1200 calories a day
Replies
-
wildcowbell wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »wildcowbell wrote: »I manage to stay under 1200 and not be hungry. Feel free to add me as a friend and take a look at my food diary. My meals are rounded, and I have snacks. You just need to figure out what foods will fill hunger for longer. Snacks through the day probably won't do that.
Can we just establish right now that eating below that level is not a good thing for your body...? I don't care how "rounded" you think you're eating, you're likely not. Giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories is a piss poor idea.
Can we also just establish that you know nothing about my metrics or activity level...and as for 'giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories', you can thank this site for that, not me. So you can tone back the passive aggressiveness. 1200 works for me, and plenty of others.
Furthermore, can we also establish that you know nothing of the OP's metrics or activity level, and saying "I manage to stay under 1200" could potentially give the OP bad ideas.
Just don't.
0 -
Everyone is different. Shape, size, activity level will completely change the amount of calories needed to lose. For someone like me (short, work behind a desk, mother of small child so no gym time) 1200 works perfectly. I'm losing weight steadily, and am not hungry because I fill up on low cal, healthy filling foods. That's the key, OP. Get into good eating habits, track consistently, and you will find what works for you. There are a lot of bigger, taller, people, who have a higher activity level, who simply cannot fathom eating 1200 because their calorie allowance is much higher. If you need another 300 calories a day, then eat another 300 calories a day, as long as you are in a calorie deficit.0
-
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Or, why not get off of 1200 calories and eat at -500 of your TDEE? Unless that is -500 of your TDEE?
Not the OP but this always confuses me... my BMR is 1440 but my TDEE is 1720, so eating -500 under my TDEE would mean I was under my BMR (1220 vs 1440). Which do I go for?
Eat 10 to 20% LESS your TDEE, not a flat calorie amount. 20% of 1720 is only 344 calories.
Also, I wish people would stop with the generalized analysis that 1200 is bad. It may be bad for most but not everyone depending on height, weight, goals, activity level, etc. My TDEE is 1510 so 1200 calories is fine for me... I choose to eat more but if others choose to follow 1200, why be so judgmental?0 -
As long as we're discouraging assumptions, can we quit assuming the OPs are all fragile, dim and so impressionable that one forum post that mentions eating 1199 will give them an eating disorder or malnutrition?IsaackGMOON wrote: »wildcowbell wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »wildcowbell wrote: »I manage to stay under 1200 and not be hungry. Feel free to add me as a friend and take a look at my food diary. My meals are rounded, and I have snacks. You just need to figure out what foods will fill hunger for longer. Snacks through the day probably won't do that.
Can we just establish right now that eating below that level is not a good thing for your body...? I don't care how "rounded" you think you're eating, you're likely not. Giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories is a piss poor idea.
Can we also just establish that you know nothing about my metrics or activity level...and as for 'giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories', you can thank this site for that, not me. So you can tone back the passive aggressiveness. 1200 works for me, and plenty of others.
Furthermore, can we also establish that you know nothing of the OP's metrics or activity level, and saying "I manage to stay under 1200" could potentially give the OP bad ideas.
Just don't.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
As long as we're discouraging assumptions, can we quit assuming the OPs are all fragile, dim and so impressionable that one forum post that mentions eating 1199 will give them an eating disorder or malnutrition?IsaackGMOON wrote: »wildcowbell wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »wildcowbell wrote: »I manage to stay under 1200 and not be hungry. Feel free to add me as a friend and take a look at my food diary. My meals are rounded, and I have snacks. You just need to figure out what foods will fill hunger for longer. Snacks through the day probably won't do that.
Can we just establish right now that eating below that level is not a good thing for your body...? I don't care how "rounded" you think you're eating, you're likely not. Giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories is a piss poor idea.
Can we also just establish that you know nothing about my metrics or activity level...and as for 'giving others advice to eat under 1200 calories', you can thank this site for that, not me. So you can tone back the passive aggressiveness. 1200 works for me, and plenty of others.
Furthermore, can we also establish that you know nothing of the OP's metrics or activity level, and saying "I manage to stay under 1200" could potentially give the OP bad ideas.
Just don't.
God forbid 1199 calories, christ are you insane?!0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Or, why not get off of 1200 calories and eat at -500 of your TDEE? Unless that is -500 of your TDEE?
Not the OP but this always confuses me... my BMR is 1440 but my TDEE is 1720, so eating -500 under my TDEE would mean I was under my BMR (1220 vs 1440). Which do I go for?
It doesn't matter if you are under BMR. I see you don't have that much to lose based on your goal, so lots of people might recommend aiming for .5 lb/week or -10-20% (which as noted would be less than a deficit of 500). I personally find that kind of challenging, as it's tougher to see the losses given fluctuations and all that, so I prefer cutting 500 off my TDEE, but both are valid approaches. (That's not currently under BMR for me, but I was eating under BMR when I first started.) For many 1 lb/week is not realistic as you get close to goal, especially if it's basically a vanity weight goal.
If you are exercising, though, TDEE should be higher than that given your BMR, so you want to make sure you are including the exercise or recalculate if you start exercising.0 -
whitespider360 wrote: »I'm on my 4th day and I still can't reach 1200 calories. I just can't hold that much. My thing tells me to eat more but I just can't. And I have 100+ pounds to lose. I drink like 10-12 glasses of water a day. Friend request are welcome.
Are you being overly restrictive about what you can eat? This sometimes happens initially especially if people cut both carbs and fat a lot and don't really think about what they should be eating instead, other than vegetables (which are great). I think it usually takes care of itself, but the risk is that you get bored and discouraged or burn out, so I think it's best to try and figure out a good diet that you would enjoy with an appropriate number of calories. Looking at your macros and the meals you've been having is a good way to do this.0 -
whitespider360 wrote: »I'm on my 4th day and I still can't reach 1200 calories. I just can't hold that much. My thing tells me to eat more but I just can't. And I have 100+ pounds to lose. I drink like 10-12 glasses of water a day. Friend request are welcome.
Make sure you're not eating too much "Diet" food. Get rid of the low fat/non fat stuff and you'll get to your 1,200 calories pretty quick.0 -
MFP put me at 1240 per day as well. First day was hard then it got easier with meal planning but today, day 5, I felt like complete crap. I'm changing my goal to 1 lb per week to bump up the calories a little. I also read that generally for women 1200 calories should be the lowest intake so it concerned me that I was only consuming 40 more per day.0
-
How did people who struggle to eat 1200 calories a day become overweight to begin with? ?0
-
MaryinColorado wrote: »Thank you for this thread! This is only my 3rd day on 1200 cal. & I'm so hungry I can hardly stand it. I know if I try to go on much longer like this I'm going to completely lose control & go on a binge. Thanks for posting the link to that other calorie calculator, I'm definitely going to check that out!
In other thread, you have a Fitbit that is actually telling you your TDEE each and every day.
No need to guess among 5 levels. Just eat 500 less than you burn.
Which means - sync your accounts, set MFP to 500 cal deficit or 1 lb weekly, eat to your daily goal no matter what it may be.
0 -
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Or, why not get off of 1200 calories and eat at -500 of your TDEE? Unless that is -500 of your TDEE?
Not the OP but this always confuses me... my BMR is 1440 but my TDEE is 1720, so eating -500 under my TDEE would mean I was under my BMR (1220 vs 1440). Which do I go for?
So you are totally sedentary then with that TDEE - no exercise, deskjob/commute for 45 hrs weekly, bump on the log evenings and weekends, no kids no pets, ect?
If that's the case, then MFP set to sedentary and 1 lb weekly loss would have given about the same figure, tad higher actually.
And if that is indeed the case with no exercise and very non-moving - select 1/2 lb weekly with 250 cal deficit - because otherwise you'll be losing a decent amount of your weight as muscle mass - which will make this all much harder next year when you have to do it again. And again, ......0 -
When I started w MFP I too got the 1200 rec I'm 5'11" and was 189 lbs and didn't know any better. It wasn't long before I realized something prob wasn't working for me. I didn't feel starved but was def a little dizzy at times, and just off. I messed w the app and goals and bumped it up to 1650. Now I'm 25lbs lighter and have adjusted my cals down as I've shrunk. I say play w the #'s and give it a good WK or more and see how your body responds.0
-
IsaackGMOON wrote: »Or, why not get off of 1200 calories and eat at -500 of your TDEE? Unless that is -500 of your TDEE?
Not the OP but this always confuses me... my BMR is 1440 but my TDEE is 1720, so eating -500 under my TDEE would mean I was under my BMR (1220 vs 1440). Which do I go for?
So you are totally sedentary then with that TDEE - no exercise, deskjob/commute for 45 hrs weekly, bump on the log evenings and weekends, no kids no pets, ect?
If that's the case, then MFP set to sedentary and 1 lb weekly loss would have given about the same figure, tad higher actually.
And if that is indeed the case with no exercise and very non-moving - select 1/2 lb weekly with 250 cal deficit - because otherwise you'll be losing a decent amount of your weight as muscle mass - which will make this all much harder next year when you have to do it again. And again, ......
Thanks for the replies to those of you that answered my question!
I'm not totally sedentary but I don't exercise consistently enough to add it to my TDEE calculation. I'm scared that if I do that it'll encourage me to overeat on days I don't get a chance to exercise. At the moment I'm eating 1440, walking 10,000 steps and using the exercise bike 45 mins per day, but I don't eat exercise calories back, so it probably is more like 1200. 0 -
So you are totally sedentary then with that TDEE - no exercise, deskjob/commute for 45 hrs weekly, bump on the log evenings and weekends, no kids no pets, ect?
If that's the case, then MFP set to sedentary and 1 lb weekly loss would have given about the same figure, tad higher actually.
And if that is indeed the case with no exercise and very non-moving - select 1/2 lb weekly with 250 cal deficit - because otherwise you'll be losing a decent amount of your weight as muscle mass - which will make this all much harder next year when you have to do it again. And again, ......
Thanks for the replies to those of you that answered my question! I'm not totally sedentary but I don't exercise consistently enough to add it to my TDEE calculation. I'm scared that if I do that it'll encourage me to overeat on days I don't get a chance to exercise. At the moment I'm eating 1440, walking 10,000 steps and using the exercise bike 45 mins per day, but I don't eat exercise calories back, so it probably is more like 1200.
Then you appear to understand the concept - keep a consistent deficit to what you burn - if you burn more, you eat more, burn less, eat less.
Sounds a lot like MFP - because it is.
Just set MFP up reasonably and wisely and follow the program correctly.
It can be a great tool when used correctly. Any tool used wrong either gives substandard results, or no results, or could hurt you.
So 10K steps a day isn't sedentary, and then 45 biking daily is more than 240 cal burn as you seem to imply, unless you are so weak you can't push very hard.
In which case, eat more, and get a better workout in, and transform the body more.
Most people won't see your bathroom scale with you standing on it.
Most people will see you.
You should still realize the concern of losing muscle mass - you have nothing in your workout or a reasonable deficit to ask your body to keep it. Count on 20% of your weight loss to be muscle mass.0 -
AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »MFP is quite notorious for setting calorie goals FAR too low, regardless of height and weight.
MFP is famous for users demanding to lose 2 pounds a week while sedentary. The rest is mathematics.
0 -
I plan my meal plan the night before so that I have spaced out my calories across the day. I couldn't personally have one big meal and a snack - instead, I have breakfast, two lunches, a dinner and three snacks throughout the day.
1200 calories is low, but I tend to aim for this amount of calories because I'm sure I am underestimating somewhere along the line! But if I get hungry, I eat back my exercise calories.0 -
My calorie budget is 1200 and I am not starving. Actually, if I would eat only healthy food these 1200 would be really enough. If I eat the needed amount of protein it will mostly keep me full during the day. I do not plan my meals, mostly I eat randomly and I just calculate my portions. For short people like me, 1200 is acceptable. I also drink about 5 6 cups of green tea daily, I guess this helps also0
-
I think it depends on your starting point. As someone who has always gained weight eating what many might consider fairly little but someone who has gained by eating foods my body doesn't like 1200 calories is not something I would consider 'low' calorie.
Personally when I decide to eat without thinking about what I'm actually consuming and put it into MFP (which I have done before) my intake usually comes to around 1200-1500 calories every day. That is basically by eating a breakfast of cereal or a couple of slices of toast, a large lunch and a snack for dinner, with maybe a couple of items of 'junk' food thrown in during the day like a small bag of low fat crisps, a couple of scoops low fat ice cream or some chocolate or sweets. When I ate like that I also exercised around 3 days a week and had daily walks but the weight still crept up.
In my case that is enough for me to gain weight as it's extremely high in carbs, high in sugar and fat in some cases as well as being low in protein and fibre.
If I switch to exercising 6 days a week and eating 1100-1200 calories of low carb, high protein and fibre and moderate fat food then I start to lose weight. I've tried 'eating more to weigh less' but this did me no good and I gained even more unwanted weight and body fat. I find that on 1100-1200 calories gross I never feel hungry because I am generally eating food which is more filling than the 'empty' calorie food like sugar coated cereal or white bread toast and jam I had for breakfast, the pasta or starchy carb loaded lunch I had before and the snacky dinner.
If you are someone who normally eats 2500-4000 calories per day and then is given 1200 and suddenly introduces exercise into their life which they didn't before and doesn't eat back their exercise calories, or maybe even eats some of them it could be too little for your body but I really think it depends on the person.0 -
furioushummingbird wrote: »TorsMinator wrote: »I've got 1240 as my limit which seems right to me. I am 5'11 and currently about 214 lbs. A couple of years ago I had gotten down to 162lbs but the only way I was able to reach that goal was by strictly maintaining that 1200 limit. Working out daily and not eating back my burned calories.
It all depends on your individual body/metabolism. Some people can lose weight at 2000 or 1600 and some people can't.
This sounds extremely dangerous, especially due to your height.
Of course you'll lose weight on 1200 calories. Just about anybody would. Is it sustainable, healthy loss with the correct nutritional stats for your height, weight, age and activity level? I can't agree with that.
The above posters suggesting TDEE -20% are right. If you do go by MFP's NEAT method, their stats for calorie burns that you are supposed to eat back are sometimes wayyyyy inaccurate and that can lead to overeating. It also doesn't take into account your general activity level, just what you do for exercise.
I don't like those odds. I'll be content eating between 17-1800 calories a day and losing all the way.
As I said, it'll work for some and not others to eat more. I know for fact that if I eat at 1600/1700 I'll only maintain and any more than that will have me gaining weight even with daily workouts.
Trust me, I'd LOVE to eat more, I frickin love food. Years of experience has taught me what works for my body and what doesn't though.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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