Eating a minimum of 1200 calories a day?

Options
csengineer13
csengineer13 Posts: 3
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi! I have been reading that one must eat at least 1,200 calories a day to prevent your body from kicking in to "Survival Mode" and actually stunting your weight loss. Does this mean one needs to eat 1,200 calories a day, or after exercise, have a net intake of at least 1,200 calories a day?

Or, if it's much more complicated than that, can someone please elaborate and tell me what I need to know? If it helps, I'm a 195 pound, 5'7" male trying to average 2 pounds of weight loss per week.

Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.

    Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.

    Using a TDEE calculator:

    Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
    TDEE - 2214
    20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)

    1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
    TDEE - 2537
    20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)

    And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.

    In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    You should theoretically be netting (after exercise) 1200 calories. As a 5'7" male, you should probably be eating more. At 195 pounds, you aren't going to be able to maintain a 2 pound per week loss for every long; you just don't have that much to lose. I think you'd be happier in the long run going for 1 pound per week.
  • csengineer13
    csengineer13 Posts: 3
    Options
    Hmm... That is interesting. I have been achieving a "net calorie" amount of ~1200 a day with 15 to 45 minutes of exercise a day (jogging and rock climbing). In general, I don't ever feel all that hungry -- I track calories to the "T" using scales, and burned calories using a ForeRunner 220 watch, so my results should be fairly accurate.

    I am trying to get back down to my old weight of 155, but it does sound like I need to be netting a few more calories to be healthy. I just want a solid "Net" number to aim for so I can maximize loss while remaining healthy.

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    How long ago was that "old weight of 155"?
  • leonamuni
    leonamuni Posts: 24
    Options
    Here's a really good article about starvation mode I found, I seriously reccommend reading it
    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
    Good luck!
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,575 Member
    Options
    shadow2soul wrote: »
    1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.

    Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.

    Using a TDEE calculator:

    Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
    TDEE - 2214
    20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)

    1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
    TDEE - 2537
    20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)

    And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.

    In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).

    I'm the same height. I never would be able to lose a pound a week at 1920. Jealous.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    arditarose wrote: »
    shadow2soul wrote: »
    1200 is typically the minimum for a woman to get adequate nutrition. Not getting adequate nutrition has a lot of nasty side effects.

    Being 5'7, male and 195, you should eat more and 2lbs per week loss is probably to aggressive for you.

    Using a TDEE calculator:

    Little to no exercise with desk job (approx sedentary)
    TDEE - 2214
    20% deficit - 1771 (estimated 0.9lbs per week loss)

    1-3hrs of light exercise per week (approx lightly active)
    TDEE - 2537
    20% deficit - 2030 (estimated 1lb per week loss)

    And the more you increase the activity the more calories your able to eat.

    In comparison, I'm 5'4.5" (female) around 174lbs and averaging 1920 calories a day. I'm losing approx 1lb per week. For my activity level I could possibly get close to 2lbs per week if I ate in the 1400-1500 calorie range, but I wouldn't have the energy to fuel my workouts (I tried it...not worth feeling like I was a zombie).

    I'm the same height. I never would be able to lose a pound a week at 1920. Jealous.

    I'm currently working out for a little over 6hrs a week (90 day dvd program) and I try to hit 10,000 steps a day. Fitbit estimates that my average TDEE for the last 30 days was 2488. Based on a few calculators I've found, when I get to my goal I should maintain on about what I'm eating now. Taking that into account and the fact that I'm still 40lbs away, I'm sure my weight loss will slow down as my weight goes down.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    Whats the hurry?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    OP - for comparison I am a 5-11 35 year old male and 175# ..I maintain at around 2500 calories a day and gain at around 2800 calories a day, and lose at around 2000 to 2100 calories a day …

    You could easily eat at around say 1700 a day and you would still lose about a pound per week ...
  • Edie30
    Edie30 Posts: 216
    Options
    Hi I'm a bit confused with all this but I'm getting lists of answers here so that's good. I weigh 77 kilos and am 167 cm tall. I do strength training twice a week with my trainer and run about 4 times a week for 30 mins. I have a heart rate monitor so realise I can now log the calories manually and accurately. My base calories are 1200... Does that sound right? And then of course the app adds my excersise calories. So I presume I should eat those too right? Or not? There seems to be differing opinions. I'm in no rush to lose 12 kg quickly. I've lost 32 kg in the last 18 months so slow and steady is good for me but I would like to lose 500 g a week I guess... Any thoughts?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,011 Member
    Options
    I am the first to defend 1200 calories for SOME people.

    5 ft 7 in males are not those people.

    Re do your calculations OP - your daily allowance should be higher than that.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,624 Member
    Options
    1200 isn't even enough for 95% of women who decide to eat 1200 calories.

    You are either calculating things wrong or you are not bothering to calculate at all.

    i'm eating at net maintenance rihgt now, which is 2400. I'm 166lbs, female. Student.
  • lisajuliette
    lisajuliette Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….

    That's assuming the 1000 burned is correct. I keep hearing people say that the Compendium of Physical Activity is overly optimistic with how many calories people are burning. And even if it is correct, 1000 calories burned would likely take more than an hour or even two hours of activity for a 184lb woman.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….

    That's assuming the 1000 burned is correct. I keep hearing people say that the Compendium of Physical Activity is overly optimistic with how many calories people are burning. And even if it is correct, 1000 calories burned would likely take more than an hour or even two hours of activity for a 184lb woman.

    Yes, but all we have to go off of is the 1000 the poster provided. Fine.....

    Poster actually burns 500 so they are netting 700 calories. That is still wrong and should be 1900-700 = 1200 net.

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
    Every deficit involves metabolic adaptation. It goes away when you stop deficit eating. You will not stop losing at 1200 due to metabolic adaptation. We're not that adaptable.

    I'd be more concerned with trying to burn 1000/day in exercise.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….
    Every deficit involves metabolic adaptation. It goes away when you stop deficit eating. You will not stop losing at 1200 due to metabolic adaptation. We're not that adaptable.

    I'd be more concerned with trying to burn 1000/day in exercise.

    I was basing my statement on netting 200 calories a day ....
  • moslimsdown
    moslimsdown Posts: 3
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lisajuliette wrote: »
    This also confuses me a lot too. I'm 5'45" and 186lbs I think (166cm and 84kgs) I'm eating around 1200kcal a day and my goal is to burn 1000kcal from exercise everyday. I feel full and have enough energy with 1200kcal a day although Im sure its a bit higher than that. Most of my food I scan the barcode on the product or put in the data from it manually. But certain things dont have all the nutritional info and I do a search on the MFP database and I think they could be wrong. I dont want eating too little to affect my weightloss. Am I doing this right? Haha

    so you net 200 calories a day….1200 eaten - 1000 burned = 200 net???

    if that is what you are doing, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

    Eventually you are going to have metabolic adaptation and will not lose at "1200" and then you will have to reverse diet or something to fix your metabolism.

    in the example you gave you should eat 2200 - 1000 burned = 1200 net ….

    Thank you ndj1979!! I've been trying to figure this out. I've been doing it wrong for the past 3 weeks.

Categories