1200 calorie a day diets
Options
Replies
-
Mazintrov13 wrote: »Mazintrov13 wrote: »It always blows my mind when I read posts about people eating 1200 (or less!) a day, I guess I often assume people are underestimating what they are eating because I just couldn’t do it!
I am female 5’4 around 125 pounds and don’t think I could do less than 1500. I am currently doing a mini cut on 1850 and maintain on 2100.
Maybe try getting in more excersise? That would give you more wriggle room.
Back when I was much younger, like early 20s, I had a naturally higher metabolism because of age (I just did the math, age alone has cost me 150 calories
) , and I was walking a lot, since I was studying and also working downtown, meaning I was almost all day away from home (no family obligations yet) and it was far more conveniet to walk from class to job and back than use any transport. My current life, demands I spend 8-12 hours per day in front of a desk, and some time everyday doing chores and driving kids to and from extracurriculars. Based on TDEE calculators, if I managed to spend more time on my feet, just walking etc like I used to do (not even structured exercise), I could easily eat at least 400 calories more and maintain. Now, add that when I was younger I was obsessed with dancing, aerobics, running, lifting (and was spending hours at they gym daily), while now I would nto have the time if I wanted to, but most important good old arthritis means that although I do exercise about 1 hour daily, this is low impact and burning far less calories. So younger me was maintaining at low end of a healthy BMI while eating at least 2000 calories per day, probably more, without second thoughts, then age and life happened, and middle-aged me eats 1400ish calories to stay in the normal to higher BMI range
This makes sense. I am 26, have a somewhat active job and lift weights 5 x a week so that would explain my maintenance calories. Do you find you naturally eat less or don’t get quite as hungry?
At age 64, my (experience-based) numbers are very much like yours: 5'5", around 130, borderline sedentary outside of exercise (maybe 5000-ish steps, 3000 during coronavirus stay-at-home); been losing ultra-slowly at 1850 net calories for the last few months (half a pound a week but often less); maintain at something slightly over 2000 net (i.e before exercise).
Age can matter, but so can lots of other things.
2 -
Mazintrov13 wrote: »Mazintrov13 wrote: »It always blows my mind when I read posts about people eating 1200 (or less!) a day, I guess I often assume people are underestimating what they are eating because I just couldn’t do it!
I am female 5’4 around 125 pounds and don’t think I could do less than 1500. I am currently doing a mini cut on 1850 and maintain on 2100.
Maybe try getting in more excersise? That would give you more wriggle room.
Back when I was much younger, like early 20s, I had a naturally higher metabolism because of age (I just did the math, age alone has cost me 150 calories ) , and I was walking a lot, since I was studying and also working downtown, meaning I was almost all day away from home (no family obligations yet) and it was far more conveniet to walk from class to job and back than use any transport. My current life, demands I spend 8-12 hours per day in front of a desk, and some time everyday doing chores and driving kids to and from extracurriculars. Based on TDEE calculators, if I managed to spend more time on my feet, just walking etc like I used to do (not even structured exercise), I could easily eat at least 400 calories more and maintain. Now, add that when I was younger I was obsessed with dancing, aerobics, running, lifting (and was spending hours at they gym daily), while now I would nto have the time if I wanted to, but most important good old arthritis means that although I do exercise about 1 hour daily, this is low impact and burning far less calories. So younger me was maintaining at low end of a healthy BMI while eating at least 2000 calories per day, probably more, without second thoughts, then age and life happened, and middle-aged me eats 1400ish calories to stay in the normal to higher BMI range
This makes sense. I am 26, have a somewhat active job and lift weights 5 x a week so that would explain my maintenance calories. Do you find you naturally eat less or don’t get quite as hungry?
At age 64, my (experience-based) numbers are very much like yours: 5'5", around 130, borderline sedentary outside of exercise (maybe 5000-ish steps, 3000 during coronavirus stay-at-home); been losing ultra-slowly at 1850 net calories for the last few months (half a pound a week but often less); maintain at something slightly over 2000 net (i.e before exercise).
Age can matter, but so can lots of other things.
This makes me feel better I hope I never have to eat less than 1500 to maintain 😂
I do think a lot of people who report eating such low calorie are underestimating/not weighing or tracking everything they eat or not including cheat days so are probably eating more than they think. I see it a lot online.2 -
Mazintrov13 wrote: »Mazintrov13 wrote: »Mazintrov13 wrote: »It always blows my mind when I read posts about people eating 1200 (or less!) a day, I guess I often assume people are underestimating what they are eating because I just couldn’t do it!
I am female 5’4 around 125 pounds and don’t think I could do less than 1500. I am currently doing a mini cut on 1850 and maintain on 2100.
Maybe try getting in more excersise? That would give you more wriggle room.
Back when I was much younger, like early 20s, I had a naturally higher metabolism because of age (I just did the math, age alone has cost me 150 calories ) , and I was walking a lot, since I was studying and also working downtown, meaning I was almost all day away from home (no family obligations yet) and it was far more conveniet to walk from class to job and back than use any transport. My current life, demands I spend 8-12 hours per day in front of a desk, and some time everyday doing chores and driving kids to and from extracurriculars. Based on TDEE calculators, if I managed to spend more time on my feet, just walking etc like I used to do (not even structured exercise), I could easily eat at least 400 calories more and maintain. Now, add that when I was younger I was obsessed with dancing, aerobics, running, lifting (and was spending hours at they gym daily), while now I would nto have the time if I wanted to, but most important good old arthritis means that although I do exercise about 1 hour daily, this is low impact and burning far less calories. So younger me was maintaining at low end of a healthy BMI while eating at least 2000 calories per day, probably more, without second thoughts, then age and life happened, and middle-aged me eats 1400ish calories to stay in the normal to higher BMI range
This makes sense. I am 26, have a somewhat active job and lift weights 5 x a week so that would explain my maintenance calories. Do you find you naturally eat less or don’t get quite as hungry?
At age 64, my (experience-based) numbers are very much like yours: 5'5", around 130, borderline sedentary outside of exercise (maybe 5000-ish steps, 3000 during coronavirus stay-at-home); been losing ultra-slowly at 1850 net calories for the last few months (half a pound a week but often less); maintain at something slightly over 2000 net (i.e before exercise).
Age can matter, but so can lots of other things.
This makes me feel better I hope I never have to eat less than 1500 to maintain 😂
I do think a lot of people who report eating such low calorie are underestimating/not weighing or tracking everything they eat or not including cheat days so are probably eating more than they think. I see it a lot online.
I don't think that, personally. I think some people truly do need to eat that little, and I think it's true that those people are likely to be smaller, older, less active, and female. I think there are a lot of reasons why it can be so. (I suspect years of yo-yo dieting is one factor, for some - but that's oversimplifying, BTW: i.e., I'm not saying "metabolic adaptation from yo-yo dieting" pure and simple.)
At the same time, I think there are many women who are eating 1200 or less who really, really are not well-served by doing that, and for whom it's not essential in order to lose weight. I think that, for that subgroup, eating ultra-low calories can be counterproductive for weight management success and can trigger more rather than less activity/strength/calorie-needs down-regulation in the long run, a thing that some simplistically and imprecisely call "metabolic damage". It can also increase probability of more yo-yo-ing, because of unsustainability, IMO.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
For a subset of that "eating under 1200 when not essential" group, I suspect not understanding how water weight works is part of what convinces them they need to eat at very low levels in order to lose fat, i.e., they mistake temporary water retention for fat regain or maintenance, and quickly cut calories further in over-reaction.
I suspect that what you say (underestimating, tracking imprecisely) is also true, for some. But I don't think it's that simple, across the board, either. I'm not certain it's the commonest explanation, even.
I also suspect that if you (or anyone else) really has to eat at some reduced calorie level, appetite may eventually match up with needs just about as well (or poorly) as it does for people who require more calories. (Sometimes people with lower needs speak as if someone the same size but with higher calorie requirements is getting a free bonus, that doesn't come with a commensurately higher appetite. I doubt that's realistic.) Of course, it does seem that dieting tends to put appetite out of balance with needs for a time for many people, making maintenance a bit more of a challenge for many regardless of where they fall on the calorie-needs bell curve.
I think all of this (in some respects) is pretty complicated, while also (in some respects) being quite simple. Hardly ever easy, though.
My advice, on the controllable-elements front - from speculation more than knowledge - would be, as you age, to keep/increase your muscle mass; get enough protein whether dieting or not, lifting or not; keep daily life activity high, and exercise; get decent overall nutrition. I think that's best odds of keeping calorie needs high, through life. Genetics a factor, maybe? Can't control that. 3 -
I am 5'7", 56 year old female who lifts weights 4 times a week and walks 90 minutes 5-6 nights a week. I have a sedentary job and MFP places me on 1200 calories to lose 1.3 pounds a week or 1265 to lose 1 pound a week. I am actually losing 3 pounds a month. Came to this site because I thought I might have developed a restricted eating disorder which the site confirmed. I struggle to make it to 1200 calories much less eat back exercise calories. I have only dieted once before coming to this site and that was to remove the excess weight that 3.5 years on a 1400 calories dialysis diet put on me. (I gained at a rate of 25 pounds a year while on dialysis. )2
-
threeyears2024 wrote: »
This makes me concerned. I am 30, same height, 10 lbs heavier than her and trying to lose 16 lbs to be 97 lbs and eating 1200 calories for the last couple of days. If 1200 is maintenance, than dang I am doomed.
A couple things.
BMR isn't maintenance. Basal metabolic rate is essentially if you stayed in bed all day. Even sedentary gives you more calories.
Also, when some people "swear" their maintenance is 1200 calories they are wrong. I'm not saying this is never possible, but it's more likely 1200 calorie maintainers aren't very good at logging calories in.3 -
Mazintrov13 wrote: »It always blows my mind when I read posts about people eating 1200 (or less!) a day, I guess I often assume people are underestimating what they are eating because I just couldn’t do it!
I am female 5’4 around 125 pounds and don’t think I could do less than 1500. I am currently doing a mini cut on 1850 and maintain on 2100.
Maybe try getting in more excersise? That would give you more wriggle room.
Back when I was much younger, like early 20s, I had a naturally higher metabolism because of age (I just did the math, age alone has cost me 150 calories ) , and I was walking a lot, since I was studying and also working downtown, meaning I was almost all day away from home (no family obligations yet) and it was far more conveniet to walk from class to job and back than use any transport. My current life, demands I spend 8-12 hours per day in front of a desk, and some time everyday doing chores and driving kids to and from extracurriculars. Based on TDEE calculators, if I managed to spend more time on my feet, just walking etc like I used to do (not even structured exercise), I could easily eat at least 400 calories more and maintain. Now, add that when I was younger I was obsessed with dancing, aerobics, running, lifting (and was spending hours at they gym daily), while now I would nto have the time if I wanted to, but most important good old arthritis means that although I do exercise about 1 hour daily, this is low impact and burning far less calories. So younger me was maintaining at low end of a healthy BMI while eating at least 2000 calories per day, probably more, without second thoughts, then age and life happened, and middle-aged me eats 1400ish calories to stay in the normal to higher BMI range
Keep in mind that these are just statistical projections, no matter the inputs. But just for fun, put your stats into a TDEE calculator that lets you input body fat percent**, then rerun the age comparison. Pick any reasonable body fat percent, just guess if you don't know - the point is to see the effect on the estimate of age, but at constant BF%
Still think it's entirely "because of age"?
** Such as Sailrabbit: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
No, it is because of lifestyle, not age. I exercise daily, plus have a hormonal disorder (too high testosterone) whose only positive effect is that I am putting on muscle easier than other women. Right now, I look more or less good, even though at the high end of a healthy BMI, because I am muscular, definitely defined miscles at arms, back and legs, not abs as I have all my extra fat there (male pattern). Yet, short, older and sedentary lifestyle means 1 hour of mostly strength training daily cannot help much calorie-wise.0 -
so much of what commonly gets attributed to age is really the effect of many back-to-back years of being sedentary AF. (complaints of anything 'because of age' fall on deaf ears the more 60+, 70+ year old kick-*kitten* athletes you know..).3
-
I'm just getting back into counting calories. My goal is between 1200 - 1500/day. I begin my day with a vanilla protein shake blended with 12 ice cubes and 8 oz of unsweetened almond milk. It comes out like a vanilla shake and is quite tasty. I also have a cup of Earl Grey tea w/lowfat milk. Mid-morning = hard boiled egg and coffee w/half-half. Lunch is a chocolate protein shake made with ice/almond milk; I sometimes add a sm banana. Mid-afternoon a cup of tea w/lowfat milk. With the shakes, keep in mind that I am sipping on them for about an hour each. The protein sustains me. Dinner is most often a large salad made with Springmix lettuces, 4 oz protein (e.g. salmon or chicken), tomatoes, 1/4 chopped avacado, red onion, hard-boiled egg (opt) and 2T of either full-fat or low-fat dressing. My evening snack is dependent on where I am with calories. I like to sip on diet tonic w/lime; or a Truly's hard selzer (100 cal); or 2/3 c of Bryer's low-carb vanilla ice cream w/ or w/o fresh berries.0
-
so much of what commonly gets attributed to age is really the effect of many back-to-back years of being sedentary AF. (complaints of anything 'because of age' fall on deaf ears the more 60+, 70+ year old kick-*kitten* athletes you know..).
So and so. Age comes with problems for many, obviously not all. A 20 year old is far less likely to suffer from several illnesses that decrease mobility than a 60 year old. Does this mean that all 60 year olds have physical limitations? No, same as there is a percentage of 20 year olds with limitations. But it is not unexpected for a previously active and healthy individual to face problems with age. In the same note, a 20 year old is more likely to have less external limitations, like a tight work schedule or a loan to repay or children and older parents to take care of. Again, it is entirely possible for a 50 year old to have few external constraints, same as it is possible for a 20 year to already have children and a desk job, but chances are that far more 20 year olds have energy and time to spend on physical activities thatn 50 year olds do.
So, despite age being a small factor, reducing ones calories by something like 10%, lifestyle and health changes often come with age too.2 -
@ritzvin Lurve it. Just yesterday my dear mother was attributing everything to glandular problems. Doggone it, so and so just has a glandular problem and it can't be helped.
0 -
Mazintrov13 wrote: »It always blows my mind when I read posts about people eating 1200 (or less!) a day, I guess I often assume people are underestimating what they are eating because I just couldn’t do it!
I am female 5’4 around 125 pounds and don’t think I could do less than 1500. I am currently doing a mini cut on 1850 and maintain on 2100.
Maybe try getting in more excersise? That would give you more wriggle room.
Back when I was much younger, like early 20s, I had a naturally higher metabolism because of age (I just did the math, age alone has cost me 150 calories ) , and I was walking a lot, since I was studying and also working downtown, meaning I was almost all day away from home (no family obligations yet) and it was far more conveniet to walk from class to job and back than use any transport. My current life, demands I spend 8-12 hours per day in front of a desk, and some time everyday doing chores and driving kids to and from extracurriculars. Based on TDEE calculators, if I managed to spend more time on my feet, just walking etc like I used to do (not even structured exercise), I could easily eat at least 400 calories more and maintain. Now, add that when I was younger I was obsessed with dancing, aerobics, running, lifting (and was spending hours at they gym daily), while now I would nto have the time if I wanted to, but most important good old arthritis means that although I do exercise about 1 hour daily, this is low impact and burning far less calories. So younger me was maintaining at low end of a healthy BMI while eating at least 2000 calories per day, probably more, without second thoughts, then age and life happened, and middle-aged me eats 1400ish calories to stay in the normal to higher BMI range
Keep in mind that these are just statistical projections, no matter the inputs. But just for fun, put your stats into a TDEE calculator that lets you input body fat percent**, then rerun the age comparison. Pick any reasonable body fat percent, just guess if you don't know - the point is to see the effect on the estimate of age, but at constant BF%
Still think it's entirely "because of age"?
** Such as Sailrabbit: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
No, it is because of lifestyle, not age. I exercise daily, plus have a hormonal disorder (too high testosterone) whose only positive effect is that I am putting on muscle easier than other women. Right now, I look more or less good, even though at the high end of a healthy BMI, because I am muscular, definitely defined miscles at arms, back and legs, not abs as I have all my extra fat there (male pattern). Yet, short, older and sedentary lifestyle means 1 hour of mostly strength training daily cannot help much calorie-wise.
That's one of the unfortunate things, in my view. Statistically speaking, muscle is slow to build for most of us, and gets slower/harder to build as we age. We can't add enough fast enough in later years to make a direct meaningful calorie difference at rest. (IMO, for an average person, getting stronger and fitter does increase inclination and ability to move more in daily life, which can add hundreds of calories to one's TDEE, even before considering intentional exercise. So, there's that, if a person exploits it.)
Then, to get X amount of benefit from strength training, typically we need to do more of it than a younger woman. As an exercise, it doesn't burn many calories in the moment, so if Y amount of exercise will fit in our day, we may end up spending more of that time strength training, and less on higher-calorie-burn things. That tradeoff is an issue, no matter how we manage it.
I keep trying to convince younger women to keep the muscle they have, and to build more while they're young and it's a slightly faster process (though still slow).
I'm not super muscular, but do have a higher muscle mass than many women my age (64). Most of it was more or less an accident, I think, side effect of doing something I simply enjoy doing. That's not the only reason my TDEE is pretty high for a 5'5" 130ish-pound 64 year old woman, I'm sure, but I think it's probably in the mix.so much of what commonly gets attributed to age is really the effect of many back-to-back years of being sedentary AF. (complaints of anything 'because of age' fall on deaf ears the more 60+, 70+ year old kick-*kitten* athletes you know..).
Wellllll . . . I'm not sure I'd go as far as the implied value judgement of "sedentary AF". It's complicated, and not all about volition, because sometimes people have complicated lives, as well. I'm not making excuses for myself or others, here, but I'm inclined to a slightly more generous interpretation.
In particular, I don't think the influence of culture on typical behavior can be ignored. Most people are going to do what most other people are doing, realistically, and aspire to what others aspire to. I could write a whole essay on that, looking at why sedentary life has been elevated by cultural trends since the Great Depression, but I'll spare you.
In my youth (b.1955, graduated HS 1973), athletic activity for women was seen as eccentric, maybe even slightly pathological. Weight training for everyone, male and female, didn't have the role it does now (much less used in training for elite levels of athletic competition for other sports, for example, where it's now ubiquitous there). Muscles on women were a big, big negative. If you think that's still true today . . . well, it is true, but the ideals/norms have shifted far in a muscle-positive direction.
Think about Terminator 2's Sarah Connor. Back in 1991, she looked crazy-muscular. Now, she looks more normal-fit-muscle but super thin. (My opinions, and interpretations of others' comments.)
I had an opportunity to meet one of the women involved in the 1972 Yale women's rowing team's brilliant Title 9 protest (recounted in the movie "A Hero for Daisy" - see it). She told us about going to the gym to weight train with one of her fellow female rowers, a very unusual thing to do at the time. Quite literally, young men would come stand around them in groups as they worked out, taunting and even spitting on them. Those men, for their time, were pretty "normal". The women were (at best) "eccentric". Who gets and stays strong in a social environment like that? A class of women who are statistically not numerous. Mostly, what has changed, at the usual ultra-slow pace these things happen, is the culture.
I know one woman who started weight training in her 30s, who's now 73, in part influenced by her physically-active hard-training husband. She's a marvel, at 73 - most 30-somethings can't keep up with her. She's also a socially/politically conservative person, would I'm sure not call herself a feminist, but even she says she was seen as a misguided oddball when she started, and was usually the only woman at the gym.
I hope for better, for the women now in 20s/30s, when they get to be my age, because the norms and aspirations have changed, even though it's far from perfect. It still will take determination to train hard, but it's not a hard swim upstream against a stiff current in the way it used to be.
So, I give a little grace to older women now, about how they got where they are.
Apologies for the digression from the point of the thread. Closing words, more on point to the topic:
Young women, please do not strive to lose weight fast. Strive to lose weight at sensibly moderate weight and keep it off, because that's the way to strengthen and improve the life and health of your later-age self. Start to love that older woman now, so she will love you later.
And please, do some things now, things you can fit into your life while maintaining good overall life balance, to increase strength and muscle mass while you're young, and it's easier/faster to do; and do things to keep it long term. Your older self will have a better, happier life if you do.8 -
Eating just 1,200 calories per day won't make the 'starve' as some are suggesting. I do intermittent fasting every other week and only eat once per day (1,000 calories) and then the following week eat 2,500 calories per day with regular meals. I've never gotten that hungry during my intermittent fasts and am always extremely full after my large meal...just drink a ton of coffee and water during the fasting period.1
-
TexasAggie1280 wrote: »Eating just 1,200 calories per day won't make the 'starve' as some are suggesting. I do intermittent fasting every other week and only eat once per day (1,000 calories) and then the following week eat 2,500 calories per day with regular meals. I've never gotten that hungry during my intermittent fasts and am always extremely full after my large meal...just drink a ton of coffee and water during the fasting period.
But you're not eating 1200 cals per day.
If you're eating 1000 per day one week and 2500 per day the next week, that averages to 1,750 cals per day.
And appetite cues can get messed up. Just because a person doesn't feel hungry doesn't mean they are giving their bodies enough fuel. Many people feel fine for months of undereating, then they hit the wall and take just as long to recover their health.
Alternating fasting and feasting is very different from consistently undereating.9 -
I’m 5’4” and less than 5 lbs over a normal BMI. I am working to drop about 15 lbs and eat 1200 calories/day (I weigh my food, etc). I maintain at around 1500 calories. I am rather slug-like, other than a slow 3 mile hike in the mountains pretty much every morning (1 hr, 15 min). I eat an egg prior to my hike and fruit upon my return. I have a yogurt to tide me over to my late lunch. Lunch typically consists of meat, a starch, and a non-starchy vegetable. This is my main meal for the day. For my dinner, I have a salad with veggies and protein (definitely inclusive of cheese). I have fruit for dessert. I am able to frequently fit in a glass of wine prior to dinner. I do have to log the food at the beginning of the day in order to not accidentally go over on my calories. I don’t typically get hungry, I think because I eat so frequently.1
-
"I had an opportunity to meet one of the women involved in the 1972 Yale women's rowing team's brilliant Title 9 protest (recounted in the movie "A Hero for Daisy" - see it). She told us about going to the gym to weight train with one of her fellow female rowers, a very unusual thing to do at the time. Quite literally, young men would come stand around them in groups as they worked out, taunting and even spitting on them. Those men, for their time, were pretty "normal". The women were (at best) "eccentric". Who gets and stays strong in a social environment like that? A class of women who are statistically not numerous. Mostly, what has changed, at the usual ultra-slow pace these things happen, is the culture.
---I LOVE this whole response with the long view you give. So helpful and interesting as hell. Big bow and thank you!!
1 -
Annie42019 wrote: »I eat about 1200 calories most days. I’m almost 60 years old . I did 1200 seven days a week while I was losing weight ( I have lost 75 pounds and am 5’5 and Now 134 pounds. . Now i have a 1800-2200 meal once per week.
I do IF so 2 meals a day.
Typical lunch:
Carb balance tortilla with goat cheese and sautéed mushroom and onion. Bowl of raspberries.
Dinner:
Salad ( served in giant mixing bowl): 2 entire bags of salad mix ( like Fresh express Italian), 20 stalks of steamed asparagus, tomatoes, cucumber, carrots and corn with 4 oz Broiled salmon, chicken or lean steak on top. 2 oz Full fat balsamic dressing.
Diana’s banana ( dark chocolate covered frozen banana)
Peach or plum.
Thanks for sharing this, very inspiring to my similiar situation. I'm 56yo and aim for 1200 day, have hit it ~75% of the time. 50 days in I've lost 10 pounds. Am moving towards IF as it seems to help me. SW198, CW 188, GW150, then reassess. Congrats on your success.0 -
My goal is 1200 as I'm 4"10.
My diary is open, feel free to take a look! I haven't been doing well at all recently but am trying to sort it out from today. I eat back my exercise calories so in reality eat around 1200 to 1500.1
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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions