I'm fat, and look as though I should be, but I'm not.

The reality is though, that its not 'super low calories', its the amount a person needs to lose weight sensibly, simply by virtue of their size, age and frame.

Even WLS patients under the NHS arent going to be 'closely supervised' with regard to the low calories, there are supplements that are advised (prescribed if you're very lucky) and these are for life and certainly in the first few months, up to 6 or 12 months there might be some bloods. Some trusts will offer ongoing intervention dietitian and emotionally but some dont.

And the calories going in there are usually around 3-500 in the early weeks, rising to around 800 for some months, building again to around 1000 to 1200 around the year mark, a bit more if you can manage it.

The focus is on supplementation because you cannot get full nutrients on that level of food.

Someone eating 1200 cals for 6 months to get a stone off, as long as they watch their protein and supplements, is likely to be ok if in good health anyway

62kg at 5ft 9.......thoughts n prayers!! Seriously, that is pretty small! 😄

@soupfiend I'm not suggesting that people should go super low calorie and get someone to supervise. It's a distinction that some of the often touted diets - such as fast 800 - were designed to be used under medical supervision, eg in preparation for surgery. They're not meant to be used by the average jo to lose weight.

Eating very restrictively and trying to save yourself with supplements is a recipe for disaster.

People who have to use very low calories (and even at maintenance the poster would still be eating low calories), may likely need supplements

I dont know what 'medical supervision' people think is in place for people who are on low cal diets or lifestyles even when absolutely necessary.

If you're lucky they might do bloods, but essentially if you dont have any worrying symptoms, no one is going to be falling over themselves to check you over.

Cross posted, but even at 4'11" please try something less extreme than sub 1000 calories - it's hard to go that low without ending up deprived of something, because you're not able to get enough variety for your nutritional needs

@WingsofRain I agree with the other posters that that is the likely number you need to stay alive assuming you lay in bed all day -TDEE is what you need as that takes into account your activity levels.

However they are only an estimate, and can be hard to get right. My personal preference is to track your calories for a month, without changing anything, and work out your average. Then try a second month aiming a bit lower. If you're older/shorter/sedentary you might find you can't have as big a deficit as the next person but that's ok - eg if your TDEE is 1600 you could drop to 1300 and still lose weight. It's not advisable for anyone to go under 1200 average without medical supervision.

If your TDEE is low and you'd struggle to regularly eat less than that, you could consider some strength training as over time, that will raise your TDEE. I've increased mine from around 1450 to 1800-1900 over the last few years and it's made maintaining a healthy weight a lot easier. It has required me to find exercise I can fit into my life and enjoy to stick to it - it's not a quick fix - but it feels a lot better!

You could cut by 250 cals a day to lose half a lb a week and just accept it will be very slow. Only weigh yourself monthly

The problem with slow weight loss is that it demotivates you, so the mental challenge is much harder.

Yes, pretty short - I’m 4ft 11”.
On the advice of another PP I’ve calculated my TDEE and it is 1453, so reducing by 500 I’m still below 1000 calories a day to lose weight which is very unpleasant. Like the OP, I didn’t have this problem when I was younger.

Ah! So I’ve been looking at the wrong number?
I will go and look up TDEE. 👍🏻

One thing I would definitely say is don't rely on exercise to help you lose weight. Exercise is great for many reasons but, unless you're doing huge amounts, weight loss isn't really one of them.

The amount of exercise needed to burn just 400 calories is far more than most people think. It's a 6-mile walk for someone 10.5st for example.

So 1 x store bought muffin and you're going to have to spend 2 hours walking to burn that off!

Im not good at maths

It will get lower no doubt as I age (even more)

And Im still 14lbs overweight so as my weight goes down, it will go down more

Depressing

Yeah that’s right.

Is that ratio right?

My BMR is 1328 and my TDEE is 1598.

I cant work out if that is 1.2

Im 5'5 by the way

You need to multiply your BMR by a factor depending on how active your lifestyle is. If you’re sedentary multiply by 1.2 so yours is about 1360. That still seems low though, are you short?

Ahh it’s such a struggle isn’t it. What exercise are you doing? I lift weights and feel and look better after a few weeks of doing this type of exercise as I feel more toned and burning more calories.

im using my fitness pal and sticking to it, and slowly losing weigh. I was 10 stone 10 a few weeks ago, lost 5 pounds in about 5 weeks.

I don’t think there’s any magic solution, my 40s have been awful in this regard

I’m 55 and had success with eating a lot less carbs and focusing on healthy proteins with lots of fruit and veg. I don’t feel hungry when I eat like this. I have breakfast and then two lunch size meals as I’m only five feet one and don’t need a big meal in the evening.

Thats your BMR, to simply keep you alive. Your TDEE then is the level you need for how you live. So mine for example is around 1600, just a bit lower actually. I could increase it by not being sedentary I suppose.....

So knock 500 off that and my daily allowance is around 1100 or so. I eat at around that anyway at the moment

Yes risks are higher for different ethnicities for things like diabetes, heart disease etc.

To be fair though, you come across more bothered than anyone else is.

Are you sure you have that right?

Yes the statistics can be alarming. Im now one stone overweight and my qrisk is still double what it should be for someone of my age. I dont smoke and dont drink. My cholesterol ratio is 4.6 and should be under 4. The weight and the ratio is putting my risk up

Thats my next focus.

Unfortunately statistics and medical terminology doesnt care about whether people are senstive to the word fat. Adipose tissue, fat, BMI categories. Im in the overweight category which is technically fat (or used to be). Its not a slur or a moral judgement, it just is what it is.

Yep, which is why all this nonsense about 'intuitive eating' will work for people who simply dont want a lot of food. Humans are animals and quite often, we like more than is good for us, its as simple as that

Try 100g of oven chips for an eye opener!!!

For the people who say you need to be sure you are in a calorie deficit, how do you work that out?

When I’ve used online calculators I’ve got a BMR of 1134. If I reduce that by 500 I get a calorie intake that people on internet forums say (often in all caps) is impossible to live on.

It is definitely very unpleasant being this hungry all the time, and I know how you feel OP.

I’m in my late 50s and can’t do much exercise, plus I need wholegrain because of a health condition, so I simply don’t know how to deal with this problem.

No wheat
No meat
No dairy
No sugar
No alcohol

I would like to be 10 stone which brings me into the top of the healthy range - but this would give me 1680 cals a day which seems quite a lot? Is the idea that increasing protein as part of this means you have more energy to exercise ?