1400 instead of 1200?
Replies
-
I am the same height as you (close to the same age, too), and I originally had the same goal weight. I started a few years ago at 180. Now I'm at about 132, and eating 1800 calories a day.... and feeling much better. I'm working out, lifting weights, and my body composition is changing, even if my weight isn't necessarily changing.
Check out eatmore2weighless.com and add me as a friend if you want! Good info out there.
0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
For example. while I lose weight at approx. 2,000 cals a day, if I were to input a sedentary level activity level and a 1lb a week weight goal (and many use 2lb), I would end up at 1,200 calories as well.
okay, I see you edited your post. I set my weightloss goal at 0.8 pounds a week and it gave me a 1200 calorie diet. I was also set at sedentary. People on this forum keep insisting that 1200 calories is too low even for a sedentary lifestyle. My question is if they are correct and this is too low, why does mfp set it that way? I understand basic math. Don't give me the math reason. If it's consistently going down to 1200 calories for a woman who wants to only lose .8 pounds a week, either the model is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong as so many of the eat more police insist, then why would the people who created that model on mfp just fix it?0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
As I said before, my weight loss goal was set at 0.8 pounds a week. It wasn't high at all. That was the highest mfp would allow me to go and also set me at 1200 calories a day. So why does it do that if it's not correct?
I am not saying whether it is correct or not, I just answered how the numbers on MFP worked.
I also think that MFP is geared more for those trying to lose by strictly eating less aka the fairly sedentary. It really doesn't account for an active persons TDEE very well. Which isn't surprising based on how inaccurate its cals burned calculators are for most exercises. Its a great tool and a good starting point, but you still have to do your own research and listen to your body. If you're feeling tired and sluggish, chances are you should up the cals or take a look at your macros, things like that.0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
As I said before, my weight loss goal was set at 0.8 pounds a week. It wasn't high at all. That was the highest mfp would allow me to go and also set me at 1200 calories a day. So why does it do that if it's not correct?
I am not saying whether it is correct or not, I just answered how the numbers on MFP worked.
I know how the numbers on mfp work. That wasn't my question at all.0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
As I said before, my weight loss goal was set at 0.8 pounds a week. It wasn't high at all. That was the highest mfp would allow me to go and also set me at 1200 calories a day. So why does it do that if it's not correct?
I am not saying whether it is correct or not, I just answered how the numbers on MFP worked.
I know how the numbers on mfp work. That wasn't my question at all.
Well, I am soooo sorry.0 -
I also think that MFP is geared more for those trying to lose by strictly eating less aka the fairly sedentary. It really doesn't account for an active persons TDEE very well. Which isn't surprising based on how inaccurate its cals burned calculators are for most exercises. Its a great tool and a good starting point, but you still have to do your own research and listen to your body. If you're feeling tired and sluggish, chances are you should up the cals or take a look at your macros, things like that.
So if I am eating 1200 calories net a day (or sometimes lower) and feel just fine, then it's okay for me to go that low? A lot of people say that it isn't okay to go that low.0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
For example. while I lose weight at approx. 2,000 cals a day, if I were to input a sedentary level activity level and a 1lb a week weight goal (and many use 2lb), I would end up at 1,200 calories as well.
okay, I see you edited your post. I set my weightloss goal at 0.8 pounds a week and it gave me a 1200 calorie diet. I was also set at sedentary. People on this forum keep insisting that 1200 calories is too low even for a sedentary lifestyle. My question is if they are correct and this is too low, why does mfp set it that way? I understand basic math. Don't give me the math reason. If it's consistently going down to 1200 calories for a woman who wants to only lose .8 pounds a week, either the model is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong as so many of the eat more police insist, then why would the people who created that model on mfp just fix it?
I politely answer a question based on my reading of the question and I get attitude. So, I will not bother answering your questions as I do not want further attitude. Have a lovely day dear.0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
For example. while I lose weight at approx. 2,000 cals a day, if I were to input a sedentary level activity level and a 1lb a week weight goal (and many use 2lb), I would end up at 1,200 calories as well.
okay, I see you edited your post. I set my weightloss goal at 0.8 pounds a week and it gave me a 1200 calorie diet. I was also set at sedentary. People on this forum keep insisting that 1200 calories is too low even for a sedentary lifestyle. My question is if they are correct and this is too low, why does mfp set it that way? I understand basic math. Don't give me the math reason. If it's consistently going down to 1200 calories for a woman who wants to only lose .8 pounds a week, either the model is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong as so many of the eat more police insist, then why would the people who created that model on mfp just fix it?
I politely answer a question based on my reading of the question and I get attitude. So, I will not bother answering your questions as I do not want further attitude. Have a lovely day dear.
bye0 -
Every thread I come in to comment on...wall of text.
OP do you weight train? SMASHHHHHHH!
Yeah and same exact wall of text like that. It's getting annoying, but I just gloss over it after the first sentence now.0 -
I suggest for optimal (fastest/safest) weigh loss is not to eat back your exercise calories.
However.. if you are feeling hungry.. of course eat some of them back! .. I'm only losing about .5 lb a week according to MFP .. (but I don't have much to lose and that's even on 1200 cal a day) .. Yuck .. LOL
I can still lose weight @ 1400 calories a day .. however .. the progress will be slower. (if I'm not eating back exercise calories)0 -
OP, your goal may be too low, but I'm 5'3" and 110, so I understand your desire to lose the last 10 lbs. You won't be able to lose it at 2 lbs. per week unless you starve yourself, and then you will just gain it back, so why not try a few more calories? I lost almost a pound per week eating a lot more than you are. I agree with several of the others that 1400 should be fine. Can't hurt to try it for a week or two since you aren't likely to lose it all in the next two weeks regardless. Try 1400 until Thanksgiving, then if it doesn't work, go up or down depending on what's happening with your body.
As far as BMR and TDEE, I lost all my weight by eating 500 calories per day under TDEE. If you are exercising enough that that calculation doesn't put you under BMR and/or under 1200, that's my recommendation. I was able to lose about .8 lbs. per week doing that, and I'm 47 and in early menopause. At your age, it should be easier.
Also, can't see your diary, so don't know what you are eating, but consider cutting processed carbs (breads, pasta, crackers, etc). That's the easiest way to drop pounds fast--those carbs make you retain a bunch of water.0 -
Thank you to everyone who replied. I have gotten some very helpful advice. I forgot to address in my original post that I had my body fat measured by one of those hand held devices 2 months ago and I was at 27%. This was when I was 9 pounds heavier, so I assume I must be less by now. My goal is 20% but every online calculator I use gives me 21%-27%.. I am currently doing the 30 day shred and have seen results with inches lost, so I am going to stick with it and up my calories to 1400. Honestly, if I stayed the same exact weight and just lost body fat %, I would be satisfied. Thanks again for the constructive criticism and helpful advice! 0
-
Thank you to everyone who replied. I have gotten some very helpful advice. I forgot to address in my original post that I had my body fat measured by one of those hand held devices 2 months ago and I was at 27%. This was when I was 9 pounds heavier, so I assume I must be less by now. My goal is 20% but every online calculator I use gives me 21%-27%.. I am currently doing the 30 day shred and have seen results with inches lost, so I am going to stick with it and up my calories to 1400. Honestly, if I stayed the same exact weight and just lost body fat %, I would be satisfied. Thanks again for the constructive criticism and helpful advice!
Sounds like a good plan OP Good to focus on body composition at this point and not base progress on the scale moving. That's what I plan on doing for the last 10 lbs or so. In fact, threw the batteries for my scale away last week, kind of a good feeling.
Have you ever taken a look at your numbers in a TDEE calculator to get a potential maintenance estimate for when you reach your final goal?0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
Why are you asking the users why the website uses such an algorithm? Odds are, you won't believe their answers. Go to the source with this question.0 -
Hi, I am relatively new to MFP and am really confused on how much I need to eat. I’m sorry you have probably heard this a thousand times, but I don’t understand. I am currently 5’4”, female, 124 pounds, college freshman. My goal is 115 and my starting weight was 156. I joined MFP because my weight had plateaued but now it has happened once again. MFP gave me 1200 calories to eat and I always make sure to eat back the majority of my exercise calories to at least net 1200. My weight right now is just fluctuating between 124 and 125. I can’t get it to budge down any lower. Am I eating enough? Should I change my goal to 1 pound per week instead of 2? I was really hoping to get below 123 before Thanksgiving and that doesn’t’ look like it’s going to happen.
I am seriously considering upping my calories to 1440 but I really don’t want to gain anything. I have looked at so many TDEE and BMR calculators and just don’t know what to go by. Any advice?
The following is what worked for me. Everyone is different but maybe at least one thing will ring true for you.
There is no mystery to weight loss, everyone thinks something is wrong, their metabolism is broken, they have low thyroid, they have menopause or whatever issue, they are as unique as a snowflake, whatever. I thought a lot of these things once too but once the doctor helped resolve the health issues for me I learned there is still no magic pill. Most people eat more than they need to and are not at good at estimating calories as they think they are. Most people have a lower BMR than they think they do. The only way to know for sure is to go to a lab and have it tested. It doesn't seem fair to have to eat less and feel a little hunger. It's hard to face the truth of it, very hard. It's not fun. It's drudgery at times. But if you learn to enjoy your smaller amounts of food (necessary to lose weight, since the reason we got fat in the first place was eating too much whether we knew it or not), and rejoice in your victories it can be done.
All I can do is share what worked for me. I achieved my goal at age 50 after beating my head against the wall for 15 years. Yeah anyone can do it, but I can tell you that you are up against a lot when you are older and I believe females have some unique issue to face with hormones and such. The sooner you can get a handle on it the better. DO NOT GIVE UP. As I got older and the weight piled on (and I didn't feel I was eating too much!) everyone kept telling me to give up, this is what happens when you get older. I'm small, and I didn't realize how small I was until I lost the weight. Everyone said I had big bones. I looked hefty because I worked out. Once I lost the weight I realized how small I really was and that small people don't need to eat as much as big people. HINT: If you are short you are probably small.
Your body loses weight in chunks, not linear. I have found that you can do everything right and your weight loss seems to plateau but if you are patient and keep exercising and eating at a deficit (however slight) you will lose it, it will suddenly "whoosh". There are so many variables for the scale; water retention, digestion, hormones, allergies, sodium, carbs, water intake, DOMS, inflammation, the list goes on. People mistakenly think they lose or gain weight when they eat more or less because of these fluctuations.
Losing weight requires tremendous patience. You will not lose it when you want it or where you want it. The body does its thing. Some apparent plateaus can last a month or so. You cannot make it happen faster. You must focus on two things; calories and exercise. Nothing else matters. Scales and metrics don't matter. The day in and day out grind of exercise and calories are all that matters. It is not very exciting until things fall into place. You get your victories and you ride one victory to the next.
The scale is a trend tool. The scale is good but put it away and only check once a week and only use it as a trend tool. It will fluctuate, it does not matter. Take front side and back progress pictures at least once a month. You will see differences that the metrics won't tell you and it's that little bit of NSV that will keep you going until the next victory.
To say eat more is wrong.
To say eat less is wrong.
To find the exact calories needed for YOU to be in a healthy sustainable calorie deficit is the right answer. Wait, if you need to adjust by 100 do it, wait, adjust, wait, adjust, wait. The tortoise wins this race.
All that matters is calories. A healthy balanced diet within a calorie budget for a deficit that is right for YOU is all that matters for weight loss. Don't make it complicated.
Also people play mental accounting games with calories just like with finances. Make steps to make sure you are making accurate measurements. Packaged foods can have MORE than they say but not less (they get in trouble if less so they would rather error with MORE).
If you typically intake sodium at a certain rate your body adjusts, but if you make a sudden change then you will see a spike.
Exercise is for making your lean body mass pretty (especially lifting weights) for when the fat is gone. Losing fat with no muscle is ugly and cardio alone will not make you pretty. You cannot out exercise too many calories.
It really is about calories. I tell people this all the time and they say "Well if calories are all that matter why do you eat so clean???!!" Well, because it makes me feel better, sleep better, and perform better at my sports.
Too many changes at once can be hard on some people. I've always eaten healthy so it easy for me to simply eat less. Eating at a calorie deficit is hard on people; even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such. Everyone is different. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others, this is not right or wrong, it just is. Stress in your life affects your hunger hormones; lack of sleep, fatigue, job stress, family stress, financial stress, etc. Add in emotional eating issues and it gets even more complicated. Most people can only handle so much change/stress at once, they try to do too much and fail. Sometimes it might be a better strategy to eat at maintenance and make some small changes first, it really depends on how much stress you are taking in at the moment.What is the exact number of calories for you?
We’ve been trying to figure out an exact NUMBER of calories that everyone should be eating, without recognizing that everyone is slightly different. In truth, the calories aren’t the end game. Your body is. So the EXACT amount of Calories that are right for you is the EXACT amount that will allow you to maintain your ideal bodyweight no matter what some calculator or chart says.
In other words, an online calculator might tell you that you need to eat 2,500 calories
per day to maintain your ideal bodyweight. But the only way to know for sure if this is
the right amount for you is to test it out. If you gain weight or can’t lose weight eating
that much, then you know you need to eat less to lose weight no matter how many
calculators and text books say otherwise.
This doesn’t mean your metabolism is broken, it just means the estimate of your needs
was just a bit off.
-John Barban (The Body Centric Calorie Guide from the Venus Index and Adonis Index Manuals)
The good thing is you don't have to worry about the starvation mode myth if you are fat. Only skinny people have to worry about starvation mode. It does not mean you have the capability to eat at a large calorie deficit if you have emotional eating disorders or other issues going on, but at least you don't have to be afraid of it anymore.
The Theory of Fat Availability:
•There is a set amount of fat that can be released from a fat cell.
•The more fat you have, the more fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•The less fat you have, the less fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•Towards the end of a transformation, when body fat is extremely low you
may not have enough fat to handle a large caloric deficit anymore.
At the extreme low end, when your body fat cannot ‘keep up’ with the energy deficit
you've imposed on your body, the energy MUST come from SOMEWHERE. This is
when you are at risk of losing lean body mass during dieting (commonly referred to
as ‘starvation mode’). This happens at extremely low levels of body fat, under 6% in
men and 12% in women [Friedl K.E. J Appl Phsiol, 1994].
-Brad Pilon and John Barban (from The Reverse Taper Diet in The Adonis Index and Venus Index manuals)
Lifting weights is KEY. I recently had my DXA scan done and at 51.5 years of age I have the bone density of a super athletic 30 year old. That is a direct result of lifting for over 30 years. Now if that is not scientific proof that lifting weights keeps you younger I don't know what is! Also I believe it is why most people think I look much younger than I really am.
Start lifting now, lift heavy and change it up often, find a lot of weight routines with free weights, make it fun, embrace it, make it part of your life. Only 3 days a week is all it would take. Crank up your tunes and learn to love it, because your body will love it and it will make your quality of life better in many ways, especially when you get older like me.
Because of this I don't have to worry about osteoporosis. If you wait until you are older and your bones start to deteriorate it's a bit too late, you can't get back what you lost, and you can only start a resistance routine that will prevent further damage.
If you are female you don't have the hormones to get big naturally. I lift heavy and I'm still really tiny. My lean body mass is only 104 lbs and that is fairly heavy for a 5'1" female, and quite a bit of this is due to my having very dense bones from 30 years of lifting, not all muscle, and I'm still quite tiny.
My muscles really are not that big, but they show a lot of definition because I'm quite lean. If I gained some fat then I would have a softer more toned look (which is OKAY too!). Then if I gained more fat I would look bulky and hefty like I did most of my life until last year. YOU CAN HAVE WHATEVER YOU WANT. Lean and ripped, soft and toned, or hefty, it all depends on how much fat you leave on your body. Calories are the only thing that changes fat. Exercise is for changing or maintaining your lean body mass only. Lifting weights will give you the best bang for your buck for shaping your body. I finally changed my shape by putting lifting first and cardio 2nd. You cannot out exercise too many calories.
Being on a calorie deficit is hard. You can't do this journey on will power alone. You must set up your environment for success. Have a team around you in your real life, not just online. Get trigger foods out of the house. It will take some sacrifice and it's not easy. You might have to say no to some social events sometimes.
Too many changes at once can be hard on some people. I've always eaten healthy so it easy for me to simply eat less. Eating at a calorie deficit is hard on people; even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such. Everyone is different. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others, this is not right or wrong, it just is. Stress in your life affects your hunger hormones; lack of sleep, fatigue, job stress, family stress, financial stress, etc. Add in emotional eating issues and it gets even more complicated. Most people can only handle so much change/stress at once, they try to do too much and fail. Sometimes it might be a better strategy to eat at maintenance and make some small changes first, it really depends on how much stress you are taking in at the moment.
For me it's all about a calorie budget. I had less of a budget available when I was losing weight, more to spend now that I'm maintaining and all the tools I used for weight loss come into play for the rest of my life maintaining.
When you have accumulated excess fat, you have accumulated a debt. It is hard to pay off the debt (you have less calories to spend). If you are sitting next to someone your same gender and height and they are not overweight and you are, they get to eat more than you (have more calories to spend) because they are debt free. You have less calories to spend because you are paying off your debt.
I see we are back with the walls of text today. TL/DR0 -
You will not gain weight by eating less and you will not lose weight by eating more that is a complete lie. You need to cut as many calories as possible and preferably not eat some days using intermittent fasting.0
-
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
For example. while I lose weight at approx. 2,000 cals a day, if I were to input a sedentary level activity level and a 1lb a week weight goal (and many use 2lb), I would end up at 1,200 calories as well.
okay, I see you edited your post. I set my weightloss goal at 0.8 pounds a week and it gave me a 1200 calorie diet. I was also set at sedentary. People on this forum keep insisting that 1200 calories is too low even for a sedentary lifestyle. My question is if they are correct and this is too low, why does mfp set it that way? I understand basic math. Don't give me the math reason. If it's consistently going down to 1200 calories for a woman who wants to only lose .8 pounds a week, either the model is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong as so many of the eat more police insist, then why would the people who created that model on mfp just fix it?
I politely answer a question based on my reading of the question and I get attitude. So, I will not bother answering your questions as I do not want further attitude. Have a lovely day dear.
bye
She answered the question as best she could (also how I would've answered it), and you throw around attitude. WTF? :noway:0 -
I keep hearing that 1200 is too low by the eat more police. Can one of them explain to me why mfp sets almost every woman at that number if it's incorrect?
It is just math - you set a low activity level and a high weigh loss goal - it gets you to less than 1,200 - as this is the threshold set by MFP, hence a lot of 1,200 cals.
As I said before, my weight loss goal was set at 0.8 pounds a week. It wasn't high at all. That was the highest mfp would allow me to go and also set me at 1200 calories a day. So why does it do that if it's not correct?
I am not saying whether it is correct or not, I just answered how the numbers on MFP worked.
I know how the numbers on mfp work. That wasn't my question at all.
Well I'm sure you'll get a lot of helpful anwers by copping a 'tude! Good luck with that.0 -
@valeriek92 - The answer you're looking for doesn't exist. The reason MFP gives 1200 is because that's the way the numbers work out. It's not an advice program- it simply takes the inputs you give, chugs the numbers, and outputs a calorie target goal. You provide height, weight, age, gender, and it calculates a BMR based on the Harris-Benedict equation. Then, it uses a multiplier based on activity level (1.2 for sedentary) to calculate your TDEE, and then based on your desired weight loss subtracts 500 calories per day per desired lb lost per week. There is no option to choose 0.8 lbs/week, which means you chose 1 lb/wk (or more), and the numbers came out to less than 1200 calories, but it will not give you a target of less than 1,200 calories, so it defaulted to 1,200 and back calculated how much you would lose per week based on 1,200 calories. MFP does not in any way pretend to tell you what is *ideal* for you, you are expected to figure that out for yourself, and adjust the input parameters accordingly.
The thing most people don't understand, is sedentary, the 1.2 multiplier, is VERY low. It really applies to TRULY sedentary people. Homebound folks, those with injuries preventing them from normal activity. Most people, even those who have desk jobs and get minimal activity still get up to go to the bathroom, walk tothe office copier, make their way to meetings, cook dinner standing up, do a little bit of light housework, give their kids a bath- whatever. Most people aren't *truly* sedentary. Lightly active is generally a better choice for most people.
The next issue is the choice of how much to lose- people with a LOT of weight to lose (40-50+lbs) can get away with 2 lbs/week (equal to 100 cal deficit). Moderate amount of weight to lose should be 1 lb/wk (20-25lbs left to lose) and then when you're in the home stretch of the last 15-20 lbs it should be 0.5 lbs, and then 0.25 lbs, and then a gradual slow taper to maintenance. People setting their goals too high frequently MATHEMATICALLY works out to a 1200 calorie goal- not ideal, and generally not even beneficial.
So that's why there is no answer to why MFP would give you 1200 if it's not right, other than the math. It would cross in to the grey area of medical advice if a generalized computer program tried to get things ideal for every user. For that you really should talk to a Registered Dietitian, or simply do the research to make informed decisions for yourself.
Edit: Correction- I mistakenly said H-B equation for BMR, MFP actually uses the Mifflin-St.Jeor equation.0 -
You will not gain weight by eating less and you will not lose weight by eating more that is a complete lie. You need to cut as many calories as possible and preferably not eat some days using intermittent fasting.
Wrong and wretched, horrible, pro-ED advice. Please ignore.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions