Can somebody tell me where this "1200 Calorie" number came from ?

I keep seeing this "1200 calorie" daily target number being brought up on here a lot.
Where did this come from and why do so many people (especially females) think that this daily number of calories is so important ? I wil just at the risk of jading the answers say that it seems like a very low daily amount for just about anyone to maintain a good metabolism on except if someone was very petite and mostly inactive.
«13

Replies

  • mojavemtbr
    mojavemtbr Posts: 65 Member
    edited June 2019
    Thanks Shadow2soul. Sometimes it seems too that medical professionals do more harm than good when it comes to diet and nutrition advice. And we know for dang sure that the quick fix diet industry gives out bad advice...ugggh
  • 1991court
    1991court Posts: 230 Member
    My weightloss is being closely watch by my Dr first off just explaining that first!!

    He put me on a thousand calorie diet a month ago, I told him I feel more comfortable between 1300-1400 so thats what I started at, and lost 20lbs in May. My loss has slowed down but now I am very satisfied at a 1100-1200 calories a day. My goal from mfp is 1300 something... I don't feel deprived or starving, I am usually very full. Just pushing more protein and usually between 70oz - 100oz of water a day.

    When I go maintenance I am sure my calories will change. Shoot when pain management releases me and I can start boxing, I am sure my calories will change. Meaning go up again.

    My stats:
    Height: 5'5
    Sw:224
    Cw:200
    Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,517 Member
    1991court wrote: »
    My stats:
    Height: 5'5
    Sw:224
    Cw:200
    Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.

    Pretty close, 5'8"
    SW: 246
    CW: 209
    GW: 146

    I am eating about 1600kcal/day, shooting for 1+ lbs./week.

    How is it going for you? @1991court

  • 1991court
    1991court Posts: 230 Member
    1991court wrote: »
    My stats:
    Height: 5'5
    Sw:224
    Cw:200
    Gw: 145-130 wherever I feel happy.

    Pretty close, 5'8"
    SW: 246
    CW: 209
    GW: 146

    I am eating about 1600kcal/day, shooting for 1+ lbs./week.

    How is it going for you? @1991court

    @chris_in_cal
    24lbs since May 1st. Doing pretty good. Tappered down to about 2lbs ish a week now. Last 3 weeks though had horrible back pain so thats played a bit in my loss.
    I wouldn't go any lower without Dr really watching.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,271 Member
    All our bodies are different, it would be impossible for one upper or lower calorie limit to be the correct one for every body in every situation.

    yes that is certainly true.

    although we can make some broad general statements which are correct - for example that 1200 is not suitable for any 'normal bodied ' men
    (that probably isnt best way of putting it - but I mean it could be suitable for a male double amputee - but I presume someone would state if that applied to them)

    and 1200 IS suitable for some women - those who are older, shorter, less active.

    But not for most women who are not all of the above.

    although, yes, under medical supervision a VLCD could be suitable for some morbidly obese people in the short term.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Age, gender, height, current weight, activity level all need to be considered.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
  • Rayvis1014
    Rayvis1014 Posts: 36 Member
    MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.

    Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.

    However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    edited June 2019
    Rayvis1014 wrote: »
    MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.

    Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.

    However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.

    For some women, 1200 does legitimately reflect their weight loss goal, even if it is relatively small. However, not everyone finds MFP's estimates for them to be perfectly accurate based on their results.

    However, the previous poster was just pointing out that many women receive a calorie goal of 1200, not because that corresponds to their weekly weight loss goal, but because that's simply as low as MFP will go. If a person's TDEE is 2000 and they choose a weekly goal of 2 lbs/week, the math would give them a calorie goal of 1000, but MFP will only (rightfully) give them 1200.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    Rayvis1014 wrote: »
    MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.

    Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.

    However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.

    I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??
  • Rayvis1014
    Rayvis1014 Posts: 36 Member
    edited June 2019
    try2again wrote: »
    Rayvis1014 wrote: »
    MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.

    Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.

    However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.

    I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??

    I just checked and you're right I had it at sedentary, not lightly active. However, when I set it at 1 lb. a week at lightly active it tells me when I go through my goal setting process that I can only lose .8 lbs. a week on 1200 calories. I changed it to maintenance awhile ago (I eat according to my TDEE).

    My only point was that for many people (especially those shorter, lighter, or older than me), 1200 is not necessarily aggressive.

    However, I AGREE with you that nobody needs to eat that little. My TDEE is anywhere from 2000-2500 and I'm not even that active (I get between 8,000-12,000 steps). It's just that MFP will often give people 1200 calories who are short or sedentary, even if they don't have an aggressive goal.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    edited June 2019
    Rayvis1014 wrote: »
    try2again wrote: »
    Rayvis1014 wrote: »
    MyFitnessPal bottoms out at 1200 for women. So if someone picks a weight loss goal that is too aggressive for their activity level and what they have to lose, they will get a goal of 1200.

    Not necessarily. I am 5'2 and weight 140 lbs. and MFP gives me 1200 when I put in a loss of half a pound a week at moderately active.

    However, I ignore MPF an use my fitbit to determine my TDEE, then I eat below that.

    I just ran your stats on my profile and came up with 1440 calories set at lightly active (moderate isn't a choice) and .5 lb goal a week. ??

    I just checked and you're right I had it at sedentary, not lightly active. However, when I set it at 1 lb. a week at lightly active it tells me when I go through my goal setting process that I can only lose .8 lbs. a week on 1200 calories. I changed it to maintenance awhile ago (I eat according to my TDEE).

    My only point was that for many people (especially those shorter, lighter, or older than me), 1200 is not necessarily aggressive.

    However, I AGREE with you that nobody needs to eat that little. My TDEE is anywhere from 2000-2500 and I'm not even that active (I get between 8,000-12,000 steps). It's just that MFP will often give people 1200 calories who are short or sedentary, even if they don't have an aggressive goal.

    Oh, absolutely! For some women, 1200 doesn't reflect an aggressive goal at all. However, it's not like MFP assigns that number randomly to short, sedentary women... it's strictly based on the stats and info the user enters and the math required to achieve the stated goal (with a floor of 1200). Most people, though not all, find MFP's estimates to be quite accurate. If yours is that far off, I would venture that you are much more active than your activity setting reflects.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    I shared this link earlier for a different reason, but for those who are unsure how MFP calculates a person's calorie goal, there is a nice explanation here:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p1
  • Rayvis1014
    Rayvis1014 Posts: 36 Member
    edited June 2019
    "You’re 4 pounds above the optimal BMI range for your height. 1 lb/week is therefore an aggressive goal for you. At this point, 0.5 lb/week is generally a healthier choice."

    Thanks for the advice, but I don't actually have a goal set in MFP, I just set it at maintenance and eat according to my TDEE. It's not uncommon to hear that 1lb. a week is a healthy weight loss, so many uninformed people might set their goal at 1 lb. week. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out that MFP gives 1200 as a limit more frequently than people might think. Let me emphasize once again that I THINK 1200 IS TOO LOW.