The 1200 calorie limit is too high for me
Options
Replies
-
Edited.... because I read too quickly and now I see what you did. :-)0
-
I see that I was probably expecting too much from MFP and possibly trusting it too much. However I have successfully dropped from 162 to my current 115 by using it over the past 9 months. I had to drop my calorie goal as I lost weight, reassessing a couple of times along the way. It all worked fine until these last 5 pounds. As people have said, it is likely that I am close to a good weight for me and it is okay to stay here. Also if I still want to lose weight I should increase my activity level to make up for being so close to my BMR with the MFP base limit (tough with a job that requires a lot of hours and travel). I would prefer that the tool work better for us shorter people or at least admit that it isn't as good for shorter people. I sincerely believe that the minimum should drop with your height; 1200 shouldn't be the minimum for all of us. The minimum calories should vary by weight, height, age, and gender just like everything else. I could certainly lie about how much I eat, but I have been so careful with measuring and weighing that it just seems wrong. Maybe I should get over that.0
-
You lost 47 pounds in 9 months. That is phenomenal. Great. Wonderful. I do think you need to get over it.0
-
Aww...I think you're overthinking this.....keep only this in your head...YOU LOST 47 POUNDS IN NINE MONTHS!!!0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I think you have a point that a set lower limit that doesn't vary with height isn't perfect. I'm a 5'6" 54 year old and have the same 1200 and 1000 lower limits. Which means that I can be more aggressive in my weight loss than you could if I wanted to. Luckily I don't. I think that being forced by MFP to lose that last bit of weight slowly was a GOOD thing. Hopefully it means it STAYS off.
PS Congrats on getting there!!!
I can agree with this. What I tend to disagree with is the idea that MFP can force me to do anything. MFP can suggest a calorie limit based on my stats and my goals, but ultimately it is my decision to eat more or less than suggested. I *gasp* sometimes net under 1000 (although I always eat over 1400). For me, a 5'2" 34 y/o woman, I'm comfortable that I'm not starving myself, even if I leave a good bit of my exercise calories on the table. So far, the MFP police haven't come knocking on my door.
We live in a litigious society. MFP has to draw the line somewhere. I think having a limit is a good thing. Not every user of MFP understands how the tool works.
You put in a weekly goal (appropriate or not) and MFP does the math.
1200 is a DEFAULT based upon nutritional standards. A 6' tall woman can get 1200 if she sets her weekly weight loss goal high enough.
The limit, hopefully makes people look at the number and ask if it makes sense for them. Occasionally you even get a men asking about 1200 calories.......wow, are they confused.
Aggressive weight loss is fine for the obese, but for those that are merely overweight losing a fair amount of lean muscle mass is a real probability. But, not everyone knows about (or cares) about this. Advertising makes it sound like all weight loss = fat loss (exclusively).0 -
It isn't just short people that have to re-calibrate their calories as they lose weight, everyone does. As one becomes lighter, ones BMR naturally lowers because you don't have to exert as much energy moving your body around. Weight training can offset this a little.
Do you know what your maintainance calories will be for your goal weight? You could work that out and start eating maintenance for the last few pounds.
The last few are slow for most people, not just short people.
As I said earlier, if you have a special need work with professionals; this is a site for the masses.
Personally, I found the last few pounds slow, but not difficult.
Cheers, h.0 -
Yes, the important thing is that you met your goal. That's fabulous! If I set the bar so low as many here suggest I should have done, I am absolutely sure I'd never have stuck to this diet. And I do know what works for me now. I was surprised at first to be talked to like I was irresponsible, since I'm definitely not. And I agree with you, btw. But I really also know that if I eat 1000 calories, I don't even get a warning from the program that I'm undereating. That's why I was surprised to be warned on this forum, since clearly the program application says.....between 1000 and 1200 is safe.
Ah well, life isn't perfect. But you really did a great job in losing the weight. Congrats!
0 -
Hiya, Teabea is pretty close. But really 1200 calories is about the low limit for SURVIVAL. And that's only supposed to be a short term solution. When you eat 1,200 or fewer calories per day over the long term your metabolic rate slows down and your body starts to go into starvation mode. This means that (1) you're not burning fat anymore because your body is holding onto it for dear life (literally), and (2) your body start burning muscle, so you get left with...FAT. And when your body holds onto every little bit of fat that you put in, you'll start getting...fatter.
This article on Pop Sugar does a pretty good job of explaining that: http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864
And it's important to know what your personal burn rate is. Just being alive every day and going to work and not doing anything special, I burn about 1,575 calories. So just to get through the day I need that many calories to fuel my body. If I put a deficit in that by working out, I never let it get below 1,200 and I usually eat more than that. If you're starting with a goal of 1,200 per day and then you work out, you HAVE TO EAT BACK those exercise calories or you'll starve your body.
Knowing what your personal burn rate is is really the better way to determine how much of a deficit you can create in the short term to burn calories. But that also won't help you burn fat.
Burning fat is about bigger changes. You have to increase your muscle mass which means that you need to lift weights. You have to change your eating habits. When I first started getting into all of this many years ago, I thought calories in/calories out was the only way to look at things, so even if I ate 500 calories of crap, I called it good. But that doesn't work. Proper nutrition is essential to cleansing your body and ensuring that all of your systems are in peak performance.
I also would like to suggest that you consider the reality that the last 5 pounds is going to be harder anyway because it's been sitting around longer. I once saw some fat cells. The ones that had been starved by proper nutrition and exercise were withering and brown and they were easy to get rid of. The new ones were small, so they were easy to turn into brown ones. But then there were these huge ones. And they had been growing for years...you have to make them smaller before they can go away. And the bigger they are, the more stubborn they are.
Also...going back to metabolic rate, know that your age does have something to do with it, but when you're losing weight your metabolic rate also can decrease. So essentially, losing weight makes you less efficient at losing weight. Pretty cruddy, but true. But that doesn't mean that you get to eat way less than everybody else. You do get to eat less, but frankly your metabolism is probably higher when you're active and lighter, so it all evens out.
Sorry for the diadem. Please feel free to friend me. I've got a martial arts/personal fitness boyfriend, I'm a homeopath, and we're both dead set on fit living and getting to all of our goals so we're always happy to help.0 -
amyoliver85 wrote: »Hiya, Teabea is pretty close. But really 1200 calories is about the low limit for SURVIVAL. And that's only supposed to be a short term solution. When you eat 1,200 or fewer calories per day over the long term your metabolic rate slows down and your body starts to go into starvation mode. This means that (1) you're not burning fat anymore because your body is holding onto it for dear life (literally), and (2) your body start burning muscle, so you get left with...FAT. And when your body holds onto every little bit of fat that you put in, you'll start getting...fatter.
This article on Pop Sugar does a pretty good job of explaining that: http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864
.
No
0 -
amyoliver85 wrote: »Hiya, Teabea is pretty close. But really 1200 calories is about the low limit for SURVIVAL. And that's only supposed to be a short term solution. When you eat 1,200 or fewer calories per day over the long term your metabolic rate slows down and your body starts to go into starvation mode. This means that (1) you're not burning fat anymore because your body is holding onto it for dear life (literally), and (2) your body start burning muscle, so you get left with...FAT. And when your body holds onto every little bit of fat that you put in, you'll start getting...fatter.
Starvation mode isn't a thing. Also, there have been a handful of days where my net calories was definitely under 1000, but gross was 2000+. If I run 11-12 miles, I don't always have the appetite that day to make up for it. Ensuring you eat nutritious foods should be enough, and a checkup at the doctor's office to make sure one isn't deficient in anything essential would be advised, but 1200 isn't some magical number that prevents "starvation mode." Netting 1150 on occasion isn't going to make your body hold on to fat.
OP -
I feel for you. I'm younger, but to get a 0.5lb/week loss, I get around 1200 calories before exercise. I make sure I walk a lot, and try not to eat back all my exercise calories to account for logging errors and such.
I'm maintaining for now since 6 months of losing was enough for me, mentally. Still want to lose another 4-6 lbs so I'll be back at it soon enough.
~Lyssa0 -
aislingeach wrote: »I have an issue with the minimum of 1200 calories per day and an absolute minimum of 1000 calories per day. I am a 54 yr old woman who is 5' 1.5" tall and have finally reached my goal of 115 pounds. The last 5 pounds were incredibly difficult to achieve and looking back I blame the calorie limits in MFP. I recently calculated my BMR and at 120 pounds it was 1212, while at 115 pounds it is 1190. In order to lose weight, you have to drop below your BMR x activity level (use 1.2 for light activity) by 500 calories per day to lose one pound per week. At 120 pounds that was 1455-500=954. It is no wonder that my last 5 pounds were incredibly difficult to reach. How am I supposed to use a tool that is so flawed? If someone is even shorter than me, and there are quite a few of us, they would have troubles using this tool even more than I do.
At 120 pounds, you really shouldn't be losing 1 lb/week; you will lose a lot of lean mass at that point just because your body can actually only burn fat at a relatively slow rate. Half a pound per week would have given you as 1204 goal and been a more appropriate rate to lose given your smaller body.0 -
Thanks everyone. That was a lot of useful information. I started this calorie counting AFTER I cleaned up my diet due to some serious allergy issues with food. Before that even counting calories was not working. So now I avoid the foods that my body doesn't process well, I watch my protein intake, and I have found that grains are not my friend - so I stick with lots of non-starchy veggies mostly for my carbs. It makes sense that the bottom 5-10 pounds are harder to lose due to the all the things people have said above. I think I am just scared at switching to maintenance; I don't want to gain weight again. I want to concentrate on getting my muscles toned and staying where I am. I think I need to make an appointment with my nutritionist (alternative variety) for advice on how to do that the right way and stop being scared of it.0
-
aislingeach wrote: »Thanks everyone. That was a lot of useful information. I started this calorie counting AFTER I cleaned up my diet due to some serious allergy issues with food. Before that even counting calories was not working. So now I avoid the foods that my body doesn't process well, I watch my protein intake, and I have found that grains are not my friend - so I stick with lots of non-starchy veggies mostly for my carbs. It makes sense that the bottom 5-10 pounds are harder to lose due to the all the things people have said above. I think I am just scared at switching to maintenance; I don't want to gain weight again. I want to concentrate on getting my muscles toned and staying where I am. I think I need to make an appointment with my nutritionist (alternative variety) for advice on how to do that the right way and stop being scared of it.
The most important thing for me is to remember that my weight is a range. I've been tracking my daily fluctuations the whole time, and I generally find that I have a range of 3-5 pounds that is my "true" weight. If I get to the high end and stay there for more than 2 weeks, I know I need to tighten up my logging, maybe cut back a touch, and get back to the middle.
It sounds like you've made awesome progress!!! Massive kudos. Good for you figuring out what works best for you and sticking with it.
~Lyssa0 -
girlinahat wrote: »amyoliver85 wrote: »Hiya, Teabea is pretty close. But really 1200 calories is about the low limit for SURVIVAL. And that's only supposed to be a short term solution. When you eat 1,200 or fewer calories per day over the long term your metabolic rate slows down and your body starts to go into starvation mode. This means that (1) you're not burning fat anymore because your body is holding onto it for dear life (literally), and (2) your body start burning muscle, so you get left with...FAT. And when your body holds onto every little bit of fat that you put in, you'll start getting...fatter.
This article on Pop Sugar does a pretty good job of explaining that: http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864
.
No
Second NO. Please don't reference Pop Sugar as valid and expect others to buy it. Just...no.
0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »The MFP programme is not flawed. It is set up to give a safe deficit for the majority of the population.
1200 cal for women and 1500 cal for men has been set as the level at which an adult could reach all their daily nutrition.
If one has circumstances that require a lower calorie level it is recommended to lose weight under a doctor and dietician's guidance.
One does not have to drop below ones BMR to lose weight. I and many others didn't. One has to eat less than the energy one expends. CI<CO.
It is recommended and frequently posted on the forum that when one is down to the last 5-10 lb one should aim for, and expect to lose .5lb a week.
I. Am 62, 5'1 and maintain between 100-105 lb. yes, it took quite a few months to lose those last 5 lb, but they were vanity pounds, I was in no rush.
My BMR is between 950-960, sedentary maintenance 1200, every day winter TDEE 1400-1450.
I went from 130- 105 eating 1200 cal and 50% of my exercise constantly.
Cheers, h.
This!0 -
lol......well, ok then
0 -
amyoliver85 wrote: »Hiya, Teabea is pretty close. But really 1200 calories is about the low limit for SURVIVAL. And that's only supposed to be a short term solution. When you eat 1,200 or fewer calories per day over the long term your metabolic rate slows down and your body starts to go into starvation mode. This means that (1) you're not burning fat anymore because your body is holding onto it for dear life (literally), and (2) your body start burning muscle, so you get left with...FAT. And when your body holds onto every little bit of fat that you put in, you'll start getting...fatter.
This article on Pop Sugar does a pretty good job of explaining that: http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864
And it's important to know what your personal burn rate is. Just being alive every day and going to work and not doing anything special, I burn about 1,575 calories. So just to get through the day I need that many calories to fuel my body. If I put a deficit in that by working out, I never let it get below 1,200 and I usually eat more than that. If you're starting with a goal of 1,200 per day and then you work out, you HAVE TO EAT BACK those exercise calories or you'll starve your body.
Knowing what your personal burn rate is is really the better way to determine how much of a deficit you can create in the short term to burn calories. But that also won't help you burn fat.
Burning fat is about bigger changes. You have to increase your muscle mass which means that you need to lift weights. You have to change your eating habits. When I first started getting into all of this many years ago, I thought calories in/calories out was the only way to look at things, so even if I ate 500 calories of crap, I called it good. But that doesn't work. Proper nutrition is essential to cleansing your body and ensuring that all of your systems are in peak performance.
I also would like to suggest that you consider the reality that the last 5 pounds is going to be harder anyway because it's been sitting around longer. I once saw some fat cells. The ones that had been starved by proper nutrition and exercise were withering and brown and they were easy to get rid of. The new ones were small, so they were easy to turn into brown ones. But then there were these huge ones. And they had been growing for years...you have to make them smaller before they can go away. And the bigger they are, the more stubborn they are.
Also...going back to metabolic rate, know that your age does have something to do with it, but when you're losing weight your metabolic rate also can decrease. So essentially, losing weight makes you less efficient at losing weight. Pretty cruddy, but true. But that doesn't mean that you get to eat way less than everybody else. You do get to eat less, but frankly your metabolism is probably higher when you're active and lighter, so it all evens out.
Sorry for the diadem. Please feel free to friend me. I've got a martial arts/personal fitness boyfriend, I'm a homeopath, and we're both dead set on fit living and getting to all of our goals so we're always happy to help.
Holy moly! That is just a mountain of nope! From the base camp of starvation mode to the peaks of vanishing fat cells, almost that entire post is wrong.
0 -
So...the app worked for you...great.0
-
I see that everyone else's feedback helped the OP, but just have to chime in to agree with the idea that the suggested limit can be way too much. Due to limited mobility, my nutritionist ordered me to stick with a calorie count that I won't mention here due to MFP rules. Everyone is different!0
-
I see that everyone else's feedback helped the OP, but just have to chime in to agree with the idea that the suggested limit can be way too much. Due to limited mobility, my nutritionist ordered me to stick with a calorie count that I won't mention here due to MFP rules. Everyone is different!
Well obviously everybody is different. The fact remains that 1200 worked for the OP even if she didn't like it. The fact also remains that any nitwits can call themselves nutritionists.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions