Can somebody tell me where this "1200 Calorie" number came from ?
mojavemtbr
Posts: 65 Member
I keep seeing this "1200 calorie" daily target number being brought up on here a lot.
Where did this come from and why do so many people (especially females) think that this daily number of calories is so important ? I wil just at the risk of jading the answers say that it seems like a very low daily amount for just about anyone to maintain a good metabolism on except if someone was very petite and mostly inactive.
Where did this come from and why do so many people (especially females) think that this daily number of calories is so important ? I wil just at the risk of jading the answers say that it seems like a very low daily amount for just about anyone to maintain a good metabolism on except if someone was very petite and mostly inactive.
11
Replies
-
It is often used for crash diet plans because it can result in fast weight loss. Diet companies make money off people wanting to lose weight as quickly as possible.
It is around the minimum recommendation for women to eat for weight loss from medical professionals. Places like National Institute of Health say not to go below 1200 unless medically supervised. However even the NIH recommends a slower rate of loss than most people want (10% bodyweight loss over 6 months if I remember correctly).
MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
6 -
Thanks Shadow2soul. Sometimes it seems too that medical professionals do more harm than good when it comes to diet and nutrition advice. And we know for dang sure that the quick fix diet industry gives out bad advice...ugggh1
-
1200 is the minimum number of calories recommended for women (1500 is the minimum number for men). One source for this recommendation: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/calorie-counting-made-easy
You're right that this minimum is not appropriate for most people, although what makes it inappropriate is the fact that getting necessary macro/micronutrients is very hard if you go below this number, putting one at risk of various deficiencies. Also, it is too little energy to sustain basic bodily functions, let alone even everyday activity, unless one is a VERY short, sedentary, and/or older woman. Many people think they fall into this category when they actually do not. 1200 represents an overly aggressive calorie deficit for most people.
One reason why so many people think they need to eat 1200 calories is because they entered a pace of weight loss in MFP that is too aggressive for their stats. MFP's algorithm unfortunately does not warn people that the pace they selected is probably unhealthy for them. It simply puts them at the minimum number of calories the program will allow.
On the other hand, if someone isn't using a food scale, then they're likely eating more than they think they are. So it's pretty common to see people here who claim to be eating 1200 but are actually eating at a more reasonable level.9 -
For me it is because I am 5'2. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day so a very reasonable one pound per week puts me at 1200 calories a day. Probably half of the people talking about this number are in my boat...it's kind of a sucky boat cause 1200 calories is not a lot.
The other half are eating (or trying to eat) what is considered the absolute bare minimum for a woman to survive in order to lost the weight as fast as humanly possible. If the plan is to talk reason into them, good luck with that.14 -
This is actually a very good question. The 1200 calorie number for women seems to have first originated about 100 years ago, in the book "Diet and Health, With Key to the Calories" by Lulu Hunt Peters. In it she claimed that a woman could eat whatever she wanted as long as she ate 1200 calories and still lose weight. At the time it was revolutionary. It was the first book to really promote calorie counting and it was incredibly popular, and was a best seller for years. I am not sure how it went from there to become the "generally recommended safe amount for all women."
The truth is whether 1200 is safe or not varies widely on the woman. A 5 foot sedentary woman is going to have very different calorie needs than a 6 foot active woman. 1200 would likely be appropriate for the first but certainly not for the second. So it's not this universal number that should be followed for all women. Whether it is appropriate depends on a woman's TDEE and therefore how much a deficit 1200 calories would create, as well as how much weight one has to lose.
11 -
Many years ago I capped my calories at 1200 a day on my 6ft frame dropping down to 178lbs. Didn't kill me, nor was I starving 🤷🏾♂️31
-
BasedGawd412 wrote: »Many years ago I capped my calories at 1200 a day on my 6ft frame dropping down to 178lbs. Didn't kill me, nor was I starving 🤷🏾♂️
1200 is never a healthy recommended amount for a male. Just because it didn't kill you doesn't mean that it was good for your health. Even if it didn't cause any negative health effects, that still doesn't mean it was recommended. There are plenty of smokers who live very long lives. Doesn't mean that smoking is fine.24 -
My weightloss is being closely watch by my Dr first off just explaining that first!!
He put me on a thousand calorie diet a month ago, I told him I feel more comfortable between 1300-1400 so thats what I started at, and lost 20lbs in May. My loss has slowed down but now I am very satisfied at a 1100-1200 calories a day. My goal from mfp is 1300 something... I don't feel deprived or starving, I am usually very full. Just pushing more protein and usually between 70oz - 100oz of water a day.
When I go maintenance I am sure my calories will change. Shoot when pain management releases me and I can start boxing, I am sure my calories will change. Meaning go up again.
My stats:
Height: 5'5
Sw:224
Cw:200
Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.
4 -
My stats:
Height: 5'5
Sw:224
Cw:200
Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.
Pretty close, 5'8"
SW: 246
CW: 209
GW: 146
I am eating about 1600kcal/day, shooting for 1+ lbs./week.
How is it going for you? @1991court
0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »My stats:
Height: 5'5
Sw:224
Cw:200
Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.
Pretty close, 5'8"
SW: 246
CW: 209
GW: 146
I am eating about 1600kcal/day, shooting for 1+ lbs./week.
How is it going for you? @1991court
@chris_in_cal
24lbs since May 1st. Doing pretty good. Tappered down to about 2lbs ish a week now. Last 3 weeks though had horrible back pain so thats played a bit in my loss.
I wouldn't go any lower without Dr really watching.1 -
BasedGawd412 wrote: »Many years ago I capped my calories at 1200 a day on my 6ft frame dropping down to 178lbs. Didn't kill me, nor was I starving 🤷🏾♂️
1200 is never a healthy recommended amount for a male. Just because it didn't kill you doesn't mean that it was good for your health. Even if it didn't cause any negative health effects, that still doesn't mean it was recommended. There are plenty of smokers who live very long lives. Doesn't mean that smoking is fine.
How are you quantifying what is good for ones health?
6 -
BasedGawd412 wrote: »Many years ago I capped my calories at 1200 a day on my 6ft frame dropping down to 178lbs. Didn't kill me, nor was I starving 🤷🏾♂️
1200 is never a healthy recommended amount for a male. Just because it didn't kill you doesn't mean that it was good for your health. Even if it didn't cause any negative health effects, that still doesn't mean it was recommended. There are plenty of smokers who live very long lives. Doesn't mean that smoking is fine.
Also, plenty of people think they're eating a lot less than they really are. Underestimating calorie intake and overestimating calorie expenditure is pretty much the horses-not-zebras explanation for women who claim to be netting 1200 calories and not losing weight, so I don't see why it shouldn't be the horses-not-zebras explanation for 6-foot men who claim to get by just fine on 1200 calories without "starving" (by which I assume he meant not feeling really hungry most of the time, since if he meant it literally, the phrase is redundant following "didn't kill me" -- it must mean something other than actually perishing from lack of food).9 -
I think another reason that it comes up here a lot because, as others have said, it's the minimum MFP will recommend for a woman. That means that any women with a TDEE (before adding exercise calories, if doing that) below 2200, will get a goal of 1200 if they aim for a 2lb a week weight loss, anyone with a TDEE below 1950 will get that goal if they put in 2lb or 1.5 lb, anyone with a TDEE below 1700 will get 1200 if they put in 2lb, 1.5lb or 1lb and anyone with a TDEE below 1450 will get 1200 if they enter any weight loss goal at all, including a loss of 0.5 lb a week. So an awful lot of women are being given 1200 as a target, and not even just because they entered a 2lb a week goal.
What that also means, is that for a lot of women, it isn't even a big deficit. It's about a 300 calorie deficit for me, for instance, which isn't extreme.
9 -
Which is why I wish MFP would propose a deficit not exceeding 25% of TDEE if obesse(+) and not exceeding 20% of TDEE otherwise!8
-
Yes, something like that would be a good option if it was possible to have it as a choice. I don't see the point in being able to select a 2lb (or even a 1lb) weight loss if it's unrealistic and in fact MFP actually gives you a calorie amount which isn't related to the rate of weight loss at all. Then people think they are doing wrong when they lose slowly.6
-
I'm on 1200 a day, and I'm weighing my food. I'm 5'8'' and 235lbs. I'm eating plenty of protein and all sorts of vegetables, taking vitamin and mineral supplements just in case, and lifting to maintain muscle (though without any real expectation of progress on the lifting front!).
It might seem like an unhealthy approach to others, but it's better than staying morbidly obese with diabetes and a failing liver. My body really needs the weight to come off, it's not coping. I'm being monitored and all my bloods are improving as the weight comes off.
All our bodies are different, it would be impossible for one upper or lower calorie limit to be the correct one for every body in every situation.13 -
All our bodies are different, it would be impossible for one upper or lower calorie limit to be the correct one for every body in every situation.
yes that is certainly true.
although we can make some broad general statements which are correct - for example that 1200 is not suitable for any 'normal bodied ' men
(that probably isnt best way of putting it - but I mean it could be suitable for a male double amputee - but I presume someone would state if that applied to them)
and 1200 IS suitable for some women - those who are older, shorter, less active.
But not for most women who are not all of the above.
although, yes, under medical supervision a VLCD could be suitable for some morbidly obese people in the short term.3 -
Someone wrote all of our bodies are different and that's true. I do want to emphasize that most of the people stating they are perfectly fine eating 1200 calories are people that have a lot of weight left to lose. When you have a lot of excess body fat, your body can operate on larger deficits because it's using that body fat to sustain itself. It's not that anyone has some magic willpower over someone else, they found a magic combination of macros, they get a perfect amount of nutrients, etc; their high amount of body fat is what is allowing them to sustain that deficit without feeling the detrimental effects. This is why doctors are able to put obese people under VLCDs with little to no issue.7
-
BasedGawd412 wrote: »BasedGawd412 wrote: »Many years ago I capped my calories at 1200 a day on my 6ft frame dropping down to 178lbs. Didn't kill me, nor was I starving 🤷🏾♂️
1200 is never a healthy recommended amount for a male. Just because it didn't kill you doesn't mean that it was good for your health. Even if it didn't cause any negative health effects, that still doesn't mean it was recommended. There are plenty of smokers who live very long lives. Doesn't mean that smoking is fine.
How are you quantifying what is good for ones health?
Very likely, depending on how big of a deficit this represented for you and how long you were in it, you suffered some nutritional deficits and loss of lean muscle mass.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p16 -
-
Age, gender, height, current weight, activity level all need to be considered.1
-
Great read, thanks.
1 -
shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.2 -
Rayvis1014 wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
For some women, 1200 does legitimately reflect their weight loss goal, even if it is relatively small. However, not everyone finds MFP's estimates for them to be perfectly accurate based on their results.
However, the previous poster was just pointing out that many women receive a calorie goal of 1200, not because that corresponds to their weekly weight loss goal, but because that's simply as low as MFP will go. If a person's TDEE is 2000 and they choose a weekly goal of 2 lbs/week, the math would give them a calorie goal of 1000, but MFP will only (rightfully) give them 1200.3 -
Rayvis1014 wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??3 -
Rayvis1014 wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??
I just checked and you're right I had it at sedentary, not lightly active. However, when I set it at 1 lb. a week at lightly active it tells me when I go through my goal setting process that I can only lose .8 lbs. a week on 1200 calories. I changed it to maintenance awhile ago (I eat according to my TDEE).
My only point was that for many people (especially those shorter, lighter, or older than me), 1200 is not necessarily aggressive.
However, I AGREE with you that nobody needs to eat that little. My TDEE is anywhere from 2000-2500 and I'm not even that active (I get between 8,000-12,000 steps). It's just that MFP will often give people 1200 calories who are short or sedentary, even if they don't have an aggressive goal.0 -
Rayvis1014 wrote: »Rayvis1014 wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??
I just checked and you're right I had it at sedentary, not lightly active. However, when I set it at 1 lb. a week at lightly active it tells me when I go through my goal setting process that I can only lose .8 lbs. a week on 1200 calories. I changed it to maintenance awhile ago (I eat according to my TDEE).
My only point was that for many people (especially those shorter, lighter, or older than me), 1200 is not necessarily aggressive.
However, I AGREE with you that nobody needs to eat that little. My TDEE is anywhere from 2000-2500 and I'm not even that active (I get between 8,000-12,000 steps). It's just that MFP will often give people 1200 calories who are short or sedentary, even if they don't have an aggressive goal.
You’re 4 pounds above the optimal BMI range for your height. 1 lb/week is therefore an aggressive goal for you. At this point, 0.5 lb/week is generally a healthier choice.10 -
Rayvis1014 wrote: »Rayvis1014 wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.
Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.
However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??
I just checked and you're right I had it at sedentary, not lightly active. However, when I set it at 1 lb. a week at lightly active it tells me when I go through my goal setting process that I can only lose .8 lbs. a week on 1200 calories. I changed it to maintenance awhile ago (I eat according to my TDEE).
My only point was that for many people (especially those shorter, lighter, or older than me), 1200 is not necessarily aggressive.
However, I AGREE with you that nobody needs to eat that little. My TDEE is anywhere from 2000-2500 and I'm not even that active (I get between 8,000-12,000 steps). It's just that MFP will often give people 1200 calories who are short or sedentary, even if they don't have an aggressive goal.
Oh, absolutely! For some women, 1200 doesn't reflect an aggressive goal at all. However, it's not like MFP assigns that number randomly to short, sedentary women... it's strictly based on the stats and info the user enters and the math required to achieve the stated goal (with a floor of 1200). Most people, though not all, find MFP's estimates to be quite accurate. If yours is that far off, I would venture that you are much more active than your activity setting reflects.0 -
I shared this link earlier for a different reason, but for those who are unsure how MFP calculates a person's calorie goal, there is a nice explanation here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p11 -
"You’re 4 pounds above the optimal BMI range for your height. 1 lb/week is therefore an aggressive goal for you. At this point, 0.5 lb/week is generally a healthier choice."
Thanks for the advice, but I don't actually have a goal set in MFP, I just set it at maintenance and eat according to my TDEE. It's not uncommon to hear that 1lb. a week is a healthy weight loss, so many uninformed people might set their goal at 1 lb. week. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out that MFP gives 1200 as a limit more frequently than people might think. Let me emphasize once again that I THINK 1200 IS TOO LOW.3
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