1200 Calorie Bottom Limit???????

Options
13

Replies

  • scooter888
    scooter888 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    I try to eat as much veggies as I can and just don't hit 1200 off that alone. It's a ton of food. I have come close though with roughtly 850. I'll log but don't want to get caught up if I fall below 1200. I just ate a ginormous spiralized dinner that was only 150 calories but I'm stuffed. To be honest, I used to follow a raw food diet, was nice and thin and ate like a pig. Sadly like many out there I fell to the SAD diet again so here I go trying to get back to what I consider a better way of eating. Today I ate 100 calories in crackers just to get the calories up but now I think why? It's just a number and as long as I feel good and full no need to do such things.
  • jvt63
    jvt63 Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    It's also a matter of how active you are--or not. I'm only active 50 minutes a day, 5 times a week. Other than that, I'm a sloth, so1200 a day is all I really need.

    As for hitting protein and fat goals: avocado, olive oil and nuts for fats, and fish or chicken for protein. For vegetarians, tofu and/or beans are good sources of protein.
  • kellysdavies
    kellysdavies Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JAT74 wrote: »
    I read that too, saw it in an English news source, might have been BBC, can't remember. Look it up I'm sure you'll find it. Conclusion was you shouldn't run for more than 2.5 hours a week.

    I found something in the Daily Mail, and then some additional sources discussing the same studies which supposedly say more than 20 hours per week is a negative (correlation, of course) with 5-19 being the "sweet spot," ideally at 6-7 mph.

    Oh yes. The Daily Mail. IF this is where you are getting your info from, change papers!
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I found something in the Daily Mail, and then some additional sources discussing the same studies which supposedly say more than 20 hours per week is a negative (correlation, of course) with 5-19 being the "sweet spot," ideally at 6-7 mph.

    The study is this one:
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
    Actually the conclusions about the strenuous joggers don't seem solid to me, as the observed strenuous runners were only 40...
  • yorkshirejulie
    yorkshirejulie Posts: 1
    Options
    The body requires a minimum number of calories to run its basic functions ie digestion. It's known as basal metabolic rate. Eating less than this regardless of types of foods is not sustainable and also puts out at risk of not receiving adequate energy for your body to function correctly.
  • HeidiHirtle
    HeidiHirtle Posts: 126 Member
    Options
    yorkshirejulie wrote: »
    The body requires a minimum number of calories to run its basic functions ie digestion. It's known as basal metabolic rate. Eating less than this regardless of types of foods is not sustainable and also puts out at risk of not receiving adequate energy for your body to function correctly.
    This is a good point, but for those of us who eat for optimal health and stick to only nutrient dense foods, the following insight is very interesting:
    By reducing calorie intake and still meeting micronutrient demands, daily energy demands are also reduced. Eating predominantly high nutrient, low calorie foods can help to achieve this effect – the body’s micronutrient requirements are satisfied with fewer calories, leading to reduced energy intake and therefore reduced energy demand.

    Source: Metabolic Rate: the slower the better
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    avvgromano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I found something in the Daily Mail, and then some additional sources discussing the same studies which supposedly say more than 20 hours per week is a negative (correlation, of course) with 5-19 being the "sweet spot," ideally at 6-7 mph.

    The study is this one:
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
    Actually the conclusions about the strenuous joggers don't seem solid to me, as the observed strenuous runners were only 40...

    Thanks. I found it from what WalkingAlong linked upthread after I posted about the other.

    The other seems contradictory, but I haven't read it, and at this point I think neither provides reason to reduce my running.
  • kellysdavies
    kellysdavies Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    avvgromano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I found something in the Daily Mail, and then some additional sources discussing the same studies which supposedly say more than 20 hours per week is a negative (correlation, of course) with 5-19 being the "sweet spot," ideally at 6-7 mph.

    The study is this one:
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
    Actually the conclusions about the strenuous joggers don't seem solid to me, as the observed strenuous runners were only 40...

    Thanks. I found it from what WalkingAlong linked upthread after I posted about the other.

    The other seems contradictory, but I haven't read it, and at this point I think neither provides reason to reduce my running.

    Don't reduce your running. It's poppycock. One of best ways of keeping fit and burning calories!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    I'm in favor of eating at a reasonable deficit and would not personally choose to eat below 1200, as I said upthread, but the thing about BMR is a myth.

    BMR is a theoretical concept--what we think, based on your LBM and other factors, your body would burn without any activity besides necessary functions. Your body has no idea what that number is and it's meaningless if your body is in fact doing other things (as it is for all of us). Basically BMR is just estimated TDEE if you weren't moving at all.

    So the question is whether your body fails to perform some necessary functions if you eat less than TDEE. The answer is of course not (assuming you have fat to lose), eating less than TDEE is what we try to do to lose weight to force the body to make up the missing calories by taking them from fat (it will take from muscle too, though). Importantly, your body doesn't stop doing necessary things if you eat less than TDEE or BMR (again, it doesn't know what BMR is), it simply provides for those things from your existing body.

    The problem is that if you have not that much fat to lose your body won't be as likely to use it as other things like muscle and if your deficit is larger it will adapt by reducing calorie burn overall (it does this over time anyway, I believe, but the studies I've seen suggest that it does more with a more aggressive deficit). So these are reasons to be careful and have a less aggressive deficit, especially as you have a lower BF%, but this has nothing to do with BMR.

    Significantly, if you are sedentary the estimated TDEE will be only 1.2x the estimated BMR. Assuming that lots of people are MORE likely to be sedentary when just starting out and obese, what the BMR myth ends up saying is that extremely overweight sedentary people must go with a very low deficit, which for many is probably quite bad advice. It would have been for me, and yet I eat many more calories now--there's no rule that you must stay at the calorie level you start with.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    kellysdavies wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    avvgromano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I found something in the Daily Mail, and then some additional sources discussing the same studies which supposedly say more than 20 hours per week is a negative (correlation, of course) with 5-19 being the "sweet spot," ideally at 6-7 mph.

    The study is this one:
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
    Actually the conclusions about the strenuous joggers don't seem solid to me, as the observed strenuous runners were only 40...

    Thanks. I found it from what WalkingAlong linked upthread after I posted about the other.

    The other seems contradictory, but I haven't read it, and at this point I think neither provides reason to reduce my running.

    Don't reduce your running. It's poppycock. One of best ways of keeping fit and burning calories!
    The study was published in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, a respected, peer reviewed journal. It's by no means the last word but it's also not poppycock, though of course all are free to make their own judgment on information.
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    Kellysdavies this is from the Independent, though it was in the Mail and several other papers and news sources worldwide recently:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/too-much-jogging-may-be-as-bad-for-you-as-not-running-at-all-study-suggests-10020478.html

    Re. 1200 calories, I agree that it's hard to meet macros with that number, unless you drink calories in protein shakes only. I try and get my protein up to 100g most days and already have to use protein shakes to help me do that but most days I am at around 1450 minimum. I allow myself certain treats like chocolate but I have accepted a slower rate of weight loss.

    I know that if I went down to 1200 I would lose faster though. Having said that now I'm doing 5:2 diet I am getting around 1500 on non-fast days and 500 on fast days so my average is around 1200 a day and will continue to be around that number from now on (and I exercise daily).
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    If your doctor has approved 1000, then I would just ignore the nag statement that pops up when you save your day's diary. Set your goals manually to the amount you intend to eat based on your doctor's recommendation. I kind of think the 1200 cal nag statement that pops up is a butt covering move for MFP so no one can sue them and claim they promote eating disordered behavior or anything like that.
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    I asked about this and as it shows the message if you eat what MFP considers too low, you can just ignore it and log what you want, the only thing is it won't allow you to submit the entry and post it to your wall. It keeps the info though and you will still see it in your reports.
  • deemarie1
    deemarie1 Posts: 11
    Options
    Muscle weight takes a lot more calories to maintain. I can't lose unless I eat at least 1800 a day. Any less than that and I stall because my body thinks it is going into starving mode and I lose muscle mass as well as fat. More muscle = more calories to maintain.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    They've kind of debunked that, at least as far as it being very significant. A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories a day, or 4 more than a pound of fat.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    deemarie1 wrote: »
    Muscle weight takes a lot more calories to maintain. I can't lose unless I eat at least 1800 a day. Any less than that and I stall because my body thinks it is going into starving mode and I lose muscle mass as well as fat. More muscle = more calories to maintain.

    myth
  • deemarie1
    deemarie1 Posts: 11
    edited February 2015
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    They've kind of debunked that, at least as far as it being very significant. A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories a day, or 4 more than a pound of fat.

    That is still significant. That is an extra 450-500 calories a day for me. Maintaining is 2250 to 2300 cal a day.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    deemarie1 wrote: »
    Muscle weight takes a lot more calories to maintain. I can't lose unless I eat at least 1800 a day. Any less than that and I stall because my body thinks it is going into starving mode and I lose muscle mass as well as fat. More muscle = more calories to maintain.

    Eating under 1800 calories puts you in starvation mode? ??? :huh:
    Alllllrighty then ..

  • kerryh01
    kerryh01 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    Hi everyone. I eat 1000 calories a day normally I am 5.5 and 159 pounds. Is this healthy to eat 1000?. Im full after eating all day? Or should I be eating more. Thanks all.
  • lizek316
    lizek316 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'4" and have quite a bit to lose so my intake for weight loss is 1330. Once I drop 20 lbs, I'm sure MFP will drop my calorie intake to 1200. And yes, being a petite person sucks sometimes.

Categories