1200 calorie limit- too high for short people???
Replies
-
1200 calories is the minimum anyone should be eating. 1200 is considered the starvation level. If you eat less than that your metabolism will slow down and your body thinks it's starving. As a consequence, your body will hang onto the food you eat in the form of fat because it doesn't know when its next meal will be.0
-
I think it could be too high for some people. It would be hard to see a true loss with such a small deficit (especially when you account for the fact that everyone's bodies are a little different so you may burn slightly less that MFP says). I would try to cut back to 1000 calories if you think you can do that without feeling hungry all the time. It can't hurt to try and see how it goes. As long as you still won't have a huge deficit, I don't see how you could go into starvation mode.0
-
OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.
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.
It seems we have all misunderstood the premise of your post.
Eat, don't eat, do what ever you want.0 -
Your current BMR is about 1215 factored in at age 52, weight 120 using the Harris-Benedict formula.
1215 x 1.2 (sedentary multiplier) is 1458.
Because you're quite close to goal weight, you should probably only aim for about a 10%-15% calorie deficit.
1315 calories per day @ 10% deficit, assuming little to no exercise. This aims for a .3 lb/week loss.
1240 per day @ 15% deficit. This is aiming for an estimated .45 lbs/week loss.0 -
I eat 1700+, but I have a high amount of lean mass (118 lbs) for my wee height (5'2) and I'm very active. 1700 calories *should* give me a 1 lb per week loss.0
-
what I've heard is to eat the 1200 calories like you should but then just make sure that you exercise at least 200 for you and then you'll be at you 1000 calories0
-
1200 should be my limit to lose healthy weight (1 lb a week) but it is almost impossible to stay under that. I have less energy throughout the day and it's impossible for me to do a full 20 min workout if I stay that low. I usually start with the limit suggested then adjust accordingly to have enough energy to make it through my daily routines. Also, I'm 5'4".0
-
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.
I was about to post a reply to this thread...but the above quote sums up everything I was going to say! 1100 calories of real, nutritious food, is perfect with exercise and doesn't leave me hungry.
I guess that the point is to listen to your body and your nutritionist/doctor rather than relying on a computer program.0 -
My husband, who has kept his same weight forever, believes that you should eat 1200 calories if you want to weigh 120 lbs. I'm shooting for 1500 to eventually weigh 150. He also heard this on a talk show. I hope it helps.0
-
EVERYONE READ ARTICLES TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION AND COME BACK AND PRESENT IT TO US AS FACT.0
-
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??0 -
weight loss is not just calories in or out as my doctor told me, i though 1lb=3,500cals so make that minus each week to loose 1lb, but occationaly i lost 2-3 doing that. reasons are, the more you have to loose the quicker it comes off and the higher your bmr is and drinking water can help by reliving water retention. so if your 100lbs and 4'9 even if you ate 700cals aday your bmr would be lower, meaning slower loss. so its like a 150lb 5'9, but i would not go lower than 1,200 unless you are really obese. its not all about weight loss you need nutrition, you can actually lower your metabolic rate by doing that. you wil be much better eating 1,200 exercising abit more agressive than taller people & having a 1lb loss goal each week.,0
-
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
I question science all the time. I'm a scientist, so it's my job.
This is what I get for taking my work home, I guess. 0 -
It’s pretty simple. You exercise more, you get to eat more. I always go back to a friend of mine on here who is 4’11”, about 100 lbs, and eats over 2,000 calories per day to lose weight. You just have to know how to do it and stop thinking you always have to eat less to lose more, or, even worse, eat 1200 calories per day and not eat back your exercise calories.0
-
0 -
Relax, this isn't a race.
Love it!0 -
^^^^^^^^1200 calories is the minimum anyone should be eating. 1200 is considered the starvation level. If you eat less than that your metabolism will slow down and your body thinks it's starving. As a consequence, your body will hang onto the food you eat in the form of fat because it doesn't know when its next meal will be.
THIS!
Folks, more is less when losing fat.
Just do it, and give this time. Think long term, and stop watching the "Biggest Loser".0 -
It seems people are obsessed with this notion of 1200 calories, the doctors I've consulted with have said in no uncertain terms that you should never ever go below your bmr ( it's good to have this calculated by professionals as it does fluctuate based on body composition ) .When you go below your basal metabolism rate your body will reduce organ functions as much as it has to in compensation for the missing calories, yes in the short term you will see a drop in weight when you body burns carbs and eventually convert muscle fiber to get energy and it will do it's darndest to keep a hold of any fat cells it can.
This is of course my opinion and what I've been told by my doctor and sports physicians I've met with and you would need to consult with your own to see what's best for you.
In my case it's a minimum of 2200 calories a day after exercise, I will lose weight because I'm dropping fat % and replacing it with muscle mass. But at one point I may gain some due to the difference in density. At the end of the day I want my fat % low and my muscle mass higher.0 -
There is never any need to go below 1200, and people are right, this isn't a race. If you want to lose the weight long term then take time to do it and consider changing to a healthy lifestyle rather than a crash diet.0
-
Well said I can seemed to get my calorie over 1000. And i was always told don't ea when your not hungry. As I got older I believe I started to eat because of being bored. So now I pay attention if I'm hungry or just bored. And the timing betweenthe time I eat.if I just eat an hour ago and I'm watching TV get hungry. I know im bored.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.0 -
Ok I know I am going to get yelled at for this post but ......
I am going to be 45....I am 5'2".....and at that height and age with a weight of 142.....my daily BMR is only 1240
so that is my maintence just to keep my body working everyday not including weight loss.
Sadly, the older we get the slower our bodies become.
For example my mother is 65 5'4" and 125 her BMR is 1120
another example is my son 6'3" 19 and weight 220...his BMR is like 2300
so height age and weight make a huge difference.
It becomes a matter of finding your balance between what your body had to have each day and what you burn.0 -
Ok I know I am going to get yelled at for this post but ......
I am going to be 45....I am 5'2".....and at that height and age with a weight of 142.....my daily BMR is only 1240
so that is my maintence just to keep my body working everyday not including weight loss.
Sadly, the older we get the slower our bodies become.
For example my mother is 65 5'4" and 125 her BMR is 1120
another example is my son 6'3" 19 and weight 220...his BMR is like 2300
so height age and weight make a huge difference.
It becomes a matter of finding your balance between what your body had to have each day and what you burn.
It's important to note that BMR is not Maintenance Calorie Level. That would only be true if you were doing absolutely nothing else but lie still and have no exertion. And your absolutely right, body composition and other factors do change your BMR drastically.
No yelling I promise 0 -
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.
I totally agree. On 1200, unless I'm doing an hour of cardio a day, I lose weight so slowly it's hard to stay motivated. But if I drop my calories a couple days a week to 1000 and then mix up my intake (ex: 1000, 800, 900, 800, 1200 etc), I lose about 1.5 to 2 pounds weekly. I also discussed this with two doctors who agree that this is acceptable. And I have a friend who has been body building for years who says this is perfectly fine as long as I don't expect it to be a long term approach to maintain my weight. I will need to learn the right daily intake and exercise combo to keep it off). Just my two cents.0 -
according to my doctor it is almost impossible for anyone to get the nutrients they need to be healthy on less then 1500 cals a day. you need to up for exercise not starve your body. if you starve yoru body you are putting your health and weight loss in major danger.0
-
bump.0
-
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
Dude, if people don't question then they don't learn...! Not everything is correct all the time, it is good to question. Once upon a time people thought the earth was flat and made by a god...0 -
Ok I know I am going to get yelled at for this post but ......
I am going to be 45....I am 5'2".....and at that height and age with a weight of 142.....my daily BMR is only 1240
so that is my maintence just to keep my body working everyday not including weight loss.
Sadly, the older we get the slower our bodies become.
For example my mother is 65 5'4" and 125 her BMR is 1120
another example is my son 6'3" 19 and weight 220...his BMR is like 2300
so height age and weight make a huge difference.
It becomes a matter of finding your balance between what your body had to have each day and what you burn.
It's important to note that BMR is not Maintenance Calorie Level. That would only be true if you were doing absolutely nothing else but lie still and have no exertion. And your absolutely right, body composition and other factors do change your BMR drastically.
No yelling I promise
OH you are a sweetie thank you for not yelling *grin*0 -
Possibly depending on the individual. Seemingly I am on a "Tom Venuto" posting binge but the following excerpt of an article by him neatly summarises the position: (full article here: http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/why-women-lose-weight-more-slowly-than-men-650.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may have heard (or, heh, realized), that it’s more difficult for women to lose fat than men. Immediately most people think it must be estrogen or hormonal issues. But perhaps the biggest factor is NOT hormones, but the simple fact that women are usually smaller and lighter than men.
When you have a smaller body, you have lower calorie needs. When you have lower calorie needs, your relative deficit (20%, 30% etc) gives you a smaller absolute deficit and therefore you lose fat more slowly than someone who is larger and can create a large deficit more easily.
For example, if my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is 3300 calories a day (I’m 5′ 8″ and moderately to very active), then a 20% deficit is 660 calories, which brings me to 2640 calories a day. On paper, that will give me about 1.3 lbs of wt loss per week, rather painlessly, I might add.
If I bumped my calorie burn up or decreased my intake by another 340 a day, that’s enough to give me a 2 lbs per week wt loss.
That’s hardly a starvation diet (Ahhh, the joys of being a man). For smaller women, the math equation is very different.
If your total daily energy expenditure is only 1970 calories, even at a VERY high exercise level, then a 20% deficit for you is only 394 calories which would put you at 1576 calories a day for (on paper) only 8/10th of a lb of fat loss/wk.
If you pursued your plan to take a more aggressive calorie deficit of 30%, that puts you at a 591 calorie deficit which would now drop you down to only 1382 calories/day.
That’s starting to get fairly low in calories. However, you would still have a fairly small calorie deficit. In fact, I would get to eat almost twice as many calories as you and I’d still get almost twice the weekly rate of fat loss!
What this all means is that women who are petite or have a small body size are going to lose fat more slowly than larger women and much more slowly than men, so you cannot compare yourself to them.
It’s great to be inspired by our success stories, but if you’re looking for someone to model yourself after, choose one of our success stories of someone your body size and wt, rather than the folks who started 100 lbs overweight and were therefore easily dropping 3 lbs a week.
ONE POUND a week of fat loss is much more in line with a realistic goal for someone of a smaller body size. Overweight people can lose it faster. The best thing you can do is to be extremely consistent with your nutrition over time.0 -
Possibly depending on the individual. Seemingly I am on a "Tom Venuto" posting binge but the following excerpt of an article by him neatly summarises the position: (full article here: http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/why-women-lose-weight-more-slowly-than-men-650.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may have heard (or, heh, realized), that it’s more difficult for women to lose fat than men. Immediately most people think it must be estrogen or hormonal issues. But perhaps the biggest factor is NOT hormones, but the simple fact that women are usually smaller and lighter than men.
When you have a smaller body, you have lower calorie needs. When you have lower calorie needs, your relative deficit (20%, 30% etc) gives you a smaller absolute deficit and therefore you lose fat more slowly than someone who is larger and can create a large deficit more easily.
For example, if my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is 3300 calories a day (I’m 5′ 8″ and moderately to very active), then a 20% deficit is 660 calories, which brings me to 2640 calories a day. On paper, that will give me about 1.3 lbs of wt loss per week, rather painlessly, I might add.
If I bumped my calorie burn up or decreased my intake by another 340 a day, that’s enough to give me a 2 lbs per week wt loss.
That’s hardly a starvation diet (Ahhh, the joys of being a man). For smaller women, the math equation is very different.
If your total daily energy expenditure is only 1970 calories, even at a VERY high exercise level, then a 20% deficit for you is only 394 calories which would put you at 1576 calories a day for (on paper) only 8/10th of a lb of fat loss/wk.
If you pursued your plan to take a more aggressive calorie deficit of 30%, that puts you at a 591 calorie deficit which would now drop you down to only 1382 calories/day.
That’s starting to get fairly low in calories. However, you would still have a fairly small calorie deficit. In fact, I would get to eat almost twice as many calories as you and I’d still get almost twice the weekly rate of fat loss!
What this all means is that women who are petite or have a small body size are going to lose fat more slowly than larger women and much more slowly than men, so you cannot compare yourself to them.
It’s great to be inspired by our success stories, but if you’re looking for someone to model yourself after, choose one of our success stories of someone your body size and wt, rather than the folks who started 100 lbs overweight and were therefore easily dropping 3 lbs a week.
ONE POUND a week of fat loss is much more in line with a realistic goal for someone of a smaller body size. Overweight people can lose it faster. The best thing you can do is to be extremely consistent with your nutrition over time.
Yep, exactly. Great post!0 -
It seems people are obsessed with this notion of 1200 calories, the doctors I've consulted with have said in no uncertain terms that you should never ever go below your bmr ( it's good to have this calculated by professionals as it does fluctuate based on body composition ) .When you go below your basal metabolism rate your body will reduce organ functions as much as it has to in compensation for the missing calories, yes in the short term you will see a drop in weight when you body burns carbs and eventually convert muscle fiber to get energy and it will do it's darndest to keep a hold of any fat cells it can.
This is of course my opinion and what I've been told by my doctor and sports physicians I've met with and you would need to consult with your own to see what's best for you.
^^ Well said. This whole thread is full of misguided 1/2 accurate information. I'm 5'2 and lost on a 1200 kcal (+ some exercise calories) diet. If you were below 5ft you would (most likely as there are many factors here) need to lower your caloric goal. 1200 isn't a magic number. Also, I just want to point out that height most certainly does play a role in a BMR. People who are taller have a higher BMR.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions