I'm pretty sure I figured this out a few years ago but I need to shoot for around 1200 to see any losses on the scale. Sometimes when the scale is stuck I need to go down to 1000 temporarily, and it usually works.
I've heard others say they can't eat much more than 1200 as well. It's so frustrating!
I havent found that. I do find that if I want very visible results sooner that the less I eat the more I see. But as long as I maintain a deficit it always goes down, its just harder to see a one pound or half a pound drop per week then three pounds dropped per week.
But I've just started my journey. My biggest drops were in the beginning which I guess was water weight and now I loose about a pound a week at 1400-1600 calories a day. Sometimes though, I'll eat closer to 1800 one day and try to balance it out the next day with a lower calorie day at 1300 calories.
Last edited by SenseAndSensibility; 01-12-2015 at 05:05 PM.
I'm afraid of my health if I go down as low as 1200 calories a day. I'd rather go slowly and eat the healthy stuff only.
I'm a very, very slow looser, but up in age. I do go to gym twice a week and really enjoy working out to keep my strength for gardening when the weather allows such activity.
I'm about 1500-1600 calories per day, and I do log daily. Even on thos bad days when I go haywire.
Funsize there is no one size fits all when it comes to calories, and you're petite so that may be an ok amount of calories for you. You'll have to talk to a doctor to be sure of course, also what we eat can matter as much (if not more in some cases) than how much we eat. I notice that when my diet is full of fresh healthy foods (like fruits & veggies), and low on unhealthy foods (processed sweets, fried food, processed carbs), then I tend to lose weight even when my calories at on the higher side like 1900+.
I also recall back in August/September of last year, I was obsessed with Ramen noodles & Kind bars, they were sent to me in bulk thanks to my Amazon Subscribe and Save, anyhow I stuck to my calories (less than 1700 per day in many cases) and somehow I gained around 10 lbs. over the course of a few days to a week's time. I was in the 260's so I was definitely at a calorie deficit, but my body reacted I think to the combination of excess sodium (I still get a lot of sodium in my diet) and simple/processed carbs. If I weren't vegetarian I'd probably be an ideal candidate for Atkins lol, but anyhow, yeah if it works for you, and doesn't hurt you, I don't see a problem with it.
Often on the forums here people say they've found they can eat more calories of "whole foods" (typically meaning unprocessed foods or foods in their natural state) than of processed foods. I've never tracked carefully enough to say for sure, but it does seem when I'm eating lots of vegetables and salads, I can eat a whole lot and still see the scale move.
Anyway, if your diet contains a lot of processed foods (even foods considered healthful, like whole wheat bread or non-sugary cereals), you might try more veggies and see if it helps.
I know all about the guy on the Twinkie diet who lost all that weight -- but it's worth noting he did not do an experiment where he ate the same amount of calories of whole foods -- perhaps he would have lost even more?
I should point out -- I'm not a raw foodie -- I love me some cooked food -- but it's just something to think about. Sometimes when I'm too lazy to cook a veggie side dish for dinner I just put out whatever raw veggies I can find in the fridge -- maybe I'll start doing that more and more!
Also, I suspect the same concept of calorie availability may apply to the amount things are processed -- like oatmeal -- maybe we'll discover that steel cut oats have fewer available calories than processed (quick cook) oats.
Some people do really well on intermittent fasting (eating far fewer calories on just a couple days out of the week.
I think the 1200 calorie minimum is generally a minimum for shorter women, but it's also an arbitrary number and there are exceptions. At 5'0 it's possible your base caloric requirements are lower than that. If you want to know for sure, I'd suggest finding out your body fat percent (in the most accurate way available to you) so you can get an accurate number for how many pounds of lean mass you have. Your lean mass is what burns calories all day long, and if you don't have much of it, you might have trouble losing weight while hitting a minimum of 1200.
That said, there are other ways to burn calories.
One is regular cardio, which will burn calories only while you're doing it. But cardio means you can eat more calories that day/week, which is nice.
The other is gaining lean mass, which involves doing strength exercises and making sure you get enough protein. If you build lean mass, you'll eventually be able to eat more calories.
I'm a bit taller at 5'3, but still petite (very small skeletal frame). I lose about a pound a week at 1200 calories. I cut to 1050 2-3 times a week if I want to lose more than that though. It may not be 'healthy' but I try to get more veggies and some fruits in too. My metabolism was different when I was younger. I was so thin, but ate like a man
So I'm not alone!
People always say "that's too low!" but I really don't see how there is one magic number for anyone.
There really isn't a magic number. I ate about 975 calories every day this week and had two 1200 calorie days...I gained .6lb. I really need to stay at the 900-1000 mark every single day in order to lose.
Munchy, that's low. I always slightly envied those people who could eat a little more and still lose. Some of us petite women have to really cut to see a difference, which is too bad b/c food can be really enjoyable
Ive been shooting for 1200 calories a day but im finding that im totally satisfied on closer to 1000 a day. I know that is a little low but i feel like if my body needed energy, it would let me know. As i said, that amount of calories seems to be good for me and i dont want to force myself to eat if Im not hungry.
Only lose when calories are really low...
