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

Tigermad

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??

becky2967

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.,

Hyperspace

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.

_GlaDOS_

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.

pkez41

JulesofWinsto

Relax, this isn't a race.

Love it!

MaximalLife

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".

Fit_Canuck

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.

stuffinmuffin

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.

robinhoward123

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 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.

norma67

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.

Fit_Canuck

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

Nailrep

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.

empresslove13

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.

RTricia

bump.

hailzp

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...

norma67

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*

myofibril

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.

Nailrep

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!

DizzieLittleLifter

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.