Is 1200 calories enough for me?

AlishaBaxmann

A lot of you have said that I'm a healthy weight for my height and that I don't have much weight to lose. Of course, in my mind, I see myself as needing to lose lots of weight and stuff (because I'm insecure and just hate my body right now.)

The problem to me is not the number on the scale, it's how it looks on me. I have love handles, a chubby tummy, large thighs and D boobs. I used to be a tiny girl, I still am considered small but the way I'm carrying the weight is not attractive in my opinion. I hate how it looks on me. I recently bought a goal dress (bad, I probably shouldn't do that to myself) and it's tight to my body but not tight enough to suck in anything. Meaning, every bump shows. If you guys want ... I can post a picture of myself wearing the dress? It's going to be embarassing but I'll just edit the post and delete it later on. I just want you guys to see what I'm talking about.

neandermagnon

A lot of you have said that I'm a healthy weight for my height and that I don't have much weight to lose. Of course, in my mind, I see myself as needing to lose lots of weight and stuff (because I'm insecure and just hate my body right now.)

How you feel about your body doesn't change how it reacts from a physiology point of view

The problem to me is not the number on the scale, it's how it looks on me. I have love handles, a chubby tummy, large thighs and D boobs. I used to be a tiny girl, I still am considered small but the way I'm carrying the weight is not attractive in my opinion. I hate how it looks on me.

How old were you when you were "tiny"? Because most women don't stop developing until they're around 16-18 years old. When grown women envy the bodies of adolescents, then there's a problem. You're a woman now, you have a woman's body, you're not going to look the same as you did when you were an adolescent. So maybe you have more curves now. Some women have a more curvy body type than others. Own it, show off those curves, because they are very attractive. (less curvy women are also attractive, the trick is knowing how to dress for your type, and to be fit and healthy so you look good naked too).

That's not to say that you can't lower your body fat percentage and still be healthy (I couldn't say one way or another without knowing your body fat percentage). Just be aware that if you're trying to look like you did when you were an adolescent, then it's not a realistic goal and IMO it's a pretty tragic reflection of society if grown women want to look like adolescents.

Also bear in mind that models etc in magazines are all airbrushed. That means that the models don't look like the pictures of them in the magazines. If even magazine models don't look like that, then it's not a realistic goal to aim towards. And even if the pics are un-photoshopped, you may not be able to look like specific models, if you don't have the same body type. It's best to aim to be a fit, healthy, lean version of yourself, and if your body type is curvy, then own those curves and show them off.

So consider what you are trying to achieve here, before you even start dieting in the first place. If what you're trying to achieve is realistic, then the next question is how to achieve that look. For most people who are already at a healthy weight for their height, dieting is not the way to achieve the look they want. Usually training in the gym, gaining some muscle and eating more is the way to do it. Whether you need to eat at a surplus (more than you burn off) at maintenance or at a deficit (less than you burn off) depends on your current body fat percentage and what body fat percentage you need to be at to achieve the look you want to achieve. But unfortunately the response in nearly all healthy women who have some flabby bits they don't like (or just imagine they have flabby bits and actually don't) is to diet and lose weight.... like that's going to magically give them the body they want when they hit a number on the scale. (or even if they're not aiming at a specific number, they think it'll happen when they get light enough) It doesn't work like that. How you look comes from body fat percentage and having strong, firm muscles to keep your flesh firm, rather than flabby.

I recently bought a goal dress (bad, I probably shouldn't do that to myself) and it's tight to my body but not tight enough to suck in anything. Meaning, every bump shows. If you guys want ... I can post a picture of myself wearing the dress? It's going to be embarassing but I'll just edit the post and delete it later on. I just want you guys to see what I'm talking about.

I'd be willing to bet that you look fantastic in the dress and the "lumpy bits" are either curves that you're supposed to have, or they're grossly exaggerated in your mind.

t1954

I have been eating 1200 or less for over 16 months and I am 6'3" tall. I never eat back my exercise calories. I am doing just fine on those calories. That question usually stirs up the controversy.

neandermagnon

I have been eating 1200 or less for over 16 months and I am 6'3" tall. I never eat back my exercise calories. I am doing just fine on those calories. That question usually stirs up the controversy.

you're nearly 60 though, which will make your metabolism slower, but even so it's likely to be too little for a tall man.

a word of caution though, at your age you need to be looking after your bone density and muscle mass. 1200 cals/day is likely to result in loss of lean mass (the older you are, the greater the risk of this), and loss of bone density is likely to go along with it. This advice applies to young people too, in fact, but a lot of the physical problems of aging are caused by loss of lean mass and bone density, and this process can be slowed down drastically by training and eating right.... and also sped up drastically by training and eating wrong. So maybe you're doing just fine now.... but you could be storing up a whole bunch of problems that won't strike for five or ten years.

If you've done the maths and you're certain you're eating enough to protect your lean mass and bone density, then fine. But those things are often ignored, as people don't look at the long term consequences of eating too little, they just see it as "I don't feel that hungry, I don't feel tired, I'm losing weight on the scale, so I don't see what the problem is"

peleroja

A lot of you have said that I'm a healthy weight for my height and that I don't have much weight to lose. Of course, in my mind, I see myself as needing to lose lots of weight and stuff (because I'm insecure and just hate my body right now.)

The problem to me is not the number on the scale, it's how it looks on me. I have love handles, a chubby tummy, large thighs and D boobs. I used to be a tiny girl, I still am considered small but the way I'm carrying the weight is not attractive in my opinion. I hate how it looks on me. I recently bought a goal dress (bad, I probably shouldn't do that to myself) and it's tight to my body but not tight enough to suck in anything. Meaning, every bump shows. If you guys want ... I can post a picture of myself wearing the dress? It's going to be embarassing but I'll just edit the post and delete it later on. I just want you guys to see what I'm talking about.

Go ahead and post it if you feel comfortable. What matters, though, is how you feel about your body. If you're not happy with your body at this weight (and yeah, if you're small framed it is possible that you might have a bit to lose if you want) then no one should make you feel bad for wanting to lose. A few pounds under 125 at your height isn't going to make you unhealthy or underweight. Obviously you don't have more than a few pounds to lose, but even so, all these people who say "you're fine already!" aren't the ones whose opinions matter here.

WalkingAlong

I think you're like a half point from "overweight" BMI, so I don't think you need to justify wanting to lose some.

AlishaBaxmann

Just wanted to say thank you again to all of you for taking the time to reply!

Can I just say that I love this website? I thought I'd last on this website for maybe 2 days then call it quits and sit around being sad for myself and eat a tub of icecream. The support is awesome. So thank you

nfgchick79

NO. It is not enough (in my opinion)

Here's the deal, at least this is my experience. I am 5'0" currently around 112. I started at 134 and my lowest weight was 106. I gained a bit due to some medical problems (I'm totally fine for now at 112). I started at 1200 calories with working out a LOT. I lost some weight but stalled multiple times and was tired and hungry all of the time. I bumped it up to 1500 and then started losing consistently again. I went from around 118 to 106 on 1500+ calories a day. I am now maintaining at 112 on about 1700 a day. Just because you are petite does not mean you have to suffice on 1200 a day. I also agree with the other posters that 2 lbs a week is too much for the small amount you have to lose. You feel feel a lot better eating a bit more losing slowly. Trust me on this, you do not want to go super low on calories and have no where to go from there! When I was eating 1200 I kept having to increase my workouts (we're talking like 6 days a week for 1-2 hours as day!) because I couldn't lower my calories any more and the weight stopped coming off. By decreasing workouts a bit and increasing food, the weight started falling off again.

Best of luck to you!

amyoliver85

AlishaBaxmann,

1200 is the minimum base calories required to SURVIVE as an adult human being. It is not all about height and current weight. It is also about what is required to support your brain, your eyes, your heart, your lungs, etc.

If you are starting with a 1200 base and you exercise, you should not eat SOME of those calories back, you MUST eat ALL of them back. You cannot be healthy as an adult woman without a minimum of 1200 calories NET per day. Please do not listen to those who tell you that you only need to eat some of those calories back.

And don't let "exercise" fool you. If you are walking 10,000 steps per day, you need to eat more than 1200 calories per day. 1200 calories per day is a sedentary human being. If you walk more than 5,000 steps per day you need to add 50 calories for every 1,000 steps for a base of 1450. If you are using walking as your exercise, then you should consider wearing a heart rate monitor and tracking the actual burn, especially if you're doing fast walking. I always shave about 10% off what my HRM says I burned per my doctor's advice. So if it says I burned 300, I only count 270 and eat those back.

And eat GOOD food, not crappy, processed food, as much as possible.

Francl27

You're 18. No way is 1200 enough. Keep in mind that you're supposed to eat back exercise calories with MFP. If it's too much of a pain, use http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ instead to calculate an appropriate goal.

AlishaBaxmann

I tried fiddling with my settings today and when I set my weight loss goal to 0.5 pounds a week (as suggested by some of you) I still only get 1,340 calories a day.. that's only 140 more. It says I should lose 2.5 lbs by January 20.

nfgchick79

I tried fiddling with my settings today and when I set my weight loss goal to 0.5 pounds a week (as suggested by some of you) I still only get 1,340 calories a day.. that's only 140 more. It says I should lose 2.5 lbs by January 20.

Yes, and this also means you should be eating back most of your exercise calories on top of the 1340.

RunningMatt77

Depends how active you are, the more active you are the more cals you need. But if your not that active then the 1200 is fine