Is 1200 the lowest?

Not that I have seen. MFP recommends that everyone eat no less than 1200 calories a day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"

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".

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.

about a pound a week

I dont need one because I barely eat meat unless its tuna or portioned chicken. I measure everything and count things out for serving though.

I highly doubt it I'm extremely careful. I don't really even eat nuts I don't eat chips or hardly anything carb based that you can just grab from a bag. I really don't have anything in my entire apartment that isn't portioned out. Ill give you a sample of what I eat almost everyday. Banana for breakfast, one cup of green beans steamed with vinegar and a little bit of salt and a can of tuna with one tsp of low fat mayo for lunch. Dinner is usually 2 portioned trimmed chicken breast fillets over a bed of lettuce on tsp of oil vinegar and salt. For snacks Ill have a cup of grapes or a couple pieces of watermelon or steamed spinach or a cup of cottage cheese. Ill have about 3 snacks a day. The only thing I have that's processed for the most part would be a fiber bar that's anywhere from 90 calories to 140 calories and the only variation with breakfast would be 2 eggs one egg white and 2 pieces of bacon with all the fat drained out.

timtakel wrote: »

I eat 800kcal and walk at least 15.000 Steps a day that's ~12km. I'm happy, not hangry or hungry. I pay attention to my nutrients, which is not always easy.

Please eat more. Unless you're under the direct care of a trained medical professional, what you're doing might cause you long term harm that will take years to recover from. (#LFMF: 4 surgeries, anemia, brittle bones, 3 plates, 40+ screws, gall stones, etc)

I think its a matter of opinion its more what you eat if your having 900 calories of crap than yes your going to be very unhealthy but you can eat 900 calories of veggies and lean protein and not only be full but feel great