1200 Calories.....the truth.
ashbarretto4
Posts: 10
Sorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
0
Replies
-
Sorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
MFP doesn't "suggest" anything anymore than your pocket calculator "suggests" an answer to a math problem. They are both tools that you use to derive an answer based on what YOU input. They have no brain, they don't give advice.
If you tell MFP that you want to lose 2 pounds a week and that you are sedentary and weigh 150 pounds as a 5' tall woman for example it is going to crunch the numbers and find a number that is lower than 1200 (because that is the answer) and it is going to spit back 1200 because 1200 is as low as it is set to go.
Does that mean you should do that? No. Is MFP to blame? No....no more than a calculator is to blame when you get the answer wrong on a math test.
The reason that it is most likely bad for you is that it is extremely difficult to get the nutrition you need from so few calories unless you are very strict in your diet.
Are you currently getting enough iron? Enough calcium? Are you tracking that at all?0 -
Well for starters I'm pretty sure your eating more than 1200 anyway. You have logged things like a Fillet of salmon. how big heavy was that salmon what size was it? Also you've logged a Plate of some chicken dish, Not sure when a plate was an accurate measurement or a Chicken fillet. Not all chickens are the same size. I could go on looking through your diary there are many inaccuracies Have a look at the link that will help you be more accurate but I would bet anything on you eating nearer 1500 calories in realitySorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
As for the rest Aaron summed it up well enough. MFP is a calculator that's it.0 -
Micro nutrients is very important.
Aaron already said the answer.0 -
Sorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
MFP doesn't "suggest" anything anymore than your pocket calculator "suggests" an answer to a math problem. They are both tools that you use to derive an answer based on what YOU input. They have no brain, they don't give advise.
If you tell MFP that you want to lose 2 pounds a week and that you are sedentary and weigh 150 pounds as a 5' tall woman for example it is going to crunch the numbers and find a number that is lower than 1200 (because that is the answer) and it is going to spit back 1200 because 1200 is as low as it is set to go.
Does that mean you should do that? No. Is MFP to blame? No....no more than a calculator is to blame when you get the answer wrong on a math test.
The reason that it is most likely bad for you is that it is extremely difficult to get the nutrition you need from so few calories unless you are very strict in your diet.
Are you currently getting enough iron? Enough calcium? Are you tracking that at all?
^That.
MFP is simply a tool that assigns a calorie goal based on the information you give it. As mentioned above, 1200 calories a day is usually considered the minimum for women because below that number, it becomes much more difficult to give your body the nutrition it needs to stay healthy.
Many people who sign up for MFP end up inputting very aggressive weight loss goals because they want to lose weight quickly. MFP will give you a calorie goal based on those goals, even though those goals and that calorie number may not be appropriate for your current size or activity level. If you want to learn to fuel your body appropriately, you have to learn the basic math and science behind how weight loss/gain/maintenance works and apply those fundamentals to yourself on a more specific level.0 -
152 cm. is around 5' tall, so you might be fine at 1200. While I agree with others on this thread that you have to be more accurate in tracking (get a food scale and use measuring cups for liquids), many smaller women who are less active do fine with that number of calories. The concern is that most people aren't that small, and on this site, you'll find young women (usually under 25) who are 5'5" and burning 500 calories or more in exercise and eating that little to lose the last 5 "vanity pounds." I'm 5'1.5" and managing at 1200, but I do "eat back" my exercise calories. If you were to exercise a lot, eating only 1200 could put you at less safe deficit; for example, today I burned 439 calories in zumba, so if I didn't "eat back" some of that, my actual "net" calories would be 761, which would be an unsafe level. To be on the safe side try to net at least above 1000 every day.0
-
MFP enforces you EAT those calories back. Eating 1200 calories and working out to burn 1000 calories only gives your body 200 calories of energy from food. This isn't bad if you are very overweight or obese as your body will turn to excess fat. If you are only 10-20lbs overweight you will be loosing muscle at higher rate. You'd have to be an idiot to recommend 1200 calories with exercise.
It's either you stick to the deficit, eat back your deficit or eat more.0 -
152 cm. is around 5' tall, so you might be fine at 1200. While I agree with others on this thread that you have to be more accurate in tracking (get a food scale and use measuring cups for liquids), many smaller women who are less active do fine with that number of calories. The concern is that most people aren't that small, and on this site, you'll find young women (usually under 25) who are 5'5" and burning 500 calories or more in exercise and eating that little to lose the last 5 "vanity pounds." I'm 5'1.5" and managing at 1200, but I do "eat back" my exercise calories. If you were to exercise a lot, eating only 1200 could put you at less safe deficit; for example, today I burned 439 calories in zumba, so if I didn't "eat back" some of that, my actual "net" calories would be 761, which would be an unsafe level. To be on the safe side try to net at least above 1000 every day.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
A 5' tall 150 pound 25 year old woman has a BMR of 1450. That means even sedentary a TDEE of about 1800. 1200 calories is very agressive even at 5' tall and sedentary.
For 1200 to be reasonable you have to be fairly obese 5' tall and in your 60s I think. Other than that you are probably trying to lose too quickly and not taking into account your bodies dietary needs with regards to micronutrients.
Am I saying its impossible to eat 1200 calories, lose weight, retain your muscle and get all your micros? No, not totally impossible if you are 5' tall....but very very difficult.0 -
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
Didn't you know? EVERYONE on here besides you is a registered dietitian and/or doctor.
Also, I think MFP will drop down only to 1200 in their formula due to legal regulations surrounding commercial weightloss and nutrition company advertising. That way anyone can put in whatever insane aggressive goals they want and boom: 1200 cals.0 -
I agree with what Rosebette said (for the most part). I am 5'2", 53 years old and was 116 pounds when I started. I put in my loss at .5 per week and MFP came back with 1200 (or I set it manually to 1200). So 1200 isn't "always" too low. I also see posts that women should have 2000 calories a day. I would gain everything back if I did that.
Make sure you log everything and eat a well balanced meal. If you feel weak, get headaches or just don't feel good at 1200, don't do it. You won't be able to stick with it. SLOW is the best way for lasting results.
Now for the part about "eating back" calories. Almost everyone will say eat back 50% or so since MFP calorie burn estimates are off by at least that. I did not eat back calories and I was fine (again, consider my height and weight). I would eat more though if I was feeling really hungry.
Edited because you are a lot younger than me, you could do more than 1200.0 -
I agree with what Rosebette said (for the most part). I am 5'2", 53 years old and was 116 pounds when I started. I put in my loss at .5 per week and MFP came back with 1200 (or I set it manually to 1200). So 1200 isn't "always" too low. I also see posts that women should have 2000 calories a day. I would gain everything back if I did that.
Make sure you log everything and eat a well balanced meal. If you feel weak, get headaches or just don't feel good at 1200, don't do it. You won't be able to stick with it. SLOW is the best way for lasting results.
Now for the part about "eating back" calories. Almost everyone will say eat back 50% or so since MFP calorie burn estimates are off by at least that. I did not eat back calories and I was fine (again, consider my height and weight). I would eat more though if I was feeling really hungry.
Edited because you are a lot younger than me, you could do more than 1200.
No it isn't "always" to low, but it is too low 95% of the time and you would be shocked at how many 20 year olds are eating 1200 calories on here because MFP "told them" to.
Personally I think 1200 calories is a pretty extreme diet for a 20 year old and I'd never advise it.0 -
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
A 5' tall 150 pound 25 year old woman has a BMR of 1450. That means even sedentary a TDEE of about 1800. 1200 calories is very agressive even at 5' tall and sedentary.
For 1200 to be reasonable you have to be fairly obese 5' tall and in your 60s I think. Other than that you are probably trying to lose too quickly and not taking into account your bodies dietary needs with regards to micronutrients.
Am I saying its impossible to eat 1200 calories, lose weight, retain your muscle and get all your micros? No, not totally impossible if you are 5' tall....but very very difficult.
As you know, the BMR calculators are just an estimate, and vary quite a bit. Your number looks like the Harris-Benedict formula, but at my estimated body fat level (which is probably not too different from the OP's, as I'm 5'3, 155), the Mifflin-St Jeor is a better bet, and puts her at 1348. Increase the body fat some (which is entirely possible, but I think M-SJ is likely to be pretty good) and use Katch-McArdle, and it could be down at 1250 or so. So I'd hate to tell her that she MUST have a BMR of 1450. We don't really know.
Beyond that, what matters, of course, is deficit from TDEE. If she works out about 3 days a week, the numbers go from 1725 to 2025, with M-SJ in the middle (but closer to the lower end) at 1825. If we change that to 5 days a week, the numbers range from 1825 to 2150, with M-SJ at 1975. So a fair estimate for one pound a week would be 1325 or so if she works out 3 days a week and 1475 if she works out 5 days a week.
Either of those is quite consistent with a 1200 net number, which is what MFP is giving her.
And, yes, lots of 20 year olds with little to lose use MFP wrong, and there seems to be an epidemic lately of people who think it makes you tougher or more virtuous not to eat back any exercise.1 -
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
Didn't you know? EVERYONE on here besides you is a registered dietitian and/or doctor.
Also, I think MFP will drop down only to 1200 in their formula due to legal regulations surrounding commercial weightloss and nutrition company advertising. That way anyone can put in whatever insane aggressive goals they want and boom: 1200 cals.
^^ This explains the know-it-alls in just about every thread on the boards...
OP: if 1200 works for you then don't let these PhD's tell you differently0 -
Sorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
MFP doesn't "suggest" anything anymore than your pocket calculator "suggests" an answer to a math problem. They are both tools that you use to derive an answer based on what YOU input. They have no brain, they don't give advice.
If you tell MFP that you want to lose 2 pounds a week and that you are sedentary and weigh 150 pounds as a 5' tall woman for example it is going to crunch the numbers and find a number that is lower than 1200 (because that is the answer) and it is going to spit back 1200 because 1200 is as low as it is set to go.
Does that mean you should do that? No. Is MFP to blame? No....no more than a calculator is to blame when you get the answer wrong on a math test.
The reason that it is most likely bad for you is that it is extremely difficult to get the nutrition you need from so few calories unless you are very strict in your diet.
Are you currently getting enough iron? Enough calcium? Are you tracking that at all?
Best response ever.0 -
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
Didn't you know? EVERYONE on here besides you is a registered dietitian and/or doctor.
Also, I think MFP will drop down only to 1200 in their formula due to legal regulations surrounding commercial weightloss and nutrition company advertising. That way anyone can put in whatever insane aggressive goals they want and boom: 1200 cals.
^^ This explains the know-it-alls in just about every thread on the boards...
OP: if 1200 works for you then don't let these PhD's tell you differently
And don't let the other PhD's confirm what might be unhealthy for you.
That road... it goes both ways.0 -
I guess MFP is encouraging eating disorders now huh?0
-
There is nothing wrong with eating 1200 cals, you're just going to lose more muscle than if you had a smaller deficit.
Meaning you will just be smaller and fatter.
This sites forums are worse than miley cyrus0 -
I guess MFP is encouraging eating disorders now huh?
No, but it's not really discouraging them either.
That's down to a community of people trying to put the right information out there so that people don't have to endanger their health unnecessarily.0 -
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
Didn't you know? EVERYONE on here besides you is a registered dietitian and/or doctor.
Also, I think MFP will drop down only to 1200 in their formula due to legal regulations surrounding commercial weightloss and nutrition company advertising. That way anyone can put in whatever insane aggressive goals they want and boom: 1200 cals.
^^ This explains the know-it-alls in just about every thread on the boards...
OP: if 1200 works for you then don't let these PhD's tell you differently
And don't let the other PhD's confirm what might be unhealthy for you.
That road... it goes both ways.
True true. At the end of the day you are responsible for your own health so find what works for you and if you want to reach out to others for help, make sure the source is reputable.0 -
There is nothing wrong with eating 1200 cals, you're just going to lose more muscle than if you had a smaller deficit.
^ That's what I meant to say.
My apologies for being snarky.0 -
MFP absolutely does suggest an intake level. It has been programmed by people (with brains) who chose 1200 as the floor value. They chose that number for a reason, it wasn't random.Sorry but.....if 1200 calories is 'not enough/too few calories/starvation mode' then why does MFP suggest that low?
I'm 152cm, 149.8lb and wanting to loose 35lbs possibly by the end of the year. MFP has always suggested I eat 1200 calories.
Why is everyone saying that's so bad for you if MFP it's self is suggesting it?
I'm confused.
I'm eating 1200 calories and I feel satisfied. I don't know what the deal is.
MFP doesn't "suggest" anything anymore than your pocket calculator "suggests" an answer to a math problem. They are both tools that you use to derive an answer based on what YOU input. They have no brain, they don't give advice.0 -
OP, good question. I've been wondering the same thing.
Presumably this program is meant for the "average joe" who is not a nutritionist and doesn't start out understanding how this all works. When I joined, I assumed it was a simple process: enter your stats, your goal, and it tells me how many calories I need to eat to meet my goal. It spat out 1,200 cals for me too. Apparently that's bad.
Although I did lose my first 23lbs on 1,200 cals, now that I'm getting closer to my goal and becoming more active, I had to listen to my body and up my cals to 1,400.
There are a lot of opinions on here about the 1,200 calorie crew, most of it bad. For me, it worked to get me jump-started on a healthier path. I think the bottom line is to pay close attention to your body - if you are feeling lethargic and hangry, up your calories.0 -
Starving people lose weight. Sometimes they lose so much weight that they die. Starving is an effective way to lose weight, no doubt about it.
1200 calories a day will not make you lose less than 1400, if everything else is equal. It will make you lose more.
Starving is unhealthy and will have adverse effects on your body. It's not advisable and unless you're mentally ill (or emotionally determined, like Ghandi or something), you wouldn't be able to keep it up for long.
If eating 1400 calories a day makes you feel strong and 1200 makes you hungry and less strong, eat the 1400 calories. The 200 calorie difference just isn't that big and won't make a tremendous difference either way.
If 1200 keeps you strong and feeling good and the doctor is on board, go with it. These numbers weren't custom-tailored to individuals. They're guidelines. People get so bogged down in math, charts and magic numbers that they tend to forget it's all just details. Eat less, exercise more.
This magical 1200 number...I don't know why it gets so much focus. It's not a big deal. IMO.0 -
Just curious where the common sense is?? You aren't told to wipe when you go to the bathroom, you just do so. Obviously if 1200 calories are too low, EAT MORE!0
-
If I only ate 1200 Calories per day, I wouldn't stick with it. That is WAY too low for me. I'm 5'2" and currently at 174.7 lbs. I have a semi-active job, half desk and half active on my feet. I put my activity level as lightly active and my goal as 1 lb. per week. It still put my calories below what I needed not to starve, so I upped my calorie goal manually based on TDEE calculator, subtracting 20% for weight loss, and arrived at 1675. I also eat back my calories when I exercise. I've been losing weight slowly and steadily, but I'll take it! I wouldn't stick with it otherwise.0
-
This magical 1200 number...I don't know why it gets so much focus. It's not a big deal. IMO.
It's basically 50g of fat and 100g of each of carbs and protein. If you eat that, you are at least ensuring something resembling not-unreasonable macro intake for the vast majority of people.
If you are super focused and appropriately sized, you can do it in less. But that takes real dedication.
So, yes, it is a bit arbitrary, but there is a logical basis to it. And it makes sense, right up to the point people forget that it is a *guideline*, not a commandment.0 -
Just curious where the common sense is?? You aren't told to wipe when you go to the bathroom, you just do so. Obviously if 1200 calories are too low, EAT MORE!
Well actually....you do indeed have to teach a child how to wipe their bum properly, no? That doesn't mean they're stupid, it just means they need to be educated. Same thing here. We aren't all experts off the bat, we're just seeking education. Those of us who are desperate to lose weight figure that the lower the calories, the better/ fast the weight loss. We just don't know better because we haven't yet learned. Hence these message boards where we can (hopefully) ask questions without fear of being made to feel stupid.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein0 -
I follow the 1200 calorie suggestion but often I get super full around 900-1200 so it's different for everyone. It's only for sedentary but if you are more active should be adjusted.0
-
laughs ^ that's pretty good. I was actually talking about the adults (adult site), seems everyone is arguing over 1200 calories. My point was use common sense, if you're hungry, EAT.Just curious where the common sense is?? You aren't told to wipe when you go to the bathroom, you just do so. Obviously if 1200 calories are too low, EAT MORE!
Well actually....you do indeed have to teach a child how to wipe their bum properly, no?0 -
This guy has a masters in exercise physiology and teaches it.This magical 1200 number...I don't know why it gets so much focus. It's not a big deal. IMO.
It's basically 50g of fat and 100g of each of carbs and protein. If you eat that, you are at least ensuring something resembling not-unreasonable macro intake for the vast majority of people.
If you are super focused and appropriately sized, you can do it in less. But that takes real dedication.
So, yes, it is a bit arbitrary, but there is a logical basis to it. And it makes sense, right up to the point people forget that it is a *guideline*, not a commandment.
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/
Fallacy #2: 1200 calories is the minimum you should eat in a day
"I don’t know where this number comes from and I will be spending some time in the near future looking it up. However based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats."0 -
I follow the 1200 calorie suggestion but often I get super full around 900-1200 so it's different for everyone. It's only for sedentary but if you are more active should be adjusted.
^Horrible advice and against MFP guidelines to promote VLCD (very low calorie diets). As if "being full" determines adequate nutrition in any shape or form.
OP - ask yourself this....do you want the "number" on the scale as quickly as possible....or do you actually want to like the way you look naked? The difference between these 2 things is how you go about losing weight.
Really aggressive weight loss = fat+muscle loss. Great for the scale. But, this leads to a smaller (still jiggly) version of the current you. I don't want to be puffy and jiggly....so I choose a moderate approach.0
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