Age and 1200 calorie minimum

dwilliamca
dwilliamca Posts: 325 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I notice a lot of younger people automatically think a woman is "too aggressive" at 1200 calories. Yes 1200 is the minimum set by MFP for women, but for some of us it is not aggressive at all. What some don't realize is that age is a bigger factor than even size for determining your BMR and therefore calorie base. I'm over 60 and on 1200 calories with only a 500 deficit before adding exercise. By the time a woman gets into her 50's and beyond, her BMR can drop down around 1100-1300 and obviously calorie base drops as well. Sad, huh? I figure by the time I reach my 130 goal I'll only by able to eat 1400 calories in maintenance plus whatever I can add with exercise (and I'm not burning 600-700 a day like some of you young energetic types).
«1

Replies

  • JRSINAZ
    JRSINAZ Posts: 158 Member
    Good luck to you. I'm over 60 too
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    This thread may give you some ideas for non-exercise ways to increase your TDEE, OP: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss#latest
  • maggibailey
    maggibailey Posts: 289 Member
    @middlehaitch yes indeed you were and I enjoyed the discussion! Thank you for your insight!
  • Polo265
    Polo265 Posts: 287 Member
    I understand, OP. I'm 68 and 1200 calories is really a challenge. I've been on MFP for 97 days and have lost 22 lbs. I have about 12-14 lbs to goal. I've been trying to get at least 10,000 steps, which are mostly obtained by marching around the house, driveway, etc. That gives me 200-300 extra calories to eat. The last couple of weeks have been a real challenge and I've been going over my calories by a couple of hundred per day and regained 2-3 lbs. I think I've got diet fatigue. :(
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,311 Member
    I have no doubt that 1200 is the right level for some older, shorter,less active women.

    My losing calories were 1460 - I was 50, 5 ft 4 in and lightly active.

    As many women are shorter and/or older and/or less active than me, it is realistic that they would lose on 260 less calories than me.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    1200 calories is appropriate for some people and too aggressive for others. Some people choose the lowest possible calories to get a fast lost. I wouldn't advise a calorie goal without knowing someone's stats.


  • scarlett_k
    scarlett_k Posts: 812 Member
    I'm 31, 5'6", have about 35 kilos left to lose, and currently have 1200 as my base calories for 2-3 weeks at a time, followed by a week of 1700. It's working for me just fine and I find it quite daft that people are so quick to jump in and say it's "too aggressive".
  • tess5036
    tess5036 Posts: 942 Member
    I have a calorie allowance of 1200 ( before exersize), as I am short and 52 this is only a 550 deficit. Based on that ( with a lot still to use) I will then use exercise to increase the deficit, but no more than a 1, 000 deficit total. I'll reduce the maximum deficit as my weight decreases.
  • lucerorojo
    lucerorojo Posts: 790 Member
    I am at 1200 calories now and do not like it! I am 51, soon to be 52. I started at about 1380 calories, and have lost 25 lbs. so far, at 2 lbs. per week. My starting weight was 237, and I'm relatively short, so I had to get that weight off fast, and while losing, at each month my calorie intake is lowered. I do a lot of exercise to compensate, at least 1 hour of walking each day, plus zumba and swimming a few times a week. I'm going to keep the agressive 2 lbs. a week until I break 200. I will still have over 60 lbs. left to lose, but I will switch to 1 lb. - 1.5 lbs. per week because compensating with even more exercise will not be sustainable--not because I can't do it physically, I can, but because I'm not retired and I have to work, so I can't spend more time in the gym, and already walk everywhere... I felt fine eating around 1300-1400 calories without exercise, but 1200 is just too little for me, no matter how good and nutritious my meals are. My biggest incentive to exercise is so that I can add more calories now.
  • dwilliamca
    dwilliamca Posts: 325 Member
    Thanks everyone for your support and insight. I too noticed I've been more active since starting logging, so there is hope for more calories out there someday.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    The reason BMR drops as you age is mostly reduced activity and muscle loss. If you work on increasing activity and building/maintaining muscle, the BMR hit for getting older will be much less dramatic.

    Yes, there are some short sedentary older women who have to eat 1200 or slightly less.

    Unfortunately many women over 50 think they have no choice but to be sedentary, lose muscle, and eat way less. But unless there is a physical disability (and sometimes even when there are) you are never too old to walk more, strength train, and build more movement into your every day activities so you can eat more.

    I am 44, 5'4" 127lbs and maintain at @ 1800 cals getting 8000 steps and working out 3 times a week. My goal is to increase my tdee rather than watch it decrease :)

    I wish most of the posters asking for help to eat 1200 cals were short, older, sedentary women but they usually aren't. When the info isn't available, I'd rather assume the poster is one of the like 95% of people who should eat more. Especially since those threads always end up including many posts supplying tips on how to eat that low anyway.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    edited October 2017
    kimny72 wrote: »
    The reason BMR drops as you age is mostly reduced activity and muscle loss. If you work on increasing activity and building/maintaining muscle, the BMR hit for getting older will be much less dramatic.

    Yes, there are some short sedentary older women who have to eat 1200 or slightly less.

    Unfortunately many women over 50 think they have no choice but to be sedentary, lose muscle, and eat way less. But unless there is a physical disability (and sometimes even when there are) you are never too old to walk more, strength train, and build more movement into your every day activities so you can eat more.

    I am 44, 5'4" 127lbs and maintain at @ 1800 cals getting 8000 steps and working out 3 times a week. My goal is to increase my tdee rather than watch it decrease :)

    I wish most of the posters asking for help to eat 1200 cals were short, older, sedentary women but they usually aren't. When the info isn't available, I'd rather assume the poster is one of the like 95% of people who should eat more. Especially since those threads always end up including many posts supplying tips on how to eat that low anyway.

    MFP took away 50 cals on my 62nd birthday. It had nothing to do with a change in activity or muscle mass. FYI I'm in maintenance.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    The reason BMR drops as you age is mostly reduced activity and muscle loss. If you work on increasing activity and building/maintaining muscle, the BMR hit for getting older will be much less dramatic.

    Yes, there are some short sedentary older women who have to eat 1200 or slightly less.

    Unfortunately many women over 50 think they have no choice but to be sedentary, lose muscle, and eat way less. But unless there is a physical disability (and sometimes even when there are) you are never too old to walk more, strength train, and build more movement into your every day activities so you can eat more.

    I am 44, 5'4" 127lbs and maintain at @ 1800 cals getting 8000 steps and working out 3 times a week. My goal is to increase my tdee rather than watch it decrease :)

    I wish most of the posters asking for help to eat 1200 cals were short, older, sedentary women but they usually aren't. When the info isn't available, I'd rather assume the poster is one of the like 95% of people who should eat more. Especially since those threads always end up including many posts supplying tips on how to eat that low anyway.

    MFP took away 50 cals on my 62nd birthday. It had nothing to do with a change in activity or muscle mass. FYI I'm in maintenance.

    I remember you mentioning that before, really weird.

    Of course MFP has me on 1200 for maintenance so I couldn't have a reduction for my birthday. However, I did run my numbers through an off site calculator (just out of curiosity, because of your earlier post, for my birthday) and it dropped me 6 cals.

    That seems more in line with the the general assumption of 50-100 per decade. MFP for you will be dropping you 500 over the next decade. Scary.

    Good job I know you would use your own numbers. B)

    Cheers, h.
  • Jancandoit7
    Jancandoit7 Posts: 356 Member
    5'3"- CW 179- I'll be 60 in a few weeks- have lost 15 pounds in 12 weeks- I eat 1300 hundred cal a day and 1400 on days I walk for 45-60 min. About once a week I'll eat about 1700 cal- weight loss has been consistent and I feel fine- I eat a super healthy whole food diet with occasional splurges. I could never stick to just 1200 cal. a day. Losing weight at beginning of menopause was tough, but now that hormones have settled down it hasn't been hard at all.
  • Beaudom91
    Beaudom91 Posts: 54 Member
    edited October 2017
    I'm 26 and according to the TDEE calculator my maintenance calories are only 1480. That's depressing and I'm not sure how accurate since I burn at least 300 in exercise a day. But based on that you can't tell me 1200 is aggressive
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lorrpb wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    The reason BMR drops as you age is mostly reduced activity and muscle loss. If you work on increasing activity and building/maintaining muscle, the BMR hit for getting older will be much less dramatic.

    Yes, there are some short sedentary older women who have to eat 1200 or slightly less.

    Unfortunately many women over 50 think they have no choice but to be sedentary, lose muscle, and eat way less. But unless there is a physical disability (and sometimes even when there are) you are never too old to walk more, strength train, and build more movement into your every day activities so you can eat more.

    I am 44, 5'4" 127lbs and maintain at @ 1800 cals getting 8000 steps and working out 3 times a week. My goal is to increase my tdee rather than watch it decrease :)

    I wish most of the posters asking for help to eat 1200 cals were short, older, sedentary women but they usually aren't. When the info isn't available, I'd rather assume the poster is one of the like 95% of people who should eat more. Especially since those threads always end up including many posts supplying tips on how to eat that low anyway.

    MFP took away 50 cals on my 62nd birthday. It had nothing to do with a change in activity or muscle mass. FYI I'm in maintenance.

    I wasnt aware they did that, but that doesn't mean your NEAT or TDEE dropped 50 cals. It means a generalized calculator assumed it did. Because the average person doesn't proactively try to keep it from happening.

    This. The calculator MFP uses is not based on body fat (because few people know their body fat reliably), so it goes with estimates, which assume slightly lower muscle mass as people age (so higher body fat as they age). This is why the non-body-fat-based calculators decrease projected BMR as you age.

    The body-fat-based calculators don't change based on age (and if you know BF% I think they are generally more reliable). Of course, knowing your own TDEE is the best option.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited October 2017
    Beaudom91 wrote: »
    I'm 26 and according to the TDEE calculator my maintenance calories are only 1480. That's depressing and I'm not sure how accurate since I burn at least 300 in exercise a day. But based on that you can't tell me 1200 is aggressive

    What are your stats? I'm 55 and short and my sedentary TDEE is 1410. Granted I have a few pounds I want to lose, but I'm a size 2.

    1200 is an aggressive deficit if you're shooting to lose a pound a week because I doubt you have much to lose.

    Editing to add on ... what PAV8888 said about your situation is spot on.
  • dwilliamca
    dwilliamca Posts: 325 Member
    I'm 63, 5.6 and am down to 185 pounds (started at 200/196 when I started logging again). I chose sedentary as my activity level because I don't work any longer and have some sedentary days-like today. However more often I babysit 2-4 toddlers, clean the house, buy the groceries, cook the meals, etc. etc. so I add these back on as "exercise". I also add on a couple hundred calories of aerobic/yoga/Pilates type exercise 3-4 days a week but don't want to over log their calorie value. I eat back some of the real exercise calories when I'm hungry, but the add on N.E.A.T. burn stuff I just add to my deficit. So far I'm doing well and not making any changes until necessary. I'm already more concerned about maintenance because that is where I blew it last time.
  • Beaudom91
    Beaudom91 Posts: 54 Member
    Beaudom91 wrote: »
    I'm 26 and according to the TDEE calculator my maintenance calories are only 1480. That's depressing and I'm not sure how accurate since I burn at least 300 in exercise a day. But based on that you can't tell me 1200 is aggressive

    What are your stats? I'm 55 and short and my sedentary TDEE is 1410. Granted I have a few pounds I want to lose, but I'm a size 2.

    1200 is an aggressive deficit if you're shooting to lose a pound a week because I doubt you have much to lose.

    Editing to add on ... what PAV8888 said about your situation is spot on.

    My stats are 26 year old female, 161cm tall and 63 kg, which is upper end of normal for my hight (65 is overweight) but 55 is where I'm usually at, currently losing baby weight. I Workout moderately once a day for an hour but most of my day is low activity. I entered that into a TDEE calculator and got the 1480 which I don't believe but i re entered it 3 times just to make sure.
This discussion has been closed.