Can 1300 cal be too low to lose?
Options
performfully
Posts: 126 Member
For someone that was majorly over eating the past year?
1
Replies
-
The short answer: it depends.
If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. But 1300 calories may be too low for some people based on a variety of factors. If that's what MFP gave you when you went through their guided setup, you could try a less aggressive rate of loss (say 1lb instead of 2lb/week, if that's what you chose.) Or you could increase your exercise and eat back those calories.
So...it depends.5 -
1300 cal may not be enough for you to fuel your day safely, but there is no such zone as “too few calories to lose weight” I’m afraid. “Starvation mode” doesn’t really exist, at least not in the way the media/influencers would us to think it does.
If it no-one would ever starve to death, they’d get to a point and then stop because “not enough calories…”
A little more info would help us guide you:
What was your start weight and what is it now?
What time period is that over?
How are you accounting your intake? Do you guess, take whatever it says on the packet and put “some” on your plate, use measuring cups and spoons or actually weigh all your food? (Hint: if it’s not the last, you’re probably eating more than you think…)10 -
You redacted your post?
You said you had about 30 pounds to lose? Set your Goals honestly, choose, "Lose one pound per week," do not choose "sedentary" unless you are literally sitting 24/7. When you exercise enter that into the "Exercise" section and eat more on those days.
I would say 1600 PLUS exercise calories - so add 200-300 on days you exercise for an hour at a moderate pace. That is the way this site is set up, here's the explanation from "Help."
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
Yes, 1300 is too low.5 -
If 1300 is under your maintenance calories then no.3
-
There is no such thing as "too few calories to lose weight." Most people can safely fast for a full day without much of a problem. But you can certainly eat at an unhealthy or unsustainable caloric deficit. Weight loss is a slow process, so you need to choose a calorie deficit that is sustainable for you over many weeks or months. This sets you up well for maintenance where you eat exactly the amount of food needed to maintain your weight indefinitely.
Most people can sustain (with effort) a caloric deficit of about 25%. For the average male, this is about 500 out of 2000kcals per day. It just happens that this is about the deficit that causes a 1lb per week loss. MFP has this all built in (in the profile), but if you want to play around with the formula they use and see what happens, there is a very similar one here:
https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html3 -
cmriverside wrote: »You redacted your post?
You said you had about 30 pounds to lose? Set your Goals honestly, choose, "Lose one pound per week," do not choose "sedentary" unless you are literally sitting 24/7. When you exercise enter that into the "Exercise" section and eat more on those days.
I would say 1600 PLUS exercise calories - so add 200-300 on days you exercise for an hour at a moderate pace. That is the way this site is set up, here's the explanation from "Help."
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
Yes, 1300 is too low.
I did redact, because I remembered how crappy and rude the answers I've gotten on MFP have been in prior years. Totally discouraging. I would have prefered to delete but there was no option.
1300 was the goal MFP set me for losing 2 lbs per week. I answered the questions honestly. I have been eating back half of my exercise cals which are tracked on my fitbit.5 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »The short answer: it depends.
If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. But 1300 calories may be too low for some people based on a variety of factors. If that's what MFP gave you when you went through their guided setup, you could try a less aggressive rate of loss (say 1lb instead of 2lb/week, if that's what you chose.) Or you could increase your exercise and eat back those calories.
So...it depends.
That is what I'm trying, thank you.1 -
1300 cal may not be enough for you to fuel your day safely, but there is no such zone as “too few calories to lose weight” I’m afraid. “Starvation mode” doesn’t really exist, at least not in the way the media/influencers would us to think it does.
If it no-one would ever starve to death, they’d get to a point and then stop because “not enough calories…”
A little more info would help us guide you:
What was your start weight and what is it now?
What time period is that over?
How are you accounting your intake? Do you guess, take whatever it says on the packet and put “some” on your plate, use measuring cups and spoons or actually weigh all your food? (Hint: if it’s not the last, you’re probably eating more than you think…)
I personally believe in "starvation mode", as it's called, as a metabolic slowdown, not a complete stop. Theoretically it makes sense a body would stop burning at a fast pace if it were concerned. Personally I've experienced much more weight loss on 1500-1600 calories when I lost 70 lbs previously. But I suppose my question was in regards to if anyone had an idea of where that slow down could occur numbers wise.
Yes I weigh my food. I haven't lost an ounce in two weeks eating 1300 plus half my exercise calories. I started at 197. I lost 7 lbs my first ten days (as expected, I was eating so much take out and sodium).
0 -
performfully wrote: »1300 cal may not be enough for you to fuel your day safely, but there is no such zone as “too few calories to lose weight” I’m afraid. “Starvation mode” doesn’t really exist, at least not in the way the media/influencers would us to think it does.
If it no-one would ever starve to death, they’d get to a point and then stop because “not enough calories…”
A little more info would help us guide you:
What was your start weight and what is it now?
What time period is that over?
How are you accounting your intake? Do you guess, take whatever it says on the packet and put “some” on your plate, use measuring cups and spoons or actually weigh all your food? (Hint: if it’s not the last, you’re probably eating more than you think…)
I personally believe in "starvation mode", as it's called, as a metabolic slowdown, not a complete stop. Theoretically it makes sense a body would stop burning at a fast pace if it were concerned. Personally I've experienced much more weight loss on 1500-1600 calories when I lost 70 lbs previously. But I suppose my question was in regards to if anyone had an idea of where that slow down could occur numbers wise.
Yes I weigh my food. I haven't lost an ounce in two weeks eating 1300 plus half my exercise calories. I started at 197. I lost 7 lbs my first ten days (as expected, I was eating so much take out and sodium).
Part of what's causing the slowdown is less that your "metabolism slows" but your body decides to cut corners and make you less active to save calories. I do better eating more because it gives me the energy to move more, and my body doesn't think I'm starving so it will still spend calories on things like hair and nail growth, a functioning reproductive system, etc. If I try to cut my calories too severely, I might feel fine at first but over time I will get fatigued to the point where doing normal tasks feels almost impossible, to say nothing of extra exercise. How and when these things show up can vary person to person, not to mention our ability to recognize it when it does occur.
Depending on how much you need to lose, a 2lb/week loss may be too aggressive. Standard wisdom around here is 1% body weight per week at maximum. I lost at a 2-3 lb/week clip to begin with, 70 lbs to lose, and hit a fatigue wall a little bit in. I upped my intake, got my energy back, and now lose at 1-1.5/lb per week on average at about 30 lbs to goal weight. When I get 15-20 lbs away, I will probably have to lose more slowly just because I'll have fewer calories to budget. I would have to make myself really miserable to lose as fast as I was at the beginning, and I'd probably lose some of the strength I've built up in the meantime.9 -
There are lots of factors.
A long term, constant, deficit isn't really fantastic for your body and the more extreme it is the more corners get cut (hair growth, nail growth/quality, temperature regulation, etc).
A long term, fairly aggressive, deficit definitely is stressful on a physical level and it can encourage excess water retention.
Your NEAT (non exercise movement) drops due to fatique.
And, also, if you're eating a constant number your loss will slow anyway because as you get smaller so does the deficit. You have no real way to increase it to the previous deficit at some point (ie: to lose 2lbs* a* week you need 1000 calories a day fewer than you burn. But when you weigh 300lbs you burn more calories to maintain that weight and burn more calories at exercise than when you weigh 150).3 -
wunderkindking wrote: »There are lots of factors.
A long term, constant, deficit isn't really fantastic for your body and the more extreme it is the more corners get cut (hair growth, nail growth/quality, temperature regulation, etc).
A long term, fairly aggressive, deficit definitely is stressful on a physical level and it can encourage excess water retention.
Your NEAT (non exercise movement) drops due to fatique.
And, also, if you're eating a constant number your loss will slow anyway because as you get smaller so does the deficit. You have no real way to increase it to the previous deficit at some point (ie: to lose 2lbs* a* week you need 1000 calories a day fewer than you burn. But when you weigh 300lbs you burn more calories to maintain that weight and burn more calories at exercise than when you weigh 150).
The ill effects your mentioning is more concerning when a person has a low body fat percentage, then I would agree bad things happen but if a person has plenty of adipose tissue and is supplementing under a Doctors care, then I don't believe it too worrisome. Adipose tissue are the calories needed minus some essential nutrients, and therefore supplementation is required. I think the longest fast under Dr's care with no ill effects was over 400 days, something like that.1 -
performfully wrote: »1300 cal may not be enough for you to fuel your day safely, but there is no such zone as “too few calories to lose weight” I’m afraid. “Starvation mode” doesn’t really exist, at least not in the way the media/influencers would us to think it does.
If it no-one would ever starve to death, they’d get to a point and then stop because “not enough calories…”
A little more info would help us guide you:
What was your start weight and what is it now?
What time period is that over?
How are you accounting your intake? Do you guess, take whatever it says on the packet and put “some” on your plate, use measuring cups and spoons or actually weigh all your food? (Hint: if it’s not the last, you’re probably eating more than you think…)
I personally believe in "starvation mode", as it's called, as a metabolic slowdown, not a complete stop. Theoretically it makes sense a body would stop burning at a fast pace if it were concerned. Personally I've experienced much more weight loss on 1500-1600 calories when I lost 70 lbs previously. But I suppose my question was in regards to if anyone had an idea of where that slow down could occur numbers wise.
Yes I weigh my food. I haven't lost an ounce in two weeks eating 1300 plus half my exercise calories. I started at 197. I lost 7 lbs my first ten days (as expected, I was eating so much take out and sodium).
9 -
performfully wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »You redacted your post?
You said you had about 30 pounds to lose? Set your Goals honestly, choose, "Lose one pound per week," do not choose "sedentary" unless you are literally sitting 24/7. When you exercise enter that into the "Exercise" section and eat more on those days.
I would say 1600 PLUS exercise calories - so add 200-300 on days you exercise for an hour at a moderate pace. That is the way this site is set up, here's the explanation from "Help."
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
Yes, 1300 is too low.
I did redact, because I remembered how crappy and rude the answers I've gotten on MFP have been in prior years. Totally discouraging. I would have prefered to delete but there was no option.
1300 was the goal MFP set me for losing 2 lbs per week. I answered the questions honestly. I have been eating back half of my exercise cals which are tracked on my fitbit.
With only 30 pounds to lose, setting your weekly weight loss goal to a pound a week is more appropriate and sustainable. Under eating is stressful, stress can raise cortisol, elevated cortisol can lead to water retention, which will mask fat loss on the scale.
8 -
performfully wrote: »1300 cal may not be enough for you to fuel your day safely, but there is no such zone as “too few calories to lose weight” I’m afraid. “Starvation mode” doesn’t really exist, at least not in the way the media/influencers would us to think it does.
If it no-one would ever starve to death, they’d get to a point and then stop because “not enough calories…”
A little more info would help us guide you:
What was your start weight and what is it now?
What time period is that over?
How are you accounting your intake? Do you guess, take whatever it says on the packet and put “some” on your plate, use measuring cups and spoons or actually weigh all your food? (Hint: if it’s not the last, you’re probably eating more than you think…)
I personally believe in "starvation mode", as it's called, as a metabolic slowdown, not a complete stop. Theoretically it makes sense a body would stop burning at a fast pace if it were concerned. Personally I've experienced much more weight loss on 1500-1600 calories when I lost 70 lbs previously. But I suppose my question was in regards to if anyone had an idea of where that slow down could occur numbers wise.
My suspicion would be that it would be somewhat individual, and depend on things like one's genetics, age, the stress level (physical and psychological) in the rest of one's life beyond eating, sleep quantity/quality, nutritional quality of eating, how much fat remains to be lost, and various other things.
I don't think anyone can give you a number or a range specifically . . . but I think what you're asking is *part* of the basis for common rules of thumb about sustainable longer-term loss rate, such as 0.5-1% of current body weight per week (with a bias toward the lower end, especially for people with less to lose or otherwise high stress or high demand lives), or no more than 20% deficit based on TDEE.
"When does it happen number wise" is IMO unanswerable, but you may be able to figure it out for your n=1 experimentally. I wouldn't count on the answer being the same at different points in the same person's life, though.
IMO, how big a calorie deficit is sustainable (and for how long) is a risk management question, fundamentally: How much health risk (gallstones, unnecessary muscle loss, bone quality degradation, etc.), how much adaptive thermogenesis risk, how much appearance risk (hair loss, brittle nails, sallow appearance, listless affect, etc.), how much failure risk (possible periodic overeating from feeling hungry/deprived, possible giving up entirely, possible snap-back of hunger/satiation hormones short or long term, etc.) . . . and maybe others.
I'm not trying to be scary. I'm just saying I don't think it's all that simple a question.Yes I weigh my food. I haven't lost an ounce in two weeks eating 1300 plus half my exercise calories. I started at 197. I lost 7 lbs my first ten days (as expected, I was eating so much take out and sodium).
If you're female, adult, and not in menopause yet, have you considered hormonal fluctuations as a factor? Some women here report reaching new lows in scale weight only once a month, even in a reasonable calorie deficit.
Bodies are weird.
If you haven't read it: https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations
Also, it's not unusual at the start of a weight loss effort (if that's where you are) to lose fast for a couple of weeks, seem to stall for a couple of weeks, then drop again, to average out at a reasonable rate. So far, on average it sounds like you're at about (?) 7 pounds in around 3.5 weeks, so 2 pounds a week on average. Now, that probably won't be the average longer term, because the first weeks can be extra weird . . . but for now, the average isn't crazy slow.
If I were you, I'd hang in there for at least one full menstrual cycle, to compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different cycles, before making any radical change, as long as you feel OK (no obvious weakness/fatigue or other negative symptoms). Your call, though.2 -
Speaking of female hormonal issues, years ago I used to retain 2-3 pounds worth of water at both ovulation and premenstrually, but now that I am hopefully very close to menopause I'm up a good SIX pounds at ovulation.
So if I find the number on the scale depressing, I compare it to the same point in my cycle last month, and that generally gives me a reality check and encouragement.6 -
if you overeat one day and wanted to offset then it could work. but dont let it become a bad habit0
-
@kshama2001 : We need to retire that graphic. There is no need to taper the deficit so much as you approach your goal weight.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »You redacted your post?
You said you had about 30 pounds to lose? Set your Goals honestly, choose, "Lose one pound per week," do not choose "sedentary" unless you are literally sitting 24/7. When you exercise enter that into the "Exercise" section and eat more on those days.
I would say 1600 PLUS exercise calories - so add 200-300 on days you exercise for an hour at a moderate pace. That is the way this site is set up, here's the explanation from "Help."
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
Yes, 1300 is too low.
So question regarding activity level when setting up calorie goals because I want to get the right numbers. You say do not choose "sedentary" unless literally sitting 24/7? I sit behind a desk 8 hours a day. I don't get up and move regularly. Most of my movement in in the evening after work with doing basic household chores and such. Most of that is standing at a stove, sink or washing machine. Is lightly active a better choice? I have always chosen sedentary due to sitting at my desk for so many hours.0 -
langstontl wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »You redacted your post?
You said you had about 30 pounds to lose? Set your Goals honestly, choose, "Lose one pound per week," do not choose "sedentary" unless you are literally sitting 24/7. When you exercise enter that into the "Exercise" section and eat more on those days.
I would say 1600 PLUS exercise calories - so add 200-300 on days you exercise for an hour at a moderate pace. That is the way this site is set up, here's the explanation from "Help."
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
Yes, 1300 is too low.
So question regarding activity level when setting up calorie goals because I want to get the right numbers. You say do not choose "sedentary" unless literally sitting 24/7? I sit behind a desk 8 hours a day. I don't get up and move regularly. Most of my movement in in the evening after work with doing basic household chores and such. Most of that is standing at a stove, sink or washing machine. Is lightly active a better choice? I have always chosen sedentary due to sitting at my desk for so many hours.
After having lost 80ish pounds and reading a lot I would always err on the side of more food, not less.
In my personal experience: I was retired. I live in a tiny condo. My daily activity is only basic house chores. No gardening, no other people to take care of. Just the basics. I use the "Active" setting and I still eat more than it suggests. Even the "Lightly Active" is a good 500 calories too low for me. I also eat calories earned by exercise.
I don't think any person with any kind of job at all or who goes out to school or even just stays home and is a full-time housekeeper for their family should be set at "Sedentary."
I'll add that I prepare all my own meals and I still log all my food using a digital food scale. So my accuracy is as close as I can get.
You may find Sedentary to be what you need, depending on your exercise, your exercise logging, and your attention to detail when it comes to food logging. We each have quite a few variables at play. Log your food as accurately as you can for 1-2 months and then adjust. If you're on Sedentary and you're legitimately hungry - try bumping it up to Lightly Active.
*edit: I just looked at your food diary...you have only a few pounds to lose and you're still eating 1200? How tall are you? I was 54 when I lost my weight too, and I was eating 1500 PLUS exercise calories to lose the last 20; so I was eating 1800-1900 per day six days a week. That's a very far way from 1200. Even 300-400 more calories would help you a lot. I'm 5'7". Maybe start your own thread and ask for calorie goal feedback.1 -
@cmriverside
I am 5'6" and just 5 pounds from where I would like to be on the scale. I am hungry most of the time. I eat all my calories plus all exercise calories and usually some extra and I can't seem to get the scale to drop anymore. My mind tells me eating more isn't the answer but I know I can't eat less or I'll just be even hungrier and that will lead to going crazy with the food.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions