I had my first meeting with a nutritionist last week and I am more confused now than ever. We weighed in talked about all about my eating/exercise habits and after all that she suggested a 1200 calorie diet - even though I do exercise 40 min a day 5 days a week. I told her I thought that sounded a bit low with my current weight and exercise and she seemed a little annoyed and said that it should be fine if I was eating the "right" kinds of foods.

Does anyone else think that seems kind of low?

It seems to contradict everything that I have read here the last year. I have tried it the last week and yes I have lost almost 6 lbs, but I am starving most of the time even though I feel like I am eating wholesome healthy foods.

I know that everyone says listen to your own body, but it is hard for me to figure out what to eat and when to eat it so that is why I decided to see her in the first place. I thougth maybe she could give me some guidance, but now I don't know what to think.

Please help me....

If you can lose successfully on 1400-1600 calories, then I would recommend it instead. The thing is, if you go to 1200 now...when you are 30 or 40 pounds lighter and close to goal and need to drop then you don't have much to drop it to without starving.

I wonder why she recommended starting out so low...

If you are starving then by all means raise your calories. I would try adding another 200 calories, if that doesn't satisfy you I would raise it another 100 and then another 100 if need be and so on. It's a lot of trial and error. You need to find the right mix of calorie intake, your satisfaction level and whether or not you are losing.

I do find protein and fiber keeps me satisfied more then other foods. I'm not sure what you were eating. I also eat 3 meals and 2 or 3 snacks a day every 2 or 3 hours, so that I never get hungry. Experiment and see what works best for you.

Thanks for the input. I don't know why she suggested to start out so low - I thought it sounded way to low too. I think I am gonna try and do around 1400-1600 calories for now and see how it goes. I doubt I will be seeing her again. I kinda feel like I wasted my $95, but you live and learn right.

Thanks again!

A really good friend of mine is a dietician, and she would have never started someone that low, unless they only needed to lose 10-20 pounds.

Do they all cost that much? Is that for 1 session or multiple? It it's multiple, then increase your calories and go back in for the session. If you've lost weight, then great and you can tell what you've done and ask that it be reconfigured for your needs. That's the way it should have been in the first place.

ITA with the others that 1200 is too low. Some of you, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that 1200 seems to be a "catch-all" for many nutritionists. They don't want you to go below that but just seem to think that 1200 is all the human body needs.

Good luck with your task here. I just think you should be looking in the 1600 range and see what you lose without hunger.

I'd call the nutritionist and express your concerns about the contradiction, see what he/she says. You paid for information, not confusion.

Consider a second opinion. That's what we would do with a physician, so why shouldn't we do it with a nutritionist? If you did get a second opinion, I wouldn't tell the second person anything about the first's recommendations. I would take notes, then go home and have a quiet time with both person's suggestions and make my own decisions.

I think 1,200 calories sounds inappropriate for you.

If the nutritionist did any metabolism testing on you, it might be because of that. I exercise 6 days out of 7, and if I eat 1500 cals I will not lose. I have to keep it under 1300, and the closer to 1200 the better. That's just me--I've been sedentary for years and I have slow metabolism, plus I'm an older woman.

Definitely ASK the nutritionist why she recommended 1200. Anything else is just speculation.

Just for information: Even on FitDay, my calorie goal to lose 1.2 pounds a week is 1269 cals eaten, with burning 1877 cals a day. My daily average over the past 11 weeks has been 1350 cals in (okay, a little higher than I said above. Darn!), 2000 cals out with exercise, which comes close to the 650 difference needed to drop 1.2 pounds per week. And, as of today, I've dropped from 186 to 173 during that time, which is--surprise! 1.2 pounds per week.

So maybe your nutritionist was aiming for a 2 pound per week loss for you? Dunno.

Jay

It seems a bit low to me too. I'm currently loosing 1-2 /bs a week eating 1500 cals a day. I would suggest getting a second opinion.

Why did you see a nutritionist in the first place? They can help you with "nutrition" - but if dieting =weight loss is what you're after, you should see a dietician.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

cbmare - The $95 was for 1 hour long introductory session only. If I choose to go back then the cost is $75 for each addititional hour long session or $45 for a 30 min session.

JayEll - No she didn't do any metabolic testing. Just took my weight and measurements and then we talked about eating/exercise plans both past and present. So I really don't know about my metabolism. I am 28 and used to be very active in high school volleyball, cheerleading, swim team. Then I got married - had 2 kids (ages now 8 and 6) - and got divorced. I never had a big problem with my weight until after my second child - now it doesn't want to seem to leave and she is 6!

I did express my concern to her that 1200 calories seemed low to me and she did appear very annoyed and said that if i was eating the "right" foods that 1200 calories should be plenty.

Beach Patrol - I was having some issues with my blood pressure and so my doctor suggested that I see her. He is actually the one that referred me to her office. Maybe that is where the breakdown is, I should be seeing a dietician instead of a nutritionist. I may explore that avenue for my second opinion.

Thanks all!

OK. I guess I'm stupid. I thought those names were interchangable for the same job.

What's the difference?

I didn't know there was a difference, either.

I wasn't sure what the difference was either and so I went looking and this is what I found:

"A dietitian (sometimes spelled dietician) is an expert in food and nutrition. Dietitians help promote good health through proper eating. They also supervise the preparation and service of food, develop modified diets, participate in research, and educate individuals and groups on good nutritional habits. The goals of the dietary department are to obtain, prepare, and serve flavorsome, attractive, and nutritious food to patients, family members, and health care providers.

In the US nutrition professionals include the registered dietitian (RD) and the dietetic technician, registered (DTR). Some RDs or DTRs call themselves nutritionists. However, some people who may call themselves a nutritionist are not registered dietitians. Dietetic technicians are not the same as dietitians in terms of responsibilities and qualifications. Different professional terms are used in other countries."

Is all seems kind of confusing to me. It seems that they may be one in the same, but I am not sure.