why is 1200 cal/day too low?

CristinaL1983

For more information on variances in BMR between individuals, this study is very interesting:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.full

Like all previous studies (50–55), we found enormous variation in between-subject BMR (26%) that was not explained by differences in body composition or age (or sex). This variation could not be attributed to either within-subject error or analytic error, which together only summed to 2% of the total variance (less than one-tenth of the unexplained variation). In part, this unexplained variance may reflect the inadequacies of our characterization of body composition into only 3 compartments (FFM, FM, and bone mineral content).
...
Like many other studies, our work has indicated a large between-individual variation in BMR that cannot be explained by morphologic characteristics, including sex and age.

Basically, there was a 26% variance in BMR between individuals not related to LBM (or ffm whichever you prefer), age, sex, or fat mass.

If I take this and extrapolate with a number given for bmr, let's say 1600 for the sake of round easy numbers, I would get a variance of 416 cal/day.

416 cal/day for BMR alone, so the differences in TDEE would be much higher. 1600 x 1.55 (for moderately active) would give 2480. If the BMR measurement were over by 416 cal/day actual BMR would be 1184, 1184 x 1.55 would give 1835 for TDEE.

If I used the higher number (the online estimate) when in fact my BMR was actually 26% different, and I did the TDEE-20%, it would tell me to consume 1984 cal/day which would be 149 calories higher than actual TDEE causing me to gain a pound every 23.5 days.

My point in all of this is that without actually going and having my BMR or RMR tested, they are all estimates that can be pretty far off. If this were the method I wanted to follow, I would go have my RMR tested so that I would know where to set my goals. There have been other studies that showed BMR to be closer to 30% different than estimates.

mfpcopine

Short answer: For many people it's not too low.

proudandprejudiced

It depends on your situation entirely.. I'm 5'1', 91lbs and my BMR is 1100 calories a day. 1200 wouldn't be too little for me to eat when I'm NOT trying to lose weight.

ladyraven68

I am 39 years old. I weigh 143lbs. My goal weight is 123 lbs. To be honest, I'm not sure if that is a realistic or healthy goal weight - I have not consulted a doctor about it. When I entered my weight loss goals in MFP it set me up on 1200 calories per day. Now, I've noticed a few comments on other topics where people say 1200 is too low. Can someone please explain why and how do I decide on (1) goal weight and (2) cals per day?

An important thing to remember is that MFP did not allocate you 1200 calories, it allocated you 1200 calories, PLUS your exercise calories.

mfpcopine

At your height and weight+activity you could lose fat with minimal LBM lost eating 1600-2200/day.
You'll have better energy as well as a higher hormonal state that fosters a better fat loss environment.

Like I said before. I haven't lost ANY LBM. If you want to argue that point, I can direct you to the DXA scan experts at the University that did my DXA scans.

I have tried to lose weight at a higher caloric intake and did not lose any. Any BMR you are calculating for me is just an estimate. I will probably have it actually tested at some point and will not be surprised at all to find my BMR/RMR is less than 1200.

This is the most frustrating thing about these boards to me. I have had DXA scans done that show that I have gained (not lost) LBM (very small gain so I call it a wash and say it was about the same). I am losing weight at a very steady rate (again fat not muscle) but instead of understanding that BMR is an estimate when done by any online calculator and is not necessarily a realistic number, people continue to treat it as though it is an absolute. It is not, it is an average. I have not suffered any hormonal side effects, my blood work is all great.

As someone who has been in excellent shape before and gained weight as a result of continuing to eat like I was as active as I was before I had 3 surgeries, I take my weight loss as well as maintenance of my LBM very seriously. Aside from the DXA scans, I have blood work done regularly by my doctor to make sure I do not go into a vitamin or iron deficit and to make sure that my hormones and thyroid function are right on track, etc...
I have experienced no drop in energy levels either and as I have dropped fat, my energy level has naturally gone up.

Despite all of this, you are implying (or outright saying) that by following the estimates given by an online calculator, instead of what actually works (by all scientific measurements available to me) I would have greater success.


It just doesn't make any sense. What about an online estimation could possibly be more accurate than real life results. How could you possibly understand how my body works better than I could.

A lot of people here simply will not accept that the information here and elsewhere is a guide. The individual has to think for him/herself when the suggestion proves unhelpful.

ladyraven68

It depends on your situation entirely.. I'm 5'1', 91lbs and my BMR is 1100 calories a day. 1200 wouldn't be too little for me to eat when I'm NOT trying to lose weight.

Actually, it would, as even if you were totally sedentary, a BMR of 1100 would give you a TDEE of 1320.

proudandprejudiced

But in my own personal situation, I maintain my weight eating 1200 calories. Everyone's bodies work differently (I think I messed my punctuation up there!) and for me, 1200 is maintenance calories.

Km0714

1200 is really working for me however i can't wait until i hit goal and can start eating more to maintain. It's not always that i'm hungry its just very hard to only eat 1200 cals a day, you don't realize how many calories are in meals such as dinners and such (even very healthy ones!)

Simone_King

*raises hand.* I am currently eating 1780 cals a day. Some days, it's way over that mark. I have lost 33 pounds..

But I am also lowing my cal intake for every pound I lose. So..it just depends on the person.

I could never live off of 1200 cals.

Helloitsdan

At your height and weight+activity you could lose fat with minimal LBM lost eating 1600-2200/day.
You'll have better energy as well as a higher hormonal state that fosters a better fat loss environment.

Like I said before. I haven't lost ANY LBM. If you want to argue that point, I can direct you to the DXA scan experts at the University that did my DXA scans.

I have tried to lose weight at a higher caloric intake and did not lose any. Any BMR you are calculating for me is just an estimate. I will probably have it actually tested at some point and will not be surprised at all to find my BMR/RMR is less than 1200.

This is the most frustrating thing about these boards to me. I have had DXA scans done that show that I have gained (not lost) LBM (very small gain so I call it a wash and say it was about the same). I am losing weight at a very steady rate (again fat not muscle) but instead of understanding that BMR is an estimate when done by any online calculator and is not necessarily a realistic number, people continue to treat it as though it is an absolute. It is not, it is an average. I have not suffered any hormonal side effects, my blood work is all great.

As someone who has been in excellent shape before and gained weight as a result of continuing to eat like I was as active as I was before I had 3 surgeries, I take my weight loss as well as maintenance of my LBM very seriously. Aside from the DXA scans, I have blood work done regularly by my doctor to make sure I do not go into a vitamin or iron deficit and to make sure that my hormones and thyroid function are right on track, etc...
I have experienced no drop in energy levels either and as I have dropped fat, my energy level has naturally gone up.

Despite all of this, you are implying (or outright saying) that by following the estimates given by an online calculator, instead of what actually works (by all scientific measurements available to me) I would have greater success.

It just doesn't make any sense. What about an online estimation could possibly be more accurate than real life results. How could you possibly understand how my body works better than I could.

Lol well that touched a nerve!

So at higher cals you didn't lose any fat or weight.
Training was perfect and nutrition was perfect?

How long did you attempt the higher cals?

LorinaLynn

I won't argue that it's not the right amount for SOME people.

But like with any medical issue, if it's not life-threatening, I prefer to take a more conservative approach to start. No one would recommend someone get weight loss surgery if they first didn't try losing weight without it, so why are people so fired up to do major cuts to calories before trying a more moderate deficit?

I think the majority of us who are outspoken about a moderate deficit are people who've tried it both ways. The very fact that I came to this site to lose weight after I'd previously lost on lower calories speaks for just how sustainable that was for me. :laugh:

This time around, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will continue to maintain my weight loss. It's been about a year and eight months so far, and it's been effortless. The reason it's been effortless was because I've been eating the same way all along. Maintenance was only about 200-300 calories more than losing. It was no huge adjustment.

I won't say what I did and do will work for everyone. Other people have different goals. If they're not interested in running, they won't run. If they're not interested in lifting, they won't lift. If they don't exercise, they're going to have a lower TDEE. But I think the vast majority of the members of this site would benefit from learning more about the what all the numbers mean, and going for an appropriate deficit instead of the largest one possible.

Helloitsdan

A couple good reads for you.
Keep in mind that the difference between 1200 and 900 cals is like splitting hairs.
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/reduced-fat-and-calorie-diets-how-low-too-low

And on metabolic damage caused by improper diet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&sns=em

nokanjaijo

Lol well that touched a nerve!

So at higher cals you didn't lose any fat or weight.
Training was perfect and nutrition was perfect?

How long did you attempt the higher cals?

I have to say, I'm feeling her pain. She has supplied a good bit of evidence and solid arguments to back up her claims. You just laughed at her frustration with you ignoring her compelling points, then ignored her most compelling points in favor of what appears to be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Obey46

Inb4 plateau on 1200 then eat at 900.

Have fun burning that muscle.

EvgeniZyntx

For more information on variances in BMR between individuals, this study is very interesting:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.full

Like all previous studies (50–55), we found enormous variation in between-subject BMR (26%) that was not explained by differences in body composition or age (or sex). This variation could not be attributed to either within-subject error or analytic error, which together only summed to 2% of the total variance (less than one-tenth of the unexplained variation). In part, this unexplained variance may reflect the inadequacies of our characterization of body composition into only 3 compartments (FFM, FM, and bone mineral content).
...
Like many other studies, our work has indicated a large between-individual variation in BMR that cannot be explained by morphologic characteristics, including sex and age.

Basically, there was a 26% variance in BMR between individuals not related to LBM (or ffm whichever you prefer), age, sex, or fat mass.

If I take this and extrapolate with a number given for bmr, let's say 1600 for the sake of round easy numbers, I would get a variance of 416 cal/day.

416 cal/day for BMR alone, so the differences in TDEE would be much higher. 1600 x 1.55 (for moderately active) would give 2480. If the BMR measurement were over by 416 cal/day actual BMR would be 1184, 1184 x 1.55 would give 1835 for TDEE.

If I used the higher number (the online estimate) when in fact my BMR was actually 26% different, and I did the TDEE-20%, it would tell me to consume 1984 cal/day which would be 149 calories higher than actual TDEE causing me to gain a pound every 23.5 days.

My point in all of this is that without actually going and having my BMR or RMR tested, they are all estimates that can be pretty far off. If this were the method I wanted to follow, I would go have my RMR tested so that I would know where to set my goals. There have been other studies that showed BMR to be closer to 30% different than estimates.

If the variance is 26% (nice article) the actual estimated difference you should see from the mean is less than 13% (ie +- 26%). Given that the distribution is likely Gaussian, I'd say there is a 99% chance that personal measures fall within +- 11%.

So a TDEE -20% is still at least TDEE-9% to TDEE-31% for 99 out of a hundred people.

Feel free to correct me or do the actual standard deviations.

nokanjaijo

Keep in mind that the difference between 1200 and 900 cals is like splitting hairs.

But going from 1200 to 1500 will make all the difference in the world?

CristinaL1983

Lol well that touched a nerve!

So at higher cals you didn't lose any fat or weight.
Training was perfect and nutrition was perfect?

How long did you attempt the higher cals?

Yes, I find it extremely frustrating that people treat a number that is, at best, an estimate based on averages and mathematical modeling as an absolute when I (and plenty of scientific researchers) have found that it is often off. Mathematical modeling cannot and does not take into account all variables and will probably never be able to account for genetic differences. Additionally when your post is so single purposed as to completely ignore all other scientific measurements that show significant progress for me, it is irritating. 1200 calories works for me. (Please note the 'for me' part of this as I have no doubt that it would not work for everyone).

I had tried 1800 calories (upon the recommendation of my PT) for about 3-4 months in the early part of last year (starting around March and quit that around June/July). Was nutrition perfect? No, it never is. Was I counting calories as accurately and recording as rigorously as I am now? Yes. Was training perfect? Again, no it never is. Was I training as hard as I am now? Absolutely. I experienced some LBM gains but no BF loss. In fact, I gained a bit of weight. I gained about 3-5 lbs over that period of time and by my best calculations, it was almost evenly split between body fat and lean mass. At that time, I was not having DXA scans done so I couldn't actually tell you with any certainty what the split was there.


I'm more than satisfied on 1200 calories (physically and mentally) and as long as I'm not losing LBM (which I'm not) I am satisfied with the results. The next time I go in for a DeXA scan, I will probably try to get my RMR actually checked so that I can work out the numbers for maintenance. I am not planning on going back in until I hit my goal of 155 which should put me at about 19%bf.

dixiewhiskey

I used to be 120 lbs in my teenage years.. could NEVER eat 1200 cals a day.

If y'all wanna plateau and lose muscle, be my guest. I will stick to my 1600-1700, keep the muscle I worked ever so hard to increase and become leaner.

dixiewhiskey

Lol well that touched a nerve!

So at higher cals you didn't lose any fat or weight.
Training was perfect and nutrition was perfect?

How long did you attempt the higher cals?

Yes, I find it extremely frustrating that people treat a number that is, at best, an estimate based on averages and mathematical modeling as an absolute when I (and plenty of scientific researchers) have found that it is often off. Mathematical modeling cannot and does not take into account all variables and will probably never be able to account for genetic differences. Additionally when your post is so single purposed as to completely ignore all other scientific measurements that show significant progress for me, it is irritating. 1200 calories works for me. (Please note the 'for me' part of this as I have no doubt that it would not work for everyone).

I had tried 1800 calories (upon the recommendation of my PT) for about 3-4 months in the early part of last year (starting around March and quit that around June/July). Was nutrition perfect? No, it never is. Was I counting calories as accurately and recording as rigorously as I am now? Yes. Was training perfect? Again, no it never is. Was I training as hard as I am now? Absolutely. I experienced some LBM gains but no BF loss. In fact, I gained a bit of weight. I gained about 3-5 lbs over that period of time and by my best calculations, it was almost evenly split between body fat and lean mass. At that time, I was not having DXA scans done so I couldn't actually tell you with any certainty what the split was there.


I'm more than satisfied on 1200 calories (physically and mentally) and as long as I'm not losing LBM (which I'm not) I am satisfied with the results. The next time I go in for a DeXA scan, I will probably try to get my RMR actually checked so that I can work out the numbers for maintenance. I am not planning on going back in until I hit my goal of 155 which should put me at about 19%bf.

How do you not lose body mass? That's insane..

Last month I ate anywhere from 1600-2000 cals a day, lifted + cardio everyday and lost 6% BF.. the month before that, I lost over 10%!! Something is amiss

CristinaL1983

For more information on variances in BMR between individuals, this study is very interesting:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.full

Like all previous studies (50–55), we found enormous variation in between-subject BMR (26%) that was not explained by differences in body composition or age (or sex). This variation could not be attributed to either within-subject error or analytic error, which together only summed to 2% of the total variance (less than one-tenth of the unexplained variation). In part, this unexplained variance may reflect the inadequacies of our characterization of body composition into only 3 compartments (FFM, FM, and bone mineral content).
...
Like many other studies, our work has indicated a large between-individual variation in BMR that cannot be explained by morphologic characteristics, including sex and age.

Basically, there was a 26% variance in BMR between individuals not related to LBM (or ffm whichever you prefer), age, sex, or fat mass.

If I take this and extrapolate with a number given for bmr, let's say 1600 for the sake of round easy numbers, I would get a variance of 416 cal/day.

416 cal/day for BMR alone, so the differences in TDEE would be much higher. 1600 x 1.55 (for moderately active) would give 2480. If the BMR measurement were over by 416 cal/day actual BMR would be 1184, 1184 x 1.55 would give 1835 for TDEE.

If I used the higher number (the online estimate) when in fact my BMR was actually 26% different, and I did the TDEE-20%, it would tell me to consume 1984 cal/day which would be 149 calories higher than actual TDEE causing me to gain a pound every 23.5 days.

My point in all of this is that without actually going and having my BMR or RMR tested, they are all estimates that can be pretty far off. If this were the method I wanted to follow, I would go have my RMR tested so that I would know where to set my goals. There have been other studies that showed BMR to be closer to 30% different than estimates.

If the variance is 26% (nice article) the actual estimated difference you should see from the mean is less than 13% (ie +- 26%). Given that the distribution is likely Gaussian, I'd say there is a 99% chance that personal measures fall within +- 11%.

So a TDEE -20% is still at least TDEE-9% to TDEE-31% for 99 out of a hundred people.

Feel free to correct me or do the actual standard deviations.

The thought crossed my mind but in this particular article, it compares people to people not people to estimates (given by mathematical modeling). The people to estimates articles which I have read (and I cannot find them right now, but they are out there) showed a greater variance so for the purposes of simplicity, I assumed that the person at the highest end was at the estimate. There are very obvious problems with this but I wasn't shooting for a real number so much as trying to demonstrate issues with basing everything on a number that could be off by quite a bit in either direction (again, this article doesn't state what the variance from the estimated value is, it only measures the variance between people).

So yes you are more right but I think the actual number for measured BMR to calculated BMR was more like 30 something percent (but again, I couldn't find the article right now and I'm trying to spend some time actually doing homework in addition to responding to this )