Isn't 1200 calories too much for a 5ft tall woman?

gail1961

No 125 is not underweight .....i just had to second that.

blue__hydrangea

I have not attempted an increase over 1250 in about 6 months, I always feel silly afterwards because I gain about 2 kg (about 4 pounds) If I go up to 1500.

Gaining 2kg increasing from 1250 to 1500 is not possible. That's water weight. If you really did maintain on exactly 1250 and you increased to exactly 1500 then you COULD gain 2kg but it would take you a little over two months. If you are gaining that amount in any time less than that, then it's water weight, period.

k8blujay2

I'm 5'1.5" and if I ate that little I would murder someone.... I am losing on 1630.

Starting weight and activity levels play a big role. A sedentary 5 foot tall woman can't eat as much as an active 5 foot tall woman and expect the same result. Plus whether you are starting at 200, 150, or 130 (for example) makes a big difference too.

That is for a sedentary person at TDEE-20%. My TDEE is around 2000 calories. Fitbit calculates me burning around 2100 calories even as "sedentary".

love8383

i wonder who it was that decided on the magic number 1200 as the minimum for women. I think if your only 5 ft you could eat a hundred less and see if you lose more, it's not a big deal..i think a lot of shorter people who don't count calories eat less than 1200 without noticing.

blue__hydrangea

i wonder who it was that decided on the magic number 1200 as the minimum for women. I think if your only 5 ft you could eat a hundred less and see if you lose more, it's not a big deal..i think a lot of shorter people who don't count calories eat less than 1200 without noticing.

1200 is the magic number for any grown adult. Our organs need 1200 to get the fuel they need to function properly.

blue__hydrangea

I'm 5'1.5" and if I ate that little I would murder someone.... I am losing on 1630.

Starting weight and activity levels play a big role. A sedentary 5 foot tall woman can't eat as much as an active 5 foot tall woman and expect the same result. Plus whether you are starting at 200, 150, or 130 (for example) makes a big difference too.

That is for a sedentary person at TDEE-20%. My TDEE is around 2000 calories. Fitbit calculates me burning around 2100 calories even as "sedentary".

You must be a much more active sedentary than I am. The TDEE calculators always put me at 1400, maybe 1500 at most. I sleep 8 hours, sit 14, walk 2, do no moderate/intense activity.

aedreana

Our bodies are not equipped to "tell" us our ideal weight! Choosing an arbitrary number such as "1200" isn't going to result in ideal weight for someone with a slow metabolism, especially if they are not a tall person (and therefore have a low ideal weight). Choosing to remain at a higher weight than ideal. just to be able to maintain on 1200, well, is just ludicrous. Eat MORE, if you're maintaining not losing? lmao! And why is that so many on these forums disdain eating less than 1200, yet no one ever mentions the FACT that over-exercising is an unhealthy weight loss practice - ?

paperpudding

Our bodies are not equipped to "tell" us our ideal weight! Choosing an arbitrary number such as "1200" isn't going to result in ideal weight for someone with a slow metabolism, especially if they are not a tall person (and therefore have a low ideal weight). Choosing to remain at a higher weight than ideal. just to be able to maintain on 1200, well, is just ludicrous. Eat MORE, if you're maintaining not losing? lmao! And why is that so many on these forums disdain eating less than 1200, yet no one ever mentions the FACT that over-exercising is an unhealthy weight loss practice - ?

2 wrongs don't make a right - sure, extreme over exercising might not be good for well being - but that doesn't somehow make under eating ok.

1200 is not a magical cut off point - but it is a good guide as a minimum number for adult women within normal body ranges.
Sure, for those people for whom 1200 is appropriate, SLIGHTLY under won't matter matter - like averaging a net amount of 1190 or such like.
And sure, there are extreme outliers for whom less is appropriate - if you are an 80 year old double amputee or a person with dwarfism who is only 3 feet tall - but we are assuming such individuals are not under discussion here.

2BeHappy2

How sure are you about your calorie numbers? I know I couldn't lose weight until I start logging everything. Even though I've lost weight before without it, I found that this time around the weight wasn't coming off. So I started logging, and it helps me stick to a calorie number that actually causes healthy weight loss.

If MFP calculated 1200 for you, and you entered everything in correctly, try logging. You might be shocked at how little 1200 calories actually is.

Love your calorie ticker (Worst Mom 2014!) :laugh:

2BeHappy2

This health calculator puts it at 1336: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

I'm 5'2" and 103lbs. I only have one pound left to lose, but am fine if I lose more down to 98. I'm most comfortable at 100 exactly, but 98-102 is my comfort zone. I've been eating between 1200-1400 calories regularly most days. Some days, with higher exercise or when I was on vacation, it was as much as 2,000 or more....mostly cause of alcohol though on vacation.

At maintenance I plan to eat at around 1500 except on heavy exercise days when I will eat more.

If you want to friend me to see my diary, feel free. I've logged very accurately for the last 2.5 months. But I do tend to eat a vegetarian diet a lot of days.

Oh My!
I am 40 & 4'2, basically the height of a child.
Although a "child" would weigh about 75lbs at this height, I should not!
A healthy weight would be around 90-100lbs...its hard to imagine someone of your height being at "my" healthy weight.

RhineDHP

According to BMI charts, a five-foot tall woman is considered UNDERWEIGHT at 125 pounds. That's why your body is fighting you. Stop punishing it. If you don't like the way you look, focus on toning up, not losing weight.

rubbish.

My bestie is 5'5" and at 125 she's a lean mean fighting machine. (not even kidding on that one- she's some fun colored belt in Brazillian JJ)

There is no way someone 5" shorter is UNDER weight at 125.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.

That poster retracted her statement about the BMI chart several pages back - on second look she realized she had mis read the chart.

People are still commenting on her original comment without realisng this.

And people are still commenting on this thread when the OP wrote it LAST YEAR. Ahh, MFP.

LINIA

Even though she retracted her statement and it was a year ago, it can NEVER be overstated stated that 125 pounds is not a low weight for someone who is 5 feet tall.

RUNNING_AMOK_1958

<

---

I took this picture today. I'm 5'2" tall and today I weighed 130. I can eat 1600 calories a day and still lose at age 56. As for goal weight, as you can see there are many different body types for someone the same height. I tend to be a little muscular and I'm a runner. It's not a one size fits all thing. If you've been doing the same kind of exercise routine for awhile, your body may have adjusted to it. If you changed it up, you might start losing again. Same with food. Your body has probably adjusted to it. Shock it with a cheeseburger and fries and see what happens. Seriously.

RUNNING_AMOK_1958

paperpudding wrote: »

Our bodies are not equipped to "tell" us our ideal weight! Choosing an arbitrary number such as "1200" isn't going to result in ideal weight for someone with a slow metabolism, especially if they are not a tall person (and therefore have a low ideal weight). Choosing to remain at a higher weight than ideal. just to be able to maintain on 1200, well, is just ludicrous. Eat MORE, if you're maintaining not losing? lmao! And why is that so many on these forums disdain eating less than 1200, yet no one ever mentions the FACT that over-exercising is an unhealthy weight loss practice - ?

2 wrongs don't make a right - sure, extreme over exercising might not be good for well being - but that doesn't somehow make under eating ok.

1200 is not a magical cut off point - but it is a good guide as a minimum number for adult women within normal body ranges.
Sure, for those people for whom 1200 is appropriate, SLIGHTLY under won't matter matter - like averaging a net amount of 1190 or such like.
And sure, there are extreme outliers for whom less is appropriate - if you are an 80 year old double amputee or a person with dwarfism who is only 3 feet tall - but we are assuming such individuals are not under discussion here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-herbst/1200-calories_b_4816597.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

runningforthetrain

keep

paperpudding

RUNNING_AMOK_1958 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Our bodies are not equipped to "tell" us our ideal weight! Choosing an arbitrary number such as "1200" isn't going to result in ideal weight for someone with a slow metabolism, especially if they are not a tall person (and therefore have a low ideal weight). Choosing to remain at a higher weight than ideal. just to be able to maintain on 1200, well, is just ludicrous. Eat MORE, if you're maintaining not losing? lmao! And why is that so many on these forums disdain eating less than 1200, yet no one ever mentions the FACT that over-exercising is an unhealthy weight loss practice - ?

2 wrongs don't make a right - sure, extreme over exercising might not be good for well being - but that doesn't somehow make under eating ok.

1200 is not a magical cut off point - but it is a good guide as a minimum number for adult women within normal body ranges.
Sure, for those people for whom 1200 is appropriate, SLIGHTLY under won't matter matter - like averaging a net amount of 1190 or such like.
And sure, there are extreme outliers for whom less is appropriate - if you are an 80 year old double amputee or a person with dwarfism who is only 3 feet tall - but we are assuming such individuals are not under discussion here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-herbst/1200-calories_b_4816597.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

Since you have quoted me, Please explain how the views of that blog writer are relevant to what I posted.

Basilin

This is such an interesting question. Since OP is probably resolved in what she needed to do, I hope it's okay to ask a similar question here.

I am 5'4" and when I don't exercise (mostly sit) all day I feel fine eating 1200 cal/day. I'm 127 lbs (used to be 140). My BMR is about 1300, TDEE about 1600 with no exercise. I feel most comfortable eating 1600 when I am moderately active during the day, and I'm slowly trying to be more active. Is this too low as well? I feel stuffed if I eat more than 1400 cals (depending on the food... high refined carbs can push that number higher).

VanessaCoco

I'm 5ft and was looking to get a lean toned body. Having a slow metabolism it took me a really long time to figure what I actually needed to do to achieve this in a healthy way. I will start off by saying it really is ALL about calories and nutritional value (and exercise). You want to have a really good balance and percentage of carbs, protein, and fat. I have found that 30% carbs, 35% protein, and 35% fat was my magic balance. I started having to really look into the nutritional value of every meal I ate. For example, instead of having a smoothie that consisted on spinach, strawberries, a little yogurt, and water or orange juice, I switched to eating half a cup of of non-fat cottage cheese and a whole apple for breakfast. This has way more protein in it for muscle building and starting off your metabolism, apples for carbs to get the day going, and it doesn't have nearly as much sugar as the smoothie. Calorically I was eating about 1000 calories a day, as well as doing yoga, running, and strength training. Im no expert, and other people might say this is insane and unhealthy. But I will tell you that I did not ever feel that I was eating too little or that I was still so hungry after eating all my meals (I drank a lottt of water during and between meals). I went from 110 pounds to 98 pounds and I was in the best shape Ive ever been. I didn't just lose fat, i actually gained a lot of muscle, I just had way more fat than muscle beforehand. Every person is different, and age also plays a factor (Im 20). You can try things out and only you can tell if it's actually working for your body.

geekyjock76

goalaska wrote: »

I have not attempted an increase over 1250 in about 6 months, I always feel silly afterwards because I gain about 2 kg (about 4 pounds) If I go up to 1500.

Old thread being necrod, but I want to share my input...

It doesn't seem plausible for the OP to be "gaining" fat mass when experiencing an increase in body weight with 1500 calories.

Imagine your body is a "scale." When one supplies enough energy to maintain, you are placing x lbs/kgs of weight in your body daily in the form of food, water, glycogen, etc. Let's just give a normal value of 10.

When you restrict calories, particularly to a large degree, you are significantly decreasing the amount of mass (food, water, glycogen, etc.) your body is holding thus the "scale" reads a much lower number, say 4.

The moment you increase the amount of mass (food, water, glycogen, etc.) you give your body to hold (even at a calorie deficit), the scale may read 7.

In the final scenario, any decrease in fat mass may be masked and actually show an increase in weight (since your last weigh-in) but it should be viewed more as "recovery" of weight because the body isn't as empty.

J72FIT

I would up the exercise. Resistance training is a must. Walking, power or otherwise, is great for health but not as effective for fat loss and muscle building/tone as resistance training. 1500 calories per day sounds about right for you IMO. Get adequate protein, (1.6 grams per kg body weight) and fat, (0.35-0.45 grams per lb body weight.). Fill in the rest with carbs and roll with that. Make sure you get your fiber, 30ish grams per day should suffice.