1200 calorie daily allowance and feeling hungry :(

mary659497

Bump

brianpperkins

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I am aware of how MFP works including for those who are short, light, etc.

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

peleroja

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

Run it all you want, but I'm telling you that I am her size and similarly active and 2000 calories a day has me ballooning like a foie gras duck (and it wasn't water weight/glycogen replenishment as I'd been maintaining for some time already when I tried it.) There is just no way unless I run 50km/week. When I bartended and was on my feet all day every day, it was possible, but with a sedentary job I just can't.

I don't need to argue this because I've lived it and can offer the OP personal experience, which I have done already. Get back to me when you're a 115 pound woman with an office job who gets moderate exercise. The theory is great, but I'm simply offering my practical experience, and hoping it helps more than "YOU NEED TO EAT MORE" over and over again. Because quite honestly, eating more might not help her reach her goal.

brianpperkins

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

Run it all you want, but I'm telling you that I am her size and similarly active and 2000 calories a day has me ballooning like a foie gras duck (and it wasn't water weight/glycogen replenishment as I'd been maintaining for some time already when I tried it.) There is just no way unless I run 50km/week. When I bartended and was on my feet all day every day, it was possible, but with a sedentary job I just can't.

I don't need to argue this because I've lived it and can offer the OP personal experience, which I have done already. Get back to me when you're a 115 pound woman with an office job who gets moderate exercise. The theory is great, but I'm simply offering my practical experience, and hoping it helps more than "YOU NEED TO EAT MORE" over and over again. Because quite honestly, eating more might not help her reach her goal.

I was going to lower myself to your level but changed my mind. Go learn the difference between NEAT and TDEE including how that difference impacts caloric goals.

kgeyser

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

Run it all you want, but I'm telling you that I am her size and similarly active and 2000 calories a day has me ballooning like a foie gras duck (and it wasn't water weight/glycogen replenishment as I'd been maintaining for some time already when I tried it.) There is just no way unless I run 50km/week. When I bartended and was on my feet all day every day, it was possible, but with a sedentary job I just can't.

I don't need to argue this because I've lived it and can offer the OP personal experience, which I have done already. Get back to me when you're a 115 pound woman with an office job who gets moderate exercise. The theory is great, but I'm simply offering my practical experience, and hoping it helps more than "YOU NEED TO EAT MORE" over and over again. Because quite honestly, eating more might not help her reach her goal.

Entering incorrect information into MFP isn't going to help her reach her goal either. She already admitted that she entered 2 lbs per week as a goal, which is completely unrealistic for someone wanting an 8 lb loss, no matter what their weight. There are also plenty of women on MFP with similar height and weight who lose eating a lot more than 1200 calories. She could be doing her body a disservice with such an aggressive goal, but we'll never know where she is supposed to be calorie-wise because she doesn't seem interested in looking at the data and figuring out the optimal number of calories for her particular situation. She just wants to lose weight quick. Oh well, we tried.

peleroja

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

Run it all you want, but I'm telling you that I am her size and similarly active and 2000 calories a day has me ballooning like a foie gras duck (and it wasn't water weight/glycogen replenishment as I'd been maintaining for some time already when I tried it.) There is just no way unless I run 50km/week. When I bartended and was on my feet all day every day, it was possible, but with a sedentary job I just can't.

I don't need to argue this because I've lived it and can offer the OP personal experience, which I have done already. Get back to me when you're a 115 pound woman with an office job who gets moderate exercise. The theory is great, but I'm simply offering my practical experience, and hoping it helps more than "YOU NEED TO EAT MORE" over and over again. Because quite honestly, eating more might not help her reach her goal.

Get back to me when you understand basic math and the difference between TDEE and NEAT. It's obvious you don't.

You're encouraging a woman who admits to not eating back exercise calories to undereat based on every simple concept. Congrats. Then again, 5' 4.5" and 115 as you claim is at the low end of most healthy weight charts but you and the OP think losing more is the healthy choice. But based on your special snowflakeness ... it's all good.

I work in accounting. I understand math. And I know all about TDEE and NEAT. My TDEE is 1500/day, but if I run that day I can go up to about 1700 without gaining. The math checks out as far as it can with estimated calorie burns and without precise muscle mass/body fat percentage measurements (which you know aren't an exact science without specialised equipment.)

Yes, we are at the low end of a healthy BMI. Still healthy. My doctor is more than happy with my health and weight. I'm not large-framed and my body fat is right where it should be. OP might be the same, so I'm not going to attack her for wanting to lose a couple more pounds. I've considered it myself because I'd like my breasts to get a bit smaller. I am not a special snowflake, I'm just realistic about what works for me based on my own successful experience and current maintenance of a healthy weight. It's maybe not exactly what you calculate but it's close enough to make sense.

ETA: The simple fact that I'm neither gaining or losing any weight and haven't for a year should probably indicate that I've got the numbers right, no?

brianpperkins

Harris-Benedict BMR 1346
Sedentary value 1.2 .... so maintenance using NEAT derived from BMR is 1615 -250 per day for 1/2 lb per week = 1376 before exercise.

Using Scooby and TDEE set at light exercise 1851 per day to maintain, 1666 with a 10% reduction. Set it at moderate exercise (3-5x per week) comes out to 2087 maintenance, 1878 with 10% reduction.

brianpperkins

1200 is too low. 1200 and failing to eat exercise calories is bordering on dangerous. Redo all of the numbers based on 1/2 pound per week or remaining at/near current weight and undergoing body recomposition (weights to build/maintain lean mass, working to lower body fat %, not scale focused).

Or you can continue on your current path and the resulting hunger and likely unhealthy outcomes from failing to provide your body with the nutrients and fuel it needs. Your choice.

Yep, this. I know it's probably too late to convince the OP, but at least we can try to reach other people who might be reading this.

I posted this already in my (admittedly very long) post, but for some of us, 1200/day IS 1/2 pound per week, unfortunately. And as I also mentioned, it is perfectly possible to get the nutrients and fuel the body needs if one is extremely diligent with planning and tracking. It isn't easy, but it's doable.

For the OP, it isn't. Simple math.

It likely is, in fact, as we're the same height and weight. However, MFP won't set goals below 1200/day, so for me I get 1200/day as a goal whether I put in 2lbs/week or 0.5lb/week. People who aren't as light as the OP and I have likely never run into that particular bit of weirdness in the app before, so I'm not surprised you weren't aware. But yeah...if I set mine to anything other than maintenance, 1200 is what it spits out (as it's clearly not going to suggest I eat 600/day to get me to 2lbs/week.)

I ran her numbers using multiple BMR calculators. For her a 1/2 pound per week is in 1400 calorie per day range not including exercise calories from her 4-5 hours per week of working out. 1200 is too low for a relatively young woman working out 4-5 times per week.

If her numbers are calculated using TDEE rather than the NEAT system used by MFP, her caloric needs are at about 2000 per day to maintain since exercise is included (using 3-5x per week working out).

Run it all you want, but I'm telling you that I am her size and similarly active and 2000 calories a day has me ballooning like a foie gras duck (and it wasn't water weight/glycogen replenishment as I'd been maintaining for some time already when I tried it.) There is just no way unless I run 50km/week. When I bartended and was on my feet all day every day, it was possible, but with a sedentary job I just can't.

I don't need to argue this because I've lived it and can offer the OP personal experience, which I have done already. Get back to me when you're a 115 pound woman with an office job who gets moderate exercise. The theory is great, but I'm simply offering my practical experience, and hoping it helps more than "YOU NEED TO EAT MORE" over and over again. Because quite honestly, eating more might not help her reach her goal.

Get back to me when you understand basic math and the difference between TDEE and NEAT. It's obvious you don't.

You're encouraging a woman who admits to not eating back exercise calories to undereat based on every simple concept. Congrats. Then again, 5' 4.5" and 115 as you claim is at the low end of most healthy weight charts but you and the OP think losing more is the healthy choice. But based on your special snowflakeness ... it's all good.

I work in accounting. I understand math. And I know all about TDEE and NEAT. My TDEE is 1500/day, but if I run that day I can go up to about 1700 without gaining. The math checks out as far as it can with estimated calorie burns and without precise muscle mass/body fat percentage measurements (which you know aren't an exact science without specialised equipment.)

Yes, we are at the low end of a healthy BMI. Still healthy. My doctor is more than happy with my health and weight. I'm not large-framed and my body fat is right where it should be. OP might be the same, so I'm not going to attack her for wanting to lose a couple more pounds. I've considered it myself because I'd like my breasts to get a bit smaller. I am not a special snowflake, I'm just realistic about what works for me based on my own successful experience and current maintenance of a healthy weight. It's maybe not exactly what you calculate but it's close enough to make sense.

ETA: The simple fact that I'm neither gaining or losing any weight and haven't for a year should probably indicate that I've got the numbers right, no?

You've managed to confuse NEAT (doesn't include exercise so caloric intake varies daily dependent on exercise level) and TDEE (averaged based on exercise resulting in a constant daily caloric goal). I'm glad you don't do my accounting since you mix simple terms with different definitions.

If your logging is as accurate as your posting and knowledge of terms, your weight maintenance is purely luck.

peleroja

Harris-Benedict BMR 1346
Sedentary value 1.2 .... so maintenance using NEAT derived from BMR is 1615 -250 per day for 1/2 lb per week = 1376 before exercise.

Using Scooby and TDEE set at light exercise 1851 per day to maintain, 1666 with a 10% reduction. Set it at moderate exercise (3-5x per week) comes out to 2087 maintenance, 1878 with 10% reduction.

That's great, but as I've stated more than once, I've been maintaining easily for a year on a bit less, and that's okay because it's not a perfect calculation and more of a guideline, unless you're going all-out and getting your metabolic rate/body fat/muscle mass/bone density/etc professionally tested. It's pretty close: ~200 off for me, which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things when you consider the variables we can't control with an equation.

SoreTodayStrongTomorrow222

eat more. I think i would literally wither away to nothing if i ate 1200 calories a day. I would be hangry and my hubby would hate me.

chandraminick

I have been loosing on 1200 a day. First thing I eat in the morning is a cup or two of plain cheerios and a half cup or cup of skim milk (NO SUGAR). I will also eat this for a snack or for meals because it lasts. I eat my meals at the same time every day, and when I am not having a meal, I find something else to do like exercise, work on my RV, or yard work. Stay away from the kitchen and carry water with you always. At first I couldn't stomach it, but now I am drinking about 4 bottles a day. Don't eat white bread or fried foods as they increase cravings. I eat lean protein like chicken and cube steak on the George Foreman, and I eat plain small gold potatoes microwaved with seasoned salt and butter flavor cooking spray. If you can stomach plain veggies, get a rice steamer and do broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, and other stuff in it (use the butter spray if you have to). Make omelets with lots of veggies and mushrooms. You could loose 2 pounds a week if you burn 1000 calories a day in addition to eating the 1200. Hope this helps.

peleroja

You've managed to confuse NEAT (doesn't include exercise so caloric intake varies daily dependent on exercise level) and TDEE (averaged based on exercise resulting in a constant daily caloric goal). I'm glad you don't do my accounting since you mix simple terms with different definitions.

If your logging is as accurate as your posting and knowledge of terms, your weight maintenance is purely luck.

There's no need to be so snarky. I promise, I log meticulously, and that's why I'm successful. I apologize if it upsets you.

brianpperkins

You've managed to confuse NEAT (doesn't include exercise so caloric intake varies daily dependent on exercise level) and TDEE (averaged based on exercise resulting in a constant daily caloric goal). I'm glad you don't do my accounting since you mix simple terms with different definitions.

If your logging is as accurate as your posting and knowledge of terms, your weight maintenance is purely luck.

There's no need to be so snarky. I promise, I log meticulously, and that's why I'm successful. I apologize if it upsets you.

If there is no need for snarky, why did you go there hours ago with assumptions that others don't understand how MFP works? You mix terms that are not interchangeable, claim special snowflake status and tell others who admit to unwise goals (such as 2 lbs per week with only 8 to lose) to follow your pied piper claims when the very basis of MFP, IIFYM, and Scooby's (among others) disagree with you.

brianpperkins

200 calories is a 16.66667% difference when using 1200 as a baseline. That's a rather liberal tolerance level for someone claiming to be in accounting.

emtjmac

How tall are you, and what are your workouts like? Your ticker says you only have 8 pounds to lose, in which case, you should not have selected "Lose 2 pounds a week" when you set up your goals. Eat more.

This is troof. Set your weight loss to 0.5 pounds per week and monitor your progress over a month, not a day. It's not a race. Eat at that deficit for one month and then weight yourself. If you keep doing what you're doing, you may be setting yourself up to fail and no one wants to see that happen because most of us know what it feels like.

aledba

See, this is what I am dealing with. I have 60 pounds to go, and I am set at 1200 calories per day through the MFP calculator. I'm hungry a LOT. Sadly, after my week of 1200 and doing 4 cardio sessions, I gained 2 pounds. I am not sure I understand what in the world I am doing wrong. This is my first time tracking food as well.

At 40 mins into your cardio, your body starts burning the muscle. Try strength training! Eat and lift!!!

hiphopbunnie

Ok thank you everyone for your input and for taking the time to reply! Please don't get so angry -_-'
I understand 1200 is pretty low but even when I change my goal to 0.5 lbs a week my calorie recommendation is still calculated to be 1300/day which is not that different I think...I also know that my body is stubborn to change. I dont have a lot of weight to lose so those last few pounds are always the most stubborn so I think 1200-1300 is actually not that far off from what I should be consuming. Once I reach my goal I plan to increase my intake to just maintain my weight.

kgeyser

Ok thank you everyone for your input and for taking the time to reply! Please don't get so angry -_-'
I understand 1200 is pretty low but even when I change my goal to 0.5 lbs a week my calorie recommendation is still calculated to be 1300/day which is not that different I think...I also know that my body is stubborn to change. I dont have a lot of weight to lose so those last few pounds are always the most stubborn so I think 1200-1300 is actually not that far off from what I should be consuming. Once I reach my goal I plan to increase my intake to just maintain my weight.

Just realize that your MFP goal does not include exercise, it's what you should eat to lose without doing any exercise. You're still supposed to eat a portion of your exercise calories back, which will help fuel your workouts. You said you were hungry - that's why. Most people eat about 50-75% of their exercise calories back.

The last few pounds are stubborn, which is why you need to give it some time and give your body time to adjust to your new diet/exercise plan. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, I just hate seeing people trying to do this and eating very little when they can eat more and still succeed. I also echo the people who have said to add resistance training, that will take off inches and will probably get to you to your goal body more effectively than just losing weight.

katmix

Ok thank you everyone for your input and for taking the time to reply! Please don't get so angry -_-'
I understand 1200 is pretty low but even when I change my goal to 0.5 lbs a week my calorie recommendation is still calculated to be 1300/day which is not that different I think...I also know that my body is stubborn to change. I dont have a lot of weight to lose so those last few pounds are always the most stubborn so I think 1200-1300 is actually not that far off from what I should be consuming. Once I reach my goal I plan to increase my intake to just maintain my weight.

Even at maintenance, I only get 1460 cals... Small sedentary bodies just don't require the same amount of fuel.

Forum posters don't all have the same goals or walk the same journey. Figure out your goal, find what works for you. Posters that have hit goal generally share what has worked for them-and sometimes get a little uptight that others don't share their thoughts on the matter. :flowerforyou:

peleroja

200 calories is a 16.66667% difference when using 1200 as a baseline. That's a rather liberal tolerance level for someone claiming to be in accounting.

Again, no need to attack me personally. 16% of 1200 is less than two tablespoons of peanut butter, which is close enough for me when it comes to calorie counting, which can never be exact without metabolic testing. I'm not upset here and I'm not sure why you continue to insult my intelligence. Take a deep breath and see if you can post without the constant (edited out) snark which I was able to read. I'm happy with my loss, I did it in a safe and healthy manner, and I'm hoping to be able to help someone in a similar situation do the same.

OP, I'm sorry this got so pedantic. Like I said, I know what it's like and I hope my original suggestions are helpful to you. I'll reiterate that if you're going to stick with a 1200 goal, it's really important you pay attention to your nutrition and get enough fat and protein as well as the vitamins and minerals your body needs.

I'm gonna leave this alone now. OP, feel free to send me a message or add me a friend. I'm nice, honestly.