Too little calories? Help!

iKayz

I used this app for get the amount of calories I need and the app gave me 1200 for the day.

I'm 25, 5,8, and weight 167lbs. I have been told that's too little so just wondering what others think.

Maxematics

The calories you get depend on the information you put in. Did you put that you are sedentary and want to lose two pounds per week? If so, that is why you got an allowance of 1200 calories.

diannethegeek

Just to give you a point of reference, I'm also 5'8" and around 170-ish pounds. I'm a bit older though, I'm 33. I lose a pound a week consistently at 1700-1800 calories a day. Anything below 1400 and I feel like I want to gnaw my own arm off (I'm also told that I'm impossible to be around at that level).

1200 is the lowest threshold the site/app will set for calories, so most of us end up there if we set aggressive goals (2 pounds/week). It works for some people, but not very well for others. You can try it and see, but it wasn't good for me.

duckforceone

i'm a male, and i'm 5'11", 38 and 240lbs i think... sedentary and wanting to lose weight, i have to eat at 1500 or below.

so no, you are not too low. Try it and see if it works.
i have known more people that had to get down to 1000 calories to lose weight...

Maxematics

duckforceone wrote: »

i'm a male, and i'm 5'11", 38 and 240lbs i think... sedentary and wanting to lose weight, i have to eat at 1500 or below.

so no, you are not too low. Try it and see if it works.
i have known more people that had to get down to 1000 calories to lose weight...

Just curious, did these people use a food scale to weigh all their food?

duckforceone

synacious wrote: »

Just curious, did these people use a food scale to weigh all their food?

yep. Some people do indeed have a worse metabolism. Just look at the research on some of those from "the biggest loser" coming out. They have to eat up to 800 calories lower than their "normal" caloric need.

that is why i advice people to start at the "recommended" caloric need for a deficit, and adjust from there, as no one is the same.

i have learned to mistrust any standard number, such as BMI and standard metabolic rates, they never fit all, or even most. Sure they are a nice starting point for most, but i would only use that to figure out where to start.

the rest comes from us experimenting.

Maxematics

duckforceone wrote: »

synacious wrote: »

Just curious, did these people use a food scale to weigh all their food?

yep. Some people do indeed have a worse metabolism. Just look at the research on some of those from "the biggest loser" coming out. They have to eat up to 800 calories lower than their "normal" caloric need.

that is why i advice people to start at the "recommended" caloric need for a deficit, and adjust from there, as no one is the same.

i have learned to mistrust any standard number, such as BMI and standard metabolic rates, they never fit all, or even most. Sure they are a nice starting point for most, but i would only use that to figure out where to start.

the rest comes from us experimenting.

I do agree that metabolism varies, but that Biggest Loser article has been discussed extensively on this site and it is actually a load of crap with skewed results based on conditions that the normal dieter never has to undergo. It definitely should not be looked to as a reference for people with slower metabolisms as the people in that study were operating under extreme conditions with rapid weight loss, very low calorie diets, hours working out per day, and a multitude of other issues just to shift large amounts of weight in a short amount of time.

duckforceone

synacious wrote: »

I do agree that metabolism varies, but that Biggest Loser article has been discussed extensively on this site and it is actually a load of crap with skewed results based on conditions that the normal dieter never has to undergo. It definitely should not be looked to as a reference for people with slower metabolisms as the people in that study were operating under extreme conditions with rapid weight loss, very low calorie diets, hours working out per day, and a multitude of other issues just to shift large amounts of weight in a short amount of time.

yeah i know, but it shows that it is possible to change metabolism, which is what i use from it. And it to me only helps validating what everything else shows. But it is a very bad research article...

AmyRhubarb

I'm 48, 5' 8", and started at 165lbs - had my best success eating 1800-2000 cals a day (and that includes exercise cals). Fat and inches came off MUCH better and more consistently when I started eating that much, which is a small cut from my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). I aim to eat as MANY cals as I can while still losing - much more sustainable, easier to do life (birthdays, Mother's Day! vacations, office parties, etc) without such a restrictive goal.

I got down to 133lbs, but have since gone back up to between 140-145lbs, still wearing the same clothes I was at 133, it's just normal fluctuations.

My stats are similar to yours, aside from age, but that doesn't mean our cal goals should be exactly the same - it takes some time to find the right number for each person, and depends on activity level, etc. It can take the body 4-6 weeks to adjust to new cal intake or even exercise, so you have to give it time before you decide something isn't working and change it up again. Takes some patience, but it's totally worth it. I have much more freedom now with this goal, and knowing my upper and lower cal limits. It's allowed me to maintain this weight loss for over 4 years now.

nutmegoreo

iKayz wrote: »

I used this app for get the amount of calories I need and the app gave me 1200 for the day.

I'm 25, 5,8, and weight 167lbs. I have been told that's too little so just wondering what others think.

I'm older than you, and shorter. I can lose close to 2lb/week at 1700 cal. It will depend on how active you are and how accurate you are in counting your calories. You probably have set yourself a pretty aggressive goal, which could work against you for hunger. Food scale for weighing your intake will be most accurate. Even prepackaged foods are usually off, sometimes significantly.

NewMEEE2016

You could start higher- say 1500-1600 cals for 2-3 weeks. Weigh & log *everything* and see how quickly you're losing- then go from there.

RGv2

duckforceone wrote: »

i'm a male, and i'm 5'11", 38 and 240lbs i think... sedentary and wanting to lose weight, i have to eat at 1500 or below.

so no, you are not too low. Try it and see if it works.
i have known more people that had to get down to 1000 calories to lose weight...

Sorry, I don't buy a 38 yr old male that's 5' 11" 240 has a sedentary TDEE of only 1500 calories.

I'm 37 5' 7", less than 200 and can set to lose 1lb per week at nearly 2000 without exercise.

85Cardinals

too few calories

lauraesh0384

Everyone is going to be different, but I'm 31 years old, 5'6" 167 lbs and I eat 1700-1800 a day to lose 1lb/week. I'm also set as active, though. MFP actually gives me 1890 but some days I can't eat that much. 1750 is about my average.

Citycat2015

I have been eating 1200 a day but cook 99% of my meals and put effort into making sure I am getting my protein, nutrients and enough bulk to sustain me. In other words - it's a lot of work to do right so if you don't have to go there. Don't. Your stats indicate you can each much more and you have a far better chance at success with a moderate deficit.

liams987

iKayz wrote: »

I used this app for get the amount of calories I need and the app gave me 1200 for the day.

I'm 25, 5,8, and weight 167lbs. I have been told that's too little so just wondering what others think.

Make sure you hit your macro nutrients ( I recommend changing protein up to 30% on MFP) and stay under your daily calories and you will lose weight. If this doesn't work just lower it slightly around 100 calories and see how that goes. Stay consistent and the weight will drop!

iKayz

Thanks for your help everyone!!

Psychgrrl

duckforceone wrote: »

yeah i know, but it shows that it is possible to change metabolism, which is what i use from it. And it to me only helps validating what everything else shows. But it is a very bad research article...

So what you took from the articles is specifically what the authors of the research said not to ... The study could not at all be generalized to the population beyond the study participants due to the extreme conditions under which they lost the weight and the small sample size. It validates nothing except some Biggest Loser participants have experienced weight gain at the six year mark and there may be a relationship between the weight gain and the conditions under which they lost the weight.