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

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'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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 goal