Does anyone use the 1200 cal guideline?

Sydneymchamberlain wrote: »

My question is, does anyone actually eat the recommended 1200 calories? I burn about 500 a day between biking and exercising.

Can you do it? Sure. Should you do it? Depends on your height, weight, gender, age, and goal.

Enter your stats into MFP and set it to losing a half pound a week. Then, eat back 50-100% of any exercise calories you get. What that number is, is unique to you.

I do eat 1200 calories a day, because I'm short and sedentary. My body doesn't require the same number of calories that another woman who is 5'6" would require. I do eat back some but not all of my exercise calories, so on days I don't exercise, I keep it to 1200. On days I do exercise, I might be eating 1500. And I'm still losing.

I get about 1,200 calories on days that I'm not really hungry or very very busy. The most I consume is 1,400 and I measure very accurately.

Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »

I follow the IIFYM plan and do NOT eat back calories burned through exercise.

That's becaue the IIFYM calculator already accounts for exercise, MFP does not by default.

godlikepoetyes wrote: »

WHY do you guys eat only 1,200 calories? If MFP gives you so few, then by all means go with it. But most women, MOST, do not need to eat so few calories to lose weight. I hear about this "1,200" calories all the time. I think it's because many women believe, or fear, they just won't lose unless they eat the absolute minimum. This is simply not the case for most women. I was on another post and a woman, who is 5'8"!! was eating only 1,200! This is absurd. I suggest that everyone do some research into TDEE and to consider the World Heath Organization's definition of food malnutrition/food insecurity--anyone who consumes fewer than 1,800 calories a day is "chronically under-nourished and hungry." Obviously this is an average across the weights of every age, sex, and height of normal weight persons, but doesn't that number put things into perspective? The TDEE for healthy men and women is between 2,350 and 3,000 and those numbers are likely too low.

I think a lot of it has to do with the weekly weight loss goal. Someone sets up a new account and when they set up their goals they see that 2 pounds a week is an option and they go with it. I did the same thing but once I seen the recommendations from other members in the forum posts I changed it to 1 pound a week based on how much I have to lose.

OK, maybe a little more than you asked for, OP, but...

I started dieting 7 weeks ago, and I had a goal of 1,200 kcal/day thing for two weeks, then moved my goal up to 1,300 kcal/day for another two weeks, and then to 1,400 kcal/day for a month—so I have another week there, and then I'll move up to 1,600/day for either four weeks or eight, depending on my weight at that point. I was at 180 lbs on Day 1; two weeks later when I moved up to a 1,300/day target, I'd already lost 10 lbs (probably mostly water weight) and was at 170; two weeks later, when I moved my target to 1,400/day, I'd lost 5 lbs and was at 165; two weeks later, still at a 1,400/day goal, I was 160.

I found the 1,200/day goal difficult because I was constantly hungry—but I never went over by much, and in fact I was often under, just because I was new to the whole idea and wasn't totally sure what I was doing. My two weeks at a 1,300/day goal was difficult in a different way; there was a lot of fluctuation because I'd started exercising and was trying (and not often succeeding) to figure out how to balance my total caloric and net caloric intakes. At 1,400/day, I gave up on that kind of regular exercise because everything was so erratic, although I do get out and walk some days, and I try to eat back what I burn off.


In the chart, dark blue is net calories, and light blue is total (if over net). I like a 1,400/day goal, but I'm not planning on eating low-cal for long and can't wait to get up to maintenance (which should be about 1,800–2,000, depending on which calculations I use) by September at the latest, but hopefully before. I don't think eating too low should be done for any great amount of time, and 1,200—especially at 133 lbs with only 15 to go—seems far too low to me. I'm eating at 1,400 now and losing about 2.5 lbs/week . . . but it all depends, I think, on your metabolism, how quickly and easily you lose weight.

SOOO . . . to finally get to the point: I think counting calories will help, but do you need to go down to 1,200? If you haven't been counting calories up to now, it's hard to say, but I'd suggest that for a few days, you continue eating as normal and log everything to find out your current daily average. If you can take off 100 or 200 kcal/day from that number without dropping to 1,200, then I suggest just trying that for a while. You should still lose weight that way—and it may not be as rapidly as it has been the past few months, but that's OK. Half a pound or a quarter of a pound a week is still weight loss.

Sorry for rambling . . . and GOOD LUCK!

godlikepoetyes wrote: »

WHY do you guys eat only 1,200 calories? If MFP gives you so few, then by all means go with it. But most women, MOST, do not need to eat so few calories to lose weight. I hear about this "1,200" calories all the time. I think it's because many women believe, or fear, they just won't lose unless they eat the absolute minimum. This is simply not the case for most women. I was on another post and a woman, who is 5'8"!! was eating only 1,200! This is absurd. I suggest that everyone do some research into TDEE and to consider the World Heath Organization's definition of food malnutrition/food insecurity--anyone who consumes fewer than 1,800 calories a day is "chronically under-nourished and hungry." Obviously this is an average across the weights of every age, sex, and height of normal weight persons, but doesn't that number put things into perspective? The TDEE for healthy men and women is between 2,350 and 3,000 and those numbers are likely too low.

Because that is what my TDEE and BMR calculated for me to lose 2lbs a week at my weight and activity level.


People act as if 1200 is sooooooooooo little food but I eat all day long. If you accurately measure your food in grams and ensure you're eating a lot of protein and fat 1200 is plenty.

godlikepoetyes wrote: »

I now am maintaining at 120, my TDEE is 2200 because I'm much more active now (averaging 15k steps a day). I lost my weight eating between 1600-1900 calories.

Good for you! I wish everyone could read this and just think logically about it.

Thanks, me too. Certainly there are some for whom it is appropriate, but for many it is not. It makes me sad when people like the OP seem to think this is what is required, referring to it as "the recommended amount". Many people try 1200 and fail, and give up because they think it's too hard. Others stick with it, and maybe they don't find it too restrictive, but if you can eat more and still lose, why would you not want that? As a wise rabbit here once said, "the winner is the one who eats the most food and still reaches their goal".

I've been on 1200 calories since January and lost 28lbs doing it (a pound a week). I keep it strictly that low as I don't weigh my food, and I don't count things like coffee, so I probably take in more calories than I record, but it works for me.

I use the 1200 calorie goal, but I use it as a bit of a 'yellow light' so when I make that mark I know I have eaten 'enough'. I had an ED many years ago and trying to lose weight is stressful because I don't want to cause harm to my body but I do want to drop some lbs. I try to stay between 1200 and 1500, which allows me to be a little more easy on myself. To me 1200 is not a limit but a minimum.