calories. I never feel hungry - typical day for me is an egg and dry toast for breakfast (approx 150 cal), fruit for a mid morning snack (100-150 cal), chicken or beef stir fry for lunch (no rice/pasta, just meat and veg) (300-400 cal) and supper is usually some form of meat and veggies (300-500 cal). Most evenings I have a handful of crackers or chips, as well, roughly 100 cal worth. I drink black coffee and water throughout the day. Where my deficit is so aggressive, I also don’t stress if I go over (especially on weekends, when I choose to have a drink or two). Good luck finding what works for you! I’ve been losing 1.5-2 pounds a week for 8 weeks now eating like this and I am 5’2”

justinejacksonm wrote: »

Couple additional thoughts here- I don't personally buy into the "eat back exercise calories". The point of working out is to help create more of a deficit like what's the point? ***UNLESS**** you're trying to bulk up and build muscle which is also what everyone is obsessed over these days. I want some lean healthy muscle- but I don't want to look like an athlete. That's just me thought. But I tried that whole approach and not only did I never go down in fat, all I did was build muscle underneath the fat not being burned and was even bigger.

Do you ever workout using Fitness Blender??? You really don't need a gym tbh. FB is free. You may just be getting used to the running. It's important to mix it up and work different areas, strength and cardio.

The "point" of working out isn't to create more of a deficit, although some people may decide to use workouts that way. The point of working out is to increase fitness and you can't do that if you're undereating.

People can choose to either pre-plan their exercise calorie usage into their calorie goal (TDEE method) or add it afterwards (NEAT), but anyone who wants to make consistent progress and maintain energy should have some sort of method for accounting for the calories used unless working out is a rare thing for them.

This isn't important just for people who want to "bulk up."

If eating back your workout calories results in weight gain, then it means you are either over-estimating your workout calorie usage or you're underestimating the amount of food you're eating. It doesn't mean that you're magically not burning any calories through exercise, which is what you're telling people to assume when you recommend not eating back exercise calories.

I workout so I don't *have* to do it on 1200 calories. Because of the whole, you know, eating exercise calories back thing. Which mfp approves of. And so did my weight loss.

(SUCH a pet peeve. 😀)

justinejacksonm wrote: »

Couple additional thoughts here- I don't personally buy into the "eat back exercise calories". The point of working out is to help create more of a deficit like what's the point? ***UNLESS**** you're trying to bulk up and build muscle which is also what everyone is obsessed over these days. I want some lean healthy muscle- but I don't want to look like an athlete. That's just me thought. But I tried that whole approach and not only did I never go down in fat, all I did was build muscle underneath the fat not being burned and was even bigger.

Do you ever workout using Fitness Blender??? You really don't need a gym tbh. FB is free. You may just be getting used to the running. It's important to mix it up and work different areas, strength and cardio.

I agree with others point about exercise as a Good Thing it itself, and possibly additionally as a way to achieve weight loss goals while getting better nutrition (and a higher amount of yummy food) alongside.

I want to quibble about the "it's important to mix it up". For the things that seem to be your key goals, weight loss and appearance, it really isn't particularly important to mix it up. If the overarching goal of your exercise is calorie burn, then all cardio, every minute of your time-budget for exercise, is going to deliver higher total calorie burn.

If the overarching goal of your exercise is appearance (as most people these days would see it), then strength training is your best exercise buddy ever. However, most people these days favor a bit of "look like an athlete" appearance-wise (just not a cartoon athlete, but rather a real one). You say you don't like that look. With those "lose weight, don't look athletic" goals, just do cardio for all of your exercise time budget, at the maximum calorie output per minute you can sustain without creating counter-productive fatigue that bleeds calorie burn out of daily life. That's going to be steady state state cardio, at a personally-tuned intensity, not intervals, certainly not HIIT.

If the implication is that your body "gets used to" certain exercises, and burns fewer calories doing the same thing at the same intensity for the same amount of time (at the same bodyweight), that's incorrect. Yes, with repetition over time, that workout will *feel* easier. Your heart rate monitor device may even give a lower calorie estimate for it, because your heart rate is lower (on account of delivering more blood volume and oxygen per beat, the oxygen factor being what actually correlates somewhat with cardiovascular-oriented types of calorie expenditure, but that can't be measured outside a sports/med lab). Sure, on the strength training side, strength/mass increases will plateau if you stop progressing the difficulty, but you've made it clear you don't care for muscularity for yourself, so that's not a worry.

The "body confusion" or "shock your body" nonsense about switching comes from Beach Body and their ilk, because it helps them sell new programs and equipment.

For well-rounded fitness and best health, a person ideally needs a well-rounded variety of exercise modes, possibly on a schedule that rotates those activity types over time. Fitness isn't about "mix it up" in some put it in your Vitamix and hit "puree" kind of way.

What "gets used to an exercise" is our brain: We can get bored, phone in the intensity, maybe even skip workouts because they're tedious. That effect would be a reasonable rationale for switching workouts.

The part of this that's on-topic for the thread, I think: If a person's only goal is calorie burn, cardio is the game. If it's appearance, in the current culturally common definition, include some strength challenge, to look "toned".

If the goals include health, fitness, and that sort of thing, then "don't exercise just to get a bigger deficit" is 100% on point, and a more nuanced exercise approach is a better idea. But this thread is about coping on 1200 (which I ate myself, plus exercise, losing weight like a house afire, faster than I'd wanted or intended, until it became obvious that for me it was a terrible idea).

Since OP reports not just lower than desired weight loss progress, but also feeling hungry, plus is seemingly still enjoying her running reasonably much, "don't eat back exercise" or "don't run" seem not exactly on point.

natasor1 wrote: »

Actualyl, feeling hungry a little is very nice feeling . Think positively, you look good, your stomach is inside sucked in, your clothes fits perfect, you are feeling light and can move. Imaging yourself going to gym with full stomach you probably won't be able even to bend. But gym requiers bending, jumping, streaching. Many people prefer to go for physical acivity with empty stomach. Project the identical nice feeling to the, rest of the day. It will take you only few days to start enjoing the emptiness of the stomach. If you going to run, the best thing is have your stomach empty too. One more notice for your quistion: the running is a sort of exercise that prompts your apetite high. From other hand, strength exercises work oposite way.

What Janejellyroll said.

Additionally, I'm one of those people who do not ever workout on an empty stomach if I can help it. It makes me queasy and low energy. I have to eat something or I lose steam. I remember when we'd go away for marching band camp in high school, our band director always insisted on us to doing an hour of cardio and marching practice before we were allowed to have breakfast. There weren't any snack machines to grab something beforehand, either, and it was brutal!
Cardio never kicks up my appetite quite like strength training did, though. If I do Zumba or jog for awhile, for instance, I'm usually thirsty, but not immediately hungry afterward. Weight lifting, however, I felt like a bottomless pit! I was always ravenous!

I think it's just different for everyone.