Can We Talk About that Magic 1200 Number?

Skinnytime

I am having a little trouble with the magic 1,200 calories being the minimum for everyone. On days that I don't exercise, I feel like I've over-eaten if I eat 1,200 calories. Is this really the number for everyone, or is it an average? Could some people really be more like 1,000 calorie minimum metabolisms and others be more 1,400 calorie metabolisms?
I am talking nutrient dense calories, not empty ones, by the way.
I would just hate to blow all the exercise and careful logging of food because I started with an average number, rather than a number that's right for me.
Any thoughts?

Skinnytime

I am having a little trouble with the magic 1,200 calories being the minimum for everyone. On days that I don't exercise, I feel like I've over-eaten if I eat 1,200 calories. Is this really the number for everyone, or is it an average? Could some people really be more like 1,000 calorie minimum metabolisms and others be more 1,400 calorie metabolisms?
I am talking nutrient dense calories, not empty ones, by the way.
I would just hate to blow all the exercise and careful logging of food because I started with an average number, rather than a number that's right for me.
Any thoughts?

TheBull50

interesting ... i would like to see what people say about this one

Dave198lbs

no

go read the million and 40 links
it would be easier for you

good luck

ivykivy

Everyone does have a different 'magic number'.

This may help.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/9007-bmr-ma-because-of-the-answers-to-the-questions

thejarviclan

I'm sure there's some subjective play to the Magic Number, but most health professionals will say "1200" is the baseline number of calories for an adult. So you can take that as you would any advice from a health professional.

The best thing would be to have your own metabolism evaluated, either by a doctor or certified trainer.

amymeenieminymo

No, 1200 is the recommended MINIMUM that you should not go under. In general, anything under 1200 is unhealthy and putting yourself in danger of being in starvation mode.

Did you calculate on MFP how many calories you should be eating? MFP will figure it all out for you. Even if 1200 isn't making a person ill, most need way more in order to be really healthy and losing weight consistently. For example I eat 1400, but that's only after being here for almost a year and losing 35 pounds....I think I started around 1550 or 1600.

And as the others said, read the links pertaining to this subject as they can provide a lot more scientific answers than I can.

MissesOfficer

The days I eat totally healthy, I can't seem to reach my 1,200... then the days that I have fruit smoothies or lasagna or something like that I find I go over SO easily... can't seem to find a happy medium LOL

kimber607

Ohhh Dave..LOL

This has been asked a lot , especially by newbies (which is FINE)
I'll give u my .02 for what's it worth
I don't think ANYONE who exc or not should eat 1200 (maybe unless you are 4ft)
If u are a normal active human being (wether you work, work from home or are a SAHM or SAHD)
I just don't see how it can be enough for your body....

When I started here I wanted to loose 30 pounds
The 1200 cal number just didn't sit right with me and after eating very carefully/well the first 2 days I thought I was going to DIE and I was NOT working out
I upped my cals to about 1490-1500 cals and lost the weight
Now that I have started working out and trying to maintain..I eat usually at least 1800-2000 cals...

Good luck and find what works for you...listen to your body and what a wise decision for YOU
Kim

MacMadame

There is no way that one number can be right for everyone. That's just common sense. 1200 is a number that seems to work for a lot of people and it's a number where most people can get adequate nutrition from food. So that's the common recommendation. But if you are a big person or a guy, it's probably too few calories. If you are smaller and/or a gal, it could be too much.

I think you have look at that number in terms of your BMI. If your BMI is 1400, then 1200 should create a calorie deficit as long as your exercise calories are reported accurate. But if your BMI is less than 1200, then you may want to talk to your doctor about what a good minimum is for you.

Also, keep in mind that the numbers you see on MFP are estimates:

Unless you have had your BMI tested with one of those machines you breathe into, you don't really know your BMR. MFP does any okay job for me, but the last time I had my BMR tested, it was 8% lower than average for my height, weight and gender so I'm going to assume the MFP estimate is also off by 8%.

I also use a HRM to judge my calorie expenditure and it shows a lot less calories burned for biking than both the machines at the gym and MFP's database show. My running burns more though. So I use the HRM numbers and not the MFP numbers. If I used the MFP numbers, I'd always over-estimate my exercise calories (because I do more things in a week that it under-estimates than that it over-estimates).

In the end, reality triumps formulas. If you eat 1200 calories a day and all your exercise calories and you aren't losing weight or inches, then the numbers MFP is giving you are too high. If you do lose weight, then they are fine.

amymeenieminymo

I'm sure there's some subjective play to the Magic Number, but most health professionals will say "1200" is the baseline number of calories for an adult. So you can take that as you would any advice from a health professional.

The best thing would be to have your own metabolism evaluated, either by a doctor or certified trainer.

I would have to disagree. I don't think most health professionals would say 1200 calories is what the average adult should be eating. Especially for men....I think men are reccomended to eat somewhere between 1800 and 2300! I've always heard 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever think about eating, not the standard amount that we should be eating. Also, a persons size has a ton to do with it. A woman that is 5'10 and has a more muscular, thicker build will naturally need more calories to fuel her body than a woman that is 5 foot and has a slim build.

Though having her metabolism evaluated is a good idea.

hiddensecant

I think 1200 is more of a legal number. You shouldn't eat under 1200 without a doctor's supervision. MFP doesn't want to be legally responsible if you decide to go under their recommendation, which they feel will put you into starvation mode.

MacMadame

I've always heard 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever think about eating,

Just because people say something over and over, doesn't make it true.

First of all, 1200 isn't the absolute minimum that no one should go under or be unhealthy. It's the recommended minimum if you aren't under a doctor's supervision. Many doctor-supervised programs, such as Medifast, put people on 800 calories to start, for example.

Those people lose weight just fine and are healthy and don't go into "starvation mode". They also are taking lots of supplements and having labs drawn regularly to make sure they are getting all the nutrition they need. If someone isn't doing well, they can react quickly and change up their diet.

But if you aren't under a doctor's care and just go by how you feel, you are taking a big risk. Some vitamin deficiencies can cause serious, permanent damage and you won't feel bad until it's too late, for example.

But that doesn't make it automatically unhealthy. It just makes it risky. There's a difference.

songbyrdsweet

Unless you want to spend some time in a metabolic chamber, you'll never be able to know what number is just right for you. Basing it off of hunger is inaccurate, as hunger can be psychological or physiological, and is not always related to the number of calories you need. Basing it off weight loss can work for a while, but if you're drastically undereating, you'll lose weight at a rapid pace before it slows down considerably and you have a heck of a time trying to set your calories even lower. Besides, that's no way to keep track of muscle loss.

There really isn't a REASON to eat less than 1200 calories a day. Yes, it's a generalized number that won't work for everyone. But it's a good place to start to ensure you're getting all necessary nutrients without the supervision of a doctor.

This isn't a race, and you don't get a prize for charging to the finish line at full-speed, health-be-damned. This needs to be a sustainable lifestyle change, and there is a reason why less than 1200 calories isn't recommended---it's not sustainable. Even Medifast patients have to go back to eating a normal amount of calories eventually. Don't make this harder on your body than it already is.

amymeenieminymo

I've always heard 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever think about eating,

Just because people say something over and over, doesn't make it true.

First of all, 1200 isn't the absolute minimum that no one should go under or be unhealthy. It's the recommended minimum if you aren't under a doctor's supervision. Many doctor-supervised programs, such as Medifast, put people on 800 calories to start, for example.

Those people lose weight just fine and are healthy and don't go into "starvation mode". They also are taking lots of supplements and having labs drawn regularly to make sure they are getting all the nutrition they need. If someone isn't doing well, they can react quickly and change up their diet.

But if you aren't under a doctor's care and just go by how you feel, you are taking a big risk. Some vitamin deficiencies can cause serious, permanent damage and you won't feel bad until it's too late, for example.

But that doesn't make it automatically unhealthy. It just makes it risky. There's a difference.

Out of curiosity, what would be a reason that a doctor would put someone on an 800 calorie diet with supervisions and lab tests and such?

songbyrdsweet

I've always heard 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever think about eating,

Just because people say something over and over, doesn't make it true.

First of all, 1200 isn't the absolute minimum that no one should go under or be unhealthy. It's the recommended minimum if you aren't under a doctor's supervision. Many doctor-supervised programs, such as Medifast, put people on 800 calories to start, for example.

Those people lose weight just fine and are healthy and don't go into "starvation mode". They also are taking lots of supplements and having labs drawn regularly to make sure they are getting all the nutrition they need. If someone isn't doing well, they can react quickly and change up their diet.

But if you aren't under a doctor's care and just go by how you feel, you are taking a big risk. Some vitamin deficiencies can cause serious, permanent damage and you won't feel bad until it's too late, for example.

But that doesn't make it automatically unhealthy. It just makes it risky. There's a difference.

Out of curiosity, what would be a reason that a doctor would put someone on an 800 calorie diet with supervisions and lab tests and such?

In cases of morbid obesity, like a person to might weigh something like 500 lbs (BMI over 40), it's more important to drop the weight than to maintain their BMR or muscle mass. At that point the risk of death from complications like sleep apnea or bed sore infections is so great it outweighs anything else.

vanessadawn

I would get it checked by a doctor if it really concerns you. But I believe 1200 should leave a calorie deficit for almost everyone, you included. It might take a while for the pounds to fall off, be patient. 800 - 900 calories is considered baseline for having an eating disorder. Realistically you want to be getting a good amount of fat, protein, carbs and vitamins and to do that would be quite hard with under 1200 calories to work with.

MacMadame

Out of curiosity, what would be a reason that a doctor would put someone on an 800 calorie diet with supervisions and lab tests and such?

Well, first of all, there was actually a time when many diet programs put you on an 800-1000 calorie plan. That was considered standard and healthy. But some people developed gallstones on these diets so places like Jenny Craig and WW changed their programs to avoid that. (I was on 1000 calories on Nutri/system in the 80s and, yes, I lost my gallbladder. Nutri/system today uses the "magic" 1200 number.)

Doctors still do it though in a number of cases, most of them, but not all, associated with bariatric surgery patients.

(1) To rapdily "shrink" the liver just prior to surgery to make it easier for the surgeon to move the liver out of the way. This is usually a 2 week diet, often liquid such as Medifast, but anything low carb, high protein will do. The goal is to rapidly deplete the liver of glycogen so it's less slippery/brittle.

(2) After bariatric surgery, except for people with lap-bands, the stomach isn't big enough to hold much at all and you have to be on all liquds for at least two weeks also as your staple lines heal. Most patients *can't* get more than 400-600 calories a day during that time. As time passes, you can eat more and the calories go up, but most people are 800 or less for the first six months and some do it longer, if they have a lot of weight to lose.

(3) Someone has another medical problem which only losing weight will solve and it has to be done quickly. (As was mentioned above.)

(4) Some doctors think rapid weight loss is more motivating and therefore it's worth doing a VLCD even in the absense of 1-3.

Skinnytime

Some good thoughts, thank you.
As far as calories/nutrition, let me give you an example. Today in 918 calories, I've consumed 71g Carbs, 35g Fat, 81g Protein and 29g Fiber + vitamins.
This is not inadequate nutrition, but it is under the 1,200.
On an "off" day, if I eat this way, I feel fine.
I think I will take the suggestion to get a HRM to see exactly how much I should be eating.
Thanks!

songbyrdsweet

Are you actually monitoring all your vitamins and minerals?
The carbohydrate levels are quite low. If you're not getting enough energy from carbohydrates, your body will break down both fat and muscle to convert glycerol and amino acids to glucose. If you're not eating enough, your body will break itself down, and while a modest deficit will result in primarily fat loss, a very large deficit will result in muscle and bone loss as well.