Is 1200 really the minimum?
ReallyBigJAWS
Posts: 26
I simply am just looking for clarification. I've read that anything below that can send your body into starvation mode, hindering your weight loss, obviously I don't want that. Multiple calculators have told me that with my current lifestyle, not including my workouts, I need 2600+ calories to maintain weight.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.
0
Replies
-
You need to determine 2 things. One is your basal metabolic rate or BMR. The other is your total daily energy expenditure or TDEE. BMR is the number of calories your body needs for your organs to keep you alive. If you were bedridden, this is what you'd need to consume in order to maintain your weight. TDEE is how many calories you're burning in an average day, doing all the things you do in a day like attending school/work, running errands, doing daily chores, participating in sports, hobbies, or other activities.
To lose weight in a healthy way, you want a caloric intake that is ABOVE your BMR but BELOW your TDEE. Check out the calculators below for determining what works for you.
http://iifym.com/bmr-calculator/
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
(As a 22 yr old male, I'm guessing that 1200 calories will be below your BMR. You can eat more and still lose weight, and there really is no need for you to adopt a strict diet if you stay below TDEE.)0 -
You're a 22 year old male-- I'd argue that 1200 is below the minimum for you. It's not about starvation mode, it's about losing your lean mass (including your muscle) and getting adequate nutrients. To protect your muscle you should be aiming for 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass or if you don't know your LBM, 0.8 grams per pound of weight. Then you should aim for .35 grams of fat per pound of weight. Between those two things your calorie intake should get considerably higher.
You're young and possibly still growing. There's no reason to eat so little.
eta: also you only want to lose 10 lbs-- that means your body physically cannot burn fat quickly enough to keep up with your low intake. You should be aiming to lose half a pound per week TOPS.0 -
I agree with PP...as a young man you need more food than 1200.
I have a son around your age and he maintains at a lot higher than 2600 (he is a large lad)
With 10lbs to lose 1/2lb a week is good
Your goal here should be to eat as much food as you can and still lose a reasonable amount of weight each week...not as little as possible and do yourself harm.0 -
My BMR is 1650
So I should be bumping my calorie in take up to around 400 cals? I can easily do that, but my only fear is not losing fast enough to notice progress. That's been a major issue with previous diets and my result of giving up. I suppose I just have to be patient. I've mentioned before on here that my issue isn't significant weight loss, just enough to get rid of stubborn fat around my glutes, hips, and stomach.
What about exercise calories? If I were to consume 1400 before my workout, burn 200 - 300, then I should be eating back 400 or 500?0 -
Technically the minimum is 0.
Some obese dude took in nothing but vitamins and water for a year in the name of science. Seriously, look it up.0 -
:noway:
I don't recommend it for anyone.. Not healthy. At all.
I understand about the progress and giving up... But trust me... It is so much better to be slow and steady. You're body and health will appreciate it in the long run..0 -
If your BMR is 1650 and you aren't comatose, then your minimum is 1650.0
-
my only fear is not losing fast enough to notice progress. That's been a major issue with previous diets and my result of giving up
Is it worth it to you to lose your muscle? As others have said, you will lose that if you do not eat enough protein. Lift weights, eat at a small deficit of no more than 500 calories under your TDEE a week and be patient.0 -
I think what you should do is go to a nutriationist.
Many have given you some very good advice on how to be living healthy and you seem as if you are questioning it. Go to a professionist.
At this point, I am not trying to be a 'Debbie Downer' here but, if you are eating that few calories, I doubt you are living a "healthy' life style. Being lean is not the goal, being healthy is the goal.
I know this is just one old man's opinion here, but I did make to be an old man0 -
For a 22 year old male, 1200 is well below the minimum...I believe the minimum recommendation for a male that is not morbidly obese is in the neighborhood of 1800 calories or so.
1200 is the minimum for sedentary females...and it's pretty damned hard to actually get proper nutrition going lower than that.0 -
Dietician, not nutritionist. Eat no lower then b.m.r0
-
I simply am just looking for clarification. I've read that anything below that can send your body into starvation mode, hindering your weight loss, obviously I don't want that. Multiple calculators have told me that with my current lifestyle, not including my workouts, I need 2600+ calories to maintain weight.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.
If netting less than half of your maintenance need to lose a small amount of weight extremely quickly sounds safe or effective to you I doubt that any amount of logic or sense is going to affect that belief.0 -
For me, keeping my caloric intake around the same as my BMR means I don't feel hungry - so less likely to experience cravings and cave. After that, any exercise I do = weight I lose. So whether or not I lose is entirely dependent on exercise. That works for me because I want the other health benefits of exercise and I need the nutritional benefits of food - so relying too heavily on cutting calories isn't a viable option in my book.
I hear you on wanting faster loss in order to motivate, wishing that I didn't have to be satisfied with not gaining too many days in a row sometimes. But I figure long-term health is more important.0 -
The problem I'm having is mixed information. I've been told it's as simple as cutting x amount of calories based on how fast I want to lose, even getting down to 800 calories, while extreme, is not entirely bad as long as they're all from healthy food.
I, obviously was put under the impression that 1200 was a minimum if I want to stay relatively safe and still lose as much as possible, and now here I'm being told I should be eating my BMR which is something I haven't even heard of till now.
I was under the impression anything less than maintenance is automatic weight loss, after looking around forums it seems people are saying you need to deficit your BMR? Then I was reading all over the place that your body weight x7 is the minimum you can safely go down to, I'm only 140lbs, so...
It's confusing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dispute anyone, not that I could because I don't know much about dieting and fitness in general, but it just seems like one group of people say you can safely do "x" while the others say doing "x" is going to cause you bodily harm and hinder progress.
I just want a straight forward solution. If eating BMR calories is a must then obviously I'll do it (it just means more food, which is fine by me) I just want to make sure I'm losing at a decent rate without hurting much.0 -
The problem I'm having is mixed information. I've been told it's as simple as cutting x amount of calories based on how fast I want to lose, even getting down to 800 calories, while extreme, is not entirely bad as long as they're all from healthy food.
I, obviously was put under the impression that 1200 was a minimum if I want to stay relatively safe and still lose as much as possible, and now here I'm being told I should be eating my BMR which is something I haven't even heard of till now.
I was under the impression anything less than maintenance is automatic weight loss, after looking around forums it seems people are saying you need to deficit your BMR? Then I was reading all over the place that your body weight x7 is the minimum you can safely go down to, I'm only 140lbs, so...
It's confusing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dispute anyone, not that I could because I don't know much about dieting and fitness in general, but it just seems like one group of people say you can safely do "x" while the others say doing "x" is going to cause you bodily harm and hinder progress.
I just want a straight forward solution. If eating BMR calories is a must then obviously I'll do it (it just means more food, which is fine by me) I just want to make sure I'm losing at a decent rate without hurting much.
Do your homework and learn what the body needs to survive and lose weight in a healthy manner. That means sources backed by science, not the latest trend diet site. When morbidly obese patients are placed on low calorie diets by doctors there is medical supervision for a reason ... there are inherent risks to such activities. Doing something like that on your own is just foolish. What you've posted indicates that you are trying to limit your calories to less than half of your maintenance need .... based on some indicators about half of your BMR ... without medical supervision in an effort to lose what is a small amount of weight and body fat.
You can go about that in a smart and healthy way or you can take a foolish course of action ... your choice.0 -
The problem I'm having is mixed information. I've been told it's as simple as cutting x amount of calories based on how fast I want to lose, even getting down to 800 calories, while extreme, is not entirely bad as long as they're all from healthy food.
I, obviously was put under the impression that 1200 was a minimum if I want to stay relatively safe and still lose as much as possible, and now here I'm being told I should be eating my BMR which is something I haven't even heard of till now.
I was under the impression anything less than maintenance is automatic weight loss, after looking around forums it seems people are saying you need to deficit your BMR? Then I was reading all over the place that your body weight x7 is the minimum you can safely go down to, I'm only 140lbs, so...
It's confusing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dispute anyone, not that I could because I don't know much about dieting and fitness in general, but it just seems like one group of people say you can safely do "x" while the others say doing "x" is going to cause you bodily harm and hinder progress.
I just want a straight forward solution. If eating BMR calories is a must then obviously I'll do it (it just means more food, which is fine by me) I just want to make sure I'm losing at a decent rate without hurting much.
1200 is the "accepted" minimum...for women. For men, it's more like 1600. Any less than that and you're probably not getting in the nutrients you need to stay healthy. Sure, you could load up on vitamins and other supplements, but getting it from food is ideal. Why in the world would you want to limit yourself to 1200 or less calories per day? If you did that, you'd certainly lose weight, but you'd almost certainly be hungry and miserable. This is the only body you'll ever have - treat it right and it'll thank you. If you're relatively active, your BMR is the lowest you should be netting daily.
No, you do not need to deficit your BMR. The deficit should come from your TDEE. Google it, find an online calculator, put in your info, and find out what it is. Then, since you're (hopefully) not trying to lose much weight, subtract 10-15% from that number and eat that many calories. I'm not sure what you'd consider a "decent rate" of weight loss, but at your current weight, you should only be losing about .5 lb/week. That's perfectly normal and plenty.
There are plenty of weight loss misconceptions out there, so do your own research and stop listening to random people. Don't eat under your BMR, don't eat your body weight x7 (that is complete nonsense), and for God's sake - EAT! Why do you want to starve yourself in order to lose weight if you can safely lose weight while eating at a reasonable deficit?
My main question is, if you're 140 lbs, why the hell are you trying to lose weight? How tall are you?0 -
I actually came upon/was given links to articles about studies saying I could starve myself, not that I was trying to, and wouldn't have to worry about anything like starvation mode until around 5% bodyfat. I wasn't trying to follow that path, but like I said, confusing information.
But thank you to those with the tips and feedback. I've taken my cals up quite a bit.
And at Ireed: I'm 5'7". I actually posted about how my losing weight was..conflicting, since I didn't/don't want to lose weight, essentially. I just have this really stubborn fat around my stomach, hips, and glutes, even thighs. Probably 10lbs worth. Mostly towards my rear. I'm talking if I wear anything remotely tight I get lovehandles, especially towards the back, and my butt sticks out/looks about an inch more. If I grab the fat around the back of my hips and tug it up, my rear becomes noticably flatter/smaller. I thought it was loose skin, upon inspection and from what I've found out online, it's not skin.
I was simply trying to get rid of these areas for Summer.0 -
My BMR is 1650
So I should be bumping my calorie in take up to around 400 cals? I can easily do that, but my only fear is not losing fast enough to notice progress. That's been a major issue with previous diets and my result of giving up. I suppose I just have to be patient. I've mentioned before on here that my issue isn't significant weight loss, just enough to get rid of stubborn fat around my glutes, hips, and stomach.
What about exercise calories? If I were to consume 1400 before my workout, burn 200 - 300, then I should be eating back 400 or 500?
Slow and steady wins the race.0 -
I simply am just looking for clarification. I've read that anything below that can send your body into starvation mode, hindering your weight loss, obviously I don't want that. Multiple calculators have told me that with my current lifestyle, not including my workouts, I need 2600+ calories to maintain weight.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.
As per others you should be taking in 1650 if that's your BMR. However this isn't only about calories. You should be following your macros. You should be getting your protein and carbs with reduced fat. Protein will help you keep muscle - going to 1200 or less then your body will take away muscle and in the long run you'll be worse off than you are now. At least your on the right track - you just need a bit of tweaking.0 -
I actually came upon/was given links to articles about studies saying I could starve myself, not that I was trying to, and wouldn't have to worry about anything like starvation mode until around 5% bodyfat. I wasn't trying to follow that path, but like I said, confusing information.
But thank you to those with the tips and feedback. I've taken my cals up quite a bit.
And at Ireed: I'm 5'7". I actually posted about how my losing weight was..conflicting, since I didn't/don't want to lose weight, essentially. I just have this really stubborn fat around my stomach, hips, and glutes, even thighs. Probably 10lbs worth. Mostly towards my rear. I'm talking if I wear anything remotely tight I get lovehandles, especially towards the back, and my butt sticks out/looks about an inch more. If I grab the fat around the back of my hips and tug it up, my rear becomes noticably flatter/smaller. I thought it was loose skin, upon inspection and from what I've found out online, it's not skin.
I was simply trying to get rid of these areas for Summer.
Are you currently lifting weights?
There's a difference between the argument that starvation mode is a myth and the argument that eating as little as possible isn't healthy. Most of us are not referring to it being unsafe because it will shut down your metabolism. We're saying it's not safe because you won't get adequate nutrition and you won't retain your muscle mass while you lose weight, which means your body fat percentage will stay the same you'll just be smaller.
If you want to look good for summer my recommendation is to do a progressive loading strength training program based on compound lifts, eat .8 grams of protein and .35 grams of fat per pound of weight, run a very small deficit (think 250 calories lower than your TDEE) and be patient.0 -
You're a 22 year old male-- I'd argue that 1200 is below the minimum for you. It's not about starvation mode, it's about losing your lean mass (including your muscle) and getting adequate nutrients. To protect your muscle you should be aiming for 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass or if you don't know your LBM, 0.8 grams per pound of weight. Then you should aim for .35 grams of fat per pound of weight. Between those two things your calorie intake should get considerably higher.
You're young and possibly still growing. There's no reason to eat so little.
eta: also you only want to lose 10 lbs-- that means your body physically cannot burn fat quickly enough to keep up with your low intake. You should be aiming to lose half a pound per week TOPS.
This is the advice you should follow.
Everyone wants quick results, but that just isn't realistic and it's not worth damaging your body.0 -
It doesn't sound like you're really interested in losing weight (or should be) but are interested in body recomposition (getting more muscle to tone those "problem areas"). Cutting calories as low as you are is probably not helping with that and you'll just end up losing the muscle you have. Definitely up your calories (emphasis on increasing protein as others have mentioned), but you may want to do it slowly, i.e., if you've been targeting 1200, start aiming for 1400 for a few weeks, then increase to 1600. Also, do a search for "body recomp" which (as I understand it) is more about lowering body fat (which is different than just losing weight). Just my interpretation of what your real goals are.0
-
I simply am just looking for clarification. I've read that anything below that can send your body into starvation mode, hindering your weight loss, obviously I don't want that. Multiple calculators have told me that with my current lifestyle, not including my workouts, I need 2600+ calories to maintain weight.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.
I am under five feet tall, past my mid 60's and my BMR is 1221. I eat 1200 calories and could probably get by with 100-200 calories less. I don't do it, because the planning and watching to make sure that I get all my macros in would be a PITA.
There is no way that 1200 calories a day provide a healthy weight loss, or anything healthy in case you don't want to lose for you.
Also, there is no " giant " salad with only 100 calories......I am a volume eater and know that 100 calories of just leaves is a lot.......but it's not a salad. I eat full meal macro appropriate salads without dressing ( just lime juice or vinegar ) and they are usually around 350 calories, but easily can be more....which I think is a very good deal.0 -
My BMR is 1650
So I should be bumping my calorie in take up to around 400 cals? I can easily do that, but my only fear is not losing fast enough to notice progress. That's been a major issue with previous diets and my result of giving up. I suppose I just have to be patient. I've mentioned before on here that my issue isn't significant weight loss, just enough to get rid of stubborn fat around my glutes, hips, and stomach.
What about exercise calories? If I were to consume 1400 before my workout, burn 200 - 300, then I should be eating back 400 or 500?
Burn out is a major factor for many people too...if you do something drastic that stresses you and makes it difficult to live your normal life, enjoying going out with friends, etc. you will likely throw in the towel before you see the results you want. Slow and stead wins the race. You'll be much happier and mentally better off if you take it easier on yourself and don't go for the fastest results possible.0 -
What has been said here is all pretty good advice. I'd like to add that despite myths, you can't "spot reduce" problem areas (biology doesn't work that way), and there is no such thing as a magic super-food, just old-fashioned meat and vegetables that your great-grandparents would have eaten.
If you want nutrition advice based on repeatable science and reputable research, I would have a look at Precision Nutrition. Their advice is to eat mostly whole foods, with emphasis on proteins and healthy fats (avocados, nuts, fish). They have a lot of free information and articles on their site, and they give all the references to medical studies, etc. I've bought one of their cookbooks but I haven't signed up for a paid coaching program.0 -
It took me 6 months to lose 31lbs. I quit and gained some back, then quit again and gained the rest back. But I'm back now and I'm determined to make this work. Doesn't matter how many times you fall down, what matters is how many times you get back up. As long as you're trying, you're winning.0
-
OMG, do not eat 1400 for cutting fat! It's not about starvation, it's about losing a whole lot of muscle with some fat but you wont cut. A young man your size shouldn't eat less than 1800 net. EDIT: someone above beat me to this info, so I'll just second that.
Take up some heavy weight lifting and eat maintenance or a very low deficit (250 calories maybe?). You can also get into some HIIT training on alternate days. At 140lbs, you'll do well on a surplus if you keep your macros neat and foods as whole as possible.0 -
Ps, I would definitely bump your cals up. 1200 isn't enough for anyone really. Even morbidly obese (Which is where I fit in) need more than that. Listen to the TDEE and BMR stuff. It truly works. Protein shakes really helped me fill up my calories if you're finding it hard to fill, but first do your tdee and all and set your goals to that. Look up TDEE ROADMAP 2.0
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet0 -
Just eat at maintenance and lift heavy weights. That's all you gotta do.0
-
Eat less move more - Jillian Michaels0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions