Only 1200 calories?

farrell1985

Hi all

So I’m currently 210lbs and would like to lose 35lbs. I’m 5’6 and have asked to lose 2lbs a week. I’ve been given a target of 1200 cals a day. That seems a very little amount for someone of my size.

My mum is currently 175lbs and she too has been given a target of 1200 cals a day.

Can that be correct? Should I only be eating 1200 cals a day? I’m worried the weight loss will stop as I won’t be able to decrease my daily calorie intake anymore.

LyndaBSS

It's because you chose an aggressive weight loss of 2 lbs per week. Try 0.5-1 lb per week and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

kimny72

farrell1985 wrote: »

Hi all

So I’m currently 210lbs and would like to lose 35lbs. I’m 5’6 and have asked to lose 2lbs a week. I’ve been given a target of 1200 cals a day. That seems a very little amount for someone of my size.

My mum is currently 175lbs and she too has been given a target of 1200 cals a day.

Can that be correct? Should I only be eating 1200 cals a day? I’m worried the weight loss will stop as I won’t be able to decrease my daily calorie intake anymore.

I'm assuming you also set yourself as sedentary, is that true? You pretty much sit all day?

The mfp calorie goal assumes you will log your exercise and eat back at least some of those calories. So to lose 2 lbs per week, spend all day every day sitting, and doing no exercise, yes you would need to stick to 1200.

With your stats if you are sedentary, you can barely manage to lose 2 lbs per week by eating the absolute minimum. While technically that would be possible for you, it's aggressive. So choose a more moderate goal (1.5 or 1 lb might be a beter odea) and if you truly are completely sedentary, if you're able consider getting up and moving around to burn a few more calories so you can eat even more

Check out the Most Helpful Posts threads pinned to the top of each sub-forum, lots of great info there to understand how to use mfp to your best advantage. Good luck!

farrell1985

Well I have two young children and work in a school so I very rarely sit down to be honest lol. I did set it as sedentary though because I do not engage in ‘typical exercise’. Maybe I’ll have another play around, put down 1.5lbs a week and lightly active and see what it gives me as I do think 1200 is prob too low if my mum is allowed the same and has a lot less to lose than me! I’d prob end up binging eating that little 🙈

SueSueDio

I'm also 5'6" and started at almost 220lbs, and I lost an average of 1lb per week on 1400 calories. I was truly sedentary though - unemployed and barely getting 2000 steps around the house, not doing any purposeful exercise.

You sound as if you should at least be "lightly active", if not more. Any deliberate exercise should be added separately, and you'll be given additional calories to eat for this. Be aware that a lot of these estimates are overstated, so you may want to try only eating 1/2 to 3/4 of those additional calories at first and monitor your weight loss for a while to see what happens.

1200 calories is the lowest amount that MFP will give as a calorie target, even if a person would need to eat less than that to lose at their chosen rate, because it's considered the lowest amount to still enable decent nutrition. That's why you and your mum have been given the same goal.

Eat more, lose slower, be happy. It works!


EDIT to add a little more info.

My weight loss wasn't consistent, but on average it worked out to the 1lb/week I'd asked for. As you lose weight, though, you need to update it in your profile and you'll find that your calorie allowance will drop, because smaller bodies need less calories. Once my weight got low enough that my allowance dropped to barely above 1200 calories, I found that I was too miserable trying to stick to that. I decreased my goal to 1/2lb per week and got a higher goal which I could live with.

For women of our height, 154lbs is the high end of the "healthy" BMI range so once you see some success you might wish to revise your goal. (I did - I started with 160, reduced it to 150 after a few months, then again to 140.) It took me two years to lose about 75lbs, and I have regained some this year due to life stresses so I'm working on finally reaching my goal.

Your goal is entirely up to you though, and if you find that you're happy at 175 and like the way you look, that's fine. (It's below the "obese" BMI line.) If you're like me and think you'll never do it anyway so you're setting the bar low, you might change your mind after a while. Personally, I never thought I'd be aiming for a weight in the 135-140 range, but now I'm sure I can do it if I apply myself to the task.

PAV8888

farrell1985 wrote: »

Well I have two young children and work in a school so I very rarely sit down to be honest lol. I did set it as sedentary though because I do not engage in ‘typical exercise’. Maybe I’ll have another play around, put down 1.5lbs a week and lightly active and see what it gives me as I do think 1200 is prob too low if my mum is allowed the same and has a lot less to lose than me! I’d prob end up binging eating that little 🙈

Well then you're not sedentary, are you?

MFP works differently than most TDEE calculators. They already lump in your exercise into your activity factor. MFP expects you to log your exercise separately and is only considering your daily activities to determine your starting activity factor. (The activity factors are what determine your caloric burn estimates and eating targets after taking into account things such as your current height, weight, age, gender.)

Based on your description you are actually somewhere between lightly active and active. Generally speaking goals of creating a 20% daily deficits (up to 25% while obese) are at the limit of what most of us should be trying to minimize unwanted side effects and maximize benefits.

Try lightly active and a lb or active and a lb and a half to start and see where that gets you after 4-6 weeks of looking at your weight trend!

Your mom is getting 1200 because her desired loss rate is too aggressive for her stats and MFP sets the floor for minimal eating at 1200. She probably also got a little warning that her achievable rate would be less than 2lbs a week.

MamboRumba

What are your meals?

It is all about Food Choices!

Healthy foods tend to be more lower in calories and nutrient dense.

It is possible to eat A LOT of food, get full and meet your nutritional needs in only 1200 calories.


Even something as simple as drinking water can save a few 100’s calories in drinks alone.

Even when you have ‘hungry days’......you just eat a larger portion of chicken, veggies...a bigger salad, etc. This doesn’t mess too much with calories.


Put in your desired food choices in the APP. If you feel you need more food.....then that is your answer. Up your calories a little bit....with healthy food choices.

My daily intake is 1,000- 1,200 calories and sometimes I cannot even eat all my meals. It is all down to my food choices that keep me full.

texasredreb

MamboRumba wrote: »

What are your meals?

It is all about Food Choices!

Healthy foods tend to be more lower in calories and nutrient dense.

It is possible to eat A LOT of food, get full and meet your nutritional needs in only 1200 calories.


Even something as simple as drinking water can save a few 100’s calories in drinks alone.

Even when you have ‘hungry days’......you just eat a larger portion of chicken, veggies...a bigger salad, etc. This doesn’t mess too much with calories.


Put in your desired food choices in the APP. If you feel you need more food.....then that is your answer. Up your calories a little bit....with healthy food choices.

My daily intake is 1,000- 1,200 calories and sometimes I cannot even eat all my meals. It is all down to my food choices that keep me full.

This advice should NOT be followed. There is no such thing as healthy vs unhealthy foods; unless you have an allergy or medical condition. Also, you should never intentionally eat less than 1200 calories/day. You can lose weight eating ANYTHING as long as you maintain you deficit. The rest of the advice you've been given is spot on.

You and your mother should both re-evaluate your goals and set a reasonable deficit. Add exercise if you want to eat more.

minxylicious

Yeah, I'm 5'5", female, lightly active and 175lbs. I've also been given an allowance of 1200 calories to lose 1.5lbs per week. I'm using this app along with weight watchers (the old version, I kept all the stuff) and it tallies up with my points allowance, although I'm more conscious of macros.

Scottgriesser

2lb a week is aggressive but fine with your stats. Your issue is the activity setting. You are not sedentary.

Also, the goal calculators are best guesses based on stats. Some people will have a higher or lower BMR. You have to track your intake/exercise for a few weeks (I'd suggest 6) at least to be able to determine what your actual numbers are.

cheryldumais

My experience was much like @SueSueDio. It took me 2 years to lose the weight and although I was on 1200 calories with a goal of 2.0 pounds a week I averaged about 1.7 at first then 1.3 and so on. Once I got down to 20 pounds to my goal I went to 1300 calories a day and it took me a year to lose that last 20 pounds but it was worth it. I've been maintaining for 2 years and my weight has crept up about 5 (from 143) pounds in that time. I am 5'5" tall and my maintenance range is 145 - 150. I would love to be 135 but I refuse to suffer that much, lol.

kimondo666

texasredreb wrote: »

This advice should NOT be followed. There is no such thing as healthy vs unhealthy foods; unless you have an allergy or medical condition. Also, you should never intentionally eat less than 1200 calories/day. You can lose weight eating ANYTHING as long as you maintain you deficit. The rest of the advice you've been given is spot on.

You and your mother should both re-evaluate your goals and set a reasonable deficit. Add exercise if you want to eat more.

I would oppose that. Heatlhy food as whole unprocessed foods and stuff vs ultra-processed foods. When you eat daily you see a difference while eating them. Legit science research concluded that by eating ultraprocessed you eat more as a result, cause you crave more. They are designed to taste better.

cwolfman13

farrell1985 wrote: »

Well I have two young children and work in a school so I very rarely sit down to be honest lol. I did set it as sedentary though because I do not engage in ‘typical exercise’. Maybe I’ll have another play around, put down 1.5lbs a week and lightly active and see what it gives me as I do think 1200 is prob too low if my mum is allowed the same and has a lot less to lose than me! I’d prob end up binging eating that little 🙈

The activity level descriptors make no mention of exercise...they describe your day to day. If you are on your feet most of the time, you aren't sedentary..you don't have to do purposeful exercise to not be considered sedentary. Without purposeful exercise, I'm still light active and I have a desk job and sit a lot...but when I'm at home I'm on my feet most of the evening helping take care of my boys, cooking, cleaning, pool maintenance, fixing this or that, etc. Sedentary is literally sitting on your *kitten* most of the time.

So for starters, you've incorrectly established your activity level...go by the descriptors, that's what they're there for.

Secondly, you've selected an aggressive weight loss target rate. 2 Lbs per week may not sound like a lot, but it is...and it's a 1,000 calorie deficit from your maintenance calories...so if you maintained on 2200 calories per day, you would obviously get a target of 1,200 calories to lose 2 Lbs per week.

Beyond that, 1200 is the lowest MFP will go, so for many, it doesn't even truly represent a 1,000 calorie deficit...those people would typically be truly sedentary and usually short.

kimondo666

I got 1500kcal update today for 2lbs/ a week so i needed to lower my expectations to 1,5lbs per week. I would feel not so good, on 1750kcal is better instead.

poisonesse

I started my journey at 5'8" and 213 pounds. I was given the same goal, 1200 calories. I did it, and didn't go hungry. So it can be done. You can change your settings... like change the amount per week you want to lose, and it will give you more calories. But you'll also lose slower, which isn't really a bad thing.

LyndaBSS

poisonesse wrote: »

I started my journey at 5'8" and 213 pounds. I was given the same goal, 1200 calories. I did it, and didn't go hungry. So it can be done. You can change your settings... like change the amount per week you want to lose, and it will give you more calories. But you'll also lose slower, which isn't really a bad thing.

I started at 1200 calories for a 2 lb/week loss and was hungry so almost immediately switched it to 1370 calories for a 1 lb/week loss. That small amount of extra calories made a huge difference for me at the beginning. I felt satiated and still averaged 2.5 lbs a week loss. Go figure. 😁

Danp

kimondo666 wrote: »

texasredreb wrote: »

This advice should NOT be followed. There is no such thing as healthy vs unhealthy foods; unless you have an allergy or medical condition. Also, you should never intentionally eat less than 1200 calories/day. You can lose weight eating ANYTHING as long as you maintain you deficit. The rest of the advice you've been given is spot on.

You and your mother should both re-evaluate your goals and set a reasonable deficit. Add exercise if you want to eat more.

I would oppose that. Heatlhy food as whole unprocessed foods and stuff vs ultra-processed foods. When you eat daily you see a difference while eating them. Legit science research concluded that by eating ultraprocessed you eat more as a result, cause you crave more. They are designed to taste better.

When it comes to weight loss it's all about the calorie deficit regardless of where those calories come from. Are there more nutritious foods? For sure, an apple is going to provide you with more of the nutrients you need than a cookie but when it comes to weight loss they're equivalent as long as the number of apple calories is the same as the number of cookie calories.

The thing is, getting the nutrients you need isn't a difficult thing to do. If your diet consists of something that vaguely resembles something that could be remotely be described as a variety of food (regardless of how "ultraprocessed" it is) you'll be getting what you need.

One thing I've found about this forum which is great is that unsubstantiated claims are rightly met with distrust and derision. If you're going to talk about 'legit science research' and don't want what your claim to be instantly dismissed as bunkum, then you need to provide links to the 'legit peer reviewed research papers' to back it up. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

kimondo666

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487 here is the link to the study. Danp. Ofc in terms of determined weight losing person it does not matter, but untrained person at first time loss atempt, quite the contrary.

tinkerbellang83

kimondo666 wrote: »

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487 here is the link to the study. Danp. Ofc in terms of determined weight losing person it does not matter, but untrained person at first time loss atempt, quite the contrary.

Small study and bearing in mind the following: "During each diet phase, the subjects were presented with three daily meals and were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Up to 60 min was allotted to consume each meal." I am not sure that conclusively proves anything.

WinoGelato

OP others have already chimed in about adjusting your activity level as well as your rate of loss and ensuring that if you do exercise, you log and eat back those calories. Whatever goal you get from MFP is a NEAT goal that doesn’t include purposeful exercise. You may find that “earning” more calories is a good motivator early on in your plan, and then adapt to find that exercise is just part of your daily routine. That’s what happened for me.

Also wanted to add that MOST people don’t need to go as low as 1200 calories to lose unless very petite, very Sedentary, and/or already at a fairly healthy weight. With your stats I would bet you can eat more and still lose - so change those settings, choose 1-1.5 lb/week and get started. One other important factor that I haven’t seen mentioned is logging your intake accurately - ideally using a food scale. This will help give you reliable data that you can then use to adjust your goals, also assess which foods do fill you up and which are not as satiating.

Good luck!

WinoGelato

kimondo666 wrote: »

texasredreb wrote: »

This advice should NOT be followed. There is no such thing as healthy vs unhealthy foods; unless you have an allergy or medical condition. Also, you should never intentionally eat less than 1200 calories/day. You can lose weight eating ANYTHING as long as you maintain you deficit. The rest of the advice you've been given is spot on.

You and your mother should both re-evaluate your goals and set a reasonable deficit. Add exercise if you want to eat more.

I would oppose that. Heatlhy food as whole unprocessed foods and stuff vs ultra-processed foods. When you eat daily you see a difference while eating them. Legit science research concluded that by eating ultraprocessed you eat more as a result, cause you crave more. They are designed to taste better.

What about an overall balanced diet that doesn’t differentiate between the level of processing that a food has in order to see if it qualifies? What’s wrong with things like Greek yogurt, steel cut oats, baby carrots, protein powder, etc? These are all highly processed foods yet can be staples in a nutrient dense diet. Including things like a serving of ice cream after a dinner of baked fish, rice and asparagus - does the ice cream negate the nutrition in the meal? Why is it assumed that people can’t exhibit control over these things and just eat an appropriate portion without going to excess?

Any response that uses the phrase “legit science research” seems, well, not that grounded in actual peer reviewed scientific studies.

Sure food manufacturers try to make their foods taste good so that people eat more. When you cook a meal at home for friends don’t you want it to taste good so they enjoy the experience?

deannalfisher

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

kimondo666 wrote: »

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487 here is the link to the study. Danp. Ofc in terms of determined weight losing person it does not matter, but untrained person at first time loss atempt, quite the contrary.

Small study and bearing in mind the following: "During each diet phase, the subjects were presented with three daily meals and were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Up to 60 min was allotted to consume each meal." I am not sure that conclusively proves anything.

My issue with studies like this is that it doesn't address other variables - sleep, exercise etc

there is research (presented in Why We Sleep) that says people who sleep less tend to blindly eat more food, in general that is ultraprocessed - it was a similar scenario - put a group of sleep deprived folks in a room with ultra-processed vs. whole food options and they tended to graviate towards the ultra-processed. The same could be said for exercising - i know after i have a heavy workout i crave nothing more than a donut or something sugary - so if presented that vs. whole food - i'd probably go with the donut

kimondo666

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Small study and bearing in mind the following: "During each diet phase, the subjects were presented with three daily meals and were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Up to 60 min was allotted to consume each meal." I am not sure that conclusively proves anything.

That proves that people want to eat more when they consume ultra processed food, contrary to eating less on low-processed. So eating less processed help to eat less. Ofc you can eat ultra processed and still eat at deficit if you weight it and log like in MFP. It just take willpower and determination.

"Why is it assumed that people can’t exhibit control over these things and just eat an appropriate portion without going to excess?" I did not claim that, just that for common people it far easier to eat unprocessed and lose weight than to eat ultraprocessed and do the same.

tinkerbellang83

kimondo666 wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Small study and bearing in mind the following: "During each diet phase, the subjects were presented with three daily meals and were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Up to 60 min was allotted to consume each meal." I am not sure that conclusively proves anything.

That proves that people want to eat more when they consume ultra processed food, contrary to eating less on low-processed. So eating less processed help to eat less. Ofc you can eat ultra processed and still eat at deficit if you weight it and log like in MFP. It just take willpower and determination.

"Why is it assumed that people can’t exhibit control over these things and just eat an appropriate portion without going to excess?" I did not claim that, just that for common people it far easier to eat unprocessed and lose weight than to eat ultraprocessed and do the same.

That doesn't prove anything of the sort, all it proves is that there was not any real control over the calorie intake of the study.

I found it quite easy to lose weight eating a mixture of both, I don't think that's unusual.

kimondo666

for someone that is good/average at controlling oneself, no. But for someone more susceptible this could be a problem. Someone without good habits about eating. Disregarding mindset which can boost your ability to control. I am talking about people that starts dieting, for them when you say them that there is no healthy food, they can junk food - cause if there is no difference then why bother to eat whole unprocessed ones. I think we are talking oranges and apples here. I dont disregard CICO here. It works. Some food just can be more helpful.

estherdragonbat

Honestly, you learn relatively soon which foods help you feel fuller longer. I'd struggle to meet my protein and iron more if it weren't for veggie dogs and other vegetarian meat analogs. Not to say I don't make plenty of stuff from scratch or semi-scratch, but processed foods aren't the same as junk foods aren't the same as unhealthy foods aren't the same as food devoid of nutrients.

A varied diet that includes nutrient dense foods and indulgences has been key for me. Obviously the indulgences aren't my dietary staples, but I find room for them. Made fudge last week (88 calories for a 19g square). Made angel food cake with peach-and-plum salsa this week (150 calories for 1/12th of it). It works.

WinoGelato

kimondo666 wrote: »

for someone that is good/average at controlling oneself, no. But for someone more susceptible this could be a problem. Someone without good habits about eating. Disregarding mindset which can boost your ability to control. I am talking about people that starts dieting, for them when you say them that there is no healthy food, they can junk food - cause if there is no difference then why bother to eat whole unprocessed ones. I think we are talking oranges and apples here. I dont disregard CICO here. It works. Some food just can be more helpful.

So are you suggesting that if a person had trouble moderating their intake, they should cut out all ultra processed foods?

Sure, some people find it difficult to moderate certain trigger foods and for them total abstinence from those foods may be a viable solution but why the extreme approach? Do you think a person can’t be healthy and satiated if this would be a typical day?

Breakfast: Coffee with flavored creamer, Greek yogurt, berries and packaged granola
Lunch: frozen meal (sometimes with an added serving of protein or veggies but also both from convenience prepackaged source)
Snack: baby carrots and hummus (both processed and purchased convenient foods)
Dinner: sautéed shrimp, bag of frozen veggies, instant rice
Dessert: Small serving of ice cream

This day is almost all “processed” foods and a typical day of food for me when I’m on a busy schedule yet I don’t feel undesirable control to keep eating, nor do I feel this is a non-nutritious day.

You’re concerned about telling people there’s no difference between eating Whole Foods and junk foods (which for the record no one is saying)but there is such a wide spectrum it’s really unhelpful, in my opinion to use such generalizations as “processed = bad” and “whole = good”. For as many people as you’re concerned will eat a diet of entirely junk food if you tell them it’s ok to still include these foods, if you tell people that those foods are automatically “bad”, they may decide to never even attempt to lose weight and take on the healthier lifestyle if they believe they will never eat chips, fast food, pizza or ice cream again.

SueSueDio

WinoGelato wrote: »

You’re concerned about telling people there’s no difference between eating Whole Foods and junk foods (which for the record no one is saying)but there is such a wide spectrum it’s really unhelpful, in my opinion to use such generalizations as “processed = bad” and “whole = good”. For as many people as you’re concerned will eat a diet of entirely junk food if you tell them it’s ok to still include these foods, if you tell people that those foods are automatically “bad”, they may decide to never even attempt to lose weight and take on the healthier lifestyle if they believe they will never eat chips, fast food, pizza or ice cream again.

This would have been me, had I not learned that I could still have chocolate, pizza and other foods I loved AND lose weight.

I do eat more healthily than I used to, as a result of realising how many calories are in certain foods - some of those I rarely eat now because they're not worth the calories to me any more, some I still have but in much smaller portions. I've also learned to cook more meals from scratch and I don't rely on convenience foods as much as I used to, but I do still use many "processed" food items. I don't feel that my overall diet is unhealthy because of it.

Whenever a processed food makes me feel like I want more of it, it's almost always something like cake or cookies because I have a sweet tooth - I never crave an extra portion of baked beans or additional fish sticks! But I've learned to moderate my sweet treats for the most part, so that I can still enjoy them without piling on the pounds.

(Also, I feel that it's worth pointing out (if no one already did so) that it's entirely possible to become fat eating only "whole" foods, if you eat too much of them, just as it is when eating too much fast food.)

kimondo666

indeed i have oversimplified stuff, i have no problem with eating processed myself(i get a mix of both) as i can regulate that into calorie goal. Just there is clear difference between those food. Ya cant blindside yourself, just be aware of it. Ofc there is difference between processed and ultra-processed. Like in the life, being on the end spectrum of things can be tricky. Getting wholefoods and stuffing yourself leading to gain as you are saying or being bored of food after wholefood. Other spectrum stuffing yourself with pizza, chips and others. Just be aware.