What's wrong with 1200 calories?
Options
Replies
-
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....0 -
I'm 5'7' and have a 1200 daily limit.... Am I to tall for this to be doing me any good?
You're 25 years old, so I'm going to go with this is not the best bet for you. I'm 34 and 5'6" and I have myself at 1460 calories and lightly active - and then my FitBit adjusts on top of that. I average 10k-13k steps and receive adjustments of 300-600 calories every day I move like that. As others have stated around the forums before - the winner is the person who can eat the most and still lose weight.
I suggest going to this site - scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ - and inputting your info to get a better grasp of your caloric needs. If you're say 175 pounds, have a desk job where you don't move much, and want to cut your calories by 15% then Scooby is showing you'd eat just a touch over 1,600 calories. That's around 400 more calories you could eat and still lose... That's like half a pint of Talenti!0 -
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.0 -
I think appetite has a lot to do with it too.
I'm only 5ft 4 but i have a BIG appetite.....so i could never live off just 1200 cals.
Even 1500 cals (that was including exercise) was a bit of a struggle for me tbh!
But if it's working for you OP, stay with it!0 -
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.0 -
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.
I'm in my 50s and 5'7", and not terribly active (although I am trying to change that).
0 -
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.0 -
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..0 -
annaskiski 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.
0 -
Yeah, most people over-estimate their calorie burns from exercise and under-estimate their calories from food.0
-
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)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.0 -
MFP doesn't "give" you 1200 calories. MFP is only a calculator; it spits out numbers based on what you feed into it. If you feed different numbers into it, you'll get a different result.
Sometimes 1200 calories is an appropriate goal for a smaller, lighter woman trying to lose weight. Most often, 1200 comes out of MFP because a too-aggressive pace was input by the user.
It's understandable. After all, if you asked me whether I'd prefer to lose weight faster or slower, all else being equal, I'd say of course I'd prefer to lose 2lbs/week. But all else isn't equal. And I was much happier losing 0.75 to 1lb/week and being satisfied and not hungry all the time, and able to stick with it long term and limit muscle loss and keep the weight off.
IMHO this is a flaw in MFP's design. Instead of asking people when they sign up for an account to decide how quickly they want to lose the weight, MFP should calculate that for you. It should ask you for your current height and weight and age and your goal weight, and then calculate (based on a ~20% deficit, more or less) what an appropriate pace of weight loss and deficit is for you.
Then, later, there could be an option to customize it. But for 99% of new users, this would REALLY help avoid the pattern of starting here with too aggressive a goal, being unable to keep it up, and quitting in frustration.0 -
MFP doesn't "give" you 1200 calories. MFP is only a calculator; it spits out numbers based on what you feed into it. If you feed different numbers into it, you'll get a different result.
Sometimes 1200 calories is an appropriate goal for a smaller, lighter woman trying to lose weight. Most often, 1200 comes out of MFP because a too-aggressive pace was input by the user.
It's understandable. After all, if you asked me whether I'd prefer to lose weight faster or slower, all else being equal, I'd say of course I'd prefer to lose 2lbs/week. But all else isn't equal. And I was much happier losing 0.75 to 1lb/week and being satisfied and not hungry all the time, and able to stick with it long term and limit muscle loss and keep the weight off.
IMHO this is a flaw in MFP's design. Instead of asking people when they sign up for an account to decide how quickly they want to lose the weight, MFP should calculate that for you. It should ask you for your current height and weight and age and your goal weight, and then calculate (based on a ~20% deficit, more or less) what an appropriate pace of weight loss and deficit is for you.
Then, later, there could be an option to customize it. But for 99% of new users, this would REALLY help avoid the pattern of starting here with too aggressive a goal, being unable to keep it up, and quitting in frustration.
Agreed.0 -
MarcyKirkton wrote: »Look, the Op sure noticed. I definitely avoid. One poster suggested a special group to avoid.
It's really not my problem if some "concerned "posters continue to repeat their behavior. I just found solution and pass it on when someone new brings it up.
I'm just looking for clarification on what you're talking about when it comes to "advised".
Advised my a medical professional or "advised" by the number that MFP spat out at them.
That would be two extremely different scenarios.
0 -
I'm 5'7' and have a 1200 daily limit.... Am I to tall for this to be doing me any good?
Probably...at the same height I lose 1lb a week on 1600.
The 1200 minimum is based in science. The actual RDA of all macros and vitamins and minerals can fit into 1200 if you eat almost perfectly....that means major planning on what you will eat.
I personally feel deflated, weak and tired on 1200 because it's not enough for me. I am 42, 5 ft 7 and weight about 143-144 lbs and lift heavy and am quite active.
And remember RDA are minimum recommended amounts...not the best guide.
I think that those who actually do 1200 a day are missing out on vital nutrition to a degree.
Regardless of age and stats very rarely do people sit down and plan to hit all required vitamins, minerals, macros etc.
The funny thing is Stef, I maintain on 1650 per day net
44, 5'7 and 131-134 maintenance range. That's right where the calculators put me, too.
edited to add that I did work out pretty much every day while I was working out, so I usually grossed 1600-1800 because I never wanted to eat that little. And as I stated, I always netted around 1380-1500 but based on my rate of loss I believe I was netting probably 100 below that as I lost a bit faster than expected. And if I had lost slower, I am positive I'd have lost less muscle mass.0 -
I'm 57 y. o., short, and only moderately active. I've been on an average of 1200 calories for 3 months and feeling fine. Everything I eat now is nutritious. Most of my carbs come from vegetables and fruit, oatmeal, beans, quinoa, etc. The bulk of my protein is from lots of fish, some eggs, and yogurt, with less from cheese and plant sources. I think I record the calories accurately, as I use a scale for those things I measure out and buy a lot of things in portions that are already figured out for me (small 5.3 oz containers of yogurt instead of a large container from which I'd need to measure, sliced cheese instead of a block). I guesstimate foods with a low calorie count, and, if I'm the only one in the house eating them, the count is accurate spread over a few days by the time the package is finished (such as large containers of salad greens). I have stopped eating all the empty calories - wine (please, no debate on resveratrol - not worth the calories for me), bread, pasta, the kids' Oreos, ice cream, etc. I honestly don't think that my diet was any more nutritious when I was overweight. I do take a multivitamin, since I had some in the house, but research shows that those most likely are not even beneficial if one is eating well, except for maybe the folic acid component in the vitamin.
So, I do think one can eat well and stay within the 1200 calories, and that 1200 is an adequate number for an older, small-framed woman on a diet who is maximizing the nutritional value of her calories.0 -
Which, in almost every thread on the topic, is pointed out as being the scenario in which 1200 can make sense. Including, as well, not especially active.
So, I do think one can eat well and stay within the 1200 calories, and that 1200 is an adequate number for an older, small-framed woman on a diet who is maximizing the nutritional value of her calories.
0 -
All,
I would like to remind everyone of the following rule:
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
If you feel a post is in violation of any of our community guidelines, please report it. Thank you.
psuLemon0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math.
lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
So when the OP asked about eating only 1200 calories and I said I was, really I'm not if I eat exercise calories too? So I guess I take back my original answer. lol.
0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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)...
MFP gives you 1200 net (for example), which means 1200 after exercise calories, not 1200, no matter how much you exercise. If you run 10 miles and eat back 800 extra calories for 2000, that's 1200 net (and I think it's perfectly sensible to cut exercise calories some). If you run 10 miles and continue to eat 1200, that's way too low a net (400 or so), and not healthy.
From what you said it sounds like you are doing 1200 net.
Ugh math. lol. So I start with 1200 for the day. Then I exercise and get 100 calories from that (because remember I'm taking only half of what MFP says I've burned). At the end of the day I've eaten 1300. Is that what you mean by "1200 net"? Yeah, I'm dumb when it comes to math. [insert eye roll at me]
Yes, you're eating net, and you're fine. :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions