Why 1200 calorie goal is not a healthy choice?
Options
Replies
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »People don't say 1200 is bad - it's that 1200, in many cases, is unnecessary.
Most people sign up here, and when they input their goals see an option to lose 2 pounds a week. And they think YES!!!!!!!! I want to lose 2 pounds a week!!
What they don't know is that if you don't have much to lose, it's an unrealistic, and overly aggressive goal.
The goal should always be to eat as much as you can, while still losing weight. It's harder to stick to high deficits long term, and it's harder to meet your nutritional needs while being satiated.
A good rule of thumb is for every 25 pounds you have to lose, add .5lbs per week. So if you have 50 pounds to lose, a good goal is 1lb a week.
These are all general guidelines. It is, of course, up to you to figure out what you want to do.
==========
This and yes, I am 5' 2.5" and my weekly average is 1650-1750 a day (I don't eat my cals back since I use TDEE-20%), and I have consistently lost 1-1.5 lbs every 7-10 days. I also lift heavy 3x a week, and do no more that 25-30min or cardio 3-4 times a week. It works for me, and I don't want to lose any lean muscle mass I currently have. If I don't eat enough, I feel like crap (no energy). You just have to find what works for you, and base it on how active you are and if your energy is satiated.0 -
Because your body fat can only release its stored energy so quickly. If you are creating demand higher than that amount, the extra energy does not come from fat. You don't want that energy to come from cannibalization of your muscles, organs, etc.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »At 1 lb per 10 days you're eating about 350 calories below your TDEE and losing at a reasonable rate.
Yeah I am thinking I am not counting my calorie intake right anyway because per MFP I should be losing 2lbs per week. I am not.
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?0 -
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?
Losing weight is stress on the body. Doing it slower allows your hormones and skin and muscles to adapt to the changes. If you've set your loss at too aggressive of pace, you will lose more muscle and bone than you'd want to. The goal is to lose fat, not other tissue.0 -
DemoraFairy wrote: »
Really? I'm 5'4 (average height), 24 (not exactly old), office job, and my TDEE is 1535. People often used to say I was eating waaay too little when I said I ate 1200 a day... it's a 300 calorie deficit, not exactly starving myself.
I mean, I do agree with everything you've said, but you don't have to be that old or short to have a TDEE of around 1600.
It was just an example - not trying to say you have to be all those things to have a low TDEE, but that those are all contributing factors. You are not tall, I'm guessing you are not very overweight, and you are sedentary, so that's certainly enough of those factors to result in a fairly low TDEE.0 -
dennshah01 wrote: »
This and yes, I am 5' 2.5" and my weekly average is 1650-1750 a day (I don't eat my cals back since I use TDEE-20%), and I have consistently lost 1-1.5 lbs every 7-10 days. I also lift heavy 3x a week, and do no more that 25-30min or cardio 3-4 times a week. It works for me, and I don't want to lose any lean muscle mass I currently have. If I don't eat enough, I feel like crap (no energy). You just have to find what works for you, and base it on how active you are and if your energy is satiated.
I am also 5'2.5, I am jealous and I want your muscles.
0 -
1200 calories is fine for me. I am 5' 2".0
-
Really, it's based in numbers.
I'm a 5' 1" female. My BMR is around 1235cal, my sedentary TDEE is around 1350cal. But I'm a crazy person who does 20+ hours of intense physical activity a week, so my average daily TDEE incorporating my activities is ~2200cal.
If I were trying to lose weight while being totally sedentary, 1200cal could work, but not for an extended period of time.
However, I need to fuel my performance along with eating a deficit, so I'm eating at 1600cal. So far, so good, but we'll see what happens in the short-term and if I need to adjust that number based on performance.
I strongly recommend throwing MFP's default calculations out the goddamn window.
Check out these for more info on TDEE, BMR and figuring out what you ought to be eating:0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »At 1 lb per 10 days you're eating about 350 calories below your TDEE and losing at a reasonable rate.
Yeah I am thinking I am not counting my calorie intake right anyway because per MFP I should be losing 2lbs per week. I am not.
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?
Depending on how much you have to lose 2 pounds a week may be too agressive of a goal. You used to be able to go into your goals and it would tell you how much your maintenance calories were, how much of a deficit you had, and how much you would lose a week. I know when this was still available and I would change it to lose 2 pounds a week it would tell me that at 1200 calories I could only expect to lose 1.3 pounds a week. You might be able to go on another website like scooby's or IIFYM and find out how much of a deficit you really have at 1200 calories a day.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »At 1 lb per 10 days you're eating about 350 calories below your TDEE and losing at a reasonable rate.
Yeah I am thinking I am not counting my calorie intake right anyway because per MFP I should be losing 2lbs per week. I am not.
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?
At my starting weight on MFP of 198 pounds my body needed more energy (calories) in order for my body to function how it was - pumping more blood for example. Now at 153 pounds my body does not expend as much energy just to live. So I have to eat less calories to maintain this smaller weight. I have myself set to lose .5 pound per week as I only have 9 pounds to go to go. To be blunt I don't want to have to live on the bare minimum of food. If I can eat more and still achieve my goal I am going to take that route and not the route that leaves me hungry and a totally moody B. Yeah it's taken longer, but in the process I've learned how to eat things I love in moderation and that for me is sustainable for the long haul, which is what I want.
Edit for spelling, and realizing I keep typing 155 out of habit from the last few weeks. :laugh:0 -
If she's logging accurately, she already has that data (350 calories/day) and there's no need for a calculator.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »At 1 lb per 10 days you're eating about 350 calories below your TDEE and losing at a reasonable rate.
Yeah I am thinking I am not counting my calorie intake right anyway because per MFP I should be losing 2lbs per week. I am not.
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?
Depending on how much you have to lose 2 pounds a week may be too agressive of a goal. You used to be able to go into your goals and it would tell you how much your maintenance calories were, how much of a deficit you had, and how much you would lose a week. I know when this was still available and I would change it to lose 2 pounds a week it would tell me that at 1200 calories I could only expect to lose 1.3 pounds a week. You might be able to go on another website like scooby's or IIFYM and find out how much of a deficit you really have at 1200 calories a day.
Start a lifting/strength/resistance training program and you can have your very own muscles.dennshah01 wrote: »This and yes, I am 5' 2.5" and my weekly average is 1650-1750 a day (I don't eat my cals back since I use TDEE-20%), and I have consistently lost 1-1.5 lbs every 7-10 days. I also lift heavy 3x a week, and do no more that 25-30min or cardio 3-4 times a week. It works for me, and I don't want to lose any lean muscle mass I currently have. If I don't eat enough, I feel like crap (no energy). You just have to find what works for you, and base it on how active you are and if your energy is satiated.
I am also 5'2.5, I am jealous and I want your muscles.
0 -
DemoraFairy wrote: »
Really? I'm 5'4 (average height), 24 (not exactly old), office job, and my TDEE is 1535. People often used to say I was eating waaay too little when I said I ate 1200 a day... it's a 300 calorie deficit, not exactly starving myself.
I mean, I do agree with everything you've said, but you don't have to be that old or short to have a TDEE of around 1600.
I suspect you've miscalculated. I'm 5'4", much older than you, and my BMR is estimated to be around 1300 a day by the formulas. Factor in 20% for a sedentary TDEE, and it's more than your estimated TDEE. Given you are much younger, yours should be higher. I can also say that my actual BMR is quite a bit higher than the estimate (had it tested at the hospital). It's really between 1520 and 1600. So my actual TDEE for my very sedentary life is around 1850 a day.
Your point is correct though. For someone who is smaller and sedentary, the numbers are not in our favor. We operate on much smaller deficits and aiming for 1200 net calories a day is frequently very appropriate.
ETA: Eh...I take it back on your calculations. You're much younger than me, but possibly quite a bit lighter too based on your picture. So, your number could be correct.
0 -
Many people who end up on 1200 calories is because they chose too aggressive a goal for their needs. If I were to choose two pounds per week right now, that's where it would put me because the number I'd really need to be at to lose that much per week is below 1200 (in fact, it's just below 1000, which is worse). Plus I work a fairly active job, so I need more calories for that and regularly end up consuming 1800-2000.0
-
DemoraFairy wrote: »
Really? I'm 5'4 (average height), 24 (not exactly old), office job, and my TDEE is 1535. People often used to say I was eating waaay too little when I said I ate 1200 a day... it's a 300 calorie deficit, not exactly starving myself.
I mean, I do agree with everything you've said, but you don't have to be that old or short to have a TDEE of around 1600.
I suspect you've miscalculated. I'm 5'4", much older than you, and my BMR is estimated to be around 1300 a day by the formulas. Factor in 20% for a sedentary TDEE, and it's more than your estimated TDEE. Given you are much younger, yours should be higher. I can also say that my actual BMR is quite a bit higher than the estimate (had it tested at the hospital). It's really between 1520 and 1600. So my actual TDEE for my very sedentary life is around 1850 a day.
Your point is correct though. For someone who is smaller and sedentary, the numbers are not in our favor. We operate on much smaller deficits and aiming for 1200 net calories a day is frequently very appropriate.
ETA: Eh...I take it back on your calculations. You're much younger than me, but possibly quite a bit lighter too based on your picture. So, your number could be correct.
I used this calculator: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/how-many-calories-on-a-non-fast-day/
5'4, 24 years old, 120lbs, sedentary. Other calculators give different values (1600-1700), but I think 1500-1600 is about correct for me. Over several months I ate 1200 cals and lost on average 0.6lbs/week, so a deficit of 300 a day, means a TDEE of 1500.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »At 1 lb per 10 days you're eating about 350 calories below your TDEE and losing at a reasonable rate.
Yeah I am thinking I am not counting my calorie intake right anyway because per MFP I should be losing 2lbs per week. I am not.
What I am reading anyway is that I should up my calories and set my goal to lose .5lbs per week? This is the "healthier" way? But why?
Depending on how much you have to lose 2 pounds a week may be too agressive of a goal. You used to be able to go into your goals and it would tell you how much your maintenance calories were, how much of a deficit you had, and how much you would lose a week. I know when this was still available and I would change it to lose 2 pounds a week it would tell me that at 1200 calories I could only expect to lose 1.3 pounds a week. You might be able to go on another website like scooby's or IIFYM and find out how much of a deficit you really have at 1200 calories a day.
If she's logging accurately, she already has that data (350 calories/day) and there's no need for a calculator.
True. I just was just explaining why she wasn't losing the 2 pounds a week she expecting to when she chose that option.0 -
Ok so I am trying to set new goals.
What would my fitness levels be if I hit my 12k step goal everyday? I do this by either walking around, dancing or just walking in place while watching TV. Lightly active, active or very active (haha)?
Or maybe a compassionate soul may want to help me out figure it out? I am 5' 2.5 and currently 136 lbs hitting a 12k step goal everyday. My ideal weight is 120 lbs. I started at 144 lbs.0 -
DemoraFairy wrote: »
Really? I'm 5'4 (average height), 24 (not exactly old), office job, and my TDEE is 1535. People often used to say I was eating waaay too little when I said I ate 1200 a day... it's a 300 calorie deficit, not exactly starving myself.
I mean, I do agree with everything you've said, but you don't have to be that old or short to have a TDEE of around 1600.
It was just an example - not trying to say you have to be all those things to have a low TDEE, but that those are all contributing factors. You are not tall, I'm guessing you are not very overweight, and you are sedentary, so that's certainly enough of those factors to result in a fairly low TDEE.
I just wanted to point out you don't have to be short and old, which is what so many people seem to think. I'm average height, pretty young, and 1200 makes me lose about half a pound a week.0 -
Most people don't say 1200 is unhealthy. They say that anything under 1200 is unhealthy. It's like the magic number, separating healthy from unhealthy. There has to be some number or everyone will forever argue about what is and isn't a healthy amount. 1200 is the accepted number. Truth is that the number is different for everyone and 1500 could be more unhealthy for someone than 1200 for another.
If you can eat more than 1200 calories and still lose, you should. It gives you a better shot at getting all your nutrients in....and if you think that's an easy task, think again! When you start tracking micros, you find out how Not Easy it is! I did, anyway. I don't get all of them every single day, but there were a 4 or 5 that I was consistently low on. Like every day. If I ate 1500 a day, it would be a lot easier to squeeze them all in.
It's a really good idea to take in as many calories as you can while still losing. As you continue to lose, it gets harder. You're going to want to drop your total calorie intake later. When you begin at 1500 (or whatever number), it's a lot easier to drop your calories.
Obviously, the more you eat, the fuller you will be, especially if your dietary choices aren't all that filling.
1200 might be the right number for you and it might not. Try to eat as much as you can while still losing and eat a variety of healthy foods.
0 -
I aim for 1200 or slightly above on sedentary days and I feel fine (I'm 5'4). On days when I work out though, I eat up to 1300 or 1400 - even if I think I burned less than the calorie difference. Quite honestly, I've tried to stick to 1200 on workout days and I felt it.
I would say, unless you're exceptionally short (under 5'1), aiming under 1200 can be unhealthy, especially over a great length of time. And a lot of women who are on 1200/day often do aim below it because they probably like to see that little "was under her calorie goal" report pop up (like many of us do).
For the individual of average height and age, who, I would assume, is overweight (as they're here), anything lower than 1200 might result in some negative side effects over time. A daily intake under this limit could be potentially dangerous, depending on if they work out and how close they come to 1200.
1200, however, is a general limit imposed by MFP because they have to operate by the average, not by the outlier. It's excluding certain exceptional circumstances. If someone is shorter than 5'0, older, or has a medical issue that impairs movement, for example, then under 1200 might be okay.0 -
Most people don't say 1200 is unhealthy. They say that anything under 1200 is unhealthy. It's like the magic number, separating healthy from unhealthy. There has to be some number or everyone will forever argue about what is and isn't a healthy amount. 1200 is the accepted number. Truth is that the number is different for everyone and 1500 could be more unhealthy for someone than 1200 for another.
If you can eat more than 1200 calories and still lose, you should. It gives you a better shot at getting all your nutrients in....and if you think that's an easy task, think again! When you start tracking micros, you find out how Not Easy it is! I did, anyway. I don't get all of them every single day, but there were a 4 or 5 that I was consistently low on. Like every day. If I ate 1500 a day, it would be a lot easier to squeeze them all in.
It's a really good idea to take in as many calories as you can while still losing. As you continue to lose, it gets harder. You're going to want to drop your total calorie intake later. When you begin at 1500 (or whatever number), it's a lot easier to drop your calories.
Obviously, the more you eat, the fuller you will be, especially if your dietary choices aren't all that filling.
1200 might be the right number for you and it might not. Try to eat as much as you can while still losing and eat a variety of healthy foods.
Way back when, before I was fat (as I am now), after I had my babies and was overweight, I was doing 1,000 calories a day for five or six weeks until I snapped back in shape. I am much older now and fortunately not able to have babies any longer, but 1200 - 1500 calories a day is reasonable depending upon your size. More than that if you are obese, of course.0 -
Alright I went to this website http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator
Which gave me these based on the data that I inputted:
Daily Calorie Requirements:
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 1281
Daily calories to maintain weight (TDEE) 1986
Daily calories based on goal in step 6 1586
Projected Weight Loss:
.8 per week
3.22 per month
41.3 per year
I don't know why but I like more calories! I
food. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions