on the low side for a female adult, msbelle. Some weight loss plans put women on that amount, but it is risking slowing your metabolism way down.

To me it sounds like a diet, but what do I know. (Nothing.)

x-post with people who gave better answers.

thanks. that was my gut reaction also, but it seemed an easier solution than increasing exercise. I always want the easier fix.

It's pretty low calorie, msbelle. My gut says too low, but that's just me.

For goodness sake msbelle, that's only 3 Starbucks cookies!!

This 1200 calorie menu looks fairly tragic to me: [link]

Here's the "American cuisine" one: [link]

I feel like I have been eating way more than that 1600 cal/day diet and yet FitDay tells me no.

The UN's hunger-fighting organization, the World Food Programme, generally cites anything below 2350 calories/day as below the "food security" line (aka, not adequate intake, or, what used to be called HUNGER). (Here's an article that cites that amount: [link]

However, I'm assuming that's a very general number, applied globally to all adults (men and women). And, frankly, American women don't have to do 14 hours of hard physical labor a day the way men in developing countries do t edit (I'm making an assumption here that men in developing countries who don't have cars or public transportation and elevators, etc., and who probably don't work 9-to-5 desk jobs, expend more energy than the average American), so a small-to-average American woman like msbelle wouldn't need 2350 calories a day unless she was doing some serious triathalon training.

I've often read that, to maintain weight, multiply your weight x 10. If you engage in light activity it's weight x 12, moderate activity is weight x 13, and strenuous activity is weight x 15.

YCaloricNeedsMV.

So, theoretically, if you multiply your ideal weight by 10, you will lose weight if you weigh more than that?

I've often read that, to maintain weight, multiply your weight x 10.

Huh! V. interesting.