Eating a minimum of 1200 calories a day?
csengineer13
Posts: 3
Hi! I have been reading that one must eat at least 1,200 calories a day to prevent your body from kicking in to "Survival Mode" and actually stunting your weight loss. Does this mean one needs to eat 1,200 calories a day, or after exercise, have a net intake of at least 1,200 calories a day?
Or, if it's much more complicated than that, can someone please elaborate and tell me what I need to know? If it helps, I'm a 195 pound, 5'7" male trying to average 2 pounds of weight loss per week.
Thanks!
Or, if it's much more complicated than that, can someone please elaborate and tell me what I need to know? If it helps, I'm a 195 pound, 5'7" male trying to average 2 pounds of weight loss per week.
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.
Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.
Using a TDEE calculator:
Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
TDEE - 2214
20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)
1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
TDEE - 2537
20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)
And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.
In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).
0 -
You should theoretically be netting (after exercise) 1200 calories. As a 5'7" male, you should probably be eating more. At 195 pounds, you aren't going to be able to maintain a 2 pound per week loss for every long; you just don't have that much to lose. I think you'd be happier in the long run going for 1 pound per week.0
-
Hmm... That is interesting. I have been achieving a "net calorie" amount of ~1200 a day with 15 to 45 minutes of exercise a day (jogging and rock climbing). In general, I don't ever feel all that hungry -- I track calories to the "T" using scales, and burned calories using a ForeRunner 220 watch, so my results should be fairly accurate.
I am trying to get back down to my old weight of 155, but it does sound like I need to be netting a few more calories to be healthy. I just want a solid "Net" number to aim for so I can maximize loss while remaining healthy.
0 -
How long ago was that "old weight of 155"?0
-
Here's a really good article about starvation mode I found, I seriously reccommend reading it
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Good luck!0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.
Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.
Using a TDEE calculator:
Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
TDEE - 2214
20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)
1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
TDEE - 2537
20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)
And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.
In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).
I'm the same height. I never would be able to lose a pound a week at 1920. Jealous.0 -
arditarose wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.
Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.
Using a TDEE calculator:
Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
TDEE - 2214
20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)
1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
TDEE - 2537
20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)
And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.
In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).
I'm the same height. I never would be able to lose a pound a week at 1920. Jealous.
I'm currently working out for a little over 6hrs a week (90 day dvd program) and I try to hit 10,000 steps a day. Fitbit estimates that my average TDEE for the last 30 days was 2488. Based on a few calculators I've found, when I get to my goal I should maintain on about what I'm eating now. Taking that into account and the fact that I'm still 40lbs away, I'm sure my weight loss will slow down as my weight goes down.0 -
Whats the hurry?0
-
OP - for comparison I am a 5-11 35 year old male and 175# ..I maintain at around 2500 calories a day and gain at around 2800 calories a day, and lose at around 2000 to 2100 calories a day …
You could easily eat at around say 1700 a day and you would still lose about a pound per week ...0 -
Hi I'm a bit confused with all this but I'm getting lists of answers here so that's good. I weigh 77 kilos and am 167 cm tall. I do strength training twice a week with my trainer and run about 4 times a week for 30 mins. I have a heart rate monitor so realise I can now log the calories manually and accurately. My base calories are 1200... Does that sound right? And then of course the app adds my excersise calories. So I presume I should eat those too right? Or not? There seems to be differing opinions. I'm in no rush to lose 12 kg quickly. I've lost 32 kg in the last 18 months so slow and steady is good for me but I would like to lose 500 g a week I guess... Any thoughts?0
-
I am the first to defend 1200 calories for SOME people.
5 ft 7 in males are not those people.
Re do your calculations OP - your daily allowance should be higher than that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
1200 isn't even enough for 95% of women who decide to eat 1200 calories.
You are either calculating things wrong or you are not bothering to calculate at all.
i'm eating at net maintenance rihgt now, which is 2400. I'm 166lbs, female. Student.0 -
This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha0
-
lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
0 -
lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
That's assuming the 1000 burned is correct. I keep hearing people say that the Compendium of Physical Activity is overly optimistic with how many calories people are burning. And even if it is correct, 1000 calories burned would likely take more than an hour or even two hours of activity for a 184lb woman.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
That's assuming the 1000 burned is correct. I keep hearing people say that the Compendium of Physical Activity is overly optimistic with how many calories people are burning. And even if it is correct, 1000 calories burned would likely take more than an hour or even two hours of activity for a 184lb woman.
Yes, but all we have to go off of is the 1000 the poster provided. Fine.....
Poster actually burns 500 so they are netting 700 calories. That is still wrong and should be 1900-700 = 1200 net.
0 -
Every deficit involves metabolic adaptation. It goes away when you stop deficit eating. You will not stop losing at 1200 due to metabolic adaptation. We're not that adaptable.lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
I'd be more concerned with trying to burn 1000/day in exercise.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Every deficit involves metabolic adaptation. It goes away when you stop deficit eating. You will not stop losing at 1200 due to metabolic adaptation. We're not that adaptable.lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
I'd be more concerned with trying to burn 1000/day in exercise.
I was basing my statement on netting 200 calories a day ....0 -
lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.0 -
tgraysgirl wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.
No problem.
Just be careful when estimating your calorie burns as MFP and machines tend to over estimate it ...
I would suggest eating back half of your exercise calories and see how it goes.
so in the example I gave you ..it would be 1000 burned/2 = 500 burned...1700 - 500 burned = 1200 net..
However, I still think 1200 is too low for a 195 pound male...0 -
tgraysgirl wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.
No problem.
Just be careful when estimating your calorie burns as MFP and machines tend to over estimate it ...
I would suggest eating back half of your exercise calories and see how it goes.
so in the example I gave you ..it would be 1000 burned/2 = 500 burned...1700 - 500 burned = 1200 net..
However, I still think 1200 is too low for a 195 pound male...
I usually burn over 1000 calories during my 1.5 hrs workout, 5-6 days per week. I wear a HRM so I enter exactly what it says. I don't trust MFP estimates. So, in actuality, I was only netting 100-200 cals per day. I definitely need to increase my calories. I've lost 10lbs this month but I know now that it wasn't the "right" way. I'll make sure my net is at least 1200 this week and see how I do.0 -
tgraysgirl wrote: »tgraysgirl wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.
No problem.
Just be careful when estimating your calorie burns as MFP and machines tend to over estimate it ...
I would suggest eating back half of your exercise calories and see how it goes.
so in the example I gave you ..it would be 1000 burned/2 = 500 burned...1700 - 500 burned = 1200 net..
However, I still think 1200 is too low for a 195 pound male...
I usually burn over 1000 calories during my 1.5 hrs workout, 5-6 days per week. I wear a HRM so I enter exactly what it says. I don't trust MFP estimates. So, in actuality, I was only netting 100-200 cals per day. I definitely need to increase my calories. I've lost 10lbs this month but I know now that it wasn't the "right" way. I'll make sure my net is at least 1200 this week and see how I do.
are you using an HRM to track calories burning from weight lifting or cardio? My understanding of HRM's is that they are very inaccurate for tracking calories burned from lifting weights...0 -
tgraysgirl wrote: »tgraysgirl wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.
No problem.
Just be careful when estimating your calorie burns as MFP and machines tend to over estimate it ...
I would suggest eating back half of your exercise calories and see how it goes.
so in the example I gave you ..it would be 1000 burned/2 = 500 burned...1700 - 500 burned = 1200 net..
However, I still think 1200 is too low for a 195 pound male...
I usually burn over 1000 calories during my 1.5 hrs workout, 5-6 days per week. I wear a HRM so I enter exactly what it says. I don't trust MFP estimates. So, in actuality, I was only netting 100-200 cals per day. I definitely need to increase my calories. I've lost 10lbs this month but I know now that it wasn't the "right" way. I'll make sure my net is at least 1200 this week and see how I do.
are you using an HRM to track calories burning from weight lifting or cardio? My understanding of HRM's is that they are very inaccurate for tracking calories burned from lifting weights...
From both but bulk of my calories are burned during cardio. I only lose 300-400 calories on average during my lifting sessions. On days I do cardio only I try to limit it to 45 minutes and I average about 500-600 calories burned according to my HRM.0 -
tgraysgirl wrote: »tgraysgirl wrote: »tgraysgirl wrote: »lisajuliette wrote: »This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???
if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.
Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.
in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.
No problem.
Just be careful when estimating your calorie burns as MFP and machines tend to over estimate it ...
I would suggest eating back half of your exercise calories and see how it goes.
so in the example I gave you ..it would be 1000 burned/2 = 500 burned...1700 - 500 burned = 1200 net..
However, I still think 1200 is too low for a 195 pound male...
I usually burn over 1000 calories during my 1.5 hrs workout, 5-6 days per week. I wear a HRM so I enter exactly what it says. I don't trust MFP estimates. So, in actuality, I was only netting 100-200 cals per day. I definitely need to increase my calories. I've lost 10lbs this month but I know now that it wasn't the "right" way. I'll make sure my net is at least 1200 this week and see how I do.
are you using an HRM to track calories burning from weight lifting or cardio? My understanding of HRM's is that they are very inaccurate for tracking calories burned from lifting weights...
From both but bulk of my calories are burned during cardio. I only lose 300-400 calories on average during my lifting sessions. On days I do cardio only I try to limit it to 45 minutes and I average about 500-600 calories burned according to my HRM.
Ok - I would suggest only counting the burn that your HRM measures during cardio ...but that is just my opinion...0 -
This is OP commenting:
I did a little more research after all of the helpful comments, and I found that my BMR is ~1,860 calories/day.
According to my ForeRunner 220 watch, I burn between 220 and 420 calories (depending on the day) by jogging.
Currently, my goal is to eat ~1,560 calories a day + whatever calories I have burned from cardio.
This should put my net beneath my BMR, but my total calorie intake above my BMR. Is this a better approach than my previous? Is there anything I should tweak?0 -
It's "better", but you should be netting BETWEEN BMR and TDEE....not necessarily below BMR. With this approach, you're barely going to net your BMR, if at all.0
-
csengineer13 wrote: »This is OP commenting:
I did a little more research after all of the helpful comments, and I found that my BMR is ~1,860 calories/day.
According to my ForeRunner 220 watch, I burn between 220 and 420 calories (depending on the day) by jogging.
Currently, my goal is to eat ~1,560 calories a day + whatever calories I have burned from cardio.
This should put my net beneath my BMR, but my total calorie intake above my BMR. Is this a better approach than my previous? Is there anything I should tweak?
Your sedentary resting metabolic rate is around 2230 per day. 1560 is still too low for an active male in their early 20s.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions