I am hoping you can give me your reactions to the amount of calories I've been eating per day. I have put some stuff about my weight-loss on my blog and yesterday two of my husband's cousins commented that they thought I was eating too little (but in harsher language). One of them is a dietitian.
I am 5'2" 157 lbs currently and my goal is to eat 1200 - 1500 calories each day, but I have been averaging just above 1200 because some days I don't eat quite enough. I do try to let hunger be my guide and I'm eating lots of fiber and protein so I feel quite satisfied. I recently increased my exercise regimen so I would be open to shifting up slightly the number of calories I'm consuming but I haven't felt the hunger to do that yet. I saw a nutritionist (dietitian) last week and told her how much I'm eating and she didn't have any reaction to it really.
I certainly don't want to go about this weight-loss unhealthily. Do you look at that number 1200 cals/day and think that it's far too low - as my cousins called it, "scary low" and inducing "starvation mode"? I'm wondering if there might be a teeny bit of jealousy on the part of the non-dietitian cousin because she has stated that she wants to lose a significant amount of weight but hasn't really gotten up the motivation to start. (Also, they are both much taller than I am.)
Why not start at 1400-1500 calories?
I know you feel satisfied on 1200 but you might find that you have more energy, especially for the workouts you're about to start.
I'd go for more as well. It's nice to have wiggle room. Try 1400-1500 and if within a few weeks you aren't losing maybe then go a little lower...
I know not everyone is the same, but I'm still losing a pound or more per week and I average 1500 calories a day.
I think you're fine if you're not hungry and you're eating food full of nutrients. If you weighed 100 lbs or even 50 lbs more than you do, I'd be encouraging you to raise your calories - but at your weight (and height), it's probably getting harder to get a calorie deficit.
I've been on 1200, understanding that there is the inevitable 200-300 slush in the course of a day that will bring me up to 1400 ish.
A sugar in my tea, an apple that is larger than the calorie counter, a rounded top of the measuring cup of oats. We often get into trouble because we under eyeball calories.
If you are eating balanced, feel rested and are keeping up with your workouts and don't feel at all deprived, you are doing wonderfully and stick with it while it is working. When you start feeling tired you can up your calories to adjust.
Personally I would trust the dietitian who does not have an emotional investment in you, rather than your cousin. We often express concern in inappropriate ways, or it could be jealousy... there's no telling.
And 1200 is not "scary low" unless you are eating crap, which from the sounds of it you are not. I went from 198 to 160 on 1200 before I took a few months off for "maintenance practice" at 1500 to 1600 calories.
I can give you my personal experience, since we're the same height. I lost almost all my weight at 1375-1425 a day, exercising 30 minutes or so 4-6 times a week.
Around 135 I started to drop my calories, but even now I'm doing ok with losing on 1300 a day or so. (Knock on wood!)
My thought for you is, if you don't have to be so low and you can still lose, what's the advantage to only eating 1200 calories a day?
1. Are you losing regularly (1-2lbs/week)?
2. Are you tired and weak regularly?
3. Are you hungry frequently?
4. Is your hair falling out or are you showing other signs of malnutrition?
The answer to these questions will dictate on whether or not you need a calorie adjustment.
Thanks everyone for your responses. I have been eating pretty well with my 1200 or so calories per day. I am following the Belly Fat Cure so I eat very little sugar and a medium amount of carbohydrates and have a lot of fiber, protein, and fat to make up the rest of the calories. I feel really great and full throughout the day - not deprived at all!
I recalculated my BMR for my current weight and activity level and with a 500-1000 calories/day deficit I should be eating 1270-1770 calories/day. So it doesn't seem like I was "scary low" although I could certainly go a bit higher. I agree JenMusic - I think I'll try to eat a bit more each day, maybe 1300 or 1400 calories, for a few weeks and see if I'm still losing because it would be better to have a higher calorie set point for when I go into maintenance. If I can't lose at that higher level, I'll drop back to 1200 cals/day or increase my workout intensity. It's all a big experiment anyway, right?
In terms of calorie levels, there are three ways to adjust your your calorie level to lose weight
1. (the most common, and I think the least effective), is to choose a calorie level significantly lower than your maintenance level is likely to be. So that at goal weight, you will have to significantly increase your calories.
2. You can choose to cut only 250 to 500 calories per day from what you're eating now. When you stop losing (5 or 6 weeks without a loss. 2 weeks is not a true plateau, it's within the range of normal fluctuation), cut another 250 to 500 calories. Repeat until you reach your goal weight.
3. You can guess at your maintenance calories. Somewhere between 1800 and 2000 calories is probably a pretty good guess for most women (a little more if you're active, a little less if you're very sedentary). If you stop losing before you get to goal, you adjust your calories downward a little. If you reach goal and keep losing, adjust upward a little.
The reason I think #2 and # 3 are better than #1 for most people is that
Until you reach my goal weight, you may constantly be thinking "I can't wait until this dieting is "done" so that I can eat more. I can't wait until I can eat more...
Also if you have quite a bit of weight to lose, dieting at far lower than your typical calorie level is probably going to leave you super hungry, making it even harder not to think "Man I really can't wait until I can eat more."
I think there's also a psychological advantage to thinking "I'm going to learn to eat like this forever," rather than "I can't wait until I don't have to eat like this anymore."
I think there's much less temptation to go off a diet when you diet my method #2 and #3. At least I'm finding that very true for myself, because from the start I'm learning to make changes that I expect to make forever. I don't have to relearn a new method when I get to goal.
As for "starvation mode" I think the term is poorly understood, and often misleading. Yyou can't really stop metabolism, you can only slow it down, so I think "conservation mode" or "calorie restriction (diet)-induced metabolic decline" are beter terms term than starvation mode). It seems from the research and from anectdotal evidence that some people experience this to greater degrees than others (Some people here say they never experienced it, some people say they have).
I do think there is some truth to it. I believe that dieting can slow metabolism, because of my own experience (for the same reason I would have told you that it didn't exist twenty years ago - because I hadn't yet experienced it yet). The reason I believe it does exist now, is that I'm convinced that it's why after thousands of diets, I can now only lose two or three pounds a month on the same calorie level (and same starting weight) on which I once could lose 5 to 7 lbs a week.
I also have other health issues that contribute to the problem, but some of them may be somewhat reversible. As I get thinner and have more strength and stamina, I may be able to recharge my metabolism to some degree. How much?" I don't know. I do think there's a good bit of research evidence that suggests that my eventual maintenance calorie level is going to be lower than if it would be if I hade never dieted or only dieted a couple times. Each diet I think shaved off a little bit of metabolic efficiency. I think it just means that you want to learn as quickly as you can, and you don't want to reduce calories any more than you have to.
Some people never seem to experience this diet-induced metabolic decline, and others seem to notice a huge difference. In my case, I didn't notice any drastic changes in my metabolism until my mid to late 20's (but I did a lot of seriously crazy crash diets in my teens and early 20's - routinely eating under 500 calories a day. I didn't realize how foolish it was, because I didn't really believe in diet-induced metabolic decline until I experienced it).
Whatever you decide to do, someone is going to tell you that you're wrong. People (based on their own experiences) are going to tell you that you're eating too much, too little, or the wrong foods. You're going to have to use common sense and your own experience to guide you.
I won't tell you that it's wrong to diet by method #1. I think the risks outweigh the benefits, but you have to decide that for yourself. Just remember that the more drastic your method, the more drastic risks and side effects are likely to be. Only you can decide if the trade-offs are worth it to you.
I haven't read everyone's full post, but I just wanted to chime in that I am on a 1200 calorie diet that my dietitian has me on. She came up with based on my frame, height, and current weight that I would need 1700 calories to maintain 205lbs. So, she subtracted the 500 to lose 1lb a week which puts me at 1200.
1200 calories might be fine for you since you are short, and only weight 156lbs. Maybe you should talk with another dietician if you can? Or, try eating a little bit more and see what happens.
I dont think 1200 is too low at all.I am aiming for 1200 a day(sometimes I'm under sometimes over but it averages out). I am 5'8 and the BMR of my goal weight is about 1200 BMI about 19. My mother is 72 andhas controlled her weight counting calories for over 40 years and she is short and keeps to 1000-1200 calories., She is very healthy for her age. Also remember that scientific research has shown that people that eat even less calories live longer.
When my Mom was younger people whocalorie counted ate between 600-1000a day and I have a diet book from the 60's for 1000 a day. I think the lower you go,however the stricter you need to be re nutrients and what you eat. There are many ways to diet but I think that too say 1200 or under is unhealthy has not been proven and my healthy Mum would scoff that it is.
calorie amount haterz
