What is the 1200 calorie based on?
Replies
-
There is a lot of terrible advice here. If you want a flat stomach, that comes with strength training and eating foods that won't make you bloat. But you shouldn't be eating under 1200. You should talk to a nutritionist at your local gym, or someone with experience in diets for athletes.0
-
Really depending on size and such you may be able to eat less. that said it is difficult to get the required micro and macros on a diet less than 1200 cals. that would be vitamins, minerals, fat and protein... In other words, even at 1200 cals you don't really have room for "empty" calories, if you plan on hitting the 4 things mentioned above0
-
A baseline variable value that a programmer wrote into the calorie counting application.HPCalantog wrote: »I've been searching for answer to this question without finding a verifiable conclusion.
It's not based on anything but whim.
I don't necessarily agree with the 1200, but it was not on a whim. I beleive it came from FDA or some other agency that suggests not going below 1200 cals0 -
Some people can eat less than 1200 perfectly healthily and safely. Smaller, shorter women above a certain age who are very inactive often don't need quite that many calories. That's fine. The 1200 minimum is based on the "average" sized woman, and those of us far below average (I'm 5'1") don't always fit into that.
BUT -- and here's the kicker -- I still eat more than 1200 because I'm not sedentary and because I'm in my 30s. My real-world observed TDEE over the past 90 days is somewhere in the 1800-2000 range, even though the calculators claim it ought to be only 1750 with exercise or 1550 without. I am losing steadily at 1325 calories per day.
The 1200 "rule" is still a good one on a website where far too many teenagers and young adults come here with eating disorders, body dysmorphia or other risky behaviours. It tells you that nutrition is important, that eating enough to fuel your body is important, that slow and steady weight loss is better than eating too little or losing too quickly. It teaches you that crash or fad diets aren't healthy. It's good advice for most people, in short.
If you're an outlier, and are educated and savvy and healthy and getting enough nutrition to meet your body's needs, then fine.
But far too many people have special snowflake syndrome. Most of us aren't outliers. Most of us will do nicely to stick to that 1200+ calorie rule.0 -
HPCalantog wrote: »Thanks for all your responses! If anyone has any resources they find credible that I could read up on, please send me a link
These are the calculators I used to choose 1100 as my ball park number, if anyone is interested: 1) http://www.healthycalculators.com/calories-intake-requirement.php
2) http://www.calorieking.com/interactive-tools/how-many-calories-should-you-eat/?ref=nav
3) http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
@Lifting4Lis, thanks for your reply, too! Even though you didn't answer the question I asked at all, I appreciate your concern. Just so you and @Thorsmom05, five years ago, I ended a daily binging and purging process I started at 13. Its been a decade since then, and half a decade since the worst of it. Eating disorders and depression are mental illnesses that require a lifetime of attention, and I realize that. I'm really very proud of my progress, and its in my nature now to take on new physical challenges every so often. This 'flat stomach thing,' is just the latest. Thanks for your encouragement.
I think I will go back to 1200 calories/day, with more strength training/toning. Hopefully, I will have a great accomplishment to update you all on before summer!
Just a random note, those are just basic calculators and will tell you what they are programmed to calculate, not necessarily what is safe or optimal for your situation.
For example, the first site told me I need to eat 2800 calories to maintain my weight. I said I wanted to lose 6lbs per week, and so it told me to eat -166 calories a day. Ultimately it's up to ourselves to determine what works best for us.
If you're interested in a flat stomach and not losing weight, I'd suggest giving this a read:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1161603/so-you-want-a-nice-stomach0 -
I have a friend who is obese and her doctor put her on a 1000 calorie/day diet. She has to be super careful about the calories she consumes to make sure they are very nutrient dense. She has been on this diet for 6months+ and plans to continue the diet until she gets down to a healthy weight range. I must also say that she goes to the doctor weekly to check her progress.0
-
A baseline variable value that a programmer wrote into the calorie counting application.HPCalantog wrote: »I've been searching for answer to this question without finding a verifiable conclusion.
It's not based on anything but whim.
I don't necessarily agree with the 1200, but it was not on a whim. I beleive it came from FDA or some other agency that suggests not going below 1200 cals
Oh, you wrote that variable set?0 -
i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?0
-
i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.0 -
I wonder if you would get better advice in the fitness/nutrition forum, as what you might benefit more from is a change in exercise routine rather than diet. I know that "great abs" are more often an issue of the kitchen rather than the gym, but maybe you've already dealt with the kitchen aspect well enough.0
-
olivia_june wrote: »There is a lot of terrible advice here. If you want a flat stomach, that comes with strength training and eating foods that won't make you bloat. But you shouldn't be eating under 1200. You should talk to a nutritionist at your local gym, or someone with experience in diets for athletes.
This.. mainly it is about the types of foods you eat to have a flat stomach - 6-pack abs. Abs are made in the kitchen. Consult a professional. They will be able guide you very well. Also, building muscle will help as well.
0 -
I asked my doctor about this a while back. He told me that 1200 number is just a "rule of thumb" developed for some average which most people don't fit. The real issue according to him is that there is a maximum amount of energy that your body is capable of getting from burning your fat stores in a day. If your calorie deficit exceeds that amount, the difference will be made up by burning muscle...which you don't want.
The amount of fat you can burn is determined by the amount of extra fat you have. People with more fat can use more stored fat as fuel in a given day than people with less fat. There is supposedly a formula based on the number of pounds of fat and a calorie deficit limit per pound of fat...but I have no idea what that is.
That's one of the reasons some people have been put on very low calorie diets...sometimes 800...under doctor supervision. If something terrible happened just because you went below 1200 no doctor would ever do that to a patient. Obviously, the less calories you eat the more you need to focus on getting the vitamins, minerals, protein etc that you need. There is no room for filler calories on such diets.
0 -
sunnyside1213 wrote: »Guys, us shorties need less food. I am 5"1". My TDEE - 20% - 1036 calories. If I eat over this, I gain weight. If I want to lose, I have to stick to about 900 to 950 a day and it it really slow. No way I can eat 1200 calories a day.
If that were true, which I doubt, then 1036 is not TDEE - 20%. It would be your TDEE. If you're taking in TDEE - anything, you lose weight.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »There are things your body needs to operate that it can't get from stored fat. The 1200 calories is the minimum number of calories you need to provide your body with those things.
You can provide them on a lot less than that. But you have to be more precise in what you eat, as there is increasingly little room for error. Especially as your fat stores decline.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »There are things your body needs to operate that it can't get from stored fat. The 1200 calories is the minimum number of calories you need to provide your body with those things.
You can provide them on a lot less than that. But you have to be more precise in what you eat, as there is increasingly little room for error. Especially as your fat stores decline.
I can agree with that. Which is why some grossly obese people have been able to lose weight with doctors only allowing them to have vitamins and such. But outside of a doctor's care, one shouldn't attempt it.0 -
sunnyside1213 wrote: »Guys, us shorties need less food. I am 5"1". My TDEE - 20% - 1036 calories. If I eat over this, I gain weight. If I want to lose, I have to stick to about 900 to 950 a day and it it really slow. No way I can eat 1200 calories a day.
I'm a shortie and older (56), and my BMR is 1136. BMR is metabolism basically doing nothing, just to stay alive. I would think the BMR of a 22 year old woman would be considerably higher. I'd also suggest a recomp (eating at maintenance and doing weights and pilates or yoga, which strengthen core) to tone abs. You can actually stay the same weight, but lose inches with strength training. I lost an inch around my waist this summer, even though my weight didn't change much.0 -
Not all "shorties" need to eat so little food. I'm 5'1" and maintain on 1950; lose on 1600. Of course, I'm a "yung'in" at 44 and am walking all day. Even sitting on my butt all day watching Netflix I'd still need more than 1200 to stay alive.sunnyside1213 wrote: »Guys, us shorties need less food. I am 5"1". My TDEE - 20% - 1036 calories. If I eat over this, I gain weight. If I want to lose, I have to stick to about 900 to 950 a day and it it really slow. No way I can eat 1200 calories a day.
I don't have a link so this is just me repeating what I've read on MFP and other sites. I think 1200 is the cut-off for women because it's the minimum amount of calories to eat in order to get all the macros and micros met for the RDA.
0 -
It's mentioned in here as being around 31 calories per day, per pound. Which is not very limiting. With a BMI of 26, I probably have 50 lbs. of fat. 50*31=1550 calorie deficit to adequately fund from body fat. That's like 90% of my TDEE so obviously I can't do that. But it suggests LBM is safe at normal deficit levels.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I asked my doctor about this a while back. He told me that 1200 number is just a "rule of thumb" developed for some average which most people don't fit. The real issue according to him is that there is a maximum amount of energy that your body is capable of getting from burning your fat stores in a day. If your calorie deficit exceeds that amount, the difference will be made up by burning muscle...which you don't want.
The amount of fat you can burn is determined by the amount of extra fat you have. People with more fat can use more stored fat as fuel in a given day than people with less fat. There is supposedly a formula based on the number of pounds of fat and a calorie deficit limit per pound of fat...but I have no idea what that is.
That's one of the reasons some people have been put on very low calorie diets...sometimes 800...under doctor supervision. If something terrible happened just because you went below 1200 no doctor would ever do that to a patient. Obviously, the less calories you eat the more you need to focus on getting the vitamins, minerals, protein etc that you need. There is no room for filler calories on such diets.
0 -
it's all bull.0
-
HPCalantog wrote: »Thanks for all your responses! If anyone has any resources they find credible that I could read up on, please send me a link
These are the calculators I used to choose 1100 as my ball park number, if anyone is interested: 1) http://www.healthycalculators.com/calories-intake-requirement.php
2) http://www.calorieking.com/interactive-tools/how-many-calories-should-you-eat/?ref=nav
3) http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
@Lifting4Lis, thanks for your reply, too! Even though you didn't answer the question I asked at all, I appreciate your concern. Just so you and @Thorsmom05, five years ago, I ended a daily binging and purging process I started at 13. Its been a decade since then, and half a decade since the worst of it. Eating disorders and depression are mental illnesses that require a lifetime of attention, and I realize that. I'm really very proud of my progress, and its in my nature now to take on new physical challenges every so often. This 'flat stomach thing,' is just the latest. Thanks for your encouragement.
I think I will go back to 1200 calories/day, with more strength training/toning. Hopefully, I will have a great accomplishment to update you all on before summer!
You listed the Scooby calculator (#3), which shows your BMR at 1,196 calories (based on 5' tall and 113 lbs., age 22 female). Keep in mind that BMR is if you are comatose. If you are awake and at a sedentary activity level, your actual calorie burn is more than 1,196 daily. If you are keeping active (which it sounds like you are), then you need much more than 1,200 calories to maintain. If you want to lose, then 1,200 calories should still provide a loss (because you are not comatose). You say it hasn't, so I have to echo what others have said: See a doctor.0 -
jlangton10 wrote: »I have a friend who is obese and her doctor put her on a 1000 calorie/day diet. She has to be super careful about the calories she consumes to make sure they are very nutrient dense. She has been on this diet for 6months+ and plans to continue the diet until she gets down to a healthy weight range. I must also say that she goes to the doctor weekly to check her progress.
This is not at all similar to the OP who is not obese, is already in a healthy weight for her height, and has a history of disordered eating. I know you probably didn't mean to imply that it is the same as the OP, but many times posters will miss the differences and only read what they want which is, "1000 calories/day is what doctors recommend".
OP read the link above about "So You Want a Nice Stomach". I think you will find helpful information in there based on your goals which seem to be more focused on recomp than losing more weight.
0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
No need to be freaking out about this at all . . . however, by saying it's a basic rule of thumb implies to works for the majority of those people which cannot be confirmed to be the case.
Definition of a rule of thumb: a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.
I would wager that this is not broadly accurate.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
No need to be freaking out about this at all . . . however, by saying it's a basic rule of thumb implies to works for the majority of those people which cannot be confirmed to be the case.
Definition of a rule of thumb: a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.
I would wager that this is not broadly accurate.
I wouldn't know. I just know that 1200 for women and 1500 for men are the numbers health care professionals use and they are recommendations from organizations of people who are paid to know more about this stuff than I do.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
No need to be freaking out about this at all . . . however, by saying it's a basic rule of thumb implies to works for the majority of those people which cannot be confirmed to be the case.
Definition of a rule of thumb: a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.
I would wager that this is not broadly accurate.
I wouldn't know. I just know that 1200 for women and 1500 for men are the numbers health care professionals use and they are recommendations from organizations of people who are paid to know more about this stuff than I do.
Actually good healthcare professionals - and I recommend good - do not us arbitrary numbers. They look at their patients lifestyle, way of losing, activity level and so on.
If your health care professional is sticking you to a number because you happen to be a male, or you happen to be 40 or you happen to be 5'9 . . . I personally wouldn't continue to use them. Maybe some do use them, but in my experience, good ones whose practice is in nutrition or weight loss, do not use those kinds of numbers.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »i might be wrong, but I think it is a rule of thumb for sedentary to lightly active women around 5'2-5'4 with less than 20-30 pounds to lose?
There isn't really a rule of thumb - everyone's body is different so you can't say it will work for everyone.
I'm 5'10, workout 5 - 6 days/week but have a desk job and I lose at 2000. Maybe when I drop more, it will be less and less (most likely) but the rate I drop at isn't going to be a rule of thumb, it's going to be what works for my body. Granted I have a lot to lose (100lbs + overall, lost 70 of it already) but I never once thought of going to 1,200. I researched and read and figured out as I went. It's not easy, but 1,200 isn't the magic fix all number.
The 1,200 thread happens almost daily and it's ridiculous . . . it's usually trolling and I think most educated people recognize there isn't a right or wrong answer - if you want to harm your body do it, if you don't then figure out what works for you. That's really all there is to it.
THAT'S WHY I SAID ITS ONLY A BASIC RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE - AND WHY I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
No need to be freaking out about this at all . . . however, by saying it's a basic rule of thumb implies to works for the majority of those people which cannot be confirmed to be the case.
Definition of a rule of thumb: a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.
I would wager that this is not broadly accurate.
I SAID IT WAS A RULE OF THUMB FOR WOMEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE BETWEEN 5'2 AND 5'4 AND HAVE LESS THAN 30 POUNDS TO LOSE AND LIVE A SEDENTARY TO LIGHTLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE AND IS NOT A BROAD GENERAL .................................................0 -
i cant anymore0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »For a week, eating below 1200 isn't likely to cause great harm, unless you have certain medical conditions. But it isn't wise to try to sustain that lifestyle. There are things your body needs to operate that it can't get from stored fat. The 1200 calories is the minimum number of calories you need to provide your body with those things. But based on your picture, you need to be eating more than that.
So if I ate 1200 calories worth of white sugar, I would somehow get all of those nutrients that I need?
The problem with the 1200 number is that it is a measure of energy justified by a measure of micro-nutrients. MFP and others tell people that you need to eat 1200 calories to get enough nutrition, ignoring that calories are NOT a measure of nutritional value! If I could eat my daily nutrient requirements in 600 calories worth of food, what then is the justification for the 1200 cal number?
0 -
The justification is the need for medical science to develop broad and universal enough guidelines to fit 95% of people in 95% of situations, with enough margin for error built in so that they won't be abused.
If they came out with a recommendation for a 800-calorie daily diet that would work for a 4'7", 80-pound 60-year-old sedentary woman, which has all the daily nutritional requirements built in with absolutely *zero* room for error, what do you think would happen? That's right: Headlines would cry out "800 calories is all we need!" and crash dieters and teenagers with eating disorders would embrace that and follow it and doctors would be there saying "but that's not what we said!"
Is 1200 a magic number? No. But it's a decent enough calorie floor to serve the purpose, that is: If you think you need to be eating less than that, pause, think, and consider the fact that you're probably not a special snowflake after all.0 -
If they came out with a recommendation for a 800-calorie daily diet that would work for a 4'7", 80-pound 60-year-old sedentary woman, which has all the daily nutritional requirements built in with absolutely *zero* room for error, what do you think would happen? That's right: Headlines would cry out "800 calories is all we need!" and crash dieters and teenagers with eating disorders would embrace that and follow it and doctors would be there saying "but that's not what we said!"
Give me a break. We currently are discussing the 1200 kcal recommendation; show me the headlines proclaiming "1200 calories is all we need!" and the pandemic of teenaged crash dieters. The reason this website EXISTS is because people aren't good at hitting the minimum target and routinely exceed it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 96.3K 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