This 1200 calorie thing is driving me up a wall

TamTastic

I started ediets in September and was given around 1600-1700 calories a day. I started at 270 lbs and would actually eat around 1550-1650 calories a day for a long time. I was losing on average, 3-4 lbs a week (sometimes a little less and I had a maintain during Thanksgiving and Christmas week). As I have lost weight and am now at 209, I have lowered my calories to around 1350-1400 and have been losing 1-2 lbs a week. Part of it is because I have lost a lot and am at a lower weight now but I am starting to wonder if I am eating too few calories because now that I think about it, it is right when I lowerd my calorie range that losing 3 lbs on average stopped. Hmmmmm! Maybe I should try a week of around 1550 again and see how I do.

This seems like a good calculator and based on what it says my BMR is and to lose weight I should take 500 calories off the rate it gives me....the 1500-1600 range would be ideal for me (right now anyway). Interesting.
http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htmegularly enough).

jessneill

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/calsburned.htm

I use the "easy way" here for maintenance. Works great.

ummm... her "easy way" calculation says I should eat 4280 calories to maintain my weight. I'm 214 and I do aerobic exercise 6 days a week and lifting 3 days a week. I think that would qualify me for active...

That seems incredibly high to me....

ginnyg

I completely agree with all that you are saying Banks - everybody is different, I shift my calories constantly - to keep my body from going into starvation mode. I also listen to my body - if I have consumed something high in cals but not in volume (substance) and I am hungry later I will eat something low in calories (such as raw carrots/ salad/ tomatoes etc because my body knows best.

Hell whats the point of cutting back on everything (eating 1200 cals), feeling ill and dizzy and ultimately when you get to your goal going back to your old eating habits and putting all the weight back on (plus some extra). All you will feel during your "diet" is annoyed that you can't eat foods that are bad and you will get fixated on a number - I really can't imagine going to Burger King/ Macdonalds (sometimes you can't escape it on an outing with the kids) eating 1200 cals in one sitting and not eating anything else that day - how is that a balanced diet

the only way to lose weight and keep it off it to make a lifestyle change and learn to eat healthily and don't shift your food addiction to a counting calories addiction- everything is good in moderation - extreme dieting is just preparing yourself to ultimately FAIL!!!!!

I have not been eating hardly at all (due to personal issues in a relationship:brokenheart: :sad: ) and this week alone I have dropped 10lbs - Am I Happy about this????? you'd think I would be jumping for joy at being 10lbs nearer to my goal - hell no - I am constantly tired, my skins is awful, I have no energy and my skins gone all flabby - Far from being happy its made me realize just what I have put my body through! I am making myself eat healthy stuff because its wrong to crash diet even if there is a reason behind it. And you need the correct nutrition to let your skin cope with all the weightloss - otherwise we will all end up on extreme makeover having excess skin removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There endeth my "rant" LOL :grumble: :happy:

lotusfromthemud

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/calsburned.htm

I use the "easy way" here for maintenance. Works great.

ummm... her "easy way" calculation says I should eat 4280 calories to maintain my weight. I'm 214 and I do aerobic exercise 6 days a week and lifting 3 days a week. I think that would qualify me for active...

That seems incredibly high to me....

Yes, but aren't you trying to lose weight? Not being rude, but try the calculator assuming you are at your goal weight. I'm sure it will seem much more reasonable. When I was heavier, I'm sure I was eating over 3000 calories a day to maintain that weight, without any exercise.

But, I'd be equally unhealthy now under-eating.

alaskagal

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/calsburned.htm

I use the "easy way" here for maintenance. Works great.

ummm... her "easy way" calculation says I should eat 4280 calories to maintain my weight. I'm 214 and I do aerobic exercise 6 days a week and lifting 3 days a week. I think that would qualify me for active...

That seems incredibly high to me....

I used the same "easy way" calculator for myself and put in my goal weight (125 lbs) and the reading does seem high. I do cardio 6 or 7 days a week and weight lift 2 to 3 times a week. I'd love to be able to eat all those calories but if I did I'm relatively sure I'd end up gaining weight. Maybe at my age (43) my metabolism is just slower even though I am working out. Maybe it's because I'm in "hormone hell" and just looking at food causes me to gain. I dunno....:noway:

dulceluva

these numbers are always arbitrary.... I still don't understand why people can't just use these sites as guidelines and then tailor it to their lives. This is a lifestyle change and don't we all need to live with our choices??

I am 4'10 and way over weight. Mine says I should be eating 1200 calories too but my main goal is to try and eat as much food as I can within that constraint but realistically it should be to exercise enough so that you can eat whatever you want.... but we still need to change our lifestyle so that what we 'want' is healthy, wholesome foods that are good for our bodies while having other temptations in moderation.

jessneill

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/calsburned.htm

I use the "easy way" here for maintenance. Works great.

ummm... her "easy way" calculation says I should eat 4280 calories to maintain my weight. I'm 214 and I do aerobic exercise 6 days a week and lifting 3 days a week. I think that would qualify me for active...

That seems incredibly high to me....

Yes, but aren't you trying to lose weight? Not being rude, but try the calculator assuming you are at your goal weight. I'm sure it will seem much more reasonable. When I was heavier, I'm sure I was eating over 3000 calories a day to maintain that weight, without any exercise.

But, I'd be equally unhealthy now under-eating.

Yes, but on the assumption that a 1000 calorie a day deficit would allow me to lose 2lbs a week, according to these calculations I could still eat 3280 calories a day and lose 2lbs a week.

I'm just saying the calculations seem to be off.

Even when I input my goal weight it says for maintenance I would need to eat 3000 calories a day. Again, it just doesn't seem to compute.

banks1850

Jess,

what does the guide on this site say? I know this one is pretty close to correct. I have compared it to doing it with manual calculations and it comes out to within 100 calories of manual. If this site gives you similar numbers then it is probably right.

kimber607

Hi

I'm glad to see this post as well..when i first came here a few weeks ago and found out I was only supposed to eat 1290 cals to loose weight, I surely thought I would going to die...LOL
I'm 5 '7...I was 155 and am now 143...
Right off the bat, I increased my calories to 1400ish...
I have to say i do not excercise...I know I know...my bad...but I have a 2 1/2 and 4 yr old...enough said
I am very active with them...
I just don't have the energy to get up earlier than 6:30am or work out after they to bed at 8:00
From being on this site, I've changed the way I am eating and have been making better choices and I no longer feel hungry on my 1400 cal a day...I'm still wondering if it is the right amount for me...i want to loose this weight in a healthy way and MAINTAIN w/ out too much trouble

Thanks for the post, Kim

icandoit

Thank you Banks.
I am a 1330-1800+ according to this site.. What I have learned it portion control. I am not logging all my food anymore. I am learning how to do this from common since. I don't want to be thinking I have to get to a computer before I can eat. I think if you learn how to eat the right way, it will then come naturally on how much you need to eat. I hope that makes since. Since I started my detox almost 2 weeks ago, I have lost weight and inches and I am not worring if I am making my calories. I know that I am going to eat 6 times a day. You learn what your body needs by how it acts. If I am feeling tired, I grab some almonds. I make sure I take in plenty of fruits, veggies and proteins, grains.
I am not freaking out if I made my calories or not. I am doing what my body is asking me to do with healthy foods. I do watch how much I do it. I have learned the deck of card trick for 3oz portion.
I think when you are losing weight, you think that you have to hit that number right on. If you eat in moderation ( balanced meals) and you eat right and you exercise, you can lose the weight.
This is a lifestyle change that is going to have to be done for the rest of out lives. Make the right choices, learn to understand your body, and remember, if you fall off the wagon...get up and get your butt in gear. There is so much information out there to help. Some is just a google away.

lotusfromthemud

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/weight/calsburned.htm

I use the "easy way" here for maintenance. Works great.

ummm... her "easy way" calculation says I should eat 4280 calories to maintain my weight. I'm 214 and I do aerobic exercise 6 days a week and lifting 3 days a week. I think that would qualify me for active...

That seems incredibly high to me....

OK, OK. . .I concur. I had never looked at her definition of "active" and I confess that I disagree with it. The definitions on this site seem much more realistic. I think the "active" numbers on her site would be for, oh say a farmer or bike messenger, not just a gym rat. I take my body weight and multiply by 15, which is somewhere between inactive and active (six one hour workouts per week, for the record) and this is slightly higher than what this site gives me.

That all being said, I think it's very important to remember that there's no "one size fits all" approach. Icandoit, you're hitting it right on the head when you say that moderation and listening to your body is absolutely the key.

lotusfromthemud

weird, it has my "reply" as a "quote"

my actual response starts with "OK, OK..."

songbyrdsweet

Jess,

what does the guide on this site say? I know this one is pretty close to correct. I have compared it to doing it with manual calculations and it comes out to within 100 calories of manual. If this site gives you similar numbers then it is probably right.

From what I've seen it's very accurate. I used my new HR/calorie monitor all day yesterday, which was an Off day. MFP states that my total calories burned are 1630 *without* exercise, just a sedentary lifestyle. I did walk some yesterday and do a bit of yoga, and after 15 hours of me being awake, I'd burnt 1639 calories. It puts my BMR (JUST what I'd burn if i were LYING in bed...not even daily activity) at 1300. When I got my BMR tested in our lab, it came out to 1265. So MFP is really accurate for me.

The value they give to lose weight (1200 for me) is based on the assumption that you *do not exercise*. It is your lifestyle calories - a deficit. Since I manually add my exercise, I choose a sedentary lifestyle...so it says to eat 1200 cals, but even on my day off I don't do that, because 1200 is less than my BMR and I don't mind having a smaller deficit on that one day. When I do log in my exercise, my calories will increase to 1800...but I've actually burn 2300 that day. That's how this stuff works, and why no one should have to eat less than 1200 calories to lose weight if they're active at all.

chrispchef1

I hesitate to write this, and let me stress that I am neither a trained nutritionist, nor do I claim to have any knowledge that I didn't acquire by normal research. But I feel like I have to say what I am saying below.

yes some of us are 5'1" and 125 lbs... and over 50....

...so if I eat 1200 cals/day i will actually gain weight, how unfair is that?

Chrispchef1, I had a hard time with your comments, not because I thought that they were directed towards me or being negative or anything like that, but I couldn't make the math work in my head, so I went to the web and found a few BMR calculators. I put in Female 5 foot 1, 125 lbs, and over 50 (I put in 55 just to be sure) and all of them came up with a BMR of over 1200. That doesn't mean I think you are wrong, I just am curious how you came up with it because I am always wanting to learn more. Maybe there are factors I don't know about, in which case, I appologize for even bringing it up (feel free to verbally slap me if that is the case.).

Hi Banks -

I had originally gone to an insta-BMR calculator on the web and put my height (5'1") and age (50) in... it gave me 1168 calories/day 'just to exist'...

I have a fairly sedentary lifestyle (sit at computer all day) and prone to water-weight gain. Maybe those are factors for me? Or perhaps the BMR calc was bogus? Apparently there is a lot of info 'out there' that can lead us in different directions. This thread has been very enlightening!

I just wish it weren't true! Chalk it up to turning 50 I guess!

banks1850

I hesitate to write this, and let me stress that I am neither a trained nutritionist, nor do I claim to have any knowledge that I didn't acquire by normal research. But I feel like I have to say what I am saying below.

yes some of us are 5'1" and 125 lbs... and over 50....

...so if I eat 1200 cals/day i will actually gain weight, how unfair is that?

Chrispchef1, I had a hard time with your comments, not because I thought that they were directed towards me or being negative or anything like that, but I couldn't make the math work in my head, so I went to the web and found a few BMR calculators. I put in Female 5 foot 1, 125 lbs, and over 50 (I put in 55 just to be sure) and all of them came up with a BMR of over 1200. That doesn't mean I think you are wrong, I just am curious how you came up with it because I am always wanting to learn more. Maybe there are factors I don't know about, in which case, I appologize for even bringing it up (feel free to verbally slap me if that is the case.).

Hi Banks -

I had originally gone to an insta-BMR calculator on the web and put my height (5'1") and age (50) in... it gave me 1168 calories/day 'just to exist'...

I have a fairly sedentary lifestyle (sit at computer all day) and prone to water-weight gain. Maybe those are factors for me? Or perhaps the BMR calc was bogus? Apparently there is a lot of info 'out there' that can lead us in different directions. This thread has been very enlightening!

I just wish it weren't true! Chalk it up to turning 50 I guess!

Yeah, I guess I could see that as your BMR, every site has a little fluctuation. I guess all I would say about that is: BMR isn't the same as maintain. BMR is if you did absolutely nothing all day, I mean, no getting up, no walking, no using the TV remote, no reading books etc. You get what I mean. Hold on while I pull down your maintiain..........ok back, to maintain, you need about 1500 cals a day (again, I went to 3 different calculator sites that were between 1350 and 1600 so you see, it's not always exact with these things).

Helawat

Ladies, Men....just listen to your bodies.

1200 calories is a guideline and if you're exercising it shouldn't be a problem. If you're starving at night, your body is telling you to eat.

I posted this before about myself: I'm 5'4 and 144 pounds but I have trouble eating 1200 calories a day because my body just won't let me do it. I'm not going to push myself to eat 1200 calories if I think I'm gonna loose it in the bathroom.

Everyone's bodies are unique. Just listen to it. Diet is one thing, but starvation is another.

banks1850

Ladies, Men....just listen to your bodies.

1200 calories is a guideline and if you're exercising it shouldn't be a problem. If you're starving at night, your body is telling you to eat.

I posted this before about myself: I'm 5'4 and 144 pounds but I have trouble eating 1200 calories a day because my body just won't let me do it. I'm not going to push myself to eat 1200 calories if I think I'm gonna loose it in the bathroom.

Everyone's bodies are unique. Just listen to it. Diet is one thing, but starvation is another.

I can't listen to my body, it keeps telling me to eat Reses Peanutbutter Cups! :ohwell:

chrispchef1

Couldn't agree more, since being HEALTHY is the whole idea. There's no way I would let myself starve or get overly obsessed with the numbers.

For me, the challenge is pushing the exercise and building muscle mass to use calories more efficiently... I'm really out of shape, so that probably accounts for part of it. Once I get into shape, I'm sure the 1200 will be more realistic and prove out the numbers.

I'm just kinda frustrated, because I love to cook and eat and entertain, (doesn't that sound familiar?) and for the time being, my lifestyle needs to be modified to reach my fitness goals.

Isn't that what we're all here for?

songbyrdsweet

Ladies, Men....just listen to your bodies.

1200 calories is a guideline and if you're exercising it shouldn't be a problem. If you're starving at night, your body is telling you to eat.

I posted this before about myself: I'm 5'4 and 144 pounds but I have trouble eating 1200 calories a day because my body just won't let me do it. I'm not going to push myself to eat 1200 calories if I think I'm gonna loose it in the bathroom.

Everyone's bodies are unique. Just listen to it. Diet is one thing, but starvation is another.

I can't listen to my body, it keeps telling me to eat Reses Peanutbutter Cups! :ohwell:

Mine is saying something about chocolate cake....:huh: hehe:bigsmile:
I can't go by hunger at this level of activity...some days I'm not hungry at all, others I'm starving all day. Today I'm supposed to eat 2000 cals...am I hungry? no. Will I eat them anyway? Yes, because I worked out for 2 1/2 hours and if I don't I'm endangering my health. Unfortunately hunger isn't indicative of our true caloric needs. If it were, obese people would never be hungry, and underweight people would always be starving.

jessneill

Jess,

what does the guide on this site say? I know this one is pretty close to correct. I have compared it to doing it with manual calculations and it comes out to within 100 calories of manual. If this site gives you similar numbers then it is probably right.

Thanks Banks, This site says my BMR is a little over 1600, which is actually what I found out on my own through experimenting. I'm pretty clear on how many calories I should be eating.

My comments on the website noted was not due to any confusion on my part as to how many calories I should eat, but more due to a concern that someone who may not have previous experience with managing their caloric intake may refer to the site and get what appeared to be faulty numbers.