Devil's advocate: 1200 calories for petite/short women?

Options
1…89101214

Replies

  • arabianhorselover
    arabianhorselover Posts: 1,488 Member
    Options
    This is an interesting topic for me, since I am 5'2". I am 52, and need to lose at least 35 pounds. This site says I should eat 1200 calories, also, but they add up SO quickly!
  • minizombie
    minizombie Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    I'm 5"1 and I weigh about 47-48kg, it fluctuates. I've been netting below 1200 for months and now I'm trying to up my calories so that it is 1200 cals net on days that I workout! ^^ hope I am able to lose some fat and gain muscles!
  • lafoto13
    lafoto13 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Love this Topic! its somethingi have wondered about for years so its great to hear everyones experiences. I'm 4'11" and 110 (goal is 97ish). I've been eating about 1000 for years while working out and never understood by I could not lose these last 10 lbs or so. After reading every thread like this possible, I've upped my cals to about 1200 net. (So usually eating 1300-1400) for the past 3 weeks or so. I've agined about 2 lbs but everyone said ths would happen. What has also happened is that I feel a little more relaxed in general. I feel like I'm indulging by adding whole grains (like brown Rice w/dinner) back into my diet. This "indulging" makes me less apt to want to snack after a meal.... And certainly less obsessed w/sweets and sugar. I feel more in control and "normal" about food and eating.

    I'm so anxious to see if I eventually start losing while allowing myself more calories than ever before. It seems that SO man MFP-ers have had success doing this...hope I'm one of them! It certainly feels good to be less obsessive so far. At the same time, I does bug me to see the scale higher than its been for a few years. But I was stuck at 108 for years while eating 900-1100 nd working out a ton so that clearly got me nowhere. Got to try something new!
  • DizzyLinds
    DizzyLinds Posts: 856 Member
    Options
    I'm 4ft 11 and weight around 58-59kg. I spent years undertaking and since upping my calories I've done nothing but gain. I'm trying to aim for around 1400-1500 per day with maybe one spike day. I exercise 4-5 times a week, heavy lifting with some HIIT and spin. I'm measuring too and my measurements are up to. I spent years doing excessive cardio and eating very low.
  • selina884
    selina884 Posts: 826 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.

    QFT.
    from personal exeperience;
    TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
    1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
    1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight

    Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.

    PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.
  • eleanorlove
    eleanorlove Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Bump! I'm 20yrs, 5ft4 and 148lbs at the moment, with a goal of maybe around 125.

    I stick to a 1200cal diet most of the time, but there have definitely been days where I feel like I need to eat more, so I'm just trying to learn how to listen to my body and give it the nutrients it needs. I'm focusing on keeping my protein, calcium and iron up, but to be honest I'm not too fazed with the others :)

    This is an awesome thread. I definitely think everyone is slightly different, so you can't just proclaim 1200 is too few and expect that to always be the case!
  • Wantingslim
    Wantingslim Posts: 37
    Options
    4'11
  • VelvetMorning
    VelvetMorning Posts: 398 Member
    Options
    I guess I'm on the larger spectrum of this particular topic (which is a nice change :P) at 5'3 1/2. I'm currently 105 pounds and while I exercise it's not routine or intensive. For the most part I'd consider myself sedentary with really good body genetics that allow me to be lazy and look partially toned! :-P Anyway, the *only* way that I can maintain 105 pounds (or rather, 105-108) is by eating 1,200 calories a day or less. But like I said, I'm not in the tiniest bit active so this is -plenty- for me ~ and I fill those 1,200 with all natural "clean" foods. So in my defense, I might have a low BF%, but I really don't know.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.

    QFT.
    from personal exeperience;
    TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
    1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
    1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight

    Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.

    PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.

    TDEE method INCLUDES exercise calories. If you follow that method you should be eating 1800 only (assuming you picked the correct activity level and such).

    ETA: And just a note to any lurkers, always give yourself 4-6 weeks for your body to adjust after changing your cals.
  • VelvetMorning
    VelvetMorning Posts: 398 Member
    Options
    I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    40346d1374446638-job-offer-zombie_thread.jpg

    though at least it isn't a really stupid thread. :noway:

    ps I'm 5'2 and was close to killing people on 1200, lost on 1500 and trying 1700 now (if I ever actually stick to my cal goal :blushing: )
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???

    Total Daily Energy Expenditure
  • selina884
    selina884 Posts: 826 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'5" but often think along those same lines when I hear the generic "1200 is way too little!!" posts. 1200 net calories is enough for many average sized women and probably plenty for most of the fun-sized ladies. We humans are not 'one size fits all'.

    QFT.
    from personal exeperience;
    TDEE + Exercise 1800 calories = Lost 0 weight
    1600 Calories + Exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + exercise = lost 0 weight
    1500 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight
    1200 calories + no exercise = lost 0 weight

    Now I will do 1200 calories + exercise to see what happens.

    PS I am 5'5 with only 15lbs to lose which is proving super difficult.

    TDEE method INCLUDES exercise calories. If you follow that method you should be eating 1800 only (assuming you picked the correct activity level and such).

    ETA: And just a note to any lurkers, always give yourself 4-6 weeks for your body to adjust after changing your cals.

    Um, I dont know where I said I am eating in excess to 1800? I guess you misread.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    I hate to post this here because it's probably SO obvious...but what is TDEE???

    Total Daily Energy Expenditure

    You can also Google terms with which you're not familiar.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    osoyh.jpg

    And your activity...
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    There seems to be a misunderstanding of TDEE estimates.

    Estimates of TDEE obtained from formulas represent the maximum amount of calories a person can eat to experience relative weight and body composition homeostasis when NOT under the effects of a chronic calorie restrictive state.

    This means: if you have been chronically restricting calories, either presently or in the recent past, TDEE estimates are likely to be more off since your body is in a state where it is no longer burning energy at 100% efficiency. In other words, as long as your metabolism is still exhibiting the negative effects resulting from chronic calorie restriction, your RMR is requiring less energy and you burn less calories from both exercise and non-exercise activity as well as TEF.
  • xLoveLikeWinterx
    xLoveLikeWinterx Posts: 408 Member
    Options
    1200 calories might be enough if you have some weight to lose. I am 5'3" and 108lbs, and I lose weight when I eat 1200 calories. So that tells me 1200 calories is too low to maintain my weight. MFP has my maintenance at 1460, but I eat over that many days with an average closer to 1700-1800. And you know what, I am still maintaining.

    Yep, my thoughts too. I'm a hair under 5'4 and 129 lb. I lose on 1150-1250 without too much trouble, so I know it's not maintenance. I have a Fitbit which says my TDEE is anywhere from 1700-1900 depending on activity level. Even accounting for the TDEE figures being off, 1200 is for losing. I'm transitioning into maintenance and going to 1400 first, then 1500, etc. No way I can stay at 1200 or I'll just slowly lose.
  • torisiegel
    torisiegel Posts: 19
    Options
    i'm 5'4", weight 130, hoping to lose 15lbs. The only way i can do this is eating 1200 calories net...so i eat around 1600 and burn off 400. I have a desk job and work from home, so i class that as pretty sedentary for a lot of the day.

    I order to lose weight i have to stick to 1200 cals, which makes sense because i maintain at between 1550-1700 calories.

    I do the exact same thing; eat around 1600 (otherwise I'm too hungry during the day), but exercise to 1200 net. It seems to be working really well for me, although I'm looking to lose more like 30-35 pounds.
  • Wantingslim
    Wantingslim Posts: 37
    Options
    Bump
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    Human allometry researching the relationship between total energy expenditure and body size is a very new field. Here are two interesting studies on reduced mass-specific total energy expenditure in tall adults:
    Abstract
    Mammalian resting energy expenditure (REE) increases as approximately weight(0.75) while mass-specific REE scales as approximately weight(-0.25). Energy needs for replacing resting losses are thus less relative to weight (W) in large compared with small mammals, a classic observation with biological implications. Human weight scales as approximately height(2) and tall adults thus have a greater weight than their short counterparts. However, it remains unknown if mass-specific energy requirements are less in tall adults; allometric models linking total energy expenditure (TEE) and weight with height (H) are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that mass-specific energy requirements scale inversely to height in adults by evaluating TEE (doubly labeled water) data collected by the National Academy of Sciences. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was calculated from TEE, REE (indirect calorimetry), and estimated diet-induced energy expenditure. Main analyses focused on nonmorbidly obese subjects < or =50 yrs of age with non-negative AEE values (n = 404), although results were directionally similar for all samples. Allometric models, including age as a covariate, revealed significantly (P < 0.05) greater REE, AEE, and TEE as a function of height (range H(1.5-1.7)) in both men and women. TEE/W scaled negatively to height ( approximately H(-0.7), P < 0.01) with predicted mass-specific TEE (kcal/kg/d) at +/-2 SD for US height lower in tall compared with short men (40.3 vs. 46.5) and women (37.7 vs. 42.7). REE/W also scaled negatively to height in men (P < 0.001) and women (P < 0.01). Results were generally robust across several different analytic strategies. These observations reveal previously unforeseen associations between human stature and energy requirements that have implications for modeling efforts and provide new links to mammalian biology as a whole.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856424

    Abstract
    Two observations favor the presence of a lower mass-specific resting energy expenditure (REE/weight) in taller adult humans: an earlier report of height (H)-related differences in relative body composition; and a combined model based on Quetelet and Kleiber's classic equations suggesting that REE/weight proportional, variantH(-0.5). This study tested the hypothesis stating that mass-specific REE scales negatively to height with a secondary aim exploration of related associations between height, weight (W), surface area (SA), and REE. Two independent data sets (n = 344 and 884) were evaluated, both with REE measured by indirect calorimetry and the smaller of the two including fat estimates by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results support Quetelet's equation (W proportional, variantH(2)), but Kleiber's equation approached the interspecific mammal form (REE proportional, variantW(0.75)) only after adding adiposity measures to weight and age as REE predictors. REE/weight scaled as H( approximately (-0.5)) in support of the hypothesis with P values ranging from 0.17 to <0.001. REE and SA both scaled as H( approximately 1.5), and REE/SA was nonsignificantly correlated with height in all groups. These observations suggest that adiposity needs to be considered when evaluating the intraspecific scaling of REE to weight; that relative to their weight, taller subjects require a lower energy intake for replacing resting heat losses than shorter subjects; that fasting endurance, approximated as fat mass/REE, increases as H(0.5); and that thermal balance is maintained independent of stature by evident stable associations between resting heat production and capacity of external heat release. These observations have implications for the modeling of adult human energy requirements and associate with anthropological concepts founded on body size.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17690196

Categories