1200 calorie limit- too high for short people???

Options
1246

Replies

  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    It seems people are obsessed with this notion of 1200 calories, the doctors I've consulted with have said in no uncertain terms that you should never ever go below your bmr ( it's good to have this calculated by professionals as it does fluctuate based on body composition ) .When you go below your basal metabolism rate your body will reduce organ functions as much as it has to in compensation for the missing calories, yes in the short term you will see a drop in weight when you body burns carbs and eventually convert muscle fiber to get energy and it will do it's darndest to keep a hold of any fat cells it can.

    This is of course my opinion and what I've been told by my doctor and sports physicians I've met with and you would need to consult with your own to see what's best for you.

    ^^ Well said. This whole thread is full of misguided 1/2 accurate information. I'm 5'2 and lost on a 1200 kcal (+ some exercise calories) diet. If you were below 5ft you would (most likely as there are many factors here) need to lower your caloric goal. 1200 isn't a magic number. Also, I just want to point out that height most certainly does play a role in a BMR. People who are taller have a higher BMR.

    Indeed, also how much muscle mass you are carrying vs fat %, age etc..
  • giggitygoo
    giggitygoo Posts: 1,978 Member
    Options
    Sometimes I think it is? I'm only 5'2" and my deficit is incredibly small miniscule at 1200.
    And when I eat intuitively, I only eat around 1000 and feel engorged.

    I have to force myself to eat the 1200 and then I go overboard becasue I tried to do with with junk food

    I'm exactly the same. 1200 isn't a magic number. It's an average, and when you're well outside average (like me) it is possible to safely dip below that number.

    I'm 5'1 with an extremely small bone structure and build.
  • mandi791
    mandi791 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    I agree I am short also, (5'3") and 1200 seems like too much. If my body were in starvation mode, you'd think I'd be hungry.. But I'm not. Every "body" is different. There isn't any magic number.
  • Moonbeamlissie
    Moonbeamlissie Posts: 504 Member
    Options
    There is actually some research suggesting that it is (I'm at work so I can't look it up right now). I'm 5'1" and was on 1200 calories (and eating most of my exercise calories) for several months. I lost a few pounds, and then started creeping back up. I went to 1000 calories (still eating most of my exercise calories), and I'm slowly going down again. I'm very short, with a petite build, and a desk job. I talked to my doctor before reducing my calories and he said that with my build and my activity level, I could go down to 800. I get hungry on only 800 but 1000 is working well.
    I will probably get crucified for saying this but I think that a smaller adult has smaller calorie needs. I don't think 1200 calories is a magic number. And some people will say to eat more but I did eat more. I was on about 1500 calories a day and that's what got me here in the first place.
    Talk to your doctor or a nutritionist. Then decide for yourself.


    I agree with this!!! I have always been confused as to why someone as short as me could not go under 1200, and to, I think 1200 is just a number, a starting point... It may work for one but not all.
  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    I agree I am short also, (5'3") and 1200 seems like too much. If my body were in starvation mode, you'd think I'd be hungry.. But I'm not. Every "body" is different. There isn't any magic number.

    Oh be careful with that, starvation mode doesn't mean your "starving in your stomach " I means you've gone lower than your basal metabolism rate required to keep your body function working correctly. Your body will use up as much energy storage as it can (fat being the last resort) and then you really start going down an unhealthy path not to mention your metabolism will slow to a crawl, another unhealthy aspect. If you think 1200 is low I would strongly recommend that you talk to your doctor if you have one and if possible have your bmr professional calculated, then your not taking any risks whatsoever.
  • JarrodFit4Life
    JarrodFit4Life Posts: 24
    Options
    The lower limit isn't one size fits all...Actually, research suggests the lower limit for a man to be about 1200 and the lower limit for a woman to be about 800. Supplements are a great way to obtain important macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals without the extra calories. I wouldn't drop below 800, but 1000 isn't going to hurt you if thats what you are doing right now.
  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    The lower limit isn't one size fits all...Actually, research suggests the lower limit for a man to be about 1200 and the lower limit for a woman to be about 800. Supplements are a great way to obtain important macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals without the extra calories. I wouldn't drop below 800, but 1000 isn't going to hurt you if thats what you are doing right now.

    Wow, I don't want to see the man that has a lower limit of 1200...my BMR is 2200 at 5'8 and 33yrs old
  • Nailrep
    Nailrep Posts: 966 Member
    Options
    The lower limit isn't one size fits all...Actually, research suggests the lower limit for a man to be about 1200 and the lower limit for a woman to be about 800. Supplements are a great way to obtain important macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals without the extra calories. I wouldn't drop below 800, but 1000 isn't going to hurt you if thats what you are doing right now.

    Wow, I don't want to see the man that has a lower limit of 1200...my BMR is 2200 at 5'8 and 33yrs old

    I bet Ron Paul has a 1200 BMR....sorry, I couldn't resist....
  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    The lower limit isn't one size fits all...Actually, research suggests the lower limit for a man to be about 1200 and the lower limit for a woman to be about 800. Supplements are a great way to obtain important macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals without the extra calories. I wouldn't drop below 800, but 1000 isn't going to hurt you if thats what you are doing right now.

    Wow, I don't want to see the man that has a lower limit of 1200...my BMR is 2200 at 5'8 and 33yrs old

    I bet Ron Paul has a 1200 BMR....sorry, I couldn't resist....

    BAM! :) Look at you go :)
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    From everything I've read "starvation mode" is a myth. Decreasing your calories a drastic amount does give diminishing returns though (apparently) so even though, in my opinion, the popular "eat more to loss more" philosophy doesn't make any scientific sense it also doesn't make much sense to keep cutting your calories to an extreme amount either.

    Going from 1200 to 1000 calories a day to lose a FRACTION of a pound more a month just doesn't seem like a fair trade off to me and wouldn't be worth it. But I don't think it would hurt you as long as you're getting the nutrition, don't feel deprived (to avoid binging) and you were doing some weight training to avoid losing muscle.
  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    From everything I've read "starvation mode" is a myth. Decreasing your calories a drastic amount does give diminishing returns though (apparently) so even though, in my opinion, the popular "eat more to loss more" philosophy doesn't make any scientific sense it also doesn't make much sense to keep cutting your calories to an extreme amount either.

    Going from 1200 to 1000 calories a day to lose a FRACTION of a pound more a month just doesn't seem like a fair trade off to me and wouldn't be worth it. But I don't think it would hurt you as long as you're getting the nutrition, don't feel deprived (to avoid binging) and you were doing some weight training to avoid losing muscle.

    Unfortunately statements like yours are so dangerous and flies in the face of any medical advice i have ever received. You need a minimum number of calories to live and if you don't get them your body goes into what is commonly referred to as starvation mode to protect itself it is a biological function and has most definitely been proven to exist. The body is adaptive but only to a certain point when you exceed that point you begin to cause real harm to yourself. But in the end anyone on this site who is looking for medical advice should seek it from a medical professional
  • elenathegreat
    elenathegreat Posts: 3,988 Member
    Options
    I started at the end of April 2011, I am under 5' 2"(47 years old) my calorie goal was set above 1400. I was moderately active and excercised 2-3 times(20-30) weekly. I have lost over 30 lbs, but recently reset my goal weight and got my calorie goal reduced to 1340, I think.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately statements like yours are so dangerous and flies in the face of any medical advice i have ever received. You need a minimum number of calories to live and if you don't get them your body goes into what is commonly referred to as starvation mode to protect itself it is a biological function and has most definitely been proven to exist. The body is adaptive but only to a certain point when you exceed that point you begin to cause real harm to yourself. But in the end anyone on this site who is looking for medical advice should seek it from a medical professional
    I think statements like mine are important so people know they need to question things like "starvation mode" and the "eat more to lose more" diet fads that are all you hear about but seem to be based on pseudoscience.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    I'm on the shorter side and I'm 36 yrs old. I am currently consuming around 2300-2500 net calories a day. So, no - being short or being older doesn't necessarily mean less calories. How many calories your body needs in a day is based on many different factors and I truly believe your activity level is the top one. As many people know this isn't an exact science or a one size fits all kind of thing. So, trying to generalize that a certain group of people needs more/less calories or that they have a tougher time losing weight or getting toned is silly as can be.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    There is actually some research suggesting that it is (I'm at work so I can't look it up right now). I'm 5'1" and was on 1200 calories (and eating most of my exercise calories) for several months. I lost a few pounds, and then started creeping back up. I went to 1000 calories (still eating most of my exercise calories), and I'm slowly going down again. I'm very short, with a petite build, and a desk job. I talked to my doctor before reducing my calories and he said that with my build and my activity level, I could go down to 800. I get hungry on only 800 but 1000 is working well.
    I will probably get crucified for saying this but I think that a smaller adult has smaller calorie needs. I don't think 1200 calories is a magic number. And some people will say to eat more but I did eat more. I was on about 1500 calories a day and that's what got me here in the first place.
    Talk to your doctor or a nutritionist. Then decide for yourself.

    Just because you are a smaller adult does NOT necessarily mean you automatically need less calories. It is more about your own personal activity level, your own body, etc. I really wish people would STOP generalizing... not all shorter/thinner adults need LESS calories!
  • MercuryBlue
    MercuryBlue Posts: 886 Member
    Options
    It seems people are obsessed with this notion of 1200 calories, the doctors I've consulted with have said in no uncertain terms that you should never ever go below your bmr ( it's good to have this calculated by professionals as it does fluctuate based on body composition ) .When you go below your basal metabolism rate your body will reduce organ functions as much as it has to in compensation for the missing calories, yes in the short term you will see a drop in weight when you body burns carbs and eventually convert muscle fiber to get energy and it will do it's darndest to keep a hold of any fat cells it can.

    This is of course my opinion and what I've been told by my doctor and sports physicians I've met with and you would need to consult with your own to see what's best for you.

    In my case it's a minimum of 2200 calories a day after exercise, I will lose weight because I'm dropping fat % and replacing it with muscle mass. But at one point I may gain some due to the difference in density. At the end of the day I want my fat % low and my muscle mass higher.

    Thank you.

    Hearing people repeat this 1200 number over and over (for a couple of years now), I'm starting to get a bruise on my forehead from headdesking. 1200 calories is a guideline, based on averages. It applies to many people, but it does not apply to all people. Some people will starve eating only 1200 per day, others can get away with eating less without it having any sort of a negative affect on their health.

    I mean, come on. We are all different people, and we come in different shapes and sizes and frames. We all have different metabolic rates. My body's needs are not necessarily your body's needs. We don't all wear the same size clothing, so why the heck would it make sense that we should take a 'one size fits all' approach to losing weight?

    To the OP: Calculate your BMR and your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expended). Figure out, roughly, how many calories you burn per day, and how many you need just to keep your body functioning. You might be surprised at how many/few calories you need. For me, that number is about 1800 calories per day. For you, it will probably be different. Once you have a good idea about what you're burning every day, you can then start to figure out what a healthy caloric intake for you would be.
  • Fit_Canuck
    Fit_Canuck Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    There is actually some research suggesting that it is (I'm at work so I can't look it up right now). I'm 5'1" and was on 1200 calories (and eating most of my exercise calories) for several months. I lost a few pounds, and then started creeping back up. I went to 1000 calories (still eating most of my exercise calories), and I'm slowly going down again. I'm very short, with a petite build, and a desk job. I talked to my doctor before reducing my calories and he said that with my build and my activity level, I could go down to 800. I get hungry on only 800 but 1000 is working well.
    I will probably get crucified for saying this but I think that a smaller adult has smaller calorie needs. I don't think 1200 calories is a magic number. And some people will say to eat more but I did eat more. I was on about 1500 calories a day and that's what got me here in the first place.
    Talk to your doctor or a nutritionist. Then decide for yourself.

    Just because you are a smaller adult does NOT necessarily mean you automatically need less calories. It is more about your own personal activity level, your own body, etc. I really wish people would STOP generalizing... not all shorter/thinner adults need LESS calories!

    You're right for example if you have a much higher level of muscle on your frame Versus percentage of body fat you're going to need more calories to keep your body functioning. Height weight age activity level all play into it
  • margiemommy
    margiemommy Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    i would stay at 1200 or talk to ur doctor if ur doctor says u should or could go down then do it but not before u talk to ur doctor u don't want to starve ur bodie of the nutirents it needs
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    My husband, who has kept his same weight forever, believes that you should eat 1200 calories if you want to weigh 120 lbs. I'm shooting for 1500 to eventually weigh 150. He also heard this on a talk show. I hope it helps.

    I weigh around 150lbs and I consume far more than 1500 calories. I would recommend figuring out what works for YOU and NOT following some random advice on a talk show.
  • cjw6
    cjw6 Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.
    OK, I should have said "small framed people who have a lower ideal weight.

    What if a person is 60 years old, 4'9" and their ideal weight is 85 lbs? If they currently weigh 100 lbs, it will be hard for them to run any kind of calorie deficit on a 1200 cal per day diet.

    Conversely, a 20 year old 6'6" man who needs to lose 15 lbs to get to an ideal weight would practically starve to death on 1200 cal.

    Makes no sense to me. I would think the lower limit should not be one size fits all.

    Seriously?

    Read a book. See a doctor.

    Actually I think this is correct. Metabolic rate is not a constant, it varies with age health and activity level. If a person is sedentary and has a BMR of 1200 (essentially what mine is), they will struggle to have enough of a deficit to lose weight eating 1200KCal/day.
    1200 is an arbitary number without scientific validity and to state that people are going to 'go into starvation mode' if they eat slightly below it is just nonsense.

Categories