Is 1200 the lowest?

Options
catt952
catt952 Posts: 190 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Does anyone ever get recommended any lower intake to lose weight by myfitnesspal? say a short, small person?
«1345

Replies

  • hearthwood
    hearthwood Posts: 794 Member
    Options
    Not that I have seen. MFP recommends that everyone eat no less than 1200 calories a day.
  • Sandcastles61
    Sandcastles61 Posts: 506 Member
    Options
    How short and small?
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    I think if you are particularly short you probably come in under the radar for mfp recommendations. 1200 may be too high but mfp doesn't go any lower for women.

    I assume the recommendations are based on normal height ranges as in not including people with serious height issues like dwarfs or Giants.
  • catt952
    catt952 Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    what do you do if you are a dwarfed giant then? I'm guessing ill have to adjust the 1200 calories to something more healthy for my body so 3500 calories it is.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    stefanschultz1 wrote: »
    The reason its based on a minimum of 1200, bodies tend to store fat below that number rather than use it as fuel ....Its the old starvation mode argument.... although it wont allow you to set below that number try tweaking your own consumption to where you lose weight again... I would recommend adjusting the macro amounts first staying at 1200 increase your fat consumption and protein and reducing your carbs ..... 20 Fat 40 protein 40 Carbs play around with your numbers and see where it takes you ( try not to go too low on fat you need fat to burn fat )

    I really don't think it has anything to do with starvation mode MYTH.

    I am sure it's about adequate nutrition. As in below 1200 it would be impossible or very difficult to get the minimum protein, fats etc your body needs.

    It's so your less likely to just be stripping muscle because you need the protein etc.
  • minties82
    minties82 Posts: 907 Member
    Options
    I think they wouldn't want to get into any trouble for recommending ridiculously low calorie/kilojoule goals. Even us shorties can eat ok anyway, I am 4'11" and can maintain on 2300kcal per day (if I so desire). I am a big person width-wise though which helps I suppose. I usually have an average of 1422kcal per day to lose a decent amount of weight.
  • Patttience
    Patttience Posts: 975 Member
    Options
    You body won't store fat under 1200 but other organ functions will be compromised because every spare calorie will be used for energy.

    I can't understand what the OP is trying to do. Tell us your basic details and I can tell you what you should eat to lose weight and remain healthy and not starve at the same time.

    need age, height, weight, gender and activity level. so describe your fitness activies and daily activities in brief.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Merkavar wrote: »
    stefanschultz1 wrote: »
    The reason its based on a minimum of 1200, bodies tend to store fat below that number rather than use it as fuel ....Its the old starvation mode argument.... although it wont allow you to set below that number try tweaking your own consumption to where you lose weight again... I would recommend adjusting the macro amounts first staying at 1200 increase your fat consumption and protein and reducing your carbs ..... 20 Fat 40 protein 40 Carbs play around with your numbers and see where it takes you ( try not to go too low on fat you need fat to burn fat )

    I really don't think it has anything to do with starvation mode MYTH.

    I am sure it's about adequate nutrition. As in below 1200 it would be impossible or very difficult to get the minimum protein, fats etc your body needs.

    It's so your less likely to just be stripping muscle because you need the protein etc.

    Agreed, and it has zero to do with that ol cracker "starvation mode "
    Also as mentioned above, the calorie limit is to cover their butts and not be seen as promoting VLCD's.

  • Soopatt
    Soopatt Posts: 563 Member
    Options
    Yeah, 1200 is a dance with knives as far as trying to balance your macros is concerned - like trying to make a ballgown out of an inch of fabric. Going lower would mean a compromise in some area. Why not just take it a little slower? You will get there in the end.
  • szeeesz
    szeeesz Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
    If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
    I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    Options
    I can see why they do the 1200 minimum, though it kind of annoys me. If someone like my gran were to come to MFP, follow the instructions and never go near the forums, she would be recommended 1200 calories and gain weight on that amount.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    DemoraFairy wrote: »
    I can see why they do the 1200 minimum, though it kind of annoys me. If someone like my gran were to come to MFP, follow the instructions and never go near the forums, she would be recommended 1200 calories and gain weight on that amount.

    Of coarse there will be extremes they can't cater for.

    Like a door, they are designed around normal height people. If you were to cater for all you would need 7ft high doors with a handle in the middle and another 2ft off the ground. So dwarfs and midgets can use it.

  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    szeeesz wrote: »
    I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
    If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
    I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.


    Sounds like your getting confused between different things?

    Your angry at the mention of starvation mode because you eat less than 1200 and manage to work your macros.

    But starvation mode isn't about macros, it's about eating too little and some how maintaining or even gaining weight. Some sort of magic, cause we're all aware of those starving morbidly obese people from around the world, right?
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    Options
    eating less that 1200 would put me into stavation mode I would feel starving all day :-)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    szeeesz wrote: »
    I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
    If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
    I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.

    This right here is what we call "hangry" it is when you have hunger causing irrational anger.

    There is an easy fix to this problem however, its called, wait for it.... Eat more!!!

    With only 9 lbs to lose you should have a weekly goal set to lose 0.5lbs/week, that way I bet you would get more than 1200 cals, and avoid being hangry, and "starvation mode"
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    We were challenged in class to create a 1-day menu for a female of reproductive years in under 1200 calories that included all of the RDAs of micros and macros without using supplements. This was very tough.

    One that someone here gave me included something like 10 oz of mushroom, herring, half an egg, half a banana... if you tweak everything you can do it. But it's pretty tough.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    Options
    szeeesz wrote: »
    I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
    If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
    I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.


    I guess I would have to ask how are you measuing your health? Are you getting frequent blood work? Have you had a body composition analysis?

    The whole starvation mode is overblown but the majority of people will not be able to meet macro and micro requirements at that level which will generally cause long term issues. Now those issues coule be increase muscle loss or increased adaptive thermogenesis. The big issue with these is it makes it harder to maintain your weight as you will have a coresponding decrease in BMR/RMR and more importantly TDEE. Its one of many factors of why so many people gain more weight than lost on "diets".
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    Options
    OP, the bigger question is what are your stats and what are you goals. Essentially, your goals should help set your calories.
  • Harleyb87
    Harleyb87 Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    I personally cant lose weight even working out eating 1200 calories. I know Im going to get bashed for this but I cant eat more than 1000 to actually lose weight.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    edited July 2015
    Options
    BeckaFrieri wrote: »
    I personally cant lose weight even working out eating 1200 calories. I know Im going to get bashed for this but I cant eat more than 1000 to actually lose weight.

    What is your average weight loss at 1000 calories?

Categories