1200 Calorie Bottom Limit???????
Replies
-
-
Muscle requires fuel. The more muscle you carry the more you eat to maintain it, especially protein. If you lift, you eat.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.
Kerryh, at 159 pounds, 5.5, if you are a female and 30ish, your Basal Metabolic Rate (the amount of calories your body needs just to function) is 1505.
If you have a sedentary job and little exercise, your Total Daily Energy Expenditure is 1806.
Your goal is to eat 20% less than that, so your daily calories would be 1445, even though I wonder about that because it's below your BMR?
Check out: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ for yourself to estimate what you need to lose slowly and steadily.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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!
Walking Along.....did you read the article? Strenuous running for more than 4 1/2 hours per week is the reference point. Someone who runs 8:35 minute miles (about 7 mph) on average for 240 to 270 minutes weekly. Also, I think they worked with people ages 40 to 92 and as we age our ability to run at this level diminishes. The average jogger is not part of the study and more importantly experts disagree what is the high end of exercise in terms of exertion, time, and effort. The study also did not ask the runners what other forms of exercise they performed weekly. The study doesn't provide any reference markers for health in either group except how many died. By comparison the sedentary group had a 30% greater likelihood of death than the running(strenuous) group. So shortening the qualifiers(Running more then 4 hours per week) doesn't provide an accurate statement of the study.
0 -
Crossfitkeke wrote: »
I am so glad to read these posts. Sometimes I feel like an alien on these boards - all these women talking about maintaining at 1400 calories and here I am, almost 41, just under 5'4", 125 pounds, desk job, and I struggle to net only 1800 to lose these last few vanity pounds!
0 -
I'm 5.2.5," 65 years old and have lost 42 pounds so far never eating under 1200 and eating back 1/2 to 2/3rds of my exercise cals. My averages range is from 1260 (no exercise days/sedentary) to up to 2,000 calories on exercise days (4xs per week of resistance training and cardio) depending on my calorie burn estimated with a heart rate monitor and a pedometer.
Scooby estimates my TDEE at around 1430 (MFP says 1410). MFP estimates my BMR at 1133 at my current weight of 136.4 and around 1094 at my goal weight of 128 while Scooby says 1136 at 136.4 and 1192 at 128lbs. The numbers are pretty close.
Personally, I wouldn't want to eat under 1200 calories because I don't think it's sustainable long term or healthy. I feel satiated around the 1430 cals for maintenance on non exercise days and I think I can maintain that basic amount long term. Of course, it's nice to have more to eat on exercise days to fuel my body.
I get why MFP uses the 1200 for its base line. I think it's a good starting place but people will do what they want for weight loss. It's the long term that counts and eating too close to or under to your BMR is not healthy long term.
0 -
Seems too low for me but I'm not you. If your doctor is cool with it then just go with it. Mfp has to put that disclaimer for legal reasons.0
-
all calculators are different. my maintenance cals would be around 1400-1500 on sedentary lifestyle i am 5ft 1. i tried eating under 1200 and i felt ill and very tired. some days i dont meet 1200 but not often0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
You really misrepresented this article's description of the study findings. The articles says:- The study followed 1,098 healthy joggers and
- 3,950 non joggers
- For about 12 years
- "Although joggers as a group appear to live longer than sedentary nonjoggers, light joggers and moderate joggers have lower mortality rates than sedentary non joggers."
- "However, strenuous joggers - people who ran faster than 7 mph for more than four hours a week; or who ran faster than 7 mph for more than 2.5 hours a week with a frequency of more than three times a week - had a mortality rate that 'is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group,'"
- All the running, (speed, duration and frequency) per week was self-reported, "which may be subject to error or bias."
- "They (study authors) wrote also that the 127 study participants who were identified as strenuous joggers may have been too small a group to accurately calculate mortality risk."
The "is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group" about the "strenuous joggers" is a really important statement because it means the relationship between the two variables in the study was just a chance occurrence. (Statistical significance means the relationship between the variables in a study was not a chance occurrence.)
For that one summary of that one study you determine: "Studies show that running 4 hours a week is as bad for you as being sedentary."
I don't think we read the same article, or the same study.0 -
If your TDEE is 1400 calories you probably don't need to lose any more weight as this would put you at VERY short (like less than 5 ft tall) and not overweight (eg < 130 lb). Just a thought. There is absolutely no way I could live on 1200 calories a day. I think my happy weight would be the weight where I was not unhealthily overweight but could eat a comfortable amount of food without gaining. If I needed to eat 1400 calories a day to maintain, I'd rather just be fat.0
-
Hi, OP here. This has been a fascinating read - sorry I dropped out of it. Was travelling and then came home to a dying cat.
I am very glad to find I am not the only short, older lady on these boards with a low BMR! For those of you ladies who are short but haven't yet hit peri-menopause and menopause, just wait! Your metabolism does this whole bottom out thing at one point or another, and if your metabolism was low to start with. . .you don't have wriggle room.
For those of us who do seem to have crazy low metabolisms (and those that don't for that matter), there is a test that you can get that shows what your RMR is. I can have it done at a health club that's attached to a local hospital for $60 and I think I am going to do this. I've kept a spreadsheet with every bite that goes into my mouth for a while, so I think I know my BMR, but it will be quite curious to find out what SCIENCE says my RMR is!
<edited because I realized, I probably gained weight this week and I'm going to stop excusing it. . .but I ate well while I was travelling. There's no Ethiopian near me, and there was a place 2 blocks from my hotel that was outstanding. I ate until my stomach hurt.>0 -
So sorry about your kitty! Mine is almost 18 years old. I'd be devastated!
I'd be starving if I ate 1000 calories a day. (5'3, 120 pounds, bad metabolism--hypothyroid.) If you're not ravenous, are getting all the nutrients you need to support your health and your doc is on board, there's not much credibility in us saying you need to eat more.
I worked with my endocrinologist and we determined my "actual" RMR is about 150 calories below what the testing revealed (it took about a year of food and exercise diaries and weight tracking). Bummer for me! Accepted it and moved on!
0 -
Like I stated earlier, I eat at least 1800 a day to lose. Glad there are others out there like me, but again I have lots of muscle. As for my other stats, I am 60 years old, 5'2". As to the amount of protein you should eat for your size, it depends on your body composition.0
-
Are you saying you have an extra 100+ lbs. of muscle? That not all humans have or that you had previously or ...?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 -
I didn't read the article, just the press coverage and news reports of it. So you interpret it differently than the world does, not than how I do.
I don't think we read the same article, or the same study.WalkingAlong wrote: »
0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »This post will be deleted. Tried to have this discussion on other threads but been accused of promoting unhealthy dieting. Eh? I'm just saying what I have to do in MY eXperience (and been doing it for a year now!) and what has led to my 1stone5lb weight loss so far!
Have said on 3 other threads I can only lose weight - and slowly still - like this week I haven't lost half a pound - by eating 1000 cals a day. I am 5ft 1. My BMR is pretty low as it is! And yes I weigh all my food and yes I calculate as perfectly as I can. Some people have been incredulous that this can be true. Refusing to believe I can't be hungry or I am moron and not *really* eating that few. But I am and I am eating really healthy and feel pretty content (will never not crave cake!). I feel more energetic than ever. Sleep really well and eat a very healthy and varied diet and don't feel deprived!
I don't know why it makes people so cross to believe that this work for some people! My doctor too said 1000 is fine for someone my height. I am 9stone3 and could still lose another 2 stone and be in my healthy weight zone but as it goes I'm not trying to get that low. With current weight loss it would take me two years to get there anyway!
- And yes I do exercise and no I don't eat the calories back. 1000 - 1100 a day is what I have to do to lose at least half a pound a week. Never lost more than 2lb a week and that happens rarely anyway!
- So good to see some fellow shorties post with the same experiences!
I spend a fair amount of time on here ranting about this one as well. My friend is five feet even and has a crazy sedentary job. Her maintenance is something like 1100 maybe 1200 calories0 -
The "is not statistically different from that of the sedentary group" about the "strenuous joggers" is a really important statement because it means the relationship between the two variables in the study was just a chance occurrence. (Statistical significance means the relationship between the variables in a study was not a chance occurrence.)
For that one summary of that one study you determine: "Studies show that running 4 hours a week is as bad for you as being sedentary."
I agree with the first quoted paragraph, but I don't see why you're confused about the second.
The study failed to show a difference in mortality between running 4 hours per week and being sedentary. Ergo, if they are not different, they are the same, statistically speaking.0 -
I'm in the same boat. 5'5" and at 1,200 I maintain, in order for me to lose I have to be 1,000. I have a slow metabolism and just don't need as much. I don't have a problem staying in that 1,000 if I'm eating lean protein and veg, I'm not deprived or hungry. If I go over its because I had an adult beverage... Or 3 lol....or chocolate.0
-
snarlingcoyote wrote: »Hi, OP here. This has been a fascinating read - sorry I dropped out of it. Was travelling and then came home to a dying cat.
I am very glad to find I am not the only short, older lady on these boards with a low BMR! For those of you ladies who are short but haven't yet hit peri-menopause and menopause, just wait! Your metabolism does this whole bottom out thing at one point or another, and if your metabolism was low to start with. . .you don't have wriggle room.
For those of us who do seem to have crazy low metabolisms (and those that don't for that matter), there is a test that you can get that shows what your RMR is. I can have it done at a health club that's attached to a local hospital for $60 and I think I am going to do this. I've kept a spreadsheet with every bite that goes into my mouth for a while, so I think I know my BMR, but it will be quite curious to find out what SCIENCE says my RMR is!
<edited because I realized, I probably gained weight this week and I'm going to stop excusing it. . .but I ate well while I was travelling. There's no Ethiopian near me, and there was a place 2 blocks from my hotel that was outstanding. I ate until my stomach hurt.>
So sorry about your kitty:(...
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