Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
6/24/14 10:17 A
I lost pretty rapidly (1.5 pounds per week just about the whole way to goal) on substantially over 1500 calories daily (while exercising), so you're not alone. While there certainly are women here who need to cut calories a bit more than that to get a satisfactory rate of loss, there are also plenty like us, especially if you're a bit taller than average.
(By the way, those who are struggling to meet the minimum requirement are just as often eating too little and trying to come up, as eating too much (for their desired rate of loss) and trying to go down further.)
Edited by: RENATARUNS at: 6/24/2014 (10:18)
Fitness Minutes: (675)
6/24/14 8:45 A
Thanks, Nirerin, I was starting to think the same sort of thing about the calorie requirement myself. I'm already only aiming for the top of the healthy weight range because I'm quite a muscular, hour-glass shape and I think I can be healthy at quite a high body weight for my height. I think I'll try not going under 1800 calories and see how that goes. On 1500-1700 I was losing too quickly for the amount I want to lose (as you have said), and feeling tired. I see quite a lot of posts here from people about finding it difficult to meet the minimum calorie requirement, so you're right it makes sense that there would be people at the other end to even things out. It's just a bit hard to get my head around.
i'm awful with kilos. but 10 kilos is about 22 lbs. .5 kilos is about 1.1 lbs. for people with so little to lose, you're not even necessarily looking at a full pound a week, .25-.5 pounds a week. yep, pounds. so that's like .11-.22 kilos a week for loss. almost a kilo, even half a kilo may be too aggressive for where you are. the other thing is that once you reach a certain point, shape and fitness and the number on the scale aren't necessarily the same thing. the first thing you might need to do is to get your bodyfat percentage tested to see if you really have any weight to lose. if you're close to where you want to be, you may need to focus on maintaining your weight while strength training and toning so that you get the shape you're aiming for. if you were maintaining or just slightly, slowly gaining at 2500 cals, you should be eating over 2000 cals a day to lose. take the total number of pounds you gained and multiply it by 3500. then divide by the number of days [or months or weeks] it took you to gain it. that's how far off you were a day [month, week]. for a lot of creeping weight people that number is under 200 cals. so if you were only eating 200 cals more than you needed to at 2500, that means you're maintaining at about 2300 cals a day. so eating just over 2000 cals will still give you an almost 300 cal deficit, which is in the .5 lb or .22 kilo range for loss per week. if you were also doing that at 2500 you're above average. in other words, the numbers used to calculate are averages. so while there is you at 2300 cals a day, you're balancing out the person at 900 cals a day to get the 1200 cal a day average for someone your size . go by actual results but you may actually find yourself more sustainable at just above what the program spits out.
Fitness Minutes: (675)
6/24/14 7:40 A
Thanks for the responses... I've tried playing around with the 'goals' on the start page, and nothing seems to change the basic 1200-1500 calorie target range I'm given. I have it set at 0.8 kilos to lose per week (I do have a relatively small amount left to lose, 10kg), but when I changed it to 0.5 per week, the date changed, but not the calorie range. Am I doing something wrong?
I think I did probably eat quite a lot before I started this, to maintain a weight in the 75-80 kilo range (it has gone up and down a little in the last 18 months-2 years). Definitely over 2500 calories per day. I have probably already answered my own question, but this has been a problem for me in the past, because I would always end up 'breaking' the diet I was on if I tried to eat the amount suggested. I would also lose weight faster (and feel pretty terrible) I suppose I'll just have to play around with it and try to figure it out.
one other thing is how much weight you have to lose. if you don't have a lot of weight to lose [say under 22 kilos] and you set an aggressive loss per week goal of 1 kilo, then you will get dumped in the lowest calorie range [1200-1550] even though you don't really weigh enough to support that kind of loss. the slower your loss, the smaller your deficit, which means the more calories you will be eating.
6/24/14 6:43 A
Do you know how much (on average) you were eating before you started the program compared to now? If you were eating a lot more, even if you're still eating more than your range recommends, you're probably losing weight because you decreased your calories. A lot of people lose weight quickly in the beginning, but then find the weight loss starts to slow down. So you might find that you need to decrease your calories into the range SP recommends for weight loss to continue. But everyone is different, so if what you're doing continues working, keep it up!
Hope that helps,
Fitness Minutes: (675)
6/24/14 2:25 A
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but can you have both a fast metabolism and a tendency to put on weight? I started tracking on here about a week and a half after I started trying to lose weight, and I feel like I'm eating so much more than recommended. I had lost 2 kilos in 10 days before I started tracking here, and have lost 1.4 kilos in 9 days while eating quite a lot of food. Going under 1500 calories would just be out of the question on a regular basis... do others have this issue with the calculator? If I didn't add the daily activities like walking to the train station etc. to the fitness tracker, the calculations would be 100s of calories out.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.