Calories

Francesca_janwick

What’s it with 1200 ?? Is it too much or too little

Lietchi

For most women it's too little, unless older/very short/very sedentary. But without knowing anything about you or your goals or the context of your question, it's hard to answer.

Wynterbourne

It's basically the number cited as an absolute minimum number for woman, but as already stated, it's actually usually too little for any woman that isn't completely sedentary.

MsCzar

YMMV. For me, 1200 is the magic number at which I lose weight. If I drift much above that, the numbers on the scale stay stuck. I'm older, 5' 4" and except for 30 minutes of jogging in place on a small trampoline most days, I am mostly sedentary.

littlegreenparrot1

For me it's not enough, I'd be chewing my arm off by day 2. Then will scoff everything I can get my hands on which ends up being a lot.

I do much better with a larger daily target that I can stick to and feel ok on. I don't do well if I'm hungry and miserable.

FWIW I'm 5'6 and very active. But I am deliberately going for a slow downward trend of weight loss as that's more sustainable for me.

There are a lot of variables, best bet is to try a calorie target for a few weeks and see how you go.

yirara

I'd chew my arm off on that, and then the wallpaper. I'm somewhat older and mostly sedentary with some exercise in the evening on 5 days or so. On those days I maintain at around 2100 calories. Thus if I were to eat 1200 calories I'd nearly lose 2lbs per week - which would be very little fat but lots of muscle mass instead. Or more likely go on a binge within 3 days.

Joy1580vb

I find 1200 is right for me to lose weight. I'm 72, female and I would say a bit active. Try to get out and walk as my form of exercise every day. I have a dog so that helps motivate me as he loves long walks.

AnnPT77

At age 67, F, 5'5", weight currently around 130 pounds, sedentary outside of intentional exercise,
I'd lose over a pound a week if I ate 1200 plus all of my carefully estimated exercise calories. It wouldn't be my healthiest option to lose that fast. Maintenance is around 2000 (varies seasonally) plus exercise calories.

Warning: Although it was a one-liner question that frankly felt like a toss-off, this is not a one-liner answer.

Yeah, 1200 is likely to be way too little for a lot of women, but not all. Those who need to eat that little are likely to be smaller (some combo of short and not all that overweight), older, less active, with a history of inactivity or yo-yo dieting, and that sort of thing. But it's completely individual, with exceptions on either side of it. (I'm older and not all that big, but 1200 gross intake at my current size would not be even remotely health-positive . . . for me).

There's a lot of mythology around 1200, especially for women, though:

* There's some cultural history that it's somehow delicate and feminine to eat tiny amounts, mostly cute little leafy things, not much meat.
* There's some cultural pressure and internalized guilt/shame that leads people to subconsciously behave as if being overweight were a sin that needs to expiated by suffering - ultra-low calories for fast loss, punitively intense, miserable exercise.
* In some social circles, ultra-low calories and extreme restrictive diets become a means of social bonding: Friend sets that talk about how "good" they're being, how "bad" it was to have that beer or eat that cake, share and commiserate about all those details. It's social.
* For years, pre-calorie-counting-apps, doctors habitually handed out 1200 calorie diet plans, probably with the assumption that no one would really comply or count properly, so the plan should low-ball to compensate.
* On top of that, most of us are impatient, and quick to fall for "lose weight fast and get it over with". (Genuine weight management, for people like me with a tendency to overweight, is a lifelong endeavor. It's good habits forever, not quick so-called results then "go back to normal." That latter is a recipe for yo-yos).

That's stuff pushing toward 1200 for all, is all BS.

Better, assuming calorie counting:

Pick a weight loss goal rate that's 0.5% of your current weight per week **, up to 1% if so obese that your weight is inherently a health threat in itself. (If losing faster, one should be under close medical supervision, like routine blood tests frequently, to watch for negative consequences.) Half a percent a week would be half a pound per hundred pounds of body weight, i.e., if I weighed 150 pounds, up to 0.75 pounds a week. (Slower is fine. Slow loss one can stick with results in more weight loss, faster in calendar terms, than some extreme that only lasts for a week.)

Pick a tracking method: You can use MFP to get a calorie goal, then carefully estimate exercise calories when you do exercise, and eat those calories back, too. (You can eat those calories the same day, or within a few days, but do eat them.) Alternatively, you can use a TDEE calculator outside MFP, and average in your planned exercise****. (Be sure to actually do the exercise, or this will not work well.)

Follow that calorie goal and method, pretty much no matter what happens, for 4-6 weeks. Use your average weekly weight change over that time period to personalize your calorie goal, using the assumption that 500 calories daily is roughly one pound of fat change. If female, adult, not in menopause, compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles, because hormonal water fluctuation can be weird. (One exception to "follow the method for 4-6 weeks": If you feel weak and fatigued sooner than that, alongside losing weight unexpectedly fast after the first week, eat more.)

That will work. What matters is your calorie needs, not someone else's calorie needs (even if they're the same size/age/etc.) You may want to lose weight, but most people also want to stay healthy, happy and energetic while doing that. Bonus points if you learn new, happy habits along the way that can continue almost on autopilot to keep you at a healthy weight permanently.

** maybe 10-15% of your TDEE if you use the TDEE method.
**** This one is better than average, because it has more activity levels with better descriptions, and lets you compare multiple research-based estimating formulas. (The user interface is a little complicated looking at first, but patience with this pays off.):

https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

Also, read this and give it a hard think:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1

paperpudding

Several posters mentioned being sedentary except for xyz exercise.

so just pointing out that 1200 is the minimum recomended NET level - ie 1200 plus eat back the excercise calories.

Personal N=1 - woman in her 50's. almost 5 ft 4 in tall, lightly active - I lost on 1460 net.