When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)

WinnerVictorious

Being a 45 yr old male obviously gives you great knowledge of what works for all of the women of the world - well done sir.

f you are a sedentary 38-year old woman, who is 4'10" and weighs 115lbs and does not exercise, then your TDEE-20% would be approximately 1200 calories.

if you are:

more active than that...
and/or younger than that...
and/or male...
and/or taller than that...
and/or weigh more than that...
and/or engage in cardiovascular exercise, then

you should almost certainly be eating MORE than 1200 calories per day.

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.

thank you for seeing that Cupcake.

Kelly043

Thanks for the info!

MercenaryNoetic26

BUMP

bcattoes

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?

WinnerVictorious

I don't understand why 1200 calorie diet is bashed on mfp. My dietitian put me on a 1200 calorie diet- and tells me to be sure I eat my calories back when I exercise. I am not hungry, but I do have to make better food choices to stay within the range. Why not eat the amount of calories you think you should be eating and let others do the same?

it's an issue for 3 reasons.

- some people insist that 1200 (or less) is perfectly valid for themselves and get angry whenever anyone, anywhere says that there is often a better way to the same results. they feel they are being personally challenged and come into threads like these already in attack mode. it's not hard to spot them in this thread. this thread isn't for them anyway, it's for the next group (below)

- some people don't know any better. they read an article in Cosmopolitan or heard about some celebrity touting the benefits of 1200 calories, so they just choose that number for themselves and try to exist on that. they often are hungry, unhappy, and eventually stall. these threads help those people (even if they are just lurking and not participating) realize that there is more to learn on how to properly set their goals. these goals include daily calorie goal, reasonable calorie deficit, and proper nutritional mix. this thread was for them. i just want them to take the time to learn about BMR and TDEE and make INFORMED decisions about their health. if they still choose 1200, then that's their business. but choosing 1200 with no real understanding for why, is always going to bring out those of us who really care to see people proceeding in a healthy and sustainable way.

- finally, MFP calculations don't appear to sanity check the weight loss goals and can often spit out 1200 for people who really should be eating at a higher level. it won't go below 1200 (which is good), but it doesn't check to see if the weekly weight loss rate is reasonable based on the CW and GW of the member. for example, if you weigh 140lbs and want to weigh 125lbs and set the weight loss rate at 2lbs/week (a 1000 calorie deficit per day), you will most likely get a 1200 calorie recommendation. people see that and assume it's a valid, healthy way to proceed because MFP gave it to them. it may not be.

WinnerVictorious

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.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

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.

thank you for seeing that Cupcake.

:pumpkinpieforyou:

bcattoes

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.

Trilby16

As of now, I've been using MFP for about 6 weeks and in that time I've lost 6 pounds (YAY!!!) and estabilshed a habit of daily exercise. I think that's just about perfect.

My target for calories is 1200/day and I usually eat back exercise calories. This is working for me and I'm not hungry or any more tired than usual.

Unfortunately for me I have the metabolism of a 60 YEAR OLD WOMAN. Because I am one. So I'll stick with what's working, but thank you, anti-1200 guys, for all the suggestions, criticisms, and personal attacks. (jk) Thanks for caring!

jofjltncb6

I have a question...most week days i don't eat 1200 calories (and I'm not ashamed of it), but on the weekends I eat more, have a few drinks whatever i want. I workout twice a week at the gym and twice a week on the treadmill at home. So do you think I'm on my way to starvation? :huh:

No. Do you know what your average daily net for a typical week is?

My average daily net for last week was 1326

Everyone is different, but it's unlikely and women would damage her metabolism eationg at that calorie level.

I think it's important to make a distinction between "damaging the metabolism" from this level of intake vs. "adapting the metabolism" to this level of intake. Although I can see the argument that "damaging" is just a degree of "adapting". But still, let's be careful not to fall into a black/white/ either/or dichotomy here.

Personally, I believe someone eating at "too low", even if it does not actually "damage" the metabolism, will still likely see adaptation to the "too low" amount. While this may not have immediate consequences, it has consequences in the future, for example, when trying to deal with a plateau. There simply isn't as much "room" to manipulate one of the easier, and arguably most significant factors, which is total calorie intake. I also believe it creates an environment that is *more likely* to be nutrient deficient (although admittedly not necessarily so). I believe more than the minimum gives you more potential energy to be healthily active too. Finally, I think there is a correlation between eating more than the minimum and overall happiness. Sure, I don't have the clinical studies to support this, but at least based on my own personal life experience, believe it to be true.

And this "adaptation" to a "too low" amount is not necessarily permanent. In fact, I would guess that it is usually *not* permanent. In other words, it can be recovered from...and that it a substantial part of the motivation for this thread and others like it.

1200 may or may not be working for someone right now...and it may or may not work for someone forever...but if someone can accomplish their goals while eating *more than* 1200, on average, I believe they have more strategic options available to them to deal with different stages of their progress towards their goals...and their overall quality of life is likely to be better (if for no other reason than they more likely avoid a potential negative associated with "too low" that they may not realize yet).

But just so we're clear, I'm fine with everyone eating whatever and however much or little they want. This post in no way should be interpreted as a prohibition to doing whatever someone decides to do. This is just my personal opinion on the subject based on my interpretation of my experiences. Others should not feel a need to justify whatever it is they have chosen to do for themselves.

:flowerforyou:

slroggemann

Preach it. People disagree and argue and ask why people keep posting topics such as this...and the reason is that it needs to be heard. OP doesn't seem to be bashing anyone (I didn't read 14 pages of replies so I suppose I can't know for sure), just trying to help people get informed and stay informed. 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. Also, only go to Registered Dieticians or doctors for nutritional advice; people with no formal nutrition schooling are able to call themselves nutritionists in stores and such these days, and their advice can often be unsound. If you're doing fine at 1200 and getting enough servings of fruits and vegetables, great for you. All topics such as this are trying to say is that it's not feasible for the average person.

AnnDenny

bump

nokanjaijo

If I see my great-niece is about to touch a hot stove, I'm going to yell at her to get her to stop. Yelling might make her cry. It's not "nice." But it's better than watching her get burnt.

Since every other thing I wrote disappeared into the ether, I will simply say that "99% of the time, touching a hot stove with bare skin for longer than an instant will damage the tissue" is a scientifically well supported claim.

ahviendha

i love food. +1

CristinaL1983

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.

Realistically, they aren't actually accurate for anyone. Half the people will have a BMR well above the estimated amount and half will be below. (But for most people, as with any standard statistical distribution, it will be pretty close for most people).

There are some people who do have a BMR at or around 1200 but my issue is that I have yet to see any actual scientific evidence that suggests that an overweight person eating slightly below BMR is going to suffer any damage (either to BMR/RMR or muscle mass). [Although based on patterns I've seen for me, my BMR is probably right around 1291. Estimation based on weight and calorie trends] Of the several dozen studies I've read, they all suggest that whether you eat at or below your BMR doesn't really matter (except for creating a greater deficit).

Additionally, I would make a point that people who eat at TDEE -20% and workout can easily below BMR anyway. Example BMR of 1450 sedentary but works out 1-3 times a week for lightly active TDEE of 2000. TDEE-20% = 1600 cal during workouts burns around 500-600 calories for the hour (or less) 3 times in a week, their average net for the week is about 100 calories below BMR.

Anyway, like I've said, I think everyone should do whatever works for them. I do wish the boards were a little more friendly towards people who do want to follow the MFP method (or who net 1200 calories). It seems that people cannot post anything about a 1200 calorie diet without everyone telling them they are going to end up skinny fat, or in starvation mode (shown time and time again to not happen as people on here like to say but that's another thing entirely), or with hair falling out, or with people calling them "stupid" or some variation for having different goals and methods.

WinnerVictorious

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. if you don't meet that requirement as intake, your body will make up the difference from stored fat and/or muscle as long as it can, while trying to get more efficient, but eventually after a long period of time, you'll die.

rw4hawks

Bump to read later.

bcattoes

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.

WinnerVictorious

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.