What is the female obsession with a 1200 calorie diet?
Options
Replies
-
I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.
It's this ...... people want to lose as quickly as possible, so they plug in a weight loss goal that may be totally unrealistic. MFP does the math and spits out 1200.
Lots of people with 10 pounds to lose think they can accomplish this in 5 weeks. We've all seen the weight loss ads with rediculous claims.0 -
I think that the "obsession" with 1200 calories, is because MFP has it as a minimum and so many people are given exactly that number of net calories. I believe MFP sets it as a minimum because it's believed to be difficult to get adequate, balanced nutrition if eating less than this. (Although if people are exercising and logging it, they should be eating more than 1200 calories gross).
Some people assume that MFP only sets net calories at 1200 if you set it for a 2lb a week loss. That's not true. MFP deducts 500 calories (from your estimated calorie burn before exercise) if you want to lose a pound a week, and it recommends you lose a pound a week. Obviously, if your calorie burn is 1700 or less before exercise, then you'll be recommended to eat 1200 calories regardless of whether you set MFP to 1lb or 2lb a week. It makes no difference.
What causes the controversy is that 1200 is lower than most people's BMR, and many people will say that you shouldn't eat below your BMR (some say that you shouldn't eat below it in total, some say that you shouldn't net below it). (Of course, for some people, their BMR will be 1200 or less, so this won't apply).
But I do think 1200 comes up so often because MFP tells so many people that that is what they should be eating.0 -
I can't tell you definitively... but a celebrity model said something along the lines of, "If you want to weigh 120, you eat 1200... 140, you eat 1400 calories etc." And being depressed and insecure at the time, that made a lot of sense to me... now I know it's a major over simplification and can lead to very dangerous lifestyle if the 'rule' is taken seriously.
and of course we all know that celebrity models are nutritional geniuses on par with Einstein...0 -
I think it's because MFP automatically puts many people, especially women, at 1200 cals. I am 5'9", 27 yrs old, and when I first filled out the little questionaire thing, it said 1200 cal. I thought that was a little low, but this is a weight loss site so I figured it knew best.... I read a bunch of threads on here that said otherwise, so I changed it.
I think its a serious flaw of MFP and it needs to be fixed.0 -
Note: I am no longer only eating 1,200 calories a day, but I'm answering the answer posed, because that is where I started!
Also noted, this is only my second week on MFP.
1. I transferred to MFP from Weight Watchers. When I did the math on how many points I was eating, it was 1190 per day. So in my head, 1200 seemed 'right.' But then I had to think about the fact that fruits & most vegetables were 'free' of points, and you have 49 weekly points you can eat (I usually ate 1/2), and you earn activity points for exercise. So if I take my 29 points (1200 calories), plus 200 calories in fruits and veggies per day, plus about 160 per day from my weekly points, I was really eating about 1550 per day...but in my head it was 29 points = 1200 calories, so that's what I should eat. There's a lot of former WW people here.
2. I didn't understand (at first) that MFP already calculates a calorie deficit, nor did I know I should target 'net' calories until I started reading this board. MFP set my calories at like 1310, I think? 1200 isn't that much less.
3. I'd never heard of "TDEE" until last week on this message board, so I'd certainly never calculated what mine was.
4. I'm still coming to terms with the fact that I actually workout now. I just started month 2 of Insanity today. I'm working out 6x a week, I'm averaging 10,000 steps on my FitBit (office job). But before this last month, the # of times I worked out 6x in a week? Umm, probably 0. So I have a tendency to set my actvity as 'sedentary', which makes my calorie target lower. I mentally need to catch up with what I'm physically doing.
I manually changed my calorie target to 1,500 per day.
My first week on MFP I was 1,556 net calories UNDER that goal. I lost 3.2 pounds.
This week I was 753 net calories OVER that goal (party / vacation weekend). My scale is still UP 3 pounds today.
MFP is set to lose 1.5 pounds, so I should not have gained 3 pounds by eating 753 net calories over, math wise. So I'm still working on finding the balance.
Hopefully those reasons help explain it!0 -
I don't know what your talking about here...
I eat 1700 calories here.
But when I first signed up to MFP it had me at that number.
But that didn't last long.0 -
Nope I don't worry because I know my TDEE right now at my current weight is 2600 calories, so I need to eat that much every day to MAINTAIN my weight. so I bump off 500 calories to lose one pound a week and it works for me. and it's easier to switch to maintenence without your body going into shock
without your body going into shock. :huh:
Yes, shock. You know, when your body is not used to so much calories and all of a sudden you switch to maintenance and dump like 1000 extra a day into yourself after being on a 1200 calorie diet for six months? you're supposed to gradually up your calories and with the TDEE method there is less transition when I eat 2000 calories a day and switch to 2500 to maintenance as opposed to eating 1200 a day and then eating 2500 a day for maintenance.
Eating 1000 extra calories per day will not send a body into shock.
that's your own opinion. But It makes sense that when something or someone has a drastic change all of a sudden there is shock. if your body is usedto eating 1200 and then all of a sudden you are eating almost double it will have a TON of extra energy and the body won't be used to burning it properly. Also, eating so little for MOST people slows down their metabolism a LOT so when they start eating extra calories their body doesn't burn it quick enough.
It's not an opinion. Provide one single example of someone going into shock by eating 1000 extra calories.
Slowing metabolism and extra energy =/= shock (much like capitalizing words =/= truth). Trauma causes shock. 1000 calories is not traumatic.0 -
Heck, my wife is 4'10" and 85 pounds, and her BMR is just below that. Since she works out her TDEE is around 1550. So she needs to eat 350 cals above 1200 just to keep from losing weight.
Yet some women feel that have to eat less than it takes to power my wife's tiny body (in full sedentary mode), when they are larger and work out more than her. Yes, they will lose weight. Physics and logic tell us that. However the big questions are:
Is it safe to do so?
Is it necessary to do so?
Is it sustainable?
The answer to all 3 imho is no.
However, we live in a society that puts way to much pressure on women to fit a certain physical, unrealistic archetype and that is how they are to often defined. It is a lot of pressure.0 -
For the record: 1328 calorie lunch today. Bowl of chili, bag of mixed nuts, dark chocolate.0
-
Heck, my wife is 4'10" and 85 pounds, and her BMR is just below that. Since she works out her TDEE is around 1550. So she needs to eat 350 cals above 1200 just to keep from losing weight.
Yet some women feel that have to eat less than it takes to power my wife's tiny body (in full sedentary mode), when they are larger and work out more than her. Yes, they will lose weight. Physics and logic tell us that. However the big questions are:
Is it safe to do so?
Is it necessary to do so?
Is it sustainable?
The answer to all 3 imho is no.
However, we live in a society that puts way to much pressure on women to fit a certain physical, unrealistic archetype and that is how they are to often defined. It is a lot of pressure.
Agree 100%0 -
bump0
-
Maintenance is only going to mean an extra 1000 calories a day if you're able to maintain at 2200. I'd pile on the weight at that level! (And that's 2200 before exercise, if you're following MFP). My sedentary maintenance calories at goal are around 1350, I think, so it wouldn't be a big jump up for me, personally. Not that I'm advocating eating only 1200 if you can at all avoid it, but just saying it isn't such a cut for some people as it is for others, so the negative effects presumably aren't so extreme for some as others.0
-
Maybe it just isn't cool for people to say they lost weight on 2000 calories a day (but I did!)0
-
I eat whatever I need to eat to get my macros and micros in. If it's 1200, fine, if it's 3000, so be it.
*not here to lose weight.0 -
There is an epidemic of undereating on this site, among women AND men. There are men here who eat way less than I do, and some of them are nearly twice my size. I don't understand it at all. People need to figure out that all the crap they are asking their bodies to do can not be done indefinitely if they aren't going to feed themselves properly.
ETA: I regularly eat 1500 to 1600 calories at dinner.0 -
Is it safe to do so?
Is it necessary to do so?
Is it sustainable?
The answer to all 3 imho is no.
See, this kind of thing bothers me. Either something harms you or it doesn't. Opinion has nothing to do with what is safe.0 -
Please, don't make this a gender issue. There are men in this boat too. Hello mirror my old friend.
I did about 1300 to get down to my initial target weight for about 4-1/2 months. I've now ramped it up about 500 calories a day to slowly ease down to the new target. But this is both men and women, old and young, It has nothing to do with gender in the least.
The only thing gender around here is that poor squirrel in your avatar. That just makes me cringe.
And I thought I was having a bad day. 0 -
I have had at least 5 different doctors (all MD physicians) recommend a 1,200 calorie diet. Given my height, frame size, and weight, this is ridiculously, completely inappropriately low for my caloric needs. One pushy, critical doc even went so far as to "prescribe" it for me. The reason why this 1200 number gets pushed is because most people will experience rapid weight loss without being on a "starvation diet" (the average American woman is 5'6"). Most people would lose weight on this calorie level even if they weren't exercising. It is the bare minimum you can get above starvation while still theoretically getting enough nutrients. Obviously someone who is 4'11", 90 pounds, and of a slight frame is going to have lower daily caloric requirements than someone who is larger or more active.
If you tell the average person to just cut calories without any sort of nutrition counseling, this plan is going to backfire pretty quickly unless the patient has a personal interest or hobby in nutrition. People should pick the food plan that works for them.0 -
There is an epidemic of undereating on this site, among women AND men. There are men on my FL who eat way less than I do, and some of them are nearly twice my size. I don't understand it at all. People need to figure out that all the crap they are asking their bodies to do can not be done indefinitely if they aren't going to feed themselves properly.
You know what's odd. You're pretty close to my calorie net.0 -
I think it's because MFP automatically puts many people, especially women, at 1200 cals. I am 5'9", 27 yrs old, and when I first filled out the little questionaire thing, it said 1200 cal. I thought that was a little low, but this is a weight loss site so I figured it knew best.... I read a bunch of threads on here that said otherwise, so I changed it.
I think its a serious flaw of MFP and it needs to be fixed.
I AGREE! I'm 5'0 and about 125 and MFP puts me at 1200 calories for pretty much all weight loss. Well, personally 1200 is just NOT happening for me. I raised mine to 1400 and I eat back my exercise calories. However, the scale has not budged. So, I'm just trying to exercise and weight train more.
Still, the majority of people who use MFP are going to believe what it tells them over some posts in a forum.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions