Why 1200 MFP?

2»

Replies

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »
    I mean, it's your decision, but let's be honest about the reason - you just don't want to do the extra work. And that's fine; no need to sugarcoat it.
    LOL. No need to sugarcoat this, either-- That was rude, self-righteous and ignorant. Welcome to my ignore list. <3
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,173 Member
    ren3liz wrote: »
    Thank you everyone! I find that if I can burn a few hundred calories and then eat 1400-1600 I am fine. But if I try to do a straight 1200 I'm shot, hangry, emphasis on the angry. :p

    I know this will be an unpopular opinion here but I'm resistant to using a food scale. I just don't like the idea of weighing everything I eat because food means so much more culturally than grams of macros, at least to me. I think that would take some of the enjoyment out of eating and cause me some stress. It's something I would reconsider if I needed to, but for now what I'm doing is working.

    Cheers everyone! The insight from experienced folks is much appreciated.

    I won't specifically try to talk anyone into using a food scale if s/he finds it somehow psychologically destructive, but I will say this (perhaps more for lurkers who may be reading than for OP):

    Using a food scale sounds like a much more time consuming, or fussy, or intrusive process than it ultimately turns out to be (after a short learning phase, especially learning how to use tare/zero efficiently). I vaguely expected it to add some kind of obsessive flavor to logging, and it really didn't. It just saved time, and produced better data.
  • ren3liz
    ren3liz Posts: 45 Member
    Actually I was thinking about it and can think of a couple ways it would be really helpful for me in meal-prep: measuring portions of chicken/proteins for the week, buying a block of cheese and cutting/weighing it to exact portions, and getting a feel for what portions of my frequently eaten foods LOOK like. Not so much using it for individual meals, but as part of the week's prep. I just can't imagine busting out a food scale when I'm eating with friends! Thx all and cheers.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,173 Member
    ren3liz wrote: »
    Actually I was thinking about it and can think of a couple ways it would be really helpful for me in meal-prep: measuring portions of chicken/proteins for the week, buying a block of cheese and cutting/weighing it to exact portions, and getting a feel for what portions of my frequently eaten foods LOOK like. Not so much using it for individual meals, but as part of the week's prep. I just can't imagine busting out a food scale when I'm eating with friends! Thx all and cheers.

    Your plan sounds reasonable/helpful.

    I don't weigh food when I don't fix it at home. At restaurants and friends'/family's houses, I estimate (and not in real time during the occasion - later!). I've read a few people here who weigh when away from home, but most folks seem to do something more like I do.

    In the world at large, other people's weight loss processes are boring. I don't feel the need to bore (or worse, embarrass) my friends & family.
  • krysmuree
    krysmuree Posts: 326 Member
    edited January 2016
    LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »
    2lbs/week? Why? And sedentary means just that...sedentary. If you're putting crazy stuff into your settings, you should expect crazy results. Yes, you should eat more than 1200 calories ..

    I, for one, found everything Lyndsey said to be deeply honest and helpful.
    One of the hardest things about lifestyle changes is being honest with oneself.
  • keodell1966
    keodell1966 Posts: 141 Member
    MFP sets my calories at 1200 as well, however I am very diligent about exercising everyday and I eat half my earned calories. Its worked very well for me at this point, and Ive lost 23 lbs so far.
  • pzarnosky
    pzarnosky Posts: 256 Member
    I have a desk job and go to school so I'm pretty sedentary. I tried 1200 a day and was completely miserable and would end up binging at night because I couldn't control my cravings from being so hungry. I eat 1500 a day now and have lost 20lbs :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ren3liz wrote: »
    I know this will be an unpopular opinion here but I'm resistant to using a food scale. I just don't like the idea of weighing everything I eat because food means so much more culturally than grams of macros, at least to me. I think that would take some of the enjoyment out of eating and cause me some stress. It's something I would reconsider if I needed to, but for now what I'm doing is working.

    I think this is a reasonable position. If you stall, something to try.

    When I started I thought the food scale stuff was nuts and that I would never get so obsessive (and I was losing fine). I had a food scale from when I used to bake, but had no interest in using it for calorie counting. But then the measuring and estimating started to get annoying and I though, hmm, I'll try being more precise, and I found for me (even though I'd been losing fine without it), I actually preferred the scale, it seemed easier. I pop food on it when cooking and it's part of the process, and logging is easier when I have a number and don't have to think "was that a medium or large apple"? The most annoying part of logging for me still (other than restaurants) is having to try to figure out the cut of meat that fits best, since that's where I second guess myself, as I used to with the estimates.

    Not at all saying you should go to a scale, though -- I just thought it was funny since I really did think it was way too much to weight initially.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    ren3liz wrote: »
    2lb per week sedentary, you nailed it. So it sounds like I should stick with 1200 and then just eat back at least a portion of my exercise calories (and I pretty much always want to). I measure with measuring spoons, cups, and eyeball portions - I don't use a scale - so there's a good chance I'm eating a couple hundred more calories than I think I am, anyway. Either way, I'm losing... I just find that I have to be EXTREMELY diligent to keep 1200, and I don't have room for the finer things in life, like red wine. :)

    You should really consider getting a food scale. Like you, I found 1200 meant I had to be perfect to lose AT ALL, let alone lose to goal. As soon as I got a scale and really nailed my logging down, I found I was missing out on almost 200 calories a day, missing out on food I could have eaten, or wine I could have drank;) Consider that. Also consider that if you knew for sure how much you were eating, rather than eyeballing it, you could anticipate your daily intake and make room for wine, rather than continuing to abstain.
  • ren3liz
    ren3liz Posts: 45 Member
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    ren3liz wrote: »
    2lb per week sedentary, you nailed it. So it sounds like I should stick with 1200 and then just eat back at least a portion of my exercise calories (and I pretty much always want to). I measure with measuring spoons, cups, and eyeball portions - I don't use a scale - so there's a good chance I'm eating a couple hundred more calories than I think I am, anyway. Either way, I'm losing... I just find that I have to be EXTREMELY diligent to keep 1200, and I don't have room for the finer things in life, like red wine. :)

    You should really consider getting a food scale. Like you, I found 1200 meant I had to be perfect to lose AT ALL, let alone lose to goal. As soon as I got a scale and really nailed my logging down, I found I was missing out on almost 200 calories a day, missing out on food I could have eaten, or wine I could have drank;) Consider that. Also consider that if you knew for sure how much you were eating, rather than eyeballing it, you could anticipate your daily intake and make room for wine, rather than continuing to abstain.

    Logic for the win!
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    edited January 2016
    I understand resistance to the scale. If you get the results you want without it, go you! When what I always did to maintain wasn't working anymore in my late 40's, I had to try something different, which was get a scale. Whew-- I never really realized what a hassle all that estimating was! A scale was so much less effort AND more accurate! And I lost the weight I wanted to as expected when accuracy improved. It's $15 and it saves effort, IMHO.

    Also, a lot of people have had long term success at 1200/day. They tend to be small in stature and not terrifically active, and it works for them. I can hit all my macros in 1200 and can feel satisfied several days, but it's just not enough for me long term at my regular activity level. Bottom line: more calories keeps me more consistent. It takes trail and error to find your sustainable deficit calories, and it is very individual.

    ETA: The closer to GW, the smaller the deficit and the smaller the margin of error. That means more accuracy helps more than ever--another reason for using a scale. Plus wine. :wink:
  • MsDonaB
    MsDonaB Posts: 8 Member
    I started with MFP's fave level of 1200, but I decided I was setting myself up for failure because, like you, I was "hangry". I currently get about 30 minutes of intentional movement a day and MFP shows I burn around 250 calories. I increased my calories this past week to 1400. I weigh in on Monday mornings, so we'll see if it worked or not.
  • frankiesgirlie
    frankiesgirlie Posts: 669 Member
    trjjoy wrote: »
    I weigh about 95% of the things I eat. And it happens on some days, like today, that I come in at less than 1200 calories for the day. I'm not starving, even though I hiked Table Mountain yesterday. Low-cal jelly, cucumber slices, black tea (no sugar and no milk), and enough water are what get me through successful days like today. I also find that a late breakfast is very helpful, ie my eating ''window'' is smaller, eg from 1pm to 8pm.


    I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect, but I don't consider coming in "under 1200 calories for the day" a successful day. It's called under eating,
    I've been there so I know how little food that is and forget getting a balanced diet for under 1200 calories.
    I do believe a smaller eating window helps a lot of people met their goals.
  • frankiesgirlie
    frankiesgirlie Posts: 669 Member
    morganfitnesspal wrote: »
    Ive managed to lose close to 60lbs this year. My one piece of advice......eat more food!!! For something to work, it has to be sustainable longterm and 1200 calories isnt sustainable. Youll just end up regaining all the weight you lose. Id suggest using the online calculators to determine how much food you need to maintain your current weight and then cut 100 cals/day each week until you create a 400 calorie deficit. It wont produce fast weight loss, but youll be able to stick with it. Id also recommend eating at least 600 calories for breakfast. It really helps control night time cravings.

    This^^^trying to stick to 1200 calories set me up for binge eating when I never had a problem with binge eating in the past. Eat more and lose slower. It's sustainable and healthier for your body and your emotional health.
  • ren3liz
    ren3liz Posts: 45 Member
    frankiesgirlie wrote: »
    morganfitnesspal wrote: »
    Ive managed to lose close to 60lbs this year. My one piece of advice......eat more food!!! For something to work, it has to be sustainable longterm and 1200 calories isnt sustainable. Youll just end up regaining all the weight you lose. Id suggest using the online calculators to determine how much food you need to maintain your current weight and then cut 100 cals/day each week until you create a 400 calorie deficit. It wont produce fast weight loss, but youll be able to stick with it. Id also recommend eating at least 600 calories for breakfast. It really helps control night time cravings.

    This^^^trying to stick to 1200 calories set me up for binge eating when I never had a problem with binge eating in the past. Eat more and lose slower. It's sustainable and healthier for your body and your emotional health.

    I've adjusted my goal to 1lb/week so it changed my goal on MFP to 1420 I think (still sedentary -- so + some exercises calories when I work out). I weighed in at 11lb lost on Thurs 1/21 and the scale has been up between 2-5lb since then. Shrug. Water weight. Confused on what number to believe. Oh well. I did just buy a scale today so I can start weighing consistently - prior to this I only weighed at work (this is how I gained 30lb apparently - never weighing myself).
  • ren3liz
    ren3liz Posts: 45 Member
    ren3liz wrote: »
    frankiesgirlie wrote: »
    morganfitnesspal wrote: »
    Ive managed to lose close to 60lbs this year. My one piece of advice......eat more food!!! For something to work, it has to be sustainable longterm and 1200 calories isnt sustainable. Youll just end up regaining all the weight you lose. Id suggest using the online calculators to determine how much food you need to maintain your current weight and then cut 100 cals/day each week until you create a 400 calorie deficit. It wont produce fast weight loss, but youll be able to stick with it. Id also recommend eating at least 600 calories for breakfast. It really helps control night time cravings.

    This^^^trying to stick to 1200 calories set me up for binge eating when I never had a problem with binge eating in the past. Eat more and lose slower. It's sustainable and healthier for your body and your emotional health.

    I've adjusted my goal to 1lb/week so it changed my goal on MFP to 1420 I think (still sedentary -- so + some exercises calories when I work out). I weighed in at 11lb lost on Thurs 1/21 and the scale has been up between 2-5lb since then. Shrug. Water weight. Confused on what number to believe. Oh well. I did just buy a scale today so I can start weighing consistently - prior to this I only weighed at work (this is how I gained 30lb apparently - never weighing myself).

    HA, I should say - that is not HOW I gained 30lb. :) But I think I would have taken action sooner had I been looking at a number on a scale.

Categories