Isn't the minimum calorie limit different for everybody?

angiechimpanzee

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.

xElineeee

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

SideSteel

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.

ChitownFoodie

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.

pastryari

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.

Sarauk2sf

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.

FitFabFlirty92

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?

bpyoyo

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.

Tilran

Yes this topic is done. SideSteel basically summed it up perfectly.

_granola

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.

DontStopB_Leakin

Oh, this thread again.

Cranktastic

Oh, this thread again.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???????

Nerdy_Rose

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.

FitnessPalWorks

Yes... this topic is answered and completed. NEXT. Just listen to what the egg says, as he agrees with SideSteel.....

angiechimpanzee

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

Says who? Where's the proof? How is this 1200 calorie number the same for everyone when everyone has different calorie requirements?

angiechimpanzee

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.

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.

LorinaLynn

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.

angiechimpanzee

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.

drmerc

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

angiechimpanzee

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

Very good point.

SideSteel

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.