Is 1200 calories safe??

Pittgirl3

How big are you now (height/weight), and how fast did you tell MFP you want to lose?

MFP doesn't recommend a calorie level out of the blue. It recommends a calorie level based on how fast we say we want to lose. It'll let a person choose punitively fast, unsustainable loss rates. (I'm not saying you did that: I don't know, which is why I asked the questions in the first paragraph.)

The only brakes MFP applies is that it won't give women a goal below 1200. Clearly, if you got 1236, you didn't hit that limit.

Most people will find a loss rate less than 1% of current body weigh per week more sustainable, and a slower rate than that can be more risk-averse for someone with relatively little to lose - less than 40-50 pounds, say. [/quote]

I’m 5’6, probably between 230-240lbs (I haven’t checked it in months because I’m too embarrassed). I’m also home during quarantine so that’s probably why my suggested calories are so low. I had to change my activity level to sedentary.

I’m also trying to get back down to the 100s by the end of the year, so I’m trying to get the most out of my weight loss (about 2lbs a week) Once I get back into the gym, I know I can make more happen. I gained a lot of weight during a pretty bad depressive episode, so I’m trying to get things back on track. I’m young and have always been an athlete, so I don’t plan on this being long term, just until I get back to some semblance of normalcy.

AnnPT77

Pittgirl3 wrote: »

How big are you now (height/weight), and how fast did you tell MFP you want to lose?

MFP doesn't recommend a calorie level out of the blue. It recommends a calorie level based on how fast we say we want to lose. It'll let a person choose punitively fast, unsustainable loss rates. (I'm not saying you did that: I don't know, which is why I asked the questions in the first paragraph.)

The only brakes MFP applies is that it won't give women a goal below 1200. Clearly, if you got 1236, you didn't hit that limit.

Most people will find a loss rate less than 1% of current body weigh per week more sustainable, and a slower rate than that can be more risk-averse for someone with relatively little to lose - less than 40-50 pounds, say.

I’m 5’6, probably between 230-240lbs (I haven’t checked it in months because I’m too embarrassed). I’m also home during quarantine so that’s probably why my suggested calories are so low. I had to change my activity level to sedentary.

I’m also trying to get back down to the 100s by the end of the year, so I’m trying to get the most out of my weight loss (about 2lbs a week) Once I get back into the gym, I know I can make more happen. I gained a lot of weight during a pretty bad depressive episode, so I’m trying to get things back on track. I’m young and have always been an athlete, so I don’t plan on this being long term, just until I get back to some semblance of normalcy.

You're probably OK at 2 pounds a week, then, though if the "starving" thing wasn't hyperbole, I'd consider a slower course. It can take a couple of weeks to adapt to new eating habits, but if things stay white-knuckle difficult, then sometimes going slower can be more sustainable, and result in reaching goal weight faster, if the alternative is on/off plan cycles. I'm not saying you're there, or even going there, but something to keep in mind.

Wishing you much success!

P.S. If the actual rate of loss turns out to be greater than expected, or you start feeling weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, I'd press these questions harder. I'm admittedly a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner for some reason, but at 5'5", 130, age 64, sedentary outside of exercise, 1200 would still be way too low for me - I'd lose close to two pounds a week, even eating back exercise on top of the 1200. As a long-term athlete, it's possible you could turn out to have a higher TDEE than demographics might predict, so it's something to look out for. As long as actual loss rate stays moderate, you're probably OK, though.

Pittgirl3

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Pittgirl3 wrote: »

How big are you now (height/weight), and how fast did you tell MFP you want to lose?

MFP doesn't recommend a calorie level out of the blue. It recommends a calorie level based on how fast we say we want to lose. It'll let a person choose punitively fast, unsustainable loss rates. (I'm not saying you did that: I don't know, which is why I asked the questions in the first paragraph.)

The only brakes MFP applies is that it won't give women a goal below 1200. Clearly, if you got 1236, you didn't hit that limit.

Most people will find a loss rate less than 1% of current body weigh per week more sustainable, and a slower rate than that can be more risk-averse for someone with relatively little to lose - less than 40-50 pounds, say.

I’m 5’6, probably between 230-240lbs (I haven’t checked it in months because I’m too embarrassed). I’m also home during quarantine so that’s probably why my suggested calories are so low. I had to change my activity level to sedentary.

I’m also trying to get back down to the 100s by the end of the year, so I’m trying to get the most out of my weight loss (about 2lbs a week) Once I get back into the gym, I know I can make more happen. I gained a lot of weight during a pretty bad depressive episode, so I’m trying to get things back on track. I’m young and have always been an athlete, so I don’t plan on this being long term, just until I get back to some semblance of normalcy.

You're probably OK at 2 pounds a week, then, though if the "starving" thing wasn't hyperbole, I'd consider a slower course. It can take a couple of weeks to adapt to new eating habits, but if things stay white-knuckle difficult, then sometimes going slower can be more sustainable, and result in reaching goal weight faster, if the alternative is on/off plan cycles. I'm not saying you're there, or even going there, but something to keep in mind.

Wishing you much success!

P.S. If the actual rate of loss turns out to be greater than expected, or you start feeling weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, I'd press these questions harder. I'm admittedly a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner for some reason, but at 5'5", 130, age 64, sedentary outside of exercise, 1200 would still be way too low for me - I'd lose close to two pounds a week, even eating back exercise on top of the 1200. As a long-term athlete, it's possible you could turn out to have a higher TDEE than demographics might predict, so it's something to look out for. As long as actual loss rate stays moderate, you're probably OK, though.

Thanks. That was super helpful! Definitely some things to consider.

paperpudding

foxtrot1965 wrote: »

I think it depends on numerous things. If someone was completely sedentary, there wouldn't be a need for more than 1200 calories.

If someone were sedentary and female and smaller and older - then yes, 1200 can be the right net calorie amount

It is suitable for some people.

csplatt

I don't lose weight too quickly on 1300 cals and it's probably because my logging isn't perfect, so I don't overthink the number. If I find I'm tired or hungry, I eat more.

searchgal1

MFP gives me 1200 calories for any rate of weight loss. It increases to 1340 only if I say I want to maintain my current weight. I'm only 5'2" and am active - exercising almost daily for at least 1 hour; sometimes more. I eat back my exercise calories, but most days not all of them. My weight loss has stalled for the last couple months. I've lost 20-22 pounds, depending on the day. I only have 4-5 more pounds to go, but I just don't know what to do to get there. I don't think I can go lower than 1200. As it is, that's hard to stick to. I'm afraid to increase calories because I gain weight just thinking about food. Is that irrational?? Can managing macros make a difference? I just manage the calories in/calories out, without paying much attention to anything else.

kimny72

searchgal1 wrote: »

MFP gives me 1200 calories for any rate of weight loss. It increases to 1340 only if I say I want to maintain my current weight. I'm only 5'2" and am active - exercising almost daily for at least 1 hour; sometimes more. I eat back my exercise calories, but most days not all of them. My weight loss has stalled for the last couple months. I've lost 20-22 pounds, depending on the day. I only have 4-5 more pounds to go, but I just don't know what to do to get there. I don't think I can go lower than 1200. As it is, that's hard to stick to. I'm afraid to increase calories because I gain weight just thinking about food. Is that irrational?? Can managing macros make a difference? I just manage the calories in/calories out, without paying much attention to anything else.

Five lbs is within the margin of error and daily weight fluctuations. It's best at this point to ignore the scale as best you can, as you might only see the scale go down permanently by a 1 lb every month or two.

How careful is your logging? If you aren't double checking that the database entries you're choosing match the food labels, if you're not using a food scale, and if you're not logging every day it's quite possible you're eating more than you think.

As far as your mfp goal, I would double check your setup - make sure your height, weight, and activity level are correct. Unless you are already drastically underweight, at 5'2 and active your maintenance is well over 1340.

Strudders67

searchgal1 wrote: »

MFP gives me 1200 calories for any rate of weight loss. It increases to 1340 only if I say I want to maintain my current weight. I'm only 5'2" and am active - exercising almost daily for at least 1 hour; sometimes more. I eat back my exercise calories, but most days not all of them. My weight loss has stalled for the last couple months. I've lost 20-22 pounds, depending on the day. I only have 4-5 more pounds to go, but I just don't know what to do to get there. I don't think I can go lower than 1200. As it is, that's hard to stick to. I'm afraid to increase calories because I gain weight just thinking about food. Is that irrational?? Can managing macros make a difference? I just manage the calories in/calories out, without paying much attention to anything else.

I'm the same. I assume that you have your Activity Level set to Sedentary and that when you say you're active you're referring to your exercise which you log separately. All I can say is that it's slow going. My scales showed same weight, same weight, same weight, same weight, ooh I've dropped a bit - because the tiny adjustments just weren't showing up. With a deficit of only 130, your logging, both for calories in and exercise, has to be totally accurate and it doesn't take much to be eating at maintenance. Not weighing something, not logging something that you picked at in the middle of the day, using a wrongly entered database entry, overestimating how many minutes your walk or run was - it's very easy to wipe out those 130 cals. On the plus side, this is pretty much what maintenance is going to look like so you're getting plenty of practice. Very very slowly, those last few pounds will fade away.

searchgal1

I have logged for the past 190 days! I am fanatical about it. I have plugged my own recipes in to get accurate calorie counts per serving. I am looking for a food scale - I use the old WW measures for serving sizes if I am eating something that is not labeled or doesn't fit into a measuring cup. One thing might be off - when I put info into the goal set up tool in MFP, I have said that I'm sedentary, since all of the descriptions seem to relate to work, e.g. sitting at a desk; always on your feet; etc. I'm retired, so although active, I'm not on my feet all day, not doing heavy lifting. I will play with that and see how the numbers change. I like the thought that I might get more than 1340 calories in maintenance! Combined with exercise points, that would give me a lot more freedom.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! Appreciate the help.

tradercourt1

CONGRATULATIONS you must feel fantastic! I totally understand the frustration of a plateau, but I think you should also consider that at this point you are continuing to build muscle and tone up as you lose this last little bit - I would hazard a guess that you are still losing that little bit of excess fat and becoming more fit and tone as you do so. Don't worry too much about the numbers here - just keep up the great work. Your success is very inspirational!