1000-1200 calories, anyone?
Options
Replies
-
I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.2 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
What is "low cal" to you is not "low cal" to everyone. It would really not make sense to think that this website calculator (or any other for that matter) would be able to determine the correct amount of calories for every person. Perhaps 80% of them. Maybe even 90 or 95% - maybe.6 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Yep. Lots of diversity.
Someone asked me why I'm considering going lower than 1200. Other calculators have placed me there, for weight loss at a rate of 2lbs per week. That's why.
My net average has been around 1290 or so, however.
I might add, I've spoken with numerous professionals (doctors, nurse practitioners, nutrition counselors) and I have received different advice.
One said I have to consume 1200 daily, that's it.
One said intermittent fasting is the way to go.
One kinda just agreed with all my ideas... occasionally giving me health tips and "venting" support.
Well, I'm still figuring it all out.
I don't think you have said this, if so, I missed it. How much weight total are you trying to lose? 2 lbs/week is only appropriate if you have 75-100 lbs to lose.3 -
I am 5 foot 7 and wouldn't function on 1200. I eat at least 1500 everyday . Yes MFP will put me at 1200 as I have an office job but I just overrode it . I started in November and have lost 40 pounds. I would love to only eat 1200 but I know I cant do that for the rest of my life. I think it is really hard to get the protein ( and all the other nutrients ) you need when calories are that low. best of luck to you
Good to hear, because MFP gave me these settings as well at 5'7" with an office job, and I find myself going over most days...0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Totally agree, and love the new profile picture!3 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Doesn't matter. Over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back, and some gain even more within 5 years. You are in the small percent that keep it off. It doesn't mean that what you are doing will work for someone else.
Because you can do it, everyone should that is petite? Everyone is exactly the same as you? You know that this will work for someone your exact size? How? What qualifications do you have that you can know what is right for someone you have no clue about?
4 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Doesn't matter. Over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back, and some gain even more within 5 years. You are in the small percent that keep it off. It doesn't mean that what you are doing will work for someone else.
Because you can do it, everyone should that is petite? Everyone is exactly the same as you? You know that this will work for someone your exact size? How? What qualifications do you have that you can know what is right for someone you have no clue about?
oh boy8 -
I am 5 foot 7 and wouldn't function on 1200. I eat at least 1500 everyday . Yes MFP will put me at 1200 as I have an office job but I just overrode it . I started in November and have lost 40 pounds. I would love to only eat 1200 but I know I cant do that for the rest of my life. I think it is really hard to get the protein ( and all the other nutrients ) you need when calories are that low. best of luck to you
Good to hear, because MFP gave me these settings as well at 5'7" with an office job, and I find myself going over most days...
Remember MFP gave you those settings based on "I want to lose xx pounds per week." That default minimum is before exercise. Most women don't have to eat this low......a larger percentage of women choose to.
1200 seems like it's been around since the stone age. Back when trans-fats weren't on anyone's radar, and long before low-fat diets were considered "healthy."2 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »All great feedback. Thanks everyone.
I am 5'4". 32 years old. I have yo-yo'd more times than I can track (lost and gained 20lbs at least 4 times). I suspect my metabolism is slower, if you subscribe to that philosophy.
The MFP settings put me at 1200 for 2lbs per week, at 1370 for 1lb per week. To lose half a pound I need 1500-ish calories would be the amount to eat. Those are the numbers I am getting with the app.
Since mfp gives you 1350 for a 1lb loss, 1200 won't give you a 2lb loss. For a 2lb loss, you'd need 850 to lose 2lbs. Selecting 2lbs per week is only suitable for those that have at least 50lbs to lose, more like 70lbs. The reason why the number drops below 1200 is because it may not be a suitable goal for you. If selecting the goal takes you below 1200, it's not suitable.
There is nothing wrong with losing 1lbs... ~52lb per year.4 -
Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?27 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Co-signed. Science is science and I will never understand unnecessary restriction. I suspect some serious logging inaccuracies are at play.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
LOL!!! Where is anyone disagreeing with that? I would LOVE to eat more!!!
The only "defense" here is simply justification for those of us that fall outside the norm.
It does get a bit tiresome, after so many years of knowing what my body needs to stay at a healthy weight, to have strangers say "but you are not eating enough!!". I am. It may not be enough for you, but you and I are not the same people.10 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Co-signed. Science is science and I will never understand unnecessary restriction. I suspect some serious logging inaccuracies are at play.
I would bet money that that is true, for many. It is NOT true in my case, and I would bet that it is not true for others, as well.
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.10 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »I'm 5'1" and 118. I LOSE weight at 1500. All of the 5'7 and 5'8 women claiming they need to be at or under 1200 need to track more accurately, because that's ridiculous.
Lyle McDonald agrees: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
...So when a 300 pound individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be very leery of how true that is. Either they are that 1 in 100,000 person with a metabolic rate below 1400 at that bodyweight (who has never been found to exist in any study on the topic over a span of about 5+ decades), or they aren’t being accurate in how much food they are eating or how many calories they are burning each day. You can probably guess which one I think it is. And, so we’re clear, I’m not saying that they are deliberately lying, either, I want to make that very clear. They are just as bad as everybody else at estimating their caloric intake and expenditure. Which is apparently pretty bad.
Which is why you can’t magically gain weight on 1000 calories per day if your maintenance intake is 2000 calories per day. Either your body will mobilize stored fuels, or it will slow down metabolic rate to 1000 to put you back into balance (and no study has ever shown the latter to occur in the absence of rather massive weight loss). Something has to happen. But weight gain on sub-maintenance calories isn’t one of them.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kk_inprogress wrote: »I'm 5'1" and 118. I LOSE weight at 1500. All of the 5'7 and 5'8 women claiming they need to be at or under 1200 need to track more accurately, because that's ridiculous.
Lyle McDonald agrees: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/So when a 300 pound individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be very leery of how true that is.Which is why you can’t magically gain weight on 1000 calories per day if your maintenance intake is 2000 calories per day.
No, he is not saying that at all. He is saying that for people that have a maintenance intake of (a number much higher than mine, for instance) that you cannot gain weight on that maintenance number. And THAT is not all what I, or others here, have said.
At my healthy weight of 140 pounds, my maintenance is about 1200 - 1300 calories. I tracked for YEARS, and maintained, on that, with exercise most days. (Yes if I do extraordinary efforts, I consume more). I have no logging inaccuracies - I know the drill. I have a food scale at both work and at home. For me to lose, however, I need to eat below that. That is how MY body works. It's how it's always worked. I am sure it won't work for most others and am not suggesting that it will. You can yell "but that's impossible" from here to the moutaintops, if you like. That doesn't change the way my body works.
4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.3 -
buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »Hello.
Have any of you been on a 1000-1200 calorie per day plan? Did you follow it strictly? What was your experience? (Plateaus, weight loss rates, sleep quality...)
It is what I am doing; I never had to go so low before.
Thanks kindly.
I do. Have done this for over a year now. I'm F, 46, 5'1". It's just how I eat now. I can't exercise much, so the only way to be in a deficit is by keeping my calories in this range.
I weigh and measure everything. Have lost about 110 lbs and have about 10 more to go.
I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
As for your other questions: I sleep OK. My weight loss is weird. I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.4 -
youdoyou2016 wrote: »I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
LOL.youdoyou2016 wrote: »I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.
Actually I think that is the norm for a lot of people. Frustrating maybe, but pretty normal.
3 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.
LOL.youdoyou2016 wrote: »I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.
Actually I think that is the norm for a lot of people. Frustrating maybe, but pretty normal.
Yeah, I know the bouncing is normal. Just maddening sometimes.
As for the 1200 ... Who made this up? I am completely serious. How'd 98.6 get to be a normal temp? (Really!) I can't be the only one who has felt half dead, gone to a doctor, had a temp of 98.8 or, worse, 98.4 and, suddenly, no one seems to care I feel beyond terrible. If your cholesterol is 195 you're OK but 205 you're in trouble? My bp is always 100/60. I once had a doctor want to give me meds to make it go up to a normal 120/80. Weirdos. 1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions