CANNOT get under 130
Options
Replies
-
I am there with you now!!!
I have been successful in the past achieving 128 by cutting carbs and working out 6 days a week, with 2 days of weight lifting. I keep my calorie count right around 1000 - 1200. I am 5' 6. For me it is all about cutting the carbs and wine!!! The weight just falls off. I was 140 at the middle of last week coming off a 20 day vacation of eating with reckless abandon and drinking a glass or two (or more :-))of red wine every night. I freaked out! So since Wednesday I have lost 6 lbs. by cutting carbs, no wine and getting back to an hour of cardio a day. I will be back there in less than 2 weeks!!! My promise to my self.
I will say it sure is a lot harder now that I am over 41.
Good luck and keep up the positive attitude!!0 -
bump0
-
If you can't lose weight for weeks on end, it's BECAUSE YOU ARE EATING TOO MUCH.
When you are in your healthy range, and especially when you only have a few lbs to lose, you have to usually eat below your BMR to lose at any see-able pace. I ran the number for another lady and if she were eating at a 15% cut from her TDEE, she was only going to lose 1 pound every seven weeks. That is just entirely discouraging for anyone. You are off by your cal count even a little bit and you can blow it.
If you are wanting to lose weight, I would drop your daily goal by 250 a day and reassess in a couple weeks (this is about 1/2 lb per week loss). Yeah yeah yeah, depending on what you are eating, you might drop below the "golden" 1,200. If you are small though you will be fine. I am 5'5" 135 lbs and ate at 1,150 for 7 weeks and lost about 1.4 lbs a week (I since upped it since I only wanted to lose 1 lb a week, but just to show you, I felt fine at the time and it is totally doable).
Don't beleive this CRAP they are telling you about "maybe that is where you are supposed to be." 130 lbs is EASILY withint the healthy range for your height. If you aren't losing weight, it means it's because you are eating at your maintenance. EVERYONE'S body is going to not lose weight when you eat at your maintenance. That's it. You need to eat less to lose.
Eating below your BMR leads to muscle loss....
Our bodies are constantly striving for balance. It gets used to the calorie level so when you stop losing you up your calories to be closer to your maintenance goal. Not drop them.
Eating 250 calories below your TDEE equals to a one pound weight loss every two weeks. When you only have 10 pounds to lose that is a fairly normal level. Want a little bit more, bump it up to 500 below your TDEE. That is one pound a week. Incredibly doable.
Eating well below 1200 calories a day leads to faster weight loss, but the weight you lose is more from muscle and less from fat. Not to mention all the damage you are doing to your metabolism. No one should EVER have a maintenance of 1200 or less. The average female needs close to 2000 calories a day to maintain current weight. Not to mention all the missing nutrients in the diet due to such a low calorie level.
I lost a pound a week eating 1600+ calories a day.0 -
If you can't lose weight for weeks on end, it's BECAUSE YOU ARE EATING TOO MUCH.
Especially when you are in your healthy range, and especially when you only have a few lbs to lose, you have to usually eat below your BMR to lose at any see-able pace. I ran the number for another lady and if she were eating at a 15% cut from her TDEE, she was only going to lose 1 pound every seven weeks. That is just entirely discouraging for anyone. You are off by your cal count even a little bit and you can blow it.
If you are wanting to lose weight, I would drop your daily goal by 250 a day and reassess in a couple weeks (this is about 1/2 lb wever week loss). Yeah yeah yeah, depending on what you are eating, you might drop below the "golden" 1,200. If you are small though you will be fine. I am 5'5" 135 lbs and ate at 1,150 for 7 weeks and lost about 1.4 lbs a week (I since upped it since I only wanted to lose 1 lb a week, but just to show you, I felt fine at the time and it is totally doable).
Don't beleive this CRAP they are telling you about "maybe that is where you are supposed to be." If you aren't losing weight, it means it's because you are eating at your maintenance. EVERYONE'S body is going to not lose weight when you eat at your maintenance. That's it. You need to eat less to lose.
So without knowing how much is being eaten, how much is being burned off, how much daily activity is creating the deficit, age/height/weight, you are going to assume that less eating is the solution automatically?
What a wonderful direction to suggest, when MFP does that direction automatically based on user goals/selections.
Odds are, for what usually happens on this site with women usually selecting Sedentary activity level and 2lbs weight loss weekly goal, and being given goals below their BMR already, the majority of stalls are caused by slowed metabolism - born out by the fact that when they DO eat MORE - they start to lose weight again.
All the suggestions from those that experienced it and fixed it the better way (rather lose slower or faster with slower or faster metabolism?) by raising calories speak to how many experience this exact issue.
I wasn't assuming, but my odds are better than yours what the issue is.
Suggesting eating too much as the reason means someone must be eating all their deficit calories, in other words all their daily activity, and potentially their exercise calories if not already.
Very few people really have activity levels with fewer than 500 cals separation between BMR and TDEE.
UNLESS - they have slowed their metabolism down.0 -
EXACTLY!0
-
If you can't lose weight for weeks on end, it's BECAUSE YOU ARE EATING TOO MUCH.
When you are in your healthy range, and especially when you only have a few lbs to lose, you have to usually eat below your BMR to lose at any see-able pace. I ran the number for another lady and if she were eating at a 15% cut from her TDEE, she was only going to lose 1 pound every seven weeks. That is just entirely discouraging for anyone. You are off by your cal count even a little bit and you can blow it.
If you are wanting to lose weight, I would drop your daily goal by 250 a day and reassess in a couple weeks (this is about 1/2 lb per week loss). Yeah yeah yeah, depending on what you are eating, you might drop below the "golden" 1,200. If you are small though (you sound like you are) you will be fine. I am 5'5" 135 lbs and ate at 1,150 for 7 weeks and lost about 1.4 lbs a week (I since upped it since I only wanted to lose 1 lb a week, but just to show you, I felt fine at the time and it is totally doable).
Don't beleive this CRAP they are telling you about "maybe that is where you are supposed to be." 130 lbs is EASILY within the healthy range for your height. If you aren't losing weight, it means it's because you are eating at your maintenance. EVERYONE'S body is going to not lose weight when you eat at your maintenance. That's it. You need to eat less to lose.
Good luck! :flowerforyou: You CAN DO IT!
LOVE this :flowerforyou: So nice to see sense for a change. I too am already in my "healthy range" at 130lb and 5"6, but i am not happy there at all! I'm aiming for 120 and haven't lost anything on over a month. I've been so discouraged i've actually blown it completely a few days these last couple of weeks. I really don't know what the answer is, but good luck, and ignore those saying maybe you're body is happy where you are etc etc xx0 -
How much are you working out? If you are working out a lot, you may need an active recovery week with lots of walking and less strenuous workouts. For me, overtraining can be a problem and I get ravenous and cranky and my weight loss slows to a crawl. The last time I did a recovery week, I lost weight immediately after.0
-
Eating 250 calories below your TDEE equals to a one pound weight loss every two weeks. When you only have 10 pounds to lose that is a fairly normal level. Want a little bit more, bump it up to 500 below your TDEE. That is one pound a week. Incredibly doable.
Eating well below 1200 calories a day leads to faster weight loss, but the weight you lose is more from muscle and less from fat. Not to mention all the damage you are doing to your metabolism. No one should EVER have a maintenance of 1200 or less. The average female needs close to 2000 calories a day to maintain current weight. Not to mention all the missing nutrients in the diet due to such a low calorie level.
I lost a pound a week eating 1600+ calories a day.
Good for you. I need 1,800 cals a day to maintain my weight, and I am 5'5". That's less than 2,000, first off. Maybe this "Average female" needs close to 2,000 cals a day because the "average female" is OVERWEIGHT. And what do you suggest for women who are shorter than me, which is HALF the female population of the United States? You contradict yourself by saying you should at at a 500 cal cut to lose an lb a week but YET AT THE SAME TIME you shouldn't eat below 1,200. What if your TDEE is 1,400?, which the OP is probably closer to.
If you are smaller, you need less cals. PERIOD. It is RIDICULOUS to say that a 6'4" man and a 5'1" woman should have the same "don't eat below this rule." :explode: It IS ALL relative.0 -
So without knowing how much is being eaten, how much is being burned off, how much daily activity is creating the deficit, age/height/weight, you are going to assume that less eating is the solution automatically?
UHM, yeah. I am going to assume that basic SCIENCE is the solution: your body burns calories to live, and if you aren't losing weight is because you are not burning enough for what you are eating. I am not going to get into an arguement here about the prevelence of starvation mode. You quite obviously are bitter about something though.Very few people really have activity levels with fewer than 500 cals separation between BMR and TDEE.
UNLESS - they have slowed their metabolism down.
VERY FEW PEOPLE DO HUH?? Well, LET'S SEE. MY BMR is 1,500. MY TDEE (sedentary multiplier is 1.2) is 1,800. THAT IS 300 CALORIES by my count. My metabolism is in no ways slowed down, IN FACT it is 200 cals a day FASTER than the average woman for my weight and height.
Let's take it FURTHER. Since MOST people in the US are sedentary, we will use that. YOUR BMR would have to be ALMOST 2,500 (!!!!!) for your TDEE to be near 500 cals different. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A 6 FOOT TALL 360 LB (24 year old) WOMAN FOR YOUR TDEE TO BE AT LEAST 500 CALS FROM YOUR BMR.
Really!!! :explode:0 -
If you are smaller, you need less calls. PERIOD. It is RIDICULOUS to say that a 6'4" man and a 5'1" woman should have the same "don't eat below this rule." :explode: It IS ALL relative.
Completely agree. (5' 2", small frame)
My weight went up a 1/2 pound from three or four days ago. I know exactly why. It was what I ate.0 -
Bump0
-
Eating 250 calories below your TDEE equals to a one pound weight loss every two weeks. When you only have 10 pounds to lose that is a fairly normal level. Want a little bit more, bump it up to 500 below your TDEE. That is one pound a week. Incredibly doable.
Eating well below 1200 calories a day leads to faster weight loss, but the weight you lose is more from muscle and less from fat. Not to mention all the damage you are doing to your metabolism. No one should EVER have a maintenance of 1200 or less. The average female needs close to 2000 calories a day to maintain current weight. Not to mention all the missing nutrients in the diet due to such a low calorie level.
I lost a pound a week eating 1600+ calories a day.
Good for you. I need 1,800 cals a day to maintain my weight, and I am 5'5". That's less than 2,000, first off. What do you suggest for women who are smaller than me, which is HALF the female population of the United States? You contradict yourself by saying you should wat at a 500 cal cut to lose an lb a week but yet you shouldn't eat below 1,200. What if your TDEE is 1,400?, which the OP is probably closer to.
If you are smaller, you need less calls. PERIOD. It is RIDICULOUS to say that a 6'4" man and a 5'1" woman should have the same "don't eat below this rule." :explode: It IS ALL relative.
Since this is a topic about helping the OP, I figured my personal input would be helpful considering we most likely have a similar TDEE and BMR. The OP has a very similar weight as me (135 lbs.), and my TDEE is 2200 with moderate exercise. That would equate to 1700 calories a day for a one pound a week loss. Anyone within 20 pounds of their goal should aim for no more than 1 pound a week loss. I was just trying to say that her eating less than 1200 calories a day probably isn't the best LONG TERM advice. Eating below your BMR leads to muscle loss, which is catastrophic to your metabolism over time (and in my personal opinion not an "ideal look" for a body).
Slow and steady wins the race. Losing one pound a week and keeping it off forever is way better than drastically cutting your calories below 1200 and once you stop "dieting" gaining it all back.0 -
Given the inspirations you have listed, I am guessing you are aiming for too low a weight for your height and build.
^^Exactly what I was thinking. Lady Gaga is insanely slender. And to be honest, she advertises to be happy with exactly who you are (Y'know, "born this way?") So if your body is happy at 130, maybe you should be happy with the skin you're in. :P0 -
Very few people really have activity levels with fewer than 500 cals separation between BMR and TDEE.
UNLESS - they have slowed their metabolism down.
Guess I'm one of those few. My BMR is 1215 (according to some websites, other websites say it's lower than 1200). My TDEE 1500 (based on my bodymedia fit). I didn't slow my metabolism down. It's really unlikely that anyone has slowed her metabolism down. I don't understand where this assumption came from on MFP, that everyone has a BMR above 1200 unless they have done something wrong.0 -
If you are smaller, you need less calls. PERIOD. It is RIDICULOUS to say that a 6'4" man and a 5'1" woman should have the same "don't eat below this rule." :explode: It IS ALL relative.
Completely agree. (5' 2", small frame)
My weight went up a 1/2 pound from three or four days ago. I know exactly why. It was what I ate.
Yeah, but men and women don't have the same "minimum" guideline. For average men, you really shouldn't eat below 1500, and for anyone over 6ft, it's usually a bit higher (being a short woman, I never really paid attention).
They aren't hard and fast rules, just guidelines to let you know when you are getting too low/entering dangerous turf.
For the last few lbs, I agree with the poster who said to vary your calorie goal mixing up high and low- and try to make your high cal days as healthy as possible. You are likely in a healthy range, so your body will be less willing to part with fat stores, but you do have a few "vanity" lbs you can play with to find where you are most comfy.
Having looked at your profile though, I do suggest you speak to a Dr. about your goals to ensure they are sensible. 115 is on the lower side, so it may be worth discussing if that is a realistic and healthy goal.0 -
Try Raspberry Ketones --- Dr Oz had them on his tv show it is a good item to help you over the hump. I have been using them and have lost 7 lbs since doing so. No side affects take 200 mg at breakfast and you can take another 200 mg at lunch if you find that the just 200 isnt working for you. Makes your body think its thin so it burns fat more effectively. I lost those pounds before finding this site.0
-
whoa, calm down. you don't need to yell.So without knowing how much is being eaten, how much is being burned off, how much daily activity is creating the deficit, age/height/weight, you are going to assume that less eating is the solution automatically?
UHM, yeah. I am going to assume that basic SCIENCE is the solution: your body burns calories to live, and if you aren't losing weight is because you are not burning enough for what you are eating. I am not going to get into an arguement here about the prevelence of starvation mode. You quite obviously are bitter about something though.Very few people really have activity levels with fewer than 500 cals separation between BMR and TDEE.
UNLESS - they have slowed their metabolism down.
VERY FEW PEOPLE DO HUH?? Well, LET'S SEE. MY BMR is 1,500. MY TDEE (sedentary multiplier is 1.2) is 1,800. THAT IS 300 CALORIES by my count. My metabolism is in no ways slowed down, IN FACT it is 200 cals a day FASTER than the average woman for my weight and height.
Let's take it FURTHER. Since MOST people in the US are sedentary, we will use that. YOUR BMR would have to be ALMOST 2,500 (!!!!!) for your TDEE to be near 500 cals different. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A 6 FOOT TALL 360 LB (24 year old) WOMAN FOR YOUR TDEE TO BE AT LEAST 500 CALS FROM YOUR BMR.
Really!!! :explode:
most of what you're saying isn't related to the op, anyway.0 -
Since this is a topic about helping the OP, I figured my personal input would be helpful considering we most likely have a similar TDEE and BMR. The OP has a very similar weight as me (135 lbs.), and my TDEE is 2200 with moderate exercise. That would equate to 1700 calories a day for a one pound a week loss. Anyone within 20 pounds of their goal should aim for no more than 1 pound a week loss. I was just trying to say that her eating less than 1200 calories a day probably isn't the best LONG TERM advice. Eating below your BMR leads to muscle loss, which is catastrophic to your metabolism over time (and in my personal opinion not an "ideal look" for a body).
Slow and steady wins the race. Losing one pound a week and keeping it off forever is way better than drastically cutting your calories below 1200 and once you stop "dieting" gaining it all back.
Yeah, you have moderate exercise. You're right I shouldn't have assumed that she was sedentary but I think my assumption is safer than your as that most people are sedentary.
I agree iwth you, she shouldn't be losing more than 1 lb a week, maybe even just 1/2 lb a week. But my point is, when you are sedentary and you are short, you don't really have much choice but to go below 1,200. This can be safe for some people, and ISN'T drastic for alot of us who are already in the healthy range and are short.0 -
whoa, calm down. you don't need to yell.
most of what you're saying isn't related to the op, anyway.
Sorry, I get a bit excited. I hate it when other people discourage and mislead others. :grumble: Usually it is just out of ignorance though so I shouldn't be such a brat....0 -
So without knowing how much is being eaten, how much is being burned off, how much daily activity is creating the deficit, age/height/weight, you are going to assume that less eating is the solution automatically?
UHM, yeah. I am going to assume that basic SCIENCE is the solution: your body burns calories to live, and if you aren't losing weight is because you are not burning enough for what you are eating. I am not going to get into an arguement here about the prevelence of starvation mode. You quite obviously are bitter about something though.Very few people really have activity levels with fewer than 500 cals separation between BMR and TDEE.
UNLESS - they have slowed their metabolism down.
VERY FEW PEOPLE DO HUH?? Well, LET'S SEE. MY BMR is 1,500. MY TDEE (sedentary multiplier is 1.2) is 1,800. THAT IS 300 CALORIES by my count. My metabolism is in no ways slowed down, IN FACT it is 200 cals a day FASTER than the average woman for my weight and height.
Let's take it FURTHER. Since MOST people in the US are sedentary, we will use that. YOUR BMR would have to be ALMOST 2,500 (!!!!!) for your TDEE to be near 500 cals different. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A 6 FOOT TALL 360 LB (24 year old) WOMAN FOR YOUR TDEE TO BE AT LEAST 500 CALS FROM YOUR BMR.
Really!!! :explode:
Nothing about starvation mode, all about slowing down metabolism mode - two totally different things.
Might want to read up on your science since you want the comments based on that.
Obese guys accomplished it in 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
Just so you know, MFP recognizes that activity level multipliers are total estimates, and as such as made their Sedentary 1.25 x BMR.
And the more popular old scale has actually been suggested to be replaced with others with higher sedentary levels, because it's seen that people actually are more active than they thought, and burning more cals than they thought. Hard to believe!
And so you KNOW, for a fact, that your TDEE is truly only 1800? And you know that estimate is true for yourself because .... ? You had the calorimeter machines hooked up to you all day for an average day of standard activity?
Because, a selection of 4 or 5 levels hardly has any bearing on reality. You might start reading about folks reporting their FitBit or BodyMedia Fit TDEE's who sure thought they had sedentary lifestyles of work/driving 10hrs daily, home for cooking and kids, and no exercise on those days. Hitting way above their levels they thought they'd reach.
So just reacting to advice given when you have no facts on the matter at hand, and it appears very little experience with the majority of stalls/plateau's that occur on MFP.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions