1200 calories to low for a woman?

HappyDays1977

Hello! I just joined and I have 1200 calories as well. I am 36 and looking to lose 60-70 pounds. Today is my second day of tracking and I already used up 1155 of my daily calories at lunchtime!

Do you mind if I "friend" you? I would like to follow you since we're on the same journey.

Noelle

SnicciFit

Yes, I don't know why MFP does that (it seems that if you choose lose 2lbs/week, it does that). I am 5'-2" in my 30's and maintaining on roughly 2200 cals/day (I say roughly because I rarely track calories anymore, but when I do it's right around 2,200).

If you maintain on 2,200, that's completely consistent with losing 2 lb/week at 1200, and presumably you exercise (not included in the MFP goal where you eat more when you exercise) and weigh a lot less than the OP.

My suggestion is to do as other posters said and find your TDEE and cut 10% or, if you're just getting started, track your intake for 1-2 weeks and then reduce it by about 10%.

I think tracking what you've been eating and cutting 500 and also trying to add exercise is a sensible way to start if you can figure it out at all accurately. However, I also think the MFP approach--if understood and followed correctly--works really well.

I think someone needs to understand what cutting 10% off TDEE means vs. the MFP approach, although it's all personal preference (I wouldn't recommend against it if it's what someone wants to do after understanding the differences). Her TDEE is going to be in the low 2000s (let's say 2200, although it depends on activity). If she cuts 10%, that's less than half a pound a week for someone who probably wants to lose more than 75 lb. Also, she's not experienced with logging and probably doesn't really know how much she will be moving, and a cut of 220 can really easily be obliterated with inaccurate logging or less movement than anticipated.

Cut 10% of your TDEE? Seriously? For a woman who's 200+ lbs? Even for someone with a pretty high TDEE, that's well under 1 lb a week. Why recommend to someone starting out that they start off so incredibly slow? Might they not want to see some results more than ~1-1.5 lb/month, given that they have 75+ lbs or so to lose?

You don't have to go crazy, eat 1200 calories while doing an hour of cardio 7 days per week... but a paltry 10% deficit isn't going to get you anywhere with a substantial amount of weight to lose. Surely there's a happy middleground.

I guess I should have added, to give the 10% decrease a go for about 2 weeks and then adjust from there if needed. What I'm saying is, to eat as much as you can while still losing weight. Who wouldn't to do that?

parkscs

I guess I should have added, to give the 10% decrease a go for about 2 weeks and then adjust from there if needed. What I'm saying is, to eat as much as you can while still losing weight. Who wouldn't to do that?

Because losing weight isn't a binary thing - the rate at which you lose weight is both tangible and important. For example, you can lose weight at a 100 calorie/day deficit (less than 1 pound per month), but if you have 100 pounds to lose, we're talking about close to 10 years before you hit your goal weight. Do you really think a 10 year cut is realistic, much less recommended? Moreover, is it in the best interest of your overall health to carry that extra fat for the better part of 10 years? Your weight loss plan shouldn't be overly aggressive to the point you're miserable, lacking energy, etc., but it also shouldn't be so mild that it will take a decade before you hit your first goal weight.

This notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" sounds great but it ignores the critical element of time. If you have 5 pounds to lose, taking your time might make a lot of sense. If you have 75 or 100 pounds to lose though, the analysis is a bit different.

So, to answer your question, who wouldn't want to do that is someone who wants to achieve their weight loss goal within a set period of time.

SnicciFit

I guess I should have added, to give the 10% decrease a go for about 2 weeks and then adjust from there if needed. What I'm saying is, to eat as much as you can while still losing weight. Who wouldn't to do that?

Because losing weight isn't a binary thing - the rate at which you lose weight is both tangible and important. For example, you can lose weight at a 100 calorie/day deficit (less than 1 pound per month), but if you have 100 pounds to lose, we're talking about close to 10 years before you hit your goal weight. Do you really think a 10 year cut is realistic, much less recommended? Moreover, is it in the best interest of your overall health to carry that extra fat for the better part of 10 years? Your weight loss plan shouldn't be overly aggressive to the point you're miserable, lacking energy, etc., but it also shouldn't be so mild that it will take a decade before you hit your first goal weight.

This notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" sounds great but it ignores the critical element of time. If you have 5 pounds to lose, taking your time might make a lot of sense. If you have 75 or 100 pounds to lose though, the analysis is a bit different.

So, to answer your question, who wouldn't want to do that is someone who wants to achieve their weight loss goal within a set period of time.

Which is precisely why so many people give up long before meeting their goal or end up gaining the weight back. It makes much more sense to make changes that you barely notice and can live with and once you've adjusted to those, make more changes than to go from eating several thousand calories a day to a measly 1200. I can't imagine too many people would be successful with that plan.

parkscs

Which is precisely why so many people give up long before meeting their goal or end up gaining the weight back. It makes much more sense to make changes that you barely notice and can live with and once you've adjusted to those, make more changes than to go from eating several thousand calories a day to a measly 1200. I can't imagine too many people would be successful with that plan.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd put in the effort to weigh and log all my food, as well as exercise regularly, if it was going to take 10 years to hit my first weight loss goal. My point is there's a happy balance between 1000 calories/day and a 10% deficit for someone with 75+ pounds to lose.

natstar26

Yes it is too low, as others have said you will get to a point and stop loosing weight and you cant go lower in calorie intake. If you kept it at 1200cal and lets say oh you lose 10 pounds then plateau, you would have to increase your exercise so you could eat more back in your calories to continue to lose more. I would definitely recalculate that, it should be at least 1400cal, good luck

Tanya949

Agree with Parkscs... I started TDEE -20 to 25% when I started here in February. See my ticker? They advocate TDEE - 15%, then -10% as you get to about 10 lb of goal weight. I have 60 lbs to lose now, and am sitting -15 to 20% cut currently. Honestly, If I went straight to 10% I would not see results for months and would give up. At this rate it's coming off nicely. I am currently eating 2200 calories per day and am nowhere near feeling deprived of food.

NoAdditives

I'm 5'5 and my goal (losing 1lb per week) is just over 1500. I'm grateful for exercise calories!

My older kids (5 1/2 & 4) eat around 1200 calories a day, maybe a little more. I don't think I could handle eating that little. 1500 is pushing it for me and I eat whole foods and cook 99% of our food.

cbeet

If you are eating the right kinds of food, 1200 should be adequate....if you are eating a lot of carbohydrates (in the form of bread, starches, legumes, fruit, sugar or "low-fat" heavily processed food), then you will feel hungry often as your blood sugar will be all over the place. I am also mid 30's, workout 8-9 times per week (1 day off and 2-3 days of doubles - 1/2 cardio, 1/2 crossfit type training) and my (net) calories are always well under the 1200 mark (after eating back workout calories) on a daily basis and I feel like I am eating all the time! If you are getting 100-120g of natural healthy protein, your blood sugar will stabilize and you wont feel hungry or sluggish and cravings will subside. Water intake is also important!! at least 8-10 8oz. glasses per day.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

NeverCatchYourBreath

Generally speaking 800-1200 calorie diets are considered starvation diets (also known as Very Low Calorie Diets) and should only be prescribed by a physician given a patients risk factors for diseases such as heart disease or diabetes. When on a diet of so few calories you have to be very careful to get all of the nutrients your body needs (carbs, protein, fat, vitamins, and minerals) on a daily basis.

This type of diet is inappropriate for individuals not suffering from life-threatening ailments or risk attributed to their weight. It can also cause metabolic damage and places the organs under stress. For many people 1200 calories is insufficient and can lead to negative outcomes if nutrient requirements are not met.

Reference: Position of the American Dietetic Association: very low calorie weight loss diets. J Am Diet Assoc 90: 722-726, 1990.

maryowens1

This is my first year using MFP and 1200 is my daily allotment of calories too, which is definitely lower than the normal amount I eat in a day. However, I just take this as a spur to exercise, and 'buy' myself more calories with physical activity. So far it's been working well, although there are days when my food choices mean that I exceed the calorie goal. Tonight I made pan-fried chicken as part of dinner -- not the most dietetic choice! So even though I walked a total of an hour, took a yoga class and did 15 minutes on a stationary bike, I still went over the limit. Oh well -- better luck tomorrow.

Know that you are going to have some yo-yo weeks, but think long-term and keep exercising and eating quality 'real' food -- eventually you'll meet your goal. Even though my weight loss is very gradual, and sometimes I go back up a bit, I am looking way more toned in the last two months -- so some of the weight might be redistributed as muscle weight which is denser than fat.

I was nonplussed by the low calorie setpoint too, when I first joined -- but if it makes you start exercising more, it's a good thing. Don't forget about 'passive' exercise, like if you walk as part of your daily commute. I live in a city, so my hour of walking is built into my day, walking to/from various activities/errands.

FlaxMilk

OP, how much you weigh will determine how much you can eat and lose weight. You will lose weight at 1500-1700 calories right now. You can always give yourself a range. On days that you just aren't hungry, 1200 won't hurt you. Any day you want or need more, neither will 1700.

Ajaandres

I'm 53 and I need to lose 20 pounds. I am trying to stay below 1000 calories and keep within the other ranges mfp gave me. I exercise every day. My goals tab says at this rate I should lose .6 pounds a week which is about right. Maybe it's because I'm middle aged and menopausal

christinalong1991

MFP said the same calorie goal for me when I first started and I've learned a couple things since then.
1)MFP recommends 1200 net, meaning you eat 1200, and then if you exercise, you eat those calories as well. so if you burn 300 cals on a walk, you eat 1500 in a day instead of 1200.
2)1200 calories was nowhere near enough for me. Sure i lost a bunch of weight really fast and was ecstatic. But I had no energy, I would have massive several-thousand-calorie binges, and I was grumpy lol.
3)MFP will say 1200 if your goal is too much weight too soon. 1200 is the minimum they will suggest you to eat, so if your goal is to lose 20 lbs in 2 months, it will say 1200 net even if that isn't enough for you.

What has worked for me: slow and steady wins the race. I am 5'3, and started out weighing 190, and now weigh 162. I eat around 17-1800 calories per day, but lately haven't been exercising and so haven't lost any weight. I found i was the most satisfied, i.e. not hungry, have ample energy, and still losing weight, was around 1400-1450 calories. Maybe start off with around 1500 calories, eat back your exercise calories, and see how you are doing? If you aren't losing, try 1500 total, don't eat back your exercise calories. At least in the beginning, you should certainly find success losing weight! I have found that the best thing is to experiment and listen to your body. If you try one thing but your body doesn't feel right, adjust til it does!

All that being said, I have seen many people who only eat 1200 calories a day and burn 600 jogging, while I personally could never exist on that, everyone is different, so if you toy around with the calorie goals and 1200 works for you, by all means stick with it! I just found that restricting myself too much in the beginning while I was so pumped and motivated to start set me back in my goals later on because I couldn't keep doing it.

Good luck and I hope you find what works for you!!

hortensehildegarde

How many calories are woman in their 30's using? I am 5'4 and 226lbs and myfitness suggests 1200 calories daily. I feel like maybe that isn't enough.

Lacey

I am just about your same size and I would agree 1200 a day would not be enough for me every single day. I could do it, but it would be more work than I care to do right now.

Now on some days I eat 1200 cal without effort, and others I eat 3000. If I had to guess my normal "bad"days prior were more in the 4-5 k range.

But I am tracking, and learning, and getting more active- all small moves in the right direction. Has the weight loss been slow going? SURE! Absolutely as my personal plan has not been very dramatic. However my weight gain over the past 13 years or so has averaged a little under 10 lbs a year. I figure if I can even stop the slow gain I am succeeding.

Not to set my goals too low, and I know for health reasons I should be more aggressive and dedicated to this, but trying to be that dedicated only led to me putting it off over and over and over again, and eating more and more and more in preparation for starting "next week" or "tomorrow".

As a person in near your shoes, I say start NOW and even if that staring now means you eat 2500 cals a day and find out that is maintenance level for you, at least you are learning YOUR personal limits and you are not gaining. Heck even if you ate exactly at you used to but just tracked everything, that would be a step in the right direction.

Now if you are not comfortable with easing that slowing into it, for me personally I can lose weight on 2k a day even if I never move my fat *kitten* off the couch to so much as shower. My BMR guesstimate comes in somewhere around 1785 IIRC.

Everyone else has covered all the techie info about scooby's calculator, TDEE, so I won't repeat all that and all that info is very helpful if and when you are ready to process it. If you, like me, find ALL of that at once a little overwhelming I just wanted to say you don't have to do it "perfect" to be doing it right, and if you feel like you can't eat 1200 a day and be ok that is fine, and completely normal and you are in good company. You CAN eat more than that and still lose.

maQmIgh

When I first started MFP told me 1200 also... I wouldnt recommend it.

A am currently:

5"5'
148lbs
and eating approximately 1500 cals per day.

The larger you are the more cals your body requires to run.. so you will need to work out how many cals are best for you.

For the first few weeks, im afraid its a little bit of trial and error.

Good luck

xxx

NotJustADieter

1200 calories is far too low. Find out your BMR and eat above that, but below your total daily energy expenditure.

NeverCatchYourBreath

I guess we should stress something here...

There is a large difference in ONLY EATING 1200 per day and NETTING 1200 per day. Which are we trying to decide on in this discussion?

cbeet

I feel like many people do not realize that someone who nets 1200-1500 calories a day full of empty carbohydrates is not feeding their body's needs as well as someone netting 1000 calories of healthy fats and proteins. that's what i'm doing, and i'm not unhappy, weak, or starving. i'm certainly not anorexic, and i have no reason to believe my health is at risk. i'd argue that i'm feeding my body better than ever before.

If you feel fine, and are able to stick to it, 1000 works. The blanket warning at 1200 calories is such foolishness, in my opinion. If I ate 1500 calories of wonderbread, MFP wouldn't warn me that I may not be getting proper nutrition - even though the macros are right there, showing how little fat, protein, and vitamins you ate.

in summation, MFP and many of its users should probably just try to keep their broscience to themselves. More doing what you can maintain, and what makes you happy. Less listening to blanket statements and old wives' tales.

lemurcat12

I guess we should stress something here...

There is a large difference in ONLY EATING 1200 per day and NETTING 1200 per day. Which are we trying to decide on in this discussion?

Whether the MFP goal could be reasonable for the OP. The MFP goal is a net goal, so netting, I thought.