1200 calorie limit- too high for short people???

Hyperspace

For me, a 1200 calorie diet means only a 310 calorie deficit per day. I am not losing at any perceptible rate on it. In the past I've had to go about 1000 calories to see significant results.

Shouldn't the lower limit of calorie intake be lower for people who are short and older and therefore require fewer calories to maintain??

Jovialation

gonna go with nope

Hyperspace

]Why not?

SavCal71

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

Zodiacsmom

Yeah I would say 100o cals is not going to give you the nutrients you need???

Jovialation

How about dont question science? The site has this all figured out for reasons.
It's just a lot harder for short people to lose weight and tone up ...kinda just something you have to deal with

sirabe

Sometimes I think it is? I'm only 5'2" and my deficit is incredibly small miniscule at 1200.
And when I eat intuitively, I only eat around 1000 and feel engorged.

I have to force myself to eat the 1200 and then I go overboard becasue I tried to do with with junk food

dirtbikegirl5

I find it hard to reach 1200, so I rarely do, but I don't think that it helps me lose weight if I don't eat the 1200. I have tried to eat more because I know that it will help my weight loss, but I simply can't. I am short but I don't think that the height is figured in when calculating how many calories we are supposed to have.

talzybob

it doesnt matter what size or age you are we all have the same amount of calories to eat. the only difference is gender related. if you exercise you should eat the aount of calories to compensate for it, so you dont starve your body. the less you eat the slower your metabolism will be and the less weight you wil lose. in fact you are more likely to gain.

koosdel

Relax, this isn't a race.

MB_Positif

I am sort and I've been eating between 1300 and 1500 calories per day for almost a year. I've lost 42 pounds in that time and only have 10 or so to go. I tried going down to 1200 for about a month and I felt stupid, cranky and hungry all of the time! Of course I would have liked to lose a little bit faster, but now that I am getting closer to the end, I am thankful that I didn't spend this whole time starving myself!

HarrietSabre

At the end of the day, it's what works for you. 1200 is a pretty arbritrary number (coming from a Biologist here) and yeah it's too low for some people and too high for others. I think a good guideline is to never try and lose more than 1lb a week (unless you're very heavy, then more is OK), so create a deficit of 3500 a week. In your case, that's around 1000 calories per day.

If you start feeling ill or lethargic, by all means up it. It's not going to cause long term damage going under for a little while!

dcdickerson2

I'm short and older, but still stick with the 1200 calories - plus a little exercise which a sometimes eat off, and sometimes just let it add to my deficit. It is hard to get good, well rounded nutrition on less than 1200 calories. I would caution against doing less than 1200 in the long run.

MB_Positif

Relax, this isn't a race.

Yes, this too!

Lauren_Whitney

1200 calories is arbitrary. To lose, I have to eat about 1000 as well. As long as you make good choices you will get the nutrients you need at 1000 calories.

MrsKunz

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

perfectly said!

tam120

I'm 5', I'm at 1230 a day but I workout a lot because if I didn't I'd feel like I was starving. So, in the end I eat about 1500 -1800 a day and burn about 300 - 900 calories a day with exercise. I've lost 55 lb. I don't think height has any bearing on it except I have more fat at 180 lb than someone who's 6' tall... lol

mogadad

1200 is the limit, not a goal. Mine is 1400 and I never go over it. I also attempt to keep the carbs, protein, cholesterol, and fats under the limits. Take vitamins and exercise and let it work. There is a shock method where you put it up and down daily so your body doesn't adjust and you plateau.

I am also working towards zero processed sugar.

zenchild

There is actually some research suggesting that it is (I'm at work so I can't look it up right now). I'm 5'1" and was on 1200 calories (and eating most of my exercise calories) for several months. I lost a few pounds, and then started creeping back up. I went to 1000 calories (still eating most of my exercise calories), and I'm slowly going down again. I'm very short, with a petite build, and a desk job. I talked to my doctor before reducing my calories and he said that with my build and my activity level, I could go down to 800. I get hungry on only 800 but 1000 is working well.
I will probably get crucified for saying this but I think that a smaller adult has smaller calorie needs. I don't think 1200 calories is a magic number. And some people will say to eat more but I did eat more. I was on about 1500 calories a day and that's what got me here in the first place.
Talk to your doctor or a nutritionist. Then decide for yourself.

Hyperspace

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

thelovelyLIZ

How tall are you? I'm 5'4" and I eat about 1300 net a day, not to mention there are women much shorter than me who eat at least 1200 and lose weight just fine. The reason for 1200 is that it's hard to get the nutrients you need eating that little.

You may not be losing weight as fast because there are calories sneaking in places. Are you factoring in any oil you might use for cooking? Are your portion sizes correct? (A cup is smaller than we think, sometimes.) Are you counting things like butter or mayo on your toast and sandwiches? Also, i cannot emphasize how important exercise is. I had been stuck at my weight, regardless of how healthy I ate (I've always been a pretty healthy eater anyway) but as soon as I started really hitting the gym, I started dropping the pounds. Strength training makes a huge difference too. As soon as I stopped lifting, my weight loss slower to a crawl. Also, if you workout, you generally get to eat more food!

byroman

The closer you get to your ideal weight, the slower you will lose. you only have 12 lb to go. if you started at 200 lb, you would have seen a lot of drop at the beginning. Be patient and look for other ways to measure your progress (hips, waist measurements, body fat percentage, etc).

Also remember that the one reason for the 1200 cal is to keep your body from going into starvation mode. this doesn't happen if you drop below for just a couple of days You might try zig-zagging over and under 1200 calories for a while to see if you kick things loose.

econut2000

I'm 5' tall. Twelve hundred calories doesn't even come remotely close to filling me up. Even when I was thin (I've gained a lot of weight due to health issues) -- and then I ate about 1800 calories per day and could still lose weight (I used to run like it was my job). Starving yourself isn't going to help you lose weight. Post after post tells you to eat more....so try it! What have you got to lose? You'll gain back a couple pounds POSSIBLY, but then likely lose more weight and break through plateaus. I'm not telling you to eat 1800 cals, but maybe add 100-200 over what you are currently eating.

talzybob

Maybe the problem is that you sometimes consume less than 1200 calories a day? If you eat less than that, no matter what your size, you risk your body going into starvation mode, which may be why you're not at the weight you'd like to be.


I am 5ft exactly most of my life i was 4ft 11" and i must say this is a bit daft. In the last year alone ive lost over 3 stone with no issue to height what so ever, and a stone in weight the year before that. all i did was speed up my metabolism and hey presto gone. weight loss is not difficult if you follow the things you are supposed to be doing. yes we all have bad days losing weight and will either over eat or under eat but if your metabolism is slow any way you will not lose a signifcant amount of weight untill it speeds up.

alvin_grung

I'm on 1600/day for, I think, a 1.5/week goal. I have found - when I've stayed true and kept with my logging, that is - that by deficiting most days by 100/day and exercising 4 or 5 times a week (boosting me to an allowed 1900 - 2000 on those days), that I lost 2 lbs/week. I'm male, but also short @ 5' 6".

I'd say a regular deficit of 310 would be hard to sustain. Bad habits and poor exercise are what did me in even when I had been logging and eating the full allotment - I went on holidays, slacked off, embraced the barbeque season, the cottage weekends, the social events - and had put everthing back on but 5 lbs by Dec. Managed not to put on any more, but ...

So, my advice is to keep the intake realistic. It's hard enough to change any way you look at it.

P3AC3nLOV3

There is actually some research suggesting that it is (I'm at work so I can't look it up right now). I'm 5'1" and was on 1200 calories (and eating most of my exercise calories) for several months. I lost a few pounds, and then started creeping back up. I went to 1000 calories (still eating most of my exercise calories), and I'm slowly going down again. I'm very short, with a petite build, and a desk job. I talked to my doctor before reducing my calories and he said that with my build and my activity level, I could go down to 800. I get hungry on only 800 but 1000 is working well.
I will probably get crucified for saying this but I think that a smaller adult has smaller calorie needs. I don't think 1200 calories is a magic number. And some people will say to eat more but I did eat more. I was on about 1500 calories a day and that's what got me here in the first place.
Talk to your doctor or a nutritionist. Then decide for yourself.

Well SAID

SeasideOasis

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

Seriously?

Read a book. See a doctor.

tam120

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

Well, the tall man would need more calories because he would weigh more than a short woman. A 6' man is not going to weigh 100 lbs obviously, he's gonna weigh like 200, so he's going to require the calories of a 200 lb man. It's not about the number of pounds a person needs to lose it's about how the body burns the calories taken in.

Hyperspace

How tall are you? I'm 5'4" and I eat about 1300 net a day, not to mention there are women much shorter than me who eat at least 1200 and lose weight just fine. The reason for 1200 is that it's hard to get the nutrients you need eating that little.

You may not be losing weight as fast because there are calories sneaking in places. Are you factoring in any oil you might use for cooking? Are your portion sizes correct? (A cup is smaller than we think, sometimes.) Are you counting things like butter or mayo on your toast and sandwiches? Also, i cannot emphasize how important exercise is. I had been stuck at my weight, regardless of how healthy I ate (I've always been a pretty healthy eater anyway) but as soon as I started really hitting the gym, I started dropping the pounds. Strength training makes a huge difference too. As soon as I stopped lifting, my weight loss slower to a crawl. Also, if you workout, you generally get to eat more food!

I am 5'2" and 52. Yes I factor in everything, including oil and butter. I DO need to hit the exercise harder, that is true. I have experienced what it can do, cause in my 20's I was 98 lbs and ripped.

But I still don't get why the calorie calculator thing on here does not change the lower limit on calories depending on what a person's body size is.

koosdel

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

Based on the listed stats, your daily goal seems correct. Eating less will only hurt you. Lowered metabolism, tiredness, etc.etc..

Hyperspace

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

Seriously?

Read a book. See a doctor.

I have read books. I am not stupid or ill-informed. I am,however, questioning authority.
The books and articles never ever say why 1200 calories is the lower limit for any human of any size. Even the 'nutrients" part makes no sense. A body weighing 100 lbs isn't going to need as many vitamins as a 200 lb body. IT"S SMALLER.