What's wrong with 1200 calories?

I think it's highly dependent on height. At 5'0 right now 1200 is less than one pound per week loss for me. If you are much taller 1200 wouldn't be ideal as it would leave you super hungry and that could lead to binge eating.

malibu927 wrote: »

Since you're older, 1200 is fine. You won't burn as much as someone a third of your age who wants to quickly lose ten pounds for bikini season, so your caloric needs are going to be less than them as well.

Agree

It depends on your stats/calorie needs. A 5'9" 250 lb 20 year old woman shouldn't be eating 1200 calories to lose.

alizesmom wrote: »

Thanks. That all makes sense. I'm 60 1/2 inches and 62.

That would explain it then. It all comes down to math.

I agree with those who mentioned that shorter individuals need less than taller ones. I would also put out there that I firmly believe that the vast majority of people who think they are eating 1200 calories are eating much more than that. Most of them are just making mistakes in their counting or doing too much estimating (not weighing food on a scale). I know I was terrible when I first started counting yet still lost weight due to the fact that I has so much to lose, the margin of error I had was large. This margin diminishes as time goes on and weight comes off. Those claiming 1200 calories may infact still be in a deficit, but they are likely eating more than they think. Especially if they are "easily" sticking to 1200 calories. While I'm sure they're are people out there who need to eat an accurately counted 1200 in order to lose weight, as was pointed out above, it's a minority of folks who are shorter and have smaller frames to begin with.

Kalikel wrote: »

It's possible. I've been averaging 1200 for a long, long time.

I have no idea why people like to believe that it's not possible and gave up trying to figure it out. They like believing it, they're happier with that thought, so whatever.

Just because it's right for you doesn't make it right for everyone. I thought we'd already established that though.

What is right for a 300 lb 30 year old male wouldn't be right for a 50 year old 5'0 female. What is right for a 300 lb 5'0 female wouldn't be right for a 100 lb 5'0 female. Etc. Etc.

Kalikel wrote: »

blankiefinder wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

It's possible. I've been averaging 1200 for a long, long time.

I have no idea why people like to believe that it's not possible and gave up trying to figure it out. They like believing it, they're happier with that thought, so whatever.

Just because it's right for you doesn't make it right for everyone. I thought we'd already established that though.

What is right for a 300 lb 30 year old male wouldn't be right for a 50 year old 5'0 female. What is right for a 300 lb 5'0 female wouldn't be right for a 100 lb 5'0 female. Etc. Etc.

You are arguing against something I did not say. I did not say, suggest, imply or even think that what is right for one person will be right for another.

In fact, I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite. Over and over again.

I don't remember discussing it with you. I don't remember discussing anything with you.

I was replying to what you said here not what you may have said elsewhere.

Not sure why you took it so personally. And you may very well have said it elsewhere, but I wouldn't know; you didn't say it here. Perhaps you're reading 'tone'. That never goes well.

I'm 5'7' and have a 1200 daily limit.... Am I to tall for this to be doing me any good?

It's dependent on a lot of factors.

I was on 1200 calories for quite a few months to lose the majority of my weight and I found it really testing. I was actually eating quite a substantial amount less than was necessary so I personally felt pretty deprived on this. Having said that, I work-out a lot so I did need the extra energy. For small and less active people, 1200 may be a little more manageable (stats also play a part). 1200 is the lowest recommended amount so it can be quite extreme for a lot of people.

If you're shorter and lighter and/or older and you need to go as low as 1200 calories to lose weight, it is what it is. If you are able to lose weight eating substantially more than that, I do not understand dipping down to 1200 just to be able to lose faster.

I personally could not live on 1200 calories for any prolonged period of time. I didn't gain 100+ pounds because I don't enjoy food. I get 1600 calories a day and have no problem eating that and more. But I'm also 5'11 and even being close to goal weight, 1200 calories is not going to do it for me. I'd rather be a few pounds heavier than eating 1200 calories a day.

paperpudding wrote: »

I think OP is probably right in her calculations for her - a 62 year old woman, just over 5 feet tall.

Given that 1200 would be about right amount for her, there is no reason to think she is not doing that accurately or nutritiously

It's known that most North Americans are missing vital minerals and vitamins in their diet...and these are the people are are typically over weight. So it goes to reason that those who are eating minimum calories are as well...

I am not saying that the OP isn't eating good food but without planning and really getting into your intake we as the general public are missing out on important nutrition.

I don't get a lot of iron in my diet on purpose (I have issues)

Prior to getting on MFP I was low on protein, calcium, Vitamin D and a lot of the B vitamins...I know that now as i watch what I eat....

I'm short-ish (5'3) and old-ish (45, just turned 44 when I started) and started with enough to lose that 2 lb/week was reasonable, so I started with 1250 (1200 meant I'd either be under 1200 or in the red, so no go), which was supposedly only going to be a 1.8 lb loss anyway. What I discovered was that I was easily losing more than 2, since I clearly wasn't sedentary (most people are not). I was okay with that while I was well into obese territory, but I also think it's important that I quickly learned that the MFP plan is 1200 NET, so I started eating back some of my exercise calories. By the time I would have started to feel run down or deprived or just stir crazy with such a limited diet I was getting back enough exercise calories that I had a lot more flexibility, and yet continued to lose at 2 lb/week so long as it was appropriate (and probably a bit beyond that).

I think 1200 is appropriate for plenty of people here (although again people should understand it's NET if they do substantial exercise), but it's not appropriate for everyone who tries it, and choosing an overly aggressive goal is not a great idea.

If you are smaller, older, have health issues that might affect metabolism, and/or losing an appropriate amount while feeling good (likely some combination of those), the statements that 1200 is often too aggressive likely don't apply to you, but that's not who they are normally directed at.

This isn't a matter of "good" or "bad". It's just a math question. Math is value neutral.

Crunch the numbers here and see what you should be targeting for your stats: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/. Calculate what TDEE-20% or TDEE-15% is for you. (Use 25% only if you have a lot of weight to lose. Don't go above 25% deficit except on the advice of a doctor.)

Then, look at the deficit that it calculates for you:

• Is it around 250 calories/day, give or take? Set MFP to 0.5lbs/week.
• Is it closer to 500 calories/day? Set MFP to 1lb/week.
• Is it closer to 750 calories/day? Set MFP to 1.5lbs/week.
• Is it 1000 calories/day or above? Set MFP to 2lbs/week.

Set your activity level to normal daily activity only. MFP will give you a calorie goal that's lower than your TDEE number. The balance is made up with exercise. Eat back those exercise calories -- at least half of them! -- to maintain your deficit. That's the whole point.

There are some cases when smaller, older and lighter women will end up eating 1200 to lose. That's okay. But the vast majority of cases where people are "given" 1200 by MFP, it's because they set too aggressive a weight loss goal for their stats. Saying you want to lose 2lbs/week when you only have 20 pounds to lose and you're relatively small and light is just unrealistic. Choose something reasonable for your body and you'll see success.

tl;dr : 1200 calories can be appropriate for some people. But often, it's a warning sign that someone new to the site needs a little guidance to adjust their settings.

Monklady123 wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the net/gross thing when it comes to calories (although I do understand it when looking at my paycheck, lol)... But, MFP gave me 1200 per day so that's what I went with. I do manage it most days, but I also get some exercise calories to add in (I take half of what MFP gives me).

I don't find it too difficult, not usually anyway. I eat a lot of protein so that keeps me fuller, and I do not eat pasta or bread which for me are just empty calories. So that also helps to stay at 1200.

The number on your home page should be 1200 at the end of the day...Net.

MFP calories can be over estimates for some but not all...they are typically bang on for me when I used them.

AS for it not being difficult it isn't for some esp when they fill up on protein and fats...but that being said.

If I were to net 1200 everyday I couldn't lift half the weight I do or run like I do or walk the walks I do.

been there done that.

At 1200 calories I almost fainted doing zumba...that says something

At 1200 calories (mistake one weekend I got busy) I tried my lifts on Monday just couldn't get them up...I was fine by Wednesday after refueling but I won't typically go at 1200 net...between 1400 and 1600 net for me.

annaskiski wrote: »

vismal wrote: »

I agree with those who mentioned that shorter individuals need less than taller ones. I would also put out there that I firmly believe that the vast majority of people who think they are eating 1200 calories are eating much more than that. Most of them are just making mistakes in their counting or doing too much estimating (not weighing food on a scale). I know I was terrible when I first started counting yet still lost weight due to the fact that I has so much to lose, the margin of error I had was large. This margin diminishes as time goes on and weight comes off. Those claiming 1200 calories may infact still be in a deficit, but they are likely eating more than they think. Especially if they are "easily" sticking to 1200 calories. While I'm sure they're are people out there who need to eat an accurately counted 1200 in order to lose weight, as was pointed out above, it's a minority of folks who are shorter and have smaller frames to begin with.

This ^^

If you don't weigh all your food, or skip things like coffee creamer, etc., its easy for "1200" to really be "2000".
But if you're losing, don't change your strategy..

I personally don't agree with the bolded.

Losing is one thing but if you are losing valuable muscle that is not a good thing.

Losing too fast can be dangerous depending on where you start...esp for women.

Remember the scale weight isn't the end all to be all in the little journey...getting to a health weight in a healthy manner and liking what you see in the mirror should be the goal not lose lose lose regardless.