Is 1200 the lowest?
Replies
-
BeckaFrieri wrote: »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
Not quite, no way to get adequate protein, fat, and vitamins and minerals on 900 cals. It is very hard to do with 1200 cals, as all your food would have to be nutrient dense (no room for empty calories), so doing it on less would be nearly impossible without supplementation0 -
I am just telling you how the studies have suggested. And I can also tell you there are tons of threads on here of people realizing how far they were off when they bought a $20 scale. Whether this applies to you, we wont know unless you did a comparison
I concur. Using measuring cups or eyeballing can be 10-50% off what you are really eating.0 -
I am angry at the fact that too many people throw around the term mindlessly and therefore some people genuinely fear that if they eat 1195 kcals they will enter starvation mode but if they eat 1205, it is magically all okay! Let's keep 1200 kcals as a recommendation or a guideline not as an absolute number which cannot be questioned by any means.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?0 -
I eat 800-900kcal 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.
Sorry ... you sound like you are suffering from anorexia. This condition distorts the way the sufferer experiences the world. There is no way you can hit your macros and not be burning enormous amounts of lead body mass as well as fat on 800 calories a day.0 -
I am just telling you how the studies have suggested. And I can also tell you there are tons of threads on here of people realizing how far they were off when they bought a $20 scale. Whether this applies to you, we wont know unless you did a comparison
I concur. Using measuring cups or eyeballing can be 10-50% off what you are really eating.
This is totally correct. reseach has shown people are crap at judging volume and weight by just looking at it.
0 -
Wow, this has brought all the "I eat next to nothing and am FINE" people out of the woodwork. You may be fine now, even in a couple of months but at some point you won't be fine, you'll be very very unfine. There's a good reason 1200 is the absolute minimum recommended for a female, even a pretty petite one and it's based on SCIENCE. I really hope these people do fall off the wagon pretty quickly because the alternative is pretty scary.0
-
Yes I've been getting quite a lot of blood work done recently and they are absolutely perfect.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".
And I wanted to convey the same as what I highlighted in your message in bold.
0 -
I've just eaten when I posted this, but thanks for the diagnosisI 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"
so this means that whenever something small/not that relevant annoys me I am always hangry! At least I know it now! I will go ahead and double my intake and I will be the most tolerant person in the world then... 0 -
BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.0 -
I'm 5'7/8 and currently 222, 140 is my target (started weight loss at 293! On a different app)
I have set 2lb per week loss and its suggests 1192 or something like that. I fiddled with my % as I wanted to up my protein . I don't really want to go lower than 1200. So I won't. I know it's not much but it's possible for the app to suggest it0 -
Yes I've been getting quite a lot of blood work done recently and they are absolutely perfect.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".
And I wanted to convey the same as what I highlighted in your message in bold.
Any body composition analysis? If not there us still a good chance that a larger portion of your weight loss could be from muscle. Grant it, it may help if you can still achieve 1g of pro per pound of lean body mass and do a progressive weight training program.
0 -
BeckaFrieri wrote: »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.
So you don't use a scale and claim to eat only 1000 calories?
Is that a small medium or large banana? Bananas seem high energy the the difference here could be large.
Beans for me could vary a lot if I was measuring by cups. But they are fairly low calorie so the variance is likely minor.
The chicken, eggs and bacon also vary so with out weighing you could be eating more or less each day.
You should try a scale for a while, you might be surprised. I was.0 -
Does anyone ever get recommended any lower intake to lose weight by myfitnesspal? say a short, small person?
That is the lowest. Why? Because that is the lowest calorie goal recommendation for women from the National Institute of Health. (1500 for men)
You can read more about it here:
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals
_________________________________________________________
These threads always make me sad. It's like people are looking for justification in eating as little as possible.0 -
I'm 5'2" and I determined my "real" calorie goal (for weight loss) with WebMD.com's calculator. It came to 895 calories. Because it is not recommended to eat less that 1200 cals for nutrition's sake, I purposely try to burn enough calories (at least) to allow me to eat around 1200 cals a day. I try to limit it at that, any extra cals burned is just a bonus! Losing about 1 pound per week.0
-
A 5'0 woman who is sedentary (bedridden) and weighs 100 lbs could maintain on 1300 to 1500 calories a day. To lose weight, she would have to eat less than that, 1100 to 1300 calories. A 5'0 woman could weigh 95 lbs and be in the very bottom of the normal weight range. Source: http://www.calorieking.com/interactive-tools/how-many-calories-should-you-eat/
Most people are not 5'0 bedridden 100 lb women (i.e., low calorie expenditure, very little weight left to lose).0 -
petitehealth wrote: »I'm 5'2" and I determined my "real" calorie goal (for weight loss) with WebMD.com's calculator. It came to 895 calories. Because it is not recommended to eat less that 1200 cals for nutrition's sake, I purposely try to burn enough calories (at least) to allow me to eat around 1200 cals a day. I try to limit it at that, any extra cals burned is just a bonus! Losing about 1 pound per week.
How much are you trying to lose per week?
0 -
petitehealth wrote: »I'm 5'2" and I determined my "real" calorie goal (for weight loss) with WebMD.com's calculator. It came to 895 calories. Because it is not recommended to eat less that 1200 cals for nutrition's sake, I purposely try to burn enough calories (at least) to allow me to eat around 1200 cals a day. I try to limit it at that, any extra cals burned is just a bonus! Losing about 1 pound per week.
895 to lose a lb a week, but with so little to lose you should be aiming for no more than 0.5lbs/week, that would give you 250 more cals or 11450 -
brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I can get lower (never would!!). I put in 5', 190b, 44yrs old and albs a week = 771 calories a day = NEVER. If I read it right though, they recommend not going under 1200 calories a day. The number they are giving is net. So I am supposed to eat 1200 cal and not eat back exercise calories, according to WebMD.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I can get lower (never would!!). I put in 5', 190b, 44yrs old and albs a week = 771 calories a day = NEVER. If I read it right though, they recommend not going under 1200 calories a day. The number they are giving is net. So I am supposed to eat 1200 cal and not eat back exercise calories, according to WebMD.
According to some other calculators that I know....44/5'/F/190lbs = a TDEE of ~1800 cals (sedentary), so you could lose at 1300+ per week. I have no idea how WebMD is getting such a low number.
0 -
Maybe she's confusing TDEE with BMR?brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I can get lower (never would!!). I put in 5', 190b, 44yrs old and albs a week = 771 calories a day = NEVER. If I read it right though, they recommend not going under 1200 calories a day. The number they are giving is net. So I am supposed to eat 1200 cal and not eat back exercise calories, according to WebMD.
According to some other calculators that I know....44/5'/F/190lbs = a TDEE of ~1800 cals (sedentary), so you could lose at 1300+ per week. I have no idea how WebMD is getting such a low number.
0 -
.sorry double post
0 -
Maybe she's confusing TDEE with BMR?brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I can get lower (never would!!). I put in 5', 190b, 44yrs old and albs a week = 771 calories a day = NEVER. If I read it right though, they recommend not going under 1200 calories a day. The number they are giving is net. So I am supposed to eat 1200 cal and not eat back exercise calories, according to WebMD.
According to some other calculators that I know....44/5'/F/190lbs = a TDEE of ~1800 cals (sedentary), so you could lose at 1300+ per week. I have no idea how WebMD is getting such a low number.
Been known to happen.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BeckaFrieri wrote: »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 greatI eat 800-900kcal 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.
Attempted rationalization of what, if actually happening, is unhealthy behavior.
I'm going to throw in the 895 calorie goal to give myself a full blown case of the sadz from this thread.
I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I can get lower (never would!!). I put in 5', 190b, 44yrs old and albs a week = 771 calories a day = NEVER. If I read it right though, they recommend not going under 1200 calories a day. The number they are giving is net. So I am supposed to eat 1200 cal and not eat back exercise calories, according to WebMD.
According to some other calculators that I know....44/5'/F/190lbs = a TDEE of ~1800 cals (sedentary), so you could lose at 1300+ per week. I have no idea how WebMD is getting such a low number.
That's the lowest I've ever seen. I've been on dozens of calculators to average out my TDEE & your right, it's always much higher. I definitely would not use the WebMD calculator. Although if you look at it, it's not far off. I put in -2lbs a week at sedentary, so if my TDEE is 1800, a 1000 cal deficit would be 800. I'd go crazy. I need a min of 1400 just to function properly
. 0 -
daniellepstewart209 wrote: »I'm 5'7/8 and currently 222, 140 is my target (started weight loss at 293! On a different app)
I have set 2lb per week loss and its suggests 1192 or something like that. I fiddled with my % as I wanted to up my protein . I don't really want to go lower than 1200. So I won't. I know it's not much but it's possible for the app to suggest it
I'm 99% that this is a glitch. MFP never puts someone at less than 1200. People have occasionally gotten a glitch that puts them lower
0 -
BeckaFrieri wrote: »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.
So you don't use a scale and claim to eat only 1000 calories?
Is that a small medium or large banana? Bananas seem high energy the the difference here could be large.
Beans for me could vary a lot if I was measuring by cups. But they are fairly low calorie so the variance is likely minor.
The chicken, eggs and bacon also vary so with out weighing you could be eating more or less each day.
You should try a scale for a while, you might be surprised. I was.
Seconded. Bananas are especially higher in calorie than I'd expected (and bigger than I'd thought). The food scale is ideal for exactly your kind of consumption: not people who are eating more of their meals from processed, easily measured locations (though is is also extremely helpful for that), but rather food that doesn't come with a preset serving number. It's a lot easier to weigh the grapes, IMO, to get an as-close-to-accurate number.
That said, calorie counting is unique, and you have to do what works best for you. For my experience, having a scale actually allowed me to eat more for the most part, and made calorie counting and weight loss a lot more effective.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
How much are you trying to lose per week?
I set the calculator for 2 pounds per week. I am losing only 1 pound per weight due to the occasional slip up or weekend drinks.
0 -
895 to lose a lb a week, but with so little to lose you should be aiming for no more than 0.5lbs/week, that would give you 250 more cals or 1145
I appreciate the feedback. I have another 10 pounds I am trying to lose. It may seem like a small amount but I am a small person. I am trying to hit my goal weight (first mini goal is 118, final goal is 113) as soon as possible so I can start wedding dress shopping. Also looking forward to switching to maintain mode so I can eat more.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I haven't produced that low of a total in my playing around with the webmd calculator.
I'm a 5'2" female...
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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