how dangerous is it to drop below 1200 cals

[Sinaku5]

Hey guys,

I was wondering, my gf is thinking about dropping below 1200 cals. Her maintenance is about 1600 id say (shes 152lbs, 27 years old, 5'5").

She wants to lose weight and has been at 1200 cals for about 2 months, and now she wants to lose weight faster. I told her that I dont think taht dropping below 1200 would be ideal, but what kinda advice do you guys have for her?

Thanks so much!

[charliesschevy]

...

[illiniStrive]

Typically going bellow 1200 cals sends your body into starvation mode, so instead of losing weight it stores whatever you eat as fat because it doesn't think it's getting enough to eat. therefore instead of losing weight you keep weight.

No...

[sonti]

Her maintenance is not 1600 - she would be steadily losing at 1600 :) Your girlfriend needs to keep in mind that when she stalls/plateaus, she will not be able to drop any further. She needs to start slow & steady and drop from there as time goes on. Have you seen the counting calories sticky in the nutrition section here? She can start there, if she wants any real lasting results, of course :)

[wamberella]

Do you mean that she's currently consuming 1200 cals a day, or that she's currently netting out to 1200 at the end of the day?

One of the reasons she's not losing weight "fast" enough might be if she is actually not consuming enough calories to support basic body function, so her body is clinging to the fat more than it has to. I wouldn't suggest letting the end of day net cals drop below 1200 (or whatever her BMR is - i've done 1000, but i was smaller and actually had better results with 1200+). If she's having constant weekly loss, then don't change anything. There is no shortcut, unfortunately, especially once you're down around 150 or less.

[sonti]

Sit her down to read these:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703921
Counting Calories & Macros

Top Important Threads:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=122789461

[wamberella]

^^^ Yes, that. Much better said. :)

[Sinaku5]

She's consuming 1200 calories.

Also Where'd you get that she would be losing at 1600? That seems wrong to me but ill happily take any advice.

Thanks for the articles I need more advice guys we steady read those

Thanks

[mavrick77]

Her maintenance is not 1600 - she would be steadily losing at 1600 :) Your girlfriend needs to keep in mind that when she stalls/plateaus, she will not be able to drop any further. She needs to start slow & steady and drop from there as time goes on. Have you seen the counting calories sticky in the nutrition section here? She can start there, if she wants any real lasting results, of course :)

Oh do you know his GF? sorry I have been doing this many many years, and been writing contest diets for many many years... 1600 is not so hard to believe of a untrained athlete.


Hey guys,

I was wondering, my gf is thinking about dropping below 1200 cals. Her maintenance is about 1600 id say (shes 152lbs, 27 years old, 5'5").

She wants to lose weight and has been at 1200 cals for about 2 months, and now she wants to lose weight faster. I told her that I dont think taht dropping below 1200 would be ideal, but what kinda advice do you guys have for her?

Thanks so much!

if she is still loosing keep her on 1200, after all this is the same level of jenny craig and weight watchers (bet you didnt know that).... once her weight stalls out, take her slowly back up to maitenence for a month or 2.. she will gain some WATER weight her, but nothing to be concerned with. Once your metabolism stabilizes, drop her back down to 1200 again untill she stalls out again. THIS IS A PROCESS, not a quick fix.

[Freak4Fitness]

Hey guys,

I was wondering, my gf is thinking about dropping below 1200 cals. Her maintenance is about 1600 id say (shes 152lbs, 27 years old, 5'5").

She wants to lose weight and has been at 1200 cals for about 2 months, and now she wants to lose weight faster. I told her that I dont think taht dropping below 1200 would be ideal, but what kinda advice do you guys have for her?

Thanks so much!

Whoa!

First, does she exercise at all? if so, what?
cardio, how much, how long? any HIIT
WT?????

[Echo814]

I burned 1776 cals yesterday just sitting on my butt playing a video game all day, I walked like 1200 some odd steps. On days that I move its closer to 2000 and when I workout its 2300. I am only 10lbs lighter and carry a high BF%. There is no way that her maintenance cals are 1600, unless she has an underlying medical issue.

[greesemuunkie]

Please make sure she eats...
A common misconception is undereating. This is why people will get "skinny" and then once they go back to maintenance they get fat again. If she's at a plateau, like the above post said, put her back on maintenance--This doesn't mean she gets to eat whatever she wants and gets lazy again. This can still be a good time to gain muscle. Just like he said, she isn't going to gain fat, just water. Then after a couple of months, go down to say, 1300 (no lower), get her to continue her cardio, cut a little carbs, no sugar and really watch what she eats. It's not always about calories but what we are eating too. Remind her that she only gets one body and going this low on cal intake can hurt her metabolism.
What's her diet like? Is she one of those salads and rice cake people or does she really eat protein, fats and good carbs?

[sonti]

Oh do you know his GF? sorry I have been doing this many many years, and been writing contest diets for many many years... 1600 is not so hard to believe of a untrained athlete.

Do you always mean to sound like a dick when you talk about your expertise and how you know more than anyone else about calories/metabolism of the female figure? Or is it unintentional? Just wondering, because it would probably be better form to just state that you have a different opinion and offer your reasons why. If you want to claim knowledge superiority based on your professional background then maybe you should speak like one too.

The average woman at 5'5 and 157lbs, chances are she eats a heck of a lot more than 1600 calories to maintain that weight.

[Sinaku5]

Im 160 6 foot male and my maintenance is round 2500. Im confused as to why hers can't be 1600 it seems reasonable...please explain.

Echo - And regardless of how many calories u burn through regular activity there's a maintenance level of cals. There's also no way u burned 1700 calories playing a video game...

[illiniStrive]

At 5'5 and 157lbs she could definitely CUT on 1600 cals. That's not her maintenance.

[Sinaku5]

Thanks illini.

But that means that her maintenance is only about 400 less than mine?! That doesnt make sense to me. Explain that plz?

[Sinaku5]

Oh do you know his GF? sorry I have been doing this many many years, and been writing contest diets for many many years... 1600 is not so hard to believe of a untrained athlete.



if she is still loosing keep her on 1200, after all this is the same level of jenny craig and weight watchers (bet you didnt know that).... once her weight stalls out, take her slowly back up to maitenence for a month or 2.. she will gain some WATER weight her, but nothing to be concerned with. Once your metabolism stabilizes, drop her back down to 1200 again untill she stalls out again. THIS IS A PROCESS, not a quick fix.

Oh and thanx so much to you. You seem knowledgeable, especially with ur credibility in terms of your body speaks for the fact that you seem to know what to do.

[kimm4]

Hey guys,

I was wondering, my gf is thinking about dropping below 1200 cals. Her maintenance is about 1600 id say (shes 152lbs, 27 years old, 5'5").

She wants to lose weight and has been at 1200 cals for about 2 months, and now she wants to lose weight faster. I told her that I dont think taht dropping below 1200 would be ideal, but what kinda advice do you guys have for her?

Thanks so much!

I don't care if she lies in bed all day, with those stats her maintenance is somewhere close to 2200. 1600 calories would be a good place for her to start with steady fat loss. Give it a good 4-5 weeks and adjust accordingly.

Good luck!

[Echo814]

Im 160 6 foot male and my maintenance is round 2500. Im confused as to why hers can't be 1600 it seems reasonable...please explain.

Echo - And regardless of how many calories u burn through regular activity there's a maintenance level of cals. There's also no way u burned 1700 calories playing a video game...

Wanna see my Body Media data? That was my burn for the total day. Are you confusing BMR with maintenance?

BMR is the amount of calories needed to lay in bed all day and do nothing, hers is probably around 1350- 1400ish ( did not do the math but this would be very close), after that you add on an activity factor of 1.2-2.0, depending on what she does every day.

Maintenance cals need to take into account the activity you do per day. So if you take a moderate activity factor 1.3-1.4 (lightly active moderate exercise or sports 1.3 times a week) and times it by 1400 her maintenance to keep her current weight is 1820 cals-1960. To get a more accurate number read this sticky, its full of awesome information
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703921

[oregonchick76]

Thanks illini.

But that means that her maintenance is only about 400 less than mine?! That doesnt make sense to me. Explain that plz?

Maybe your maintenance level is higher than you thought?

[womanoid]

Im 160 6 foot male and my maintenance is round 2500. Im confused as to why hers can't be 1600 it seems reasonable...please explain.

Echo - And regardless of how many calories u burn through regular activity there's a maintenance level of cals. There's also no way u burned 1700 calories playing a video game...

It seems reasonable that someone with 3 lbs less mass than you needs 900 calories less?!

Your weights are almost identical, the only difference then would be age & gender, and even then 900 calories is twice as much as what is probable.

[juliacheh]

Do you always mean to sound like a dick when you talk about your expertise and how you know more than anyone else about calories/metabolism of the female figure? Or is it unintentional? Just wondering, because it would probably be better form to just state that you have a different opinion and offer your reasons why. If you want to claim knowledge superiority based on your professional background then maybe you should speak like one too.

The average woman at 5'5 and 157lbs, chances are she eats a heck of a lot more than 1600 calories to maintain that weight.

Yeah, I hate how everybody makes these blanket statements.
I dropped 3.5 pounds in 5 weeks by eating 1800 calories and 190 grams of carbs. Zero cardio, lifting 4 times a week.

I read on these boards that no 122-pounder will ever lose fat on 1800 calories, well I disproved that. My current pictures are in my bodyspace - the ones in the blank top, estimating myself to be at 17% bodyfat right now.

[PinkWeights]

Yeah, I hate how everybody makes these blanket statements.
I dropped 3.5 pounds in 5 weeks by eating 1800 calories and 190 grams of carbs. Zero cardio, lifting 4 times a week.



I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

[womanoid]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

I'm not sure whether to neg you or patiently explain everything wrong with your comment...

[Echo814]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

Umm, did you even look at her pictures? She is extremely lean for a female and dropping more than that would tap into lean mass. I am not sure if I should neg this as a troll...

[juliacheh]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

I just saw this, what a gem:))

[gobbles23]

Oh dear....

[toodlepip]

I just saw this, what a gem:))

Too funny. Can't be arsed to actually correct her.

You've done a great job - looking fantastic in your new pics!

[Linds33]

Wanna see my Body Media data? That was my burn for the total day. Are you confusing BMR with maintenance?

BMR is the amount of calories needed to lay in bed all day and do nothing, hers is probably around 1350- 1400ish ( did not do the math but this would be very close), after that you add on an activity factor of 1.2-2.0, depending on what she does every day.

Maintenance cals need to take into account the activity you do per day. So if you take a moderate activity factor 1.3-1.4 (lightly active moderate exercise or sports 1.3 times a week) and times it by 1400 her maintenance to keep her current weight is 1820 cals-1960. To get a more accurate number read this sticky, its full of awesome information
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703921

This is what I was thinking. A lot of people confuse BMR with maintenence. As stated above, your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs to perform it's essential functions in order to maintain homeostasis. If you were comatose and in bed not moving your body would still be performing certain functions to keep you alive and this requires calories.

My BMR at 5'4" 117lbs is around 1300 give or take. When i take my activity levels into account my maintenence calories can easily go as high as 2500 or more depending on the activities i perform.

Unless she is wanting to do a figure competition or is in training for some sort of competition, there is no need for her to cut her calories down to 1200. If she isn't loosing she may want to actually look at what she is eating. Does she keep a food diary of everything that she eats? Many of us grossly underestimate how many calories we take in on a given day.

Also, there is no need for her to drop her calories low to loose weight fast. I know that many of us want to look good and need immediate gratification but this is not healthy and usually ends up with people bouncing back an gaining their weight back. Aiming for a caloric deficit of 500 calories a day or 3500 in a week based on her maintanence is the best way to start. See how she does on that.

And in regards to PinkWeights response I was kind of shocked at that too...considering that Julia is already pretty darned lean that sort of fat loss is great in that amount of time! :p

[juliacheh]

I liked the response of Linds33 very much.
Better take it slowly and dropping calories to drastically low levels is not the best solution for anyone.
Thanks, girls, and what can I say - there will always be ignorant people:)

[birdiefu]

I just saw this, what a gem:))

Oh lawdy! Julia, kudos for you for being so nice and calm. :)

Honestly, I think people tend to underestimate their burn rate a lot. I know I did previously, but I am now cutting on *gasp* 2250-2350 cals. Yes, I burn more than "typical" for the formulas for my height/weight, as I have a lot of NEAT, and that stuff adds up. I burn over 2k on a lazy day doing nothing, not uncommon for me to burn 3k+ regularly during the week, and my record (I have a GoWear Fit, so can see the numbers) in 24 hours was just over 4k.

[elaina08]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

oh wow! Uh .. I mean .. wow! Is this comment for real?? Totally brainless comment.

[Freak4Fitness]

I'm not sure whether to neg you or patiently explain everything wrong with your comment...

hahahaha! I negged her or it whatever LOL

why do people come into forums with that kind of garbage???? Oh my god!
Freaks me Out!

[Freak4Fitness]

Oh lawdy! Julia, kudos for you for being so nice and calm. :)

Honestly, I think people tend to underestimate their burn rate a lot. I know I did previously, but I am now cutting on *gasp* 2250-2350 cals. Yes, I burn more than "typical" for the formulas for my height/weight, as I have a lot of NEAT, and that stuff adds up. I burn over 2k on a lazy day doing nothing, not uncommon for me to burn 3k+ regularly during the week, and my record (I have a GoWear Fit, so can see the numbers) in 24 hours was just over 4k.

;) Lucky Gurl & again bit of a showoff hehehe JK sister!

[sy2502]

Oh lawdy! Julia, kudos for you for being so nice and calm. :)

Honestly, I think people tend to underestimate their burn rate a lot. I know I did previously, but I am now cutting on *gasp* 2250-2350 cals. Yes, I burn more than "typical" for the formulas for my height/weight, as I have a lot of NEAT, and that stuff adds up. I burn over 2k on a lazy day doing nothing, not uncommon for me to burn 3k+ regularly during the week, and my record (I have a GoWear Fit, so can see the numbers) in 24 hours was just over 4k.

While there are calorie guidelines, let's not forget they are just guidelines, we are not made with the cookie cutter, ladies, we are all different, with different metabolism and different levels of daily activity. Good for you that you can cut at 2300 cals, good for you that you burn 3000cals a day, but do keep in mind that not everybody does. So when other posters call people names because their body behaves differently than yours (or, in my case, because I have a job that makes me sit on my butt 12 hours a day) that's just uncalled for.
Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about: I am 38, I commute 2 hours a day and work at a desk 8-12 hours a day. I only exercise 1 hour a day. I also come from a long history of severe dieting that almost turned into eating disorder. When I cut, I lose 0.5 to 1lbs a week being on 1200-1300 calories a day. Sorry if this is going to offend people but I can't help it if that's how my body works. Don't you think I'd like to stuff my face with 3000 calories? Heck I don't think I could even fit that much food into my stomach honestly...
My recommendation has always been to start from the calories recommended in the stickies, and go 2-3 weeks with that. If you lose weight, GOOD FOR YOU! If you don't, then it must mean your body needs less.

[Freak4Fitness]

While there are calorie guidelines, let's not forget they are just guidelines, we are not made with the cookie cutter, ladies, we are all different, with different metabolism and different levels of daily activity. Good for you that you can cut at 2300 cals, good for you that you burn 3000cals a day, but do keep in mind that not everybody does. So when other posters call people names because their body behaves differently than yours (or, in my case, because I have a job that makes me sit on my butt 12 hours a day) that's just uncalled for.
Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about: I am 38, I commute 2 hours a day and work at a desk 8-12 hours a day. I only exercise 1 hour a day. I also come from a long history of severe dieting that almost turned into eating disorder. When I cut, I lose 0.5 to 1lbs a week being on 1200-1300 calories a day. Sorry if this is going to offend people but I can't help it if that's how my body works. Don't you think I'd like to stuff my face with 3000 calories? Heck I don't think I could even fit that much food into my stomach honestly...
My recommendation has always been to start from the calories recommended in the stickies, and go 2-3 weeks with that. If you lose weight, GOOD FOR YOU! If you don't, then it must mean your body needs less.

Hi, I wanted to stress that "less" again is not always the answer. As you stated in your opinion everyone is different & calories are tricky to nail down

I was stalled for months on 1400-1500 cals, increasing my cardio my WT workouts getting mor frustrated & pissed off weekly at no weight loss

I have "UPPED" my cals due to my workout routine & voila, scale is moving in the right direction

Again, I can't stress this enuff... BB.com is here to help & guide if you so require, just a quick e-mail will put you in contact with the right people

Depending on workout, muscle gain etc... lower cals does not work for everyone...
Every woman's needs will be different ;)

[birdiefu]

While there are calorie guidelines, let's not forget they are just guidelines, we are not made with the cookie cutter, ladies, we are all different, with different metabolism and different levels of daily activity. Good for you that you can cut at 2300 cals, good for you that you burn 3000cals a day, but do keep in mind that not everybody does. So when other posters call people names because their body behaves differently than yours (or, in my case, because I have a job that makes me sit on my butt 12 hours a day) that's just uncalled for.
Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about: I am 38, I commute 2 hours a day and work at a desk 8-12 hours a day. I only exercise 1 hour a day. I also come from a long history of severe dieting that almost turned into eating disorder. When I cut, I lose 0.5 to 1lbs a week being on 1200-1300 calories a day. Sorry if this is going to offend people but I can't help it if that's how my body works. Don't you think I'd like to stuff my face with 3000 calories? Heck I don't think I could even fit that much food into my stomach honestly...
My recommendation has always been to start from the calories recommended in the stickies, and go 2-3 weeks with that. If you lose weight, GOOD FOR YOU! If you don't, then it must mean your body needs less.

I agree that people can burn various amounts, and that the formulas are a good starting point. However, my point is that most people tend to underestimate what they burn. This can lead to them further decreasing cals when that is not the direction they should be going. Before I had my GoWear, I was cutting and stalled at 1745 cals. If I didn't see my reading that said I was burning 2400+ (which, honestly I didn't believe, because shouldn't I be *losing* if I was really burning that??), I would have thought maybe my metabolism had slowed so that my maintenance was truly 1745 cals/day. Amazing, when I upped calories, I started losing again at about 2200, which originally I thought (with the formulas) was above my maintenance, when truly it was still below. And my maintenance has gone up a few hundred more on my bulk, too.

A lot of people (men and women, but mostly women it seems) seem to get caught up in this trap of sorts, thinking they should go lower and lower, when in fact raising cals can often be the best thing for them. Yes, perhaps in the short-term they may gain some weight (water weight, GI bulk, etc - not necessarily fat!), as they get closer to what their true maintenance is. Many times this leads them to cut back again, thinking these increased cals are therefore above maintenance, and robbing their body of a true diet break and getting back into hormonal balance.

I just see so many people on these boards struggle in what seems to be the neverending battle of decreasing and decreasing cals. Even if you do end up going above maintenance (which *long* term results will show, not just after a week of upping cals), it isn't the end of the world if you put on some fat. Cause if they were lifting heavy, they would have put on some muscle too in a mini-bulk, which everyone can use. :) And then you have a better idea of how your body responds to not just a deficit, but also the other side- a surplus, and you can learn a lot and become more confident in yourself doing so.

[sy2502]

I agree that people can burn various amounts, and that the formulas are a good starting point. However, my point is that most people tend to underestimate what they burn. This can lead to them further decreasing cals when that is not the direction they should be going. Before I had my GoWear, I was cutting and stalled at 1745 cals. If I didn't see my reading that said I was burning 2400+ (which, honestly I didn't believe, because shouldn't I be *losing* if I was really burning that??), I would have thought maybe my metabolism had slowed so that my maintenance was truly 1745 cals/day. Amazing, when I upped calories, I started losing again at about 2200, which originally I thought (with the formulas) was above my maintenance, when truly it was still below. And my maintenance has gone up a few hundred more on my bulk, too.

A lot of people (men and women, but mostly women it seems) seem to get caught up in this trap of sorts, thinking they should go lower and lower, when in fact raising cals can often be the best thing for them. Yes, perhaps in the short-term they may gain some weight (water weight, GI bulk, etc - not necessarily fat!), as they get closer to what their true maintenance is. Many times this leads them to cut back again, thinking these increased cals are therefore above maintenance, and robbing their body of a true diet break and getting back into hormonal balance.

I just see so many people on these boards struggle in what seems to be the neverending battle of decreasing and decreasing cals. Even if you do end up going above maintenance (which *long* term results will show, not just after a week of upping cals), it isn't the end of the world if you put on some fat. Cause if they were lifting heavy, they would have put on some muscle too in a mini-bulk, which everyone can use. :) And then you have a better idea of how your body responds to not just a deficit, but also the other side- a surplus, and you can learn a lot and become more confident in yourself doing so.

And I don't remember any instance in my life in which eating more made me lose weight. I wish it did though... :)

[kimm4]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?


Point me out to the women who are losing a steady 2 lbs a week. When you're already lean, it's not going to happen. Even women who have more to lose aren't dropping 2 lbs every single week.

5 lbs a week for months...seriously you're an idiot...

[Rowyn]

Do you always mean to sound like a dick when you talk about your expertise and how you know more than anyone else about calories/metabolism of the female figure? Or is it unintentional? Just wondering, because it would probably be better form to just state that you have a different opinion and offer your reasons why. If you want to claim knowledge superiority based on your professional background then maybe you should speak like one too.

The average woman at 5'5 and 157lbs, chances are she eats a heck of a lot more than 1600 calories to maintain that weight.

^^LMAO, that's funny.^^


Yeah, I hate how everybody makes these blanket statements.
I dropped 3.5 pounds in 5 weeks by eating 1800 calories and 190 grams of carbs. Zero cardio, lifting 4 times a week.


Sonti was just pointing out the average woman, and Julia, you ain't average;) Certainly she knows not everyone is the same, but most would benefit from calculating the necessary caloric intake using the stickies and START there, adjust accordingly after a couple of weeks.



Before I had my GoWear, I was cutting and stalled at 1745 cals. If I didn't see my reading that said I was burning 2400+ (which, honestly I didn't believe, because shouldn't I be *losing* if I was really burning that??), I would have thought maybe my metabolism had slowed so that my maintenance was truly 1745 cals/day. Amazing, when I upped calories, I started losing again at about 2200, which originally I thought (with the formulas) was above my maintenance, when truly it was still below. And my maintenance has gone up a few hundred more on my bulk, too.

Good points, but I also see that some chicks rely too heavily on the data from their calorie counters and never get anywhere, either. If you are working with a slight deficit, a couple of hundred incorrect cals can screw the pooch. I'm old fashioned that way---figure out your caloric deficit and macros, eat to that.

Lotsa lulz to be had in this thread;)

[mavrick77]

Yeah, I hate how everybody makes these blanket statements.
I dropped 3.5 pounds in 5 weeks by eating 1800 calories and 190 grams of carbs. Zero cardio, lifting 4 times a week.

I read on these boards that no 122-pounder will ever lose fat on 1800 calories, well I disproved that. My current pictures are in my bodyspace - the ones in the blank top, estimating myself to be at 17% bodyfat right now.

but this proves my point exactly.... you had roughly a 300 calorie per day deficit too loose this weight in 5 weeks, (some of wich is water, so maybe less).. as we all know fat is a combination of water and fat... so 3.5lbs of fat, is not really all fat.

But this goes back to what I was trying to say, 1600 calories is too high for a completely untrained woman. I know you lost weight, but YOU also have a TON more muscle then most women, thus burn far more calories.

I know its a blanket statement, and that is my fault, but you have to keep in mind, YOU ARE NOT THE AVERAGE WOMAN on this board. Most, NOT ALL, are in the high 20% low 30% bodyfat range(if not worse), dont lift heavy, depend on cardio, and dont eat the right macro's. With higher bodyfat levels, estrogen is thru the roof, thus causing to hold even more fat and water.

so I think its a fair assumption to say, they would be far more succesfull with their diet with less then 1800 calories, Yes my wife can cut on 1700 for a show, and even at that level still hits platues for weeks at a time.... but LIKE YOU, she is not the average woman. If hitting this supposed "BURN" most of the women talk about, was working, the bodybug arm band would not be squishing their fat over it. It is a good STARTING tool, but not something to rely on.

[mavrick77]

While there are calorie guidelines, let's not forget they are just guidelines, we are not made with the cookie cutter, ladies, we are all different, with different metabolism and different levels of daily activity. Good for you that you can cut at 2300 cals, good for you that you burn 3000cals a day, but do keep in mind that not everybody does. So when other posters call people names because their body behaves differently than yours (or, in my case, because I have a job that makes me sit on my butt 12 hours a day) that's just uncalled for.
Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about: I am 38, I commute 2 hours a day and work at a desk 8-12 hours a day. I only exercise 1 hour a day. I also come from a long history of severe dieting that almost turned into eating disorder. When I cut, I lose 0.5 to 1lbs a week being on 1200-1300 calories a day. Sorry if this is going to offend people but I can't help it if that's how my body works. Don't you think I'd like to stuff my face with 3000 calories? Heck I don't think I could even fit that much food into my stomach honestly...
My recommendation has always been to start from the calories recommended in the stickies, and go 2-3 weeks with that. If you lose weight, GOOD FOR YOU! If you don't, then it must mean your body needs less.

Thank you for posting this!!!! god bless you. Just because a few women can eat more, dont let them corrupt the rest of the womens minds in to thinking they can too. Dont worry about people saying they burn 3000 calories a day... i have trained enough people that use the bodybugs and other arm bands, they are WAY OFF on true calories burned, or everyone I know would be skinny.... look at most (NOT ALL) women wearing the bands, , dont think they are hitting the "burn" :) enough said.

Keep up the good work, and thank you again.

[mavrick77]

hahahaha! I negged her or it whatever LOL

why do people come into forums with that kind of garbage???? Oh my god!
Freaks me Out!

how stupid is that, you neg someone for expressing their view. Well I negged you for expressing yours. Grow up!

[Freak4Fitness]

Point me out to the women who are losing a steady 2 lbs a week. When you're already lean, it's not going to happen. Even women who have more to lose aren't dropping 2 lbs every single week.

5 lbs a week for months...seriously you're an idiot...

hahahahaha! AWESOME Kimm4!

[Freak4Fitness]

how stupid is that, you neg someone for expressing their view. Well I negged you for expressing yours. Grow up!

Maverick, I negged her for telling women that it is feesible to lose 5lbs a week for months or even 2 lbs steadily
It is that kind of stupid, idiotic comment that gives people unrealistc goals
I am not worried about being negged by a loser :)

[Freak4Fitness]

how stupid is that, you neg someone for expressing their view. Well I negged you for expressing yours. Grow up!

why don;t you go bother the boys, if yer big enuff

THIS IS THE FEMALE FAT LOSS section!

[Linds33]

The problem with this thread is that we don't know ANYTHING about this "girlfriend" other then her height and weight and how many calories she eats. For all we know she could run miles a day which would make a difference. We can't really give this person advice on what caloric amount his GF should take in unless we know more. We don't even know if she keeps a food log or not or is really aware of how many calories she is eating. She may say 1200 but in reality it could be closer to 2400. It happens to the best of us. Thus we can't say "oh she needs to start cutting at this many calories" as we could be very wrong.

The best bet as many have said is for her to figure out what her maintenence is by going into the nutrition thread and using the formula in the stickies. Use that as a starting point for a few weeks and see what happens. Then adjust accordingly. Keep a food log of her caloric intake so that she is sure that she is eating the right amout of calories. Weight loss is all about trial and error.

[Freak4Fitness]

I don't care if she lies in bed all day, with those stats her maintenance is somewhere close to 2200. 1600 calories would be a good place for her to start with steady fat loss. Give it a good 4-5 weeks and adjust accordingly.

Good luck!

Nails it on the Head again! atta gurl Kimm4

[sy2502]

Nails it on the Head again! atta gurl Kimm4


I don't care if she lies in bed all day, with those stats her maintenance is somewhere close to 2200. 1600 calories would be a good place for her to start with steady fat loss. Give it a good 4-5 weeks and adjust accordingly.

Good luck!

Actually I'd be interested to hear where you got that number, because all the BMR calculators I have tried with the stats given by the OP say a number between 1400 and 1500.

[womanoid]

how stupid is that, you neg someone for expressing their view. Well I negged you for expressing yours. Grow up!

Do you know who she negged? It was the "I can lose 5 lbs/week for months, but I don't because it's too hard" poster.

[Tina7578]

I'm missing something here. What is it? I'm not sure why you're proud that it took you over a month to drop 3.5 pounds. The average is 2 pounds a week. For that matter, I can workout really hard and restrict calories and lose 5 pounds a week--and do it for months if I have to, I'm just not happy about it once I start and it takes an enormous amount of willpower. So what's am I missing? Did you...gain 20 pounds in muscle while you lost the 3 pounds? What?

The "average" is not 2 lbs a week; that's the highest you should lose safely in a week. Who has 5 pounds a week to lose for months who's already healthy, fit, and working out on a regular basis? I'm at about 20% bf and it's taken me 5 months to drop 11 pounds, and I'm pretty damned proud I managed that and pretty damned pleased I managed to do it in just five months ... so you're little theory of "I can drop 5 pounds in a week and do it for months" makes zero sense unless you're a 300 pound hot mess.

The average is 1/2 -1 pound per week, with 2 pounds a week being the MAX you should lose.

My RMR is 2100, my BMR is 2900, my BMR plus lifestyle is 3400. I dropped down to 2500 on non-workout days and 3000 on workout days to get my loss. Anything under 2000 and I'm losing lean; she definitely does not want to drop below 1200, that's the absolute lowest recommended for females.

[Hannah73Louise]

I lost an average 3.3lbs a week for 7 months and went from 238 to 138 and lived to tell the tale. Just saying....

[Tina7578]

I lost an average 3.3lbs a week for 7 months and went from 238 to 138 and lived to tell the tale. Just saying....

Kudos to you, but that's still not "average".

[gymbabe18]

i eat around 1,200 a day!
im fine ! lol

[kimm4]

i eat around 1,200 a day!
im fine ! lol

Yeah and your stats are completely different fromt the OP's...

[Echo814]

I think the point that we are all trying to make here is that why go down to the lowest medically recommended calorie level (this is the lowest amount recommended for an adult should eat to get the minimal macro and micronutrients) when a person can start out eating more? Most people fail on a "diet" because they usually go to low in calories off the bat and once they plateau there is no where to go or they do fine for a while then get tired of feeling hungry all the time and binge, I have been there and lower and it sucked.

[kimm4]

I lost an average 3.3lbs a week for 7 months and went from 238 to 138 and lived to tell the tale. Just saying....

You had more to lose and again, it's not the norm!! Not only this, but you lost a crap load of muscle in the process...just sayin...

[kimm4]

I think the point that we are all trying to make here is that why go down to the lowest medically recommended calorie level (this is the lowest amount recommended for an adult should eat to get the minimal macro and micronutrients) when a person can start out eating more? Most people fail on a "diet" because they usually go to low in calories off the bat and once they plateau there is no where to go or they do fine for a while then get tired of feeling hungry all the time and binge, I have been there and lower and it sucked.

Well said!

/thread...