1,200 calories
Options
Replies
-
I laugh at the concept of 'starvation mode', if you eat below 12oo you're body will think it's starving and hold onto stored fat. Simply a myth. If you eat that little you will lose weight, but your body will suffer. 12oo cals is the min of what a body needs per day to function. If you eat very low calories for an extended period of time you will have problems such a fatigue, not being able to fight off illness, and in sever cases (think anorexia) you will lose muscle mass.0
-
1200 is the minimum for a woman, the minimum figure is 1500 for men.I simply find it odd saying, "1,200 is the minimum" when a man with 50 pounds more lean mass than a woman will have different minimal requirements.
1200 is generally agreed to be the minimum required for an average woman to consume the daily nutrients that her body needs to function healthily. However, while this site uses 1200 as a minimum for all women, it's certainly not a one size fits all figure, if you are extremely short like me your minimum requirements can be met by a smaller number of calories and if you're very tall, you simply cannot get the nutrients you need in those 1200 calories.
Plus of course there is no guarantee that if you eat 1200 calories of junk food you're getting what you need. There are many people who eat double that 1200 calories and yet have an inadequate diet, nutritionally speaking.
I'm no educated nutritionist by any means to give dieting advise but I would have to agree with "1200 is the minimum for a woman, the minimum figure is 1500 for men"0 -
How do you define "function healthily"? Because you could eat enough micronutrients to keep your body happy on that front in far less than 1,200 calories. Anything less than maintenance would be compensated by body fat depending on the body fat composition of the individual.1200 is generally agreed to be the minimum required for an average woman to consume the daily nutrients that her body needs to function healthily. However, while this site uses 1200 as a minimum for all women, it's certainly not a one size fits all figure, if you are extremely short like me your minimum requirements can be met by a smaller number of calories and if you're very tall, you simply cannot get the nutrients you need in those 1200 calories.
Plus of course there is no guarantee that if you eat 1200 calories of junk food you're getting what you need. There are many people who eat double that 1200 calories and yet have an inadequate diet, nutritionally speaking.0 -
This 1200 is based on aspects of our bodies that are out of our control. For example, the calories needed for your internal organs to work properly. You body does not want to have to break down stores to run it's more basic functions. The 1200 is NOT assuming you don't want to lose muscle. The 1200 has nothing to do with how active you are. Since most people have the same basic chemistry inside, they will need the same "basic" amount of fuel, even if the people are different in size. (of course there will be exceptions, but fewer than you think)
I have seen more real scientific data supporting the starvation mode theory than the opposite. But it's essentially my choice to try to make sure I eat a minimum of 1200 calories. And it's been working for me. Do what works for you. But you can't convince me all the scientists are wrong about starvation mode.0 -
Did any of that scientific data state WHEN the body would break down essential organs/tissue? If someone has high amounts of body fat, will the body at any point in time start metabolizing heart tissue until that body fat is essentially gone? Does someone with 30% body fat have to worry about their heart tissue being broken down if they eat 800 calories for 2 months?This 1200 is based on aspects of our bodies that are out of our control. For example, the calories needed for your internal organs to work properly. You body does not want to have to break down stores to run it's more basic functions. The 1200 is NOT assuming you don't want to lose muscle. The 1200 has nothing to do with how active you are. Since most people have the same basic chemistry inside, they will need the same "basic" amount of fuel, even if the people are different in size. (of course there will be exceptions, but fewer than you think)
I have seen more real scientific data supporting the starvation mode theory than the opposite. But it's essentially my choice to try to make sure I eat a minimum of 1200 calories. And it's been working for me. Do what works for you. But you can't convince me all the scientists are wrong about starvation mode.0 -
How do you define "function healthily"? Because you could eat enough micronutrients to keep your body happy on that front in far less than 1,200 calories. Anything less than maintenance would be compensated by body fat depending on the body fat composition of the individual.1200 is generally agreed to be the minimum required for an average woman to consume the daily nutrients that her body needs to function healthily. However, while this site uses 1200 as a minimum for all women, it's certainly not a one size fits all figure, if you are extremely short like me your minimum requirements can be met by a smaller number of calories and if you're very tall, you simply cannot get the nutrients you need in those 1200 calories.
Plus of course there is no guarantee that if you eat 1200 calories of junk food you're getting what you need. There are many people who eat double that 1200 calories and yet have an inadequate diet, nutritionally speaking.
That's where the lean body mass equations to determine BMR come in. BMR increases as body fat % decreases.0 -
Did any of that scientific data state WHEN the body would break down essential organs/tissue? If someone has high amounts of body fat, will the body at any point in time start metabolizing heart tissue until that body fat is essentially gone? Does someone with 30% body fat have to worry about their heart tissue being broken down if they eat 800 calories for 2 months?This 1200 is based on aspects of our bodies that are out of our control. For example, the calories needed for your internal organs to work properly. You body does not want to have to break down stores to run it's more basic functions. The 1200 is NOT assuming you don't want to lose muscle. The 1200 has nothing to do with how active you are. Since most people have the same basic chemistry inside, they will need the same "basic" amount of fuel, even if the people are different in size. (of course there will be exceptions, but fewer than you think)
I have seen more real scientific data supporting the starvation mode theory than the opposite. But it's essentially my choice to try to make sure I eat a minimum of 1200 calories. And it's been working for me. Do what works for you. But you can't convince me all the scientists are wrong about starvation mode.
I personally haven't seen that data.
But at 800 calories for two months, I would make sure I was being monitored by a doctor to ensure I wasn't doing damage to myself. If I was given the all clear by a real legitmate health professional/doctor, i would do it. There's a reason they went to school for so long..they more than we do and they know how to check that we're okay.0 -
Where did you hear that BMR goes up as body fat goes down? Typically when calculating BMR it goes up as body weight goes up, more LBM than body fat, but still.That's where the lean body mass equations to determine BMR come in. BMR increases as body fat % decreases.0 -
Most doctors actually know very little about nutrition as their curriculum does not force them to learn about it. And interestingly, the qualifications to be a nutritionist don't force you to look at updated empirical research, but rather textbooks.I personally haven't seen that data.
But at 800 calories for two months, I would make sure I was being monitored by a doctor to ensure I wasn't doing damage to myself. If I was given the all clear by a real legitmate health professional/doctor, i would do it. There's a reason they went to school for so long..they more than we do and they know how to check that we're okay.
It's kind of a poor academic environment.0 -
Where did you hear that BMR goes up as body fat goes down? Typically when calculating BMR it goes up as body weight goes up, more LBM than body fat, but still.That's where the lean body mass equations to determine BMR come in. BMR increases as body fat % decreases.
Katch-McArdle or Cunningham formulas assume this. It's assuming lean body mass requires a higher calorie load to sustain.0 -
That makes zero sense, though. Are you sure you have that right? I just haven't heard that before.Katch-McArdle or Cunningham formulas assume this. It's assuming lean body mass requires a higher calorie load to sustain.
Take 2 men, both have 150 pounds lean body mass, while one has 30 pounds fat and the other 100 pounds fat. Based on what you're saying, if I am understanding correctly, the second person would have a LOWER BMR? That just doesn't sound right to me...
I understand this has no relevance to BMR, but you'd think his energy output would be higher simply because more weight = more work to carry.0 -
That makes zero sense, though. Are you sure you have that right? I just haven't heard that before.Katch-McArdle or Cunningham formulas assume this. It's assuming lean body mass requires a higher calorie load to sustain.
Take 2 men, both have 150 pounds lean body mass, while one has 30 pounds fat and the other 100 pounds fat. Based on what you're saying, if I am understanding correctly, the second person would have a LOWER BMR? That just doesn't sound right to me...
I understand this has no relevance to BMR, but you'd think his energy output would be higher simply because more weight = more work to carry.
I thought the same thing at first about the K-M formula, but if you plug the numbers in, it does work:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM) assuming LBM is in kilograms.
It's only taking LBM into consideration, not total weight - so I mean there's probably debate in the validity of that, but it's one formula amongst many popular formulas to consider.0 -
But does that mean more body fat = lower BMR? That formula, which I believe is the most accurate 'generalized' formula, solely looks at lean mass. That doesn't mean more body fat = less BMR, but rather body fat simply has zero role in determining BMR.
That makes zero sense, though. Are you sure you have that right? I just haven't heard that before.Katch-McArdle or Cunningham formulas assume this. It's assuming lean body mass requires a higher calorie load to sustain.
Take 2 men, both have 150 pounds lean body mass, while one has 30 pounds fat and the other 100 pounds fat. Based on what you're saying, if I am understanding correctly, the second person would have a LOWER BMR? That just doesn't sound right to me...
I understand this has no relevance to BMR, but you'd think his energy output would be higher simply because more weight = more work to carry.
I thought the same thing at first about the K-M formula, but if you plug the numbers in, it does work:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM) assuming LBM is in kilograms.
It's only taking LBM into consideration, not total weight - so I mean there's probably debate in the validity of that, but it's one formula amongst many popular formulas to consider.0 -
But does that mean more body fat = lower BMR? That formula, which I believe is the most accurate 'generalized' formula, solely looks at lean mass. That doesn't mean more body fat = less BMR, but rather body fat simply has zero role in determining BMR.
That makes zero sense, though. Are you sure you have that right? I just haven't heard that before.Katch-McArdle or Cunningham formulas assume this. It's assuming lean body mass requires a higher calorie load to sustain.
Take 2 men, both have 150 pounds lean body mass, while one has 30 pounds fat and the other 100 pounds fat. Based on what you're saying, if I am understanding correctly, the second person would have a LOWER BMR? That just doesn't sound right to me...
I understand this has no relevance to BMR, but you'd think his energy output would be higher simply because more weight = more work to carry.
I thought the same thing at first about the K-M formula, but if you plug the numbers in, it does work:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM) assuming LBM is in kilograms.
It's only taking LBM into consideration, not total weight - so I mean there's probably debate in the validity of that, but it's one formula amongst many popular formulas to consider.
Hm, body fat does factor in to determine lean mass - separate formula, separate measurements.
So for example, I could be a 150 lb individual with 24% bodyfat -> my BMR would be higher than someone with 26% bodyfat at the identical overall weight.
IMO, it's generally a good formula for anyone very close to goal weight / goal body fat %. It also relies heavily on accurate measurement of body fat %.0 -
Actually it is the amount specified by the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) as the minimum amount needed to meet nutritional and energy needs based on their research. MFP probably just set the number at that because they were following those guidelines.
Well said!! There is always so much confusion as to what the 1200 means - it really has nothing to do with "starvation mode" but more to do with everyones nutritional needs being met!!! Or should I say women in general, I believe for men it's around 1500 or 1800 calories!1 -
But no where in that calculator does it ask for body fat.Hm, body fat does factor in to determine lean mass - separate formula, separate measurements.
So for example, I could be a 150 lb individual with 24% bodyfat -> my BMR would be higher than someone with 26% bodyfat at the identical overall weight.
IMO, it's generally a good formula for anyone very close to goal weight / goal body fat %. It also relies heavily on accurate measurement of body fat %.
Two men with the same LBM of 150 and differing body fat weights will have the same BMR based on that calculator as there is no variable regarding body fat.0 -
I read somewhere that the figure of 1200 has been suggested as a minimum figure for women by the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) the corresponding figure for males is 1800.
The maximum weight loss recommended is about 1 kg (2 lbs) per week. To lose 1 kg, you theoretically have to cut back on 3850 calories per week or 550 calories per day. Instead of cutting back on calories alone, you can burn some calories by exercising (see Activity Calculators for calories burnt for each type of activity).
However, you should not consume less than 1200 calories per day if you are dieting for extended periods. Diets which are less than 1200 calories per day are not nutritionally adequate and over a period of time, you may not be getting enough of certain nutrients.0 -
But no where in that calculator does it ask for body fat.Hm, body fat does factor in to determine lean mass - separate formula, separate measurements.
So for example, I could be a 150 lb individual with 24% bodyfat -> my BMR would be higher than someone with 26% bodyfat at the identical overall weight.
IMO, it's generally a good formula for anyone very close to goal weight / goal body fat %. It also relies heavily on accurate measurement of body fat %.
Two men with the same LBM of 150 and differing body fat weights will have the same BMR based on that calculator as there is no variable regarding body fat.
Correct, the formula doesn't directly factor in body fat.0 -
I am writing this only because it may come as helpful to someone who is serious about actually knowing and understanding what is what... For anyone who wants to adhere to whatever other philosophy they may be married to, that is okay. You do what you want to your bodies and let others make their own decisions.
For OVERWEIGHT people, diets under 1200 Cal CAN be nutritionally adequate. In fact there have been tests done on obese people who were fasted for a YEAR on 400 cal per day. Without consequences.
There is NO SUCH study that determined that a person should or shouldn't eat 1200 kilo-calories as a minimum for anything. It is a number quoted out of a book of American Medical Society for Sports Medicine. The number was determined as a conversational (NOT STUDIED) estimate on how a lean athlete can lose 2 lbs per week, based on the idea that a female athlete has a total daily energy expenditure of 2100 Cal.
This is information from 1970's and it is painfully inaccurate and remains inaccurate till the day. An average female athlete expends a lot more than 2100 per day as do men a lot more than 2800. Not to mention that lean people should not be training and under-eating or losing weight unless they are optimizing for performance. Meaning a female athlete made to eat 1200 Cal a day should sue the idiot that makes her do that.
On the note of a SAFE MINIMUM, This is where the story changes a lot...
An overweight individual HAS AMPLE amounts of caloric energy stored in their "*kitten*"... So to lose body fat that person MUST consume optimal amount of PROTEIN (to preserve organs and muscle mass) and DIETARY FAT (to support brain function, hormonal system and vitamin absorption) and adequate MICRO nutrients (these are required in very small amounts). They DO NOT need to consume ANY carbohydrate. None. Zero (I don't have the will power to explain the biochemistry that has been well studied that confirms this - most of you can read... if you want to know the actual truth you will search without bias and study thoroughly - if you are inclined to study look for gluconeogenesys and related works).
In short, based on everything we know today, the minimum amount of food an OVERWEIGHT person can eat and MAINTAIN health is based on their minimal protein requirement, minimal dietary fat requirement and whatever they choose to get their MICRO's from (small amount of leafy greens or pills if you want to minimize calories).
Now... World Health Organization Numbers
They state that it takes a minimum of 0.33 grams of protein per POUND of body weight and that this is adjusted to include 3rd world countries. (minimum is not optimum) They state that optimum for sedentary individuals is higher.. 1 gram of protein per kilogram of body weight (athletes more, even 2+ grams per kilogram) and also around 0.6 grams of dietary fat per kilogram of body weight (0.3-0.4 per pound).
By the way USDA states that you need 120 grams of carbs per day and then literally 10 pages later it admits that you don't need any at all... (go figure). Administration that created the most obese, unhealthiest people on the planet...
=======
So a woman that weighs 65 kilograms and wants to lose 5 kilograms (provided that she is in fact 5 kilograms overweight) CAN SAFELY eat:
65 grams of protein * 4 Cal = 256 Cal from protein
39 grams of fat * 9 cal = 351 Cal from dietary fat (butter, coconut oil, olive oil, fish oil, fat in consumed meats)
25 grams of net carbs * 4 Cal = 100 Cal from low sugar vegetables (to insure micros) - this is a lot of salad suitable vegetables by the way
The rest of her energy needs will be readily supplied from her own fat storage supply...
This comes out to 707 Cal that a 65kg average female CAN SAFELY consume as long as she insures that her MICRO's are adequate. By the way there are many NON doctor supervised diets that follow these principles to varying degrees.
If you care immensely to preserve muscle mass and want to be on the safe side, you should figure out your LEAN mass and consume enough protein to support it (usually it is lean-mass in pounds multiplied by 0.8). Some people need more.
Should this be done for 6 months without taking a break?,, it CAN be but I wouldn't push past 3 months for very overweight people and for 4 weeks maximum for less overweight people..
I have done this (twice so far) intermittently without ANY issues whatsoever and lost up to 4 pounds per week. ZERO negative consequences. YES I WAS HUNGRY and I definitely felt like I could eat something but the question here is what is safe. THAT IS SAFE,, albeit it is unpleasant and it isn't necessary if you are okay with losing at a more moderate pace.
A 65kg woman that is 172 cm tall (5'8'') and that is sedentary has total daily energy needs of only 1,714 Cal. to lose ONE pound per week she would need to eat 1214 Cal and that would only apply until she reached 62kg when her needs would drop to 1,673 Cal and her intake would have to drop to 1173 Cal. Failure to adjust the diet and further reduce calories is why half the world lives with the conviction that it's hardest to shed the last stubborn 10 pounds,,, it is not,,, and it is safe to drop your calories a lot if you know what to do and what not to do.
I do this aggressive method 2 to 4 weeks then for 1 - 2 weeks I eat maintenance calories (around 2200 Cal for me).
And no,,, rapid fat loss doesn't cause rapid re-gain... That's entirely untrue as are many other things. Rapid re-gain is a result of abandoning the appropriate macros and micros and re-introducing more calories, refined sugars and less activity.
By the way,, "starvation mode" in a weight loss sense doesn't exist. There is a biochemical process called adaptive thermogenesis (and it is fairly insignificant) that has been ignorantly misinterpreted and in the same way used by soft headed people to justify cheating in diets.
Real starvation mode is a condition that occurs when a person doesn't get enough protein and enough micro's. It is a malnutrition state that doesn't have to be related to low calories. You can starve nutritionally even when you eat more calories than you need. For a person that gets enough protein, fat and micros, calories ONLY come into play when the person is already completely lean (which is rare). If you are fat and you eat enough protein, dietary fat and micro's you can't starve.
Feeling crappy because you are eating less than your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is normal. Your body will fight you for food until you enter nutritional ketosis. At that point things become easier.
And one more related thing,,, plateaus happen because people don't adjust their diets to support ongoing weight loss (not because of mythical starvation mode)... If you started at 220 lbs and you reached 180 lbs and you started the diet at 1500 cal per day,,, you HAVE to reduce your calories (probably to 1350 Cal) to account for adaptive thermogenesis... which happened because you lost 40 pounds, not because you ate reduced calories...0 -
Dear everyone in this thread that's mentioned starvation mode: IT IS NOT REAL in the way people use it in this site.
If you're overweight, and not losing, you're not starving- You're eating too much.2
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
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions