A question for 1200 calories per day consumers
bonitacash08
Posts: 378 Member
Just "food" for thought (pun intended)
I've literally seen hundreds of people who swear to the heavens that 1200 calories is right for them because they're "different" and eating more will not work for them.
People who are 5'9" to 4'11". People who weigh 300lbs to 105lbs. People who are 55 to people who are 16. People who exercise every day to people who never lift a finger.
TDEE calculators give you a calorie recommendation based on your height, weight, age, and activity level.
Why would you be more likely to be "different" like someone who is double your weight, half your height, and ten years younger/older than someone with your exact same data?
I've literally seen hundreds of people who swear to the heavens that 1200 calories is right for them because they're "different" and eating more will not work for them.
People who are 5'9" to 4'11". People who weigh 300lbs to 105lbs. People who are 55 to people who are 16. People who exercise every day to people who never lift a finger.
TDEE calculators give you a calorie recommendation based on your height, weight, age, and activity level.
Why would you be more likely to be "different" like someone who is double your weight, half your height, and ten years younger/older than someone with your exact same data?
0
Replies
-
IN for the "special snowflakes"0
-
I blame the media!0
-
When calculating TDEE online, people can punch in whatever they want to manipulate the numbers and 1200 is the default lower level. Lower calories, more weight loss, simple reason really.0
-
I'm not a special snowflake. I use mfp as designed. I net 1200 (although I eat considerably more - around 1800ish). 1200 calories as a net is very different than 1200 as gross intake. Mfp intends people to net 1200. Which for me works out to about the same # of gross intake calories (if not just a hair more) than TDEE-%.
1200 isn't the root of all evil.0 -
I'm not a special snowflake. I use mfp as designed. I net 1200 (although I eat considerably more - around 1800ish). 1200 calories as a net is very different than 1200 as gross intake. Mfp intends people to net 1200. Which for me works out to about the same # of gross intake calories (if not just a hair more) than TDEE-%.
1200 isn't the root of all evil.
This. Why do you care what other people eat?0 -
What is the purpose of this thread? Some people are quite content at 1200. Some are under medical supervision. Others are older with limited mobility. What difference does it make why they are choosing 1200?0
-
1200 is what MFP calculated based on my stats - I'm rubbish at maths so utterly unable to manipulate the statistics, sorry. I'm no more different than anyone else!
I roughly aim for 1200, but eat anything between just under that and about 1800 net - and I'm losing weight at a steady pace. Certainly not 2lb a week as was my huge ambition, but it's working. More like 1lb and not every week.0 -
My TDEE is 1350. I gained body fat like hell when a personal trainer upped me to 1500 because he said 1200 was too low. I'm not a special snowflake. I'm a ****ing midget.0
-
Everyones differant?
0 -
I think some may be more satisfied depending on what they eat, for example if they love fruits and veggies it may not be so hard for them. I for want am not satisfied with just those so I think it could matter what kind of foods your happy with0
-
Would hell freeze over if we went one day with throwing a b**ch-fit over how many calories people eat? You think you care about their health? You don't or you would have been this persistently aggressive about how bad obesity is for a person. Get off your high horse and get to the gym.0
-
For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is
)) 0 -
I get where you're coming from, OP. The ones that come here and automatically set themselves up for failure when they choose "2 lbs lost a week" and assume less calories = more weight loss. The ones that consistently net lower than 1200 who claim it's working for them when they drop a ton of weight in the first few weeks.
Then they come back and spam the message boards with threads like "Y I NO LOSING WEIGHT NO MOE, ONOEZ?!" and they boast about burning 6-800 calories a day yet they don't eat the calories back and net like 900 or below calories a day.
Yeah, those are the 1200-ers I have a problem with. That's right. I said it. Call me judgemental. No skin off my nose.
But if you're a certain weight/height already...NETTING 1200 should be no problem.
0 -
I think this thread should be required reading. Just my opinion! :flowerforyou:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-20130 -
For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is))
When I started I weighed 150. I'm a 5'4 f and I'm about to turn 43. I have a very inactive job and didn't work out. My TDEE was 1680 and I wanted to lose 1 lb a week. That brought me to 1180.
My mom lost weight a couple of years ago. She was 70 at the time, 4'11 and was unable to exercise. I'm sure hers was probably low also since she only weighed about 130ish at the time.0 -
I think you do need more information about each person before stating your opinion about their calorie consumption. MFP tells me to net 1200 to lose LESS than 1 lb per week. Even Scooby's workshop has me at 1259.
I do eat back most of my exercise calories, however I am simply not consistent enough with exercise to justify more than a sedentary lifestyle choice in the calculators. Trust me, I would love to have 1500 calories a day, however, until I manage to adjust my lifestyle sufficiently to have consistent exercise, I have 1200 to work with 5 out of 7 days a week.
So simply stating that people should always eat more than 1200 is simply not valid.0 -
Just "food" for thought (pun intended)
I've literally seen hundreds of people who swear to the heavens that 1200 calories is right for them because they're "different" and eating more will not work for them.
People who are 5'9" to 4'11". People who weigh 300lbs to 105lbs. People who are 55 to people who are 16. People who exercise every day to people who never lift a finger.
TDEE calculators give you a calorie recommendation based on your height, weight, age, and activity level.
Why would you be more likely to be "different" like someone who is double your weight, half your height, and ten years younger/older than someone with your exact same data?
I don't claim to be "different". My TDEE is around 1700, I set my calories here to 1300, I regularly consume around 1200, and I'm perfectly content at that. If I'm hungry I feel free to eat more. I've been consistently losing about a lb a week and have been satisfied with my delicious meals for the 5 months I've been on this journey
.
I'm curious to hear what others feel I should set my calorie goal at with my TDEE, I admit I'm not real savvy in this area 0 -
For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is))
When I started I weighed 150. I'm a 5'4 f and I'm about to turn 43. I have a very inactive job and didn't work out. My TDEE was 1680 and I wanted to lose 1 lb a week. That brought me to 1180.
My mom lost weight a couple of years ago. She was 70 at the time, 4'11 and was unable to exercise. I'm sure hers was probably low also since she only weighed about 130ish at the time.
Incorrect. If you're subtracting 20% from 1680, you should be consuming 1344 calories a day. You should not be eating under 1200 a day.
1680 x .20 = 336, thus 1680-336 = 1,344.0 -
When I first put in my goals, it set me at 1200 calories a day. I did that for a few weeks and lost some but I started reading comments about not eating enough calories and that affecting weight loss and so I raised it to 1360 and I am still losing. Maybe not quickly but I'm not really interested in losing quickly, I'd prefer to lose slow and steady and then keep it off. I'm concerned that if my calorie intake is too low, my body will get used to it and if I up it much at all, I'll start gaining back. Not sure if it works that way or not. I'm not a very active person so I know I don't burn alot of calories during the day. For the most part, I've been able to pretty much eat what I want just smaller quantities. Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what the optimal number of calories are that I should consume to lose weight steadily? Not sure if I should up them a little more or stay at 1360. Right now I am 194 lbs and 5'5.0
-
ncmedic201 - I'd only have you on 1200 if you didn't move around at all, housebound. I'd much rather see you at 1450. Only 250 cals more but thats actually 20% more calories almost. You'll be surprised at the difference, IMO.0
-
because 1270 cals is what I should be eating for I think it was either 15 or 20% defect 0
-
My TDEE is 1350. I gained body fat like hell when a personal trainer upped me to 1500 because he said 1200 was too low. I'm not a special snowflake. I'm a ****ing midget.
THIS.0 -
oooo do me just to seeFor someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is))
im 24, 5,6 , currently 149.6lbs, im at a desk job, I dont lift (but would like to lol) im pretty sporadic with my cardio but say 3 times a week for at least 30mins0 -
For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is))
When I started I weighed 150. I'm a 5'4 f and I'm about to turn 43. I have a very inactive job and didn't work out. My TDEE was 1680 and I wanted to lose 1 lb a week. That brought me to 1180.
My mom lost weight a couple of years ago. She was 70 at the time, 4'11 and was unable to exercise. I'm sure hers was probably low also since she only weighed about 130ish at the time.
Incorrect. If you're subtracting 20% from 1680, you should be consuming 1344 calories a day. You should not be eating under 1200 a day.
1680 x .20 = 336, thus 1680-336 = 1,344.
I didn't say I was using the TDEE method, I said I wanted to lose 1 lb per week.0 -
For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is))
When I started I weighed 150. I'm a 5'4 f and I'm about to turn 43. I have a very inactive job and didn't work out. My TDEE was 1680 and I wanted to lose 1 lb a week. That brought me to 1180.
My mom lost weight a couple of years ago. She was 70 at the time, 4'11 and was unable to exercise. I'm sure hers was probably low also since she only weighed about 130ish at the time.
Incorrect. If you're subtracting 20% from 1680, you should be consuming 1344 calories a day. You should not be eating under 1200 a day.
1680 x .20 = 336, thus 1680-336 = 1,344.
I didn't say I was using the TDEE method, I said I wanted to lose 1 lb per week.
Then why mention your TDEE at all?
You'd still lose a pound a week by the calculations I just gave.0 -
ncmedic201 - I'd only have you on 1200 if you didn't move around at all, housebound. I'd much rather see you at 1450. Only 250 cals more but thats actually 20% more calories almost. You'll be surprised at the difference, IMO.
I literally sit at the station all day...24-36 hours. When I started this my goals were to lose weight, improve my diet and lower my BP.At the time I had a hip injury and it was very painful to stand, let alone walk. I was afraid to go to the doctor because I couldn't afford to be out of work. I improved my diet, lost some weight and lowered my BP. I finally bit the bullet and went to PT. I'm now able to exercise, off all my BP meds and have upped my calories. I don't always meet my calorie intake but I try. I've got it set for 1700 now.
Posts like this are just so vague and they don't take into consideration that we are all individuals with different weights, heights, genders and physical abilities. Also, sometimes you have to weigh the risk to benefit assessment. For a morbidly obese person, the risk of sudden cardiac arrest may be greater than the risk of being on a low calorie diet. Many of us are being monitored by our doctor and the benefit of quick weight loss outweighs the risks.0 -
1200-1300 net works for me. 1200 FLAT works for others. Don't see the point of making a big deal out of what ppl eat. It's not a miracle spot, but if it works....don't fix it.0
-
ncmedic201 - I'd only have you on 1200 if you didn't move around at all, housebound. I'd much rather see you at 1450. Only 250 cals more but thats actually 20% more calories almost. You'll be surprised at the difference, IMO.
I literally sit at the station all day...24-36 hours. When I started this my goals were to lose weight, improve my diet and lower my BP.At the time I had a hip injury and it was very painful to stand, let alone walk. I was afraid to go to the doctor because I couldn't afford to be out of work. I improved my diet, lost some weight and lowered my BP. I finally bit the bullet and went to PT. I'm now able to exercise, off all my BP meds and have upped my calories. I don't always meet my calorie intake but I try. I've got it set for 1700 now.
Posts like this are just so vague and they don't take into consideration that we are all individuals with different weights, heights, genders and physical abilities. Also, sometimes you have to weigh the risk to benefit assessment. For a morbidly obese person, the risk of sudden cardiac arrest may be greater than the risk of being on a low calorie diet. Many of us are being monitored by our doctor and the benefit of quick weight loss outweighs the risks.
Doctors take 8 hrs or less of nutritional courses. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt, unless they're a nutritionist/dietician.
Glad to hear of the calorie upage and well being change. Good luck to you.0 -
ncmedic201 - I'd only have you on 1200 if you didn't move around at all, housebound. I'd much rather see you at 1450. Only 250 cals more but thats actually 20% more calories almost. You'll be surprised at the difference, IMO.
I literally sit at the station all day...24-36 hours. When I started this my goals were to lose weight, improve my diet and lower my BP.At the time I had a hip injury and it was very painful to stand, let alone walk. I was afraid to go to the doctor because I couldn't afford to be out of work. I improved my diet, lost some weight and lowered my BP. I finally bit the bullet and went to PT. I'm now able to exercise, off all my BP meds and have upped my calories. I don't always meet my calorie intake but I try. I've got it set for 1700 now.
Posts like this are just so vague and they don't take into consideration that we are all individuals with different weights, heights, genders and physical abilities. Also, sometimes you have to weigh the risk to benefit assessment. For a morbidly obese person, the risk of sudden cardiac arrest may be greater than the risk of being on a low calorie diet. Many of us are being monitored by our doctor and the benefit of quick weight loss outweighs the risks.
Doctors take 8 hrs or less of nutritional courses. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt, unless they're a nutritionist/dietician.
Glad to hear of the calorie upage and well being change. Good luck to you.
To say my doc is a nutrition freak would be an understatement! She is very into health, exercise, eating right etc. She's the one that got me back onto MFP. She also checks my labs every 3 months. She's a great motivator0 -
ncmedic201 - I'd only have you on 1200 if you didn't move around at all, housebound. I'd much rather see you at 1450. Only 250 cals more but thats actually 20% more calories almost. You'll be surprised at the difference, IMO.
I literally sit at the station all day...24-36 hours. When I started this my goals were to lose weight, improve my diet and lower my BP.At the time I had a hip injury and it was very painful to stand, let alone walk. I was afraid to go to the doctor because I couldn't afford to be out of work. I improved my diet, lost some weight and lowered my BP. I finally bit the bullet and went to PT. I'm now able to exercise, off all my BP meds and have upped my calories. I don't always meet my calorie intake but I try. I've got it set for 1700 now.
Posts like this are just so vague and they don't take into consideration that we are all individuals with different weights, heights, genders and physical abilities. Also, sometimes you have to weigh the risk to benefit assessment. For a morbidly obese person, the risk of sudden cardiac arrest may be greater than the risk of being on a low calorie diet. Many of us are being monitored by our doctor and the benefit of quick weight loss outweighs the risks.
I am a PT/nutritionist.
Your post that you NEED 1200 is not the counter. A counter argument from you would be you describing why aren't needing MORE calories because you've tried and this is the XYZ reason. Unless you are suggesting eating an bare minimum number of calories is better than eating a larger, more rounder number that will allow more good foods to be eaten.
Get your head on the right way around. You are thinking, backwards.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
- 426 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