Under 1200 Calories?

Options
LeahNicoleW
LeahNicoleW Posts: 7
in Food and Nutrition
I'm only 5'2 and have a small frame. MyFitnessPal suggests never going under 1200 calorie/day goal. However, for my size, this only gives me a weight loss outlook of 1.2 lbs. a week. For the past four weeks, I have set my goal at 1100 and stuck to it. I am wondering if I am helping or hurting my efforts in the long run. Should I be eating more? Have any of you had this dilemma? What did you do? Thanks!

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I'm only 5'2 and have a small frame. MyFitnessPal suggests never going under 1200 calorie/day goal. However, for my size, this only gives me a weight loss outlook of 1.2 lbs. a week. For the past four weeks, I have set my goal at 1100 and stuck to it. I am wondering if I am helping or hurting my efforts in the long run. Should I be eating more? Have any of you had this dilemma? What did you do? Thanks!

    What's your current weight ? you might have reserves to sustain that deficit but pay attention to the variety of foods in your 1100 to get full nutrition.
  • jealous_loser
    jealous_loser Posts: 395
    Options
    I am 5'1" and I have been at 1700 calories or over for the last 3 months. I might lose a little slower, but I like being able to eat. You might be hurting yourself, but I probably have a bigger frame than you.

    Looking at your profile though, you have about 10 pounds to lose? If that is the case, you probably shouldn't be aiming for much more than 0.5 pound per week lost.
  • ang_mick
    ang_mick Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    I'm taking a masters level physiology course and just finished the block on nutrition/metabolism - I think I can help you!

    - After how ever many years of research, it was found that the average person needs 1200 calories a day to maintain normal metabolic and cell processes. Now, if you eat <1200 every now it then, it won't throw your body into shock, but long term - it will be detrimental. Plain and simple. (Exception for this is when you are under close supervision from a doctor that can monitor your chemical levels)

    - Since you should not eat less than 1200 calories / week, you cannot lose 2 lbs / week without exercising. The deficit is just not large enough.

    - So, for people below a certain weight - if you want to lose 2 lbs / week (and it should not be any more w/o detrimental effects unless you are BMI rated obese) - you must exercise. If you don't want to exercise, that's fine - you will just lose less than 2 lbs / week.

    - Finally, if you are below that "certain" breaking point weight - you do not have to eat back your exercise calories because you will not be losing more than 2 lbs / week. You should only eat back your exercise calories in order to prevent losing more than 2 lbs / week.

    Sorry if it's not the news you wanted but well, it's the truth. I do feel your pain though! Hope this helps - let me know if you have any other questions! :)
  • katevarner
    katevarner Posts: 884 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose it quick, you may be doing the right thing, but if you are small, losing two pounds a week is hard. I'm 5'3" and lost a pound a week at 1650 with almost daily workouts. That was fast enough for me. Now I'm in maintenance with the same workout schedule and eating between 1850 and 2100 per day and I'm still losing. About to up it to a consistent 2100 because I don't want to get rid of most of my working out. I weighed a few pounds more than I do now about 7 years ago and quit working out and gained 35 lbs in less than 5 years. It was harder to get off this time. I don't want to have to again.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    with ten pounds to lose eat more and aim for half a pound a week.
  • JesterMFP
    JesterMFP Posts: 3,596 Member
    Options
    With the amount you have to lose, I would think that 1.2 lbs a week might actually be too fast. I would go for 0.5 lb a week (in fact, that is what I'm aiming for).
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    I'm only 5'2 and have a small frame. MyFitnessPal suggests never going under 1200 calorie/day goal. However, for my size, this only gives me a weight loss outlook of 1.2 lbs. a week. For the past four weeks, I have set my goal at 1100 and stuck to it. I am wondering if I am helping or hurting my efforts in the long run. Should I be eating more? Have any of you had this dilemma? What did you do? Thanks!

    1.2 pounds per week is WITHOUT any additional exercise-if you exercise then you eat 1200 + calories burned through exercise. That is PLENTY fast and more sustainable. Yes, you should be eating more. I am 4'11 and eat no less than 1700-1800 a day, usually more like 1800-1900 and this is for slow FAT LOSS--weight is not the most important factor, usually fat is.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    I am 5'1" and I have been at 1700 calories or over for the last 3 months. I might lose a little slower, but I like being able to eat. You might be hurting yourself, but I probably have a bigger frame than you.

    Looking at your profile though, you have about 10 pounds to lose? If that is the case, you probably shouldn't be aiming for much more than 0.5 pound per week lost.

    agreed!
  • readthat
    readthat Posts: 136
    Options
    MFP set me at 1200 calories to lose 1 lb a week, BUT it gives you calories back if you exercise. SO I really end up getting about 1400 to 1500 a day. I can usually hit these goals and don't really have a problem. I eat pretty healthy though, so I can eat more food that way. I have seen some people say they don't eat back their exercise calories. I think this is a mistake.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'1" and also small-framed. I accept that I cannot lose 1.2 pounds a week. I eat 1200 calories, exercise moderately and learn patience. I would probably be safely healthy at 1100 calories as my BMR is 1058, but why do I need to be in a hurry? It's lifetime health I'm aiming for.
  • Molly_Maguire
    Molly_Maguire Posts: 1,103 Member
    Options
    You are definitely hurting your efforts. 1.2 pounds a week is ideal. Why do you need to lose faster than that, anyway? You put the weight on slowly, you need to take if OFF slowly. That's how it works.

    1200 MINIMUM.
  • HotRockChick
    HotRockChick Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Your body will soon tell you. If you are not eating enough, you will find your weight will plateau. Give it a week or two and if you find you are not losing anything then put them back up :o)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I'm taking a masters level physiology course and just finished the block on nutrition/metabolism - I think I can help you!

    - After how ever many years of research, it was found that the average person needs 1200 calories a day to maintain normal metabolic and cell processes.
    Reference please ? Do these calories have to be as food, or do they include calories taken from fat storage, as happens during fasting etc.
  • dancagal41
    dancagal41 Posts: 11
    Options
    I usually eat around between 900-1200 calories a day very rarely going over 1200, and I so far haven't had any problems with my health or weight loss. Actually I think I'm doing better going under 1200 calories because I'm just a naturally light eater regardless. Nutritionists say 1200 only to make sure that women get enough nutrients throughout the day such as protein, carbs, fat, vitamins etc. So I make sure I get my energy and nutrition requirements to go under 1200 calories in the most safe way. As long as you don't starve yourself without eating to right foods, you will be fine.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'1" and also small-framed. I accept that I cannot lose 1.2 pounds a week. I eat 1200 calories, exercise moderately and learn patience. I would probably be safely healthy at 1100 calories as my BMR is 1058, but why do I need to be in a hurry? It's lifetime health I'm aiming for.

    If you're exercising then you should be eating MORE than 1200.
  • LeahNicoleW
    LeahNicoleW Posts: 7
    Options
    Thanks everyone! I should have clarified that i have been NETTING 1100. I run, and i eat some of those calories back most of the time. And I am at 128 right now; started at 137 and aiming for 118.

    I guess the general consensus here is that I need to be patient and okay with <2 pounds. I suppose that is a good idea :)
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone! I should have clarified that i have been NETTING 1100. I run, and i eat some of those calories back most of the time. And I am at 128 right now; started at 137 and aiming for 118.

    I guess the general consensus here is that I need to be patient and okay with <2 pounds. I suppose that is a good idea :)

    It's a great idea and unless your BMR is REALLY low or youre ultra tiny then you can probably increase your net to 1200

Categories