The Fitnesspal default 1200 kcal recommendation is ridiculous

(Good stuff from original quote snipped to highlight this part:)

HutchA12 wrote: »

The reason we are able to use tools like this is because most people are the same not different. How could MFP calculate anything if we all just randomly burned at differnt rates despite size, age, or activity level?

Also feeling hunger isn't starving.

I'm quite confident that you (HutchA12) know the things I'm about to type, but am commenting in case newbies are reading. (I've seen some folks take the calculators' estimates as invariant gospel, which they also aren't.)

I completely agree with your main point, and that we don't randomly burn calories at different rates. The calculators (like MFP's) are research-based, and provide good ballpark estimates for people to start with. However, people do need to pay attention to their own experience: There is some individual variation around the averages provided by the calculators.

People may find themselves gaining/losing a little more or a little less than the prediction . . . and if losing too rapidly (say, > 1% of bodyweight weekly, unless quite obese), they probably should eat more, in order to stay strong & healthy while losing weight.

If someone's experience is extremely different from the calculators, and they're logging meticulously, a medical consult would be a Good Plan.

(Basis for this post: I don't have the cite at hand, but have seen scatter plots from the research on average burn, and the individual observations cluster around the averages, but don't all sit right on it - just as you'd expect from samples from a normally-distributed population. Also, there are various n=1 examples. For example, a very meticulous MFP friend failed to lose at the projected level, sought medical advice, had normal test results, and is now losing gradually at a medically-supervised substantially lower calorie level. On the other end of the continuum, I'm currently losing (very slowly, as intended) on net calories a couple hundred above my calculator-estimated maintenance calories, with careful logging.)

1200 is really not the default recommendation though - when I joined MFP, it never even occurred to me to select 'lose 2 pounds a week', and MFP actually recommended 1 pound a week. That gave me 1690 calories. If people think that it's a good idea to go from stuffing their face to cutting to lose 2 pounds a week though, it's their problem. I'll just shake my head at the numerous 'eating 1200 calories and hungry all the time' posts.

The only thing I'd change about MFP is that it should really be made clearer that those calories don't include exercise. Right now it can be confusing, considering that you have to pick how often you exercise when you select your goals, so people can think that it's already accounted for, when it's not.

HutchA12 wrote: »

serenitywsu wrote: »

I think it verys from person to person. When I would exercise two hours a day and aim for 1200 to 1300 total in calorie consumption, I never lost a single pound. When I hit my senior year in high school, I gave up calorie counting and would exercise for 1 1/2 hours a day and probably eat around 1800 calories and I lost 20lbs in three months. Afterwords, when I graduate and got lazyyyyy and rarely worked out more than 30 minutes a day, I gained back 5lbs but once i gained that 5lbs I maintained on anywhere from 1600 to 2000 calories a day, even though I wasn't even exercising. Every body is different, and depending on age you can adapt very well. But honestly I do think the 1200 calorie is bull crap. Im starving on 1200 even on days I DONT exercise.

This shows you don't know how your body burns calories. I don't know your stats but if you were working out heavily and only eating 1200-1300 you would have lost weight unless you are very small. There is a better chance you were guessing amount made mistakes and ate at maintenance. Next with the slight to moderate decrease in exercise you could have had less hunger and gotten better ar counting calories and it just seems like you did less and lost weight. Next you gained 5 pounds then maintained it because your metabolic rate increased with weight and your net food between high and low = what your body weight was +5 pounds. The reason we are able to use tools like this is because most people are the same not different. How could MFP calculate anything if we all just randomly burned at differnt rates despite size, age, or activity level?

Also feeling hunger isn't starving.

No need to be rude and make assumptions. I was counting calories at the time when I was exercising 2 hours a day, and I was counting everything I ate. No to mention I said in HIGH SCHOOL, children, preteen, and teen bodies AREN'T adult bodies. Some people Just DON'T have metabolism that adapt well to low calories or their bodies don't work the way YOU think is average.

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

My goodness you are being dramatic.

1200 is not a default. 1000 is the daily minimum for women.

I've eaten around 1200/day for the last four years. I am happy, healthy, full and my libido is just FINE.

If you aren't ready and willing to follow a diet and do the work, you might as well just give up now.

A better course might be to make some friends, look at their diaries and get an idea of some workable ways to spend a 1200-calorie diet budget.

I am going to hazard a guess that your medical issues may come into play as far as your ability to feel full and satisfied on a 1200 calorie diet for 4 years straight. If I recall correctly, you are at least average in height, if not on the tall side (for some reason I think you're 5'10" but I may be imagining that.) Comfortably keeping a 1200 calorie diet at those stats is extraordinarily unusual.