1,500 for maintenance? Really?

Options
nz_deevaa
nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Michelle Bridges, one of the Australian Biggest Loser trainers suggests that for women 1,500 calories is a good number for maintenence, or 1,600 for women who want to put on weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V--HyBw07M&sns=em

(hope that works)

This freaks me out because I've just upped my calories to 1700, based on my BMR.
«13456

Replies

  • CallmeSbo
    CallmeSbo Posts: 611 Member
    Options
    I maintan at 2000. I dont care what she says, i ll keep my 2k :-)
  • abhiforlife
    abhiforlife Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    Michelle Bridges, one of the Australian Biggest Loser trainers suggests that for women 1,500 calories is a good number for maintenence, or 1,600 for women who want to put on weight.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V--HyBw07M&sns=em

    (hope that works)

    This freaks me out because I've just upped my calories to 1700, based on my BMR.

    Sounds crazy. I've been eating in that range all through my time on MFP, have lost 22 lbs. I'm a man though, but that number still sounds crazy.
  • kayleesays
    kayleesays Posts: 564 Member
    Options
    That's strange. MFP suggests about 1800 for me, I believe.
  • nz_deevaa
    nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
    Options
    I think she said 1,800 for men, but I might be wrong.
  • Tonnina
    Tonnina Posts: 979 Member
    Options
    lol I've lost at 1500 calories... I think that closer to 2k is better for women and 2,500 max for men.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    There is some evidence to suggest that living on a reduced metabolism, lower BMR, by undereating, can lengthen life.
    Couple other controversial benefits.

    But this is AT goal weight, NOT trying to reach goal weight.
    Which will just take longer.
  • transfixedtoast
    transfixedtoast Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    it really depends on your weight what maintanance is. If you rbody is using more energy, maintaining more weight then it's going to be a higher number. Smaller people need less food to maintain a smaller weight, and if they're maintaining a larger weight they'll need more energy input because their body uses more calories just staying alive.
  • Birder150
    Birder150 Posts: 677 Member
    Options
    Don't freak out! :flowerforyou:

    I've upped mine to 1930 (per mfp) and am losing.
  • Twiinkless
    Twiinkless Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    I think it's impossible to say that for every woman there's one magic number. Your BMR, your activity level, your body composition, these are all going to make a difference. MFP's suggestions take these into account so it's probably a better indicator, but the best indicator is if you are gaining/maintaining/losing weight on this intake. You can always adjust it accordingly.
  • NeuroticVirgo
    NeuroticVirgo Posts: 3,671 Member
    Options
    I think it depends on a lot of things. How much you weigh, how tall you are, how much you exercise. Most people seem to be exercising a lot more on maintenance which would mean a lot more calories too.
  • spectralmoon
    spectralmoon Posts: 1,230 Member
    Options
    Everyone else has pretty much called it; take into account the weight, height, activity level, endurance, metabolism...

    And don't sweat somebody else's numbers!! :flowerforyou:
  • bigredhearts
    bigredhearts Posts: 428
    Options
    when i worked in a laundry room, and was on my feet at least 5 hours a day, i burned 2500 cals everyday without exercise (i know this because i was using a bodymedia fit). so 1500 seems a bit low, not to mention that number alone is about 150 below my bmr at my goal weight...
  • BeetleChe13
    BeetleChe13 Posts: 498 Member
    Options
    I'm a pretty small woman, and I'm currently maintaining at 1700. And I agree with who said that there is probably no magic number for everyone. How active you are plays a big role as well.
  • jesusHchris
    jesusHchris Posts: 1,405 Member
    Options
    Yeah, you can't really throw out two categories ("men" and "women") and expect to be even close for most of the population. We call that sort of vague crap "one size fits none" in my field on work.

    It sounds like you've done some research - stick with what works for you. I know I usually need about 3,000 to maintain, I would get blown over in the wind if I stuck to 1,500.
  • nz_deevaa
    nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
    Options
    I think suggesting a single number is crazy, especially someone that LOADs of people will just follow.

    I've lost the bulk of my weight at 1200 cal (plus my exercise cals), but based on the reading I've been doing, I'm upping to at least BMR because I'm no longer losing steadily like I was.

    I understand that the number is different for everyone, but even for a light person, surely 1,500 is really low.
  • MissHellsing
    MissHellsing Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    I upped my cals from 1490 to 1720 about 3 weeks ago and actually LOST 4 pounds since being in a Plateau for almost 2 months! Nah I'm good.
  • sweet110
    sweet110 Posts: 332 Member
    Options
    I know MFP is based on a strict "calories in, calories out." But the truth is, for some people, that equation doesn't balance. There are two groups for whom it usually doesn't:

    1. Folks who have been obese for many, many, years. And I don't mean overweight, I mean obese. Usually morbidly obese. Often since childhood or young adulthood. These are the folks on the biggest loser. Both lab/clinical studies and population studies suggest that for these folks, once weight has been lost, they have to eat less or workout more than people who never got to that size, in order to maintain their weight loss. I am betting that a trainer for the biggest loser, whether they are basing it on science or simply on experience, are putting out a calorie number that works for this population, which would be lower than we'd think.

    2. People who want to be/stay "camera-ready" thin. Which is the other group that a celebrity trainer probably spends a lot of time with. Although for an entirely different reason, trainer's have to fight age and individual genetics in this group to beat the body into submission, just like they do with the first group. I am willing to bet you that a community trainer, who works with "regular" people, probably wouldn't cite such a low number.

    My maintenance calories looks to be about 1400/1450 at my desired weight...but I'm 4'11". I like my height, but I dont' think I represent an "average" woman.
  • rudegyal_b
    rudegyal_b Posts: 593 Member
    Options
    mine is 2300-2500, i eat 1800 to lose, but everyone's different
  • nz_deevaa
    nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
    Options
    I'm still morbidly obese. Got to lose another 2kg before I'm 'just' obese. Can't wait!
  • cstrods
    cstrods Posts: 11
    Options
    It really depends on your size (height, bone structure, build) activity levels and current weight, very simple. For example my maintenance is around 1200 and loss is 1000 yet most of you on here would find far too low at 1500 I would gain as I am short 5'2 and have a very fine and narrow bone structure (comparable to a 12 yr old child).

Categories