Only 1200? Harsh!
April 8, 2009 12:47 PM Subscribe
I should only be eating 1200 calories per day? Really?
I'm a 5'6", 30-year-old woman who currently weighs 165lbs. I'd like to lose about 20lbs, getting back to 145, which I felt was a comfortable weight for me. I've been running/walking 2 miles every other day, which has going well, and eating approx. 1600 calories per day. I work a desk job and go to school three nights a week for three hours, but I try to work in walking here and there during the day as well. This morning I plugged my stats into a fairly scientific-seeming website and it told me that I should be eating no more than 1200 calories to lose a pound per week. Is this correct? I know the experts say not to go UNDER 1200, but I think I would find it really difficult to cut down to that much. Can anyone who knows more about this stuff than I do explain this?
I'm a 5'6", 30-year-old woman who currently weighs 165lbs. I'd like to lose about 20lbs, getting back to 145, which I felt was a comfortable weight for me. I've been running/walking 2 miles every other day, which has going well, and eating approx. 1600 calories per day. I work a desk job and go to school three nights a week for three hours, but I try to work in walking here and there during the day as well. This morning I plugged my stats into a fairly scientific-seeming website and it told me that I should be eating no more than 1200 calories to lose a pound per week. Is this correct? I know the experts say not to go UNDER 1200, but I think I would find it really difficult to cut down to that much. Can anyone who knows more about this stuff than I do explain this?
Did the calculator you use include the current results you are having? That is, did it ask you how much you are currently losing per week, and how many calories you consume? If so, and you haven't been following your diet for very long, it may give faulty results because your current results aren't much of an average that you can rely on.
Either way why not just disregard whatever the web site says and just go with what your body says? If you're losing 2 pounds a week over a month or two by eating 1600 calories, why would you even bat an eyelash at a web site that says you should be losing much less? Who cares what they think, it's your results that count.
posted by splice at 12:53 PM on April 8, 2009
Either way why not just disregard whatever the web site says and just go with what your body says? If you're losing 2 pounds a week over a month or two by eating 1600 calories, why would you even bat an eyelash at a web site that says you should be losing much less? Who cares what they think, it's your results that count.
posted by splice at 12:53 PM on April 8, 2009
I think a lot of people will tell you that 1200 or under is too little, but I really think it's an individual thing. All bodies react differently. In my mid-twenties, at 5'5", I was trying to get from 165lbs to 125lbs. I cut my calories to about 1500 per day and ramped up my exercise. Not a lot happened. When I cut my calories to between 1000-1200 per day, the weight fell off me and I got to my goal weight in just over 4 months. I've now been my goal weight for 7 years.
posted by meerkatty at 12:56 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by meerkatty at 12:56 PM on April 8, 2009
The basic math is that 3500 calories equals a pound. Eat 3500 extra calories you gain a pound; eat 3500 less (or burn it) and you lose a pound. While you may have other health or fitness goals, this is what you need to be aiming for. So I'm not sure what website you looked at, but it may have been suggesting that if you're now eating 1600 calories, you'd need to shave 3500 calories off of it with diet+exercise in order to lose weight. That's my best guess.
And as for advice: I enjoy the Hackers Diet, getting on the scale every morning and typing your weight into something like The Google 15 (or some other site that gives you an average so small ups and downs don't discourage you), and then trying to make small food/exercise adjustments and seeing what works as far as both helping you lose the weight and giving you a lifestyle that you enjoy.
So, if you're eating 1600 calories a day and doing 400 calories worth of exercise, you're all set.
posted by jessamyn at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2009
And as for advice: I enjoy the Hackers Diet, getting on the scale every morning and typing your weight into something like The Google 15 (or some other site that gives you an average so small ups and downs don't discourage you), and then trying to make small food/exercise adjustments and seeing what works as far as both helping you lose the weight and giving you a lifestyle that you enjoy.
So, if you're eating 1600 calories a day and doing 400 calories worth of exercise, you're all set.
posted by jessamyn at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2009
Your Basal Metabolic Rate (the minimum number of calories you need to consume to maintain your present weight, without exercise, given your age, weight and height) is about 1540. Assuming you burn around 200 calories for your daily routine, and 250 calories on your two-mile run, and you can add 450 to your maintenance rate, bringing it to 1900 or so.
Now, if you want to lose a pound per week, you need to run a 500 calorie deficit daily (1lb = 3500 calories) - bringing your caloric goal to around 1400. So, 1200 isn't too terribly far off - keep doing what you're doing, and as long as you eat between 1300-1500 calories per day, you'll lose the weight.
posted by downing street memo at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2009
Now, if you want to lose a pound per week, you need to run a 500 calorie deficit daily (1lb = 3500 calories) - bringing your caloric goal to around 1400. So, 1200 isn't too terribly far off - keep doing what you're doing, and as long as you eat between 1300-1500 calories per day, you'll lose the weight.
posted by downing street memo at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2009
meerkatty is correct, everyone is different. I am 5'2 and weigh 104, HOWEVER, this, for my body, is my ideal weight because everytime I gain 5 pounds or more my body does not feel good at all. I consume 1200 calories or less within a day, not because I am on a diet but because I just can't eat anymore than that. I don't feel like I need to if I am already having healthy meals. So, what you plugged in, is really all computer rhetoric and I would see a nutritionist to decide what's the best playing field for you before taking in any less than 1200 calories. You don't want to hurt your body dieting.
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2009
This morning I plugged my stats into a fairly scientific-seeming website
Here is your mistake right there. As others have already said, go to a nutritionist and come up with a plan that works for you, not for someone's Java app.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:03 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
Here is your mistake right there. As others have already said, go to a nutritionist and come up with a plan that works for you, not for someone's Java app.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:03 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
There are slight differences in metabolism, but human beings are more or less closed systems. There's only one way to gain weight - introduce new mass into the body - and short of swallowing ball bearings, the only way to do that is eating food. Similarly, there's only one way to lose weight short of liposuction, and that's to consume fewer calories than you burn.
Assuming the OP doesn't have an abnormal metabolism, her BMR should be more or less accurate, and subtracting 500 from that maintenance rate will result in weight loss.
InterestedInKnowing - the "computer rhetoric" says 1200 is about right for you, assuming you're female and in your late 20's.
posted by downing street memo at 1:10 PM on April 8, 2009
Assuming the OP doesn't have an abnormal metabolism, her BMR should be more or less accurate, and subtracting 500 from that maintenance rate will result in weight loss.
InterestedInKnowing - the "computer rhetoric" says 1200 is about right for you, assuming you're female and in your late 20's.
posted by downing street memo at 1:10 PM on April 8, 2009
Did you put in too short of a time to reach your goal weight? You really should shoot for losing no more than 2lbs. per week.
Using this calculator and your stats, I got that you need 1635 calories a day. Extreme was 1320. Best bet is to see a nutritionist as others have stated.
posted by studentbaker at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2009
Using this calculator and your stats, I got that you need 1635 calories a day. Extreme was 1320. Best bet is to see a nutritionist as others have stated.
posted by studentbaker at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2009
Here is your mistake right there. As others have already said, go to a nutritionist and come up with a plan that works for you, not for someone's Java app.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:03 PM on April 8
This, but note that in the U.S. any idiot can call him or herself a nutritionist. See someone who is licensed, credible, and has references.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:12 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:03 PM on April 8
This, but note that in the U.S. any idiot can call him or herself a nutritionist. See someone who is licensed, credible, and has references.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:12 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nutritionists are really for people who have unique nutritional needs - bodybuilders, those with chronic illnesses, etc. They are extremely valuable medical professionals but are a waste of time for dieters looking to lose 20 lbs.
Assuming you have no unique dietary needs (and I don't see anything that suggests you do) you should probably just eat 1300-1500 calories a day, 40% coming from carbs, 40% coming from protein, and 20% coming from fat. It's not rocket science and you don't need a professional.
posted by downing street memo at 1:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Assuming you have no unique dietary needs (and I don't see anything that suggests you do) you should probably just eat 1300-1500 calories a day, 40% coming from carbs, 40% coming from protein, and 20% coming from fat. It's not rocket science and you don't need a professional.
posted by downing street memo at 1:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm eating around 1200 calories a day, down from something horrific, and losing weight but very slowly, more like a pound every two weeks. I'm not very active though. I'd probably walk about 4 miles a week. I'm 5'5", and about 40 pounds away from goal weight.
I used to be terribly hungry on 1200 calories, but I finally found a style of eating/menu that has corrected that, and now I quite look forward to my meals, but I don't struggle like I used to.
posted by b33j at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
I used to be terribly hungry on 1200 calories, but I finally found a style of eating/menu that has corrected that, and now I quite look forward to my meals, but I don't struggle like I used to.
posted by b33j at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
b33j, would you care to share any info about the style of eating/menu that has helped you manage on 1200 calories? I'd love to make this work for me.
posted by Majorita at 1:30 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Majorita at 1:30 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seconding the Hacker's Diet. But if you want something much simpler - The Biggest Loser uses this formula: daily calories = weight in lbsx.8
I've used this and it's pretty effective, though obviously not very nuanced. For you that would be 1320, which is not far off from the 1200. Yep, dieting sucks.
If you're miserable on 1200 calories a day, just eat more and lose more slowly. It's definitely a rush to lose 10 lbs in a month, but the risk is that if you're miserable, you're unlikely to stick with it until you reach your goal weight, and more likely to put that weight right back on once you're "done."
posted by lunasol at 1:42 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've used this and it's pretty effective, though obviously not very nuanced. For you that would be 1320, which is not far off from the 1200. Yep, dieting sucks.
If you're miserable on 1200 calories a day, just eat more and lose more slowly. It's definitely a rush to lose 10 lbs in a month, but the risk is that if you're miserable, you're unlikely to stick with it until you reach your goal weight, and more likely to put that weight right back on once you're "done."
posted by lunasol at 1:42 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sorry, that formula should have daily calories = weight in lbsx8 NOT .8 - indeed, that first equation is a sure recipe for diet failure.
posted by lunasol at 1:45 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by lunasol at 1:45 PM on April 8, 2009
Nutritionists are really for people who have unique nutritional needs - bodybuilders, those with chronic illnesses, etc.
Nonsense, at least in US urban areas. If the OP lives somewhere that nutritionists aren't available for average people looking to improve their health, then that's a different question entirely and I have nothing to suggest except setting weight loss goals at a slower pace that feels more easily achievable.
In the US, getting a referral from your primary care doctor to a (properly qualified, as Optimus Chyme points out) nutritionist is the way to go if you're making any change in your eating habits that you hope to sustain over the long haul.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:48 PM on April 8, 2009
Nonsense, at least in US urban areas. If the OP lives somewhere that nutritionists aren't available for average people looking to improve their health, then that's a different question entirely and I have nothing to suggest except setting weight loss goals at a slower pace that feels more easily achievable.
In the US, getting a referral from your primary care doctor to a (properly qualified, as Optimus Chyme points out) nutritionist is the way to go if you're making any change in your eating habits that you hope to sustain over the long haul.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:48 PM on April 8, 2009
Keep in mind that food calorie count is determined by actually burning the food in small furnaces. While that may be related to how much heat a particular substance generates while burning, it is not a good enough representation of how a particular food, usually a mix of many ingredients, gets processed and absorbed by the body. Many ingredients influence how other ingredients are processed, etc.
I would look at foods with different glycemic index, foods compatible with your modalities (talk to a wholistic dietitian) etc.
Or, you can just limit the amount of food based on types, weight etc. Just counting calories is far from ideal.
My modest successes with weight loss had to do with
- eating only when hungry
- stop eating when not hungry anymore
- only eat food I love, make special effort to get what I really want. Sometimes more expensive and changes relationship to food.
- not a bite after I feel done, take the rest home or give it to a homeless person if appropriate
- introduced regular exercise that I absolutely love and look forward to doing (recreational dancing, martial arts) Gyms never worked for me.
- broke my existing eating habits and started with a clean slate by doing 10 days of the Master Cleanse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Cleanse )
posted by andreinla at 1:50 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
I would look at foods with different glycemic index, foods compatible with your modalities (talk to a wholistic dietitian) etc.
Or, you can just limit the amount of food based on types, weight etc. Just counting calories is far from ideal.
My modest successes with weight loss had to do with
- eating only when hungry
- stop eating when not hungry anymore
- only eat food I love, make special effort to get what I really want. Sometimes more expensive and changes relationship to food.
- not a bite after I feel done, take the rest home or give it to a homeless person if appropriate
- introduced regular exercise that I absolutely love and look forward to doing (recreational dancing, martial arts) Gyms never worked for me.
- broke my existing eating habits and started with a clean slate by doing 10 days of the Master Cleanse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Cleanse )
posted by andreinla at 1:50 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
Figure out your metabolic type..there's a test you can use here. No matter how many calories you use, if they are the wrong type for you, you'll be miserable.
posted by bink at 1:54 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by bink at 1:54 PM on April 8, 2009
I've probably been doing about 1200-1800 a day for the last few months, along with a pretty low fat low salt diet. (Though my blood pressue is low enough that salt probably isn't a big issue.)
Yes, I'm frigging hungry all the time, as one way I do it is to often eat one meal a day, and then just put up with being hungry. But I was plesantly surprised when I got on a scale recently, as I was 10-14 pounds lighter than I expected to be, within the "Normal" BMI range (being pretty tall helps) , and my waist size had dropped two inches; pants just literally fall off me now when I undo my belt).
posted by orthogonality at 1:56 PM on April 8, 2009
Yes, I'm frigging hungry all the time, as one way I do it is to often eat one meal a day, and then just put up with being hungry. But I was plesantly surprised when I got on a scale recently, as I was 10-14 pounds lighter than I expected to be, within the "Normal" BMI range (being pretty tall helps) , and my waist size had dropped two inches; pants just literally fall off me now when I undo my belt).
posted by orthogonality at 1:56 PM on April 8, 2009
Nonsense, at least in US urban areas. If the OP lives somewhere that nutritionists aren't available for average people looking to improve their health, then that's a different question entirely and I have nothing to suggest except setting weight loss goals at a slower pace that feels more easily achievable.
It's not that they're not available or that they won't gladly take your money, but rather a matter of necessity. The basics of weight loss are well known and not particularly tough to master - burn more calories than you consume and spread your consumption out prudently between macronutrients. Most people benefit from more protein and less carbs/fat, but that's entirely adjustable and easy to figure out.
If you have cancer or something, and need to worry about micronutrients, or if you're an elite athlete and are wrestling with carb loading, then yeah, see a professional. Going to a nutritionist over dropping twenty pounds is akin to going to the doctor for a cold - he'll tell you do to the exact thing you could've found on WebMD.
posted by downing street memo at 2:06 PM on April 8, 2009
It's not that they're not available or that they won't gladly take your money, but rather a matter of necessity. The basics of weight loss are well known and not particularly tough to master - burn more calories than you consume and spread your consumption out prudently between macronutrients. Most people benefit from more protein and less carbs/fat, but that's entirely adjustable and easy to figure out.
If you have cancer or something, and need to worry about micronutrients, or if you're an elite athlete and are wrestling with carb loading, then yeah, see a professional. Going to a nutritionist over dropping twenty pounds is akin to going to the doctor for a cold - he'll tell you do to the exact thing you could've found on WebMD.
posted by downing street memo at 2:06 PM on April 8, 2009
If, at 1600 calories, your weight is not dropping, then you should cut back to 1200.
I'm 5'5", a guy, but find that a calorie intake of around 1200-1400 perfect for me. If I go above that, I feel awful for several days after.
It is quite easy to cut your calorie intake down to 1200-1400. It means portion control, smaller food sizes, eating out less, etc.
posted by Stynxno at 2:12 PM on April 8, 2009
I'm 5'5", a guy, but find that a calorie intake of around 1200-1400 perfect for me. If I go above that, I feel awful for several days after.
It is quite easy to cut your calorie intake down to 1200-1400. It means portion control, smaller food sizes, eating out less, etc.
posted by Stynxno at 2:12 PM on April 8, 2009
Someone, I don't remember who, said to eat 10-12 times your body weight in pounds to lose weight, and 14-16 times your body weight in pounds to maintain your weight. It's worked for me. (I want to say http://www.stumptuous.com/, but I can't find it there.)
posted by Comrade_robot at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by Comrade_robot at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009
b33j, would you care to share any info about the style of eating/menu that has helped you manage on 1200 calories? I'd love to make this work for me.
I am not a nutritionist and this won't work for everyone, but I start my day with a dieter's shake, have a large soup (Tom Yum) at lunchtime that is mostly vegetables and water with maybe some tofu, and finish with a frozen dieter's dinner, with salad (lettuce mainly) on the side and a dash of white wine vinegar.
Other options for breakfast for me would be omelette with vegetables (tomatoes, chives, spinach etc), lunch could be salad, perhaps with a small tin of fish (tuna, salmon), and dinner, a small serving (no bigger than palm of my hand) of protein like fish, chicken or red meat with steamed veges or salad. Snacks between meals would be an apple or some other fruit. Plenty of carbonated water over ice and lemon slices, and/or coffee with skim milk and/or herb tea.
If I'm eating out, I avoid pasta or bread, and take a protein option with salad and no dressing, a skinny option to drink (skinny flat white) or water.
It took me 20 years of trying many different diets that lead me to this, and to finally accepting, no, I can not eat as much as I want even if it's healthy food. I can not eat as much as my husband or brothers or son eats, and maintain a healthy weight.
Also, reading about an extraordinary French woman (name escapes me) who in the early 1900s was treking by foot into Tibet and surviving on beef soup once a day made me realise that I just don't need that food to live well.
Oh, and lastly, once I got down to this level of intake, it took about a month before my body became used to it and stopped bothering me with insane and unrealistic hunger signals.
posted by b33j at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
I am not a nutritionist and this won't work for everyone, but I start my day with a dieter's shake, have a large soup (Tom Yum) at lunchtime that is mostly vegetables and water with maybe some tofu, and finish with a frozen dieter's dinner, with salad (lettuce mainly) on the side and a dash of white wine vinegar.
Other options for breakfast for me would be omelette with vegetables (tomatoes, chives, spinach etc), lunch could be salad, perhaps with a small tin of fish (tuna, salmon), and dinner, a small serving (no bigger than palm of my hand) of protein like fish, chicken or red meat with steamed veges or salad. Snacks between meals would be an apple or some other fruit. Plenty of carbonated water over ice and lemon slices, and/or coffee with skim milk and/or herb tea.
If I'm eating out, I avoid pasta or bread, and take a protein option with salad and no dressing, a skinny option to drink (skinny flat white) or water.
It took me 20 years of trying many different diets that lead me to this, and to finally accepting, no, I can not eat as much as I want even if it's healthy food. I can not eat as much as my husband or brothers or son eats, and maintain a healthy weight.
Also, reading about an extraordinary French woman (name escapes me) who in the early 1900s was treking by foot into Tibet and surviving on beef soup once a day made me realise that I just don't need that food to live well.
Oh, and lastly, once I got down to this level of intake, it took about a month before my body became used to it and stopped bothering me with insane and unrealistic hunger signals.
posted by b33j at 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
OK so, per the Biggest Loser Diet, my weight x 8 = 912 calories per day. Are they serious? WORST IDEA EVER.
OP, consider the numbers - if you put an aggressive weight goal/time frame into the calculator, it's just going to default to 1200 calories, which is the generally accepted minimum for women. Sure you could do that, but I would recommend going with something that's a little more manageable in the long-term and approach it as more of a lifestyle change than a diet. Otherwise you run the risk of being in the same boat two years from now.
The 1300-1500 calorie recommendation up there is pretty good, and you can eat the larger number of calories on your walking days. You might want to play with your ratios a little bit too. For instance, I find that when I eat about 45% carbs/30% protein/25% fat, I'm less hungry and I still have a decent amount of energy. I also have foods that I find to be very filling that I stick with if I am feeling extra hungry on a particular day (turkey burger, beans, cottage cheese, and diet hot chocolate with milk). You'll figure these out too as you go along.
Also, to whoever wrote that 1320 calories is not that far off from 1200 calories... you'd be surprised what a difference a half cup of cottage cheese w/jam, some oatmeal, or a whole load of veggies can do for your hunger level. 1200 is totally impossible for me, but I can hit 1320 without issue. Makes all the difference in the world.
posted by smalls at 2:20 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
OP, consider the numbers - if you put an aggressive weight goal/time frame into the calculator, it's just going to default to 1200 calories, which is the generally accepted minimum for women. Sure you could do that, but I would recommend going with something that's a little more manageable in the long-term and approach it as more of a lifestyle change than a diet. Otherwise you run the risk of being in the same boat two years from now.
The 1300-1500 calorie recommendation up there is pretty good, and you can eat the larger number of calories on your walking days. You might want to play with your ratios a little bit too. For instance, I find that when I eat about 45% carbs/30% protein/25% fat, I'm less hungry and I still have a decent amount of energy. I also have foods that I find to be very filling that I stick with if I am feeling extra hungry on a particular day (turkey burger, beans, cottage cheese, and diet hot chocolate with milk). You'll figure these out too as you go along.
Also, to whoever wrote that 1320 calories is not that far off from 1200 calories... you'd be surprised what a difference a half cup of cottage cheese w/jam, some oatmeal, or a whole load of veggies can do for your hunger level. 1200 is totally impossible for me, but I can hit 1320 without issue. Makes all the difference in the world.
posted by smalls at 2:20 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: If you aren't losing weight at 1600, and you aren't willing to do something like cut back carbs to 20-30% of your diet, then that means you'll have to eat less. So yeah, sorry, start eating less. You could do it gradually--cut back to 1400 for two weeks, check the results, and cut again if you're not getting what you want.
posted by Anonymous at 2:27 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by Anonymous at 2:27 PM on April 8, 2009
OK so, per the Biggest Loser Diet, my weight x 8 = 912 calories per day. Are they serious? WORST IDEA EVER.
Hmm, yeah. I guess that's a reflection of the fact that that particular diet is designed for people starting off in the 300 lb range. I started out at 250, and it's working well for me.
posted by lunasol at 2:27 PM on April 8, 2009
Hmm, yeah. I guess that's a reflection of the fact that that particular diet is designed for people starting off in the 300 lb range. I started out at 250, and it's working well for me.
posted by lunasol at 2:27 PM on April 8, 2009
Mod note: comment removed - calling others' approaches insane is not the way to move towards a harmonious future together, please try harder, thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:34 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:34 PM on April 8, 2009
if you're now eating 1600 calories, you'd need to shave 3500 calories off of it with diet+exercise in order to lose weight.
Jessamyn, I don't understand this. 1600 - 3500 = -1900, right? And -1900 is a very bad number of calories to consume, given that it is, well, negative. Could you clarify?
posted by ocherdraco at 3:32 PM on April 8, 2009
Jessamyn, I don't understand this. 1600 - 3500 = -1900, right? And -1900 is a very bad number of calories to consume, given that it is, well, negative. Could you clarify?
posted by ocherdraco at 3:32 PM on April 8, 2009
I got 2050 calories for you via the Mayo Clinic calculator, which is what I use, and has worked for me.
You can rock the 1700 mark and lose weight, 1500 would be faster. One thing I've done that has been helpful to me is to look only at average over the course of the week. So if I'm aiming for 1500 a day, that means some days significantly higher and some days lower.
I love food so I need that variety. I run, so I get to consume more calories than that. If you add a little exercise you can eat more. It depends on what makes you feel good and gives you pleasure. I like running, I like food, I even like being aware of my food choices because it's ultimately less mindless, like even if I'm eating a pint of ice cream, I wanted it and chose it. I'm not have some ghastly little guilty relationship with it.
Anyway.
The best sites for this stuff are government websites, university websites, and hospital websites. Everyone else just wants to sell you ads, and some of those sites benefit from you feeling a little crappy. (Not You, the universal You, I mean) because they want you to subscribe to one thing or another.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:45 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
You can rock the 1700 mark and lose weight, 1500 would be faster. One thing I've done that has been helpful to me is to look only at average over the course of the week. So if I'm aiming for 1500 a day, that means some days significantly higher and some days lower.
I love food so I need that variety. I run, so I get to consume more calories than that. If you add a little exercise you can eat more. It depends on what makes you feel good and gives you pleasure. I like running, I like food, I even like being aware of my food choices because it's ultimately less mindless, like even if I'm eating a pint of ice cream, I wanted it and chose it. I'm not have some ghastly little guilty relationship with it.
Anyway.
The best sites for this stuff are government websites, university websites, and hospital websites. Everyone else just wants to sell you ads, and some of those sites benefit from you feeling a little crappy. (Not You, the universal You, I mean) because they want you to subscribe to one thing or another.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:45 PM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jessamyn, I don't understand this. 1600 - 3500 = -1900, right? And -1900 is a very bad number of calories to consume, given that it is, well, negative. Could you clarify?
Well, you want a net calorie deficit to lose weight. Most people can lose 2 pounds per week consistently and safely by maintaining a 1000 calorie deficit. (2 lbs = 7000 calories, spread out over a week.) So if you consume 2000 calories of food and use 3000 calories of energy (basal metabolism + exercise), while you have a net deficit of 1000 calories, you still ate enough to maintain normal nutritional functionality. You're not consuming negative calories. Net deficits of 1900 or more are unpleasant but doable, especially among wrestlers and boxers who find themselves a lil chunky two weeks before a meet or match.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:52 PM on April 8, 2009
Well, you want a net calorie deficit to lose weight. Most people can lose 2 pounds per week consistently and safely by maintaining a 1000 calorie deficit. (2 lbs = 7000 calories, spread out over a week.) So if you consume 2000 calories of food and use 3000 calories of energy (basal metabolism + exercise), while you have a net deficit of 1000 calories, you still ate enough to maintain normal nutritional functionality. You're not consuming negative calories. Net deficits of 1900 or more are unpleasant but doable, especially among wrestlers and boxers who find themselves a lil chunky two weeks before a meet or match.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:52 PM on April 8, 2009
I would also suspect that for most women*, 1200 is not long term sustainable and is therefore not the kind of permanent behavioral change that tends to be recommended for weight loss.
My morning coffee is 100 calories, I think. About sixty in milk and a couple teaspoons of sugar (two cups of coffee total), so that would leave 1100 for the day. I'm almost forty, a decade older than the OP, and that would not be nearly enough for me. A bagel is almost 300 calories! If you want butter on it, that's another 100 or so.
Pretty soon you're eating pocket lint for dinner.
*Most! I said Most!
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:53 PM on April 8, 2009
My morning coffee is 100 calories, I think. About sixty in milk and a couple teaspoons of sugar (two cups of coffee total), so that would leave 1100 for the day. I'm almost forty, a decade older than the OP, and that would not be nearly enough for me. A bagel is almost 300 calories! If you want butter on it, that's another 100 or so.
Pretty soon you're eating pocket lint for dinner.
*Most! I said Most!
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:53 PM on April 8, 2009
Got it! The 3500 figure was throwing me off (I didn't understand that it was 3500 over more than one day). All is clear. Thanks, OC.
posted by ocherdraco at 3:58 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by ocherdraco at 3:58 PM on April 8, 2009
Jessamyn, I don't understand this.
Sorry, I was looking at a weekly basis thing. 500 fewer calories a day to lose a pound a week.
posted by jessamyn at 3:59 PM on April 8, 2009
Sorry, I was looking at a weekly basis thing. 500 fewer calories a day to lose a pound a week.
posted by jessamyn at 3:59 PM on April 8, 2009
My morning coffee is 100 calories, I think. About sixty in milk and a couple teaspoons of sugar (two cups of coffee total), so that would leave 1100 for the day. I'm almost forty, a decade older than the OP, and that would not be nearly enough for me. A bagel is almost 300 calories! If you want butter on it, that's another 100 or so.
Erm, don't drink coffee with milk and sugar, and don't eat bagels? Focus on veggies, a small amount of fresh fruit and a small amount of meat and that 1200 calories will seem much more doable.
posted by downing street memo at 4:10 PM on April 8, 2009
Erm, don't drink coffee with milk and sugar, and don't eat bagels? Focus on veggies, a small amount of fresh fruit and a small amount of meat and that 1200 calories will seem much more doable.
posted by downing street memo at 4:10 PM on April 8, 2009
Note that your Basal Metabolic Rate increases with your lean body mass. The BMR calculators that only ask you for your height and weight aren't accounting for your body composition. This is to say that if you build muscle, you'll increase your body's energy expenditure and will be able to eat more while still losing fat.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:17 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by ludwig_van at 4:17 PM on April 8, 2009
Depends entirely on what those calories are made of. I guarantee, if you tried to eat 1200 calories of meat and vegetables, you'd be plenty full. On the other hand, if you eat starch and fat, 1200 calories goes by in an instant.
posted by gjc at 4:17 PM on April 8, 2009
posted by gjc at 4:17 PM on April 8, 2009
Erm, don't drink coffee with milk and sugar, and don't eat bagels?
I'm not complaining--I wasn't the OP--I eat more than that and went from the mid-160's to the 130's several years ago. I like coffee with milk and sugar and I like bagels. I eat plenty of vegetables, and I'm happy with my weight. I was saying I thought I couldn't live and wouldn't want to try living on 1200 calories a day for the rest of my life.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:29 AM on April 9, 2009
I'm not complaining--I wasn't the OP--I eat more than that and went from the mid-160's to the 130's several years ago. I like coffee with milk and sugar and I like bagels. I eat plenty of vegetables, and I'm happy with my weight. I was saying I thought I couldn't live and wouldn't want to try living on 1200 calories a day for the rest of my life.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:29 AM on April 9, 2009
IANANutritionist, but I have lost about 10 lbs this year - 5' 7" lady, aged 26 - and I've been eating about 1600-1800 calories per day and exercising 3-4 times per week. I went to a nutritionist back in the day, and the calorie levels I have been following is pretty kosher with her advice. I know there have been a lot of haters of internet calculators on this thread, but the one I quote below seems fairly true to what I have been told by nutritionists and other diet websites run by nutritionists:
Calories Per Hour has a BMR/RMR (basal metabolic/resting metabolic rates) calculator, which can also take into account your activity level. Plugging in your numbers gives:
The results of your calculations are: BMR 1,540 RMR 1,485 (calories)
Factor Definition BMR RMR
1.2 Little or no exercise and desk job 1,848 1,782
1.375 Light exercise or sports 1-3 days a week 2,118 2,042
1.55 Moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week 2,387 2,302
1.725 Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week 2,657 2,562
1.9 Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job 2,926 2,822
So these are the number of calories you burn on an average day, assuming a certain activity level. Calories Per Hour says the RMR is more accurate. You'll have to read about it --but we'll take it since it is the lower value. So, even if you are "sedentary" your RMR is 1782 and -500 calories per day (3500/week = 1lbs) gets you to 1282 calories which is approximately what your other estimate told you.
Assuming the RMR value for "Light exercise 1-3 days" at 2042, that gets you to about 1500 calories per day, which is what you are arguing is more reasonable. So, try to shoot for 1500-1700 and see how you do -- if you are noticing that it is working, keep it up, if not you may need to adjust down a bit or start exercising more. Also talking to a nutritionist wouldn't hurt, they often have staff nutritionists at grocery stores and they may be able to meet with you for a reduced cost or free! Good luck!
posted by sararah at 7:39 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Calories Per Hour has a BMR/RMR (basal metabolic/resting metabolic rates) calculator, which can also take into account your activity level. Plugging in your numbers gives:
The results of your calculations are: BMR 1,540 RMR 1,485 (calories)
Factor Definition BMR RMR
1.2 Little or no exercise and desk job 1,848 1,782
1.375 Light exercise or sports 1-3 days a week 2,118 2,042
1.55 Moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week 2,387 2,302
1.725 Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week 2,657 2,562
1.9 Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job 2,926 2,822
So these are the number of calories you burn on an average day, assuming a certain activity level. Calories Per Hour says the RMR is more accurate. You'll have to read about it --but we'll take it since it is the lower value. So, even if you are "sedentary" your RMR is 1782 and -500 calories per day (3500/week = 1lbs) gets you to 1282 calories which is approximately what your other estimate told you.
Assuming the RMR value for "Light exercise 1-3 days" at 2042, that gets you to about 1500 calories per day, which is what you are arguing is more reasonable. So, try to shoot for 1500-1700 and see how you do -- if you are noticing that it is working, keep it up, if not you may need to adjust down a bit or start exercising more. Also talking to a nutritionist wouldn't hurt, they often have staff nutritionists at grocery stores and they may be able to meet with you for a reduced cost or free! Good luck!
posted by sararah at 7:39 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
(If you can add a little weight training to what you are doing it really will help btw.)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 12:51 PM on April 8, 2009