Why is 1200 the magic number.............?!?
Jordant107
Posts: 218 Member
No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
0
Replies
-
from what i gather its if you are too far below that your body enters starvation mode and you wont lose any weight i say too far below i mean from about 700ish cals i always get the 'you're not eating enough cals per day' message0
-
No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
Because anyone with a BMR of 1760 or less, who selects Sedentary activity level, and 2lb loss per week, will receive 1200.
1760 x 1.25 = 2200 - 1000 = 1200!
And you know most women are going to select Sedentary, "just to be on the safe side".
And most women are going to select 2lb loss per week, "because I want to lose it fast".
Now matter how many of them have yo-yo dieted this way in the past and are here for their 3, 4, 5th time because it never works in the long term.
The above math of course shows that if the BMR is less than 1760, you actually can't get 2lbs week weight loss.0 -
Because people get hung up on the starvation mode idea if they eat below 1200 calories rather than learning about what their body actually needs - which in many cases is more than 1200 calories. There are so many factors at play, such as gender, height, current weight, activity level, weight loss goals etc, that it is impossible to come up with a one number fits all solution to weight loss.
But, hey, there are plenty of people out there who try it so who are we to argue!0 -
Seems a little crazy, but maybe thats cause I'm a guy!?? I eat about 1200 in two meals if I'm a bit hungrier than usual.................must be torture to not be able to eat!!No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
Because anyone with a BMR of 1760 or less, who selects Sedentary activity level, and 2lb loss per week, will receive 1200.
1760 x 1.25 = 2200 - 1000 = 1200!
And you know most women are going to select Sedentary, "just to be on the safe side".
And most women are going to select 2lb loss per week, "because I want to lose it fast".
Now matter how many of them have yo-yo dieted this way in the past and are here for their 3, 4, 5th time because it never works in the long term.
The above math of course shows that if the BMR is less than 1760, you actually can't get 2lbs week weight loss.
0 -
because thats the official lowest calorie amount people can consume and still be "healthy" according to the medical establishment. i tend to agree with the person above insofar as i really doubt this is an effective strategy long term, but it is the lowest number this site will give you as a daily goal and everyone wants to lose weight NOW. i know the feeling but i also know from experience that in order to be successful at weight loss you have to fight that "i want it now" feeling just as much as you have to fight the urge to binge...0
-
The starvation mode myth has actually been disproved - it was something that Weight Watchers used to always tell their clients but had to turn around about a year ago I think to say it was not true.
From a google search:
A diet based on 1200 calories daily is the recommended minimum for safe and healthy weight loss. This is because 1200 calories will generally provide an adequate nutritional intake for most individuals, yet still allows the reduction of calories to the level that most dieters require in order to lose weight.
I actually think for guys the number is 1800? But I may be incorrect0 -
Just btw- I'm not saying that some people can't survive on that, or it's not the right number for some!! I can see how someone with a smaller frame and low activity would be fine eating only 1200 calories, but on the most part it's all just a big myth that this number will be the magic that makes all the difference?!?0
-
Ok- short term I can see how it could work and a person would benefit from it, but I can't see that working for too long!!because thats the official lowest calorie amount people can consume and still be "healthy" according to the medical establishment. i tend to agree with the person above insofar as i really doubt this is an effective strategy long term, but it is the lowest number this site will give you as a daily goal and everyone wants to lose weight NOW. i know the feeling but i also know from experience that in order to be successful at weight loss you have to fight that "i want it now" feeling just as much as you have to fight the urge to binge...0 -
As far as I've been able to figure out, it's a semi-arbitrary number that was originally set by the ACSM as a nutritional guideline for the bare minimum number of calories for women- not because that's what most women need, but because it is very difficult to meet all of the individual nutritional guidelines (like iron, calcium, protein, folic acid, vitamin C etc etc) with less than 1200 eating actual food, not supplements. So they sort of backed in to that number. Interestingly enough, that same minimum for men is 1800 calories- but you don't see that number so widely used.0
-
No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
Because anyone with a BMR of 1760 or less, who selects Sedentary activity level, and 2lb loss per week, will receive 1200.
1760 x 1.25 = 2200 - 1000 = 1200!
And you know most women are going to select Sedentary, "just to be on the safe side".
And most women are going to select 2lb loss per week, "because I want to lose it fast".
Now matter how many of them have yo-yo dieted this way in the past and are here for their 3, 4, 5th time because it never works in the long term.
The above math of course shows that if the BMR is less than 1760, you actually can't get 2lbs week weight loss.
Okay this has confused me......I'm new to all of this. Only found MFP 2 weeks ago. I'm five months post natal (first baby) and have about 50lbs to lose. I selected all of the options you mentioned above "sedentary, 2lbs wt loss etc etc" lol. Although I work out for half an hour about 5 days a week and walk for two hours at least 3-4 times a week, I have put myself at sedentary as my day-to-day life with my baby is just this. Instead I log my walking, cardio and weight lifting under the exercise section......Am I doing this all wrong???? I'm exclusively breastfeeding btw if this affects anything (although I found this logged under breakfast, so therefore get an extra 500 cal allowance). Any insight would be much appreciated! Ps. I'm happy with reaching target in a year, by my 30th birthday, so no rush - I'm aware it needs to be a long term goal for health reasons etc etc Ta0 -
Ok- short term I can see how it could work and a person would benefit from it, but I can't see that working for too long!!
It generally does if someone is shorter, small frame, and doesn't do any exercise more than walking, and they were going to end up near 1200 anyway for realistic goal weight.
As soon as someone starts working out, they come back in 3-9 weeks complaining of stalling, weight loss slowed down and then stalled, more than reduction in weight would have caused.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full
Conclusion: Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss.0 -
As far as I've been able to figure out, it's a semi-arbitrary number that was originally set by the ACSM as a nutritional guideline for the bare minimum number of calories for women- not because that's what most women need, but because it is very difficult to meet all of the individual nutritional guidelines (like iron, calcium, protein, folic acid, vitamin C etc etc) with less than 1200 eating actual food, not supplements. So they sort of backed in to that number. Interestingly enough, that same minimum for men is 1800 calories- but you don't see that number so widely used.
That is my understanding also - its more of a nutritional than weight loss minimum.0 -
Because anyone with a BMR of 1760 or less, who selects Sedentary activity level, and 2lb loss per week, will receive 1200.
1760 x 1.25 = 2200 - 1000 = 1200!
And you know most women are going to select Sedentary, "just to be on the safe side".
And most women are going to select 2lb loss per week, "because I want to lose it fast".
Now matter how many of them have yo-yo dieted this way in the past and are here for their 3, 4, 5th time because it never works in the long term.
The above math of course shows that if the BMR is less than 1760, you actually can't get 2lbs week weight loss.
Okay this has confused me......I'm new to all of this. Only found MFP 2 weeks ago. I'm five months post natal (first baby) and have about 50lbs to lose. I selected all of the options you mentioned above "sedentary, 2lbs wt loss etc etc" lol. Although I work out for half an hour about 5 days a week and walk for two hours at least 3-4 times a week, I have put myself at sedentary as my day-to-day life with my baby is just this. Instead I log my walking, cardio and weight lifting under the exercise section......Am I doing this all wrong???? I'm exclusively breastfeeding btw if this affects anything (although I found this logged under breakfast, so therefore get an extra 500 cal allowance). Any insight would be much appreciated! Ps. I'm happy with reaching target in a year, by my 30th birthday, so no rush - I'm aware it needs to be a long term goal for health reasons etc etc Ta
MFP is designed for you to indeed select an activity level that includes no exercise, and deficit is taken, and daily goal is stated.
Then you log exercise when actually done, and eat it back on those days, though between one workout and the next is just fine.
This is precisely why you log workouts and are given credits for calories burned and daily goal goes up. You still have deficit.
You are doing it wrong if not eating back exercise, doing it correct if you are. You still have whatever deficit was given no matter what.
Very realistic goal too, because while 2lbs weekly at beginning might be possible, not later, unless you feel like losing more than just fat.0 -
The starvation mode myth has actually been disproved - it was something that Weight Watchers used to always tell their clients but had to turn around about a year ago I think to say it was not true.
From a google search:
A diet based on 1200 calories daily is the recommended minimum for safe and healthy weight loss. This is because 1200 calories will generally provide an adequate nutritional intake for most individuals, yet still allows the reduction of calories to the level that most dieters require in order to lose weight.
I actually think for guys the number is 1800? But I may be incorrect
It depends on the definition of 'starvation mode' which is pretty much the most mis-understood and over-used term on here0 -
MFP doesn't let you choose how fast to lose the weight, it calculates it for you after you put in the other variables. My BMR is under 1600 so originally MFP gave me a daily calorie intake of 1200 to lose 0.8 lb per week. I just redid goals to increase calories to 1300 and so now my "goal" weight loss per week is only 0.6 lb.0
-
The starvation mode myth has actually been disproved - it was something that Weight Watchers used to always tell their clients but had to turn around about a year ago I think to say it was not true.
Starvation mode as a survival mechanism for folks on here - yes, not going to happen, not without some hard work and dedication and stupidity.
But I can give you a diet/exercise routine that will starve your body of glucose stores and help burn muscle, and cause great weight loss for awhile.
And absolutely terrible re-entry into normal maintenance level.
Depends on what starving the body means.
Because you could eat 4 Little Debbies for almost 2000 calories daily, and be starving for nutrients after a while, even if it made you gain weight.
You could also eat 600 calories and get all your nutrients in, but be starving for energy for your level of activity.
Depends on what the body is starving for0 -
It's not a magic number or an optimum number - but it is a generic number that you often see recommended as a minimum for healthy weight loss.
It doesn't mean that it suits everyone, it's there because the MFP developers obviously decided that they needed to set a minimum so people didn't choose crazy-fast and unhealhty weight loss goals and only get recommended 250 cals a day.
I'm sure many people are eating less is necessary for them to stay healthy and lose weight, but human nature means that most people are going to choose the quickest way to achieve a result. Using MFP, that means they will get the generic recommendation of 1200 cals/day. It's compounded by the fact that most people don't bother to "read the manual" so they don't understand the way MFP works, hence the never-ending dicussions about "eating exercise calories".0 -
Oh yes it does. The 1200 minimum may get in the way but when you set your goals there re at least three weight loss rates to choose from.MFP doesn't let you choose how fast to lose the weight0 -
http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/acsm-in-the-news/2011/08/01/metabolism-is-modifiable-with-the-right-lifestyle-changes says ....No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
"According to ACSM guidelines, women should eat at least 1,200 calories per day, and men should eat at least 1,800."
They also say "Exercise recommendations can be met through 30-60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise (five days per week) or 20-60 minutes of vigorous-intensity exercise (three days per week)" although they have a vested interest so wider research may be appropriate.0 -
Regardless of your weight loss requirements, 1200 cals/day is the lowest you can conceivably go on a 'balanced' diet and lose weight while remaining healthy - in other words, if you eat fewer than 1200 calories/day you will always be missing out on vital vitamins, minerals or will be in protein deficit ..... any of which will have repercussions for your health in the long run. If you have loads of weight to lose it's absolutely ok to go more slowly and eat MORE calories - but never FEWER! Having said that, it's not ALL about the calories - you can eat 1200 cals/day of carbohydrate and you'll end up very ill, too It's all about knowledge and balance. I hope that helps. 0
-
Gotta draw the line somewhere, folks.
Its the same type of mentality as the folks that make the BMI chart and designate where the green sections go on the chart.
Its all an average. Its not perfect for everyone, although not perfect for everyone, they have to draw the line somewhere.0 -
No doubt this has been asked before, but why do I see so many people saying that they only eat 1200 calories per day, and that 1200 is the optimum number of calories to eat in order to lose weight?!?
Not to appear sarcastic here but if somebody who is trying to lose weight tells you that he/she cannot eat more than 1200 calories per day, take it with a grain of salt. If that were true then how did they became overweight in the first place. Unless you're a very small woman, 1200 calories is way too low for both men & women. With my 5'2' height & 120 pounds, my BMR alone is at 1315 cals & putting me at 1,200 calories/day diet won't do good for my body. The downside of this site is that it doesn't account the individual's body when you want to lose 1 lb/week. Perhaps you can get away with it if you're severely overweight or obese but otherwise you should go with your BMR when calculating the minimum amount of calories you need to eat. Which is why when I was trying to lose weight, I didn't set my goals fo 1 pound/week because that will give me a 1200 cals/day which is too low.0 -
Its a generic limit on calories before major sacrifices in muscle mass occurs. More than 2-3lbs a week lost generally are muscle mass losses.
Say you need 2200 cals to stay the same. But eat 2 X 3500 cals less a week ...
(2 X 3500) / 7 = 1000
2200 - 1000 is 1200 cals.
Anyway, its really hard living on a 1000 cals drop in food cals. Its much easier to eat 500 less and exercise 500 more.
Even at normal levels the body burns 60% fat , 40% muscle, but weight training can stick it back to more 80/20.
Throw some carbs back in about an hour before exercise can help this even further.0 -
My goal cals is 1200 and admittedly yes, I set 2lbs per week loss and sedentary. HOWEVER, I wanted to experiment with this amount and it has paid off. I do not feel hungry on this cal amount, and still manage to eat 3 sensible meals and fit in snacks into this cal amount. My exercise changes week by week as I do not always have time for the gym, but if it works, it works. I am losing weight, but at a sensible pace where I'm not finding myself feeling weak or anything! In fact, my weight yo yo's a bit but generally I am pretty darn impressed.
So, 1200 is working for me, and may well be working for many others. We're all different.0 -
What's your height and weight...............?? I would assume that you would be a fairly small frame to be able to achieve this..........?!My goal cals is 1200 and admittedly yes, I set 2lbs per week loss and sedentary. HOWEVER, I wanted to experiment with this amount and it has paid off. I do not feel hungry on this cal amount, and still manage to eat 3 sensible meals and fit in snacks into this cal amount. My exercise changes week by week as I do not always have time for the gym, but if it works, it works. I am losing weight, but at a sensible pace where I'm not finding myself feeling weak or anything! In fact, my weight yo yo's a bit but generally I am pretty darn impressed.
So, 1200 is working for me, and may well be working for many others. We're all different.0 -
These settings give many people a 1200 goal, as 1200 + 1000 = 2200 estimated TDEE, divide 1.2 = 1833 BMR will catch a big part of the audience.I set 2lbs per week loss and sedentary0 -
I picked the sedetary setting because sadly it is true and I am quite short at 5ft 2 1/2 inches, so I got 1200. I do try to do the odd bit of walking when I get the chance and eat back most if not all of the calories I burn. I would love to be able to eat more calories as at dinner time I have to eat different from my husband so as not to go over. I am not starving or anything and eat a good variety of food but I worry that if I go over what I am eating just now I will not lose or start to put on as I am only losing about 1/2 a week at the moment.0
-
That should say 1/2lb a week at the moment lol0
-
What is BMR?0
-
What is BMR?
I wasn't too sure about that either, so I Googled it lol. It means Basal Metabolic Rate, it is the amount of calories you burn during rest. That's what Wikipedia says anyway lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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