Isn't the minimum calorie limit different for everybody?
angiechimpanzee
Posts: 536 Member
If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
Obviously if the bigger girl cut her calories & exercised to the point that she was netting 980 a day, she'd feel terrible and she'd probably hit a plateau quicker than she could spell the word out. But the 5'2 girl wouldn't possibly suffer as much. Her body is smaller, therefore needs less to run. Her BMR is much tinier as well, and she's more likely to be able to thrive on less. Eating 1300 calories a day, and burning about 300 in the gym is pretty realistic for a girl that size, and would result in a consistent 2lbs per week weight loss for her as well.
So why is there this universal "DONT GO BELOW 1200" rule spouted everywhere? There must be exceptions to this rule. We're not all the same size, not even close.
Obviously if the bigger girl cut her calories & exercised to the point that she was netting 980 a day, she'd feel terrible and she'd probably hit a plateau quicker than she could spell the word out. But the 5'2 girl wouldn't possibly suffer as much. Her body is smaller, therefore needs less to run. Her BMR is much tinier as well, and she's more likely to be able to thrive on less. Eating 1300 calories a day, and burning about 300 in the gym is pretty realistic for a girl that size, and would result in a consistent 2lbs per week weight loss for her as well.
So why is there this universal "DONT GO BELOW 1200" rule spouted everywhere? There must be exceptions to this rule. We're not all the same size, not even close.
0
Replies
-
When you eat under 1200, your body burns your muscles and not your fat. So yes, you WILL lose weight, but it won't be the weight you want. Also, your body will go in starvation mode which will take your metabolism down. When you give your body food, your body will be very happy because it knows it will be a long time till it will get another meal so it just saves it all. That's what I know
0 -
If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
I can't support this with anything, but I would say that generally, the lower you go in food intake the less opportunity you have to eat sufficient nutrients. It has less to do with the calorie deficit at some point, and more to do with "800 calories of food isn't enough to get enough essential nutrients into your body unless your food selection is flawless". So in other words, the lower you go, the more critical your food choices would become and at some point (as cals are reduced) it would become impossible to adequately nourish yourself.So why is there this universal "DONT GO BELOW 1200" rule spouted everywhere? There must be exceptions to this rule. We're not all the same size, not even close.
I also think 1200 is very silly and arbitrary.
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.0 -
BMR- The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.
Most people's BMR is higher than 1200. So in other words, eating under 1200 would eventually cause issues to your vital organs. Plus, your body doesn't just burn fat, it'll burn muscle too. Less muscle will cause your BMR to be lower.0 -
If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
I can't support this with anything, but I would say that generally, the lower you go in food intake the less opportunity you have to eat sufficient nutrients. It has less to do with the calorie deficit at some point, and more to do with "800 calories of food isn't enough to get enough essential nutrients into your body unless your food selection is flawless". So in other words, the lower you go, the more critical your food choices would become and at some point (as cals are reduced) it would become impossible to adequately nourish yourself.So why is there this universal "DONT GO BELOW 1200" rule spouted everywhere? There must be exceptions to this rule. We're not all the same size, not even close.
I also think 1200 is very silly and arbitrary.
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
^ What he said. I like the way this has been discussed thus far, hopefully it doesn't get ugly as usual.0 -
When you eat under 1200, your body burns your muscles and not your fat. So yes, you WILL lose weight, but it won't be the weight you want. Also, your body will go in starvation mode which will take your metabolism down. When you give your body food, your body will be very happy because it knows it will be a long time till it will get another meal so it just saves it all. That's what I know
Not true.
The 1,200 limit is actually based on nutritional requirements.0 -
You've been arguing for this on every thread I've seen you on. Being short doesn't automatically mean you HAVE to eat 1200 or less. I'm 5'3 and I lose steadily at 1600. Everyone is different.
I don't get why 1200 is the minimum, either. I think the minimum number for most women should be 1500, no matter what their height is, and for men it should be 1700 or so. But that's just my opinion. Eating less than 1200 is NOT okay because no matter what you're eating, you're essentially starving your body. Why would you want to do that when you can eat more and lose?0 -
I don't know if this applies to you, but I take a bunch of medications, and it has been strongly recommended to me that I don't go below 1100 cal/day in order to prevent toxicity from the medications.
BTW, I think the 1200 cal is silly too. Most days I struggle to eat that much.0 -
Yes this topic is done. SideSteel basically summed it up perfectly.0
-
When you eat under 1200, your body burns your muscles and not your fat. So yes, you WILL lose weight, but it won't be the weight you want. Also, your body will go in starvation mode which will take your metabolism down. When you give your body food, your body will be very happy because it knows it will be a long time till it will get another meal so it just saves it all. That's what I know
Not true.
The 1,200 limit is actually based on nutritional requirements.
^ This. Also, calorie needs for weight loss have very little to do with height and more to do with activity level. Yes, it matters in terms of BMR, but there are plenty of shorter women who lose weight eating more than I do a day because they are simply more active than I am. They are still creating a similar moderate calorie deficit, but it's based off of their TDEE, not their BMR.0 -
Oh, this thread again.0
-
Oh, this thread again.
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???????
0 -
at 5'2" and 125 lbs, no way I should even be attempting to lose 2 lbs a week. I would faint if I ate 980 calories per day.0
-
Yes... this topic is answered and completed. NEXT. Just listen to what the egg says, as he agrees with SideSteel.....
0 -
Says who? Where's the proof? How is this 1200 calorie number the same for everyone when everyone has different calorie requirements?When you eat under 1200, your body burns your muscles and not your fat. So yes, you WILL lose weight, but it won't be the weight you want. Also, your body will go in starvation mode which will take your metabolism down. When you give your body food, your body will be very happy because it knows it will be a long time till it will get another meal so it just saves it all. That's what I know0 -
I didn't say you had to eat 980. You can net 980 by eating as much as you want as long as you burn off the excess. Shedding 500 calories at the gym 5 days a week isn't too difficult for someone who's in good shape, & that leaves you with 1500 calories worth of food to play with.at 5'2" and 125 lbs, no way I should even be attempting to lose 2 lbs a week. I would faint if I ate 980 calories per day.0 -
If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
The woman who's 5'2 and 120 pounds is already a healthy weight for her height, where the woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds has quite a few extra pounds. The one with more excess weight can "afford" a larger deficit.
It's like someone making minimum wage can't afford to buy the same pair of $200 jeans as someone pulling in 6 figures, without it putting a serious dent in their available funds. Someone without much weight to lose can't support a large calorie deficit.0 -
If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
I can't support this with anything, but I would say that generally, the lower you go in food intake the less opportunity you have to eat sufficient nutrients. It has less to do with the calorie deficit at some point, and more to do with "800 calories of food isn't enough to get enough essential nutrients into your body unless your food selection is flawless". So in other words, the lower you go, the more critical your food choices would become and at some point (as cals are reduced) it would become impossible to adequately nourish yourself.So why is there this universal "DONT GO BELOW 1200" rule spouted everywhere? There must be exceptions to this rule. We're not all the same size, not even close.
I also think 1200 is very silly and arbitrary.
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
Hmm, well said.If a woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can aim for 1800 calories a day net to lose two pounds a week, why can't a woman whos 5'2 and 120 pounds aim for 980 calories a day net to lose the same amount? They're both creating the same calorie deficit.
The woman who's 5'2 and 120 pounds is already a healthy weight for her height, where the woman who's 5'11 and 230 pounds has quite a few extra pounds. The one with more excess weight can "afford" a larger deficit.
It's like someone making minimum wage can't afford to buy the same pair of $200 jeans as someone pulling in 6 figures, without it putting a serious dent in their available funds. Someone without much weight to lose can't support a large calorie deficit.
I suppose I understand this.0 -
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
I would imagine a smaller person would have smaller nutrient needs0 -
Very good point.
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
I would imagine a smaller person would have smaller nutrient needs0 -
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
I would imagine a smaller person would have smaller nutrient needs
I would also assume that to be true.0 -
I am exactly 5'2" and 120 lbs, just like your fictitious original example person, and I would be a big cranky starving headachey B!tch if I ate less than 1000 ever. I can go as low as 1000ish occasionally because sometimes I am just NOT hungry, but it is rare, and the next day I am usually starving and eat like 2000 so it all evens out.
It really is mainly about getting adequate nutrition, unless you eat the most perfect combination of super nutrition, you can't be healthy consistently hitting just 1000. I honestly think it is difficult even at 1200.
Also, someone else mentioned, the heavier person in your example has excess weight to lose and SHOULD be at a deficit, the person at 120 and 5'2" should be eating maintenance or a slight deficit, no need for anything more than a 300 cal deficit a day at all even if they WERE still trying to lose a couple of vanity pounds...0 -
So I get what you're saying, but I think it goes beyond deficit size and as it gets lower and lower the real danger is missing out on nutrient needs.
I would imagine a smaller person would have smaller nutrient needs
Perhaps, but the question is really, "Are those nutrient needs still met by the 800 calorie diet or not?" The smaller person likely has fewer nutrient needs, but is it enough to maintain the same calorie deficit as the larger person without sacrificing health and risking malnutrition? I suspect that it's not. There is a certain minimum level of nutrition that is needed by a person, and 800 calories is extremely limiting even for a small person.
I'd be interested to see if anyone has really looked at this as well, scientifically.0 -
agreed....and omg that's golden...and it's even better because I've seen egg talkers before XD I'll never look at an egg the same again...Yes... this topic is answered and completed. NEXT. Just listen to what the egg says, as he agrees with SideSteel.....0 -
If you look at it percentage wise... using your example, the larger woman is eating at a 35% deficit... the smaller woman in your example is eating at a 50% deficit. Similarly, losing 2 lbs a week is a smaller percentage of remaining body mass for the larger woman than the smaller one.
I do think that 1200 is somewhat arbitrary... eating something like 1150 isn't an immediate death sentence. However, attempting to lose 2 lbs a week is also somewhat arbitrary. And a lot of the people that are the most vocal about eating under the 1200 are looking for excuses to support unhealthy eating habits.
Also, for the people who say they get "too full" trying to eat a minimum amount of calories: STOP EATING "LOW FAT/SKIM/NO FAT" FOOD. :grumble:0 -
I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks0
-
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682138-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12?page=12I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks0 -
You've been arguing for this on every thread I've seen you on. Being short doesn't automatically mean you HAVE to eat 1200 or less. I'm 5'3 and I lose steadily at 1600. Everyone is different.
I don't get why 1200 is the minimum, either. I think the minimum number for most women should be 1500, no matter what their height is, and for men it should be 1700 or so. But that's just my opinion. Eating less than 1200 is NOT okay because no matter what you're eating, you're essentially starving your body. Why would you want to do that when you can eat more and lose?
Seriously! OP if you want to do it go ahead--but don't try to get justification for it and take others with you. It's unnecessary and unhealthy--a smaller person also has LESS TO LOSE--so why would they be attempting the same rate of weight loss as someone much larger?0 -
Also-it's very fallacious to say well since the deficit is the same then they're equally valid--would you spend the same amount of money on a car as someone who makes 2x your salary? No. You buy a car proportionate to your budget. Similarly, you have a deficit proportionate to your TDEE. This is why 15% is a great target--the more you burn the greater your deficit and the greater your rate of loss.0
-
I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks
Depends on how much you are eating and where you get your numbers. Are you eating the calories that MFP tells you to eat? If so, then yes, you should be eating your exercise calories back--that's the way MFP is set up. If you are using TDEE or TDEE-x, then no, exercise should already be figured in. Additionally, if you are using MFP to calculate your exercise calories, you may not want to eat them all back--MFP is high on some of it's calories burned estimates.0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682138-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12?page=12I'm 5'2" and I have alot of weight to lose. My goal is first to 175 from about 241(last time I weighed). When I workout and accummulate extra calories, do I use the extra or not. I not sure what to do. I normally exercise 25 to 55 minutes /day. Sometimes I may do something extra. Do you know if I am going about this right? Thanks
Absolutely LOVE this. I was going to post it so I am glad you did. It really opened my eyes to what I should be doing.0
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