The 1200 calorie limit is too high for me

With only 5lbs to lose, you goal should have been set at .5lbs/week, giving you 1205 calories. So, the tool isn't flawed; you just set a goal that was too aggressive.

Also, as you get closer to your goal, strict logging plays a more important role and weigh loss usually slows due to inaccuracies in the estimation of CI or CO.

ETA: It's set with minimums because people can have a hard time meeting nutritional requirements if they are eating fewer than the 1,200 calorie baseline.

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.

I think that, if you were to compare slower weight loss with a 255 calorie deficit (1455-1200) against faster weight loss with a 500 calorie deficit but only eat 954 calories, your difficulty may be put into perspective. That is, I do not think that eating only 954 calories per day would have been easy, or easier, than eating a bit more but losing more slowly.

a pound per week when you have very little to lose is pretty aggressive. losing those last 5-10 Lbs usually takes most people awhile for the same reason.

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'm 4'11.5", and losing steadily on 1,800 calories a day, so idkwtf you're doing wrong, lol. You may be estimating your portions incorrectly.

I never understand these posts where people think their amount of calories is only to do with height. Even the weight I've lost.....15 lbs in 65 days is definitely slowing down now. I'm simply not burning as many calories now that I've lost weight as I was before. So I'm losing at a slower rate now, doing exactly the same as before.

For me, when it gets to that point where it's too big of a struggle to pull off the last 3 lbs or whatever, I'm sure I'll just say: "This is just fine. Done! lol"

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.

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.

Agreed. I hesitated using the word "forced". Lots of ways around it.

jemhh wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »

I'm 4'11.5", and losing steadily on 1,800 calories a day, so idkwtf you're doing wrong, lol. You may be estimating your portions incorrectly.

OP is also 24 years older than you and likely not as active. And she has also reached her goal, so Idkwtf you're loling about.

Excellent.

This...wish I had seen it before I was surprised...lol

They have to say certain things in order not to have people try to sue them for "promoting dangerous activities" or whatever. But you don't have to abide by those things. If yr an adult in sound mind, you can cut farther if you choose to.

Aww...I think you're overthinking this.....keep only this in your head...YOU LOST 47 POUNDS IN NINE MONTHS!!!

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.

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.

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.

~Lyssa