Come on, mfp. 1200?

kimny72 wrote: »

Barrett9835 wrote: »

I have had no issues with 1200 calories a day, in fact when my head is in the game I am left with 500 calories at night to find something to eat....I drink lots of water and it fills me up!

I never thought that 1200 might be too low for some people, hopefully you find what works for you!

Do you use a food scale?

and this is the question I ask all people who say they eat 1200...usually the answer is no...and they are really eating closer to 1500.

WinoGelato wrote: »

I don't know if that TDEE calculation is correct, where did you get it from? I'm 5'2 and 120, and while I'm pretty active, I wasn't always. When I started and wasn't really exercising at all I calculated my TDEE to be around 1800. MFP estimates my sedentary, non exercise maintenance calories to be around 1650.

see this is weird. i'm 5'3 and 110 and sedentary and MFP has my maintenance calories at 1480.

mskessler89 wrote: »

A long, sad time ago when I was eating 1200 and not eating back exercise calories, I had no "problems" with it either. Then I started lifting, and I turned into a ravenous monster who couldn't stick to 1200 no matter how hard I tried. I started eating more. My 5K time dropped by 2 minutes. I lost less hair to the shower drain. My nails didn't break as easily. I really wasn't feeling miserable and exhausted on 1200 for the four months or so that I did it, but my overall well-being improved when I started eating more - not in big dramatic ways, but in ways that made me realize that eating a couple hundred more calories was a good idea.

this was my experience too...I was eating at 1200...and walking...then tried zumba...and when I do zumba I give it my all...I almost fainted...no joke.

Eating the proper amounts I started lifting heavy and running etc...couldn't do it on 1200.

synacious wrote: »

trusty48 wrote: »

Just wanted to comment a little on the main subject.

Metabolism can vary dramatically from person to person. It's a good idea to set your own goal based on your actual experience once you have been tracking and dieting awhile. The calculators are just a place to start.

In my own experience, I need about 1500 calories to maintain and to lose my calories need to stay below 1300. That's below what the calculators would suggest but I've done this long enough that I know what works.

OP, just focus on something sustainable while you figure out what goal will work for you.

It can vary dramatically, but one of the veteran posters around here who knows his stuff has posted in several threads like this that studies show that over 90% people only have a variance within a range of +/-300. That's really not too much, honestly.

I'd be interested to see where the studies drew their people from and their diet history.

First of all, -300 is actually a pretty big range. That's a 20% reduction from a value of 1500.

The outcomes of all the Biggest Loser studies and similar others found a long-lasting and significant reduction in RMR in dieters. I see numbers ranging from 15 to 25% reduction in RMR, which would easily lead to a -300 or more difference. Studies may show that over 90% of people have variance within that range, but what was the diet/weight loss history of subjects? How might the history of the subject pools differ from the history of MFP members?

louisepaul16 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Shana67 wrote: »

malibu927 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*

I am medium height and older than you and I lost on 1460.
I did not feel mildly hungry most of the time nor do I think that is at all neccesary.

Whether 1200 is appropriate for any given person depends on their stats - generally it is only appropriate for older, smaller, not so active women.
And it is 1200 net - ie more than 1200 by the time you eat back at least some exercise calories.

I also go with 1460 calories. I re-evaluated my calorie goal on MFP and even though I am also almost 190, it told me 1250 or something. That's far too low for me. If it works for you then great, but there is no point being hungry the whole time so maybe try at 1460 for a while, see how that goes then decrease if you feel you can. I'm 37lbs down with 1460 a day, and minimal exercise (but non sedentary job) and I'm rarely hungry on that.

Good luck whatever you decide. Remember there are a million different ways to lose weight but fundamentally it's eat less, eat better, move more.

not to be nit picky but the bolded is not true.

To lose weight it is fundamentally eat less, move more.

ObsidianMist wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

ObsidianMist wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

I don't know if that TDEE calculation is correct, where did you get it from? I'm 5'2 and 120, and while I'm pretty active, I wasn't always. When I started and wasn't really exercising at all I calculated my TDEE to be around 1800. MFP estimates my sedentary, non exercise maintenance calories to be around 1650.

see this is weird. i'm 5'3 and 110 and sedentary and MFP has my maintenance calories at 1480.

I don't find it weird...10lbs is a significant amount of weight when we are talking the dif between 120 and 110...I go from a size 6 to a 4 with 5lbs..

age is also a factor...

yeah I guess. I wouldn't think 10 pounds would cause that much of a discrepancy, especially when I'm an inch taller than you, but I suppose it's more than I think it is. no idea how age affects it either lol I'm 31

people in general (women esp) if not prevented lose muscle mass as we age...hence lower BMR as you get older.

I personally have prevented as much as I can by being active and doing weight training.

ObsidianMist wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

I don't know if that TDEE calculation is correct, where did you get it from? I'm 5'2 and 120, and while I'm pretty active, I wasn't always. When I started and wasn't really exercising at all I calculated my TDEE to be around 1800. MFP estimates my sedentary, non exercise maintenance calories to be around 1650.

see this is weird. i'm 5'3 and 110 and sedentary and MFP has my maintenance calories at 1480.

I just double checked and I made a mistake when I quickly plugged in different settings earlier. For me: 5'2 and 120, sedentary gives me a setting of 1460, lightly active is 1650 (that's what i misread this morning) and active is 1860. I'm currently set at active but chose a manual goal of 1750 to account for logging inaccuracies. My TDEE from my FitBit is about 2200, and I do eat back all my exercise calories, so I'm eating very close to that and maintaining.

But regardless of my sleep addled mistake this morning, the person I was responding to initially said:

DeanneScott2 wrote: »

My TDEE is 1,494. I have an office job and am 5'3" and weigh about 130 (started at 155). So if I want to continue to get to my goal (125) I really have to eat at 1,200. Small but not old, work out 4 times a week. And you can eat and not get hungry on 1200 as well. It is just about making the right choices.

I'm saying that doesn't make sense from a TDEE perspective - that may be the NEAT number (the MFP version not including exercise)?

Christine_72 wrote: »

@WinoGelato You're set to active on here, plus eat back all of your fitbit calories, right? So the double dipping thing i read on here sometimes is crap?
For example: If you set your activity goal to active, then this already includes all/most of your exercise. But then again, you wouldn't get any positive adjustments until you surpass the 'active' level, correct?

Someone who is a waitress and sets her activity level to Active would be double dipping if she also counted her mileage at work separately (as opposed to via an activity tracker that knows what her activity level was set to).

Christine_72 wrote: »

@WinoGelato You're set to active on here, plus eat back all of your fitbit calories, right? So the double dipping thing i read on here sometimes is crap?
For example: If you set your activity goal to active, then this already includes all/most of your exercise. But then again, you wouldn't get any positive adjustments until you surpass the 'active' level, correct?

That's correct. I initially was set at sedentary when I got my FitBit and at the time was averaging 10k per day and really high calorie adjustments which I found of doubting. HeyBales gave me the good advice to change setting to lightly active to have a higher initial baseline of calories so that the exercise adjustments were more representative of my purposeful exercise, not the steps I get so much from daily activity, which is probably about 7-8k in steps from chasing my kids, taking them to school, walking in and out and around my office building, etc. now I average 15k steps and am set to active and I didn't have a positive adjustment today until after I passed 7,500 steps. My adjustments are usually 300 or so, I eat them back, and I've never had problems with stalls.

synacious wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

@WinoGelato You're set to active on here, plus eat back all of your fitbit calories, right? So the double dipping thing i read on here sometimes is crap?
For example: If you set your activity goal to active, then this already includes all/most of your exercise. But then again, you wouldn't get any positive adjustments until you surpass the 'active' level, correct?

That's correct. I initially was set at sedentary when I got my FitBit and at the time was averaging 10k per day and really high calorie adjustments which I found of doubting. HeyBales gave me the good advice to change setting to lightly active to have a higher initial baseline of calories so that the exercise adjustments were more representative of my purposeful exercise, not the steps I get so much from daily activity, which is probably about 7-8k in steps from chasing my kids, taking them to school, walking in and out and around my office building, etc. now I average 15k steps and am set to active and I didn't have a positive adjustment today until after I passed 7,500 steps. My adjustments are usually 300 or so, I eat them back, and I've never had problems with stalls.

Hmm, I'm going to give this a try just to see if it changes anything! I'm at sedentary but I walk over 15K steps per day as well. I'll have to see what playing with the higher baseline at the start of the day is like.

Same here, I got over 25000 steps yesterday, and set to sedentary. I set myself to lightly active for a short time, but it put put too much pressure on me to keep it up day in day out, plus I turn into sloth mode at around 5pm and was losing at least a couple hundred calories every night.