Feeling Frustrated and how critical is the 1,200 calories minimum per day rule?

helaurin

First, I'm feeling a bit frustrated because I'm at the weight area where I always get stuck (168-171 pounds). And I've been stuck here for nearly a week.

I'm averaging about 1,250 calories daily, which is where I should eat at if I want to get down to 130 pounds, although I really should be aiming at 120 pounds (I'm a short, older female, with a desk job, largely sedentary). Be eating close to what I should eat at close to my ideal weight, I'm hoping to eventually hit a "this is my eating lifestyle" habit.

I ran an excel sheet (using the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation Formula) to see how long it should take me to get to 130 pounds by eating at the 1,250 calorie level and creating a deficit, which as I lose weight, the daily deficit gets smaller. Well, according to the spreadsheet, I should get to 130 pounds around September of 2023... nearly nine years from now. And I'll never hit my ideal weight of 120 pounds by eating at 1250 calories, because the caloric needs for me would be below 1,250 calories.

If I alter the calculations it so that I'm always getting at least a 250 calorie deficit per day, then it should take about from now to September 2015 to lose 20 pounds (to get to 150 pounds). And then I'll need to drop my daily calories below 1,200 to create that deficit, staying below 1,200 and decreasing down to 900 daily calories through October 2016 to get down to a healthy 120 pounds, before I can then increase to a maintenance level of about 1,125 daily calories.

So... how critical is the rule/guideline to always eat at least 1,200 calories for women?

DKLI

It shouldn't take you nine years, even with adjustments and I think 1,125 calories for maintenance seems very low.

I'm 53 and lost 51 pounds in 11 months eating more than 1200 calories a day (I'm 5"5' tall-SW 193)

Abby2205

You should look at your math again, I think you might be calculating your deficit from BMR, not TDEE. If you are 170 pounds, sedentary and 52, even if you are only 5 feet tall your TDEE is 1565 by Mifflin-St. Jeor (IIFYM calculator). Granted, it will go down as you lose weight, but if you take the midpoint of 150 lbs as your average TDEE of 1456 over the weight loss period, if you eat 1250 calories a day you will lose 40 pounds in about 2 years, not 9, and your TDEE at that point will be 1347, not 1125. (IIFYM says your Mifflin St. Jeor BMR will be 1122).
It's still a long time and yes, you don't have much capacity to create a deficit by reducing calories eaten. Could you increase your activity to burn more calories? Even 100 additional calories burned per day would cut 7 months off your 40 pound goal.

Dawmelvan

I'm 5'5" and started at your weight, sedentary 1220 per day to lose a pound per week. So, I'm not sure how your calculations came up with 9 years. It should take around a year?

whatatime2befit

As the others said, I think your calculations are off. The minimum a woman should eat is 1200 calories. Sorry I don't believe that your caloric needs are below that. Check your #s again.

ithrowconfetti

OP, how did you determine this nine-year projection? What calculator(s) did you use? What are your stats?

leggup

As you get closer to your weight loss goals, your aim is to lose less per week as you transition into maintenance. It looks like you have about 21 lbs left to lose (if your ticker is correct).

If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lb/week is ideal
If you have 15-25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lb/week is ideal
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lb/week is ideal

So, you could lose up to about 1 lb/week for 5-6 weeks (by Jan 5-12). Then you would be at under 15 lbs to lose, so you would drop to .5 lbs/week to lose the last 15, which would take about 30 weeks, putting you at the beginning of August. This is a recommendation only. You do not have to drop down to exactly .5 lbs/week. I am set to lose .5 lbs/week. I get to eat about 1,700 calories a day while set to sedentary. Most weeks I lose avg .75-1 lb.

SueInAz

I don't think the "1200 rule" is hard and fast. That said, I don't think you'll be happy with the long term results of continually eating less than that, either. What you'll end up with is a slower metabolism and a weaker body and as you age it'll only get worse. Unless you're eating less on a doctor's advice and with supervision, I wouldn't do it long term.

I'm short and 48 years old. I haven't gone through all of the trouble to calculate the alphabet soup of TDEE, BMR, etc., I trust MFP. Instead I started running and lifting weights. I keep my net calories (calories eaten - calories burned in exercise) around 1300 per day. As I've put on muscle I've shrunk in size without losing as many pounds as in the past. I'm currently wearing clothes that I was wearing when I weighed 10 pounds lighter than I am now. I've come to realize that the scale doesn't tell the whole truth and it's not the only measure of "health".

Lifting weights not only helps to increase metabolism (muscle burns more calories than fat) but it also increases bone density and for us older, small women osteoporosis is a concern. You'll also be stronger and that strength will help you to prevent injury. You'll also cut your risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. In addition, as you lose weight, and especially as you get closer to your goal weight, weight lost is partially fat and partially muscle. Strength training while That lost muscle won't return unless you lift weights and over time that lost muscle contributes to a lower metabolism which makes it even harder to keep off the extra pounds and then gain weight which you then try to lose again, so you lose weight, which is partly muscle... and you can see the vicious cycle.

So my advice is to add weight lifting to your exercise routine and keep your calories above 1200.

helaurin

ithrowconfetti wrote: »

OP, how did you determine this nine-year projection? What calculator(s) did you use? What are your stats?

Stats:
Current weight - 150 lbs.
Age: 52
Height: 60"
Lifestyle: Sedentary (desk job)

Formula:
9.99*Weight + 6.25*Height – 4.92*Age -161
(9.99*170) + (6.25*60) - 4.92*52 - 161
1698 + 375 - 256 - 161
1,656 daily calories needed to maintain 170 lbs.

Using same formula, as weight goes down and time passes, calorie requirement to maintain also goes down. The amount to eat in order to create a caloric deficit also decreases.

To simplify the formula, let's assume my height doesn't change... it's always going to be 6.25 * 60" = 375. The 161 is a non-changing number as well, so we can subtract 375 - 161 = 214, so that is a constant in the simplified formula:
(9.99 * 170) + 214 - (4.92 * age)

helaurin

On the other hand, if I stay at 1,250 calories/day until I reach a point where the calorie deficit is about 250/day and then switch to a formula where I take calories to maintain weight and subtract 250 to get calories to eat, you'll see that eventually I would have to get to the point of about 900 calories a day towards the end, before switching to final maintenance mode of about 1,147 calories a day.

Need2Exerc1se

Regardless of how long it takes you lose the weight, at age 53 you should not be sedentary. You are losing both muscle and bone by being sedentary. Make time for exercise and include resistance exercise several times a week.

Plus, burning more calories through exercise means you can eat more and still lose weight. That's just a nice perk to all the other benefits of exercise.

Francl27

So start exercising? Obviously it's going to be slow and hard if you're sedentary.

That being said, it's perfectly normal not to lose every week. Sometimes you gain too...

BarbieAS

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Regardless of how long it takes you lose the weight, at age 53 you should not be sedentary. You are losing both muscle and bone by being sedentary. Make time for exercise and include resistance exercise several times a week.

Plus, burning more calories through exercise means you can eat more and still lose weight. That's just a nice perk to all the other benefits of exercise.

I agree. Unless you have very serious health issues that completely restrict all movement (which you haven't mentioned), the solution to your problem is extremely simple - just move more. If you don't think you have time, make the time. If you're not willing to make the time, then you don't have the right to complain about how little you can eat. While I 1,000,000% agree with the huge benefits of strength training, even a few laps around the parking lot during your lunch break can make a big difference. Start small and work your way up if you need to. If you do have health issues that impact your mobility, speak with your doctor about what would be appropriate for you.

Abby2205

Well, I see two errors in your calculations.
One, the coefficients for the Mifflin St. Jeor equation are for weight in kilograms and height in centimeters, not pounds and inches. So at 171 lbs and 60" in height at age 52 the result is 1306. Two, the Mifflin St. Jeor formula does not give you "calories to maintain". It calculates resting metabolic rate. You are supposed to multiply that by a factor for activity level to obtain your total energy expenditure or what you are calling calories to maintain. The factor for a sedentary lifestyle is 1.2: 1306 x 1.2=1567 calories to maintain at 171 pounds. And then the rest of the spreadsheet propagates the errors, but should be an easy fix.

SueInAz

Abby2205 wrote: »

Well, I see two errors in your calculations.
One, the coefficients for the Mifflin St. Jeor equation are for weight in kilograms and height in centimeters, not pounds and inches. So at 171 lbs and 60" in height at age 52 the result is 1306. Two, the Mifflin St. Jeor formula does not give you "calories to maintain". It calculates resting metabolic rate. You are supposed to multiply that by a factor for activity level to obtain your total energy expenditure or what you are calling calories to maintain. The factor for a sedentary lifestyle is 1.2: 1306 x 1.2=1567 calories to maintain at 171 pounds. And then the rest of the spreadsheet propagates the errors, but should be an easy fix.

Good catch!

I agree. Walking is better than nothing and it's how I started. I can't even begin to describe the differences between four years ago when I was a sedentary desk and couch jockey, three years ago when I started walking on my breaks at work, 2.5 years ago when I started running, 6 months ago when I started strength training in addition to running and today. I look, and more importantly, feel so much better. It's been a slow progression but I kept upping the intensity and making changes when I wasn't satisfied with the results of what I was doing.

My mother said something to me a few years ago that really struck home. She said "As long as we continue doing what we're doing, we're as strong as we're ever going to be for the rest of our lives." She was looking at her abilities at that point and her own mother's abilities and reasoning that they get less and less as we get older. If you don't keep striving to improve, or at the very least maintain what you already have, your abilities decrease every year. She was talking about the ability to walk a flight of stairs, open a new jar of peanut butter or lift a box over her head. Not earth shattering stuff but really, really important to a 90+ year old woman living alone.

helaurin

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Regardless of how long it takes you lose the weight, at age 53 you should not be sedentary. You are losing both muscle and bone by being sedentary. Make time for exercise and include resistance exercise several times a week.

Plus, burning more calories through exercise means you can eat more and still lose weight. That's just a nice perk to all the other benefits of exercise.

I don't dispute that getting more exercise would help.

I'm trying to incorporate swimming into my routine. I was in a car accident last year which has left me in nearly constant pain. Did about 9 months of physical therapy and chiro treatments, 2 or 3 sessions a week and I just had the first of a series of spinal injections. Surgeon said NO exercise for ten days after each injection, which are spaced 21 days apart, and nothing that strains the back at all. I'm also on 2,400 mg of Ibuprofen a day for pain, and percocet for really bad times.

As I am currently raising an 8-year-old child (it's complicated), weekdays are pretty tough - mornings are getting us ready for school/work, then getting out of work, then getting her to medical appointments (usually two or three a week), then back home for homework (she's in 2nd grade, homework usually takes between 75 - 90 minutes), dinner, etc. Some nights, we don't get home from her appointments until nearly 9 pm - and then we start dinner and homework. It's a tough schedule all the way around.

Weekends are where I'm most likely to be able to do anything for myself, which I did yesterday. I did figure out that my best walking pace on a treadmill is 2.4 mph. I tried going a little faster and I could feel my knee starting to mistrack. As I previously had a knee mistrack while I was walking (which ended disastrously - my patella did a full dislocation in mid-step, I crashed to the pavement and fractured it), the surgeon did warn me to be careful about that too - he said it's not a question of if one or the other will dislocate, it's a question of when. And it was the same one that had previously been operated on for other problems.

So after the treadmill and some other piece of cardio equipment - it was called a "glide" or "glider" - sort of like an elliptical - I switched out to swimming. The length of the pool is 46 feet, so I did 10 round-trip laps, then worked on improving the swimming skills of the 8-year-old (meaning I was either swimming with her, water-walking as she swam on her own, etc.)

helaurin

Abby2205 wrote: »

Well, I see two errors in your calculations.
One, the coefficients for the Mifflin St. Jeor equation are for weight in kilograms and height in centimeters, not pounds and inches. So at 171 lbs and 60" in height at age 52 the result is 1306. Two, the Mifflin St. Jeor formula does not give you "calories to maintain". It calculates resting metabolic rate. You are supposed to multiply that by a factor for activity level to obtain your total energy expenditure or what you are calling calories to maintain. The factor for a sedentary lifestyle is 1.2: 1306 x 1.2=1567 calories to maintain at 171 pounds. And then the rest of the spreadsheet propagates the errors, but should be an easy fix.

I agree - good catch, and I'll try to fix that tonight. But even so - it still shows there isn't much room to create a calorie deficit by reducing calories without risking going below the 1,200 minimum that is generally recommended.

dbmata

helaurin wrote: »

Abby2205 wrote: »

Well, I see two errors in your calculations.
One, the coefficients for the Mifflin St. Jeor equation are for weight in kilograms and height in centimeters, not pounds and inches. So at 171 lbs and 60" in height at age 52 the result is 1306. Two, the Mifflin St. Jeor formula does not give you "calories to maintain". It calculates resting metabolic rate. You are supposed to multiply that by a factor for activity level to obtain your total energy expenditure or what you are calling calories to maintain. The factor for a sedentary lifestyle is 1.2: 1306 x 1.2=1567 calories to maintain at 171 pounds. And then the rest of the spreadsheet propagates the errors, but should be an easy fix.

I agree - good catch, and I'll try to fix that tonight. But even so - it still shows there isn't much room to create a calorie deficit by reducing calories without risking going below the 1,200 minimum that is generally recommended.

Instead of falling prey to paralysis by analysis, deal with that issue when and if it ever comes to pass.

SueInAz

helaurin wrote: »

Abby2205 wrote: »

Well, I see two errors in your calculations.
One, the coefficients for the Mifflin St. Jeor equation are for weight in kilograms and height in centimeters, not pounds and inches. So at 171 lbs and 60" in height at age 52 the result is 1306. Two, the Mifflin St. Jeor formula does not give you "calories to maintain". It calculates resting metabolic rate. You are supposed to multiply that by a factor for activity level to obtain your total energy expenditure or what you are calling calories to maintain. The factor for a sedentary lifestyle is 1.2: 1306 x 1.2=1567 calories to maintain at 171 pounds. And then the rest of the spreadsheet propagates the errors, but should be an easy fix.

I agree - good catch, and I'll try to fix that tonight. But even so - it still shows there isn't much room to create a calorie deficit by reducing calories without risking going below the 1,200 minimum that is generally recommended.

Yep, it's tough for us smaller, older gals and it'll only get tougher as we age so it's a really good thing you're worrying about it now, even with all of the challenges that life has thrown your way.

It seems to me that the best person to discuss this with is your GP. You might ask for a referral to a nutritionist or to get your true BMR tested. A lot of medical insurance plans will cover a couple of visits with a nutritionist each year and the test will give you a much better idea of how many calories you're really burning each day while being sedentary. It may very well be that you'd be fine going under 1200 calories. You might also discuss some light resistance work with bands for your arms, etc. in place of exercise. Every little bit helps!

karenlwashburn

I'm short and I do 1200 a day diet but I get to actually eat 1600 or more by exercising.. depending on your age, body chemistry you may have to exercise whether you want to or not to be the size you want to be. I'm almost 50 and I have to exercise or frankly my weight now won't move at all. I get up early to do it and then I exercise again in the evening whether I want to or not. That forces my body to burn off the fat. Right now despite my age and thyroid problems (which makes me gain weight) I'm losing weight by doing what I'm doing.