Calorie deficit for a shorty - help please!

Eating below 1,200 is considered unwise for various reasons, not least you are at risk of not getting vital vitamins and nutrients if you don’t eat enough. Eating too little can also lead to nasty side effects including loss of muscle (your heart is a muscle), hair loss, less energy so less calories expended moving around etc.

But - do some short and small people need to eat less than 1,200 to lose? I have seen posts from members on MFP who say they cannot lose if they eat more than 1,200, so yes there will be some statistical outliers who need less food.

My advice as a fellow shorty (5’3) is to choose a slower rate of loss. You will get more calories to eat each day, you can ensure you stay in excellent health by eating a wide variety of food, and do remember to eat some exercise calories on top of your usual daily allowance. I personally lost weight eating a LOT more than 1,200 - you might be pleasantly surprised how you can lose weight eating just a bit more. As a smaller person you will need to be really honest and exact with your logging, as the odd extra 100 calories can easily wipe out a planned deficit if you’re not careful.

Leitchi and Claireychn074 are right.

I'd add this: The real test of safety/sustainability is your actual loss rate on a given calorie level, averaged over 4-6 weeks eating that amount. (Look at whole menstrual cycles of that applies to you.)

Losing at most 0.5%-1% of current body weight per week is sustainable for most people, with a bias toward the lower end of that if not much total weight to lose (i.e. not worrisomely obese).

If you seem to be losing weight very fast after the first week or so, and begin to feel fatigued or weak for otherwise unexplained reasons, eat more. Otherwise, stick it out for the 4-6 weeks (or one full cycle). After that, adjust calorie intake based on results.

I know how frustrating it can be, but slow and steady is defo better. Have you got a food scale? You need to measure absolutely everything and just be patient - the weight WILL come off. You need to be healthy and look after yourself, so make sure you get plenty of protein, get your veggies in and try to incorporate foods you really like so it doesn’t feel like a chore. Restrictive eating at 800 cals (I’m glad you aren’t doing that again!) will often to lead to a rebound and weight gain. It’s demoralising and can set up a yo yo situation. Think of this as a slow and steady process rather than a sprint, and good luck!

Hi, I have the height problem, but I'm shorter! The only way I have lost weight is keep to a calorie deficit - eating sensibly / healthily around 1200 cals, and walking / exercising a lot. Then keeping it off is difficult as pretty much a 'normal' diet for most people puts me way over calories. It's frustrating and I just get fed up of having to say 'no' to treats all the time. My fitbit reckons if I do nothing apart from sitting at my desk and wandering round the house / office, I use around 1000 cals per day. It is hard for us dinky folk. Good luck! I'm trying to lose weight again after repeated illness led to inactivity for a few months.

I'm 5'1" and weigh about the same as you, 157 (which is big for a short gal).

In my early 40's I trained a lot and found some numbers that worked for me, putting me in a healthy BMI range until I got sick and gave up (another story for another day).

Last January I started over at 200 pounds, I'm currently down to 157.

I've found that I can lose at 1310. All of the calculators put me at or below 1200 for my height to lose a pound a week. My job is rather sedentary so any exercise I get is intentional. I do eat back a portion of exercise calories.

For cardio if possible I suggest a Garmin / Apple watch / Fitbit / Power meter (Biking) if they are available to you. This will not however be very accurate for lifting or other non-cardio exercises.

THIS IS MY PERSON PLAN IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE UNIVERSAL, but from one short girl to another I thought it might help.

My base calories are set at 1310, higher protein, not many sweets (because if I eat them I crave them, not that they are bad) then I add exercise calories as follows:

Through years of monitoring, I've found that even when I'm exercising vigorously (racing), I burn about 10 calories per minute. Less vigorous = fewer calories burned. MFP however will give me way over that especially for a "vigorous 20+mph bicycling". If I followed MFP numbers (made for the average Joe) I'd never lose.

For a 45 minute weight session, I add 100 cals to my day. If I use my Garmin (HR based) to measure calories burned during lifting, I tend to get around 235 cals, but isn't a cardio activity and doesn't burn calories based on heart rate algorithms.

For cardio I use my Garmin (- 100 per hour session) That 100 is just a number that I came up with through experimentation that works for me. If I burn more than 1000 calories (long ride days), I don't worry about eating it all back, I'll usually only eat back 50-75% over 2 days.

That extra cushion also allows for inaccuracies in logging food I don't prepare like the occasional pizza and beer. Those days are important in my world.

Good luck!

I'm average height, 5'6", but thought I'd tell you that at least for me the 1200 calories a day was not good for me. I was diligent about inputting the calories accurately. I ended up feeling great initially and so proud I was losing weight, but it started coming off at a 2-3 pounds per week rate. I started losing hair and the muscle tone in my arms was disappearing. I obviously don't know about a rule that shorter women need to cut calories more drastically than others. But I now tend to recommend to my friends (only if they ask my opinion, I'm no know-it-all) that they start with 1300-1350 to see how it goes. You can always cut down to 1200 calories if you don't feel you're losing weight at the rate you want to.

I’m 5’ and don’t lose weight eating more than 1200-1250. My maintenance is about 1450 with about 40 lbs to lose. It is so slow as well, about 2 lbs a month.

When I was at a lower weight I maintained at around 1200, and that was being active.

All of these personal weights and calories consumed are purely anecdotal as inaccurate calorie counting and individual NEAT will greatly sway numbers. Bottom line is if no loss at X calories then you need to go lower no matter what others say is good\bad\dangerous.

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

All of these personal weights and calories consumed are purely anecdotal as inaccurate calorie counting and individual NEAT will greatly sway numbers. Bottom line is if no loss at X calories then you need to go lower no matter what others say is good\bad\dangerous.

Or, if no loss at X calories if X calories are generally viewed as dangerous, consider these possibilities:

1) is the individual being accurate with calorie counting?
2) should individual see doctor to check for health issues that are complicating weight loss?
3) are individual's weight goals unrealistic or unhealthy?

While this can be correct, what many consider dangerous really isn’t. Those are generally bigger people or more active people that just can’t get their heads around a 1,200 per day diet (1,200 actual). The macros need to allow for enough protein, however.

I share in your struggles at 5’1 and 150lbs. I have lost 20lbs successfully twice at 1200 and it took 4-6mo each time. The hard thing for me is to keep counting cals when I’ve gotten comfortable at a lower weight then I let all my overeating habits creep back in and I’m nearly back where I started