1200 calories works for me!

Options
2

Replies

  • determinedbutlazy
    determinedbutlazy Posts: 1,941 Member
    Options
    I am honestly not trying to give you a hard time here - just trying to put this into context. You admit that you do not log regularly on your profile, and you have only logged for the last 6 weeks, with quite a few missing days during that period. How do you know that you are eating at that level? Also, you are averaging over 1,400 on the days you log (you do mention you eat your exercise calories back).

    I am not a 'you have to eat more or your hair will drop out and you will go into starvation' person, but I am just wondering how you are making the assertion that 1,200 works for you?

    Does it really matter? She is obviously happy with what she is doing.

    Read the comments in the thread and try to actually read what I am asking. I am not bashing her at all.

    Got to agree, someone who is citing success using a method they're not actually using properly/consistently is a bit odd.
    Making a forum post about it is even weirder.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    I am honestly not trying to give you a hard time here - just trying to put this into context. You admit that you do not log regularly on your profile, and you have only logged for the last 6 weeks, with quite a few missing days during that period. How do you know that you are eating at that level? Also, you are averaging over 1,400 on the days you log (you do mention you eat your exercise calories back).

    I am not a 'you have to eat more or your hair will drop out and you will go into starvation' person, but I am just wondering how you are making the assertion that 1,200 works for you?

    Does it really matter? She is obviously happy with what she is doing.
    Yes, it matters, because the obvious message here is "and it can work for you" so it would make a difference to leave out, "even though I'm not actually doing it so I can't even honestly say it works for me."
  • Hbazzell
    Hbazzell Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    Hey Sara! I did 1200 cals back in january for 2.5 months and I logged 206 days in a row then (moving up to and back down from 1700, 1500, 1400). I just came back to logging on MFP. It has been a week and I am 1 lbs down on the 1200. Thats how I know it worked for me, because it did in the past and it is again already.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    1200 net is perfectly fine for some individuals. The debate isn't even about the number itself but rather the process by which persons go about reaching the estimate. Below are two examples of women who'd end up with a 1200 net diet based on their baseline stats and choice, but only one chose the suitable weekly weight loss goal.

    Not appropriate: A 5'2" female at 150 lbs who exercises 4-6 days per week and chooses a 2 lb per week weight loss goal.

    Appropriate: A 5'2" female at 225 lbs who does not exercise and chooses a 2 lbs per week weight loss goal.
  • EdwardNortonFan43
    EdwardNortonFan43 Posts: 150 Member
    Options
    I am honestly not trying to give you a hard time here - just trying to put this into context. You admit that you do not log regularly on your profile, and you have only logged for the last 6 weeks, with quite a few missing days during that period. How do you know that you are eating at that level? Also, you are averaging over 1,400 on the days you log (you do mention you eat your exercise calories back).

    I am not a 'you have to eat more or your hair will drop out and you will go into starvation' person, but I am just wondering how you are making the assertion that 1,200 works for you?

    Does it really matter? She is obviously happy with what she is doing.
    Yes, it matters, because the obvious message here is "and it can work for you" so it would make a difference to leave out, "even though I'm not actually doing it so I can't even honestly say it works for me."
    HUH?
  • Hbazzell
    Hbazzell Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    I should have explained I just came off a 3 month break but I was an avid logger, weigher of food, from January to about July. That is when i experimented with everything, 1200, 1400, 1500, 1700, and not logging (but keeping concious of intake and output). Also, during my break I had the same grocery list and the same routine with food so I didnt get too far off. Also didnt gain any weight during my break.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Hey Sara! I did 1200 cals back in january for 2.5 months and I logged 206 days in a row then (moving up to and back down from 1700, 1500, 1400). I just came back to logging on MFP. It has been a week and I am 1 lbs down on the 1200. Thats how I know it worked for me, because it did in the past and it is again already.


    Hi!

    Legit question here, have you been tested for anything that would mean that you could not lose on 1,400- 1,700 (net, I assume). Assuming gross of say 1,600 ish, this *should* be a deficit in general for your size. Obviously, I am not trying to pry into personal stuff, so I will not be offended if you do not want to respond to the question.

    Again...not bashing (seemingly for others and not for you as you have taken the question in the way I was asking - just to get context).

    IMO, looking at someone's rate of loss over a period of time is important thing...1lb over a few weeks (??) is obviously not a big deficit and therefore not 'unhealthy'.
  • Hbazzell
    Hbazzell Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    Sara,

    I am not offended at all. I havent been tested. I saw a nutritionist and she suggested I consider it if I dont lose on a 1700 cal plan where I only eat back extreme workouts (10k, half marathon, crazy hihkes), not normal ones (hour at gym). I didn't lose on that, actually gained about 4 lbs. That weight came off when I stopped logging though. I just dont have any other symptoms for hypothyroid.

    However, I should note that even though I have only lost 5 net pounds since Janurary, my body does look a little bit tighter and I am stronger. I think I have gained muscle although my BF% has stayed at about 28% this whole time according to my scale. The issue is it doesnt look like I have lost fat. There is a lot of fat over the muscle. That is why i am vutting calories again.
  • Hbazzell
    Hbazzell Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    From Jan 2013 to March I was at 1200 cals, I lost about 13-15lbs. (I weighed 165lbs)
    Then March I did 1400 (maintained weight)
    April to may I saw the nutritionist and did 1700 cals but a lot of days toward the end were 1500 because i started gaining quickly and freaked.
    By July I was 170lbs again (5 less than I started)

    I had wisdom teeth surgery two weeks ago and couldnt eat solid food so i was at about 1200 or less but not logging, just assuming since I only ate some yogurt and percocets. This last week I have logged the food at 1200ish. I was 168 this moring. I havent seen the 160s since last time I was on 1200cals.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Thank you. Just making a suggestion here (as I am a busy body) - you may want to try upping your protein, and possibly your fats if you can and see if you respond better to a different macro mix. In any event, good luck.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    What's your diet history like? Back in January, was that the very first time you restricted calories to lose weight? If you restricted before, how much were you eating then?

    Anyway, if you are 5'8" and started at 175 with a goal of 140, then a 1 lb per week goal would have been more suitable. A goal of 2 lbs per week is for those who have 75+ lbs to lose. Thus, I'm not surprised that you gained much of your weight back after rapidly losing 15 lbs in two months.

    Two months of an overly aggressive deficit may not seem like a long time, but it's enough to cause a noticeable drop in adjusted TDEE which would require you to eat even less to lose weight. Thus, it's not really fair to say the TDEE method didn't work for you when your initial plan caused your energy expenditure to drop a bit beforehand.
  • TJswirl
    TJswirl Posts: 4
    Options
    I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?
  • lessac
    lessac Posts: 105 Member
    Options
    I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?

    It's not a magic number but simply the lowest MFP goes on recommended calorie intake. Most people set their weight loss on 2 lbs a week, which is a drastic loss in many cases.
  • Lynnmi07
    Lynnmi07 Posts: 131 Member
    Options
    My only concern is how you are going to maintain as you said you gained weight at 1700. Your metabolism must really be shot. Do you lift weights at all?
  • jillianbeeee
    jillianbeeee Posts: 345 Member
    Options
    I am 5 foot 2 and MFP has me at 1200 calories a day. Its working for me! I am very comfortable at this intake and have learned what to eat so I am not ever hungry. It also makes me exercise so I can eat more. At first it was a challenge but I got this!
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?
    With only 20 lbs to lose, set your goal to 0.5 lbs per week, though you are closer to 0.75 lbs per week. You simply do not have the fat mass to warrant a larger deficit.
  • TJswirl
    TJswirl Posts: 4
    Options
    I feel as though 1200 cals a day is low, specifically for me and taking into account my activity levels. In addition, because having a calorie deficit seems to be the most important factor when the target is weight loss, I have also chosen not to eat ALL of the calories I've burned off by exercise. That leaves me with very few calories to nurture my body and give me energy. When I lost weight before - I was literally eating every three hours, not counting calories (at all) and working out sometimes twice a day (6 days a week). With that being said - I know my caloric intake was far more that 1200 measly calories a day. 1200 calories...just seems like bird food to me...but I'll try it if that's what MFP is recommending. Going by what I've seen - 1200 is a 'magic number' that MFP recommends for a lot of people...just not sure why. This is my second day using MFP...so I'm just trying to understand the logic. What does MFP base this on?
    With only 20 lbs to lose, set your goal to 0.5 lbs per week, though you are closer to 0.75 lbs per week. You simply do not have the fat mass to warrant a larger deficit.
    [/quote]
    Thanks for the tip - makes sense. I just want to lose weight a bit faster this time around...which is why I selected the 2lbs a week route (which I still think is a reasonable loss goal for me). I might try for one lb a week instead. I know I could do 1200 cals...it just seems SO low. Almost unhealthy. And scares me because I know there is NO WAY I'd be able to maintain that once I've lost the weight I want to lose.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    MyFailurePal fails to inform people during the weekly weight loss goal option that the "choice" is based on how much total fat mass one has and wishes to lose. Basically, we all have a limit to how much fat mass that can be oxidized in a 24 hour period. The less total fat mass one has, the less fat mass can be oxidized in a single day; the more fat mass one has, the more fat mass can be oxidized in a single day. This is why people with a very large amount of body fat lose weight at a faster rate than a leaner person only wanting to lose a few lbs.
  • TJswirl
    TJswirl Posts: 4
    Options
    MyFailurePal fails to inform people during the weekly weight loss goal option that the "choice" is based on how much total fat mass one has and wishes to lose. Basically, we all have a limit to how much fat mass that can be oxidized in a 24 hour period. The less total fat mass one has, the less fat mass can be oxidized in a single day; the more fat mass one has, the more fat mass can be oxidized in a single day. This is why people with a very large amount of body fat lose weight at a faster rate than a leaner person only wanting to lose a few lbs.

    Very interesting. MyFailurePal...lol. Hey - be nice. I actually quite like it so far (the tracking/diary part anyhow). I'm going to see how things go and adjust accordingly. I am overweight - so I do have some work to do. 20 lbs might not seem like a lot...but it's a lot to me and I feel like at a rate of 0.5lbs per week it will take forever.
  • rmchapman4
    rmchapman4 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    Great Honey! We are here to support whatever works for you. Good luck on your journey. :heart: :smile:

Categories