Low Daily Calorie Intake Limits?
I am a man who is 6' 0" and 24 years old. Thanks to this site I have reached 193 from 232 last year (39 IB?) but I had to start from 214 this spring, which was like halfway back up the ladder.
You can skip to the bottom, where I get to the point, but I'll put some extra flab on my post until then.
Like many of us I'm sure, I am anxious to lose my weight and am extremely over-skeptical about the weight I've lost, like "nothings good enough" even though my video and picture record shows amazing changes in my appearance.I am a little fixated on seeing my belly disappear or at least become unnoticeable with a t-shirt (I am sort of close)
If I don't lose consistently, lose on schedule and get to my ideal quickly I'll become sort of depressed and go into a mini-crisis.
With that in mind, I have become relentlessly and single-mindedly more efficient with each passing week. More exercise, use of scales to measure food and finally, reduced caloric intake. There is a considerable gap between my data projections (Excel and CalorieCount.com, what a team!) and my apparent weight loss. It's almost 4 pounds more (or less, i.e. more weight is lost) than it "should be," which I attribute 50%-70% to underrating increasingly intense exercise (still just biking up little hills for an hour, nothing too serious) and 40%-30% to using a scale.
-------
Anyway, My calorie aim has gone down from 1800, to 1700, to now I am for just over 1600, like 1625-50.
There are scare articles everywhere which warn against over cutting, but I will not cut below 1600, and will eat to 1600 if I need to, every time. The way I see it, its only 200 calories away from 1800, which is TOO HIGH FOR A 6' GUY WHEN YOU'VE REACHED RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE 25.0 BMI. 1800 is only -400 or something now, its not feasible any longer.When I started 1800 was what, -700? Twice as much! [For those of you worried about this drift, calorie count adjusts itself automatically as long as you feed it with your current weight. It is a very clever program].
The only things I am worried about is a loss of energy and poor nutrition. Obviously its a bigger problem as you get lower. I may have experienced loss of energy after eating too low once earlier in the year, like high 1400s, and I felt awful the next day, but my medications can do this as well, I suspect.
Poor nutrition I don't really know how to deal with. I think I get everything. Things being shouldered out a bit include milk and orange juice, but I get some fruit and milk. Those things are just liquid calories, and fruit cocktail is pure sugar, I try to eat a Banana every morning. I eat quite a bit of vegetables, whole packages often. And healthy bread. I definitely get enough fat and sugar. It's 90 degrees here lately and I've been eating diet ice cream. I'm shamed to say that it does take up a lot of my daily calories.
SOOOOOOOOO..... Is my attitude too cavalier, what do you do for your calorie limit? I hope you get at least -500 out. I know for women especially it is harder to get a big deficit, or at least it seems that way when I've looked at it. According to one of my Excel tables, a woman my age, weight and height would have to go below 1600 just to get -500! For me the same number is -700! I hope that table is bogus computation, for the sake of woman-kind.
Thanks, Yearbuilt
Sorry I only skimmed your post, but you should not be eating anywhere near 1,600 calories.
not healthy
Why Not, PURoooove it.
Seriously, I thought the recommended bottom limit was 1500 for men? I am also [only] a few inches taller than the average man.
My body should be basking in self-approval, instead of lambasting me with unhealth.
Yeah the taller you are the more calories you need because you are heavier.
I am 6'3, 195 lbs. So pretty similar to you. If I ate 1,600 calories I would die.
I eat about 4,000
I got confused and didn't correct fast enough. Yes in this case height doesn't help my argument.
However, I'm way closer too average than you are! 6'3 is almost 100 calorie shift from where I am.
It would feel like you were eating 1700 a day.
Did you mean to write 4000? You would die if you ate that many. I think. Then again I have eaten that many a number of times (sustained?) *huddle*
If my maint was 4000 at my height is 510 IBs, at yours like 500.
I'm a 5'6 female, and I lose weight eating 1800 calories a day. The closer you get to your goal, the smaller your deficit should be. You have less fat to metabolize, so your weight loss will be slower. If you try to lose weight at the same pace, you will just end up metabolizing your muscle, bone and organ matter and end up weak and skinny-fat.
Yes, I mean 4,000. I exercise a lot.
Anyway I maintain that 1,600 is far too low for you.
^two posts up or something
You can you lose weight if 1800 is so close to your maintenance that it's almost nill. That is coming up in the near future for me. 1800 is a holy relic, IMO.
If you were a 24 year old female at 170 IB, your maintenance is ~1848! 1800 would do nothing, almost literally. What would you do then? You'd still be 15 IB overweight? You'd have to drop down, to say *Thunder and lightning* 1300 K.
I will nevertheless do some extended research on the topic and see if I am blasting my bones away. I'll go to the library. Right now however, I have no money to get more food. I wouldn't mind being skinny-fat as long as the skinny part is obvious. Right now I look like that a little because all my fat (99%) of it was in my stomach. Which isn't always a bad thing, believe me. I feel bad for those whose extremities are all bloated up. That only happened a little to me at my worst. Off topic.
Thanks and good night.
I know I'm going to sound pedantic but I can't resist:
You do not have anywhere near 99 % of your fat in your belly. Your fat is spread out all over your body. In your brain, organs, under your skin, etc, etc.
Just had to point that out.
wow thats low. im barely scraping 5'3" and losing weight eating 1600 cal a day.
can't imagine this is an enjoyable way for you to live.
I think 'yearbuilt1940', is making the assumption that everybody is sedentary (at which point weight-loss at a small deficit would be slower - although, of course it would still take place). Is it right to make such an assumption? Absolutely not!
yearbuilt1940 - I see biking mentioned. Are you lifting weights?
I agree with spet that it seems like you are basing your calculations on the assumption of sedentary.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
yearbuilt1940 - I see biking mentioned. Are you lifting weights?
I agree with spet that it seems like you are basing your calculations on the assumption of sedentary.
I am... and why not? Should you eat more if you exercise a little? Alternatively, if you exercise a little (an hour a day aerobics) its only I don't know, 300 calories a day difference, I don't think your supposed to compensate that away, are you?
I am perfectly fine eating 1600-1700. It's not such a big issue. It's not any different from 1800. (I am speaking in terms of my life enjoyment).
But yes, I calculate everything from sedentary and add the rest in. I don't see how I am not Sedentary when I'm not exercising. I definitely am. It's almost an identity, in logical terms (A is equal to A).
Well, that would explain why you think you need to eat so little to lose weight.
My husband has similar stats, and if he's looking to lose weight, I don't think he ever dips below 2000. He's got a desk job, but lifts heavy and at least in previous summers has taken part in a team sport a couple times a week. But then he has a lot of muscle that he wants to preserve.
Personally, I don't consider myself sedentary, despite my desk job. I eat ~1600 to lose weight (back when losing, I was approx 5'6" 140lb late 20s early 30s). My exercise was lifting heavy 3x/week, and maybe walking a mile a day (just part of my commute, when my knee wasn't a bother). So it's a little hard to imagine that you need to eat that little given your stats.
But if you have no interest in eating more, despite being told that you can and still lose weight, I guess I'm not sure of what your question was.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
Well, that would explain why you think you need to eat so little to lose weight.
My husband has similar stats, and if he's looking to lose weight, I don't think he ever dips below 2000. He's got a desk job, but lifts heavy and at least in previous summers has taken part in a team sport a couple times a week. But then he has a lot of muscle that he wants to preserve.
Personally, I don't consider myself sedentary, despite my desk job. I eat ~1600 to lose weight (back when losing, I was approx 5'6" 140lb late 20s early 30s). My exercise was lifting heavy 3x/week, and maybe walking a mile a day (just part of my commute, when my knee wasn't a bother). So it's a little hard to imagine that you need to eat that little given your stats.
But if you have no interest in eating more, despite being told that you can and still lose weight, I guess I'm not sure of what your question was.
These answers have been helpful. I ate some more yesterday because of them. My main concern is health based, not personal satisfaction. I will eat as high as it is strictly healthy to do, and as low as it is healthy to do. That is easy to understand I think. My personal experience some have referenced, is not a concern. However, I will pay more attention to that as well and try to gauge how its going.
Original Post by yearbuilt1940:
I am a man who is 6' 0" and 24 years old. Thanks to this site I have reached 193 from 232 last year (39 IB?) but I had to start from 214 this spring, which was like halfway back up the ladder.
-------
Anyway, My calorie aim has gone down from 1800, to 1700, to now I am for just over 1600, like 1625-50.
I'm starving just reading this.
Original Post by yearbuilt1940:Seriously, I thought the recommended bottom limit was 1500 for men? I am also [only] a few inches taller than the average man.
1500 is the bare minimum for a short, skinny, sedentary man. Not an averaged size man, not an above averaged sized man (like you) and certainly not for someone who exercises.
I believe I will aim to bring my intake from 1600 to 1700 this week.... That seems to be a compromise between 1600 and 1800. I don't have access to a lot of food right now however, so that plan may not be realized until next week (I only have certain meals right now). If results are good, I will move to 1750. On days I do not exercise, I will aim a tad lower.
This is my plan, vote for me in November.
NOTE:
There seems to be some contradictions among sites, non-academic I might add. Also the academic magazines I have gone through briefly, said nothing on the topic but mention obscene 800 calorie diets. I am not concerned with such things. The only helpful site recommended a 1900 calorie (!) limit for a Sedentary (!) person my height. I don't believe this. For example, it recommends a lower limit should I be 184, 25.0 BMI! Clearly in contradiction of itself. It goes all the way down as you feed it lower weights. Clearly this is very opinionated, interventionist mathematics. http://www.matthewscaloriecounter.com/calorie _calculators/daily_calorie_limit_calculator.a spx
Exercise, Pilates and Calories Burned are the most effective way to lose weight, you can also take some food as there are also foods will actually burn calories instead of adding them.
Regards,
mar546darw | offshore merchant account
Original Post by mar546darw:
Exercise, Pilates and Calories Burned are the most effective way to lose weight, you can also take some food as there are also foods will actually burn calories instead of adding them.
Even a Pilates instructor doesn't claim that Pilates is the most effective way to lose weight.
