What is the female obsession with a 1200 calorie diet?

PaveGurl

Because culturally, there's the idea that thin is better. And the "obvious" way to get thin is by eating fewer calories.

There's not a lot of thought that goes into it beyond that - but there's a LOT of info out there about 1200 being the "magic" number.

For me, at 5'9" and 165 (my start weight), that's what MFP set for me, also. I did the math and decided that wasn't sustainable - but a lot of folks just want a simple answer.

bcattoes

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

This ^^ A better question is what is the obsession with joining a site just to declare it's default settings "unhealthy"?

marfhutch

I agree that in a way, it is MFP that puts this number in peoples minds. Before I had the App, I would never have considered that a sane number!

However, I still aim for this some days, as I try to calorie cycle to average out and get to my TDEE -20% (about 1700). So because I often struggle to be good at weekends, I aim for a lower number during the week.

Surely if I am eating enough to manage my workouts, I can't be judged for a few 1200 days when I am averaging the correct calculation?

PS Also, a lot of people eat back atleast some of their exercise calories when at 1200, which probably puts them close to the TDEE-20% number anyway!

karencoutts

MFP calculates my daily maximum to be 1200 calories. It doesn't matter if I enter 0.5 or 1.0 pound per week, it still sets my calorie target at 1200. I am 5'3 and weigh 121 pounds and hope to be 118.

It calculates I will reach my goal by July 16-- and I put in 360 minutes of exercise a week!!!

totem12

It's not exactly fair to condemn everyone for it. If I set my goals to lose 0.5lbs a week my daily allowance is 1250 cals!

Ashleyxjamie

I eat 1800-2100 a day and workout 5x a week. I use the TDEE method and I lost almost a pound and a half last week. the 1200 cal a day diet is BS in my opinion. I did that diet and gained back 20 pounds because my body couldn't adjust to eating more once I tried to eat more than 1200 a day again.

Do you wonder if you might gain if someday you stop working out 5x a week? Seems a similar risk to me.

1200 a day is not BS for *me* because I'm not working out/lifting very much (my daily exercise is usually a brisk walk with my dog ).

Nope I don't worry because I know my TDEE right now at my current weight is 2600 calories, so I need to eat that much every day to MAINTAIN my weight. so I bump off 500 calories to lose one pound a week and it works for me. and it's easier to switch to maintenence without your body going into shock

glovepuppet

I think mfp sets the intake at 1200 calories for any female who chooses to lose 2 pounds per week. Isn't that correct? If so, I would think that's why so many people come in to the forums asking about 1200 calorie diets.

that's the one. a huge number of people here eating 1200 are posting that mfp set that as a goal.

i can see how it's tempting to aim at 2 pounds/week, but nobody with only 15 pounds to lose should be able to select that!

bostonwolf

I had no idea that 1200 was the site minimum, so that definitely explains part of it.

ChaseAlder

You mean like for breakfast?

Three4MeNHim

I am set to 1200 I eat back most if not all my workout calories. I use a HRM so hopefully I am in the correct ballpark with what I burn. I am only 5ft tall so for me that is the right amount to lose weight. I have to be honest what I have learned about all this working out losing weight...is it is NOT one size fits all. No two bodies work the same. It is trial and error to see what fits you best.

I agree that it is NOT one size fits all.

BUT, just because you're only 5' tall doesn't mean you should eat 1200 calories. I'm only 5' tall and I eat 1650. I just think if you CAN eat more and still lose weight, then why wouldn't you?

BrainyBurro

some folks once put together a recommendation that 1200 calories was the minimum amount needed to have enough variety in one's diet to adequately meet daily nutritional needs. since then, the "1200" number has been incorporated into all sorts of diet and diet products. i'm sure MFP's floor of 1200 calories is based on these previous recommendations, much like their 8 x 8oz water recommendation is based on the earlier and widely spread recommendation of 64oz of water per day.

rainbowbow

WELP. OP- what you fail to realize is that BMR is a number in which you use to calculate your TDEE; NOT your baseline for calorie consumption.

For some reason on MFP many people have this assumption that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES eat below your BMR.

This is untrue; especially for those who are morbidly obese.

MFP does not recommend anyone eat below 1200 calories as this is what nutritionists, physician, etc. deem a healthy amount of calories for the AVERAGE woman to lose weight. This is based on an average. There is no exact science to it other than the fact that this is based on the average woman in the UNITED STATES. For men the lowest they will recommend is 1400 calories per day.


Now why does it suggest 1200 for SO many people? Because SO many people have unrealistic expectations as to how much weight they can and should lose safely. Surely you remember signing up for MFP and it giving you an option on how much you want to lose per week....

now who DIDN'T select 2 pounds per week? Anyone?


For a woman like myself when I first started (i'll use this as an example) I am 5'4 (average height), weighed 136 (average-ish weight), wanted to lose 2 pounds per week.

My BMR was 1,362
My TDEE was 1634

I selected 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories.


Thank GOD MFP did not recommend 634 calories.


I lost about a pound a week on 1200 calories. Even now (especially now that I am MUCH smaller) I require less calories overall if I want to be in a deficit. On non-lifting days I burn about 1700 calories and on lifting days about 2100 calories.

Try making a deficit off of that and tell me how many calories you would need to eat....


go on... i'm waiting....



Is 1,200 calories safe for EVERYONE? Hell no, especially MEN, women who are taller, women who have less to lose, women who are much more active throughout the day. For the AVERAGE woman this number is usually close to their BMR and allows them to (should they eat nutritionally dense food) get enough protein, carbs, calories for brain function, and hit their RDA of vitamins. But as you probably also know, RDA of protein is 15% of your diet, and nutritional goals are very very low.


This is why it's so damn important you set up your activity level correctly and you don't go crazy overboard with expectations that you're going to lose weight at the rate that someone 100+lbs your size would.

bcattoes

I eat 1800-2100 a day and workout 5x a week. I use the TDEE method and I lost almost a pound and a half last week. the 1200 cal a day diet is BS in my opinion. I did that diet and gained back 20 pounds because my body couldn't adjust to eating more once I tried to eat more than 1200 a day again.

Do you wonder if you might gain if someday you stop working out 5x a week? Seems a similar risk to me.

1200 a day is not BS for *me* because I'm not working out/lifting very much (my daily exercise is usually a brisk walk with my dog ).

Nope I don't worry because I know my TDEE right now at my current weight is 2600 calories, so I need to eat that much every day to MAINTAIN my weight. so I bump off 500 calories to lose one pound a week and it works for me. and it's easier to switch to maintenence without your body going into shock

without your body going into shock. :huh:

emtbabe543

I disagree, I eat 1200 calories a day and still have weight to loose. Most fitness guru's agree-unless your a body builder-don't minus every calorie you use during your work out-where is the 200-300 deficit you need to lose weight? Just saying....

glovepuppet

I had no idea that 1200 was the site minimum, so that definitely explains part of it.

i tinker with my settings a lot.
i know that the site tells me i'll burn 69 cals on a 6 minute run whether i'm 140 or 300 pounds.
i know that if i set my goal at 130, 2 pounds/week, mfp will tell me to eat 1200.

bethfartman

I eat between 1200 and 1500 and exercise daily for 1 to 2 hours (more on the weekend if I'm surfing or hiking.) It works great for me, I never feel hungry, but I don't lift (yet.) Once I get to my goal weight and start upping my strength training I'll probably eat around 1500 consistently. I've been loosing consistently for more than a year, so I don't think the whole 'starvation' thing at this calorie intake is valid, at least for me. I also went into 'maintenance' for four months and I had no problem staying at the same weight with a an increased calorie intake and not religiously tracking calories.

csuhar

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

I think this may have a lot to do with it. It's as low as MFP will let things go before alarms start going off. I think people can then take that to mean that it's okay for them to eat at this level, even if, when you do the math, it's not the right number.

It doesn't help that this can also play into the older thoughts of "eat as little as you can" that some use as an approach to dieting.

---

In some cases, however, there may be reasonable concern, because even "doing the math" may have them looking at goals of 1200 calories or less:

I have a female acquaintance who, when she saw me doing the math for my BMR and TDEE, put her numbers into the equation and her BMR was at aout 1254. With a "light activity" multiplier, the TDEE estimate went up to 1724.25.

To lose just one pound a week, the 500-calore per day deficit brought the net calories down to 1224. If she'd gone to the "extreme" and put in 2 pounds a week for her weight loss goal, the net calories would be down at 724 calories a day.

If she put that 2 pounds per week weight loss goal in the MFP system, the alarms would go off until she brought her goal up to 1200. So she *could* be lead to believe that 1200 is what her goal should have been because that's the closest to the 1000 calorie deficit she could go without the computer screaming at her.

In her case, however, she's actually doing pretty well, with a "normal" BMI, and she'd be content to lose at a pretty slow rate if she wanted to go lower. You can, however, see that, if she wanted to drop "the last ten" for swimsuit season, she might be misled to take more extreme measures.

bostonwolf

Because culturally, there's the idea that thin is better. And the "obvious" way to get thin is by eating fewer calories.

There's not a lot of thought that goes into it beyond that - but there's a LOT of info out there about 1200 being the "magic" number.

For me, at 5'9" and 165 (my start weight), that's what MFP set for me, also. I did the math and decided that wasn't sustainable - but a lot of folks just want a simple answer.

Totally agree. I can remember a friend in college (this was 20 years ago) freaking out because she weighed 170 lbs and was going to go on a crash diet. Every guy in the room told her she was crazy. She was 5'11, a jock, and an absolute knockout and was focused on a number (170) that in reality means nothing.

Heck, I figure ran the numbers to figure out my current body fat % since I don't have access to calipers, DEXA or Bodypod. It was right about where I thought (30%) and down about 5% from when I started on MFP. I calculated where I'd stand at about 15% bodyfat and was suprised at the answer: 245lbs.

that was always kind of my target in my head but it was reassuring to see that my mental image of myself matched up with the calculations.

emtbabe543

WELP. OP- what you fail to realize is that BMR is a number in which you use to calculate your TDEE; NOT your baseline for calorie consumption.

For some reason on MFP many people have this assumption that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES eat below your BMR.

This is untrue; especially for those who are morbidly obese.

MFP does not recommend anyone eat below 1200 calories as this is what nutritionists, physician, etc. deem a healthy amount of calories for the AVERAGE woman to lose weight. This is based on an average. There is no exact science to it other than the fact that this is based on the average woman in the UNITED STATES. For men the lowest they will recommend is 1400 calories per day.


Now why does it suggest 1200 for SO many people? Because SO many people have unrealistic expectations as to how much weight they can and should lose safely. Surely you remember signing up for MFP and it giving you an option on how much you want to lose per week....

now who DIDN'T select 2 pounds per week? Anyone?


For a woman like myself when I first started (i'll use this as an example) I am 5'4 (average height), weighed 136 (average-ish weight), wanted to lose 2 pounds per week.

My BMR was 1,362
My TDEE was 1634

I selected 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories.


Thank GOD MFP did not recommend 634 calories.


I lost about a pound a week on 1200 calories. Even now (especially now that I am MUCH smaller) I require less calories overall if I want to be in a deficit. On non-lifting days I burn about 1700 calories and on lifting days about 2100 calories.

Try making a deficit off of that and tell me how many calories you would need to eat....


go on... i'm waiting....



Is 1,200 calories safe for EVERYONE? Hell no, especially MEN, women who are taller, women who have less to lose, women who are much more active throughout the day. For the AVERAGE woman this number is usually close to their BMR and allows them to (should they eat nutritionally dense food) get enough protein, carbs, calories for brain function, and hit their RDA of vitamins. But as you probably also know, RDA of protein is 15% of your diet, and nutritional goals are very very low.


This is why it's so damn important you set up your activity level correctly and you don't go crazy overboard with expectations that you're going to lose weight at the rate that someone 100+lbs your size would.

TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS WHOLE POST!

savithny

All the women's magazines are full of 1200 calorie diets. ALL OF THEM. Women's Day, Family Circle, Prevention... pick up any issue and right next to the "make this adorable cake for your family in only 18 hours of constant work!" there will be a menu plan for this month's 1200-calorie diet plan.

Food magazines too. I'm about ready to cancel my subscription to Eating Well because it got bought out and went from being a magazine about moderate choices and healthy whole foods to "Here's a 1200-calorie meal plan that's full of fake low-fat cheese substitutes and oil-free dressings!" I emailed the editor and got a "1200 is MORE than enough for a woman! Nutritionists say so!" response.

It's a very long-term thing. I certainly remember it back to the 70s and 80s and the same women's magazines in the checkout line. 1200 calories was the "healthy" weight loss option, versus "crash diets" of 800 or fewer calories. No account made for activity level or height, either. Because all women are exactly the same.