What is the 1200 calorie based on?
Options
Replies
-
Come on. There's at least one attention-seeking anorexic teenager here per *day* talking about why she needs to be eating way under 1200 calories. And there are thousands of other people coming on here setting aggressive goals as newbies and trying to eat 1200 calories because "that's what MFP told me to eat".
At least at 1200 they're probably not doing themselves too much damage until they figure it out. At 800 or 600, they would be.0 -
This is strange. I am 5'4" and my stats are this:
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 1252
Daily calories to maintain weight (TDEE) 1503
Daily calories to loose 2.4 a months is 1202. 2.4 in a month is not nearly enough for me. I have to eat around 900 a day...
1200 for is maintaining really with a little exercise 3 times a week. MFP overestimates my goals.
0 -
i cant anymore
You're a little more than dramatic about something I just said, wasn't specifically "fighting" with you or whatever it was you messaged me about so really, I'm sorry you took it personally when it really wasn't personal, it was a comment on a comment you made, not an attack not a fight, a comment.
Have a great day
-1 -
2.4 in a month is not nearly enough for me. I have to eat around 900 a day...
Actually, 2.4 a month is probably exactly enough for you, or maybe even too much. If that's your TDEE-20%, you must be fairly light already. In fact, reverse-inputting your stats into most calculators suggests that you're probably around 120-130lbs right now, which puts you at a healthy BMI for your height already. If you're eating 900 calories/day in attempt to lose more weight, then that's very unhealthy and you should stop.
Even if I'm getting your stats wrong, you still need to target a much slower weight loss if you are already fairly light and have very little to lose.0 -
Gosh what is unhealthy. I weight 118.6 with a BMI of 22%. I am in the suggested FDA healthy range but I am too chunky because I am short.
I am completely uncomfortable lugging around 10 extra pounds. I have been small all my life and yes these extra 10 are a bit of a problem.
I AM NOT HAVING AN EATING DISORDER EITHER.. I am healthly and I like it just not the extra 10 pounds and do not put me in the I am unhealthy crap.0 -
Come on. There's at least one attention-seeking anorexic teenager here per *day* talking about why she needs to be eating way under 1200 calories. And there are thousands of other people coming on here setting aggressive goals as newbies and trying to eat 1200 calories because "that's what MFP told me to eat".
At least at 1200 they're probably not doing themselves too much damage until they figure it out. At 800 or 600, they would be.
We are on a weight loss website. Of course you are going to attract people with unhealthy attitudes towards weight loss. It is not the national public health crisis you are making it out to be.0 -
I'm just saying that if you're trying to lose 10 pounds, you should be aiming to do it slowly. 10 pounds on you is 8% of your body weight. When you say that 2.4 pounds per month is "not enough" and that you're limiting yourself to 900 calories per day? Yeah, that's unhealthy. I know you're going to get all defensive when I say that, but it doesn't change the facts.
If you still feel "chunky" at a BMI of 22, then you either have a distorted body image, or your body composition is not where you want it to be. In the case of the latter, hit the gym and strength train -- and UP your calories to support it! In the former's case, there are lots of help and support resources available.
Nobody's attacking you, gia. It's just that what you've said doesn't make reasonable sense.0 -
-
Good to know. Thanks.WalkingAlong wrote: »It's mentioned in here as being around 31 calories per day, per pound. Which is not very limiting. With a BMI of 26, I probably have 50 lbs. of fat. 50*31=1550 calorie deficit to adequately fund from body fat. That's like 90% of my TDEE so obviously I can't do that. But it suggests LBM is safe at normal deficit levels.
0 -
I DO NOT HAVE DISTORED thinking. OMG... I am a small frame and I look leaner at 110.
What the hell??????
I will not die or nor am I unhealthy 1200. My energy is great and I feel great. There are examples of people that are not anorexic or attention seeking.
You don't know me and you have no idea of anything about me. Judements every where here for those that know more than most!0 -
I rest my case.0
-
This is strange. I am 5'4" and my stats are this:
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 1252
Daily calories to maintain weight (TDEE) 1503
Daily calories to loose 2.4 a months is 1202. 2.4 in a month is not nearly enough for me. I have to eat around 900 a day...
1200 for is maintaining really with a little exercise 3 times a week. MFP overestimates my goals.
I would be more inclined to think that you are overestimating what you eat, so you think your maintenance is only 1200 cals. My sig other does not work out is 5'6" 116lbs and maintains at 1600-1800 cals at 36 years old.
And with less than 15 lbs to go you should not be aiming to lose more that 0.5lbs/week, otherwise a larger % of your weight loss will come from lean muscle, not just the fat you want to lose.
How much protein do you take in at 900 cals/day. You should be getting 85-100 grams/day which would be 340-400 cals alone.0 -
I DO NOT HAVE DISTORED thinking. OMG... I am a small frame and I look leaner at 110.
What the hell??????
I will not die or nor am I unhealthy 1200. My energy is great and I feel great. There are examples of people that are not anorexic or attention seeking.
You don't know me and you have no idea of anything about me. Judements every where here for those that know more than most!
I think it is more out of concern, no need to get defensive. No one said 110 at 5'4 was unhealthy, they are saying 900 cals/day is.
FYI: My son 39" tall, 34lbs, eats around 1000 cals/day.
0 -
I DO NOT HAVE DISTORED thinking. OMG... I am a small frame and I look leaner at 110.
What the hell??????
I will not die or nor am I unhealthy 1200. My energy is great and I feel great. There are examples of people that are not anorexic or attention seeking.
You don't know me and you have no idea of anything about me. Judements every where here for those that know more than most!
But you said you were eating 900, not 1200. I don't think people have issue with you wanting to lose 10 lbs or get leaner, it was your comment that 2.4 lbs/month isn't fast enough for you. When you have little to lose, it takes longer. 0.5 lbs/week is a healthy rate for maintaining lean muscle and getting the look that I think you are striving for, not just the number on the scale.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »For a week, eating below 1200 isn't likely to cause great harm, unless you have certain medical conditions. But it isn't wise to try to sustain that lifestyle. There are things your body needs to operate that it can't get from stored fat. The 1200 calories is the minimum number of calories you need to provide your body with those things. But based on your picture, you need to be eating more than that.
So if I ate 1200 calories worth of white sugar, I would somehow get all of those nutrients that I need?
The problem with the 1200 number is that it is a measure of energy justified by a measure of micro-nutrients. MFP and others tell people that you need to eat 1200 calories to get enough nutrition, ignoring that calories are NOT a measure of nutritional value! If I could eat my daily nutrient requirements in 600 calories worth of food, what then is the justification for the 1200 cal number?
I don't think it would be possible to get required nutrition (fat and protein) on 600 cals/day. Think if you need 80 grams protein that would be 320 cals, and 40 grams of fat, would be another 360 cals for 680 and you may not have gotten any micros (vitamins and minerals) in those 680 cals.. and most of us should be getting more fat and protein I included above.0 -
I eat 900 to 1000 cals a day (sometimes more sometimes less) and have been for while. I am not dead yet. I can work out, go to work and have a happy life and I had no idea posting anything here start some crazy folks thinking I am going to die at any giving moment.
This is crazy.
0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
No need to be freaking out about this at all . . . however, by saying it's a basic rule of thumb implies to works for the majority of those people which cannot be confirmed to be the case.
Definition of a rule of thumb: a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.
I would wager that this is not broadly accurate.
I wouldn't know. I just know that 1200 for women and 1500 for men are the numbers health care professionals use and they are recommendations from organizations of people who are paid to know more about this stuff than I do.
Actually good healthcare professionals - and I recommend good - do not us arbitrary numbers. They look at their patients lifestyle, way of losing, activity level and so on.
If your health care professional is sticking you to a number because you happen to be a male, or you happen to be 40 or you happen to be 5'9 . . . I personally wouldn't continue to use them. Maybe some do use them, but in my experience, good ones whose practice is in nutrition or weight loss, do not use those kinds of numbers.
They have to use something. If they had to reinvent the wheel and do controlled studies for every patient that came through the doors, they wouldn't accomplish anything.TimothyFish wrote: »For a week, eating below 1200 isn't likely to cause great harm, unless you have certain medical conditions. But it isn't wise to try to sustain that lifestyle. There are things your body needs to operate that it can't get from stored fat. The 1200 calories is the minimum number of calories you need to provide your body with those things. But based on your picture, you need to be eating more than that.
So if I ate 1200 calories worth of white sugar, I would somehow get all of those nutrients that I need?
The problem with the 1200 number is that it is a measure of energy justified by a measure of micro-nutrients. MFP and others tell people that you need to eat 1200 calories to get enough nutrition, ignoring that calories are NOT a measure of nutritional value! If I could eat my daily nutrient requirements in 600 calories worth of food, what then is the justification for the 1200 cal number?
Of course not, as I have said in other threads that were about this same topic. But if you are following a well balanced diet, 1200 is a good number.0 -
Gia- There is a strong belief here that losing slower retains muscle and that is everyone's number one priority (or should be). I know it's not everyone's and I believe that you can't really make a huge difference in what type of tissue you lose when comparing two shallow deficits, but that's just based on my own reading. It's not like losing 1/4 lb. a week is a guarantee it's all fat and losing a 1/2 lb. is all muscle, which is what many attitudes here seem to imply. The medical community considers either a safe rate of loss.0
-
As an older, shorter person who is netting between 1100 and 1200 a day (I eat back exercise calories), it is a struggle to meet my protein macros, and I take a multivitamin and other supplements to cover all my bases. I find it hard to believe that a young, active person could be adequately nourished at under 1000 calories a day. Even at my age, I was having some side effects, such as nails breaking, constipation (from inadequate fat intake), and fatigue. These young women are going to incur some long-term consequences in the pursuit of basically losing "vanity weight."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions