Weight Loss Support - I don't understand this magic 1200 calorie number




berryblondeboys
06-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Where did this come from and how can it be accurate? How can there be some magical number that is the number women should not dip below for calories? How can a 5'0" tall woman have the same caloric limit as a 5'10" woman? It just doesn't make sense! A bigger body needs more than a smaller body, right? a bigger woman weighs more so her needs cannot be the same - she can't have the same size heart, liver, stomach, etc. No way. Smaller bodies need smaller organs. I looked it up and it's true. Maybe the variances are small (can't find info on that), but I really don't see how this magic number can be accurate in any way.

It's probably 1200 for the median, but is probably higher and lower for other women.

Here are a couple things I found:

http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864

I got to thinking about this because I'm eating about 1200 calories a day and I think it might be too little and I'm slowing my metabolism too much. I'm exercising an hour 5-6 times a week too (pretty intense working out). I'm 5'6.5" tall and I have a large frame. I probably should be eating around 1500 calories and have dipped too low.

Could that be why so many women I know are stalling out with rigorous exercise and low calorie diets? They've dipped too low and slowed down their metabolisms too much?


gagalu
06-22-2011, 05:21 PM
i'm not sure anyone can honestly answer those questions for you. there are too many diet myths that revolve around "killing" your metabolism. i will say though that you can lose weight at 1500 calories easily and that it may make your diet a little easier for you.

i'm on the 1200 calorie limit as well, with some days a little higher or a little lower.

berryblondeboys
06-22-2011, 05:26 PM
i'm not sure anyone can honestly answer those questions for you. there are too many diet myths that revolve around "killing" your metabolism. i will say though that you can lose weight at 1500 calories easily and that it may make your diet a little easier for you.

i'm on the 1200 calorie limit as well, with some days a little higher or a little lower.

That's it - the myths are more known than the facts!

And are you exercising on that 1200 a day too?


fattymcfatty
06-22-2011, 05:29 PM
Kudos to you for being able to stick to 1200. Once I need to get there in order to lose, I'll be at maintenance, cause I like to eat! LOL!

Seriously, I'm 5'9" and have been losing consistently since I got to 200lbs on 1500-1600 calories per day. I do work out 6 days a week, intense and I notice when I go lower on those workout days, I am dying of starvation. So I think my body burns more. And yeah, I'll always need more food than a 5'0 woman.

georgeshair
06-22-2011, 05:37 PM
So far, I've been losing consistently on 1400 calories per day. I'm now 140lbs; at the weigh-in, I asked my consultant if I should lower my calories and she said 'if ain't broke, don't fix it! According to her charts, my BMR is lower than 1400, but I do a lot of exercise (cardio, combat etc), so I'm probably working off the excess calories.

Lovely
06-22-2011, 05:55 PM
My understanding of the 1,200 calorie line wasn't that it was a magic number, but rather that (given all the vitamins, minerals and other nutritional needs a human body has) it was difficult to get all of that eating much less than 1,200 calories.

Somewhere along the way it seemed to morph into this line that some people believe everyone needed to eat 1,200 in order to lose, and others figured it was the absolute minimum all humans needed, and going below it was dangerous.

There's also the 2,000 calorie daily amount that is used for nutritional labeling. That doesn't seem to be a magic number, either. As there are plenty of people around that are eating less than that to lose and maintain.

When it comes to getting concerned over people who regularly eat fewer than 1,200 calories... it depends on the person's height and build. I'm positive that some smaller people (by pure calorie amount) need to eat less than a person of my height or more.

Whereas I'm not really positive that I'll ever have to eat the "magic" 1,200 calories. At 5'9" I might always be able to eat more and continue losing. And gosh I hope so! I love to eat! :lol:

kaplods
06-22-2011, 06:03 PM
There's nothing magical about the 1200 number, or the 1000 calorie number that preceded it.

When I first dieted in the 1970's, the "magic number" was 1000 calories. It was argued that minimal nutrition was virtually impossible on fewer than 1000 calories.

And just as today there were people saying "what's so magic about 1000," and people pushing the envelope - deciding that if 1000 calories was good for everybody then what could be so bad about 800, at least for smaller dieters?.

No matter where the bar is set, there will be people who set their personal bar above or below the recommendation.

I do think that if you're going to go under 1200 calories, it would be wise to self-educate yourself on nutrition, especially on the topic of the most nutrient-dense foods so so you can get the most bang for your 1200 calories.

That's really information we all should have though. Unfortunately there's no magic, and damned too little science available to determine a minimum, maximum, and ideal calorie level for an individual. Activity level, age, food preferences, overall diet, starting weight, there are a lot of variables that will affect which calorie level and what type of diet is easiest/best/most effective.

Trial and error is all we have, really. The science of weight loss is still in it's infancy compared to many other health issues (especially for people who are non-average in any way, because in general research participants tend to be average).

Also, we have this strange attitude in weight loss, that the absolute minimum is always the best. So if the science or common wisdom says "1200 is the minimum" (with "for everyone" being implied) then everyone should start at the minimum, because fastest weight loss is always best, which means the fewer calories the better.

There are several ways that logic can backfire. "Starvation mode" is also another magical concept in weight loss. It's not magic, the science is there, but not always well understood. There's nothing magical about the possibility of you metabolism slowing down on "too few" calories. For example, if your calorie level is too low, you may not have the energy level to be as active as you are or can be on a higher level. It's why you sometimes can see weight loss increase after a calorie increase. There are other possibilities that aren't as well researched (your body may, for example burn fewer calories towards body processes. For example on low-carb dieting, my body temperature is about a one degree higher than on a higher-carb diet. It takes fewer calories to support a 300 lb body at 97.4 degrees than at 98.2). I also have more energy on low-carb (as long as I don't go too low carb/calorie), and spread out my calories.

The most dangerous assumption in weight loss is that we're all the same, because there's a great deal of evidence that we're not. Sometimes we're not even like out former selves. When I was younger, I don't think there was as much of a difference in my weight loss between higher and lower carb diets
(although I can't be sure, because I didn't trust low-carb enough to try it for very long).

There's no magic to any of the weight loss recommendations, and some have science backing them and some do not, but it leaves most of us in the position of having to be scientist and lab rat (and often mythbuster, too).

Esofia
06-22-2011, 06:12 PM
I'm doing well on 1100 (deficit of 400), but I'm small and inactive due to disability. I don't let myself go below 1000 even on days when I'm pretty much lying in bed all day, I just have a smaller calorie deficit on those days, and I realise that the weight loss will likely slow down a lot as I near goal for that reason. I'm also careful to eat a good wholefoods diet and I keep an eye on all my nutrients. Eating 2000 calories a day would pile the weight on me like nobody's business. Of course it's all relative! Someone a foot taller than me will need substantially more of everything, micronutrients as well as calories and protein and such.

berryblondeboys
06-22-2011, 06:14 PM
It really is a shame that we don't know more about how our bodies work and what it really needs. I've been trying to listen to my body and listening to what it needs in hunger signals, but even that can be 'trained' so it's not a true gauge of what I need or not.

All, I know is that for now, I'm upping my caloric intake a bit. I've upped my exercising a bit and with all of that, why am I eating so little. I started this journey losing at eating 1800 calories and I just got less and less hungry, pretty evenly too. I didn't consciously say, "i'm going to eat 1200 calories, it just slowly, slowly dropped to that level as I didn't feel as hungry. I eat fairly low carb (net under 100) but that was true for when I was eating 1800 and 1200 - at 1200 that means more of my calories are coming from carbs then, which isn't good as I have sugar issues (controlled by diet).

So yes, as Kaplods said, I'm having to be my own scientist and lab rat for my body. Just like I can't freak out and change things during my two weeks stall out on weight (I don't lose or lose very little between TTOM and ovulation and lose my month's worth of weight in the second two weeks of the month).

And, I think exercise plays a larger role in my weight loss than most peoples. If I exercise I'm much more likely to see a drop in the scales than if I just drop calories to the level as if I'm not exercising. But that's ME... because yes, we are all so very, very different!

alaskanlaughter
06-22-2011, 06:30 PM
i tried "listening to my body" and doing intuitive eating...figured out that my intuition seems to be broke LOL...i "became" hungry nearly every time something good was around to eat, which seemed like always, and began gaining weight...so i discovered that i should just do what I KNOW works (low carb) for my body and quit listening to my brain tell myself that i'm hungry all the time lol

JoJoJo2
06-22-2011, 06:34 PM
There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to losing weight. We each have to find what works for the individual, and go with that.

We are different sizes. We are at different stages of our lives. We eat different foods. Our metabolisms are all different. We each have our own genetic background. We have different levels of activity.

Yes, it is a conundrum for sure. :wave:

sacha
06-22-2011, 06:48 PM
It's an arbitrary number parroted over and over, promoted in fitness magazines, TV, journalism.

1100 may be just fine for a small sedentary 5'0 older female, and 1800 may be far too little (in terms of required nutrients for recovery and stamina) for a small athletic 5'0 younger female.

Age, frame, activity level, all things come into play.

bargoo
06-22-2011, 07:01 PM
All the 1200 number means is that you may be robbing yourself of needed nutrients if you consistently go below that. Many health professionals agree with that explanation. It was not just "made up" by someone on 3FC.

Angelique
06-22-2011, 07:10 PM
I was under the impression that 1200 calories was the minimum for a short woman who was sedentary. I'm pretty sure that if you are working out rigorously several times a week, you need a lot more than 1200 calories.

JayEll
06-22-2011, 07:14 PM
It's really that you don't get enough nutrition unless you take supplements, if you're eating below 1200. On some plans, like Medifast, you are in fact eating between 800 and 1000, but the Medifast foods have been engineered to provide vitamins and minerals as well as the particular balance of proteins/fats/carbs.

I used to totally believe in the 1200 calorie limit, but I don't anymore.

Jay

Lori Bell
06-22-2011, 07:34 PM
The 1200 calorie debate. I love it! What I find most entertaining about it is when people decide that they need more than 1200 calories and so they raise it by a couple hundred a day by adding in a dish of ice cream, or choclate, or a couple beers. LOL So what good are extra calories if they have absolutely zero nutritional value? It's not the calories you need, its the nutrients that come in the form of calories. Sugar is not a food group. It is always mind boggling to me. To each her own calorie count!

mzKiki
06-22-2011, 07:41 PM
I'm 5'8" 244 and I eat 1,800 calories a day I really don't think I could make it on less than 1500 at this stage. I always thought 1200 was the number that a woman shouldn't go below.

berryblondeboys
06-22-2011, 07:46 PM
The 1200 calorie debate. I love it! What I find most entertaining about it is when people decide that they need more than 1200 calories and so they raise it by a couple hundred a day by adding in a dish of ice cream, or choclate, or a couple beers. LOL So what good are extra calories if they have absolutely zero nutritional value? It's not the calories you need, its the nutrients that come in the form of calories. Sugar is not a food group. It is always mind boggling to me. To each her own calorie count!

Well, this is not me thankfully, but I think I was shorting myself on proteins and fats. Tonight I ate a larger salad and a protein bar. I am now at 1240 where I would have been under 1100 otherwise. I did a full hour of a step routine that had inteervals. My heart rate was around 145-155 the entire time. I probably burned about 600 calories or so.

Sweets and simple carbs have nowhere to go in my eating plant, but an apple with peanut butter or scrambled eggs can fit in there more often than I have been eating them.

zoodoo613
06-22-2011, 08:43 PM
I can't seem to find it, but I once saw an article saying essentially what you're saying: there is no magic number.

I'll confess I'm a little suspicious of the "eating too little" theory, mostly because most of us aren't on this board because we've made a habit throughout our lives of not eating enough. I know starvation mode can happen, but how often? I think the bigger issue with low calories is sustainability, and the mindset of people who are trying to lose weight with severe restriction.

All that said, I think you, in particular, should do what you think best. You've got a good grasp on all intricacies of this journey. It's possible you've slowed your metabolism down. It's also possible that your just getting closer to your goal and it's getting harder. If there's no metabolism issue at work, and you start eating an extra 300 calories a day, it might slow your weight loss by a couple poulds a month. I'm confident that you wouldn't blow your lid over that.

gagalu
06-22-2011, 08:48 PM
That's it - the myths are more known than the facts!

And are you exercising on that 1200 a day too?

yep :)

well, for the first 7 months of my diet, at least. i had been exercising 4 days a week for 2-2 1/2 hours, but ~lots of life changes have been going on so i've been finding lots of reasons not to go to the gym. ;)

i lost weight pretty decently, about 1.2-2 lbs a week, so i think that our bodies can handle calorie limits that low reasonably well if we can maintain a work out and not drop the pounds too quickly. what rate have you been losing at?

April Snow
06-22-2011, 08:58 PM
While I agree that 1200 isn't a magical number, I don't agree with the starvation mode theory. I know it's not a real life situation but the real people on the Biggest Loser are eating in the 1200 calorie range and exercising hours and hours a day and losing weight, lots of it. Clearly if running too large a calorie deficit caused you to not lose weight, that wouldn't happen.

But of course, TBL isn't real life. Those people aren't working full time jobs running home, parenting kids, going to school, etc, etc., etc. And they have a motivation of not embarrassing themselves on national tv plus trying to win a lot of money. Most of us can't put that much time and effort into weight loss and getting fit, so we have to come up plans that we CAN do, and most importantly, can KEEP doing. If you feel lousy on 1200 calories and don't have the energy to work out and do all the other activities you have to do and want to do, then eat more. If you feel great and have loads of energy, then just make sure you are getting the best nutritional bang for your calories and don't worry about the number being too low.

berryblondeboys
06-22-2011, 09:27 PM
yep :)

well, for the first 7 months of my diet, at least. i had been exercising 4 days a week for 2-2 1/2 hours, but ~lots of life changes have been going on so i've been finding lots of reasons not to go to the gym. ;)

i lost weight pretty decently, about 1.2-2 lbs a week, so i think that our bodies can handle calorie limits that low reasonably well if we can maintain a work out and not drop the pounds too quickly. what rate have you been losing at?

I've been losing on average 2.5 pounds a week and my eating has been as high as 2000 calories a day to as low as 900 calories a day. For the first month I was eating about 1800. I got less hungry and the next month (approximately) it was 1600. Then 1400 for a couple months and recently I dropped to 1200 because I just didn't feel like eating more. Now granted most of that time I was at 1200 I was a bit lighter on exercise. (life interfered a bit so my usual 6 days a week was more like 4 days a week for about 3 weeks). I'm just worrying a bit and wondering if I should be or not.

I'm used to very little weight loss for most of the month for like 14-20 days and then for about 10-14 days a major drop. I'm about at that major drop stage in my monthly cycle, so I've been hovering in the same 2 pounds now for more than 2 weeks which is normal for me.

So I'm losing at great rate, so why did I drop calories? I'm trying to listen to my body and it's sending less hunger signals, but I look at what I eat in a day and I wonder if I'm getting enough of what I need nutritionally. I do not want to Lower my metabolism by 40% and then have major problems! But how will I know if I've dipped too low?

krampus
06-22-2011, 09:48 PM
I don't understand it either. I'd say whatever amount leaves you feeling not constantly hungry nor full, with enough energy to exercise, is a good amount. For me (5'4, 24, very small frame, desk job + "workouts") 1350-1600 seems to be a good range. Any less and I feel like fainting.

time2lose
06-22-2011, 09:56 PM
Lori Bell originally posted The 1200 calorie debate. I love it! What I find most entertaining about it is when people decide that they need more than 1200 calories and so they raise it by a couple hundred a day by adding in a dish of ice cream, or choclate, or a couple beers. LOL So what good are extra calories if they have absolutely zero nutritional value? It's not the calories you need, its the nutrients that come in the form of calories. Sugar is not a food group. It is always mind boggling to me. To each her own calorie count!

Great point! I get more nutrients now with my 1200 calories than I did when I was eating 3000 calories a day. I am eating fruits and vegetables instead of fried foods, chips, and candy.

lin43
06-22-2011, 10:15 PM
i tried "listening to my body" and doing intuitive eating...figured out that my intuition seems to be broke LOL...i "became" hungry nearly every time something good was around to eat, which seemed like always, and began gaining weight...so i discovered that i should just do what I KNOW works (low carb) for my body and quit listening to my brain tell myself that i'm hungry all the time lol

LOL! This happened to me EVERY time I tried intuitive eating. Like you, I just had to accept that my eating "intuition" is broken.

lin43
06-22-2011, 10:21 PM
The 1200 calorie debate. I love it! What I find most entertaining about it is when people decide that they need more than 1200 calories and so they raise it by a couple hundred a day by adding in a dish of ice cream, or choclate, or a couple beers. LOL So what good are extra calories if they have absolutely zero nutritional value? It's not the calories you need, its the nutrients that come in the form of calories. Sugar is not a food group. It is always mind boggling to me. To each her own calorie count!

For me, eating is about more just just fulfilling "nutritional value." I, for one, find pleasure in eating, and if adding a small bowl of ice-cream to fulfill a higher calorie count helps people to stick to the plan, I see nothing wrong with that. I'm trying to approach this as a true lifestyle change, and there's no way that I would want to live life without occasional treats. But as you say, to each her own.

indiblue
06-22-2011, 10:38 PM
Agree that the trouble with less than 1200 is it takes a LOT of effort to get in the proper fats, proteins, and micronutrients.

I'm on 1200 (5'2, medium frame, sedentary job, 45 mins exercise 5-6 x a week- around 1300-1400 on days with particularly hard workouts) and I count rigorously everything. I think it's dangerous not too- accidentally eating just one large serving of something like potato chips or candy can mean 25% of your daily calories wasted on something with no nutritional value.

The lower you go the more rigid you have to be in what you're eating.

astrophe
06-23-2011, 12:01 AM
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

Maybe that would help? There really is too many variable -- age, height, starting weight, goal weight, activity level, formula used to estaimte AMR etc. to think one size fits all.

A.

kimmieval
06-23-2011, 02:20 AM
didn't work for me..at 1200 calories, I was constantly hungry and I gained weight...my doctor thought I was cheating or not counting calories accurately! The truth is, my body needs at least 1400 calories for me to operate and feel well, and I have lost weight eating between 1300 and 1500 calories a day. I have had to work my own plan, but I get annoyed when people tell me I cannot lose weight unless I am eating 1200 calories.

I think if you eat a balanced meal you will get the required nutrient you need, but, if you feel faint etc, then maybe up the calories.

Esofia
06-23-2011, 05:35 AM
I really wish that number wasn't around, and that people spoke in terms of percentage of calories burned or similar. It fosters the idea that the only variable is gender, that all women have exactly the same nutritional needs. Height, weight, age, activity levels, and hormonal factors (e.g. someone with heavy periods needs more iron) will affect the need for all types of nutrients, not just calories. Someone a foot taller than me and very active could easily need to eat twice what I do, and that includes more protein and fat and so forth. It's ridiculous to say that you can't meet your nutritional needs under 1200: you can if you're small and inactive enough for that to be the right amount for you, and for many other people 1200 is far, far too low. Similarly, the appropriate dose of medication can be weight dependent, and you see this particularly in veterinary medicine where the size of patients varies far more than with humans.

claire0412
06-23-2011, 05:43 AM
I'm 5'8 (and 1/2) and normally really active. Even though I'm on my last 5lbs, I would never drop my calories to 1,200 in normal circumstances. I'd be so hungry and grumpy! I did it for 4 days to kickstart my weightloss again, with the emphasis on good fats and low carbs. It worked but I couldn't have kept it up any longer than that. I lose well on 1,600 calories though (1/2 - 1 lb a week).

However, I've just had foot surgery and am sitting on my backside doing nothing. I've been eating when I'm hungry and have been averaging 1,100 for the last few days. I'm just as not hungry if I sit around doing nothing and I don't think I'm starving myself eating less than 1,200. I'm definitely not going to find 100 calories of crap to eat when I've been doing my best to eat healthily to speed my recovery.

The other observation is, even when we eat 1,200 calories or less, we still get a wider range of vitamins and minerals than most people who eat 3,000 calories worth of burgers and pizza. As long as you listen to your body and eat consciously and healthily when you're hungry, the number of calories doesn't matter, IMO.

berryblondeboys
06-23-2011, 07:29 AM
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

Maybe that would help? There really is too many variable -- age, height, starting weight, goal weight, activity level, formula used to estaimte AMR etc. to think one size fits all.

A.

Well, that was interesting. I plugged it in and this is what I got:

RESULTS - GUIDELINE ONLY
Maintenance:
2487 Calories/day
Fat Loss:
1990 Calories/day
Extreme Fat Loss:
1624 Calories/day

I changed the variables around a bit and still got 1624 a day for extreme weight loss.

berryblondeboys
06-23-2011, 07:39 AM
I really wish that number wasn't around, and that people spoke in terms of percentage of calories burned or similar. It fosters the idea that the only variable is gender, that all women have exactly the same nutritional needs. Height, weight, age, activity levels, and hormonal factors (e.g. someone with heavy periods needs more iron) will affect the need for all types of nutrients, not just calories. Someone a foot taller than me and very active could easily need to eat twice what I do, and that includes more protein and fat and so forth. It's ridiculous to say that you can't meet your nutritional needs under 1200: you can if you're small and inactive enough for that to be the right amount for you, and for many other people 1200 is far, far too low. Similarly, the appropriate dose of medication can be weight dependent, and you see this particularly in veterinary medicine where the size of patients varies far more than with humans.

YES!!!! I'm not 'stuck' on this 1200 number, but I hear it thrown around all the time, but I can't really see anything that backs it up or supports it! Yet it's thrown around like a golden rule.

Everything I put in my mouth has nutritional value - everything. I've always eaten really well for two of my three meals - lunches would usually throw me WAY off and snacking on crap. Changed my lunches and snack foods and now all is good, but I'm now not sure I'm getting enough and how can I know if I am or am not?

runningfromfat
06-23-2011, 08:24 AM
I've wondered about this too. I'm the same height as you and not that much smaller so I got similar results from that calculator (it told me around 1500 for extreme fat loss).

I normally do intuitive eating but I'll check my calories every now and then to see where I'm at and to rethink some of my choices. I can get down to 1300 for like a day but then the next day I'm starving and I just can't maintain that. I think I can be more consistent on something like 1500/1600 and in reality I probably eat on average between 1500-1800 with some days at around 2000 if we went out to eat or are having a special meal or something. I lose pretty darn slowly but I continue to lose so I'm stick with works for the time being. I've also been sick a lot lately so that hasn't helped things as much. :(

asweetchicagogirl1
06-23-2011, 09:08 AM
Interesting, I've wondered about this as well and find everyone's responses on this thread helpful. Honestly, I tried to stay at 1200-1300 working out every day for a while but it just isn't realistic for me. I'm now at 1500-1600 during the week working out every day (and a little higher on the weekends but I'm also more active on the weekends). It seems to be working well so I'm not going to mess with it. ;)

BeachBreeze2010
06-23-2011, 09:50 AM
I've been wondering about this topic as well. I am 5'1" and small framed. I wear a size 5 ring and can touch my index finger and thumb together around my wrist. Ironically, as large as my hips get, my hands are still small. Go figure.

Anyway, I plugged in my info on that site (said I was sedentary even though that isn't true) and it still gave me 1560 for fat loss and didn't give me a reccomendation for extreme fat loss. I wonder why?

When I eat 1000 to 1200 calories a day, it requires me to be more focused on what I eat. I eat a lot of lean protein and try to cut WAY back on sugars even from overly sweet fruits and veggies. When I do that, the cravings don't seem to hit me and the tummy grumblings aren't a crisis. When I eat, I am full on much less. I got started eating this way because of personal issues, but now that I have been doing it, I like it. It's easier to just cut out all of the crap I used to eat rather than try to eat smaller amounts of it. It is easier for me to eat 1000-1200 calories a day of these types of foods than 1500 calories a day of a more open menu. On my exercise days, I try to eat an extra container of greek yogurt or a larger portion of lean protein to make sure I am getting enough to replenish the nutritional needs of the workout.

The last 2 weeks, I have lost about 1.5lbs each week. I don't know if that's the "metabolism shut down" or if it's just because it's the correct amount of calories for my body. It seems like a good rate of weight loss for me.

I don't know if this amount works for me because my lean body mass is small or for some other reason. I've never been in a bigger body (obviously) so I can only say how I feel. I don't think I am hurting myself eating this way.

aimeebell
06-23-2011, 10:45 AM
<<I started this journey losing at eating 1800 calories and I just got less and less hungry, pretty evenly too. I didn't consciously say, "i'm going to eat 1200 calories, it just slowly, slowly dropped to that level as I didn't feel as hungry.>>

Hmmmmm, and your weight loss has been slower lately too, hasn't it? It's so hard to figure out because even when you switch it up, you don't know if the increased/decreased loss is necessarily attributed to the changes, or if your body was just ready for a whoosh.
I increased my calories three to four weeks ago from 1200 to 1400, plus I had two or three days of not counting (but probably eating maintenance range), and one semi-ugly binge. Strangely, I lost 7.6 lbs in the last month, more than any other month, and I am at the end of this journey. Is it because I ate MORE? I don't know. I have never believed in the whole starvation mode theory, but it makes me wonder.

berryblondeboys
06-23-2011, 10:49 AM
<<I started this journey losing at eating 1800 calories and I just got less and less hungry, pretty evenly too. I didn't consciously say, "i'm going to eat 1200 calories, it just slowly, slowly dropped to that level as I didn't feel as hungry.>>

Hmmmmm, and your weight loss has been slower lately too, hasn't it? It's so hard to figure out because even when you switch it up, you don't know if the increased/decreased loss is necessarily attributed to the changes, or if your body was just ready for a whoosh.
I increased my calories three to four weeks ago from 1200 to 1400, plus I had two or three days of not counting (but probably eating maintenance range), and one semi-ugly binge. Strangely, I lost 7.6 lbs in the last month, more than any other month, and I am at the end of this journey. Is it because I ate MORE? I don't know. I have never believed in the whole starvation mode theory, but it makes me wonder.

My weight loss has been pretty steady. It's stalled the last couple weeks, but it does that every month. I'll know in about 2 weeks if things have changed. (I lose between ovulation and TTOM only). That's the other hard part of it - I lose cyclically.

JayEll
06-23-2011, 11:15 AM
Now see, if I eat what Freedieting.com tells me I can eat, I gain weight. So... one really has to test it out on one's own.

Jay

luciddepths
06-23-2011, 01:06 PM
I eat anywhere from 1200-1600 on any given day sometimes less. I'm 5'6. I think people worry about eating say 900 calories a day all the time because most don't get the things they need! Nutrition wise...I think that's why people say 1200... Odds are you will get more good foods if you focus on 1200-1500?

Angelique
06-23-2011, 03:18 PM
The 1200 calorie debate. I love it! What I find most entertaining about it is when people decide that they need more than 1200 calories and so they raise it by a couple hundred a day by adding in a dish of ice cream, or choclate, or a couple beers. LOL So what good are extra calories if they have absolutely zero nutritional value? It's not the calories you need, its the nutrients that come in the form of calories. Sugar is not a food group. It is always mind boggling to me. To each her own calorie count!

I have a coworker who asks me for advice on losing weight and I counted her calories for the day and they came in under 1300. I told her that probably wasn't enough for someone her size and who is always hungry. So she thought that she could add beer since she could add more calories. She was serious!

berryblondeboys
06-23-2011, 04:34 PM
I think I figured out was also subconsciously affecting me. On my fitness/calorie counting app, it kept lowering the calories I could eat in a day. I never eat back calories in exercise, so it said 1160 right now.

Well, I had the plan set a sedentary lifestyle, but I started to realize I don't exactly lead a sedentary lifestyle. I go up and down stairs a couple dozen times a day. I spend a minimum of 2 hours in the kitchen every day. This summer I'm out watering the plants for 30-45 minutes every day. I run errands, etc. So, I switched it to "low active" and voila! My calorie allowance jumped up to 1406. WIth upping my exercise this past week with slightly longer and more intense workouts, I just couldn't have been getting enough.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or a subconscious thing going on, but today I am hungrier and will probably end the day around 1450. I'm also doing a aqua zumba class today.

kaplods
06-23-2011, 05:44 PM
I think I figured out was also subconsciously affecting me. On my fitness/calorie counting app, it kept lowering the calories I could eat in a day. I never eat back calories in exercise, so it said 1160 right now.

Well, I had the plan set a sedentary lifestyle, but I started to realize I don't exactly lead a sedentary lifestyle.


You also have to realize that the calorie estimators aren't magic either. They're essentially more or less educated-guesses based on averages. I've found calculators that take my weight and activity level and yet spit out very different calorie recommendations. Most overestimate my calorie needs by 500 calories or more. If I followed their recommendations, I would gain weight.

Of course, I have metabolic issues including diabetes and thyroid issues, and my activity level isn't your everyday, sedentary. I have health and mobility issues that during some times of the year, make garden slugs seem quick in comparison.

My calorie needs are very different in the middle of winter (when my pain issues are worst) than in late Spring and early Autumn when I feel my best, and am at my most active.

There is no one-size-fits all diet. Even individual needs can change tremendously over time and situation. The calorie level on which I maintain my weight today, was a calorie level that at this weight in the past, I would lose 5-7 lbs a week (and not just the first week. Heck the first week of a diet, I would always lose 9-11 in my 20's).

The scale and our own bodies are the best judge, not some calculator that may or may not represent the bodies we have.

The calculators can give you a starting point, but from there you have to adjust based on your own experiences - how you feel and the results you're seeing on the scale.

max4pups
07-28-2011, 09:00 AM
It's really that you don't get enough nutrition unless you take supplements, if you're eating below 1200. On some plans, like Medifast, you are in fact eating between 800 and 1000, but the Medifast foods have been engineered to provide vitamins and minerals as well as the particular balance of proteins/fats/carbs.

I used to totally believe in the 1200 calorie limit, but I don't anymore.

Jay


Being a small framed woman with a height of 5'2" and getting ready to start the medifast plan i'll let you know how it works LOL
I have struggled to loose 20 of the 40 pounds i'd like to. (starting weight 165) and as i sit here at 146 i'm struggling constantly to loose now. I've tried zig zaging, eating more, eating less working out more, working out less and I"m thinking that 1200 calorie base is just not right for me. :dizzy:

Christen
07-28-2011, 09:06 AM
Didn't read all the posts here...just your first one and wanted to say that I lost my first 18 on 1800 a day and exercise and I'm 5'5...now I am at 1600 a day and working out and STILL LOOSING...I KNOW that if I go lower than 1500 I am a total bear to live with, but somedays I don't even eat my full 1600 so for me it's all in my head...I THINK I need 1600-1800 but like yesterday I only used about 1400 so who knows...just wanted you to know that you're not alone in the confusion...I don't think it's one calorie size fits all:D

Loli
07-28-2011, 09:12 AM
I have used a bod pod before. I was told that based on my height and muscle to fat ratio, my BMR is 1000 calories a day. So, that's where my target calories are at now.

ChickieChicks
07-28-2011, 11:49 AM
I've been eating 1200 cals a day for 75 days staright. I up it to 1390 on heavy workout days, but not always. I'm very active, besides just working out. Being SHORT stinks.....to get a big deficit, my plan now has me at 1170 cals/day. But I just can't do it.

1200 is not an outrageous goal for very short women. I work hard to get 99% healthy foods and am still building lots of muscle.

nitenurse
07-28-2011, 11:58 AM
im losing approx 1.5 to 2 lbs a week and i use 10 cal per lb of body weight, so as my weight drops my calories do to. i see these post by people who weigh 250lbs and are eating 1500 cal, when they get to 150 lbs what will they drop their calories to?

kelly315
07-28-2011, 12:04 PM
I think 1200 is generally considered the "danger line" rather than a definitive number for most women. When I lost 120lbs last time, I quickly learned that my line was around 1350-1400. If I dipped below this, I would generally lose less weight than if I ate more than this.

Weight loss is both an art and a science, so never be discouraged from experimenting. You'll find your magic number.

Esofia
07-28-2011, 12:21 PM
1200 is useful in the way that a 2000 maintenance recommendation for women is useful: it's an average. If 2000 is a good maintenance figure for you, then 1200 is probably a good minimum (which is NOT the same as ideal number for weight loss, it means that you should be getting more than that on average and never drop below it). If 2000 for maintenance is way off for you, then 1200 will be way off as well. I couldn't possibly eat 2000 calories, for instance, at 4'11 and highly inactive I'd put on huge amounts of weight, and similarly my safe minimum is correspondingly lower than 1200. Someone tall and/or very active would need far more than 2000 for maintenance, and shouldn't go within several hundred calories of 1200 even as an rock-bottom minimum.

If your calorie levels are far too low, you can often tell anyway as you will start getting signs such as severe hunger, dizziness, fatigue and so forth. Calorie calculators which factor in height, gender, weight and fitness levels are a good start, and after that you need to fine tune. When you find the calorie level at which you are steadily losing 1lb/week, add 500 to find your maintenance level. 1lb/week is a good rate to start with, and once you've settled into that, you can maybe increase the calorie deficit if you're heavy enough to warrant it.

April Snow
07-28-2011, 12:42 PM
berryblondeboys -

I know you are pretty low carb. fwiw, my plan is very low carb (2 tbs of oat bran a day, veggies and carbs from low/no fat dairy but that's it) and I am amazed at how few calories I eat. I'm eating as much as I want, there are no limits on the amount of permitted foods. But even eating until I am totally satisfied, I typically come in under 1000 calories a day. Not on purpose and the only reason I even know is I was putting my food into fitday for a while out of curiosity - now I don't even bother to do that.

the other thing is that I agreed with Kaplods - all of these calculators are just educated guesses and give you a starting point. For some people, they will be pretty accurate but most people end up having to tweak a bit up and down to account for their individual metabolism in order to find the right number where they simultaneously feel good and optimize weight loss.

astrophe
07-28-2011, 12:56 PM
I can only tell you what I do. And I have all kinds of endocrine wacky.

My endoc suggested 2300 to lose based on whatever formula she uses. I'm guessing Harris-Benedict. I did it. On paper I lost 30 lbs in a year, in real life, nothing. She was baffled, I was annoyed. I know I have endocrine crazy but I should have gone in much sooner to complain.

My GP suggested 1500 calories. I went hunting around online and found that the Katch-McCardle which takes % body fat into acct is more accurate for me. Not just height and activity level but %bodyfat too. You have to click the "advanced" on there.

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

It suggests 1651 for me. Which is more like the 1500 GP suggested than the 2300 endoc did. So I decided to go with it and try and crank it down to 1500 if need be.

I'm still not totally there, but I AM starting to see things move again. So that tells me that's more ME.

All these guidelines things are just guidelines to put you in the ball park. There's going to have to be some tweaks to make it custom for you.
A.

Sunshine87
07-28-2011, 01:16 PM
What is strange about the 1200 calorie number is that my sister-in-law and my brother STRICTLY count calories and never go over. She is like 115 lbs and to maintain weight if she is not exercising she can only eat 1000 calories per day. She ate like this for 3 years without gaining or losing weight. I always felt bad.
I am starving if I eat at the 1200 calorie minimum. I would imagine that if you are truly experiencing hunger around the clock it is not enough food to sustain life!

envelope
07-28-2011, 01:54 PM
im losing approx 1.5 to 2 lbs a week and i use 10 cal per lb of body weight, so as my weight drops my calories do to. i see these post by people who weigh 250lbs and are eating 1500 cal, when they get to 150 lbs what will they drop their calories to?

My calorie range average is 1500 a day and I am very satisfied with in the range. For me this is about a change of lifestyle, doing something that I can live with for the rest of my life. So this is also the range that I will be eating at when I am at goal weight. Obviously as I get closer to goal, it will take a lot longer to lose weight then it does now, but I will still be losing weight.

Panacea86
09-19-2011, 04:03 PM
I know this is an oldish thread, but I just wanted to say (instead of starting a new one), I'm really struggling to only eat 1200 calories. When I started, I recklessly did 800 (was losing 1lb a day), then up to 1000 (it tapered, as to be expected with any weight loss). Now I think I get 1400-1800, but I don't exercise enough to get this high and I know I need to come down in order to finally shed these pounds. I have a trampoline, and try to exercise at least 10 minutes per day on it, and then 90 minutes daily on the weekends with weight lifting.

I'm afraid to eat 1200, as I've stated before in other threads, I'm afraid of hunger, afraid of low blood sugar...I've fainted before, but it was unclear why. 1200 calories of healthy (which I eat with ease) food is enough to live, I shouldn't be so scared, but I am.

Any thoughts?

SparkleBE
09-19-2011, 04:47 PM
Panacea - If you donít feel comfortable eating 1200 calories, then Iíd say you should try eating a bit more and see how that works for you. Iím 4Ē shorter than you, and when I started losing weight, I was eating about 1400 calories a day and not really exercising. And I ended up losing about 1 pound per week. Now I eat around 1300 cals and walk for an hour every day. I tried going down to 1200, but I just feel a bit more comfortable around 1300 and the weightís still coming off. So only eating 1200 isnít always necessary.

If you think your 1400-1800 calorie range is a bit high, then you could try eating on the lower end of that range (say 1500-1600, or 1400-1500) and see how that works for you. Youíre eating healthy food and youíre getting a calorie deficit, so the weight should still come off.

racrane
09-20-2011, 12:13 AM
This was a great thread to read and go through. Thanks! I know for me I need at least 1600 calories to not be be cranky and moody. But I am very active and have a large frame.

Everyone is different. If I went to 1200 someone would toss me into a closet and lock it. :D

Magalo
09-20-2011, 09:10 AM
Well, that was interesting. I plugged it in and this is what I got:

RESULTS - GUIDELINE ONLY
Maintenance:
2487 Calories/day
Fat Loss:
1990 Calories/day
Extreme Fat Loss:
1624 Calories/day

I changed the variables around a bit and still got 1624 a day for extreme weight loss.


Wow, your "extreme fat loss" almost equal my maintenance !

Maintenance: 1794 Calories/day
Fat Loss: 1435 Calories/day
Extreme Fat Loss: 1076 Calories/day

Panacea86
09-20-2011, 09:16 AM
SparkleBE, this is the first time in a while I've tried 1200, and it's just not working. It's as if my body NEEDS 1600 or so calories, because no matter how hard I've tried it seems at the end of the day I'm putting 200-400 calories in my mouth like "haha! you can't win!". Ugh

My weight loss has been incredibly slow with these higher daily calories, one week I gain 1/2 a pound, the next I lose one, then three weeks no loss, then one week 3lbs loss. It's stupid.

I try to zigzag when it gets like this, but I'm having such a hard time coming down from 1600-1800.

I think I need to force it. Maybe snap my wrist with a rubber band if I go in the kitchen to eat after my 1200-1400 calories.

Rana
09-20-2011, 11:01 AM
My weight loss has been incredibly slow with these higher daily calories, one week I gain 1/2 a pound, the next I lose one, then three weeks no loss, then one week 3lbs loss. It's stupid.


No, it's not stupid.

You still lost 3.5 lbs in four weeks.

That's great!

Your body is not a machine and you can't force it to lose weight in an organized fashion.

sontaikle
09-20-2011, 11:28 AM
Panacea86 - My body lets go of the weight sporadically too. On average I've lost about 2 pounds per week, but I DON'T lose two pounds every week. One week I'll lose 4 and the next week I won't lose. One week I'll lose three in a few days and then be lucky to get a pound the following.

I swear it's like my body lazes around a while, wakes up and realizes it suddenly NEEDS TO BURN FAT NOW OMG.

toastedsmoke
09-20-2011, 12:36 PM
berryblondeboys: I was in pondering the same exact thing a few months ago when I'd been steadily losing and working out pretty hard on 1200calories a day but then hit a stall. Then I had a couple of 700-1000ish calories in a week and whoosh. I didn't feel weak or anything so I thought it would be ok to a couple of times a week throw in some VERY low calorie days while sticking to my 1200 calorie a day diet the days I worked out (5 times a week). Within a couple of months, I got really busy and wasn't working out quite as hard but was still strictly cycling between 800 and 1300, I hit another stall. Not that I wasn't losing any weight, but like a few tenths of a pound a week. And I was getting pretty discouraged because when I tried to up my calories, my weight went up or I lost nothing at all.

Cue in August when I went away to Europe for vacation for a month and slacked off majorly in terms of diet and exercise. I ate at maintenance for most of the month with a few on plan days thrown in. I had my scale with me and believe me, many daily weigh ins were NOT pretty. My last week there, I kind of pulled myself together and ate at about 1500-1600 a day on little exercise but walking around. At the end of that week I found that I'd dropped weight. I've been back for 2 weeks now and I'm back into working out pretty hard but I'm keeping to that 1500-1600 tally now for as long as I can on my current level of exercise and I'm kind of back to what is for me normal (1.5-2lbs per week). So yeah definitely, if you're thinking of upping your calories, go for it. As I always say, this is not a race, there's time to experiment and see what works for you.

SparkleBE
09-20-2011, 09:44 PM
Panacea86 Ė It can be difficult trying to figure out how many calories you should be eating on a daily basis. You are currently losing weight, which is great! Unfortunately, as other posters have said, we canít force our bodies to lose weight in a nice even, organized manner Ė but the weight is still coming off.

It really sounds like you want to be comfortable eating only 1200 cals, but your body isnít really agreeing with you. If you really feel like 1600-1800 is too much and you want to decrease your calorie count, you might want to try doing it gradually. Dropping from 1800 to 1200 in one day is a big difference. More than ľ of your daily calories just disappeared. Thatís really hard to adjust to. Instead, you could try moving from 1600-1800 to stopping at 1600 for a couple weeks. After youíre comfortable there, move down to 1500, then 1400. Even though itíll take longer to get 1200, it should be a lot easier on you, and you might even find that a higher number that actually works really well for you (after all, youíre tall, which is awesome for weight loss cause you can eat more and still lose more:))

Oh, and Iíve tried the rubber band method before. It never really worked for me, cause Iíd still be hungry/want food and Iíd have a sore wrist on top of that. But that might just be me.

carolr3639
09-20-2011, 09:59 PM
Oh, and I’ve tried the rubber band method before. It never really worked for me, cause I’d still be hungry/want food and I’d have a sore wrist on top of that. But that might just be me.

Love this......made me laugh.......not funny for you, though.

Panacea86
09-21-2011, 09:36 AM
The problem with my late night eating is it's usually not the best thing...a sugar free pudding or cheerios with soy milk or some kind of popcorn crisp...apparently my body wants more carbs. I added quinoa to my diet, but it appears it isn't enough.

I know it's best to eat your largest, carbiest meal earlier in the day...I try to.

I don't mind waiting for weight loss if the math all evens out :P
It just feels like I've been in the 180s for such a long time, and it seems like I'm not losing.

I use a dry erase board to track my week to week weight, but it might be better if I included month to month as well...

runningfromfat
09-21-2011, 09:57 AM
I know it's best to eat your largest, carbiest meal earlier in the day...I try to.


I don't calorie count so I can't help you on that. But I had to comment on this.

It really depends on your body. For me the best thing to do is eat carbs later on in the day. If I eat too many carbs early on I end up starving the rest of the night! So if I eat pizza it's always for dinner. Also, if I do eat carbs they always, always need to be paired with protein/fat otherwise I have hunger issues once again.

Panacea86
09-21-2011, 10:07 AM
I don't calorie count so I can't help you on that. But I had to comment on this.

It really depends on your body. For me the best thing to do is eat carbs later on in the day. If I eat too many carbs early on I end up starving the rest of the night! So if I eat pizza it's always for dinner. Also, if I do eat carbs they always, always need to be paired with protein/fat otherwise I have hunger issues once again.

It was just something I heard from a few bodybuilding sources. I'm sure there's variance with all of these tips! Still, I try not to eat any sugar, carbs, or sugar substitute at night because when I do, I wake up feeling pretty sick and sluggish. Doesn't stop my body from wanting carbs at night though! :dizzy:

SparkleBE
09-21-2011, 08:23 PM
I love the idea of tracking your weight month to month. I write mine down in a notebook, so if I get discouraged that I haven’t lost weight in a couple weeks, I can look and see that I’m x pounds lighter than last month. I hope you get out of the 180s soon! But don’t get discouraged – you’re doing such a great job! You’ll definitely be seeing the 170s.

I also feel a bit snackish after dinner, which I know is a common problem with other people on 3FC. Personally, I tried cutting out my after-dinner snacks and that didn’t work well for me. So instead, I compromise and leave about 100 cals for an after-dinner snack (like SF pudding, a granola bar, generally something chocolate flavoured) and tell myself that that’s the last thing I can eat that day. For me it works because I get my snack, but I know it’s the last thing I’m allowed to eat each day. But everyone’s different, so I hope you find a way that works for you!

Chubbykins
09-21-2011, 08:52 PM
The only scientific thing I can safely add is this:
If you are eating an amount of calories that allows you to loose fat you can't possibly be eating perfectly enough for your health.
Losing weight is a strenuous and hard work for your body and if we didn't do it so slow we'd all be wiped from the world within a couple generations. It is a good thing that our bodies resist losing our weight, it is a good thing our metabolism can adapt to harsh times etc. Check out diseases that make you lose weight rappidly. It is mostly the very dangerous horrid stuff like hyperthyroidism, diabetes, cancer, AIDS etc.
It is almost imperative to eat a supplement with your weight losing diet, because it is amazingly hard to eat in a ballanced way when you aren't eating enough to stay the same.

Be thankful your body loses safely slow and add a vitamin to whatever calorie number you choose, best with some minerals. :)

Panacea86
09-22-2011, 10:10 AM
Thanks SparkleBE!
Ya, I sort of recall my weight when I visit my bf every 3 months and the last few visits haven't been as impressive as they used to be, loss wise...easy to think you're falling off. I really do expect 4lbs lost every month, but it hasn't always happened.

I will say, I started this change March 15, 2010. I have definitely gone relatively slow. A coworker of mine got WLS and has dropped 140 lbs in under a year. I've had to be patient :P

It looks like, overall, 1400 is my lowest number for now. No matter what I do, I feel I need 200 extra calories, and I will just have to deal with it!

Hazy
09-22-2011, 08:23 PM
It has been really interesting to read all these responses. I've always wondered about the 1200 calorie number since I'm only 5'1".

In my experience, weird as this may sound, I eat fewer calories when I exercise. If I try to eat 1200 a day when I am sedentary, I'm constantly hungry and always wanting more. On top of that, even if I stick to 1200 it is a huge struggle to lose more than half a pound per week.

However if I am exercising even a little every day, 1200 fills me up (apart from occasional binge eating issues) and I lose one or two pounds every week. I guess it just depends on your individual body and habits, so hopefully we all find something that works for us.

JohnP
09-22-2011, 11:35 PM
The only scientific thing I can safely add is this:
If you are eating an amount of calories that allows you to loose fat you can't possibly be eating perfectly enough for your health.
Losing weight is a strenuous and hard work for your body and if we didn't do it so slow we'd all be wiped from the world within a couple generations. It is a good thing that our bodies resist losing our weight, it is a good thing our metabolism can adapt to harsh times etc. Check out diseases that make you lose weight rappidly. It is mostly the very dangerous horrid stuff like hyperthyroidism, diabetes, cancer, AIDS etc.
It is almost imperative to eat a supplement with your weight losing diet, because it is amazingly hard to eat in a ballanced way when you aren't eating enough to stay the same.

How is this science? This is completely inaccurate. How would we have survived as a species if this were true.:?:

Our bodies are HIGHLY adaptable to periods of food shortage the fact that you lose a lot of weight when you have a deadly disease has nothing to do with a healthy person dieting.

indiblue
09-22-2011, 11:43 PM
It has been really interesting to read all these responses. I've always wondered about the 1200 calorie number since I'm only 5'1".

In my experience, weird as this may sound, I eat fewer calories when I exercise. If I try to eat 1200 a day when I am sedentary, I'm constantly hungry and always wanting more. On top of that, even if I stick to 1200 it is a huge struggle to lose more than half a pound per week.

However if I am exercising even a little every day, 1200 fills me up (apart from occasional binge eating issues) and I lose one or two pounds every week. I guess it just depends on your individual body and habits, so hopefully we all find something that works for us.

I'm the same way :)

babygurl12
10-25-2011, 04:30 PM
Well I'm in a wheelchair and I'm 4'11 and i eat from 800 to 1200 calories. I suppose to eat 1600 but I can't cus my body would gain more. I excerise 50 minutes a day so i think I have to at least try for 1500 but u have to do what works for you.

WinterCricket
10-25-2011, 09:20 PM
This was a really great topic to read though! I've always been baffled about the calorie thing. Due to my choice to have WLS I only ate about 900-1100 calories a day for about a year. I also worked out 4xs a week so I lost weight quick to say the least. Yes I know it was not a good thing especially when I started getting light headed and all that comes along with it. So now that I'm working on eating more normal I'm stuck on what is the best route to take and calorie counting has been the front runner for me so thank to all that have added advice and thoughts on this topic.

crimsons
11-02-2011, 08:56 PM
I've got to eat under 1200 to lose weight, for sure. Although I'm 5'6, I have a very slight, narrow frame (my mom is 4'6 and 96 lbs, it's weird genes). This is the third time I've needed to lose 30 lbs of weight in my 51 years. I listened and tried all the "regular" advice, but the only thing that works for me is eating tons of veg under 1,000 a day with a little protein, and eating the bulk of my food early in the day. Boring and terrible for my social life, but at least I get it over with fast.

This week I stuffed myself with veg, adding a little fish, egg white and chicken. I haven't gone over 600 cal a day, and couldn't eat any more because of the volume of veggies. I'm losing weight steadily and feel great. When I did this before, the weight came off steadily just as it is now and I did not gain it back for over 10 years -- and there was no mystery why I gained LOL! Pizza? But I thought if you ate it with wine and ice cream it was calorie-free! Also I just had my physical and my blood screening came back with flying colors. I am not finding that my middle age is affecting weight loss at all.

If I were starting out at 300+ lbs, however, I have no doubt that I'd need -- and lose weight at -- a far higher calorie allotment. Everyone really is different, and I think we do know at heart what works for each one of us.

MariaMaria
11-02-2011, 10:26 PM
Please see a nutritionist if you're consuming 600 calories a day. That's generally thought to be really not okay.

crimsons
11-02-2011, 10:57 PM
I am working with a PhD nutritionist who also runs the circuit training class I attend twice daily; he's also an exercise physiologist and has a license to draw and evaluate bloodwork. He wants me at 500-800 calories per day. I email him my daily food diary from the previous day each morning. And I just had a physical with my family MD in which bloodwork that came out great.

I'm on my own "boot camp," with support and don't recall asking for advice.

With the volume of veg/fruit I am consuming, it would be foolhardy to stuff in more when I'm not hungry. Once I approach my goal, which should be within three weeks, I will add in carbs and more protein. I generally eat about 1500 calories a day when not on weight loss. This is only the third time I've weight-loss dieted in 51 years, so this is not my routine diet. It is short-term weight loss.

crimsons
11-03-2011, 11:46 AM
@BerryBlonde, is any of this helping? As you can see from all these different responses, there's no one answer. Trying different things and listening to your body will eventually give you the solution! Give us an update sometime.

@Maria, respectfully, please refer to the "Agree to Disagree" policy:
http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/weight-loss-support/111599-support-policy-agree-disagree.html