I don't think I'm eating enough.

stianjl wrote: »

LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »

stianjl wrote: »

1200 seems too low whatever goal you have. It all depends on your goal but eat when you feel hungry. Eat healthy, drink alot of water, eat alot of proteins and adjust carbs and fat depending on your goal. 1200 MIGHT be the right number if you on the last week before fitness contest. Add me if you want more help

So we don't trust MFP? It's not accurate? Why bother with it then?

Every body is different, so its too hard to make a accurate calculator. MFP gives you numbers based on what you provide MFP. Eating less to lose weight isnt always the answer. But you need to watch your macros. Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle is the answer. I use MFP to track meals and I put custom numbers in my macros in MFP, so I dont really follow the MFP calculator.

Eating less pretty much always is the direct answer to lose weight, quantifying "more" and "less" in calorie terms. The practice is a little more complicated by issues like satiety, energy level, health, fatigue, etc., but those are indirect effects, via calorie expenditure or consumption.

"Eating healthy and have a healthy lifestyle" isn't the perfect universal answer, either - even if we could agree on a definition.

I've been vegetarian since 1974; eating all the hippie-esque whole food, whole grain goodness, veg/fruits; started training regularly pretty hard and even competing as an athlete in my mid-40s (not always unsuccessfully in age-group competition); . . . but got and stayed obese along the way, which triggered some negative health consequences. I stayed obese and active, eating healthy foods, for around a dozen years. I've been at a healthy weight for 7 years now since . . . by managing my calorie intake better, eating the same range of foods as before (different amounts, frequencies), and working out in pretty much the same ways. "Healthy eating and lifestyle" is a good thing, but unless "healthy lifestyle" includes eating at appropriate calorie level, it's pretty easy to stay fat IME. My health is much better now that I'm thin, unsuprisingly.

MFP's calorie estimates and macro estimates are research-based, very mainstream generic recommendations. MFP doesn't just make them up themselves. They're in line with generic US nutritional recommendations. Yes, varied macro mixes (personalized) can be more useful for some people, but the MFP defaults aren't a terrible place for most people to start, as long as they don't make choices that cut calories unreasonably far for their situation. (Eating too little is inherently going to short-change nutrition.)

Your initial weightloss is usually water so give it another 2 weeks before adjusting calories. Your 1,350 may very well be more when you average your weekly amount and consider possibly under counting calories to some extent. The proof is in the results so give it a little more time.

If you’re feeling good on that amount that’s usually an indication that the calories aren’t too low

.

aprilgranier wrote: »

OMG, all these responses and I never saw any of them until now. I'm so sorry and thank you all for your feedback (I'm still reading them all). So, to answer some questions, I'm 50, 5'5" and started at 213. It's now been 2 1/2 weeks and I got down to 207. Actually, today the scale said 209, but that's trash because I know I didn't gain fat. Anyway, I've continued to work out twice a day and been eating about 1350 calories a day. I still wonder if this is too little. I'll make my diary public.

Thanks for coming back to update! I agree with others that 2.5 weeks isn't enough to establish a clear trend of average weekly weight loss. I'd go more like 4-6 weeks. At 50, I don't know whether you're in menopause yet, but if not, compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles to estimate an average loss rate. Either way, the first couple of weeks can be wildly different from following ones (+ or -), so if those look weird once you have more data, throw those out and add a couple more on the consistent routine.

While 5 pounds in 2 weeks may be a little fast if that rate continues, it doesn't seem super scary fast for the first couple of weeks. One of several common rules of thumb around here is to lose no faster than 0.5% to 1% of current weight per week, with a bias toward the lower end of that if bodyweight isn't an acute health threat in itself, and if not under close medical supervision for deficiencies or negative health effects.

For you now, that range would be around 1-2 pounds a week. Two is probably not a terrible thing, short term.

That said, I don't trust how a person feels as a guide for how fast is too fast: I felt great and not hungry (while losing too fast at first) . . . until suddenly I didn't. I got weak and fatigued, then it took multiple weeks to recover normal strength and energy even after I started eating more. (No one needs that!) Fast loss alone can be at least a caution flag, even if feeling good.

I don't know about you, but I'm not as resilient as I was at age 20. It's easier to overdo, and takes longer to bounce back from overload. In that context, I'd note that a calorie deficit is a physical stress, new exercise is a physical stress (especially if intense at current fitness level), sub-ideal nutrition is a stress (no accusation implied, I'm just making a list), poor sleep quality/quantity is a stress, many of us have family or job stress, etc. Total stress, physical and psychological, is cumulative. Stack up too much, continue that too long, and it can have negative health and well-being consequences. So, a fast loss rate that might be great in context of a calm life, can be Too Much in a life with lots of other stressors. You know more about where you are on that continuum than we do.

I did take a look at your diary. Your eating style and mine are quite different (no criticism implied!), so I may not have much useful insight from a skim-through.

I'm wondering if you have and use a food scale? I'm seeing a lot of packages and pieces in portion sizes. Sometimes that's based on using arithmetic to derive an estimate from weight and package data, so I'm not assuming. But many packaged foods can be surprisingly far off from package/piece weight estimates. If losing at a satisfactory weight, not too fast not too slow, that level of precision is optional, but it can be helpful if progress gets unpredictable. (Scale is also quicker and easier than cups/spoons estimates, if you know the tricks, as well as more precise.)

I think some of your exercise calorie estimates might be a little high, based on experience as a 5'5" woman who started out only a little lighter than you are now. Both MFP and fitness trackers can overestimate, and it's more likely for some exercise modes than others. I won't belabor the point with details/explanation since it looks like you're not mostly eating back all the exercise calories anyway, more a thing to file for future consideration if things become less predictable.

Bottom line, I'm agreeing with others, let the current regimen run for another 2-4 weeks, see how things average out . . . unless you start having any hint of symptoms of too-low intake, or it looks like weight loss speeds up a lot from here until then. Once you have enough data to make more experience-based calorie needs estimates for yourself, then maybe think about slowing down a bit. It'll be easier to manage that with solid data in hand.

Best wishes!

You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).

Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.

Good luck!

mtaratoot wrote: »

JamesHoward33 wrote: »

You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).

Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.

Good luck!

I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.

Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.

There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.

Well, to be fair, there is that extra 2-4 calories per day that a pound of muscle burns at rest, compared to the smaller number of calories that a pound of fat burns at rest to keep itself alive and perking.

So, if a person added 4 pounds of muscle, they'd burn a whopping 8-16 more calories daily at rest. 🤣 In activity, AFAIK, not significantly more calories unless more muscle makes them move more.

Sadly, yes: 4 pounds of muscle gain in a month is highly unlikely, extra unlikely in a calorie deficit, very extra - sadly to me and OP - even a little bit more unlikely for women.

I'm sorry, PP (JamesHoward33), I think @mtaratoot is right.

Quite a few people think they've gained muscle quickly in a deficit because they got stronger fast (that's neuromuscular adaptation, better recruiting/using existing muscle fibers); because they look more defined (water retention in muscles for repair gives a bit of a pumped look); or because they seem a little smaller (that pump, improved posture, a little fat loss that's masked by that extra water retention, maybe a little overall glycogen/water depletion offset on the scale by the muscle-local water retention). It can be deceptive.

Two pounds a month would be a very good muscle gain result for a male under ideal conditions (young, male, in a calorie surplus, good progressive strength program, excellent nutrition, genetic predisposition and more) . . . half that would be good for a woman like me or OP (same conditions, but 100% less male so likely lower testosterone).

JamesHoward33 wrote: »

mtaratoot wrote: »

JamesHoward33 wrote: »

You certainly need to eat more. MFP has already calculated a deficit into your daily allotment. So when you exercise you earn more calories. I would suggest eating half of your exercise calories to start with (because of recording errors in calories earned).

Get that food in you so your workouts are more energized and your muscles will burn more as well. Don't get discouraged if the scale doesn't go down. Always remember muscle is heavier than fat. Better to keep an eye on the mirror and your clothing size/measurements. Example, I have been training very hard the last month. Gained 4 pounds, but went down a pants size and a belt notch.

Good luck!

I'm not sure what that bolded part means. Your body uses the same amount of fuel for a given task at a given body weight whether or not you've been eating.

Muscle isn't actually "heavier" than fat; it's more dense. Like feathers and lead; a pound of feathers and a pound of lead weigh the same. The feathers take up more space. Muscle is the same way. Also, muscle is more metabolically active; it needs more calories to exist than fat. It's not a huge amount, but it is another reason to build some muscle.

There's a number of reasons that the scale fluctuates. If you've been "training very hard," your tissues could be holding more water and inflammation which do show up on the scale. It is extremely unlikely you gained four pounds of muscle in one month, or more than that if you are implying you also lost some number of pounds of fat.

I understand a pound is a pound. But an inch of muscle is heavier than an inch of fat.

As far as gaining muscle, my shirt sleeves will disagree with you

I may not have articulated my point as well as you, the point being, as you said, more muscle mass will burn more calories.

Sounds like you know your stuff!

Barely. A pound of muscle burns between 6-8 calories per day so not really enough to be a factor. Fat burns around 2-3.

Dan__Cote wrote: »

The wonderful thing about the human body, and the reason why we are the apex land species, is our body's ability to adapt and thrive to almost any stress and any environment. Case in point: Hunger. Hunger pangs are a survival defense mechanism that you have a little bit of control over by compressing the gene that controls your Ghrelin output.

Epigenetics is a fascinating subject that shows you that you can affect certain traits over the course of your lifetime. I like to think of genes as a townhall meeting of DNA strands (stay with me on this one). You have all these genes demanding attention (expanded genes), and others that are quiet (compressed). The choices you make, environment you live in, dietary restraints, heck, even elevation, plays a role in how loud or quiet a gene is expressed. Hunger (ghrelin) is a tough one, but it can be subdued over a LONG period of time IF mental fortitude is stronger. You will always feel hunger regardless of how long you work on compressing that gene, but it will get better and less painful over time (kind of like tinnitus. You kind of just get used to it and it just becomes background noise.)

1200 calories very well could be what someone needs. Survival genes (like the output of ghrelin) tell you that you need to eat more calories. Even though it is likely untrue. Dieting is never pleasant. It's largely a battle of will power vs intended results. Is it worth it? That is the real question. I, myself, am on day 11 of my 1600 calorie diet and I can tell you I HATE IT. I'm hungry almost always. Results are steady and that helps provide me with motivation to continue. A little about me: 37 Y/O male. 203lb. 5'7" 27.9% BF (56.8LB of fat) 79.8 lb skeletal muscle 107.9lb water. My BMR is 1810 calories a day. I have lost 9lbs in 11 days. Muscle mass has gone down by 1.3lbs. Water is the same. which means fat loss is 7.7lbs. Not bad, right? I understand hunger. There's no easy way around it. I would highly recommend to anyone trying to lose or gain weight to log everything they eat on myfitnesspal.com, get a Galaxy Watch, an accurate digital body scale, and a food scale. All of these will help keep you honest with yourself, help you know when you need to tweak your diet and/or exercise, and provide you with the motivation you need to continue.

This trick is disgusting, but I swear to the god of all things cute and fluffy in the world that it works: 2tbs apple cider vinegar, 2tbs lemon juice, dash of cayenne pepper, about 3oz water. Drink it first thing in the morning (have a water chaser on hand), and any time you are feeling hungry. It's like a fire extinguisher for your blazing ghrelin hunger pangs. I've preached enough. Good luck with your weight loss journey. It's going to be horrible. Embrace it, because it will all be worth it in the end.

you have not lost 9 lbs in 11 days. MAYBE about 3 max the rest is water.

i'm a 5'4" female, and MFP says i should eat 1250 daily calories to lose half a pound a week. i always eat back around half of my exercise calories, because when i didn't, i felt weak and dizzy and eating some back means i feel good and can work out and enjoy life.

btw, i do lose about half a pound a week.

paperpudding wrote: »

Dan cote,

The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.

Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.

It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan

And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.

I can agree that unpleasant hunger torture is not desirable. It gets better the longer you do it. This isn't my 1st rodeo though. I'm new to this forum, not the life. I've been bulking and cutting for the majority of the time since i was in my early 20s. It works for me. Apple cider vinegar doesn't directly make you lose weight. true. It just makes you not have hunger pangs for a while. I use to use it during extended field training in the Army to keep hunger away, and I use it during cutting to do the same. It's best if most dieters don't follow my exact advice. It is extremely difficult to manage. Like with anyone's advice on here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Experiment. Try new things. Oh yeah, down another .4lbs since my original post. You don't NEED to burn 3600 calories to lose a pound of pure fat (insert mind-blown emoji). Hormones are powerful. The human body is complicated. To oversimplify such a complex subject that even "experts" don't know everything about is... Anywho, this has turned into a debate forum. Sorry.

back to the original subject.

Yes. 1200 calories seems realistic. Just move your body and drink a ton of water. Stay with it!

Dan__Cote wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Dan cote,

The aim is to lose weight long term and keep it off.

Making this a battle of willpower and forcing yourself to adhere to some sort of horrible unpleasant submission of hunger torture is most unlikely to result in long term success.

It might work for 11 days - but I doubt any of the long termers here found long term success with that sort of plan

And apple cider concoctions of any sort do nothing for weight loss.

I can agree that unpleasant hunger torture is not desirable. It gets better the longer you do it. This isn't my 1st rodeo though. I'm new to this forum, not the life. I've been bulking and cutting for the majority of the time since i was in my early 20s. It works for me. Apple cider vinegar doesn't directly make you lose weight. true. It just makes you not have hunger pangs for a while.

Actually, no, not universally. During weight loss, I drank apple cider vinegar daily for weeks at a time, and didn't drink it for other weeks at a time. (Reasons for starting and stopping had nothing to do with weight loss.) It had zero observable effect on my hunger or weight loss rate. I don't dispute that your experience is true for you, but you're on shaky ground when you tell other people how they will feel. They might, they might not. The research I've read on this point suggests minor effects, at most.

I use to use it during extended field training in the Army to keep hunger away, and I use it during cutting to do the same. It's best if most dieters don't follow my exact advice. It is extremely difficult to manage. Like with anyone's advice on here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Experiment. Try new things. Oh yeah, down another .4lbs since my original post. You don't NEED to burn 3600 calories to lose a pound of pure fat (insert mind-blown emoji). Hormones are powerful. The human body is complicated. To oversimplify such a complex subject that even "experts" don't know everything about is... Anywho, this has turned into a debate forum. Sorry.

back to the original subject.

Yes. 1200 calories seems realistic. Just move your body and drink a ton of water. Stay with it!