I'm 300 lbs. I always thought you multiply your weight by 7 to get the number of calories you should be eating, but I signed up for a gym, and the trainer said that the organization that he gets certified by would generally recommend 1500-1600. I know that when I've done Weight Watchers, I got more calories than that.

I think it's a trial and error thing, based on each individual. When I first started out, I lost on 2200 and I didn't weigh as much as you.

I think you could start out higher and see how it goes for two or three weeks. Frankly I think 1500 is too low.

I'm of the school that says eat as many calories as you can to lose at a comfortable pace, because you're going to have to lower them as you get smaller. I'm currently in the low 190's and I'm losing about 1-2 lbs a week (give or take) on a 1400-1600 range. When I first started at 274 lbs, I think I ate around 1800-1900 a day and lost 2-3 lbs a week. My first 50 lbs dropped pretty fast, the last 30 have been relatively slow.

You'll definitely lose on 1500, but you'll probably feel hungry and maybe lose too fast? If you want to start there and you feel OK, then go for it...but just know as you get smaller (and if you stick to that range, keeping in mind you generally don't want to go below 1200), your weight loss will slow. If you feel hungry, and especially if you exercise, I would consider going a bit higher. It takes some trial and error to find your "sweet" spot, but you'll get there!

There's no perfect way to determine what you should be eating, but I personally feel it is absurd for a trainer (or anyone) to tell you at your current weight to eat 1500 calories a day. I would lose weight on 1500 a day, at least a pound a week with my current activity level. If only I could convince myself to do it!

Sure, you will survive on it, plenty of people around this forum at weights similar to yours do and swear by it, but honestly I think they are doing themselves a disservice, putting their bodies under undue restriction and stress.Just because you aren't hungry doesn't mean you aren't starving.

Trial and error are your best friend, but don't cut so aggressively at the beginning. The 7 times your current weight, at 2100 calories a day, is far more reasonable and doable than 1500 and will still get you great results. You'd probably lose weight with an even higher calories intake than that for a while. If you find you are losing weight at a higher calorie intake, don't cut further until you need to. Even just cutting back at the beginning of a weight loss plan WITHOUT counting will be successful.

Is there more to that 7x your current weight thing? Because when I get to 140 lbs, which is still in the overweight BMI range for me, that puts me at 980 calories a day. And based on all I know about nutrition, that seems far too low.

Yeah, I wouldn't do the 7x your weight thing, either. For me it would be around 1,300 calories and there is no way I am going to attempt that right now! I just started calorie counting last Monday and I am trying to work with around 1,600-1,700.

I'm losing approx. 2-3 pounds a week on 1600 calories with an hour and a half of moderate excersise 4-5 days a week so yes I think 1500 is way too low for you especially if you're exercising.

Try it for a week and see how it goes. At your BMI, you will not starve or do any kind of damage with a week at 1500 calories. You might be surprised that it's easy for you...or you may decide to up it by a few 100. They only way to know is to do it. Give it an honest effort before you make any decision. The trick to weight loss is sticking to it day in and day out and not giving up no matter what.

Just a little side note, I started at 333 pounds and did 1200 calories every single day for the first 3 months. later I raised my weekend calories to 1500. Now at 140 pounds I can eat around 1900 average (depending on how much excercise I do) to maintain. It's all a big science project. You do what feels right for you.

I wouldn't take advice from anyone who "generally recommends" the same thing for everyone. A 300 pound teenage boy who works out might lose on 3500 (seriously). A 5', 100-lb post-menopausal woman who has a sedentary job might maintain on 1100.

But I will say that my calories varied between 1500-2000 when I was hard-core, and I lost about 1% of my body weight per week (so over 2 lbs a weeks to start) for most of it.

Right now I'm working with a trainer at my gym and I'm eating 1100-1300 calories a day. Surprisingly I'm not hungry, but it's six little meals throughout the day vs. three large ones. If I were still living at home, this would be a struggle, and still is when I do go home for visits, but living alone it's been going extremely well for me.

Yes. 2100 is the max. amt. of calories. I don't remember the minimum or if you use a different formula once you get below a certain weight, but I know that it changes when you get smaller.

Yeah, I decided to go back to Weight Watchers for now. Thanks for your input.

I was wondering the same thing earlier. A site that I use to count my calories recommended I eat 1200-1550 cals a day. I am managing to actually do that, but am also trying to keep my carbs, proteins, and fats in range as well. It seems a little overwhelming, but I am mostly managing.

However hard it is, I have lost weight already and it's only been a few days...YAY!

I totally totally totally agree!! At 288lb, I restricted to about 1500 calories a day. If I had it to do over again from the start, I would have experimented a bit more... Maybe tried 2000 a day first and adjusted down as needed. I know now that I was eating up to 3000, maybe even 3500 cal before and I bet I would have lost at 2000 cal. It would have given me more wiggle room to adjust down as I lose weight. Good luck!

Are you using SparkPeople? Because that is exactly the range SP gives me...