1200 Calories.....the truth.

Options
2

Replies

  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,668 Member
    Options
    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. :wink: 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.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    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!
  • mspianomistress
    mspianomistress Posts: 22
    Options
    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.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,668 Member
    Options
    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 Einstein
  • kiara1066
    kiara1066 Posts: 119 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    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?
    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.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    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.
    This guy has a masters in exercise physiology and teaches it.

    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."
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    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.
  • itsbasschick
    itsbasschick Posts: 1,584 Member
    Options
    i've been eating 1200 net calories since the beginning of may. on days where i don't work out, i eat just under 1200 calories and on days where i work out enough to get hungry early, i eat between 1250 and 1400 calories. i get enough protein (more than enough if you believe MFP), and carbs, i choose to go under on fat. according to my micros and my blood work, i get enough of everything and i've never once gone over my calories so far in over 3 months. and i'm careful to eat enough, as well, hungry or not.

    btw, i find it easier to eat 1200 net per day by eating 5 to 6 small meals per day instead of 3 larger ones - there's not much time between meals to get hungry or want to munch, and it's very flexible. but whether i eat 5 meals or 6, if it fits in my macros and calories, it works for me.
  • HardyGirl4Ever
    HardyGirl4Ever Posts: 1,017 Member
    Options
    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.

    I really like that M-SJ calculator. It says I can eat way more calories than MFP does. :smile:
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    I really like that M-SJ calculator. It says I can eat way more calories than MFP does. :smile:

    If you correct for the differences in the methods, MFP actually gives me more calories (not actually sure why as I thought it used M-SJ--probably has something to do with how you figure NEAT).

    According to MFP, I can maintain my current weight, if sedentary, at 1660 calories.

    The Mifflin-St Jeor formula gives me only 1588 calories to maintain if sedentary.

    If I'm lightly active, I can lose 1 lb/week (according to MFP) at 1350, plus exercise. If I exercise for 5 days at about 500 calories per day, that's an extra 357 calories per day, or about 1700.

    M-SJ says if I'm moderately active (exercise 3-5 days/week) my TDEE is about 2052. So to lose 1 lb/week, I'd have to eat about 1550. Now, If I'm very active it would be more like 1780, and my estimate was on the higher range of lightly active, so if I aim between moderately and very active it looks pretty similar to MFP.

    I imagine this is more than anyone wants to know about my personal TDEE, etc., but I think comparing the ways of figuring it out is interesting (I realize I may be the only one), and this goes back to the point someone made about the reason MFP gives lower numbers quite often is due to the inputs.
  • HardyGirl4Ever
    HardyGirl4Ever Posts: 1,017 Member
    Options

    I imagine this is more than anyone wants to know about my personal TDEE, etc., but I think comparing the ways of figuring it out is interesting (I realize I may be the only one), and this goes back to the point someone made about the reason MFP gives lower numbers quite often is due to the inputs.

    I actually found it very interesting and quite informative. Thank you!! :smile:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I guess MFP is encouraging eating disorders now huh?

    "if you were to eat this way every day you'd weigh xxxx in 5 weeks"

    "Huh, I missed my eating goal by 200 calories, and could lose weight quicker - guess I'll be below my goal on constant basis".

    Is that encouraging or discouraging eating disorders?
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options

    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

    Or even better, don't be a lemming...find out the science behind it all & choose for yourself what is best for your body. Learn about the NEAT vs. TDEE method and then choose for yourself which applies best to you. Numbers vary according to activity level, age, gender etc.
  • jellybeans37
    jellybeans37 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options
    I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

    I'm 5' tall & 45 yrs old. I maintain 126# @ 2000 cal/day. I don't do any purposeful cardio. I lift weights 3 x a week & walk about 3 miles per day (mon-fri).

    I'm not special, as a matter of fact, I'm a T2D. I was also given the magic '1200' cal to lose weight but was starving to distraction when I tried to adhere to that limit.

    I've decided that my goals should be to get stronger & increase muscle mass vs. getting smaller & reducing muscle mass.
  • GatorDeb1
    GatorDeb1 Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

    I'm 5'4", 36, 122 lbs, and at 1500 I still lose weight.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I am nearing 40 at 5'4' and wanting to hover around 130 I can't eat more than around 1200. I also do daily cardo. Some people are so anti 1200 that I actually went to 1400 and what happened? I gained! Now if I was in my 20's or early 30's and did lots of weight work then it might be different. If it is working stick with it and really I have done so much research and the whole "starvation mode" is sort of completely misunderstood by so many.

    You ate 200 calories more on average.

    So it would take you 17 days doing that to slowly gain 1 lb if you think that gain had ANYTHING to do with fat weight.

    Did you know when you start a diet, your first big loss outside possibly watching sodium more, is the fact you store less glycogen in your muscles, and that has attached water. So basically water weight.

    Guess what cardio exercise is asking your body to do, once you feed it enough?
    Store more carbs.
    Guess what can happen overnight?
    Gain more weight than the math for fat would say you even ate in total.
    So good weight, increased LBM, increased metabolism dealing with it.

    Guess what happens usually when you start cardio, and for sure when summer comes around and you do it outside?
    You increase blood volume, with ...... water!

    Now, hopefully no one in their right mind would think it would be useful weight loss to drop by doing some blood letting.
    Apply the same thinking to extra glycogen stores in the muscle, especially when doing workouts just asking for that improvement.

Categories