Is 1200 cals per day too low?

Fatass2badass33 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I'm new here/relatively new to dieting. Need to lose about 70lbs. At the moment MFP puts my calories at 1200 per day to lose 2lbs per week. I have a friend that is a freeletics ambassador and he says no eat 1600 and I will lose 1-1.5kg per week without exercise.

At the moment I am scared to exercise as I have been newly diagnosed with asthma. It came out of the blue and is not yet under control. I've just started treatment but even fast walking makes my chest tighten and I want to wait until my breathing is under control...also had a chest x ray and awaiting results. I think exercising while I can't breathe is not a good idea.

So am I likely to lose 2lbs a week on 1600 calories a day with no exercise?

Only time will tell when it comes to working out your calorie target for loss. Why don't you start at 1600, give it a few weeks and see if you lose. Don't change after just a week or two, give it a good month. If you are losing too slowly, you need to reduce your calories. If you are losing on target, then 1600 is a good level for you.

But I would say that 1200 is very low and the absolute bare minimum that a woman should consume. Unless there is a desperate medical need to lose at 2lbs a week, I'd suggest going for a higher calorie target and losing in a slow, steady and sustainable manner.

Remember this isn't a quick fix to lose weight and then you are going back to eating "normally". This (with a few tweaks) is how you are going to eat for the rest of your life. Find a way of eating that is sustainable and enjoyable, not just one where you lose weight rapidly. You are much more likely to give up and binge if you cut down your calories too much.

1200 is fairly low, you will likely find yourself quite hungry. 2lb per week is an agressive goal, reduce it to 1lb per week, and MFP will give you a more reasonable calorie allowance for your height and current weight.

It may be that 2lb a week is too aggressive based on your starting stats, and you've hit the MFP 1200 health floor... (they won't condone anything lower than that).

I'd recommend a week of totally honest tracking of what you eat at the moment first, and see what you're at right now.
Dropping your calories by too much too fast just makes it really, really hard to stick to, and you're more likely to give up which will end up with you not achieving your goal.

If you find out you're at 2000 a day now, then 1600 may well be a sensible place to start.
If you really do want to go for 1200, then maybe drop it down gradually so you do a week or two at 1600, then a week or two at 1400, then down to 1200.

Start logging without changing anything, and then go from there.

I'm over 200 lbs, 5'5" and I'm losing on 1600-1800 calories. (1 pound a week)

If you're given 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week, there's no way you would lose the same amount on 1600 (1 kg=2.2 pounds). But you'll likely find 1600 calories more sustainable at your size.

Might as well give what your buddy says a go. 1600 will still allow you to lose weight without exercise. Maybe not as much as you are expecting but you never know. You'll lose a lot of water weight at first so give it a month to really know how 1600 cals is treating you. Don't worry about exercise, I also have asthma and cardio is a b*tch so I just don't. I've lost 82lbs with no exercise whatsoever. You got this girl.

At 5'7" with 70 to go (even when over 200), 2 pounds a week would be toward the aggressive end of sensible weight loss.

Your new plan to try 1600 seems like a really good idea, especially since you're dealing with a health problem (your newly diagnosed asthma). The not-yet-controlled asthma is a stressor on your body. A calorie deficit is a second stressor on your body.

It seems like good risk management to keep the deficit smaller and more sustainable. If things go swimmingly, you can adjust in 4-6 weeks, if you think then that it's a good idea.

Best wishes!

1200 seems too low for you - going by your stats.

You are taller than me, younger than me (going from your photo) and a higher starting weight than me.

I am only lightly active and I lost on 1460 - admittedly not 2lb per week, but slowly and steadily.

I think 1600 does sound about right for you.

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

PixelPuff wrote: »

What is your height and weight? Your activity level?

It really varies person-to-person. For instance, I'm 5'2", roughly 100-105lbs (varies per day)... What I eat to maintain, even when I'm not sedentary? Other people can lose on. What other people eat to lose weight, I'd gain weight on.

You don't need to exercise to lose weight. You just need to ingest less calories than you burn by existing. You burn calories every day just by being alive.

Edit: Ah, and as a note, I used to be about 200lbs. I'd lost 100lbs without exercising.

Though now I exercise, but it is because I want to not be 'skinny-fat' (low weight but flabby). It helps tighten the extra skin a bit from the weight loss, too!

if you eat less calories than your burn by existing then you are eating under BMR, and thats generally not recommended unless severely obese and then you can do it for a short time and only should under a drs care. you have to eat less than your body burns total so if your maintenance(your BMR and what you burn with activity) calories to maintain current weight is say 2000 then you can eat say 500 less so 1500. if your BMR(what your body burns just to exist) is 1400,you dont want to eat below that. some people do if you eat say 1200 calories once you lose and need less calories you cant go lower unless you want to risk issues with health.

I worded it badly, but it is very obvious what I'd meant. TDEE, not just your coma-rate of calories.