What's wrong with 1200 calories?
Replies
-
Monklady123 wrote: »I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.0 -
MFP doesn't "give" you 1200 calories. MFP is only a calculator; it spits out numbers based on what you feed into it. If you feed different numbers into it, you'll get a different result.
Sometimes 1200 calories is an appropriate goal for a smaller, lighter woman trying to lose weight. Most often, 1200 comes out of MFP because a too-aggressive pace was input by the user.
It's understandable. After all, if you asked me whether I'd prefer to lose weight faster or slower, all else being equal, I'd say of course I'd prefer to lose 2lbs/week. But all else isn't equal. And I was much happier losing 0.75 to 1lb/week and being satisfied and not hungry all the time, and able to stick with it long term and limit muscle loss and keep the weight off.
IMHO this is a flaw in MFP's design. Instead of asking people when they sign up for an account to decide how quickly they want to lose the weight, MFP should calculate that for you. It should ask you for your current height and weight and age and your goal weight, and then calculate (based on a ~20% deficit, more or less) what an appropriate pace of weight loss and deficit is for you.
Then, later, there could be an option to customize it. But for 99% of new users, this would REALLY help avoid the pattern of starting here with too aggressive a goal, being unable to keep it up, and quitting in frustration.0 -
MFP doesn't "give" you 1200 calories. MFP is only a calculator; it spits out numbers based on what you feed into it. If you feed different numbers into it, you'll get a different result.
Sometimes 1200 calories is an appropriate goal for a smaller, lighter woman trying to lose weight. Most often, 1200 comes out of MFP because a too-aggressive pace was input by the user.
It's understandable. After all, if you asked me whether I'd prefer to lose weight faster or slower, all else being equal, I'd say of course I'd prefer to lose 2lbs/week. But all else isn't equal. And I was much happier losing 0.75 to 1lb/week and being satisfied and not hungry all the time, and able to stick with it long term and limit muscle loss and keep the weight off.
IMHO this is a flaw in MFP's design. Instead of asking people when they sign up for an account to decide how quickly they want to lose the weight, MFP should calculate that for you. It should ask you for your current height and weight and age and your goal weight, and then calculate (based on a ~20% deficit, more or less) what an appropriate pace of weight loss and deficit is for you.
Then, later, there could be an option to customize it. But for 99% of new users, this would REALLY help avoid the pattern of starting here with too aggressive a goal, being unable to keep it up, and quitting in frustration.
Agreed.0 -
MarcyKirkton wrote: »Look, the Op sure noticed. I definitely avoid. One poster suggested a special group to avoid.
It's really not my problem if some "concerned "posters continue to repeat their behavior. I just found solution and pass it on when someone new brings it up.
I'm just looking for clarification on what you're talking about when it comes to "advised".
Advised my a medical professional or "advised" by the number that MFP spat out at them.
That would be two extremely different scenarios.
0 -
I'm 5'7' and have a 1200 daily limit.... Am I to tall for this to be doing me any good?
Probably...at the same height I lose 1lb a week on 1600.
The 1200 minimum is based in science. The actual RDA of all macros and vitamins and minerals can fit into 1200 if you eat almost perfectly....that means major planning on what you will eat.
I personally feel deflated, weak and tired on 1200 because it's not enough for me. I am 42, 5 ft 7 and weight about 143-144 lbs and lift heavy and am quite active.
And remember RDA are minimum recommended amounts...not the best guide.
I think that those who actually do 1200 a day are missing out on vital nutrition to a degree.
Regardless of age and stats very rarely do people sit down and plan to hit all required vitamins, minerals, macros etc.
The funny thing is Stef, I maintain on 1650 per day net
44, 5'7 and 131-134 maintenance range. That's right where the calculators put me, too.
edited to add that I did work out pretty much every day while I was working out, so I usually grossed 1600-1800 because I never wanted to eat that little. And as I stated, I always netted around 1380-1500 but based on my rate of loss I believe I was netting probably 100 below that as I lost a bit faster than expected. And if I had lost slower, I am positive I'd have lost less muscle mass.0 -
I'm 57 y. o., short, and only moderately active. I've been on an average of 1200 calories for 3 months and feeling fine. Everything I eat now is nutritious. Most of my carbs come from vegetables and fruit, oatmeal, beans, quinoa, etc. The bulk of my protein is from lots of fish, some eggs, and yogurt, with less from cheese and plant sources. I think I record the calories accurately, as I use a scale for those things I measure out and buy a lot of things in portions that are already figured out for me (small 5.3 oz containers of yogurt instead of a large container from which I'd need to measure, sliced cheese instead of a block). I guesstimate foods with a low calorie count, and, if I'm the only one in the house eating them, the count is accurate spread over a few days by the time the package is finished (such as large containers of salad greens). I have stopped eating all the empty calories - wine (please, no debate on resveratrol - not worth the calories for me), bread, pasta, the kids' Oreos, ice cream, etc. I honestly don't think that my diet was any more nutritious when I was overweight. I do take a multivitamin, since I had some in the house, but research shows that those most likely are not even beneficial if one is eating well, except for maybe the folic acid component in the vitamin.
So, I do think one can eat well and stay within the 1200 calories, and that 1200 is an adequate number for an older, small-framed woman on a diet who is maximizing the nutritional value of her calories.0 -
Which, in almost every thread on the topic, is pointed out as being the scenario in which 1200 can make sense. Including, as well, not especially active.
So, I do think one can eat well and stay within the 1200 calories, and that 1200 is an adequate number for an older, small-framed woman on a diet who is maximizing the nutritional value of her calories.
0 -
All,
I would like to remind everyone of the following rule:
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
If you feel a post is in violation of any of our community guidelines, please report it. Thank you.
psuLemon0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math.
lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
So when the OP asked about eating only 1200 calories and I said I was, really I'm not if I eat exercise calories too? So I guess I take back my original answer. lol.
0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math. lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
Yes, you're eating net, and you're fine. :flowerforyou:0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math. lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
So when the OP asked about eating only 1200 calories and I said I was, really I'm not if I eat exercise calories too? So I guess I take back my original answer. lol.
Yes, that's right, and yes, you are eating 1200 net (and 1300 gross or whatever, depending on the day). That's what I mean when I say I ate 1250 too. One problem is many who eat 1200 don't understand that's how MFP works and often exercise hard and don't eat back calories on top of it, which is quite different than 1200 net. So that's why I brought in that distinction.0 -
I am 5'5, 54yrs and started this plan at the end of June. I am down 34 lbs and have been on a 1200 calorie a day program (this is what was calculated for me) and I have been fine on it. I don't find myself hungry at the end of the day and there are days where I only hit 900. And yes, I weigh and measure everything!! I have logged in for 100 days straight as of today! This plan works great for both my husband (who is also down although he is at around 1600 calories a day) and I!0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math. lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
So when the OP asked about eating only 1200 calories and I said I was, really I'm not if I eat exercise calories too? So I guess I take back my original answer. lol.
Yes, that's right, and yes, you are eating 1200 net (and 1300 gross or whatever, depending on the day). That's what I mean when I say I ate 1250 too. One problem is many who eat 1200 don't understand that's how MFP works and often exercise hard and don't eat back calories on top of it, which is quite different than 1200 net. So that's why I brought in that distinction.
True^^.0 -
lyndefisher wrote: »I am 5'5, 54yrs and started this plan at the end of June. I am down 34 lbs and have been on a 1200 calorie a day program (this is what was calculated for me) and I have been fine on it. I don't find myself hungry at the end of the day and there are days where I only hit 900. And yes, I weigh and measure everything!! I have logged in for 100 days straight as of today! This plan works great for both my husband (who is also down although he is at around 1600 calories a day) and I!
And you also fit in the demographic who 1200 is probably fine for....like most everyone pointed out earlier. Not the 22 year old trying to lose the last 5 vanity lbs for swimsuit season.0 -
Well, sure. But if they're losing weight anyway, then it's really fine. If they're not, then generally they come on here with a long post about why did they plateau, please help.0 -
Well, sure. But if they're losing weight anyway, then it's really fine. If they're not, then generally they come on here with a long post about why did they plateau, please help.
haha. Yeah, true!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
- 424 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