How do you determine how many calories to cut down to in order to lose weight?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Based on the online calculators I'm using, in order to lose about a pound a week, I can eat around 1800 calories per day (I have a lot to lose  :glare:), but I'm tracking my calories and that still seems like lot. I feel like I should be hungrier than this!

 

Is there a reliable method for figuring this out? 

Edited February 26, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Barb_]

Based on the online calculators I'm using, in order to lose about a pound a week, I can eat around 1800 calories per day (I have a lot to lose :glare:), but I'm tracking my calories and that still seems like lot. I feel like I should be hungrier than this!

 

Is there a reliable method for figuring this out?

Try MyFitnessPal. It seems pretty accurate and allows you to adjust for activity level and exercise.

[Night Elf]

Depending on what you're eating, you may be able to diet and not be hungry. Don't let that be a major gauge. The question is if you are losing while on that calorie limit. If you aren't, then adjust it.

 

While losing weight, I didn't feel hungry all the time. That wouldn't have been sustainable.

[Pawz4me]

I've seen the calculator at Scooby's Workshop recommended by many people.

 

But you might have to do trial and error. Eat a certain number of calories per day for a couple of weeks, see how it goes and adjust from there.

 

(Edited to fix link. I hope!)

Edited February 26, 2017 by Pawz4me

[emmaluv+2more]

You definitely don't want to feel hungry because that just sets you up for failure.  The following is the formula I have always used.  Or use MyFitnessPal.

 

From Women's Health Magazine:

 

 â€œMultiply your weight in pounds by 12 or 15—12 if you’re mostly sedentary or mildly active and 15 if you do some kind of moderate or high-intensity exercise almost every day,†says New York City nutritionist Brittany Kohn, R.D. Next, take your age into account. If you’re under 30, do nothing; the number you’ve arrived at is the calorie count you should aim for. In your 30s or 40s? Subtract 200 from that figure. It sucks, but it’s true: As you get older, your metabolism slows a bit, and your system requires fewer calories to function.

Now you know how many calories you need to maintain your current weight. If you’re trying to downsize, just delete 500 from that number. Consuming 500 fewer calories per day gives you a deficit of 3,500 calories a week, which equals about one pound, says Kohn. Losing a pound a week is the safest way to diet because it doesn’t lead to deprivation or nutritional deficiencies, she adds. (You can also ramp up your workouts to burn off calories if you find it tough to cut 500 calories from your daily meal plan.)

[Kassia]

You definitely don't want to feel hungry because that just sets you up for failure.  The following is the formula I have always used.  Or use MyFitnessPal.

 

From Women's Health Magazine:

 

 â€œMultiply your weight in pounds by 12 or 15—12 if you’re mostly sedentary or mildly active and 15 if you do some kind of moderate or high-intensity exercise almost every day,†says New York City nutritionist Brittany Kohn, R.D. Next, take your age into account. If you’re under 30, do nothing; the number you’ve arrived at is the calorie count you should aim for. In your 30s or 40s? Subtract 200 from that figure. It sucks, but it’s true: As you get older, your metabolism slows a bit, and your system requires fewer calories to function.

Now you know how many calories you need to maintain your current weight. If you’re trying to downsize, just delete 500 from that number. Consuming 500 fewer calories per day gives you a deficit of 3,500 calories a week, which equals about one pound, says Kohn. Losing a pound a week is the safest way to diet because it doesn’t lead to deprivation or nutritional deficiencies, she adds. (You can also ramp up your workouts to burn off calories if you find it tough to cut 500 calories from your daily meal plan.)

 

Yikes - that would be way too few calories for me!  I multiplied my weight by 15 because I exercise every day and subtracted 200 calories (I'm 49) and the total to maintain was significantly lower than I ever eat!

 

 

[emmaluv+2more]

Yikes - that would be way too few calories for me!  I multiplied my weight by 15 because I exercise every day and subtracted 200 calories (I'm 49) and the total to maintain was significantly lower than I ever eat!

 

I guess what works for some doesn't work for others and all, but my results using this method are pretty much on par with what I get using anything else I've tried.  Perhaps you burn quite a few more calories exercising than average?  That would cause your caloric needs to be significantly higher?

 

I exercise daily (not on weekends), but if I multiply by 15 I never consume the number of calories this method indicates I need to maintain.  So I just assume that my exercise is on the light side and I don't burn as many calories with that exercise, therefore I go with the multiply by 12 number instead (which is more inline with what I eat).  I'm sure there are more exact methods of calculating out there, but this has always been good enough for me!

 

MyFitnessPal can be more exact if your diligent about weighing food, entering exercise precisely, etc. I find it somewhat tedious and I can get a bit obsessive about it, so I tend to just use the above method instead.

 

Good luck OP!  I know how difficult weight loss can be.

[Mrs_JWM]

I got a low number, too - 1400 calories a day seems difficult!

 

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk

[blondeviolin]

I use the app Lose It to track my calories. I set it to 1.5 pounds a week and it gave me my target caloric intake. Between maintaining my calories, I picked up walking for an hour a day. I was not hungry while losing thirty pounds over the course of four months. I just made conscious choices about what I was putting in my mouth.

[emmaluv+2more]

If the caloric number seems too low, you would likely need to increase your level of exercise in order to lose weight while consuming adequate calories.  

 

Look, I'm not here to argue and any simple method like the one I posted isn't going to work perfectly for everyone (there are too many variables).  If one is being completely honest and is an average person (not an athlete or big-time exerciser) then it should get them in the ballpark.  If you don't think the method works for you, find another one.  I was just answering the OP's call for options.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

A word about MyFitnessPal. I don't think it's accurate. At all. I need to lose about 25 pounds. I have tried Beachbody/2dayFix/ Shakeology, Plexus, Weight Watchers, etc. I had success on WW years ago(gained it all back due to medication) and haven't tried the new plan. I lost nothing with Beachbody. I actually gained three pounds. I lost nothing with Plexus. Again I gained. Everyone kept telling me to use MFP. I started that in January. the calculations gave me a caloric intake of 1250 and claimed I should lose .5-1.5 pounds a week I set MFP to track fat, cals, and carbs. I entered in every bite I ate and every second of exercise. I was fastidious about tracking. Each day MFP would say "If every day was like today you will weigh XXX.XX in 5 weeks." indicating that I would be at my half goal in 5 weeks. I didn't lose anything and I was hungry. and fatigued all of the time. I even posted about it here on WTM. I quit tracking on MFP due to frustration.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Scoutermom

[KatieJ]

I am currently on a weight loss journey. I am going to a medical (non surgical) weight loss program. I have a lot to loose but. So far I have lost 50 pounds over 4.5 months on 1200-1500 calories a day plan.

I am using My fitness pal to track what I eat, but the nutritionist set it up for me. The biggest thing us 90 grams of protein a day and for me, 90 ounces of water. I rarely feel hungry .

 

I can look up my daily goals for carbs, fat, etc.if you would like.

[Kassia]

If the caloric number seems too low, you would likely need to increase your level of exercise in order to lose weight while consuming adequate calories.  

 

Look, I'm not here to argue and any simple method like the one I posted isn't going to work perfectly for everyone (there are too many variables).  If one is being completely honest and is an average person (not an athlete or big-time exerciser) then it should get them in the ballpark.  If you don't think the method works for you, find another one.  I was just answering the OP's call for options.

 

I apologize.  My intention wasn't to argue at all.  I thought the formula was interesting and I was surprised that the total was so low when I calculated it for myself.  I do exercise a lot so I'm sure that my caloric needs are on the high side for my height and weight.  I am glad you posted the formula and hope I didn't cause any hard feelings.  

[emmaluv+2more]

I am currently on a weight loss journey. I am going to a medical (non surgical) weight loss program. I have a lot to loose but. So far I have lost 50 pounds over 4.5 months on 1200-1500 calories a day plan.

I am using My fitness pal to track what I eat, but the nutritionist set it up for me. The biggest thing us 90 grams of protein a day and for me, 90 ounces of water. I rarely feel hungry .

 

I can look up my daily goals for carbs, fat, etc.if you would like.

 

But your daily goals for carbs and such are going to be different than other people's daily goals.  It's the nature of the beast and what makes weight loss so difficult, frustrating and variable.  Your nutritionist set it up for YOU, which is why it is working so well for YOU.  

 

I am not an expert, but I have spent years researching and figuring things out for myself.  I know now that sugar and carbs (of any kind) are my personal enemies.  I must eat a low carb, high protein diet to lose weight (and it is mostly vanity weight, I do not have a lot to lose).  The key, for me, is continuing this as a lifestyle in order to keep the weight off and stay healthy. I also must exercise because, for me, it isn't just a calorie thing, but how my body reacts to those specific calories.  Carbs immediately land in my midsection as fat.  I can count calories until the cows come home, but carbs will kill me every time.  As completely eliminating carbs would be unhealthy (think fruits, veggies, fiber) then I MUST exercise in order to account for that.

 

("You" as follows is general, not to KatieinMich)  MFP works once you know how many calories you need in order to maintain/lose/gain, whichever the case may be, because it allows you to actively track every little thing you eat and every step you take as exercise.  It is extremely accurate at counting for you as long as you are accurate and honest with what you put in.  What it might not be accurate at is determining how many macronutrients (carbs, protein, fat) your body needs in order to meet your specific goals.  This varies hugely from person to person and would account for why some people have no success with it.  It is great at helping people realize where their calories are coming from and how many calories are actually in foods (which helps keep the calorie count down, but also leads to my own personal obsessive behavior); it does raise awareness and accountability.  But, if I relied solely on the numbers it puts in for me, then I would likely not lose weight even if I ate only 1000 calories a day.  The carb requirement it would give me would ruin any chance at success I might have.  Which is why it has the wonderful ability to be customizable to the user.

 

Anyway, sorry for the ranting tangent; this is a bit of a passion of mine :leaving:

[emmaluv+2more]

I apologize.  My intention wasn't to argue at all.  I thought the formula was interesting and I was surprised that the total was so low when I calculated it for myself.  I do exercise a lot so I'm sure that my caloric needs are on the high side for my height and weight.  I am glad you posted the formula and hope I didn't cause any hard feelings.  

 

Oh my, not at all!  I just didn't want the thread to turn into a bombardment of people (since there were already 2 in a row) saying that the formula I posted didn't work for them.

[Greta]

I apologize. My intention wasn't to argue at all. I thought the formula was interesting and I was surprised that the total was so low when I calculated it for myself. I do exercise a lot so I'm sure that my caloric needs are on the high side for my height and weight. I am glad you posted the formula and hope I didn't cause any hard feelings.

You didn't sound argumentative to me at all - just surprised. That method gives me a result that's a bit too low as well. I've used a number of different calculators, and they yield shockingly different results!

[Soror]

(1) track what you eat, to find out how much you are eating now- are you are gaining/losing or maintaining at that amount

(2) start cutting a bit at a time to find the level you can lose weight and not chew off your arm/end up binging in a few days/have too little energy for basic functions- experiment with carbs/protein/fat

 

These calculators are pretty accurate for me, like previous posters the formula presented above gives a calorie count that is too low, like the pp's as well I am pretty active. Irregardless we are all different there is going to be a certain amount of experimentation to find what wl work for you, any calculator or formula is just a bit of a shortcut, you will have to do some work to dial it in for no matter what method you pick.

 

http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

http://www.womenshealthandfitness.com.au/energy-counter

Edited February 26, 2017 by soror

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I was posting about MFP because I wanted the OP to know that there isn't any one place/thing/diet that is going to work for everyone. If there was such a place/thing/diet, we would all know to go to that place/thing/diet and every dieter would be successful.  The best thing to do is what a PP stated. Track what you do now (for a period of time when you are not dieting) and see exactly what and how much you eat. Track your exercise. Determine how much you do or do not move. Then experiment by reducing cals, limiting carbs, limiting sugar, etc until you find something that causes you to lose weight. That's what I'm doing at the moment. It takes a while but I'm hoping to finally be successful. I have a feeling it's going to be sugar and carbs for me (although my latest blood work indicates I'm now hypoglycemic).

 

Edited: I also think MFP is overly generous on cals burned through exercise. I don't have time to explain at the moment. I'll try to come back later.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Scoutermom

[emmaluv+2more]

(1) track what you eat, to find out how much you are eating now- are you are gaining/losing or maintaining at that amount

(2) start cutting a bit at a time to find the level you can lose weight and not chew off your arm/end up binging in a few days/have too little energy for basic functions- experiment with carbs/protein/fat

 

These calculators are pretty accurate for me, like previous posters the formula presented above gives a calorie count that is too low, like the pp's as well I am pretty active. Irregardless we are all different there is going to be a certain amount of experimentation to find what wl work for you, any calculator or formula is just a bit of a shortcut, you will have to do some work to dial it in for no matter what method you pick.

 

http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

http://www.womenshealthandfitness.com.au/energy-counter

These tell me I need more than 2000 cal/day.  I do not eat anywhere close to that.  I consume around 1500-1600 when maintaining and around 1200-1300 when wanting to lose.  I am not a stick, but I am not overweight.  I exercise moderately (jog 2-3 days per week; interval & strength training 2-3 days per week).  I don't spend much of my day sitting.  I never feel hungry.  Most of my calories come from protein, followed by fat.

 

It is amazing how different each individual can be and reveals why losing weight can be so maddeningly difficult.

 

Good luck on your journeys everyone.

[wintermom]

I agree with PP and the scientific research which recommends measuring your baseline calories consumed and exercise for a month, then work from this to decrease calories and/or increase exercise in order to lose weight over a long-term time line. Working with the guidance of a nutritionist sounds like an excellent idea, too. 

[heartlikealion]

You definitely don't want to feel hungry because that just sets you up for failure.  The following is the formula I have always used.  Or use MyFitnessPal.

 

From Women's Health Magazine:

 

 â€œMultiply your weight in pounds by 12 or 15—12 if you’re mostly sedentary or mildly active and 15 if you do some kind of moderate or high-intensity exercise almost every day,†says New York City nutritionist Brittany Kohn, R.D. Next, take your age into account. If you’re under 30, do nothing; the number you’ve arrived at is the calorie count you should aim for. In your 30s or 40s? Subtract 200 from that figure. It sucks, but it’s true: As you get older, your metabolism slows a bit, and your system requires fewer calories to function.

Now you know how many calories you need to maintain your current weight. If you’re trying to downsize, just delete 500 from that number. Consuming 500 fewer calories per day gives you a deficit of 3,500 calories a week, which equals about one pound, says Kohn. Losing a pound a week is the safest way to diet because it doesn’t lead to deprivation or nutritional deficiencies, she adds. (You can also ramp up your workouts to burn off calories if you find it tough to cut 500 calories from your daily meal plan.)

 

That would have me eating less than 1200 a day. MyFitnessPal and other sites suggest a woman should eat a min. of 1200 daily. When I was tracking my calories with the site I was miserable and when I exercised it didn't feel like it helped much because I would end up eating after working out and canceling out any progress (probably had to do with what time of day I exercised, too. If I exercised earlier in the day I had more time to plan out the rest of my calories?). The only thing that really helped me manage the calories was drinking water to free up more calories for food. Well, that and eating things that are generally healthier like a big helping of veggies or such. Basically I am not very good at following the criteria for losing weight and the plans all had me losing less than a lb a week which feels like very, very slow progress.

 

[heartlikealion]

I didn't see all the replies before. I am actually relieved that others felt the numbers were too low as well. It's certainly interesting to read about. Now if I can get dh to help me fix our Kinect I might be able to start my in home exercises again. Stupid thing is asking for some update and I don't even use it online! :glare:

[kiana]

In addition to what others said, it's also trial and error. If you have a great memory, entering your last week's worth of food as an estimate to see how much you WERE eating can help you figure it out. If not, pick a decent-looking number and go with it. 

 

If, after a month, you have only lost 1 pound and your goal was a pound a week, you may try lowering it (assuming you went with something like 1800 in the first place) and trying another month. But give yourself a month at each level to see results. And -- when figuring what your goal should be -- look at what your ACTUAL monthly average was, not what your goal was. For example, if you ate over goal a lot and averaged 2200 calories and lost a pound that month, then your goal was pretty reasonable and rather than a lower goal you need better adherence. 

[KatieJ]

But your daily goals for carbs and such are going to be different than other people's daily goals.  It's the nature of the beast and what makes weight loss so difficult, frustrating and variable.  Your nutritionist set it up for YOU, which is why it is working so well for YOU.  

 

:leaving:

 

I am not posting again to be argumentative, please don't' take it that way.

 

Since the nutritionist talked to me for about 5 mins before she started setting up my MFP, and she really only knew my vitals at that point, I believe that what she set up for me is pretty standard for their patients.  Well, pretty standard according to what size you are.  If you are looking at 30 pounds, it probably is different set of numbers.

1200 is their basic calorie limit if you have a lesser amount to loose.  Up to 1500 if your have "a Lot" to loose.

Mine is set up for 45 percent Carbs, 30 percent Fat and 26 percent protein. 

Standard for them is 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, or so a Dr at the clinic said to me once. 

I loose weight with higher protein and less carbs, and that is what I choose to eat. I rarely hit the percentage for carbs.

 

I don't choose to enter my exercise in MFP as then it adds in more calories and I don't want that.  I just stick to my 1200 to 1500 daily and am loosing weight at about 2.5 pounds a week . 

 

I only am sharing this information as trying to be helpful, not trying to say I know it all.  I don't.

 

OP I wish you the best and hope you find something that works for you.

[kroe1]

To figure out how many calories one needs to lose weight, one must first know how much he is currently eating. Then, one can just eat 100 calories a day less than that to lose weight. Obviously, the weight loss will plateau as soon as the new sustained weight is reached for the new amount of calories consumed. Then, if the goal is not reached, the daily intake must be lowered again and so forth.

 

For me, it is easier to stick to 1500 calories a day for my entire adult life and never get overweight in the first place. But, now as I am pushing 60, I have already lost enough muscle mass that I have had to adjust down to 1400 calories a day to stay a healthy weight. It may seem low, but humans were never intended to need much to begin with. It is only our present day conception of portions that make us feel like it is a low number. By the way, I "run" 3 miles a day. So, I need a lot fewer calories than what many OPs here think they need.

[Catwoman]

You definitely don't want to feel hungry because that just sets you up for failure. The following is the formula I have always used. Or use MyFitnessPal.

 

From Women's Health Magazine:

“Multiply your weight in pounds by 12 or 15—12 if you’re mostly sedentary or mildly active and 15 if you do some kind of moderate or high-intensity exercise almost every day,†says New York City nutritionist Brittany Kohn, R.D. Next, take your age into account. If you’re under 30, do nothing; the number you’ve arrived at is the calorie count you should aim for. In your 30s or 40s? Subtract 200 from that figure. It sucks, but it’s true: As you get older, your metabolism slows a bit, and your system requires fewer calories to function.

Now you know how many calories you need to maintain your current weight. If you’re trying to downsize, just delete 500 from that number. Consuming 500 fewer calories per day gives you a deficit of 3,500 calories a week, which equals about one pound, says Kohn. Losing a pound a week is the safest way to diet because it doesn’t lead to deprivation or nutritional deficiencies, she adds. (You can also ramp up your workouts to burn off calories if you find it tough to cut 500 calories from your daily meal plan.)

According to this formula, I could only eat about 700 calories a day if I wanted to lose weight.

 

There is no way that would be healthy for me.

 

It seems like a very simplistic formula, and it doesn't seem like it would work at all for small-boned people who don't have a lot of weight to lose. It seems like it punishes those who only want to lose 10 pounds or so, because their starting weight isn't that high, so once they deduct the 200 for being over 30 and the 500 because they want to lose weight from the original "weight x 12," they are left with a ridiculously low number.

 

Or am I reading the instructions incorrectly and calculating the wrong numbers?

Edited February 27, 2017 by Catwoman

[Catwoman]

Oh my, not at all! I just didn't want the thread to turn into a bombardment of people (since there were already 2 in a row) saying that the formula I posted didn't work for them.

I don't think any one single formula can possibly work for everyone. There are too many variables that make one formula work beautifully for one person and be a miserable failure for another. :)

 

I think this thread is good because people are listing many different suggestions and options, and it's interesting to hear others' experiences.

 

I'm not trying to lose any weight -- my biggest concern at 53 is maintaining my health and muscle mass -- but I always get new and useful information on threads like this one.

[Soror]

 By the way, I "run" 3 miles a day. So, I need a lot fewer calories than what many OPs here think they need.

It is not a matter of what I *think* I need, I've tracked and measured. Maintenance level of calories for me is over 2000 calories, depending on my activity level at any given time maintenance averages 2300-2700 for me. I can and have lost weight eating 2000ish calories per day, sometimes more than that. You may be an expert on you but not on everyone else. We all have different bodies, I've nearly always needed more food than a lot of other women. I'm not big(aside from pregnancy and weight gain from depo provera I've never been overweight) but I am generally pretty active, not just with exercise(which I generally do some variety of for multiple hours a week) but in my day to day life. 

[heartlikealion]

I wouldn't conclude that exercising a lot = needing less calories. It would actually make me think you need more, or are entitled to more (per MFP, anyway). You work up an appetite and need fuel. Am I the only one that has watched a video of The Rock eating meals? Looks like he has to eat a lot.

[Carrie12345]

I wouldn't conclude that exercising a lot = needing less calories. It would actually make me think you need more, or are entitled to more (per MFP, anyway). You work up an appetite and need fuel. Am I the only one that has watched a video of The Rock eating meals? Looks like he has to eat a lot.

 

I interpreted the post to mean "I can exercise and get by on X calories", not "I exercise so I need fewer."

 

Formulas are based on how many calories the average body needs to perform basic bodily functions.  The factors they suggest are based on averages at low, medium, and high activity levels, but that is going to vary so much from person to person in perception and in reality. Someone who walks for an hour 7 days a week may consider themselves highly active, while someone who runs 13 miles 3x/wk does as well, but they likely have very different calorie burns.  

 

It's absolutely true that metabolisms vary, on top of that. They don't *typically vary as much as people think, but they do, naturally, by body composition, and by age. Throw in some funky biology and it can start to look like a crap shoot. But math doesn't personally know your body.

 

Mathematically, you do have to eat more when exercising to maintain (or raise) your weight.  But you still have to eat less than you burn (from exercise or just existing) in order to lose.  Generally speaking, a 3500 calorie deficit/wk for 1lb loss, 7000 for 2lbs.

 

My body doesn't like that much of a deficit from most formulas, so I work with what I've got.  For me, that means focusing more on muscle gain than scale numbers, which (usually) eventually boosts my metabolism to burn more fat with a smaller deficit.

 

All of this is why I'm kind of obsessed with the Positive Body Alliance and Girls Gone Strong.  It's my opinion (just an opinion) that the math involved in moving the scale intimidates or frustrates a lot of people who might have a better chance of improving their health by focusing on fitness and good food instead of numbers.

[DawnM]

But your daily goals for carbs and such are going to be different than other people's daily goals.  It's the nature of the beast and what makes weight loss so difficult, frustrating and variable.  Your nutritionist set it up for YOU, which is why it is working so well for YOU.  

 

I am not an expert, but I have spent years researching and figuring things out for myself.  I know now that sugar and carbs (of any kind) are my personal enemies.  I must eat a low carb, high protein diet to lose weight (and it is mostly vanity weight, I do not have a lot to lose).  The key, for me, is continuing this as a lifestyle in order to keep the weight off and stay healthy. I also must exercise because, for me, it isn't just a calorie thing, but how my body reacts to those specific calories.  Carbs immediately land in my midsection as fat.  I can count calories until the cows come home, but carbs will kill me every time.  As completely eliminating carbs would be unhealthy (think fruits, veggies, fiber) then I MUST exercise in order to account for that.

 

("You" as follows is general, not to KatieinMich)  MFP works once you know how many calories you need in order to maintain/lose/gain, whichever the case may be, because it allows you to actively track every little thing you eat and every step you take as exercise.  It is extremely accurate at counting for you as long as you are accurate and honest with what you put in.  What it might not be accurate at is determining how many macronutrients (carbs, protein, fat) your body needs in order to meet your specific goals.  This varies hugely from person to person and would account for why some people have no success with it.  It is great at helping people realize where their calories are coming from and how many calories are actually in foods (which helps keep the calorie count down, but also leads to my own personal obsessive behavior); it does raise awareness and accountability.  But, if I relied solely on the numbers it puts in for me, then I would likely not lose weight even if I ate only 1000 calories a day.  The carb requirement it would give me would ruin any chance at success I might have.  Which is why it has the wonderful ability to be customizable to the user.

 

Anyway, sorry for the ranting tangent; this is a bit of a passion of mine :leaving:

 

Yes, the nutritionist set it up for her, but my strong guess is that she gives that advice to everyone.....90 gr. protein and 90 ounces of water.  The only tweaking would be calorie amounts and carb levels for various body sizes and exercise levels.

 

Most nutritionists have a formula.  And most have theories they follow for everyone.  I haven't met one yet that said, "You do weight watchers and you do low carb, and you do low fat."  

[Carrie12345]

Yes, the nutritionist set it up for her, but my strong guess is that she gives that advice to everyone.....90 gr. protein and 90 ounces of water.  The only tweaking would be calorie amounts and carb levels for various body sizes and exercise levels.

 

Most nutritionists have a formula.  And most have theories they follow for everyone.  I haven't met one yet that said, "You do weight watchers and you do low carb, and you do low fat."  

 

I would actually be skeptical of that.  Essential amino acid requirements are based on body weight, and can come only from proteins. The difference between a 110lb body and 190lb body is enormous. (Generally, 80g vs. 152g for overall protein. I don't feel like calculating each amino acid, essential or otherwise, this morning.)  Long-term deprivation would worry me.

[kroe1]

It is not a matter of what I *think* I need, I've tracked and measured. Maintenance level of calories for me is over 2000 calories, depending on my activity level at any given time maintenance averages 2300-2700 for me. I can and have lost weight eating 2000ish calories per day, sometimes more than that. You may be an expert on you but not on everyone else. We all have different bodies, I've nearly always needed more food than a lot of other women. I'm not big(aside from pregnancy and weight gain from depo provera I've never been overweight) but I am generally pretty active, not just with exercise(which I generally do some variety of for multiple hours a week) but in my day to day life.

Sorry, you read my post so negatively. I am really not sure why. Let me rephrase. I do not know you at all. How on earth would I know you need 2000 calories a day? My post was simply that one must eat fewer than he already does to lose weight. Pure and simple, it is a matter of burning more than one consumes. I eat 1400 a day as that is what keeps me at my current weight as long as I continue to run 3 miles a day. If I were to stop running, I would have to adjust my calories downward. But, many of the oP's said they need more than that. So be it. My point was that we ARE all different. Different amounts for different folks.

 

And why did someone think running = less calories needed? Wow, I never knew so few sentences could be worded so poorly as to make people think the exact opposite of what was written.

[Carol in Cal.]

I am using MFP but not the way others are talking about here.

 

I enter all of my food, and that's about it.

 

I see those projections and I mostly ignore them.

 

I figure as long as I'm losing weight little by little, and feel good, I don't care how long it takes and I don't care about all the other stuff they measure, with just one exception.

That is protein.  My naturopathic doctors says that the liver needs protein to detox, so I'm trying to push protein foods ahead of carbs for that reason.  Even with that, I rarely meet the protein goal, but my diet is FAR higher in protein and lower in carbs than it had been before, so that's in the direction of goodness. 

 

I AM losing weight, and I don't feel ravenous all the time so I'm good.

 

Honestly though, it's a combo of things for me.

 

I used the MFP calorie calculation and it's working.  I track my weight using an Atria scale from Fitbit, so I have an ongoing record of it and see progress.

I track steps also and try to increase them using my Fitbit.

In order not to get too hungry and still feel good, FOR MYSELF I have found that I can have just coffee (with milk and sugar) and other drinks until the afternoon, and then whenever I'm hungry I start with raw veggies and cool water, and then if I'm still hungry I eat something more substantial.  Currently my raw veggies of choice are mostly red cabbage and radiccio, and I eat a LOT of them.  It seems that no matter when I start eating, I am hungry more or less for the rest of the day, so if I start later on it's easier not to overeat that day.

 

I do have 'excursions'.  I don't necessarily put them all into the tracker--if I have a bad day sometimes it's hard to evaluate the specifics, but the scale is the bottom line and that line is moving generally down.  For instance, I overate on Valentine's Day, and over the three day weekend.  I'm good with that as long as it doesn't become habitual.

 

I find it harder to follow this when DH is around, so I'm more compliant during the week than on weekends, generally.  But in general, this feels more or less sustainable, and I'm making progress, and I am not feeling starvation looming, so I choose to be happy with it.

 

 

 

 

[Another Lynn]

I use the app Lose It to track my calories. I set it to 1.5 pounds a week and it gave me my target caloric intake. Between maintaining my calories, I picked up walking for an hour a day. I was not hungry while losing thirty pounds over the course of four months. I just made conscious choices about what I was putting in my mouth.

I started using Lose It last week and love it.

[heartlikealion]

Sorry, you read my post so negatively. I am really not sure why. Let me rephrase. I do not know you at all. How on earth would I know you need 2000 calories a day? My post was simply that one must eat fewer than he already does to lose weight. Pure and simple, it is a matter of burning more than one consumes. I eat 1400 a day as that is what keeps me at my current weight as long as I continue to run 3 miles a day. If I were to stop running, I would have to adjust my calories downward. But, many of the oP's said they need more than that. So be it. My point was that we ARE all different. Different amounts for different folks.

 

And why did someone think running = less calories needed? Wow, I never knew so few sentences could be worded so poorly as to make people think the exact opposite of what was written.

 

Sorry, I was just reading a snapshot of what you had posted which was quoted upthread. I guess I completely missed the context:

 

 

 By the way, I "run" 3 miles a day. So, I need a lot fewer calories than what many OPs here think they need.