1200 Calories.....the truth.

itsbasschick

i've been eating 1200 net calories since the beginning of may. on days where i don't work out, i eat just under 1200 calories and on days where i work out enough to get hungry early, i eat between 1250 and 1400 calories. i get enough protein (more than enough if you believe MFP), and carbs, i choose to go under on fat. according to my micros and my blood work, i get enough of everything and i've never once gone over my calories so far in over 3 months. and i'm careful to eat enough, as well, hungry or not.

btw, i find it easier to eat 1200 net per day by eating 5 to 6 small meals per day instead of 3 larger ones - there's not much time between meals to get hungry or want to munch, and it's very flexible. but whether i eat 5 meals or 6, if it fits in my macros and calories, it works for me.

HardyGirl4Ever

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

A 5' tall 150 pound 25 year old woman has a BMR of 1450. That means even sedentary a TDEE of about 1800. 1200 calories is very agressive even at 5' tall and sedentary.

For 1200 to be reasonable you have to be fairly obese 5' tall and in your 60s I think. Other than that you are probably trying to lose too quickly and not taking into account your bodies dietary needs with regards to micronutrients.

Am I saying its impossible to eat 1200 calories, lose weight, retain your muscle and get all your micros? No, not totally impossible if you are 5' tall....but very very difficult.

As you know, the BMR calculators are just an estimate, and vary quite a bit. Your number looks like the Harris-Benedict formula, but at my estimated body fat level (which is probably not too different from the OP's, as I'm 5'3, 155), the Mifflin-St Jeor is a better bet, and puts her at 1348. Increase the body fat some (which is entirely possible, but I think M-SJ is likely to be pretty good) and use Katch-McArdle, and it could be down at 1250 or so. So I'd hate to tell her that she MUST have a BMR of 1450. We don't really know.

Beyond that, what matters, of course, is deficit from TDEE. If she works out about 3 days a week, the numbers go from 1725 to 2025, with M-SJ in the middle (but closer to the lower end) at 1825. If we change that to 5 days a week, the numbers range from 1825 to 2150, with M-SJ at 1975. So a fair estimate for one pound a week would be 1325 or so if she works out 3 days a week and 1475 if she works out 5 days a week.

Either of those is quite consistent with a 1200 net number, which is what MFP is giving her.

And, yes, lots of 20 year olds with little to lose use MFP wrong, and there seems to be an epidemic lately of people who think it makes you tougher or more virtuous not to eat back any exercise.

I really like that M-SJ calculator. It says I can eat way more calories than MFP does.

lemurcat12

I really like that M-SJ calculator. It says I can eat way more calories than MFP does.

If you correct for the differences in the methods, MFP actually gives me more calories (not actually sure why as I thought it used M-SJ--probably has something to do with how you figure NEAT).

According to MFP, I can maintain my current weight, if sedentary, at 1660 calories.

The Mifflin-St Jeor formula gives me only 1588 calories to maintain if sedentary.

If I'm lightly active, I can lose 1 lb/week (according to MFP) at 1350, plus exercise. If I exercise for 5 days at about 500 calories per day, that's an extra 357 calories per day, or about 1700.

M-SJ says if I'm moderately active (exercise 3-5 days/week) my TDEE is about 2052. So to lose 1 lb/week, I'd have to eat about 1550. Now, If I'm very active it would be more like 1780, and my estimate was on the higher range of lightly active, so if I aim between moderately and very active it looks pretty similar to MFP.

I imagine this is more than anyone wants to know about my personal TDEE, etc., but I think comparing the ways of figuring it out is interesting (I realize I may be the only one), and this goes back to the point someone made about the reason MFP gives lower numbers quite often is due to the inputs.

HardyGirl4Ever

I imagine this is more than anyone wants to know about my personal TDEE, etc., but I think comparing the ways of figuring it out is interesting (I realize I may be the only one), and this goes back to the point someone made about the reason MFP gives lower numbers quite often is due to the inputs.

I actually found it very interesting and quite informative. Thank you!!

heybales

I guess MFP is encouraging eating disorders now huh?

"if you were to eat this way every day you'd weigh xxxx in 5 weeks"

"Huh, I missed my eating goal by 200 calories, and could lose weight quicker - guess I'll be below my goal on constant basis".

Is that encouraging or discouraging eating disorders?

hookilau

Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?

Didn't you know? EVERYONE on here besides you is a registered dietitian and/or doctor.

Also, I think MFP will drop down only to 1200 in their formula due to legal regulations surrounding commercial weightloss and nutrition company advertising. That way anyone can put in whatever insane aggressive goals they want and boom: 1200 cals.

^^ This explains the know-it-alls in just about every thread on the boards...

OP: if 1200 works for you then don't let these PhD's tell you differently

Or even better, don't be a lemming...find out the science behind it all & choose for yourself what is best for your body. Learn about the NEAT vs. TDEE method and then choose for yourself which applies best to you. Numbers vary according to activity level, age, gender etc.

jellybeans37

I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

hookilau

I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

I'm 5' tall & 45 yrs old. I maintain 126# @ 2000 cal/day. I don't do any purposeful cardio. I lift weights 3 x a week & walk about 3 miles per day (mon-fri).

I'm not special, as a matter of fact, I'm a T2D. I was also given the magic '1200' cal to lose weight but was starving to distraction when I tried to adhere to that limit.

I've decided that my goals should be to get stronger & increase muscle mass vs. getting smaller & reducing muscle mass.

GatorDeb1

I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

I'm 5'4", 36, 122 lbs, and at 1500 I still lose weight.

heybales

I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

You ate 200 calories more on average.

So it would take you 17 days doing that to slowly gain 1 lb if you think that gain had ANYTHING to do with fat weight.

Did you know when you start a diet, your first big loss outside possibly watching sodium more, is the fact you store less glycogen in your muscles, and that has attached water. So basically water weight.

Guess what cardio exercise is asking your body to do, once you feed it enough?
Store more carbs.
Guess what can happen overnight?
Gain more weight than the math for fat would say you even ate in total.
So good weight, increased LBM, increased metabolism dealing with it.

Guess what happens usually when you start cardio, and for sure when summer comes around and you do it outside?
You increase blood volume, with ...... water!

Now, hopefully no one in their right mind would think it would be useful weight loss to drop by doing some blood letting.
Apply the same thinking to extra glycogen stores in the muscle, especially when doing workouts just asking for that improvement.

elisa123gal

mfp is a calculator. it does math. many people on here lose on 1200 calories..and many docotors suggest that.

yet.. many people of the 1200 calorie per day folks say they're stuck eating low calories after they reach goal because they're metabolisms adjusted to a low calorie diet.


Therefore..some on here opt for eating at a small defici (more calories than 1200..i eat 1600) and adding exercise. calories as well. that waywhen they get to their goal..they can eat like a normal person…and enjoy their lives.

upnorthtim

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html

Read this for some common sense about calorie restriction ..... this guy is not trying to sell you something unlike the vast majority of websites that perpetuate the "metabolic damage" bs.

Branstin

This magical 1200 number...I don't know why it gets so much focus. It's not a big deal. IMO.

It's basically 50g of fat and 100g of each of carbs and protein. If you eat that, you are at least ensuring something resembling not-unreasonable macro intake for the vast majority of people.

If you are super focused and appropriately sized, you can do it in less. But that takes real dedication.

So, yes, it is a bit arbitrary, but there is a logical basis to it. And it makes sense, right up to the point people forget that it is a *guideline*, not a commandment.

This guy has a masters in exercise physiology and teaches it.

http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

Fallacy #2: 1200 calories is the minimum you should eat in a day

"I don’t know where this number comes from and I will be spending some time in the near future looking it up. However based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats."

What about a person's required micronutrients? How does he propose a person meet those health requirements on 800/900 calories per day?