Is 1,200 calories healthy?

2»

Replies

  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    Be prepared for the fact that changing your rate of loss to 0.5 pounds per week may not get you a lot of extra calories to eat. Here's why: 1200 calories is MFP's floor for women. It won't give you a goal under 1200 calories, so that doesn't mean that 1200 calories will actually result in your chosen rate of loss. If it's giving you 1200 calories to lose 1.5 pounds, that also means that it will give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 2 pounds per week. I suspect it would probably give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 1 pound per week as well (although I'm not 100% sure of that).

    Try playing around with your numbers, and see what rate you have to enter to get a number other than 1200 calories. That will tell you when you've reached a more realistic goal and when MFP isn't just automatically spitting out 1200 calories because you've hit the floor.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Choromyslny wrote: »
    I’m 5’3” female, 27 years old. Not overweight, just trying to lose a little bit. I work in retail so I’m on my feet a lot, but I set MFP to “active” to include all that. I don’t often do other exercises other than that, because it does take up a lot of my time and it’s basically kind of exercise by itself. If I do additional exercises I’ll record them and eat more to even out my net calories.

    5'3" is on the short side, but 27 years old is not elderly. Also consider retail is an active job. So yes, you should be eating more calories.

    You likely set your weekly weight loss goal too high. Set it to 1/2 pound a week (yes, that's excruciatingly slow)......but it's more realistic.

    Food choices can help here - protein, fiber & fat are satiating components. Test out different meal schedules too.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    marissafit06 wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    5'3" and 123lbs is right in the middle of normal weight - you might want to consider recomping rather than losing weight (essentially gaining lean muscle mass and losing fat mass)

    I don’t understand why people on this forum love to say this. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be on the low end of a “normal” weight range. People have different builds and some also prefer to look lithe.

    OP - I agree with the previous advice that you should set your weight loss to .5 lbs a week and see how you feel with a few more calories to eat.

    Here's why people say this...........

    Recomping can be very slow weight loss, or weight maintenance. But it helps shape your results. Keeping lean muscle mass = a leaner look. The goal with recomping is not the number on the scale. Google before and after pictures with high body fat % vs. lower body fat %.

    Aggressive weight loss is often a higher % of lean muscle loss.....you don't shape the results.

    The same person can look thinner at a heavier weight.

    People do have different body types, but a number on the scale doesn't guarantee the results we sometimes think it does.
  • fb47
    fb47 Posts: 1,058 Member
    edited March 2018
    Choromyslny wrote: »
    So I’ve been sticking to MFP’s goal of 1,200 calories a day, but I’m so tired lately and sometimes I get a little dizzy and I in general just don’t feel well on this calorie allotment. Do I just need more time to get used to it? (Are we sure that amount is healthy?)

    If you're not short and sedentary, chances are you don't need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight. Only a minority of the population needs to eat 1200 calories for a good rate of weight loss....but yet it always surprises me how many women just pick that number, usually it's because they are desperate to lose weight asap, but they don't realize the damge they are doing to themselves or they didn't give good information on mfp when they set up their weight loss profile....Let's not forget many people chose also the 2lbs a week weight loss option when they don't need to. The 2lbs a week option is more for obese people who have a lot of weight to lose and I am talking about those who need to lose over 100 lbs, but yet I see many who only need to lose 10-15 lbs selecting that option which is ridiculous and very dangerous for someone's health and this without counting the fact that they are basically eating their muscles away.
  • Momepro
    Momepro Posts: 1,509 Member
    edited March 2018
    Most likely either that amount is actually a bit low for you personally at this time, or the foods you are choosing are just not the ones your body needs most right now. It is common when starting to work with CICO idea to cut out fats and carbs too much or too fast to be sustainable, or else eat very high calorie goodies but in small amounts, while neglecting some of the more nutritious options with staying power. Perhaps try adding 200 cal of healthy fats (nuts, avocado, cheese), for a few days and see what happens. Look back at your food log, and start writing how you feel before, during and an hour after each entry. After a few days, you can see a baseline of what foods and combos work best with your body and lifestyle.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Happysoul0317
    Happysoul0317 Posts: 119 Member
    I think it really depends on you. I can do 1200 calories, but I actually eat closer to 1700 and then burn off the 500 extra. Otherwise I get a little weak and shaky. I have to net 1200 to lose weight. I think that if you aren't working out and trying to only eat 1200 a day, it would be no bueno.
  • Bekah7482
    Bekah7482 Posts: 246 Member
    edited March 2018
    It could be a lot of factors. If you are feeling tired and dizzy. I would check your macros and the quality of food you are eating. I was feeling really fatigued and my dietitian upped my carbs without upping my calories and it worked. I was working out and not eating enough carbs. I also get dizzy from low blood pressure so I up my salt intake and am fine.

    You can also try upping your cals a little and see if that helps. If you are tired, dizzy and miserable, you are not setting yourself up for success. Try a few different things until you find what works for you.
  • marissafit06
    marissafit06 Posts: 1,996 Member
    TeaBea wrote: »
    marissafit06 wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    5'3" and 123lbs is right in the middle of normal weight - you might want to consider recomping rather than losing weight (essentially gaining lean muscle mass and losing fat mass)

    I don’t understand why people on this forum love to say this. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be on the low end of a “normal” weight range. People have different builds and some also prefer to look lithe.

    OP - I agree with the previous advice that you should set your weight loss to .5 lbs a week and see how you feel with a few more calories to eat.

    Here's why people say this...........

    Recomping can be very slow weight loss, or weight maintenance. But it helps shape your results. Keeping lean muscle mass = a leaner look. The goal with recomping is not the number on the scale. Google before and after pictures with high body fat % vs. lower body fat %.

    Aggressive weight loss is often a higher % of lean muscle loss.....you don't shape the results.

    The same person can look thinner at a heavier weight.

    People do have different body types, but a number on the scale doesn't guarantee the results we sometimes think it does.

    I'm aware of all this and it was a rhetorical question. I think that sometimes people forget that there are people on these boards who have never been overweight, but went from quite thin to 10-15lbs heavier and sometimes want to get back to where they were.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    @marissafit06 Love the new profile pic. Cute outfit! (Sorry for the derail.)
  • MostlyWater
    MostlyWater Posts: 4,294 Member
    I don't know. For me to lose weight I generally go lower but then again, I exercise an hour a day, 6 days a week, and if I were hungry, I'd eat. You have to know your body.

    What does your dr/nutritionist say?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    AliceDark wrote: »
    Be prepared for the fact that changing your rate of loss to 0.5 pounds per week may not get you a lot of extra calories to eat. Here's why: 1200 calories is MFP's floor for women. It won't give you a goal under 1200 calories, so that doesn't mean that 1200 calories will actually result in your chosen rate of loss. If it's giving you 1200 calories to lose 1.5 pounds, that also means that it will give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 2 pounds per week. I suspect it would probably give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 1 pound per week as well (although I'm not 100% sure of that).

    Try playing around with your numbers, and see what rate you have to enter to get a number other than 1200 calories. That will tell you when you've reached a more realistic goal and when MFP isn't just automatically spitting out 1200 calories because you've hit the floor.

    Based on OP's stats i say changing to 0.5 lb per week would give more calories.

    as per my post upthread that is based on fact it gave me 1460 to lose 0.5 per week at lightly active and I was same height and gender as OP but 20 years older, and had not much more to lose. (10kg total, around 22lb)

    Hard to see MFP would give her less than me with comparable stats.
  • takemetosingapore19
    takemetosingapore19 Posts: 86 Member
    Definitely. R/1200isplenty changed my life. I eat more than 1200 due to activity level but my net is always 1200 or less
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    edited March 2018
    Unfortunately, the fact that other people eat 1200 (or think they eat 1200) is not useful information on it's own. A person's height, current weight, age, activity level, exercise schedule, and method of measuring portions all affect the health, feasability, and sustainability of a 1200 calorie goal. Are there some people who do (and should) eat 1200 cals? Yes. But they are in the minority.

    Based on OPs stats and the symptoms she described, no she should not eat 1200 calories.
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    AliceDark wrote: »
    Be prepared for the fact that changing your rate of loss to 0.5 pounds per week may not get you a lot of extra calories to eat. Here's why: 1200 calories is MFP's floor for women. It won't give you a goal under 1200 calories, so that doesn't mean that 1200 calories will actually result in your chosen rate of loss. If it's giving you 1200 calories to lose 1.5 pounds, that also means that it will give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 2 pounds per week. I suspect it would probably give you 1200 calories if you told it you wanted to lose 1 pound per week as well (although I'm not 100% sure of that).

    Try playing around with your numbers, and see what rate you have to enter to get a number other than 1200 calories. That will tell you when you've reached a more realistic goal and when MFP isn't just automatically spitting out 1200 calories because you've hit the floor.

    Based on OP's stats i say changing to 0.5 lb per week would give more calories.

    as per my post upthread that is based on fact it gave me 1460 to lose 0.5 per week at lightly active and I was same height and gender as OP but 20 years older, and had not much more to lose. (10kg total, around 22lb)

    Hard to see MFP would give her less than me with comparable stats.

    You're right, it will probably give her more. My point was that it might not give her a lot more. If 1200 were her actual number to lose 1.5 pounds for real, reducing her rate of loss to 0.5 pounds would give her an extra 500 calories per day. I don't think she's going to get that many extra calories, because I don't think that 1200 would really result in a rate of loss of 1.5 pounds per week. I don't want her to get disappointed if she thinks she's going to drastically slow her rate of loss and doesn't get a lot more calories to eat.

Categories