Why is 1200 the magic number.............?!?
Replies
-
1200 is the default minimum on MFP for the aforementioned safety issues. All new people here select "2lbs per week" as their desired weight loss goal, and MFP defaults to 1200 if your daily caloric requirement for this 2lbs is actually less.0
-
I selected 1 pound a week loss as a goal to start with and MFP still gave me the 1200 as what I should be getting in net calories.
I'm just over 5ft2 and was 141 lbs to start with, and have a sedentary job that involves mostly sitting down.
I've lost 5 pounds so far in 6-7 weeks - the weight is coming off slowly but it's coming off. I'm now back in the jeans that inspired me to go on this diet when they were too tight in April!
I eat healthy meals and haven't felt hungry or had cravings. Most days I do some exercise and then eat back the calories, so I'm not actually eating just 1200 per day!0 -
When your eating a lot of healthy and whole foods, lots of beans nuts fruits and veggies you can get a lot out of 1200 cals...Its deff not for everybody but hey its working for me....0
-
And I also plan to start upping my cals slowly as my weight comes off.. something I can live with in the future...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?!?
It is not about "calories" as everything is an estimate...........no one is exact.
It should be about the QUALITY, not the QUANTITY. But since people are hung up on numbers and such they created an arbitrary number where the "professionals" think someone should be.
It is hogwash as no one used to count calories and such and people weren't overweight either. It IS all about the QUALITY of the food you eat.0 -
Because 1200 is considered the minimum amount of calories a day and most people who are uneducated on how the body works will pick it since they think that by eating the minimum they will get the highest and fastest weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer/Group Fitness Instructor
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
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.
^^^^^This!!! Quality is key. Unfortunately, people do not do their research and take advice from people who not only are uneducated themselves, but have not achieved long-term, healthy weight-loss that has stayed off. I also think it stems from the fact that people want something NOW and don't want to wait. Did you gain those 60, 70 (however many) pounds overnight?! NO!! So, I think people need to stop thinking that the weight can fall off faster than they put it on. After two kids and overcoming the "starve myself to lose weight" mentality, it hurts me to see so many women doing such harm to their bodies
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.
A car can work and travel on dirty mis-gaped spark plugs, dirty air filter, wrong gas type, ect, and get you around.
Could it be better? Sure.
The fact it's sensible, I'm guessing that means slow, weight loss probably has no relation to having a smart deficit, but rather just what the body was forced into doing with the deficit it's been given.
It can work, but it likely could be better if desired.0 -
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.
And what does the math say the weight loss should be, if you really had the deficit as your Goals page shows?
Because excellent example, your slow weight loss probably has nothing to do with selecting 1/2 lb loss weekly, but rather what you have ended up with for other reasons.
And really, I hope you aren't eating back ALL the calories you burn, that would mean you can't lose weight. Like eating back cleaning the house or washing the kids or doing dishes or cooking. That's the wrong idea of eating back calories.0 -
1200 is for OVER ACHIEVERS!!! People want to lose as much weight as possible, as quickly as possible, and most Doctors recommend not going under that number. Well that is fine is you are my sized, but for 300 lb people that is not enough calories to get out of bed during the day! 1200 calories is the KEY TO FAILURE! Eating that little will lead to tiredness, lack of energy and hunger. At first you will be sustained by your mental drive & the scales because you will drop fast, but over a few weeks at this rate, your body will adapt, and you will stall on the diet, which cause most people to quit! It's a form of crash dieting, and I don't recommend it. But I will get off my rant now.0
-
because apparently the entire body shuts down if you go one calorie below 1200.0
-
And really, I hope you aren't eating back ALL the calories you burn, that would mean you can't lose weight. Like eating back cleaning the house or washing the kids or doing dishes or cooking. That's the wrong idea of eating back calories.
Those are daily activities and not exercise! You should not count them! The only chores I count are extra hard ones like mowing the lawn with a push mower, or washing the car by hand. If you are counting every movement over the day, you are double dipping!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.
Yea um thanks for the info bud. And the nasty critique on woman. *kitten*.0 -
What is BMR?
For a quick write up on what it means, and what your healthy estimated could be, MFP - Tools - BMR calc.0 -
My account is set to weight loss, 1200 cal, sedetary, and 2 lbs a week, yet it tells me that my projected weight loss is 1.2 lbs a week. I don't understand how this site works?0
-
It's a horrible number in my opinion. Thats the lowest recommended usually. For most people it is just too low to eat at for long periods of time.0
-
1200 Calories seems to be working for me. i am not losing 2lbs a week, however i am losing. I'm 134 now, started at 139 in april, so the weight is coming off at slower pace than most of my MFP friends, but i am happy with the way its going. since joining this site i have become more aware of what im putting into my body, and most of the time i'm under the 1200 a day, and i always feel full because i'm eating REAL food with high protein, not just fast food junk anymore (which doesnt keep you full).
So yes, we are all different and its inaccurate to say that 1200 calories a day is unrealistic, because its not.0 -
Thank You for posting this!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.
Yea um thanks for the info bud. And the nasty critique on woman. *kitten*.
Are you suggesting it's not true?
I suggest you search for 1200 and see how many women have the goal. And state exactly those reasons. And even if they have HRM's and have calorie counts to eat back, how many say the only do half, "to be on the safe side". As if there isn't a 500-1000 cal gap already.
Are you suggesting unfair focus on women?
Get ready, this doesn't happen to men as much because they just give up and don't keep trying because women are stronger. They aren't strong enough to put their bodies through that torture - I'm sure it has nothing to do with better knowledge about it.
Men also have less self-control probably, and with these extreme deficits it probably actually works out better for them, causing there deficit to not be that great, and it works out better in the end totally by accident.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 for
Thank You for Posting this!
0 -
My account is set to weight loss, 1200 cal, sedetary, and 2 lbs a week, yet it tells me that my projected weight loss is 1.2 lbs a week. I don't understand how this site works?
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!
If you have smaller BMR figure the math is based on, you can't get 1000 cal deficit when the cutoff is 1200.0 -
My account is set to weight loss, 1200 cal, sedetary, and 2 lbs a week, yet it tells me that my projected weight loss is 1.2 lbs a week. I don't understand how this site works?
Because in order for you to (theoretically) lose 2lb a week, you would have to eat much less than 1200 calories. This website gives 1200 as a minimum because it's been said to be "the lowest a person can go without sacrificing nutrients"
Basically, to actually lose 2lb a week for you, it would take like 800 calories a day. And that's not healthy or sustainable at all.0 -
1200 Calories seems to be working for me. i am not losing 2lbs a week, however i am losing. I'm 134 now, started at 139 in april, so the weight is coming off at slower pace than most of my MFP friends, but i am happy with the way its going. since joining this site i have become more aware of what im putting into my body, and most of the time i'm under the 1200 a day, and i always feel full because i'm eating REAL food with high protein, not just fast food junk anymore (which doesnt keep you full).
So yes, we are all different and its inaccurate to say that 1200 calories a day is unrealistic, because its not.
You are correct, unrealistic is the wrong term. It's obviously realistic and obtainable by many, shoot, many doing even less.
Inefficient and ineffective would easily apply though to majority on 1200 goal.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions