1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

And when I input your starting stats into scooby...144lbs, 61 inches, 37 and sedentary..wow imagine it gave 1333, TDEE-10% was 1499, and I could snip the screen and go to photobucket and post here but eh...I have DC'd it...maybe you should have.

And if your profile pic is you and your son you are not sedentary...so imagine lightly active goes to 1718.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this...it is common knowledge that the AMA says that in order to get in all your macro/micros you need at least 1200...and the fact you mention starvation mode...really?

After a few months no you wouldn't be hungry, when the body isn't getting enough food it creates a hormone to alter your hunger signals to lower so you aren't in constant agongy...see even your body knows something is wrong

So...1200 is the limit for women regardless of their height...

When someone new writes a post about "is 1200 o.k." don't just jump in and say "you'll die." Say "what are your stats?" Please. Can we stop the misinformation?
<snip>
Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!

Ironic statement is ironic

Oh and stop spreading mis-information....

Just this

Thanks, OP, my thoughts exactly. I'm just under 5'2", older, and eat lower calories and get plenty of nutrients. I'm healthier than I've ever been since I changed my eating habits. I lost 80 lbs last year, have a few more to lose and my doctor is totally okay with the way I did it. I have also been able to stop my two blood pressure medications. I consider that a total win..

I'm inclined to believe you, seeing as I'm 5'10 (21 f) and my maintenance is somewhere around 1550 (net).

Thanks, OP, my thoughts exactly. I'm just under 5'2", older, and eat lower calories and get plenty of nutrients. I'm healthier than I've ever been since I changed my eating habits. I lost 80 lbs last year, have a few more to lose and my doctor is totally okay with the way I did it. I have also been able to stop my two blood pressure medications. I consider that a total win..

Like you just said, your doctor is okay with it. Doing this with a doctor's supervision is completely different to doing this because someone on the internet told you it was okay.

I don't get it. She lost just a shade over one pound a week. If she was really at such a huge calories deficit wouldn't she had lost more weight more quickly?

I'm inclined to believe you, seeing as I'm 5'10 (21 f) and my maintenance is somewhere around 1550 (net).

sure...

I am 5 ft 7 twice your age and maintain on 2200...perspective...

If your statement is "fact" and not assumptions...then it is possible if you have had a long term ED and you have damaged your metabolism which can be fixed btw..

and by fact I mean measured in a clinical setting by qualified professionals...

Thanks, OP, my thoughts exactly. I'm just under 5'2", older, and eat lower calories and get plenty of nutrients. I'm healthier than I've ever been since I changed my eating habits. I lost 80 lbs last year, have a few more to lose and my doctor is totally okay with the way I did it. I have also been able to stop my two blood pressure medications. I consider that a total win..

If you were supervised that is one thing but GP's are not dieticians and take 1/2 semester course on nutrition which totals about 20 hours...I had family/friends tell me even their professors tell them that course isn't nearly enough to give out advice on diet etc and in order to do that they really should have a 2 semester course with at least 120 hours in class and even then only a registered dietician should be giving out advice on nutrition and diet and only if they are current.

I'm gonna be the one wheel on the shopping cart that pulls in the other direction...

this is what worked for the OP- and she has a point, only because she lost the 30lbs..

NOTHING works for EVERYONE!

It all breaks down to the vast generalizations, for Most people 1200 is too low.....
.
.

for this particular woman it worked...
..

I am 5 ft 6 for me 1350 and eating back nothing works . but I have particular issues that make it what I need

You are short. And there are a lot of short gals on MFP, if you hadn't noticed us!

The most accurate calorie calculator, http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ puts a person of my height 5 foot, 1.5 inches, my age, 37 years, and my weight, told me that if I am sedentary and want to lose at a 20% reduction, I should be eating 1104 cals a day. I did that for 7 months and lost 30 lbs and am in better shape now than I was when I was 17.

YES, 1104 cals a day! I did not die, no I was not tired, no I did not go into starvation mode, and after a few months getting used to it, no I was not hungry! I have more energy and muscle definition now than I have ever had in my life (as with any calorie goal, I made sure I was eating plenty of protein and veggies, not just chocolate and potato chips!)

Telling EVERYONE that 1200 is too low becauuse 1200 or below is the EVIL UNSPEAKABLE NUMBER on MFP, you are going to get a lot of short fat people on MFP who give up because they are eating what their taller fellow MFP'ers are eating.

When someone new writes a post about "is 1200 o.k." don't just jump in and say "you'll die." Say "what are your stats?" Please. Can we stop the misinformation? Why is it so notoriously hard for short people to lose weight? Because they are following diet plans and calorie goals designed for average sized people - i.e. taller/bigger than us shorties. It need not be hard with the right information.

1200 is a 100% completely arbitrary number. Get the facts and go to the free website for an accurate calorie calculation: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

Hungry? That is what exercise is for. If you exercise for an hour a day, you can add a few hundred extra calories and have an extra meal! Also, the weight loss part of your new lifestyle doesn't last forever: when you get to maintenance and/or increase your activity level, you can eat more. Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!

Well said. I'm short and started with a 1200 cal deficit. I've since increased my calories a bit, but at 1200 and at 1520 I make sure I hit all my goals, ie: calicum, fiber, vit. a,c, potassium, protein, and stay under my carb goal. It is totally doable and you can have the most healthy diet without starving if you eat right. Granted you would starve if you at junk at 1200 cal...but if you eat like your supposed to, 1200 for shorties is what everyone says to do. Unlike what others have said, you do not need to be under a Dr.s care to be on a 1200 cal diet. If it's under, then yes, a Dr should follow along with your plan.

I'm gonna be the one wheel on the shopping cart that pulls in the other direction...

this is what worked for the OP- and she has a point, only because she lost the 30lbs..

NOTHING works for EVERYONE!

It all breaks down to the vast generalizations, for Most people 1200 is too low.....
.
.

for this particular woman it worked...
..

I am 5 ft 6 for me 1350 and eating back nothing works . but I have particular issues that make it what I need

If you eat at a deficit you'll lose weight. If I ate 800 calories a day, I'd lose weight. But that doesn't mean I'm healthy. Eating at a very low level, unless you're morbidly obese is really unhealthy. OP is probably after losing a lot of lean muscle and damaging her metabolism (hence the gain backs she spoke of). Big weight loss doesn't mean it's after working, because she proved with her own words that it's not sustainable.

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

And when I input your starting stats into scooby...144lbs, 61 inches, 37 and sedentary..wow imagine it gave 1333, TDEE-10% was 1499, and I could snip the screen and go to photobucket and post here but eh...I have DC'd it...maybe you should have.

And if your profile pic is you and your son you are not sedentary...so imagine lightly active goes to 1718.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this...it is common knowledge that the AMA says that in order to get in all your macro/micros you need at least 1200...and the fact you mention starvation mode...really?

After a few months no you wouldn't be hungry, when the body isn't getting enough food it creates a hormone to alter your hunger signals to lower so you aren't in constant agongy...see even your body knows something is wrong

So...1200 is the limit for women regardless of their height...

When someone new writes a post about "is 1200 o.k." don't just jump in and say "you'll die." Say "what are your stats?" Please. Can we stop the misinformation?
<snip>
Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!

Ironic statement is ironic

Oh and stop spreading mis-information....

^^^^ This!

I'm 5' nothing, female in my (ahem) mid thirties and my bmr per scoobyworkshop is 1348, with the recommendation I eat 1450 plus exercise calories to lose 0.5lbs/week

I would be super cranky if I ate less than that. BUT what works for some doesn't work for all!

If you are using that site, I noticed their Mifflin, St. Jeor calulation is not working properly, it was saying my BMR was 682 or some crazy thing like that (my BMR is almost double that, and yes, I am sure).

I like Harris-Benedict personally, but I lost a bunch of weight eating 1000 calories a day, netting 700-800 most days and I am 5' 2". That was fine for the first 30 lbs., but then I realized I had been lucky not having more muscle loss (you know you lose 30% of your muscle (on average) when you lose weight right?) Up until that point I had been pretty lucky (according to the Tanita at my diet place anyway, and not lost too much muscle, but I knew it was time to focus on that). I started doing T-Tapp at 30 lbs. down, then I also started doing Pilates at 35 lbs. down, and at 41 lbs. down i started lifting weights.

So this is just my opinion, but here is how I feel about it. Yes, you can drop weight fast, but if you don't eat well (you have that right with the protein) and do resistance and strength training (too much cardio and you will lose muscle) say goodbye to your muscle.

It takes like a year of hard work for a lot of these people on here to gain like 10 lbs. of muscle, and they are lifting heavy. I think minimizing muscle loss is just as important as losing fat, especially as you get older.

I am not losing as fast these days, I eat around 1300 to 1400 and even up to 1500 gross, even went over that one day (but I burned close to 700 calories, so even if you take half that..., but I am always trying to keep my net over 1000 or at least at it, and I still wonder if I am eating enough). When I look in my mirror I see a body that is more and more muscular and more and more toned...THAT is what I want to look like, I have no desire to be skinny fat.

The urgency for me in the beginning was to get out of the obese range, but once I achieved that and was safely out of it, I knew it was time to change focus. What started me on this journey was health, my blood sugar went over 100 for the first time and I knew things needed to change. What is keeping going on this journey is health, but I also have a vision of looking great in a bikini. I am not going to get there just eating at a deficit, but every time I look in the mirror these days, my abs look better and better.

If think if I want to work out and get healthy, then I have to give my body the nutrition to support that.

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

This. A lot of the shorter/slimmer people here who are already at a healthy weight (or near enough) seem to think they can eat at a big deficit like those who are severely overweight.

The smaller you are the less of a deficit you should have. Just because you can choose the -2lbs a weeks option doesnt mean it is the best thing for you to do.

On the flip side those who are very obese should still have more than 1200 a day in order to get the fuel and nutrition needed for their bigger bodies. When I first started I was losing 2lbs a week on 2100 calories, I definately should not have gone down as low as 1200. Imagine the lean muscle that would have been stripped off me!

1200 may be 'fine' for some people but giving a blanket 'yes' is just as silly as giving a blanket 'no' dont you think?

Not true

Very short and tiny here and lose at 1600 a day. Only lightly active as well, with thyroid (medical) issues.

I tend not to support WLS?low cal/medical conditions as an excuse to take short cuts.

OP you are short cutting yourself.

Adjust your numbers to lose .25 lbs. You have all the time in the world to do so and your body and mind will thank you for it.

What was it exactly that you were disagreeing with?

I said a lot not all.

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

This. A lot of the shorter/slimmer people here who are already at a healthy weight (or near enough) seem to think they can eat at a big deficit like those who are severely overweight.

The smaller you are the less of a deficit you should have. Just because you can choose the -2lbs a weeks option doesnt mean it is the best thing for you to do.

On the flip side those who are very obese should still have more than 1200 a day in order to get the fuel and nutrition needed for their bigger bodies. When I first started I was losing 2lbs a week on 2100 calories, I definately should not have gone down as low as 1200. Imagine the lean muscle that would have been stripped off me!

1200 may be 'fine' for some people but giving a blanket 'yes' is just as silly as giving a blanket 'no' dont you think?

Not true

Very short and tiny here and lose at 1600 a day. Only lightly active as well, with thyroid (medical) issues.

I tend not to support WLS?low cal/medical conditions as an excuse to take short cuts.

OP you are short cutting yourself.

Adjust your numbers to lose .25 lbs. You have all the time in the world to do so and your body and mind will thank you for it.

What was it exactly that you were disagreeing with?

I said a lot not all.

1200 is the bare minimum for women...period...and at those levels if you are not very very careful you are missing out on a lot of macro/micro nutrients...period...and it doesn't matter how much weight you lose, you are losing a lot more than fat...

Not sure why you felt the need to post this...it is common knowledge that the AMA says that in order to get in all your macro/micros you need at least 1200...and the fact you mention starvation mode...really?

I can get everything I need in less than 1000 calories with a multivitamin. But it's a serious feat of meal engineering. And if this is the concern, then I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that the majority of people on this forum and in this country in general are not meeting all of the required minimums even when they're eating 3000 calories a day.

I agree with op. The magic number of 1,200 calories a day is a myth.