1,500 for maintenance? Really?

13

Replies

  • Spence_
    Spence_ Posts: 139 Member
    My BMR is 1,550 apparently... I don't see how it's accurate, though, as it surely doesn't take into account activity levels etc? Or muscle... Cause if you have more muscle, it takes more calories to maintain etc, right? Hmm... Having said that, I don't agree with the BMI malarkey either.
  • FITnFIRM4LIFE
    FITnFIRM4LIFE Posts: 818 Member
    Maintain 1700-2000+ zigzag cals for a spike day-always eat ex cals..
    Never did the 1200 cal thing, I have that in by midday...
  • malindaja
    malindaja Posts: 29
    DOES ANYONE HAVE SAME MENUS? i STRUGGLE GETTING 1300 IN WITHOUT ADDING TONS OF SUGAR AND SODIUM
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Pfft. I maintain at 2300-2500 net. I can easily lose at around 2100-2200. Anything under 2000 and my body gets very grumpy, very quickly. I don't care what anyone says, I'm going to do what I know works for me. :)
  • keiraev
    keiraev Posts: 695 Member
    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).

    This cannot be right. 5ft 2 is fairly small but it's not tiny and NOBODY maintains on 1200. Even if you were 90lb your maintenance would still be at least 1400/1500.
    In all seriousness--at my lowest weight (with an eating disorder) I ate ~1000 calories and I'm 4'11--so I really cannot buy the 1200 for maintenance unless you've starved yourself to get to your current weight.


    Well exactly I just do not buy the "I am petite therefore I must starve theory" either.

    My MUM is 4ft 11 and yes probably would gain weight eating over 1500 calories but she is 59 years old and her metabolism has slowed down hugely with age.

    5ft 2 is not miniscule.

    I am 5ft 3.5, 118lb and need to eat around 1700 NET (ie. + exercise calories) or I do keep losing.

    1200 is what most SMALL people need to stay ALIVE not maintain.
  • meggonkgonk
    meggonkgonk Posts: 2,066 Member
    It's really a generic estimation. My sedentary maintenance is 1600, but if I were smaller, it could be closer to 1500. But I'm really active- I run, do strength training, play sports and walk a lot. So I maintain closer to 2k.

    It's all so individual. Believing crap from any version of the Biggest Loser is a waste of time.
  • TanyaCurtis
    TanyaCurtis Posts: 630
    Haha that can't be true, because I eat wayyy over 1500 cals most days! My goal is to eat around 1500, if I do so I would lose weight rapidly! So I would never be able to maintain at that low, I would get way to skinny. My sisters 105 pounds and eat 2000 calories a day, all healthy food, and she starts right when she wakes up till she goes to bed, small healthy meals! So that's not true, anybody would lose weight eating that little:) my husbands never had a weight problem and definetly eats over 2000 or more a day as well, that woman is on crack lol;) I believe guys should eat like 2000-2500 a day to maintain, and woman 1700-2000, depending on what weight u are trying to maintain, could be even more then. I want to be 125 pounds, it says to maintain I have to eat 1900 calories a day. Plus if I workout I can eat alittle more
  • becoming_a_new_me
    becoming_a_new_me Posts: 1,860 Member
    Absolutely false and she should be publicly flogged for such a generalized statement. A 35 year old woman who weighs 150# and is 5'6" and gets absolutely no exercise has a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 1743.84 calories per day. A 45 year old active woman (works out 3-5 days a week) who has the same measurements would have a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 2179.61 calories per day. There is no "blanket" solution, and it is irresponsible for such a public figure to say that.
  • marie_2454
    marie_2454 Posts: 881 Member
    hahaha I'm losing at 1,500+ calories...most things I've read actually suggest women eat around 1,500-1,700 to lose weight.
  • armaretta
    armaretta Posts: 851 Member
    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).

    This cannot be right. 5ft 2 is fairly small but it's not tiny and NOBODY maintains on 1200. Even if you were 90lb your maintenance would still be at least 1400/1500.
    In all seriousness--at my lowest weight (with an eating disorder) I ate ~1000 calories and I'm 4'11--so I really cannot buy the 1200 for maintenance unless you've starved yourself to get to your current weight.


    Well exactly I just do not buy the "I am petite therefore I must starve theory" either.

    My MUM is 4ft 11 and yes probably would gain weight eating over 1500 calories but she is 59 years old and her metabolism has slowed down hugely with age.

    5ft 2 is not miniscule.

    I am 5ft 3.5, 118lb and need to eat around 1700 NET (ie. + exercise calories) or I do keep losing.

    1200 is what most SMALL people need to stay ALIVE not maintain.
    ^^^^^ agree with all that

    I'm 5'2"- 125lbs- 22%BF working towards 18% and maintain at 1950 NET.

    I can eat 1500cals in one sitting easily if I wanted to, all "healthy" foods too. NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM
  • iloveboysthtsparkle88
    iloveboysthtsparkle88 Posts: 10 Member
    my suggested calories for MFP is 2180....i talked to my trainer and she said i should do 1600-1800. I dont think that is unreasonable she didnt understand the whole adding calories to eat after exercising...i dont really either..I understand your body needs more energy after working out but if your trying to lose weight why would you add more?? Help? I seem to be coming under most days anyways..
  • Shadowcasting
    Shadowcasting Posts: 124 Member
    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.

    Its highly individual and depends on what weight you're trying to maintain. 160 pounds? 120 pounds? Are you 5'2" or 5'10"? Do you work at a desk or at a job where you're up and running around all day? If she's only saying an "average" woman with "average" activity, then I could see that. I've read that a decent 'ballpark' is the weight that you are times 10. So if you were an average-height (which the CDC says for an American woman is 5'4"), 150-pound woman of average activity level (which, to be fair, the "average" person is fairly sedentary) then 150 x 10 = 1500 calories.

    Also keep in mind that the average person highly underestimates how many calories they're consuming.
  • antihillmoby
    antihillmoby Posts: 131 Member
    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.

    Is that 1720 after netting any exercise calories?
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    my suggested calories for MFP is 2180....i talked to my trainer and she said i should do 1600-1800. I dont think that is unreasonable she didnt understand the whole adding calories to eat after exercising...i dont really either..I understand your body needs more energy after working out but if your trying to lose weight why would you add more?? Help? I seem to be coming under most days anyways..

    Higher deficits CAN lead to muscle loss if you don't have much to lose. It's not safe, healthy, or sustainable to workout intensely without nourishing your body. MFP estimates your intake so that WITHOUT exercise you'll reach the weight loss goal you selected. So with exercise you earn more calories--make sense?
  • penrbrown
    penrbrown Posts: 2,685 Member
    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.

    Does she not take into account height? Body structure? C'mon, there's no magic number that works for EVERY body. I think this discredits her completely.
  • sapphire092170
    sapphire092170 Posts: 42
    Every one of us is DIFFERENT and will have different numbers...at 1500 calories a day and no exercise I gain weight! For me...to maintain at 1500 I have to at least do 30 minutes a day of exercise...to lose weight I have to only eat 1200 calories and do 30 minutes of exercise...so...the numbers are individual...and no one should ever just blindly follow what works for someone else... We are all individual and have our OWN needs!
  • Helenatrandom
    Helenatrandom Posts: 1,166 Member
    I agree with everyone here who is stating that activity level and size cause a variance in what is necessary for individuals.

    However, I recently went to a nutritionist for some advice, and she gave me advice that is totally opposite of what mfp suggests. She said that people who are larger have messed up metabolisms so we need to eat between 1200 and 1600 calories. in order to lose. I thanked her, walked out, and left. On some days I feel like I could gnaw on a chair leg at 2,000 calories. I was hoping for information on what to eat to be satisfied with 2,000 calories, but my willingness to listen to her shut down when I heard her tell me to do what I can not yet do.

    My point? People with credentials are still saying stuff like that. This public figure is not alone. I'm so glad I am here.
  • iloveboysthtsparkle88
    iloveboysthtsparkle88 Posts: 10 Member
    my suggested calories for MFP is 2180....i talked to my trainer and she said i should do 1600-1800. I dont think that is unreasonable she didnt understand the whole adding calories to eat after exercising...i dont really either..I understand your body needs more energy after working out but if your trying to lose weight why would you add more?? Help? I seem to be coming under most days anyways..

    Higher deficits CAN lead to muscle loss if you don't have much to lose. It's not safe, healthy, or sustainable to workout intensely without nourishing your body. MFP estimates your intake so that WITHOUT exercise you'll reach the weight loss goal you selected. So with exercise you earn more calories--make sense?

    that makes sense. Thanks
  • becoming_a_new_me
    becoming_a_new_me Posts: 1,860 Member
    I agree with everyone here who is stating that activity level and size cause a variance in what is necessary for individuals.

    However, I recently went to a nutritionist for some advice, and she gave me advice that is totally opposite of what mfp suggests. She said that people who are larger have messed up metabolisms so we need to eat between 1200 and 1600 calories. in order to lose. I thanked her, walked out, and left. On some days I feel like I could gnaw on a chair leg at 2,000 calories. I was hoping for information on what to eat to be satisfied with 2,000 calories, but my willingness to listen to her shut down when I heard her tell me to do what I can not yet do.

    My point? People with credentials are still saying stuff like that. This public figure is not alone. I'm so glad I am here.

    I'm glad you discounted what she said. Since you are my friend, I feel totally justified in saying you rock!! If you need food ideas to keep from eating furniture and small children, just PM me. :flowerforyou:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    My BMR is 1,550 apparently... I don't see how it's accurate, though, as it surely doesn't take into account activity levels etc? Or muscle... Cause if you have more muscle, it takes more calories to maintain etc, right? Hmm... Having said that, I don't agree with the BMI malarkey either.

    You are correct, all BMR calculators are based on formulas derived from studies on participants at HEALTHY weight, already.
    Extrapolated from there for other weights.

    The real healthy BMR for overweight or very muscular are actually HIGHER than the calc estimates.

    So yes, your healthy potential BMR is probably higher than 1550.

    BMR has nothing to do with activity level, as that is the energy your body uses dealing with all the cells, feeding them and dealing with fluid movement. It is energy required to be brought in, otherwise we would have a little perpetual motion machine in our systems, and that is not possible.

    But your metabolism, whether burning at full steam, or suppressed because of underfeeding, is also the basis for all other activity calories - daily end exercise.

    If you have suppressed your metabolism 25% (BMR could be 1600, you net at 1200), now your daily activity calories actually use 25% less (could be 320, now at 240), your exercise calories are less (could be 500, now 375).
    And not surprising, your deficit that on paper could be 720 (1920-1200) is now in reality 240 (1440-1200).

    No wonder weight loss slows when you slow your metabolism!

    Throw exercise in there, and don't feed your workouts, now how low is your true BMR?
  • Helenatrandom
    Helenatrandom Posts: 1,166 Member
    I agree with everyone here who is stating that activity level and size cause a variance in what is necessary for individuals.

    However, I recently went to a nutritionist for some advice, and she gave me advice that is totally opposite of what mfp suggests. She said that people who are larger have messed up metabolisms so we need to eat between 1200 and 1600 calories. in order to lose. I thanked her, walked out, and left. On some days I feel like I could gnaw on a chair leg at 2,000 calories. I was hoping for information on what to eat to be satisfied with 2,000 calories, but my willingness to listen to her shut down when I heard her tell me to do what I can not yet do.

    My point? People with credentials are still saying stuff like that. This public figure is not alone. I'm so glad I am here.

    I'm glad you discounted what she said. Since you are my friend, I feel totally justified in saying you rock!! If you need food ideas to keep from eating furniture and small children, just PM me. :flowerforyou:

    Thank you! You are one of the reasons I am so happy to be here! :flowerforyou:
  • hexrei
    hexrei Posts: 163
    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.
    I wouldn't buy any info from someone that throws out a number like that without knowing what your height, weight, and activity level are already. This is really basic stuff. A 5' woman lounging on the couch is going to respond very differently to that 1500 calories than a 5'8" woman who works out regularly.
  • moonsforeyes
    moonsforeyes Posts: 228
    I am 124 pounds and I maintain at 1800-2000 calories. I think it all depends on the person!
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Sorry, I haven't read all the replies, but yes I am maintaining at 1500 cals net at the moment. I upped to 1600 for a bit and put on 4 lbs, so back down to 1500 now.
  • cstrods
    cstrods Posts: 11
    Geez I thought this was supposed to be a supportive website? I am not pulling theses numbers from thin air, yes 5'2 is NOT minuscule but my FRAME is, (currently 93 pounds but 21.5% body fat) further to this I work in a sedentary desk job and have suffered from an eating disorder in my teenage years where I living off 600 and was 83 pounds at my lowest. So don't judge, I was simply pointing out a fact that everyone is different and not all women have the same BMR.
    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).

    This cannot be right. 5ft 2 is fairly small but it's not tiny and NOBODY maintains on 1200. Even if you were 90lb your maintenance would still be at least 1400/1500.
    In all seriousness--at my lowest weight (with an eating disorder) I ate ~1000 calories and I'm 4'11--so I really cannot buy the 1200 for maintenance unless you've starved yourself to get to your current weight.


    Well exactly I just do not buy the "I am petite therefore I must starve theory" either.

    My MUM is 4ft 11 and yes probably would gain weight eating over 1500 calories but she is 59 years old and her metabolism has slowed down hugely with age.

    5ft 2 is not miniscule.

    I am 5ft 3.5, 118lb and need to eat around 1700 NET (ie. + exercise calories) or I do keep losing.

    1200 is what most SMALL people need to stay ALIVE not maintain.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    1500 is probably an accurate estimate of maintenance for someone who trashed their metabolism doing "Biggest Loser" style crash-dieting.
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    My maintenance is 2300. She's wrong.
  • CoryIda
    CoryIda Posts: 7,870 Member
    I've been eating around 2300 calories a day for the past month, have done very little cardio (but quite a bit of strength training), and dropped several pounds.
    Clearly, 2300 isn't even enough for me to maintain. I'd starve on 1500.

    One size does not fit all.
  • Riverofbeauty
    Riverofbeauty Posts: 205 Member
    That is a complete generalisation. I maintain around 1850-1900 net (I eat back exercise cals).
  • Goal_Seeker_1988
    Goal_Seeker_1988 Posts: 1,619 Member
    I eat 1550 calories a day to lose .5lb a week..... :noway:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories