Why 1200?

jillcwhite

What I understand was that the average person just living in a day burns about 1200 calories so they can eat and burn 1200 without gaining weight.

dshalbert

First person to mention starvation mode gets a special reward. And by reward I mean my car. And by 'gets' I mean 'gets run over with'.

AJ You are funny.

mariasheehan

Starvation mode ツ please don't run me over.... NOPE haven't a clue!!!

szczepj

. And that is why you have to eat exercise calories back.

You don't HAVE to eat exercise calories back. I find that it kind of erases the point of exercising. I'm exercising to get in shape, not so I can gorge.

loeyb24

isn't it something to do with BMR so... if my Basic Metabolic Rate meant I burnt off 1700 calories a day naturally. If I cut by 500 a day over the course of a week I'll have a deficit of 3500 which is a loss of 1 pound a week. And that is why you have to eat exercise calories back.
I dunno, I've read so many posts about starvation mode blah blah blah and BMR I just kinda thought up this myself due to calories in calories out.
I would like to know though if there is a scientific answer. Good question

http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864

this is totally correct

helenoftroy1

. And that is why you have to eat exercise calories back.

You don't HAVE to eat exercise calories back. I find that it kind of erases the point of exercising. I'm exercising to get in shape, not so I can gorge.

I don't eat mine back either but I know there is something scientific about your net calories being way under 1000 and that is bad, so either way I look at the week as a whole for calories and exercise and try to have a deficit of 5000-7000 to get a two pound loss.

rileysowner

When I questioned this a long time back someone said it 1200 female and 1500 male were considered the cut off for providing minimal nutrition for aid agencies. When people are under those numbers they are considered to be starving. Whether that is true or not, or whether it has any scientific basis I don't know. I doubt it does, but it seems like fairly appropriate numbers.

myofibril

http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ACSM_News_Releases&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12541

This article mentions both using the 10 calories per 1lb of bodyweight for women and 11 calories per 1lb of bodyweight as a minimum (an approach which I prefer) but also under the calorie restriction section that 1,200 is the minimum recommended.

I will try and find the 1999 study by the WHO which I believe was where the original recommendation came from.

taem

I do not have scientific proof, but Dr. Neal Barnard says to use the power of 10 to figure out your minimum caloric intake to control your binges. So if you want to be 130 pounds, you must eat at least 130x10=1300 calories a day or else your chances of binging are high.

alz139

That's what I mean guys! It seems like some round table of fitness kids got together and just pulled some numbers out of their butts!

And the ONLY reason that we do it now is because, well, enough people say it must be so, so it must be so!

I've also heard that calories flow out through your mouth when you breath really really fast!
Spread that little tidbit to all your friends so that they too can spread this helpful information!
And when I walk the streets and see people pass out on the sidewalk from hyperventilation, I'll just chuckle to myself :Pand

LOL! The first post made me giggle and this made me laugh! Anyway, I have no clue about why everyone is focused on 1200 cals. Its really obvious that with weight loss a one size fits all doesnt work! So how can 1200 be the minimum for all?

I generally am under 1200 cals. But am very rarely hungry and am losing weight! I exercise about 5-6 days a week don't generally up my daily cals because of it. What's the point of working out if I'm going to put those cals back into me???

MrsCon40

http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ACSM_News_Releases&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12541

This article mentions both using the 10 calories per 1lb of bodyweight for women and 11 calories per 1lb of bodyweight as a minimum (an approach which I prefer) but also under the calorie restriction section that 1,200 is the minimum recommended.

I will try and find the 1999 study by the WHO which I believe was where the original recommendation came from.

Don't be silly and answer the question with exactly what the OP was looking for! They are having too much fun thinking someone just pulled it out of their *kitten*! :glasses:

Izable2011

hahaha.. your funny! Good question though!

thedreamhazer

http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ACSM_News_Releases&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12541

This article mentions both using the 10 calories per 1lb of bodyweight for women and 11 calories per 1lb of bodyweight as a minimum (an approach which I prefer) but also under the calorie restriction section that 1,200 is the minimum recommended.

I will try and find the 1999 study by the WHO which I believe was where the original recommendation came from.

Don't be silly and answer the question with exactly what the OP was looking for! They are having too much fun thinking someone just pulled it out of their *kitten*! :glasses:

This still doesn't explain why 1200 for everyone. It just throws out 1200 again, referencing it as a recommendation. I would be very interested to see the source study referenced. If anything,this just points out, again, that 1200 isn't appropriate for everyone. I'm about 160 lbs. Why 1200 for me? One of my friends is 95 lbs. Why 1200 for her?

BioQueen

Ahhhh such a good post! My net is usually under 1,200, my body actually only loses that way (for now).

myofibril

This still doesn't explain why 1200 for everyone.

The short answer is that it isn't. It's a generic but safe guideline based on averages. Will there always be outliers? Well yeah.

Unfortunately, my pc is playing silly buggers so I can't access the WHO research but it seems they can be found here (2nd & 3rd PDFs)

I can't be sure as I can't open them though. Doh!

http://search.who.int/search?q=1200+calories&ie=utf8&site=default_collection&client=_en&proxystylesheet=_en&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8

driventotheend

I have no idea, I just know I would be hungry and cranky all day if I tried eating that little. I have tried 1600 before and I was hungry and cranky all day! I need 1800-2200 calories per day to feel remotely normal. I am 5'10" though so I get to eat a little bit more than some.

dc08d

I've been at this healthy lifestyle for a while and I've seen 1200 as the magic number everywhere too. The best fact I have come across to understand how many calories is necessary is that our bodies burn about 100 calories for every 10 pounds just by being alive. So for a "normal woman" (whatever that means!) who is about 120 pounds, she should eat a net (total after exercising is taken out) of 1200 calories for healthy organ function. If this reasoning really is true than a 200 pound male should eat 2000 calories (sounds about right).

Of course since every body is different there is no magic number. Just eat healthy and try taking out certain types of foods that might be hindering your weight loss (complex carbs, processed foods). I just cut out dairy and it helped my get past a plateau and I lost 2 pounds last week.

There is a lot of crazy info out there so its really important to find out the facts for yourself, don't trust just anything you read (even this! i might be wrong too!)

Bodhizephyr

who is this average person?

the 3500 reduction per week = 1lb loss makes sense

If I eat 1200 cals/day - and I take this as an weekly average not a gospel, I am supposed to lose 1.5lb per week.

Eating reasonably I consume about 1350 cals/day and I'm losing 1lb per week atm.

Its all chemistry at the end of the day. We're all made of the same stuff but some people's body's are better at chemistry than others.

myofibril

It annoys me that so many people take that number and run with it. It's the BARE MINIMUM. Why would you eat the bare minimum when you could eat more?

I don't get this either. I am sure that if it was set at 1,000 calories people would still argue the legitimacy of the number.

I think that really, outside of metabolic disorders, the only classes of people who really need to eat at this level or below are morbidly obese people who are in immediate danger unless weight is reduced because of organ failure etc OR small and relatively light women who have very little room for maneouvre in terms of a workable calorie deficit.

Apart from that I think pretty much everyone can lose with an ACTUAL intake in excess of 1,200 (as opposed to a REPORTED intake of 1,200) The problem is patience. Everyone wants to be lean now or as quickly as possible...

zeeeb

i thought that men were supposed to eat 1400 or 1500 on average and it was just a woman thing the 1200... oh well, whatever works?

LorinaLynn

But you don't UNDERSTAND! There's a wedding I've known about for a year that's now two weeks away and I need to drop 15 pounds before then!!!!!!!!! :sad: :sad: :sad:

tigersword

Using a one third ratio for macros, 1,200 calories would give you 100 grams of protein per day, 100 grams of carbs per day, and 44 grams of fat for the day. It's got nothing to due with micronutrients, it's about macronutrients.

And yes, the 1,200 and 1,500 are minimum recommendations. I usually eat about 1700 a day to lose 2 pounds a week right now.

NOBODY has said everyone should eat 1200 calories. The actual recommendation for an average diet (in the US) is 2,000 calories. Getting below 1,200 is dangerous because there's a very good chance you won't be getting enough of your macronutrients to properly fuel your body. Like someone else said, it's simple body chemistry, the body needs a certain amount of carbs, proteins, and fats in order to function.

aj_rock

So it's agreed upon then? 1200 is a number that just so happens to have gained approval from a lot of reputable sources?

On one level this is a good thing! After all, getting health experts to actually agree on ANYTHING is just shy of a miracle!

My only point is, don't just trust 'common' knowledge! It used to be common knowledge that asbestos was a perfectly safe and awesome material to use in constructing your home! READ UP and decide for yourself what you think is safe!