We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
1000-1200 calories, anyone?
Replies
-
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.
I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile.
3 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I don't get into the TDEE thing. I simply track calories (and yes protein and a few other things). Yes maintenance for me, at 138-140 pounds, has always been 1200-1300 calories, but note that on those day where I did something like a half-marathon, obviously I ate more that day. I don't do those runs anymore, sadly, but mentioned them simply to explain that I AM active, other than my job. I have a sit-down job, always have - for over 30 years (I am 61), and am on my butt for 8-9 hours a day, so I have always figured that was why I fall at that low end of the calorie scale. So to answer your question, for my normal days, cardio and gym, yes that is my maintenance. I fell off the logging wagon a couple of years ago and that is why I am using MFP (also have to use it for work) to log. I lost 10, but went right back to my bad habits (snacking!), and gained it back plus a few more. I was averaging about 1500 -1700 calories a day - DOH. And maybe 155-160 is fine for others at my height, but it is NOT fine for me. I know where I am happiest at, and feel best at. So back at the strict logging again to get back where i need to be, and stay there. I am 5'7", at 153 right now.
But enough about me. This thread is not about me. Back to the OP...please.
I don't know what you mean "get into the TDEE thing". If you are accurately logging your calories, eating 1200-1300, and you are maintaining your weight at that level - that's your TDEE.
7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I don't know what you mean "get into the TDEE thing". If you are accurately logging your calories, eating 1200-1300, and you are maintaining your weight at that level - that's your TDEE.
I couldn't even tell you what that acronym means, and really I don't care. That's what I meant. It's not anything I need to be concerned with - counting my calories works fine for me.
1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I couldn't even tell you what that acronym means, and really I don't care. That's what I meant. It's not anything I need to be concerned with - counting my calories works fine for me.
Ok well you don't care, but someone reading along may not understand or may be curious.
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure. It is the sum of all the calories you burn from just being alive (BMR) + your day to day activity (which totals to your NEAT), + your purposeful exercise.
It is also why so many of us are incredulous that you are presumably accurately logging your calories at 1200-1300 and maintaining your weight. That is what you are saying, right? When you eat 1200-1300 your weight is constant? That's why you say this is your maintenance?
9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
You misunderstand the concept of the diet break, then.
It's merely a period of eating at maintenance as opposed to deficit in order to replenish certain hormones.
Have you ever done that?
Ah, so you still have fat stores.
Yes, let me know how your running performance and dieting go when your BMI drops to say... 22ish and you're still trying to get down to 20-21.
This is why I was asking what I was asking you.
It's very easy to have bravado about a low caloric intake when you have body fat you're burning up. You don't realize what you're doing in the process, though, until you get down to those last pounds and start getting really lean while you try to keep up with athletic performance.
You seem to think this is all about people forcing food on you and that none of us have had any experience or anything and that you can sort all this out for yourself, so I'll just let you see how this all plays out.
First, flagging this was a totally inappropriate use of the flag function.
Secondly, I often recant this story in these threads about people exercising a lot eating 1200 calories gross. Someone on my FL did this. She started I think obese cat 2 (may even have been higher) but her doctor signed her off to eat 1200 and start exercising. she got into running in a big way. Didn't recheck her calories were still good with her doctor. Lost a LOT of weight, she may even be a healthy BMI at this point or close (sorry, I don't store exacts in my wonky brain on that front!). Well, running miles a day on no fuel caught up with her. Badly. She started to feel unwell and just a few days later ended up in hospital having seizures. Luckily this was caught quickly and she's rectified the problem. But she went from "I feel great, I've lost weight, I love running!" and in a few days was in hospital.
So there is most certainly a reason to make sure you are meeting what your body needs as a minimum to function properly, especially important when you have fewer fat stores and are active even a little bit. The body has finite resources, undereating can come with as many, if not more problems, than staying overweight a little longer than you'd like.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Ok well you don't care, but someone reading along may not understand or may be curious.
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure. It is the sum of all the calories you burn from just being alive (BMR) + your day to day activity (which totals to your NEAT), + your purposeful exercise.
It is also why so many of us are incredulous that you are presumably accurately logging your calories at 1200-1300 and maintaining your weight. That is what you are saying, right? When you eat 1200-1300 your weight is constant? That's why you say this is your maintenance?
I really don't know how to make it much clearer, and frankly I am tired of trying. I am not you. I am me. I have been meticulously counting calories (other than my stupid lapse a couple years ago) since 2002 - 2004. Actually long before that too, but never did the journalling thing like I learned to do with WW. So I am very comfortable in the knowledge of what MY body requires. No medical conditions. Extremely healthy. Physical every year, PCP knows how much I eat because she and I are (or were) both runners and we talk a lot about the whole fitness thing. Nothing ever said like "OMG you are going to collapse!" so that's that. I'm good. You believe what ever you want, and do what works for you. Okay?
2 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I'm not sure what your reaction means. Care to clarify?
While Trigen pointed out some examples of why he believes below 1200 might be appropriate for some people, it's still remains true that for most people 1200 is too low.2 -
I'm not sure what your reaction means. Care to clarify?
While Trigen pointed out some examples of why he believes below 1200 might be appropriate for some people, it's still remains true that for most people 1200 is too low.
"Asking for examples". That was the reason for my reaction. I think this thread is full of examples. Perhaps I misunderstood. My apologies.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile.
Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?
No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.
What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.
Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.
You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.
You're a cautionary tale.19 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?
No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.
What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.
Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.
You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.
You're a cautionary tale.
*applause*
Agreed with this. Or a food scale isn't being used.
Considering someone who is sedentary, 57, 125lbs and 5' would in fact maintain on close to 1200 (according to sailrabbit).5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?
No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.
What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.
Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.
You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.
You're a cautionary tale.
*mic drop*5 -
HealthierMeforlife2016 wrote: »
I live in a truck and don't get alot of exercise and my doctor told me not to go below 1200 there's my proof
YOUR doctor gave YOU a recommendation based on YOUR situation. That doesn't mean it applies to the whole population.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Yep. This thread went about the way I thought it would. I think I will continue reading it from afar, while I sip my wine and eat my Girl Scout cookies enjoying maintenance. Best of luck to all of you, it seems like everyone has it all figured out!
Some of us don't feel deprived by not having Girl Scout cookies and wine. For one, I don't like either of those. It's not torture. I'm not feeling deprived. Girl Scout cookies are not that good.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
They say "having to" like I'm just crushed that I can't eat more. If I wanted to eat more, I would. I'm not interested in eating food for the sake of eating it.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You're a cautionary tale.
And you're extremely arrogant thinking you know everything because you've been trying to lose weight for four years.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?
No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.
What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.
Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.
You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.
You're a cautionary tale.
What would be great, is if you would actually tell me WHERE I stated that? Clearly I know that fall OUTSIDE the *normal" range. How many times do I have to say that?
I am certainly not a "cautionary tale". What utter nonsense. I could not give a rat's patooty about bursting bubbles. I do log accurately, and if the fact that my metabolic rate is low enough that don't fit within that 90 or 95% of folks that "normal" covers, then yeah, that makes me an outlier. "Underfueling"? That's hilarious. I can't even run on an empty stomach. If I am hungry before the gym, I EAT.
I am over this absurd push to somehow prove to others that I am not what I say, that I am not logging correctly, or have somehow damaged my health over the years. Such foolishness. I AM healthy, and I am not telling any tales about anything here (and I don't appreciate the insulation that I am.)
There is actually a research article somewhere, I don't know where I saw it, but it gave statistics about people that have metabolic rates at the extreme ends of the ranges, and that the calories for those people can vary as much as 600 calories above and below what is considered normal for most people. I'd post it if I could find it, but really I think I have spent enough time here responding to these ridiculous assertions. Have a great day.3 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »
*mic drop*
You wish.4 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
You wish.
There seem to be a lot of people on this site who can't imagine not wanting to eat everything in sight.0 -
Would this type of diet be safe for someone who's 4'11''? What would a healthy full day of eating look like? I'd still want to get in all the nutrients I'd need. But anyways, I feel like anytime I eat more than 1200 I actually gain weight..0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Some of us don't feel deprived by not having Girl Scout cookies and wine. For one, I don't like either of those. It's not torture. I'm not feeling deprived. Girl Scout cookies are not that good.
They say "having to" like I'm just crushed that I can't eat more. If I wanted to eat more, I would. I'm not interested in eating food for the sake of eating it.
And you're extremely arrogant thinking you know everything because you've been trying to lose weight for four years.
Where do you get that I've been trying to lose weight for four years?
I've dieted on an off for 40 years, but I lost 95 pounds over the past 2.
It's not arrogant to know that no woman with that other poster's stats maintains on 1200 without mitigating factors. According to sailrabbit, her TDEE, at being lightly active as she is, should be anywhere from 1770-1848. While TDEE's from calculators are estimates and are based on bell curves and there are outliers, the curves aren't so spread out as to have anomalies as great as hers would be.
She has stated that she was running half marathons eating even less than this. That would mean that she had an even higher TDEE and was underfueling. When you continually, for years, undereat, your body adapts and slows metabolism.
These are facts, not arrogance on my part.10 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
There seem to be a lot of people on this site who can't imagine not wanting to eat everything in sight.
It's not about gluttony; it's about metabolism and long term health.
You honestly think a 5'7" 150-something woman should legitimately maintain on 1200 calories and nothing is wrong with that? That's what happens when you eat at too low a calorie amount for too long.13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »She has stated that she was running half marathons eating even less than this. That would mean that she had an even higher TDEE and was underfueling. When you continually, for years, undereat, your body adapts and slows metabolism.
These are facts, not arrogance on my part.
I stated that I ate MORE on half-marathon days. Dang you can't even read what I wrote.
You can think whatever you want, as long as it makes you happy. That doesn't make it so, but you go right ahead.
Have a great night. I'm off to the gym.
1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
I stated that I ate MORE on half-marathon days. Dang you can't even read what I wrote.
You can think whatever you want, as long as it makes you happy. That doesn't make it so, but you go right ahead.
Have a great night. I'm off to the gym.
What did you eat on training run days? I can read just fine. If you ran marathons and trained for them eating - I believe you said 1500 or so? You were underfueling.0 -
No, she isn't. GottaBurnEmAll bases her knowledge and information on science and math. No one, I repeat no one defies the laws of science. She's also successful at weight loss, a respected member of the community and not in the least bit arrogant. You are incredibly rude. Proof:heiliskrimsli wrote: »
And you're extremely arrogant thinking you know everything because you've been trying to lose weight for four years.heiliskrimsli wrote: »
There seem to be a lot of people on this site who can't imagine not wanting to eat everything in sight.
7 -
I'm eating around those calories a day I'm also extremely sedentary (currently unemployed) so I might increase my calories once I become more active. I have an open diary if you'd like to view it. 0
-
I am 5'2 and 49 years old. My calorie goal is 1200. I am a pretty devout food weigher (it really makes a difference I find), but won't beat myself up if i go over occasionally (like 1-3x a week). I keep reminding myself that this a sustainable change, not torture. I love a glass of wine (or 3) but I measure it out just like I do my food. If I have an evening with the gals (which we all know is a challenge) I still try and keep track...even if I double my goal for the day. With this attitude, I have been on MFP for 6 weeks and have lost almost 12 lbs. I try and move my body daily; some days it's just a brisk walk for 20 mins, other days it's a 10km cross-country ski. I try and do squats every morning before I get dressed. And don't forget to use a measuring tape!! Sometimes the scale doesn't move, but the tape measure does. Like you, I've gained and lost weight a few times over the years. But if you have a more sustainable attitude about it, you'll be much happier and healthier! Good luck @bugelsalmoncatgirl!2
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
What would be great, is if you would actually tell me WHERE I stated that? Clearly I know that fall OUTSIDE the *normal" range. How many times do I have to say that?
I am certainly not a "cautionary tale". What utter nonsense. I could not give a rat's patooty about bursting bubbles. I do log accurately, and if the fact that my metabolic rate is low enough that don't fit within that 90 or 95% of folks that "normal" covers, then yeah, that makes me an outlier. "Underfueling"? That's hilarious. I can't even run on an empty stomach. If I am hungry before the gym, I EAT.
I am over this absurd push to somehow prove to others that I am not what I say, that I am not logging correctly, or have somehow damaged my health over the years. Such foolishness. I AM healthy, and I am not telling any tales about anything here (and I don't appreciate the insulation that I am.)
There is actually a research article somewhere, I don't know where I saw it, but it gave statistics about people that have metabolic rates at the extreme ends of the ranges, and that the calories for those people can vary as much as 600 calories above and below what is considered normal for most people. I'd post it if I could find it, but really I think I have spent enough time here responding to these ridiculous assertions. Have a great day.
That 600 calorie amount you remember is the difference between the two statistical outliers, not the variation from the norm for one end.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/\
So in other words, If the middle normal range was given as 2000, the lower end could be 1700, and the higher end could be 2300. Each would vary 300 from the norm.
Neither end varies that far from the norm, and neither do you without some mitigating factor.
That is all I am saying here. What you are experiencing is beyond what can be explained away by calling yourself an outlier.2 -
This is getting old guys.. give it a rest. Take it offline if needed. Not very supportive (or becoming to either of you) for new folks viewing!4
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
"Asking for examples". That was the reason for my reaction. I think this thread is full of examples. Perhaps I misunderstood. My apologies.
No problem.
However, the iissue is that too many people think they have to practically starve themselves (as in not eat enough) to lose weight.
How is it that you are eating 1200 or less when you exercise and run marathons? That is not properly fueling your body.3 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocationa) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Sugar
MyFitnessPal Moderator2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions