Should I actually be eating 1200 a day?

healthykiko

Hi all,

I'm a 19 y.o. 5'4.5 vegan at about 128 or so trying to get to 115. MFP suggested I eat 1200 calories a day to lose 1 lb a week. While I'm not having much trouble with it, I was wondering if that's what I should actually be eating, more/less, etc.

Thanks!

Liftng4Lis

Nope, with that little to lose, you should have your goal set less aggressively. Additionally, you will be earning calories through exercise.

fenshae

Is there any particular reason you want to get down to 115? You're still well within the normal/healthy range of BMI at your current weight. 115 is still in that range, but it's at the low end. If I were in your shoes, I would exercise and eat to recomp/build muscle and get some tone and definition instead of losing weight, if anything.

mallory_2014

Your weekly goal should be 0.5lbs, not 1lb per week. Also, when you exercise you need to eat those calories too when you log the exercise.

Ninkyou

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

Nope, with that little to lose, you should have your goal set less aggressively. Additionally, you will be earning calories through exercise.

This.
Scale it back to .5 lbs/week. With only 13 lbs to lose, 1 lb a week is too aggressive. And as Lis said, eat back your exercise calories too, or at least a portion of them.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Aemely

You can check against Scooby's calculator. It's indicating 1350 at 20% reduction, with no exercise and a sedentary/desk job.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

Some people may recommend losing at a less aggressive level (.5/week) since you don't have much to lose. At a minimum, as noted by Liftng4Lis, I think you should log your exercise and eat back at least some of those gained calories.

Katahna

If you lost any more you might start falling through cracks in the ground ^^^ What they said.

Eat a bit more so you can chuck some muscle tone on you, in my honest opinion! looking and being malnourished is the same as being fat IMO.

susanbronson2

It has been proven that eating under 1200 is not healthy. Jenny Craig will not let u go under that. My girlfriend got gallstones her doctor told her she was restricting her calories too much. So I read up on it. It said the same thing so b careful going too low.

manicautumn

susanbronson2 wrote: »

It has been proven that eating under 1200 is not healthy. Jenny Craig will not let u go under that. My girlfriend got gallstones her doctor told her she was restricting her calories too much. So I read up on it. It said the same thing so b careful going too low.

While I agree that going under 1200 is unhealthy in almost all cases, this is sensationalism at best.

While I have since upped my calories to around 1600, I was eating at 1200 as a 5'0 woman with chronic health issues for several weeks with a physician's guidance. I would not recommend it unless you know what you're doing, but it is not "proven" unhealthy in all cases, see: very short women with certain circumstances.

OP: I'll chime in on the 0.5/week thing. 1lb/week is aggressive for someone in the mid-healthy range.

Krueger92

It would be better to up your calories and do some form of cardio or strength training

kittkat100

My fitness pal will not recommend less than 1200. It is not the number needed for 1lb week, just the lowest setting it will offer. It is confusing though that it shows 1200 for the 1 and 2 lb loss settings so I understand the question.

The reason 1 lbs a week when already at a mid level BMI is considered too aggressive is the required deficit is generally too great to sustain.

As far as people questioning OP's goals. I have to say it comes across as rude no matter how it was intended. I would never presume to tell someone they needed to gain, lose or tone up. Body image is a very personal thing.

healthykiko

Thanks everyone! 115 is just a number I've always felt comfortable with. I'm a pretty petite person, and generally feel my best right in that range. I'll scale back to aim for .5lb/week and up to 1350. Thanks!