1200 cal daily minimum or net minimum?

Options
Fit_Mama84
Fit_Mama84 Posts: 234 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I was curious if the 1200 minimum is supposed to be the minimum daily total or the minimum net total of calories. And if you have sources to back up the information, I would love to read it.
«1

Replies

  • jayjay12345654321
    jayjay12345654321 Posts: 653 Member
    Options
    When you say net, do you mean after exercise calories?
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    Net, and my source is everything you said you read when you clicked through when you signed up.

    If you are particularly short, you might need 1200 total, but MFP won't tell you that because it considers 1200 THE GOLDEN NUMBER.
  • mamahannick
    mamahannick Posts: 322 Member
    Options
    Net.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I was curious if the 1200 minimum is supposed to be the minimum daily total or the minimum net total of calories. And if you have sources to back up the information, I would love to read it.

    The logic of 1200 calories providing adequate nutrition would suggest it's 1200 calories of food that you eat. Exercise doesn't take away the nutrients you ate. Extra calories come from body fat.

    It isn't easy to find a source for 1200 calories, other than "XYZ recommends" where XYZ may be a sports college, health body or learned group of some sort. It isn't a thing in the UK at all so I'm guessing it's a US recommendation.
  • minky_r
    minky_r Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    aaahaaa!!!!!!! i knew it!!! I am sooo sure at my height I need less!! :(
  • jayjay12345654321
    jayjay12345654321 Posts: 653 Member
    Options
    I've wondered about how height works into it, as well. It doesn't make sense a 5'2" and a 6'4" man should be on the same calorie restriction.
  • fbmandy55
    fbmandy55 Posts: 5,263 Member
    Options
    I burn 1200 calories by lunchtime every day, according to my fitbit. Definitely need to eat more than that to fuel my body through the day.
  • lisajsund
    lisajsund Posts: 366 Member
    Options
    Let me find the article. I'll get back to you.
  • akaMrsmojo
    akaMrsmojo Posts: 764 Member
    Options
    aaahaaa!!!!!!! i knew it!!! I am sooo sure at my height I need less!! :(

    Why would you want less?
  • kari574
    kari574 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    I think that is a big generalization. I think it depends on height and body type. My BMR is only 1160 and I'm 5'-3". Here is something I recently came across though.

    "An article from the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute containing a chapter titled The Nutrition Connection by Lori D. Hennessy and Gaston P. Bathalon states that 'Minimum Calorie intake levels for weight loss are 1,500 Calories a day for men and 1,200 Calories a day for women.'"
  • akaMrsmojo
    akaMrsmojo Posts: 764 Member
    Options
    1200 is the number that MFP set as the bottom goal. Most people need more than 1200 a day. Google TDEE and BMR to understand.
  • Purple_Orchid_87
    Purple_Orchid_87 Posts: 517 Member
    Options
    I burn 1200 calories by lunchtime every day, according to my fitbit. Definitely need to eat more than that to fuel my body through the day.

    its 1200 NET so 1200 AFTER exercise cals, so if you eat 1500 and burn 1200 then your NET =300
  • Purple_Orchid_87
    Purple_Orchid_87 Posts: 517 Member
    Options
    Personally, i think MFP sets 1200 as the minimum to stop this becoming an eating disorder website - its all too easy to not enough and to land yourself in hospital

    If I wanted to eat less than 1200cals, i wouldnt be on a site like this, id be on a pro-anna website - MFP is a TOOL that has helped me track my food and see what im really taking in, but if i didnt want to use the TOOL then i wouldnt be on the website

    im sorry if that sounds blunt but there are too many people ive seen on here who are eating less than 1000cals a day and i just cant see that on my friends list as it makes me think TOO much about how much I actually eat and I dont want to develop a disorder
  • lrmall01
    lrmall01 Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    I think the ACSM recommendation is commonly used as a source of this. Take a look at this link and scroll down to the calorie restriction section.

    http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/acsm-in-the-news/2011/08/01/metabolism-is-modifiable-with-the-right-lifestyle-changes
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    I was curious if the 1200 minimum is supposed to be the minimum daily total or the minimum net total of calories. And if you have sources to back up the information, I would love to read it.

    It's net...source would be the instructions for how to use this tool...all the info you're supposed to read when you sign up...the stickies, etc.

    When you do your activity level do you see any mention of exercise? No you do not...that is because with MFP your activity level is based on just your day to day stuff and exercise is extra activity that is accounted for after the fact when you log it and get those calories to eat back.

    Also, why do you think MFP would be trying to trick you into eating more food if that wasn't the way this tool was designed.

    Note that with any diet and exercise regimen you account for exercise somewhere...you either estimate those calories and include them in your activity level and then take a cut from that number to lose or you do as you do with MFP and account for them on the *kitten* end of the equation.

    So if you burn 400 calories for exercise, your net calorie intake is now 1,200 - 400 = 800 calories which is far too low...you need way more than that just for normal bodily function...so you eat back those 400 calories and gross 1,600 calories, but your net is still 1200...(800 + 400 = 1,200)
  • kari574
    kari574 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    So you wouldn't be my friend because I am a small person and have to eat hardly anything to lose weight? Trust me, I would love to be able to eat more!

    ETA: Oops, meant to quote...

    "Personally, i think MFP sets 1200 as the minimum to stop this becoming an eating disorder website - its all too easy to not enough and to land yourself in hospital

    If I wanted to eat less than 1200cals, i wouldnt be on a site like this, id be on a pro-anna website - MFP is a TOOL that has helped me track my food and see what im really taking in, but if i didnt want to use the TOOL then i wouldnt be on the website

    im sorry if that sounds blunt but there are too many people ive seen on here who are eating less than 1000cals a day and i just cant see that on my friends list as it makes me think TOO much about how much I actually eat and I dont want to develop a disorder"
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    I think the ACSM recommendation is commonly used as a source of this. Take a look at this link and scroll down to the calorie restriction section.

    http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/acsm-in-the-news/2011/08/01/metabolism-is-modifiable-with-the-right-lifestyle-changes

    The ACSM has nothing to do with this tool or how this tool is designed....
  • WaterBunnie
    WaterBunnie Posts: 1,370 Member
    Options
    I've wondered about how height works into it, as well. It doesn't make sense a 5'2" and a 6'4" man should be on the same calorie restriction.

    The taller of the two would be given a higher calorie goal but the restriction stays the same - 500 deficit a day to lose a pound, 1000 for 2 etc. Different goals, same restriction to get the same result.
  • Purple_Orchid_87
    Purple_Orchid_87 Posts: 517 Member
    Options
    So you wouldn't be my friend because I am a small person and have to eat hardly anything to lose weight? Trust me, I would love to be able to eat more!

    ETA: Oops, meant to quote...

    If you were just a tad under the 1200 then that's different to eating 500cals a day - i have gotten really obsessed with food before, spending hours looking at food labels in the supermarket to find something that is 2 cals a serving less than the previous one, and its not healthy for me to be like that. Im not a judgemental person at all, but theres a big difference between someone eating slightly less than the 1200 NET to lose weight, and someone purposely starving themselves to be like a size zero model. I have no one on my friends list who 'just wants to lose a few lbs to look good in a bikini' because i am at completely the other end of the spectrum.

    If someone eats and then exercises, and that takes them to below 1200NET then i personally dont see much wrong with that, as long as they are eating healthily and their NET isnt too low, but having working in paediatric mental health and had first hand experience of eating disorders, its not something i would choose to surround myself with on a website tool
  • random_user75
    random_user75 Posts: 157 Member
    Options
    Definitely net. MFP recommends your goal calories based on your personal information (e.g., weight) and your weight loss/gain goals. It won't go under 1200 calories. People losing weight tend to go for aggressive goals because we want to be done as soon as possible. However, aggressive may not be realistic/sustainable, especially if you don't have too much to lose. While it's possible for petite people to have low TDEEs, my gut reaction to seeing someone with their goal calories set to 1200 is that the person needs to slow down his/her weight loss. Go for losing 1 lb per week, or even a half pound per week. Eat more. Keep losing.

Categories