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

Options
1…1213151718

Replies

  • dgbrown13
    dgbrown13 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    I was wondering the same thing. I work out 45-60 min. 5 -6 days a week but otherwise I am sedentary. If I stay at 1200 or a little below will it make me lose weight faster or should I bump it up to 1500? When I eat more than 1200 it seems like a lot of food to me.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    It takes a lot of half apples, slices of avocado, and rice, to make up for regularly eating out though. I'm sorry, but her margin of error doesn't seem to be all that great. Certainly not great enough to say that she is any more inaccurate than typical.

    Well in my experience with food logging, which is probably considerably larger than yours, you are very very wrong.

    MFP is filled with people who purchased a food scale after logging for a while without one. They pretty much invariably say some variation of "holy crap, I was estimating everything totally wrong."

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1270280-food-weighing-scale-miracles?page=1#posts-19769726
    here is the latest one just doing that...

    and we aren't talking about just rice, apples and avocadoes...

    we are talking about not logging for days(3 in middle of april, 5 late april, 4 at the end of apri actually you go back far enough and there is more days that aren't logged or partial than are loggedl)

    , nutella, bread, cheese, peanut butter, chocolate, french fries, fish, pasta like noodles and lasanga, ice cream

    and can't forget the days that are over 1500...saw at least 8 of those choosing random days...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    sure the OP lost her weight eating 1100-1200 a day...:noway:
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    I was wondering the same thing. I work out 45-60 min. 5 -6 days a week but otherwise I am sedentary. If I stay at 1200 or a little below will it make me lose weight faster or should I bump it up to 1500? When I eat more than 1200 it seems like a lot of food to me.

    Yes you will lose weight faster..but it will be muscle and fat...depending on your stats 1500 could very well be appropriate...I eat 1800 and still lose 1/2lb a week.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    maybe someone on here can help me. here are my stats:
    SW: 220.
    CW: 165
    F, 23, 5'2"

    I exercise every day, at least a 30ish minute walk. it burns about 100 calories. lately I play DDR which is like HIIT and I can burn anywhere from 100-300+ calories from that. But I am not working, and do a lot of sitting around. My calorie goal set by MFP is currently 1400. it was 1350 but I was kind of intimidated by the low number so I set it back up.

    I have no idea what my real goal should be. I think my TDEE is around the 1700 area so if I wanted to lose a lb a week, I should eat 1200 if I don't exercise at all that day. correct? but that's almost impossible for me lately. My diet is not the greatest, I eat a lot of junk.

    Help? :/
    I checked scooby TDEE and it said with current stats with 1-3hours of light-moderate exercise a week sets your TDEE at 2100..not 1700...to lose a lb a week it give 1705...I personlly find scooby a bit high and would recommend 1600...
  • OkamiLavande
    OkamiLavande Posts: 336 Member
    Options
    Food is yummy, that's all I have to say beyond eat whatever you want as long as weigh/measure it~

    Weighing ice-cream is a sad process though. So, so tiny.
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member
    Options
    Food is yummy, that's all I have to say beyond eat whatever you want as long as weigh/measure it~

    Weighing ice-cream is a sad process though. So, so tiny.

    Indeed it is. I get all the sadness out of the way at one time, though. I portion many jars of it in the fridge. Previously, we'd just eat out of the tub and "just a little" turned into a pint.... I have a problem. lol
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    It takes a lot of half apples, slices of avocado, and rice, to make up for regularly eating out though. I'm sorry, but her margin of error doesn't seem to be all that great. Certainly not great enough to say that she is any more inaccurate than typical.

    Well in my experience with food logging, which is probably considerably larger than yours, you are very very wrong.

    MFP is filled with people who purchased a food scale after logging for a while without one. They pretty much invariably say some variation of "holy crap, I was estimating everything totally wrong."

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1270280-food-weighing-scale-miracles?page=1#posts-19769726
    here is the latest one just doing that...

    and we aren't talking about just rice, apples and avocadoes...

    we are talking about not logging for days(3 in middle of april, 5 late april, 4 at the end of apri actually you go back far enough and there is more days that aren't logged or partial than are loggedl)

    , nutella, bread, cheese, peanut butter, chocolate, french fries, fish, pasta like noodles and lasanga, ice cream

    and can't forget the days that are over 1500...saw at least 8 of those choosing random days...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    sure the OP lost her weight eating 1100-1200 a day...:noway:

    I don't remember by exactly how much I was underestimating when I bought my scale, but it was enough that I'd been stalled for 3 months. And along the way since then I gradually started weighing more and more things so even once I had a scale it wasn't 100%.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    Options
    Food is yummy, that's all I have to say beyond eat whatever you want as long as weigh/measure it~

    Weighing ice-cream is a sad process though. So, so tiny.

    I bought little tiny bowls to put it in...now my serving of ice cream looks HUGE!
  • muggzie399
    muggzie399 Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    Ahhhhh! Ice cream. My subject. Just can't quit it. Narrowed down to 1/2 cup, check calories before I eat it.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

    Yep, that drives me crazy.

    I just went on scooby's and found my tdee-20% at my age (30) and activity level (3-5 hours a week) and got 1920 to lose, which is what I currently eat. I then calculated for age 65 with the same activity level and got 1690 to lose.

    *shrug*

    People can eat 1100-1200 if they want to, but no one needs to.

    And what if it was 0hrs of exercise per week at age 65?

    1180 for no exercise.

    I don't really think age is an excuse to be completely sedentary. Maybe I just have active older people in my life, i don't know. My mom is 52 and does hot yoga and her best friend is in her 60's and walks miles and miles in the park every day after work. I see quite a few senior citizens in my gym at 5:45 every MWF. While I admit that there are some medical conditions that may prevent older people from exercising as vigorously as I do, a lot of it is just excuses, excuses, excuses.

    Also, not everyone in this thread who claims to "have to" eat 1200 calories is an older person, they are just claiming that they have to eat this way because they are short and female. I am 5'4" and maintain on 2600.

    And the poster we were talking about along with age, struggled to be active due to multiple physical issues. I'm not one to defend " the 1200 calorie diet" but for some it is the correct intake level. There is usually a physical/ age issue with it, so there are so outliers that do need to.

    Either way, that poster completely missed the point of the op they were arguing.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    If you're genuinely in such bad physical shape that you can't be more active, then fine. That's one thing and I don't think we can reasonably argue that.

    If you're so sedentary you need to eat 1100 calories to lose weight and you are physically able to exercise more........ I don't want to hear you complaining, really.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,082 Member
    Options

    So, consider I am a 49 years-old man, 188cm and 84kg. Most hospitals use Harris-Benedict to determine this. I would need 1847kcal per day. The macronutrients I would need would be very little fats (about 10%) and then it would vary on carbs and proteins depending on length of comatose state and current body mass (fat versus muscle).

    Why does this matter here on MFP? Let's say I was released from hospital and after a few months I needed to lose some weight. Would I eat less then 1847 per day? No. I'm not comatose (hence not resting) so I need more calories as I am more active. That 1847 is the bare minimum for my body's function. To know how much I need to eat I'd need to know how active I am or plan to be.

    In other words, the point I'm making is perhaps 1100 or 1200 calories per day is way below your BMR. By eating at such a large deficit, you are hurting your body and you might not be aware of how much you are straining your organs.

    you are a man and you are 188 cm tall - that is around 6ft 3 in - I agree, your BMR would be above 1200.

    But an older female of under 5 ft - BMR would be much lower and 1200 may well be a suitable net calorie allowance to lose weight.

    It wouldn't be right for you and it isn't for most people - but it is for some.
  • countcalories1987
    countcalories1987 Posts: 18
    Options
    you are full of it.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,082 Member
    Options

    People don't maintain weight at 1100 calories a day. Maybe if they are 70 years old, 4'11'' and sedentary, maybe.

    I don't think anyone is saying that is the level to maintain - they were saying 1200 could be the correct level to lose - of course when they hit their goal, they will go to maitenance calories and this will be higher (just like everyone else who goes from losing to maintenance)

    and yes, some people are 70 years old, under 5 ft and sedentary - and for those, 1200 may well be suitable calorie allowance to lose weight.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    you are full of it.

    Please use the quote button so we can see who you're belittling.
  • countcalories1987
    countcalories1987 Posts: 18
    Options
    Good for you! I think all these people constantly shoving 12, 13 and 1400 calories down our throats want us to stay fat
  • countcalories1987
    countcalories1987 Posts: 18
    Options
    Thank You !!!!!
  • SugaryLynx
    SugaryLynx Posts: 2,640 Member
    Options
    Good for you! I think all these people constantly shoving 12, 13 and 1400 calories down our throats want us to stay fat

    that's absurd... are you hangry, perhaps?
  • jmv7117
    jmv7117 Posts: 891 Member
    Options
    If you're genuinely in such bad physical shape that you can't be more active, then fine. That's one thing and I don't think we can reasonably argue that.

    If you're so sedentary you need to eat 1100 calories to lose weight and you are physically able to exercise more........ I don't want to hear you complaining, really.

    ^^^^^THIS Everyone is facing their own struggles whether they are trying to lose, gain or maintain their weight. There are a multitude of exercises folks can do and many more that can be modified to meet their needs depending on their physical abilities. Excuses don't burn calories!
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Good for you! I think all these people constantly shoving 12, 13 and 1400 calories down our throats want us to stay fat

    Either that, or they've actually been there and accomplished what you are trying to accomplish, have helped dozens of other people accomplish what you are trying to accomplish, and have actually learned a thing or two about how to be successful.

    Or what you said.

    One or the other. Who knows.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories