Devil's advocate: 1200 calories for petite/short women?
Replies
-
SW: 130 CW:118 GW: 110
Looking to share food logs with other petite ladies. I'm 5'2 trying to manage a 1200 calorie goal. I recently plateaued and realized that I wasn't eating enough calories considering I exercise 4-5 times a week. I've upped my calories and have started losing weight again.
Also started blogging healthy recipe ideas at www.petitehealth.com.
Please add me as a friend if you'd like to share food diaries/motivation. I just signed up for tough mudder this summer! Need all the motivation i can get! Thanks!0 -
I'm 4'6" -_- lol 86 lbs and I eat like 1000-1500 a day depnding if I'm trying to lose or maintain. Walk about 2 hours a day.0
-
I was well on my way to being a success story, until I joined MFP and let the whole "you'll starve and you're metabolism will die" get to me. 100% my own fault, but I'm morbidly obese again. I should have listened to my doctor, and I won't be making this mistake again. 1200 is enough and NOTHING bad will happen.1
-
I think it's obvious that a lot of this will depend on your frame size and weight, as well as your genetic makeup - my family all seem to have slow metabolisms, and none of us eat a huge amount.
I'm 5ft2, and when I was a skinny teenager (47kg) I ate around 1000kcal gross, and felt fine on that (cycled loads, did well in college, plenty of energy, weight completely stable). My body has changed quite a bit over the last 20yrs though, and my natural intake is now around 1400kcal gross (I'm 59kg on that, and have been for the past 5 years). Some of that is fat , but actually most of it is muscle! My body composition is totally different now. I'm aiming to get to 55kg - 47kg would not be a healthy weight for me now.
It is difficult to get a good balance of nutrients, but that is mostly due to non-petite serving sizes - the average "adult-size" meal contains more than half of my daily quota of calories. That doesn't leave much room for anything else, and not all meals are a perfect 50/20/30 balance! For example, I had a fennel risotto for dinner last night. One plate was already way over my daily carb allowance, and only contained 15g protein - MFP thinks I needed to have eaten another 60g of protein that day, out of my remaining 700kcal, which is not really possible as a vegetarian if you are trying to eat normal meals and not just cottage cheese or protein shakes.
The main advantage I find with MFP is that it makes me more aware of empty calories (I've switched to a skinny latte after workouts because it has the same protein but fewer calories, and have also changed my breakfast yoghurt from greek to natural and eat fewer biscuits). I haven't made any significant changes to my diet, but it was pretty healthy to begin with and with only 4kg to lose I hopefully shouldn't need to make any major changes.0 -
I am 5'2" and age 36. My MFP calorie goal comes out at 1200 (plus calories earned from exercise).
This week my net calories have been 771, 950 and 903. For the previous 2 full weeks my calories have averaged 1000-1100 net.
Today I actually forgot to eat the yoghurt I planned to have as a snack mid afternoon! Woops!0 -
so here is what I have found out over the last 2 or so months.
1. started with 1200 calories. I didn't look at NET calories, just ate. worked out. Lost 20 pounds
2. started reading the posts. Upped my calories to 1400 (slightly above my BMR) - gained 6 pounds. Went to the doctor - based on thyroid, and everything else...1400 was above where I needed to be.
3. started on a high protein no carb 1000 calories...losing weight.
Upping my calories did not help me at all.
5'2'
I`m 45-yrs old, 5`0 ft . I was losing about half a pound to a pound a week on 1200 cal. I upped my calories to 1500 after reading all the bad things about 1200, but gained 6-lbs and now i`m not losing any weight in 3-weeks..0 -
wow. i can't keep up. im 52kg 5 foot tall 20 years old and im struggling. to eat 1200 calories, ive only recently started counting my calories and found out i was averaging on 800-1000 calories per day, so since i have been trying to get to 1200 but i don't get hungry and i feel what im eating is enough and don't really understand why there's this 1200 minimum. i exercise most days
i feel great on 1000, and on a lazy day 800 is fine.. was kinda hoping i wasn't the only one lol0 -
I'm 5'2" currently 175 and I eat 1900 a day I'm pretty active, and workout 4 times a week, I used to only eat 1500 calories but that got me nowhere0
-
I'm short 5'0" or 4'11" (like almost 5 foot lol) and hate when MFP tells me I need 1200 cals to lose x amount of weight... I can't survive off 1200.. sometimes I net it, but usually that's if I fall asleep early. Usually my net is 1600-2000 idk how much I weight but I'm a size 0 so I guess that range works for me0
-
bump0
-
This is an interesting topic for me, since I am 5'2". I am 52, and need to lose at least 35 pounds. This site says I should eat 1200 calories, also, but they add up SO quickly!0
-
I'm 5"1 and I weigh about 47-48kg, it fluctuates. I've been netting below 1200 for months and now I'm trying to up my calories so that it is 1200 cals net on days that I workout! ^^ hope I am able to lose some fat and gain muscles!0
-
Love this Topic! its somethingi have wondered about for years so its great to hear everyones experiences. I'm 4'11" and 110 (goal is 97ish). I've been eating about 1000 for years while working out and never understood by I could not lose these last 10 lbs or so. After reading every thread like this possible, I've upped my cals to about 1200 net. (So usually eating 1300-1400) for the past 3 weeks or so. I've agined about 2 lbs but everyone said ths would happen. What has also happened is that I feel a little more relaxed in general. I feel like I'm indulging by adding whole grains (like brown Rice w/dinner) back into my diet. This "indulging" makes me less apt to want to snack after a meal.... And certainly less obsessed w/sweets and sugar. I feel more in control and "normal" about food and eating.
I'm so anxious to see if I eventually start losing while allowing myself more calories than ever before. It seems that SO man MFP-ers have had success doing this...hope I'm one of them! It certainly feels good to be less obsessive so far. At the same time, I does bug me to see the scale higher than its been for a few years. But I was stuck at 108 for years while eating 900-1100 nd working out a ton so that clearly got me nowhere. Got to try something new!0 -
I'm 4ft 11 and weight around 58-59kg. I spent years undertaking and since upping my calories I've done nothing but gain. I'm trying to aim for around 1400-1500 per day with maybe one spike day. I exercise 4-5 times a week, heavy lifting with some HIIT and spin. I'm measuring too and my measurements are up to. I spent years doing excessive cardio and eating very low.0
-
I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.
QFT.
from personal exeperience;
TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.
PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.0 -
Bump! I'm 20yrs, 5ft4 and 148lbs at the moment, with a goal of maybe around 125.
I stick to a 1200cal diet most of the time, but there have definitely been days where I feel like I need to eat more, so I'm just trying to learn how to listen to my body and give it the nutrients it needs. I'm focusing on keeping my protein, calcium and iron up, but to be honest I'm not too fazed with the others
This is an awesome thread. I definitely think everyone is slightly different, so you can't just proclaim 1200 is too few and expect that to always be the case!0 -
4'110
-
I guess I'm on the larger spectrum of this particular topic (which is a nice change :P) at 5'3 1/2. I'm currently 105 pounds and while I exercise it's not routine or intensive. For the most part I'd consider myself sedentary with really good body genetics that allow me to be lazy and look partially toned! :-P Anyway, the *only* way that I can maintain 105 pounds (or rather, 105-108) is by eating 1,200 calories a day or less. But like I said, I'm not in the tiniest bit active so this is -plenty- for me ~ and I fill those 1,200 with all natural "clean" foods. So in my defense, I might have a low BF%, but I really don't know.0
-
I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.
QFT.
from personal exeperience;
TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.
PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.
TDEE method INCLUDES exercise calories. If you follow that method you should be eating 1800 only (assuming you picked the correct activity level and such).
ETA: And just a note to any lurkers, always give yourself 4-6 weeks for your body to adjust after changing your cals.0 -
I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???0
-
though at least it isn't a really stupid thread. :noway:
ps I'm 5'2 and was close to killing people on 1200, lost on 1500 and trying 1700 now (if I ever actually stick to my cal goal :blushing: )0 -
I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???
Total Daily Energy Expenditure0 -
I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.
QFT.
from personal exeperience;
TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.
PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.
TDEE method INCLUDES exercise calories. If you follow that method you should be eating 1800 only (assuming you picked the correct activity level and such).
ETA: And just a note to any lurkers, always give yourself 4-6 weeks for your body to adjust after changing your cals.
Um, I dont know where I said I am eating in excess to 1800? I guess you misread.0 -
I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???
Total Daily Energy Expenditure
You can also Google terms with which you're not familiar.0 -
And your activity...0 -
There seems to be a misunderstanding of TDEE estimates.
Estimates of TDEE obtained from formulas represent the maximum amount of calories a person can eat to experience relative weight and body composition homeostasis when NOT under the effects of a chronic calorie restrictive state.
This means: if you have been chronically restricting calories, either presently or in the recent past, TDEE estimates are likely to be more off since your body is in a state where it is no longer burning energy at 100% efficiency. In other words, as long as your metabolism is still exhibiting the negative effects resulting from chronic calorie restriction, your RMR is requiring less energy and you burn less calories from both exercise and non-exercise activity as well as TEF.0 -
1200 calories might be enough if you have some weight to lose. I am 5'3" and 108lbs, and I lose weight when I eat 1200 calories. So that tells me 1200 calories is too low to maintain my weight. MFP has my maintenance at 1460, but I eat over that many days with an average closer to 1700-1800. And you know what, I am still maintaining.
Yep, my thoughts too. I'm a hair under 5'4 and 129 lb. I lose on 1150-1250 without too much trouble, so I know it's not maintenance. I have a Fitbit which says my TDEE is anywhere from 1700-1900 depending on activity level. Even accounting for the TDEE figures being off, 1200 is for losing. I'm transitioning into maintenance and going to 1400 first, then 1500, etc. No way I can stay at 1200 or I'll just slowly lose.0 -
i'm 5'4", weight 130, hoping to lose 15lbs. The only way i can do this is eating 1200 calories net...so i eat around 1600 and burn off 400. I have a desk job and work from home, so i class that as pretty sedentary for a lot of the day.
I order to lose weight i have to stick to 1200 cals, which makes sense because i maintain at between 1550-1700 calories.
I do the exact same thing; eat around 1600 (otherwise I'm too hungry during the day), but exercise to 1200 net. It seems to be working really well for me, although I'm looking to lose more like 30-35 pounds.0 -
Bump0
-
Human allometry researching the relationship between total energy expenditure and body size is a very new field. Here are two interesting studies on reduced mass-specific total energy expenditure in tall adults:Abstract
Mammalian resting energy expenditure (REE) increases as approximately weight(0.75) while mass-specific REE scales as approximately weight(-0.25). Energy needs for replacing resting losses are thus less relative to weight (W) in large compared with small mammals, a classic observation with biological implications. Human weight scales as approximately height(2) and tall adults thus have a greater weight than their short counterparts. However, it remains unknown if mass-specific energy requirements are less in tall adults; allometric models linking total energy expenditure (TEE) and weight with height (H) are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that mass-specific energy requirements scale inversely to height in adults by evaluating TEE (doubly labeled water) data collected by the National Academy of Sciences. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was calculated from TEE, REE (indirect calorimetry), and estimated diet-induced energy expenditure. Main analyses focused on nonmorbidly obese subjects < or =50 yrs of age with non-negative AEE values (n = 404), although results were directionally similar for all samples. Allometric models, including age as a covariate, revealed significantly (P < 0.05) greater REE, AEE, and TEE as a function of height (range H(1.5-1.7)) in both men and women. TEE/W scaled negatively to height ( approximately H(-0.7), P < 0.01) with predicted mass-specific TEE (kcal/kg/d) at +/-2 SD for US height lower in tall compared with short men (40.3 vs. 46.5) and women (37.7 vs. 42.7). REE/W also scaled negatively to height in men (P < 0.001) and women (P < 0.01). Results were generally robust across several different analytic strategies. These observations reveal previously unforeseen associations between human stature and energy requirements that have implications for modeling efforts and provide new links to mammalian biology as a whole.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856424
Abstract
Two observations favor the presence of a lower mass-specific resting energy expenditure (REE/weight) in taller adult humans: an earlier report of height (H)-related differences in relative body composition; and a combined model based on Quetelet and Kleiber's classic equations suggesting that REE/weight proportional, variantH(-0.5). This study tested the hypothesis stating that mass-specific REE scales negatively to height with a secondary aim exploration of related associations between height, weight (W), surface area (SA), and REE. Two independent data sets (n = 344 and 884) were evaluated, both with REE measured by indirect calorimetry and the smaller of the two including fat estimates by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results support Quetelet's equation (W proportional, variantH(2)), but Kleiber's equation approached the interspecific mammal form (REE proportional, variantW(0.75)) only after adding adiposity measures to weight and age as REE predictors. REE/weight scaled as H( approximately (-0.5)) in support of the hypothesis with P values ranging from 0.17 to <0.001. REE and SA both scaled as H( approximately 1.5), and REE/SA was nonsignificantly correlated with height in all groups. These observations suggest that adiposity needs to be considered when evaluating the intraspecific scaling of REE to weight; that relative to their weight, taller subjects require a lower energy intake for replacing resting heat losses than shorter subjects; that fasting endurance, approximated as fat mass/REE, increases as H(0.5); and that thermal balance is maintained independent of stature by evident stable associations between resting heat production and capacity of external heat release. These observations have implications for the modeling of adult human energy requirements and associate with anthropological concepts founded on body size.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/176901960
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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