eating full 1200 cal??
kaatiee92
Posts: 132
I had a message come up on my diary last night that i eat too few calories and about body going into starvation mode etc..
i know all about this but i was only 49 cal under my 1200. Will this really make a difference? Do i really need to eat the 1200?
thanks in advance
Katie
i know all about this but i was only 49 cal under my 1200. Will this really make a difference? Do i really need to eat the 1200?
thanks in advance
Katie
0
Replies
-
The 1200 is a minimum if you are lying in bed all day in a coma, you should be eating that plus your exercise
(And there's no such thing as starvation mode, if you eat less than you burn you'll lose weight)0 -
So i need to eat more then 1200:s0
-
You eat 1200 minimum NET...eg once accounted for exercise...if you use MFP excercise or fitness machines then eat back 50-75%0
-
1200 is suitable for some people - generally older, shorter,sedentary women.
if this is not you, then yes, you probably need to eat more.
Having said that, 43 calories under goal is nothing to worry about.0 -
I am only 5'3?
so if there is no such thing as starvation mode, why if we eat less calories we don't lose weight?
so confused lol0 -
Not hitting 1200 one day isn't going to hurt you anymore than not eating breakfast one day.
If you eat less you do lose weight but MFP encourages you to eat at least 1200 so you get adequate nutrients (fat, protein, fiber, vitamins, etc.) And because they don't want the app to be a tool for people with eating disorders.0 -
1200 is not a magic number. I go over and under all the time.
Some lawyer must've told the MFP people that it's okay to encourage obese people to have cheat days, but not okay to allow anyone to undereat, so their system yells at anyone who under eats, even for a day, even if they overeat the rest of the week, even if their doctor told them to do it. Overeating, never a problem.
It's just a computer spitting out a message that may or may not help them, legally.
It was annoying at first, but I pay it no mind.0 -
so if there is no such thing as starvation mode, why if we eat less calories we don't lose weight?
But you do, though.0 -
How much do you weigh? THis is more important than your height for determining energy needs. Chances are 1200net is a bit too low unless you are also quite slim.
Based on this calculator, at your age and height, and assuming 9 hours of sleeping/reclining and 1 hour of standing/walking (although you probably do more than that - I timed myself today, which is a lazy day, and I've clocked in 3 hours of standing and walking just from cooking and walking around the house a bit), then 1200 net would be appropriate if you weighed 100lbs to lose 1lb/week.
100 pounds.
http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced
I highly doubt you are 100lbs, as I don't see anyone wanting to be 50lbs lol.
Let's say you're 150, which I'm estimating as your lowest possible weight based on your weight loss goals. In this case 1600 net is more than enough to help you lose 1lb/week, which is what will be a sustainable rate of loss. 2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
ETA: net means you log and eat back exercise cals. So if you net 1600 and burn ~200 cals from exercise then you'd eat 1800 for the day. Some do 50% of the exercise cals, I do 75-100%.0 -
2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.0 -
if I eat under 1200 but still feel good (not hungry or weak) then I drink some V8 or wine hahaha0
-
1200 is not a magic number. I go over and under all the time.
Some lawyer must've told the MFP people that it's okay to encourage obese people to have cheat days, but not okay to allow anyone to undereat, so their system yells at anyone who under eats, even for a day, even if they overeat the rest of the week, even if their doctor told them to do it. Overeating, never a problem.
It's just a computer spitting out a message that may or may not help them, legally.
It was annoying at first, but I pay it no mind.
well put froggy friend0 -
if you feel okay at the end of the day than that's all that matters. some days I go under 1200 some days I go 1600! it depends how weak I feel haha. I did go on a 1,000 calorie diet once (doctor told me to) , I was 5'9" and 190ish pounds. I lost weight but I was a lot more weak even with daily strength workouts (gym twice a day 7 days a week) that was bad, but I also have friends that are 5'2"-5'4" who have a hard time eating that many calories.0
-
MFP is quite notorious for setting calorie goals FAR too low, regardless of height and weight. For example, it told me to eat 1200, and my BMR (the bare amount of calories I need to LIVE) is 1280. And I am extremely tiny, only 5 feet. So unless you are smaller than me, or bedridden, it is almost a CERTAINTY that you are eating too little. (This can result in lean muscle loss, chronic fatigue, metabolism damage, and bingeing due to over-restriction.)
Go to
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
and enter your height/weight/activity level.
Subtract 10-20% from the number it calculates for you, and that is the number of calories you should be eating a day in order to lose weight. With this method you do not eat back your exercise calories, as they are already figured into your daily goal.0 -
If you haven't had it happen yet, you will probably find that as you lose, it gets harder and takes longer. The less of you there is, the harder it gets.2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.
Losing 3 pounds/week at 250 was way easier for me than losing 2 pounds/week at 180. I don't even lose 2 every week now. I'm sure I won't when I get to 150.0 -
I am only 5'3?
so if there is no such thing as starvation mode, why if we eat less calories we don't lose weight?
so confused lol
5 ft 3 in is on the shorter side, but is not very short.
Also you are 22, not post menopausal age and you have 2 preschool children so I highly doubt you are sedentary.
So, yes,I think your daily goal should be more than 1200.0 -
Oh gosh this is all so confusing!
thankyou all for your advice though i will try and understand it as much as possible lol
i weigh 12 stone / 5'3 / 22 don't drive so have to push a bus sized double pushchair with a baby and toddler everywhere.
live in the countryside full of hills so just walking to the shop is a good work out lol.
but i also horse ride, run and go to the gym as much as poss (not as much as id like as no baby sitter)
i am struggling to eat the full 1200 cals in not used to eating this much food! And iv gone from 10 and a half stone to 12 stone ??
exercise not helping with weight loss at all if anything making me bulkier!
surely eating more food then i have been will make me gain weight?0 -
1200 is not a magic number. I go over and under all the time.
Some lawyer must've told the MFP people that it's okay to encourage obese people to have cheat days, but not okay to allow anyone to undereat, so their system yells at anyone who under eats, even for a day, even if they overeat the rest of the week, even if their doctor told them to do it. Overeating, never a problem.
It's just a computer spitting out a message that may or may not help them, legally.
It was annoying at first, but I pay it no mind.
This ^^^0 -
Oh gosh this is all so confusing!
thankyou all for your advice though i will try and understand it as much as possible lol
i weigh 12 stone / 5'3 / 22 don't drive so have to push a bus sized double pushchair with a baby and toddler everywhere.
live in the countryside full of hills so just walking to the shop is a good work out lol.
but i also horse ride, run and go to the gym as much as poss (not as much as id like as no baby sitter)
i am struggling to eat the full 1200 cals in not used to eating this much food! And iv gone from 10 and a half stone to 12 stone ??
exercise not helping with weight loss at all if anything making me bulkier!
surely eating more food then i have been will make me gain weight?
its impossible for you to have gained 2 stone eating 1200 cals unless you have some serious medical issues going on... i'd get to the doctor asap if i was you.0 -
2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.
Hi there! I'm a firm believer in fact as well. 2lbs per week is unsustainable for most people because that means cutting 1000 calories below their TDEE. When you're getting close to a healthy weight range, the reality is that most people don't have 1000 calories that they can cut while still getting the basic nutrition their bodies need, which leads to developing unhealthy relationships with foods (such as binging and purging). What also makes it unsustainable is that food is no longer something that as humans we perceive as only meant to keep us alive -- it's also for enjoyment, part of most social gatherings, and so on. When people cut so drastically (1000 cals really is drastic) and attempt to return to maintenance eating once their goals are reached, they haven't developed a relationship with food that allows them to accurately maintain their weight meaning that they often begin to consume too much again, and the process re-starts. There are several studies that show that those who lose weight over an extended period of time have a (marginally) better chances of keeping themselves in a healthy weight range permanently and are typically in better overall health.
Don't believe the internet strangers? Head to your local library (especially if you have a university near-by) or use google-scholar. I'd like to send you links to some particular studies, but without paying for them you won't have access to them -- unfortunate reality of scholarly material, even in the internet age. Scholarly journals like Population Health Management and American Journal of Nursing would be good jumping off points.0 -
2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.
I think the reason that slow weight loss is generally considered good advice is that "changing lifestyle" on a permanent basis is really what is required for weight loss and, more importantly, for maintaining that weight loss, over time.
If you look at the real world statistics of weight loss, 80% of all people who go on a diet and lose weight, put it back on again - within 2 years! Sad, but true.
So, if you are losing 2 pounds per week, chances are you had to really alter your lifestyle and slash your calories, doing something "fairly drastic" in order to do this. Sustaining those types of lifestyle changes, long term, is very difficult. So, many people sort of starve themselves for what is a relatively short period of time. They reach their goal and think "Oh, I'm done! I did it". And then they go right back to the way that they used to live. The result? - the weight comes back on again, and often they end up heavier than when they first started.
That said, if a person has a lot of weight to lose, it is totally reasonable that they begin with a program to lose 2 pounds per week, but then, as their weight comes down, change that program to 1 pound per week, and finally 1/2 a pound per week for the last 5-10 pounds. So, the appropriate "healthy" rate of weight loss depends on what a person's weight actually is and how much they need to lose.
Fast weight loss is often "associated" with short-term mind-sets that see the whole process as a "temporary" measure within a person's life. eg. "I want to lose 25 pounds by Christmas holiday". Whereas, real health and well being strategies, which include maintaining a normal and reasonable weight, is a lifelong and daily task where good nutrition, in proper amounts, adequate physical activity, adequate sleep all play a roll in each and every age and stage of life. eg. "I'm going to start to live a bit better, eating more veggies and fruits, trimming my calorie count by a few hundred a day, and riding my bike to work every day instead of taking the bus". This second plan, if implemented, represents a permanent change in a person's lifestyle that will also yield a reduction on the scale and increased health and well being. It does stand more chance of success because right from the get-go it represents a realistic view of what is actually required - permanent change.
So, you are right, in my mind, there is nothing specifically that says 2 pound weight lose per week is a bad thing, in the appropriate circumstances (usually when a large amount of weight needs to be lost) but it is often coupled with a less successful attitude or mistaken belief that once x amount of pounds is lost - the battle is won, the finish line crossed - and nothing could be further from the truth with respect to long term good, positive, healthy eating and activity habits.
** Also note, however, that rapid weight loss, especially with large amounts of weight, does not give a person's skin very much time to adapt to the changes, and this, in itself, can be a bit problematic.0 -
2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.
There is also another very real reason to consider slow weight loss as a more favorable approach to fast weight loss.
Calorie deficit situations and weight loss involve both a loss of fat in the body and a loss of muscle as well.
If a person drops a lot of weight very quickly, because of a very large calorie deficit, they are also very likely losing quite a bit of muscle, along with fat.
This isn't a good thing at all. Muscle, at rest, burns more than fat. And you want to preserve your muscle as much as possible, during the weight loss process.
So, the person who has approached weight loss more slowly, with a smaller calorie deficit and good activity has preserved more muscle is going to burn more calories just at rest. This person stands a better chance of maintaining their goal weight over time.0 -
1200 is not a magic number. I go over and under all the time.
Some lawyer must've told the MFP people that it's okay to encourage obese people to have cheat days, but not okay to allow anyone to undereat, so their system yells at anyone who under eats, even for a day, even if they overeat the rest of the week, even if their doctor told them to do it. Overeating, never a problem.
It's just a computer spitting out a message that may or may not help them, legally.
It was annoying at first, but I pay it no mind.
I don't see anywhere on the MFP website where they (the creators and owners of the site) are encouraging people to have cheat days or overeat for physical health reasons. The numbers go into the red to let the person know they have overeaten, and when they close out their diary they get the "if you ate like this everyday, in five weeks you would weigh X" message, which tells them that continuing to overeat results in weight gain. It's not like the people who are undereating are being singled out. I personally like that those messages are in place, especially the undereating one. Overeating isn't good and leads to a host of health issues, but undereating also leads to health issues and those health issues show up a lot sooner and can take longer to reverse.
Also, if you are going over or under 1200 calories as part of IF, calorie cycling, or zigzag calories, that's really not the same as someone who is consistently under 1200 calories, because you are on a specific plan in which you are ensuring your body is getting enough calories over the week. Saying it's no big deal without specifying the difference between eating styles and consistently undereating is dangerous imo.0 -
I've been collecting links in my profile about this. Most (well, so far, all) say the opposite-- that there is nothing wrong with 1200, including for maintenance. I'd like to include your links that say otherwise. Google Scholar links are fine, people can read the abstract. I can read the full articles free.2lb/week usually isn't sustainable for most people.
I'm curious about this statement. Do you base it on something proven? I've yet to hear any proof that losing weight at a snail's pace, versus faster, has any effect whatsoever on sustainability. Yet I see people on these boards saying it all the time as if it's a proven fact.....among other things.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I just read so many things here that people say, with no basis.
Hi there! I'm a firm believer in fact as well. 2lbs per week is unsustainable for most people because that means cutting 1000 calories below their TDEE. When you're getting close to a healthy weight range, the reality is that most people don't have 1000 calories that they can cut while still getting the basic nutrition their bodies need, which leads to developing unhealthy relationships with foods (such as binging and purging). What also makes it unsustainable is that food is no longer something that as humans we perceive as only meant to keep us alive -- it's also for enjoyment, part of most social gatherings, and so on. When people cut so drastically (1000 cals really is drastic) and attempt to return to maintenance eating once their goals are reached, they haven't developed a relationship with food that allows them to accurately maintain their weight meaning that they often begin to consume too much again, and the process re-starts. There are several studies that show that those who lose weight over an extended period of time have a (marginally) better chances of keeping themselves in a healthy weight range permanently and are typically in better overall health.
Don't believe the internet strangers? Head to your local library (especially if you have a university near-by) or use google-scholar. I'd like to send you links to some particular studies, but without paying for them you won't have access to them -- unfortunate reality of scholarly material, even in the internet age. Scholarly journals like Population Health Management and American Journal of Nursing would be good jumping off points.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions