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

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.

pdameron

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.

Boilerchick

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.

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.

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.

Barneystinson

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.

hottottie11

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.

Uhmanduh

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 calories

Mrs_ALM

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".

parkygirl

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.

srdeaver

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.

Jovialation

EVERYONE READ ARTICLES TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION AND COME BACK AND PRESENT IT TO US AS FACT.