When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)
Replies
-
Super relieved that I bumped my calories to 1240!0
-
some people on this thread didn't grasp the fact that i was simply pointing out how small the group of people are that legitimately qualify for TDEE-20% = 1200, by illustrating with a hypothetical example. it really is about BMR. people who have unusual conditions that suppress their BMR are obviously exceptions. however, ignoring for a moment the inherent error margin in the BMR calculations, BMR isn't really something that can be argued against. it is what it is and no matter how much somebody wants to be the exception to the rule, they aren't. if this sounds "judgemental" to some people, so be it.
To what rule of BMR are you referring?
the idea that BMR calculations do not apply to them. BMR is well founded science at this point.
BMR calulators are based on population based averages. They will likely be correct for about as many people as BMI calculators will be for overweight/obese. Which is most, but certainly not all.
yes, BMR is a statistical population metric. but it's not like BMI. BMI assigns a qualitative value to the number. some numbers are better than others according to the medical world. without assigning categories for the various numbers, BMI is meaningless and useless for them (which it may be for individuals anyway, since it's a statistical population metric too). when you argue with BMI, you are arguing whether or not the category makes sense for the individual and what the potential consequences are for their future health.
BMR does no such thing. BMR is quantitative. it's a reasonably accurate estimate of what a person's body needs each day for normal metabolic function. when you argue with BMR you are essentially arguing that the underlying physics is wrong. it's not. maybe the calculation is off by 5% for you or 10% for your neighbor, but each of you still has a daily energy requirement for your body to function normally.
First off, I'm obviously not arguing with BMR. I concede the obvious point that every living person has a BMR.
My point is that the calculators are no more or less correct than other population based calculators. Not every 38 yo female weighing 148 lbs with 25% BF has the same BMR. The calculator does not give your BMR. It gives the BMR of the average person of your size/age/sex.0 -
My goal on here (set by MFP) is 1210. I am 5'8" and weigh 134 -- I am feeling EXHAUSTED since I started this a couple of months ago.
I try to eat healthy fats (avocados, olive oil, etc) and healthy proteins (fish, lean meats, etc)... but seem to not be toning up and I've actually gained 4 pounds. (I started at 130)
I run 3-4 times a week, do kickboxing for 60mins 3 times a week, and do push-ups/sit-ups/etc....
What am I doing wrong? Could it be that I'm not eating enough? Damn you 1200 calories! Haha.0 -
My goal on here (set by MFP) is 1210. I am 5'8" and weigh 134 -- I am feeling EXHAUSTED since I started this a couple of months ago.
I try to eat healthy fats (avocados, olive oil, etc) and healthy proteins (fish, lean meats, etc)... but seem to not be toning up and I've actually gained 4 pounds. (I started at 130)
I run 3-4 times a week, do kickboxing for 60mins 3 times a week, and do push-ups/sit-ups/etc....
What am I doing wrong? Could it be that I'm not eating enough? Damn you 1200 calories! Haha.
What do you have your weight loss goals set at? At 130, you should aim for half a pound a week. Also, if you didn't include your exercise in your activity level, you should be logging and eating back your exercise calories.0 -
I've just started here this week (at 1200 cal.) and I notice I usually don't even reach it. I'm just not that hungry I guess, but I agree that the majority of the members should eat a lot more to maintain lost weight. I guess it would be smart to play around a bit with the calorie count, until you find out what suits you best.0
-
It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. .
This is not true, except from a personal satisfaction perspective. It is quite easy to get adequate nutrition from 1200 calories of nutrient dense foods. An individual may not be happy without favorite foods lacking in nutrition making it "difficult" for them, but as a general statement, it's not true.
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
You eat nutrient dense foods and not much junk. Whether fats and proteins are min or max would depend on personal goals and settings.0 -
The only way I was able to lose weight was eating 1200 + exercise calories.
I’m 33y/o 4"11 sedentary (desk job)
I’m at maintenance now at 1470 + exercise calories.0 -
some people on this thread didn't grasp the fact that i was simply pointing out how small the group of people are that legitimately qualify for TDEE-20% = 1200, by illustrating with a hypothetical example. it really is about BMR. people who have unusual conditions that suppress their BMR are obviously exceptions. however, ignoring for a moment the inherent error margin in the BMR calculations, BMR isn't really something that can be argued against. it is what it is and no matter how much somebody wants to be the exception to the rule, they aren't. if this sounds "judgemental" to some people, so be it.
To what rule of BMR are you referring?
the idea that BMR calculations do not apply to them. BMR is well founded science at this point.
BMR calulators are based on population based averages. They will likely be correct for about as many people as BMI calculators will be for overweight/obese. Which is most, but certainly not all.
yes, BMR is a statistical population metric. but it's not like BMI. BMI assigns a qualitative value to the number. some numbers are better than others according to the medical world. without assigning categories for the various numbers, BMI is meaningless and useless for them (which it may be for individuals anyway, since it's a statistical population metric too). when you argue with BMI, you are arguing whether or not the category makes sense for the individual and what the potential consequences are for their future health.
BMR does no such thing. BMR is quantitative. it's a reasonably accurate estimate of what a person's body needs each day for normal metabolic function. when you argue with BMR you are essentially arguing that the underlying physics is wrong. it's not. maybe the calculation is off by 5% for you or 10% for your neighbor, but each of you still has a daily energy requirement for your body to function normally.
First off, I'm obviously not arguing with BMR. I concede the obvious point that every living person has a BMR.
My point is that the calculators are no more or less correct than other population based calculators. Not every 38 yo female weighing 148 lbs with 25% BF has the same BMR. The calculator does not give your BMR. It gives the BMR of the average person of your size/age/sex.
true, but a 10% error margin on a result of 1400 is just about the amount of calories in a single large banana and a handful of grapes. it's not trivial, but it doesn't support your notion that the BMR number is a loose guideline. without researching the actual error margins in those equations for them to be accurate for 90% of the population, i don't know how much more debate we can have on the accuracy of the BMR number.0 -
I am actually struggling 2 eat 1200 calories... I never go hungry and i am 47 and 5ft 2 and 135 lb..is this because of my age??? If i tried upping my calories i would be eating for the sake of eating...
(( I have lost 5lb but have suck to this for 2 weeks now... i have started doing the 30 day shred but so unfit only lasting 15min for now (n hoping for some advice plz 
No, I don't think it's your age. I am 21 years old, 5'2 and 147 lbs (started at 170). I realized when I eat more vegetables and granola bars, I struggle to eat 1200 calories a day. I only go over when I drink alcohol. But I am not strictly on a 1200 calorie diet either. MFP is encouraging people to workout to earn those extra calories. I kinda of do a reward system. If I work out that day, I can up my calories and go out drinking that night if I choose to. But if I do not work out for several days, I must eat very healthy (hitting all food groups) and stay in a lower caloric range for the day. I'm not starving myself. Actually most days I'm completely full by 1100 calories. It's because I stopped eating pizza and mess loads of chocolate. And I don't feel like I am even sacrificing much because I've learned that I like more healthy foods than I believed I ever would. So, 1200 calories is not inappropriate if it's your net.
Also, try working out on something else before you try something so intense. I love the elliptical at the gym and when I find its starting to get easy, I up my resistance. It's my favorite exercise and usually makes me hungrier so I eat more healthy calories as well
Good luck! 0 -
My goal on here (set by MFP) is 1210. I am 5'8" and weigh 134 -- I am feeling EXHAUSTED since I started this a couple of months ago.
I try to eat healthy fats (avocados, olive oil, etc) and healthy proteins (fish, lean meats, etc)... but seem to not be toning up and I've actually gained 4 pounds. (I started at 130)
I run 3-4 times a week, do kickboxing for 60mins 3 times a week, and do push-ups/sit-ups/etc....
What am I doing wrong? Could it be that I'm not eating enough? Damn you 1200 calories! Haha.
Are you eating 1210 total calories or net calories?0 -
Maybe your body is going in starvation mode (I think they call it). Try to up it a little until you find a comfortable amount and then see if you can drop it little by little. Oh, and check if you don't sneak food.0
-
My goal on here (set by MFP) is 1210. I am 5'8" and weigh 134 -- I am feeling EXHAUSTED since I started this a couple of months ago.
I try to eat healthy fats (avocados, olive oil, etc) and healthy proteins (fish, lean meats, etc)... but seem to not be toning up and I've actually gained 4 pounds. (I started at 130)
I run 3-4 times a week, do kickboxing for 60mins 3 times a week, and do push-ups/sit-ups/etc....
What am I doing wrong? Could it be that I'm not eating enough? Damn you 1200 calories! Haha.
I'm going to refer you page to the original post that began this thread. I think you will find all of your answers there.0 -
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
I need 55 grams a day, according the one popular calculation. Looking at my diary, I see that I hit that on most days. And I don't try. I don't make any effort to get protein. Sometimes I am under. Sometimes I get almost triple that.0 -
It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. .
This is not true, except from a personal satisfaction perspective. It is quite easy to get adequate nutrition from 1200 calories of nutrient dense foods. An individual may not be happy without favorite foods lacking in nutrition making it "difficult" for them, but as a general statement, it's not true.
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
You eat nutrient dense foods and not much junk. Whether fats and proteins are min or max would depend on personal goals and settings.
fats and proteins are minimums. that's not subject to personal goals. the 40%/30%/30% mix (or whatever variation you use) is to make sure you are giving your body enough macronutrients to meet its needs. you can play around a little bit with the ratios, but you still need to treat the fat and protein macro numbers as minimums. 0.85g/lb of LBM is a pretty common MINIMUM protein goal. i don't see how you can meet that on a 1200 calorie diet without supplements unless you only eating foods high in protein, which is likely to leave you missing other macro goals. if you can do it, it will take a lot of effort and exactness. most people don't have time in their life for that.0 -
some people on this thread didn't grasp the fact that i was simply pointing out how small the group of people are that legitimately qualify for TDEE-20% = 1200, by illustrating with a hypothetical example. it really is about BMR. people who have unusual conditions that suppress their BMR are obviously exceptions. however, ignoring for a moment the inherent error margin in the BMR calculations, BMR isn't really something that can be argued against. it is what it is and no matter how much somebody wants to be the exception to the rule, they aren't. if this sounds "judgemental" to some people, so be it.
To what rule of BMR are you referring?
the idea that BMR calculations do not apply to them. BMR is well founded science at this point.
BMR calulators are based on population based averages. They will likely be correct for about as many people as BMI calculators will be for overweight/obese. Which is most, but certainly not all.
yes, BMR is a statistical population metric. but it's not like BMI. BMI assigns a qualitative value to the number. some numbers are better than others according to the medical world. without assigning categories for the various numbers, BMI is meaningless and useless for them (which it may be for individuals anyway, since it's a statistical population metric too). when you argue with BMI, you are arguing whether or not the category makes sense for the individual and what the potential consequences are for their future health.
BMR does no such thing. BMR is quantitative. it's a reasonably accurate estimate of what a person's body needs each day for normal metabolic function. when you argue with BMR you are essentially arguing that the underlying physics is wrong. it's not. maybe the calculation is off by 5% for you or 10% for your neighbor, but each of you still has a daily energy requirement for your body to function normally.
First off, I'm obviously not arguing with BMR. I concede the obvious point that every living person has a BMR.
My point is that the calculators are no more or less correct than other population based calculators. Not every 38 yo female weighing 148 lbs with 25% BF has the same BMR. The calculator does not give your BMR. It gives the BMR of the average person of your size/age/sex.
true, but a 10% error margin on a result of 1400 is just about the amount of calories in a single large banana and a handful of grapes. it's not trivial, but it doesn't support your notion that the BMR number is a loose guideline. without researching the actual error margins in those equations for them to be accurate for 90% of the population, i don't know how much more debate we can have on the accuracy of the BMR number.
I agree. But this is why I find it so troubling when people so much importance on the BMR calculator number.0 -
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
I need 55 grams a day, according the one popular calculation. Looking at my diary, I see that I hit that on most days. And I don't try. I don't make any effort to get protein. Sometimes I am under. Sometimes I get almost triple that.
55 may be too low. what's the number that comes from the 0.85g/lb of LBM "rule"? i can meet all of my macro goals on a low calorie diet too, if i make the mistake of setting them too low. this is another benefit of checking out the Dan's Roadmap link i posted in the original post, as well as joining the Eat, Train, Progress group. many people do not take the time to make sure their macro settings are correct and understand what these goals truly mean.0 -
It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. .
This is not true, except from a personal satisfaction perspective. It is quite easy to get adequate nutrition from 1200 calories of nutrient dense foods. An individual may not be happy without favorite foods lacking in nutrition making it "difficult" for them, but as a general statement, it's not true.
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
You eat nutrient dense foods and not much junk. Whether fats and proteins are min or max would depend on personal goals and settings.
fats and proteins are minimums. that's not subject to personal goals. the 40%/30%/30% mix (or whatever variation you use) is to make sure you are giving your body enough macronutrients to meet its needs. you can play around a little bit with the ratios, but you still need to treat the fat and protein macro numbers as minimums. 0.85g/lb of LBM is a pretty common MINIMUM protein goal. i don't see how you can meet that on a 1200 calorie diet without supplements unless you only eating foods high in protein, which is likely to leave you missing other macro goals. if you can do it, it will take a lot of effort and exactness. most people don't have time in their life for that.
No, I don't treat fat and protein as a minimum. It doesn't take a lot of effort for me. I don't eat 1200 calories a day, but on a typical day anywhere from 300 - 800 calories are empty calories and I've never had a nutrient deficiency. I've never claimed to know what most people can do, nor do I believe that you know it either.0 -
It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. .
This is not true, except from a personal satisfaction perspective. It is quite easy to get adequate nutrition from 1200 calories of nutrient dense foods. An individual may not be happy without favorite foods lacking in nutrition making it "difficult" for them, but as a general statement, it's not true.
how can you meet your daily protein goal on 1200 calories unless you resort to supplements? and if you focus on just meat to meet your protein goal, what about fiber and all of the necessary macronutrients? i think it's harder than you claim it is unless you daily macro goals are set too low. fats and protein are daily MINIMUMS.
You eat nutrient dense foods and not much junk. Whether fats and proteins are min or max would depend on personal goals and settings.
fats and proteins are minimums. that's not subject to personal goals. the 40%/30%/30% mix (or whatever variation you use) is to make sure you are giving your body enough macronutrients to meet its needs. you can play around a little bit with the ratios, but you still need to treat the fat and protein macro numbers as minimums. 0.85g/lb of LBM is a pretty common MINIMUM protein goal. i don't see how you can meet that on a 1200 calorie diet without supplements unless you only eating foods high in protein, which is likely to leave you missing other macro goals. if you can do it, it will take a lot of effort and exactness. most people don't have time in their life for that.
I'm pretty aware that I'm being ignored by OP but assuming the minimum set forth here (which is pretty significantly different than that set forward by the NIH but very close to my goals), for me protein would be set for 107g/day which at 4 cal/g of protein is only 428cal. 1200-428 leaves 772 calories for fats, vegetables and grains. It is actually really easy to do if your diet is filled with nutrient dense foods and lots of great veggies.
Edit to add: I often hit all my macros by 1000 calories (sometimes less). Then I have an extra 200+ calories left for gelato or beer or wine or just more healthy food... And my macros are in line with common health recommendations.0 -
55 may be too low. what's the number that comes from the 0.85g/lb of LBM "rule"? i can meet all of my macro goals on a low calorie diet too, if i make the mistake of setting them too low. this is another benefit of checking out the Dan's Roadmap link i posted in the original post, as well as joining the Eat, Train, Progress group. many people do not take the time to make sure their macro settings are correct and understand what these goals truly mean.
You can also tell me I'm not getting enough protein by setting my goals higher than they need to be.
I don't think I need to worry about protein. I am not making that claim from rank ignorance, either.0 -
One formula doesnt fit all...
not that I eat 1200 or anything but lets not put people down for eating less than we believe they should. its their body not ours. and if they are losing and not malnourished who cares
^AGREED^0 -
Thanks for posting the info, today is my first day on MFP and I'm already feeling the squeeze of 1200 calories a day since as of yet I haven't started an exercise routine other than walking on my 15 min afternoon break at work.. at a leisurely pace.. And didn't have any clue how I would ever actually acheive the 1200 goal0
-
After reading several of these threads I made an appointment with my doctor to discuss my diet and weight loss. She took my information down, consulted a nutritionist and emailed me the diet plan she'd like me to use.
It's an exchange diet... 1200 calories. Go figure.
Edit: Also... I'm stuffing myself to eat 1200 calories. I just forced down two slices of toast with butter and fruit spread because I was 170 calories short for the day.
You had a quarter of a cup of trail mix for lunch and you say you are stuffing yourself?
Really?
How exactly did you end up with weight to lose?
I was drinking 1200-1500 calories a day in Pepsi a month ago and probably 1200 - 1500 calories in one meal (dinner) from a drive through. I feel like I'm eating twice the food I was before and at times force myself to eat just to hit 1200 calories... thats how.0 -
bump0
-
bump bump0
-
Bump0
-
If I have been consistently losing at a lb a week at 1200 calories, should I start eating more? I'm 5'1, 22years old, 28.3% BMI, I would like to be around 126lbs by Mid-May. If the BMR calculation says, "Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 1975" Does this mean I should up my calories to be around 1500 target calories a day on mfp?0
-
If I have been consistently losing at a lb a week at 1200 calories, should I start eating more? I'm 5'1, 22years old, 28.3% BMI, I would like to be around 126lbs by Mid-May. If the BMR calculation says, "Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 1975" Does this mean I should up my calories to be around 1500 target calories a day on mfp?
i come up with 1725 (sedentary) and 1975 (lightly active) for you. these amounts assume that amount of activity as part of your normal daily routine. if you do specific extra exercise (jogging, running), then you have to add that to get your TDEE for that day.
you have 12 lbs to lose according to your ticker and are giving yourself 10 weeks to get there, so a 500 calorie deficit may be ok if you really are lightly active (due to normal daily activities), then i would say eating at 1450-1500 should be fine for you and allow you to just about meet your goal in that time frame. on days where you add extra exercise, eat back most or all of those calories.
if you have your activity level set too high and it turns out sedentary is correct for you, then your weight loss rate will slow when you bump up your calories. in that case, make sure you're doing enough exercise to have a daily TDEE of 1950-2000 so that you can eat 1450-1500 calories per day. this should keep you just above your BMR and help avoid any sort problems that you may run into by staying at 1200.0 -
If I have been consistently losing at a lb a week at 1200 calories, should I start eating more? I'm 5'1, 22years old, 28.3% BMI, I would like to be around 126lbs by Mid-May. If the BMR calculation says, "Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 1975" Does this mean I should up my calories to be around 1500 target calories a day on mfp?
i come up with 1725 (sedentary) and 1975 (lightly active) for you. these amounts assume that amount of activity as part of your normal daily routine. if you do specific extra exercise (jogging, running), then you have to add that to get your TDEE for that day.
you have 12 lbs to lose according to your ticker and are giving yourself 10 weeks to get there, so a 500 calorie deficit may be ok if you really are lightly active (due to normal daily activities), then i would say eating at 1450-1500 should be fine for you and allow you to just about meet your goal in that time frame. on days where you add extra exercise, eat back most or all of those calories.
if you have your activity level set too high and it turns out sedentary is correct for you, then your weight loss rate will slow when you bump up your calories. in that case, make sure you're doing enough exercise to have a daily TDEE of 1950-2000 so that you can eat 1450-1500 calories per day. this should keep you just above your BMR and help avoid any sort problems that you may run into by staying at 1200.
Thanks Winner! I will set my goal for 1450 calories instead of 1200.0 -
I make up my deficit with cosmos. A win-win.0
-
Nice try, but this is going to fall on deaf ears.
I came to mfp determined 1200 was right. I read a thread like this and upped them. Some people do listen
Me. I was one of those. I lost 4 lbs in the first week on 1200 calories. I wasn't hungry, BUT my legs were not recovering from Zumba. Each day was getting harder and harder. Then I weighed in and saw that I lost all that weight. It clicked. I wasn't burning fat; I was burning muscle, most likely, which would explain the unrecovering soreness. I upped my calories and I feel great. I am happy to plan meals and fun snacks. I sleep better, and it was because of a forum like this. They bother people, but they are good for those wavering on the edge. Not everyone will (or needs to) change. Enough do though, and this is posted for those people! Thank you for posting. IT is hard because it is so controversial. :flowerforyou:
:flowerforyou: Exactly what happened to me! I know that everyone has a different take on it but for me I simply didn't have enough fuel in the tank when netting 1200 a day. Eating more I am able to exercise more... get more fit... retain lean tissue... lose inches. Thanks for this post!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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