1200 Calorie Bottom Limit???????
Replies
-
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Wait til you're 50 and in a desk job and trying to lose 10 lbs.KGRebelRanch wrote: »Uuhh....I'm 4'8" and I eat way more than that. O.O
I'm 5'4" and not very overweight and an active day is maybe 1800 for me, a sedentary day might be under 1500.
Exercising off 600-700 calories a day doesn't sound terribly healthy. I'd rather skip the ice cream and extra cheese.
Interesting aside: Studies show that running 4 hours a week is as bad for you as being sedentary.
Just not true!
0 -
5'2", age 52, and doing well on 1200, dessert included (a bowl of berries, nuked, with Fage, cinnamon, and a half-ounce of walnuts swirled in).
like a poster above, my diet is whole food and homemade (tonight i had a tilapia fishcake, coleslaw, and 1/2 cup Brussels sprouts). I love eating this way. you can eat a lot of excellent food for 1200 calories. I'm losing about a pound every two weeks, which is fine with me.0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »
Running more that 5-8mi per week can actually be bad for your heart... soooo...0 -
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.0 -
Mine is set at 1200 I am 4' 11" and no, I do not always get to 1200 calories so do not feel like people are right/wrong. Do what works for your body. By no means am I deprived, eating healthier than ever sometimes you feel more satisfied.0
-
When I eat between 1000-1200 calories I'm miles away from my fat and protein goals. I don't know how people do it!?0
-
This week's People Magazine "Body Watch" column is on Biggest Loser host Alison Sweeney. She eats 1050 calories a day, in maintenance. The dietician says her intake is "fine for someone watching her waistline but a little low for someone who exercises and isn't trying to lose weight", but otherwise approves.
I think last week was an actress maintaining at 1600 or so (Vivica Fox) and the week before some newswoman at around 1300. Usually they're around the 1400-1500 level, in maintenance, with frequent exercise, not particularly old.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »When I eat between 1000-1200 calories I'm miles away from my fat and protein goals. I don't know how people do it!?
I think I was hitting my protein/fat goals when I was doing 1200-1250. Not sure, as I was watching protein more than fat, but if so it was mainly because I was at about 100 grams of carbs.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
lemurcat12 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!
0 -
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...
0 -
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.0
-
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: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.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
0 -
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.0 -
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!
0 -
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.0 -
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.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!
0 -
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).0 -
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.0
-
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.0
-
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.0
-
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.0
-
-
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.0 -
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 ..
0 -
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.0
-
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.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions