CANNOT get under 130

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

thank you.

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.

BMR based on LBM is usually much more accurate, those are usually the ones that will read lower unless you're lifting weights.

Glad you know a better estimated BMR, very excellent use of that tool, allows much better planning for things.

It's very easy to slow metabolism down actually. If you eat at BMR minus X, the body has to get by with less for those basic functions of life, by slowing down. May not be much, may be a lot.

Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010

Estimated healthy BMR levels are usually at 1200 or higher unless you are female older than 45 at healthy weight, under 5 ft healthy weight, or short and skinny fat or obese fat with less muscle than avg person at healthy weight.

just my 2 cent's but 130 is a good weight. However I'd try toning up with weights and probably start focusing on body fat% Vs the number. The number is not everything. One of my friends at school has been weight training for a while and is 130 only lost 1 pound in 6 months However her measurements have changed DRASTICALLY.

The number is not everything...

just my 2 cent's but 130 is a good weight. However I'd try toning up with weights and probably start focusing on body fat% Vs the number. The number is not everything. One of my friends at school has been weight training for a while and is 130 only lost 1 pound in 6 months However her measurements have changed DRASTICALLY.

The number is not everything...

And that's my goal. I am 65 3/4" (5' 5 3/4") and am on my way to 130. I don't think I want to go much lower than that. I do plan to tighten the heck up though. I like your logic here, measurements can mean more than weight. I'd rather be a stong, tight 130 than a loose skinned 130 any day.

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....

How is telling her that 130 is a healthy weight and she should focus on toning up "discouraging or misleading" her? You have no idea how much she eats every day. If she's already eating at 1200 (or even below if she comes in below her goal every day), telling her to decrease her cals is NOT a good idea. In fact, many people observe the opposite effect - once they start eating MORE they lose. Browse around these forums and you'll see plenty of examples

The bottom line is, we need more information from the OP before we can give her any solid advice. But for now, I stick with my original statement: 130 is healthy. It's fine to desire to be smaller, but maybe focus more on losing inches rather than weight right now.

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.

Prime example why going for a "lower than your body can handle" body weight is not a good thing.

Focus on fitness and well-being, instead of the number on the scale.
You are not overweight at 130 - unless you are under 5 feet tall.
If you weighed less at some previous point in your adult years (not teens) and would like to get back there, you may want to take a look at any prescriptions medications you may be taking including bc pills / hormones.
Also might want to have your body fat analyzed. Under 24% is considered fit for a woman.

While the number might not seem overweight, and all this talk about lower than your body can handle, is crap. i f I wear a pair of pants or shorts and stuff is hanging, I work to get rid of it too! There are healthy ways to be super lean. If she is taking care of yourself, don't discourage! No one here really knows the whole story anyways. No need to troll around. Just love!

Oh definitely! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with getting in shape. If stuff is hanging, it's time to tone up! (That's the stage I'm at right now). The point I (and others, I think) have been trying to make is that sometimes weight isn't the best indication of fitness. 130 is a healthy weight, so maybe stop concentrating on the scale so much and instead concentrate on tightening up! There is a thread here on MFP (I can't find it now, grrr) by a woman who was 130 but flabby. Then she started strength training and went down a few pants sizes and looked AMAZING! And guess what? She still weighed 130. Seriously, the comparison pics were incredible seeing as she was 130 in BOTH pics. Just something to consider

I am in the same boat as well. I have been trying to watch what I eat and have been working out a lot for the past few months and the lbs. are not shedding too fast. I am stuck in the 130's and I would just like to be 5'4" and 130. I am only 32 but I think it seemed to be a little easier even just a few years ago. Have you measured yourself? I have been once a month and there has definitely been a difference there even tho the scale doesn't say much.