Come on, mfp. 1200?
Replies
-
Weight loss is always fat + muscle loss. I believe muscle retention has more to do with protein intake and resistance training, and losing at a slower rate can help minimize muscle loss, but it's not the amount of calories per se. But there's no magic "lose fat only" method to weight loss.
Eating 1200 is not going to guarantee a higher rate of muscle loss in and of itself, it's going to depend on a lot of factors, including highly individual factors like height and weight. 1200 could be a perfectly appropriate amount for a person to eat and still retain muscle.
OP, you can set MFP for a lower loss-per-week goal, which should bump your calories up a bit, and eat back a portion of your exercise calories. The calorie goal is a recommendation, but not a hard and fast number, and a lot of people end up tweaking them a bit.13 -
Sailrabbit.com/bmr/
That's what I used to set my deficit (you can set a custom calorie count). I want to lose around 1.5 a week (1 pound would be more comfortable, but I'm on a deadline) but it was spitting me out 1200 calories at 5'6" and 170 lbs.
I get hangry sometimes at 1380! I'd straight murder someone at 1200!
I like the sailrabbit.com calculator because there's a section towards the bottom where you can say you want to burn an average of X calories a day in exercise. Plug that in with your guesstimate of a weeks exercise ÷7 and you get one with exercise calories built in.
It works better for me, and might give you a more reasonable deficit, whatever your goals are. Even if you don't use it like that, you can still see how your exercise calories affect your weight loss in a clear(er) way than with MFP. Helps to make a more sensible goal all around.0 -
It isn't for everyone. I have a fairly active job, so 1200 would not work for me. Generally those who are smaller and older are ideal for that amount.
Well. I'm not small, nor am I old, and it is working just fine. I workout 6x/week for an hour each time. Personally, I just think one needs to get used to feeling mildly hungry most of the time. *shrugs*
If you are really eating 1200 you are losing muscle and fat...no thanks.
I prefer to keep my muscle and lose at a slower rate. *shrugs*
and there is no reason to feel even "mildly hungry" most of the time...it's like you are punishing yourself for gaining weight. SMH
OP your goal should be to eat as much food as possible and still lose a reasonable amount of weight....that way you know you aren't losing as much muscle as fat....which in the long run is not a good thing.
When I start here I was at the same weight...I chose 1lb a week...got the same calorie goal as you and it was great...I ate back exercise calories, was never hungry, and I have lost 50+ lbs and have kept most of my muscle.
Nope. I strength train daily, and have pretty good muscle definition, if I do say so myself.
5 -
A high deficit (which 1200 may or may not be, depending on size and activity) does make it more likely that you will lose more muscle than necessary, although protein consumption and strength training can help alleviate that. Also, someone who has more fat to lose can get away with a higher deficit without it being a problem than someone closer to goal.3
-
It isn't for everyone. I have a fairly active job, so 1200 would not work for me. Generally those who are smaller and older are ideal for that amount.
Well. I'm not small, nor am I old, and it is working just fine. I workout 6x/week for an hour each time. Personally, I just think one needs to get used to feeling mildly hungry most of the time. *shrugs*
If you are really eating 1200 you are losing muscle and fat...no thanks.
I prefer to keep my muscle and lose at a slower rate. *shrugs*
and there is no reason to feel even "mildly hungry" most of the time...it's like you are punishing yourself for gaining weight. SMH
OP your goal should be to eat as much food as possible and still lose a reasonable amount of weight....that way you know you aren't losing as much muscle as fat....which in the long run is not a good thing.
When I start here I was at the same weight...I chose 1lb a week...got the same calorie goal as you and it was great...I ate back exercise calories, was never hungry, and I have lost 50+ lbs and have kept most of my muscle.
Nope. I strength train daily, and have pretty good muscle definition, if I do say so myself.
as I said if you really are eating 1200 chances are you are losing more muscle than you think.
ETA: muscle definition comes from losing the fat on the muscle not from building extra muscle.Weight loss is always fat + muscle loss. I believe muscle retention has more to do with protein intake and resistance training, and losing at a slower rate can help minimize muscle loss, but it's not the amount of calories per se. But there's no magic "lose fat only" method to weight loss.
Eating 1200 is not going to guarantee a higher rate of muscle loss in and of itself, it's going to depend on a lot of factors, including highly individual factors like height and weight. 1200 could be a perfectly appropriate amount for a person to eat and still retain muscle.
OP, you can set MFP for a lower loss-per-week goal, which should bump your calories up a bit, and eat back a portion of your exercise calories. The calorie goal is a recommendation, but not a hard and fast number, and a lot of people end up tweaking them a bit.
Yes that is all true but at 1200 calories you have to be very diligent to get in enough protein and unless you are doing light resistance training 1200 probably is not fueling the resistance training that well...esp if said person admits they are "mildly hungry all the time" not a good indication that the body is being fueled properly.7 -
I'm only 5'3 and could never do 1,200 cals. I don't like the idea of getting "used" to feeling hungry.7
-
It isn't for everyone. I have a fairly active job, so 1200 would not work for me. Generally those who are smaller and older are ideal for that amount.
Well. I'm not small, nor am I old, and it is working just fine. I workout 6x/week for an hour each time. Personally, I just think one needs to get used to feeling mildly hungry most of the time. *shrugs*
How tall are you and how much weight are you losing per week (on average over a month or so)?
How many pounds away from your goal weight are you?
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »It isn't for everyone. I have a fairly active job, so 1200 would not work for me. Generally those who are smaller and older are ideal for that amount.
Well. I'm not small, nor am I old, and it is working just fine. I workout 6x/week for an hour each time. Personally, I just think one needs to get used to feeling mildly hungry most of the time. *shrugs*
If you are really eating 1200 you are losing muscle and fat...no thanks.
I prefer to keep my muscle and lose at a slower rate. *shrugs*
and there is no reason to feel even "mildly hungry" most of the time...it's like you are punishing yourself for gaining weight. SMH
OP your goal should be to eat as much food as possible and still lose a reasonable amount of weight....that way you know you aren't losing as much muscle as fat....which in the long run is not a good thing.
When I start here I was at the same weight...I chose 1lb a week...got the same calorie goal as you and it was great...I ate back exercise calories, was never hungry, and I have lost 50+ lbs and have kept most of my muscle.
^^ great reply @SezxyStef
and I am nodding head vigorously in agreement
Samesies...
Im always intrigued as to why people defend the 1200 cal goal? If it is possible to eat more and still lose, why do people not want to try? Why would you want to be "mildly hungry" all the time. That sounds miserable.
I think sometimes there is a feeling of accomplishment or a tendency towards perfectionism. Sometimes it's driven by impatience. And sometimes there is a penitential element.
Not saying it is *only* driven by these things, but those are things that I've observed and tendencies I have sometimes had to access myself for.
Well said. I see the penitential element especially in women, who seem to feel more shame in having become overweight in the first place, and thus have more of a drive to atone by suffering with hunger.7 -
katandwaves wrote: »Why does myfitnesspal suggest 1,200 calories a day? I am 5'8, about 190 pounds. I work full time so I'm at a desk all day. I'm doing about 3+ days a week of spinning/elliptical.
Any suggestions on what my calorie goal should be?
OP, I'm 5'4" and when I was 145 lbs, I lost weight eating 1500-1600 cals while lightly active. You should def be able to lose weight on more than 1200! I think your plan makes sense - change your goal to 1 lb, and feel free to eat back some of your exercise calories too.
Also, if you don't have a food scale, get one! Using it as often as possible will help you make sure you are eating what you think you are. Especially in the beginning, it's a great way to make sure a portion size is really what you think it is. Good luck!0 -
katandwaves wrote: »Why does myfitnesspal suggest 1,200 calories a day? I am 5'8, about 190 pounds. I work full time so I'm at a desk all day. I'm doing about 3+ days a week of spinning/elliptical.
Any suggestions on what my calorie goal should be?
The bolded is why. Your TDEE (without exercise) is only about 1900. If you want to eat more, make sure your goal is set at 1lb per week and make sure you are eating back at least some of your exercise calories.
There is a big difference in eating and sustaining on 1200 calories depending upon whether or not your eating that level net, or gross. Make sure that's your net, not your gross.1 -
I'm 4'11" and 96lbs, so I'm pretty midgety, and it had me at 1200 for a 1/2lb loss. Then last week I changed the settings to maintenance & it put me at whopping 1300. That was kind of sad. I do earn back probably 300-500 a day though, so with that it isn't so bad. I just have to make sure to move a lot in order to eat good stuff. Sigh...2
-
I'm 4'11" and 96lbs, so I'm pretty midgety, and it had me at 1200 for a 1/2lb loss. Then last week I changed the settings to maintenance & it put me at whopping 1300. That was kind of sad. I do earn back probably 300-500 a day though, so with that it isn't so bad. I just have to make sure to move a lot in order to eat good stuff. Sigh...
you have my sympathy...but at least if you move more you get to eat more...you are a tiny little woman tho...wow
4 -
If I eat a calorie over 1200, I can still lose, but minimally. Like, maybe an ounce or 2. Maybe. In regards to the person who said its ok to feel mildly hungry- I actually agree with that and understand. I was feeling "mildly hungry" when I was eating well over 2000 calories a day because I have a hard time separating my head being hungry from my stomach. Feeling "mildly hungry" some days is helping me to differentiate real hungry from psychological hungry. If I was starving, I would eat. A little hungry gets some water or an almond or 2. So, I get the getting used to feeling mildly hungry thing. And she said "mildly", not "starving". And that's ok for me, just like you (royal "you") doesn't want to feel hungry. To each his own way of being successful.7
-
OP I'm 5'9" and I lost all my weight eating an average of 1800 a day. If you're worried you won't stick to it because you'll be too hungry, I would set your diary to lose .5 pounds a week.2
-
Lolz to 1,200 and defending it by saying feeling hungry consistently is normal and people need to accept it. Sorry that's a no. If you feel hungry regularly, you aren't eating enough OR you aren't eating enough nutrient dense foods. Hunger an hour or so before meal time? Acceptable. All day? Nope.
Op, pick a path that will give you a solid foundation for the rest of you life - don't set yourself up to burn out. Choose a reasonable weight loss goal per week -- like a pound. I rarely write serious posts in the forums but this is the truth from somebody who has logged food for 11 years and maintained a moderate loss (55 pounds), listen to and fuel your body. Choose nutrient dense foods most of the time and allow yourself treats on occasion. Pick activity you like. Do things you can be consistent with.
The. End.24 -
devil_in_a_blue_dress wrote: »Lolz to 1,200 and defending it by saying feeling hungry consistently is normal and people need to accept it. Sorry that's a no. If you feel hungry regularly, you aren't eating enough OR you aren't eating enough nutrient dense foods. Hunger an hour or so before meal time? Acceptable. All day? Nope.
Ya, I'm only hungry right before meals. I don't have an aggressive calorie deficit and I do focus on foods that satiate me, which for me are foods containing protein, fat, and fiber.
Sure, I could lose weight faster if I was willing to be hungry all day, but it's better for me to develop healthy eating habits I can live with for the rest of my life.
0 -
I started using The Biggest Loser cookbook and it had the equation on taking your weight, if between 150 and 300 pounds and multiplying it by 7, that would be your daily caloric intake. Based on your weight the formula would be at 1330 calories a day.....although i took what they recommended for me and took 150 off of it. That being said, I have been losing weight by eating when im hungry, not eating when im not, or if i do something very very small. My weight loss of 22 pounds in 7 weeks isnt very fast, but im hoping that its more of a lifestyle change i can maintain and not just another fad diet. Stick with it
0 -
Christopher1912 wrote: »I started using The Biggest Loser cookbook and it had the equation on taking your weight, if between 150 and 300 pounds and multiplying it by 7, that would be your daily caloric intake. Based on your weight the formula would be at 1330 calories a day.....although i took what they recommended for me and took 150 off of it. That being said, I have been losing weight by eating when im hungry, not eating when im not, or if i do something very very small. My weight loss of 22 pounds in 7 weeks isnt very fast, but im hoping that its more of a lifestyle change i can maintain and not just another fad diet. Stick with it
What?
22 pounds in 7 weeks isn't very fast.....for who? Someone that's 350+ pounds (maybe).
Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range8 -
Christopher1912 wrote: »I started using The Biggest Loser cookbook and it had the equation on taking your weight, if between 150 and 300 pounds and multiplying it by 7, that would be your daily caloric intake. Based on your weight the formula would be at 1330 calories a day.....although i took what they recommended for me and took 150 off of it. That being said, I have been losing weight by eating when im hungry, not eating when im not, or if i do something very very small. My weight loss of 22 pounds in 7 weeks isnt very fast, but im hoping that its more of a lifestyle change i can maintain and not just another fad diet. Stick with it
What?
22 pounds in 7 weeks isn't very fast.....for who? Someone that's 350+ pounds (maybe).
Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range
Agreed. Also that cookbook has an awful formula. A 150 pound person would only be allowed 1050 calories which is insanely low and not at all reasonable. The Biggest Loser isn't exactly the best source of advice given the recent news article(s) and all. I'm 5'3", 110 pounds, and I'm still losing weight on 1800 to 2000 calories per day. By The Biggest Loser standards, a 300 pound person would only be allowed 100 calories more than me for weight loss. That is far too low, especially without factoring in activity levels.4 -
Google Scooby Calculator. Go to that website. Read about TBEE and BMR. Calculate yours and use THAT number.
Most people should NOT be eating a mere 1200 calories unless they are 4'11" or 88 years old. That's less than they would feed you intravenously if you were in a coma for heaven's sake.
Scientific research can be very eye opening. The amount of nonsense perpetuated on these message boards is astonishing and quite frankly, with the ease of Google, inexcusable.3 -
redheaddee1974 wrote: »Google Scooby Calculator. Go to that website. Read about TBEE and BMR. Calculate yours and use THAT number.
Most people should NOT be eating a mere 1200 calories unless they are 4'11" or 88 years old. That's less than they would feed you intravenously if you were in a coma for heaven's sake.
Scientific research can be very eye opening. The amount of nonsense perpetuated on these message boards is astonishing and quite frankly, with the ease of Google, inexcusable.
not yet...TDEE is for someone who is consistent with exercise...it is best to just use the number here when the stats are entered in correctly and find out how many exercise calories to eat back and calculate your own TDEE using your numbers not some guesstimate from a website.3 -
And this is where I defend MFP's exercise calorie counts, to some extent. I always hear how MFP overestimates exercise calories. But I did the 1200 calorie thing for a year and was only able to do it because I exercise a lot and ate back those calories that MFP said I burned. I only truly ate 1200 calories on days that I was a total couch potato, and I think that's fair. I lost 30 lbs at a nice, slow, steady rate and did not starve. In fact, I refuse to let myself be hungry; it's not worth it.4
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Im always intrigued as to why people defend the 1200 cal goal? If it is possible to eat more and still lose, why do people not want to try? Why would you want to be "mildly hungry" all the time. That sounds miserable.
For decades now, women's magazines and "nutrition" magazines have touted "1200 calorie diet plans!" as the "right way to do it." I remember standing in the checkout line at the grocery store, scanning across Women's Day and Family Circle and Good Housekeeping and all the rest, each of them in a row with their covers offering "1200 calories to lose 10 by Memorial Day!"
It's so ingrained as the "calories a woman needs" that I have met women who think that 1200 calories are *all* a woman *should* eat. Period. Ever. Daily. Not for weight loss, but they think that's all a woman *needs.*2 -
Its interesting that some are saying choosing 2 lbs a week.
I'm on the 1200 calorie goal and my goal was 1 - 1.5 lbs weekly.
But I'm 5'1.
In fact, no matter how I played around with it (changing the pounds or workouts) it still said 12002 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »Its interesting that some are saying choosing 2 lbs a week.
I'm on the 1200 calorie goal and my goal was 1 - 1.5 lbs weekly.
But I'm 5'1.
In fact, no matter how I played around with it (changing the pounds or workouts) it still said 1200
MFP expects you to add workouts after the fact. Logging your workouts (under cardiovascular) will always give you more calories. Activity level is basically just based on your job.
1/2 pound a week is for those that are within 15 pounds of goal....I'm guessing it's still not a whole lot more than 1200.0 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »Its interesting that some are saying choosing 2 lbs a week.
I'm on the 1200 calorie goal and my goal was 1 - 1.5 lbs weekly.
But I'm 5'1.
In fact, no matter how I played around with it (changing the pounds or workouts) it still said 1200
The planned workouts don't affect it at all (not until you actually do it and log it, when the calories are added on). That's one of the problems -- people assume they do and that that means exercise is included in the number already, but it's not.0 -
It isn't for everyone. I have a fairly active job, so 1200 would not work for me. Generally those who are smaller and older are ideal for that amount.
Well. I'm not small, nor am I old, and it is working just fine. I workout 6x/week for an hour each time. Personally, I just think one needs to get used to feeling mildly hungry most of the time. *shrugs*
If you are really eating 1200 you are losing muscle and fat...no thanks.
I prefer to keep my muscle and lose at a slower rate. *shrugs*
and there is no reason to feel even "mildly hungry" most of the time...it's like you are punishing yourself for gaining weight. SMH
OP your goal should be to eat as much food as possible and still lose a reasonable amount of weight....that way you know you aren't losing as much muscle as fat....which in the long run is not a good thing.
When I start here I was at the same weight...I chose 1lb a week...got the same calorie goal as you and it was great...I ate back exercise calories, was never hungry, and I have lost 50+ lbs and have kept most of my muscle.
Just reiterating that this person knows her stuff!!!! Definitely listen to her.
3 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »Its interesting that some are saying choosing 2 lbs a week.
I'm on the 1200 calorie goal and my goal was 1 - 1.5 lbs weekly.
But I'm 5'1.
In fact, no matter how I played around with it (changing the pounds or workouts) it still said 1200
If you are petite (you are) and don't have a lot to lose (not sure what your current weight is) and select a sedentary activity level, MFP is going to estimate your NEAT calories (BMR + non-exercise activity) to be pretty low. MFP then takes the deficit of how fast you want to lose the weight from that NEAT estimate, but it bottoms out at 1200 cals. So if MFP thinks your NEAT is 1700 and you select to lose 1 lb/week, it will give you a cal deficit of 500 cals and a goal of 1200. But if MFP thinks your NEAT is 1500 and you select 1 lb/week it still tries to subtract 500 cals, but won't go below 1200, so you would get the same number. Regardless of what goal you choose, when you exercise and burn more, then you would eat back at least some those calories.
I am also petite and also had an initial goal of 1200 but quickly realized that I could eat more and lose weight. Additionally I have figured out that even though I have a desk job, I'm far from sedentary, averaging 15K steps/day now (not at first, I've worked up to this) and so I've changed my setting to active. It syncs well with my FitBit and I still eat back those exercise adjustments. I lost the weight I set out to lose and am successfully maintaining with this approach.
3 -
Hi. I just rejoined minutes ago. Yes, 1200 was what I got too. 5'0 only. Actually I am a little worried about this number. It said I would lose 1 pound a week. yikes. Its depressing how fast I can put it on and how slow if at all it leaves
0 -
Hi. I just rejoined minutes ago. Yes, 1200 was what I got too. 5'0 only. Actually I am a little worried about this number. It said I would lose 1 pound a week. yikes. Its depressing how fast I can put it on and how slow if at all it leaves
how much do you want to lose?
and remember you can eat more if you move more...ie bike rides, runs, weights..exercise.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions