MFP, WW and those mysterious 1200 calories

d5d14m66 · January 2012

I have used MFP for years, sometimes more diligently than others, and it has always assigned me a daily caloric intake goal of 1200. I'm a petite woman, and at my heaviest, only needed to lose 15 pounds or so, but no matter the amount I wanted to lose, I was assigned 1200 calories.

Thanks to middle age and a slowing metabolism, I was having trouble jump-starting my weight loss. A couple of medical professionals suggested I try South Beach, but I don't like the idea of cutting out entire food groups, even short term. A nurse practitioner suggested I try Weight Watchers. I read up on the new points system, and since it has worked for friends, I decided to try it. But I didn't join -- I found the info online for free.

I continued to log my food here, then entered the data in an online points calculator. I keep track of my points in MFP's "notes" box, and I made a new meal category called "zero points snacks" -- this is where I log the fruits and vegetables that WW considers "free." Rather than track my exercise with MFP's tool (which never seemed accurate for my weight), I just subtract the activity points (again, found online for free) from my daily food points.

It's been very easy to do, and really only requires an extra step or two a day. I have increased my exercise a bit, but I haven't become anything close to an athlete. Mostly I've been walking and riding a recumbent stationary bike. The odd thing is that I have eaten more than 1200 calories most days -- like 2/3 of the past month. I pretty much ate what I wanted throughout the holidays, just scaling back on the portion size.

The good news? I have lost 5 pounds and 2 inches in the past month. My Curves scale tells me that my % fat has decreased, and my % water, muscle and bone have increased.

I'm not sure why, for me, MFP always recommends 1200 net calories a day. Maybe it's like WW assigning most folks 29 points per day (plus those floating weekly points) -- I guess the formula is based on average people, rather than tailored to individuals. All I know is that I've had more luck in a month of WW than I did just aiming for MFP's 1200 calories. I will continue to use the two programs together; it's working so far!

Sorry for the long-winded post!

Tricia82 · January 2012

where did you find the ww info for free? I am thinking of doing weight watchers also.

laura_gregory · January 2012

i'm pretty sure it's because 1200 is bare minimum for almost anyone == anything less than that and you should have medical supervision. less than 1200 and it's starvation.

i also agree that the exercise calorie burn here seems too high. but... i dunno... i'm a lot fatter than i used to be! maybe i do burn 300 calories by walking for an hour.

d5d14m66 · January 2012

This page has the food points calculator on the side, plus tables to figure out activity points:

http://onemorepound.com/2010/12/06/weight-watchers-pointsplus-activity-value-charts/

Beyond that, I just Googled and found a bunch of articles, formulas, food lists, restaurant lists, etc. But the above site is my go-to calculator.

Good luck!

chevy88grl · January 2012

The numbers MFP gives me are too low. It wants me to maintain at 1980 and I know for a fact that 1980 is just too low for my lifestyle. I've been in the 2300-2500 NET range for quite awhile now and have been happily maintaining. I tell people that MFPs numbers are guideline. A place to start, but they aren't set in stone. They are simply there to give people an idea of where they should start. I'm on the smaller side (5'4" and 145-150lbs) and while most things want me to consume around 1200 calories a day - I know that simply isn't feasible for me. I would be starving to death on 1200 calories a day.

I'm glad you found something that works for you.

In my opinion, finding something that works and something that is easy to follow with success -- is the key to winning this journey!

chevy88grl · January 2012

i'm pretty sure it's because 1200 is bare minimum for almost anyone == anything less than that and you should have medical supervision. less than 1200 and it's starvation.

i also agree that the exercise calorie burn here seems too high. but... i dunno... i'm a lot fatter than i used to be! maybe i do burn 300 calories by walking for an hour.

Depending on the speed I'm walking - I can burn 300 calories in an hour.

For some exercises, I find this website to estimate higher than the equipment at the gym (I don't have a HRM and don't plan to buy one), for others it estimates way low and some of them? It is dead on. I think it is like anything -- a guesstimation.

DrNicoleRed · January 2012

Take a look at the Discussion for the Shorties 5ft! group (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/82-shorties-5ft). A lot of us have found that 1200 cal/day may still be too much for petite folks; many of us are closer to 1000 for weight loss. I'm under the care of a weight loss MD and had my BMR tested and it was only 1066, so 1200 is actually closer to maintenance for me so I'm doing 1000 calories for weight loss, and I'm losing about 1lb per week with not much exercise (still working on motivation to be consistent with that though).

dlaplume2 · January 2012

It is because this website, does not allow you to go below 1200 cal. That is their minimum. If you are a petite person, some people feel you should be allowed to go as low as 1000. If you want to see what that does to your weight loss you could go to your goals page and it will show you what your weekly weight loss estimate is. You could then customise those numbers and then average 1000 calories.

I would not start there, though. If have had success and lost weight, then I would continue that route first.

Best wishes to you.

krevill · January 2012

I think it puts you at 1200 if you put that you want to loose 2lb a week, I recently upped mine calorie intake to 1580 and to do that I had to change to wanting to loose a lb a week

abatista27 · January 2012

I also use both! I joined WW about 2 weeks ago to lose 50 lbs in a year, but I have had the MFP app on my phone for months so I decided to use it too. I did it out of curiosity to see how the calories and points compare. I'm not sure what the effect is yet at all but committing to weight watchers has made me more accountable and so I've been much more active on both programs!

natalieg0307 · January 2012

I'm petite too...5' 1 1/2". MFP put me at 1200 calories per day too. I've only been on MFP for a week and have ALWAYS gone over. I think the calories burned for me are TOO low on MFP. I compare my numbers to others doing the same exercise....sheesh.....my numbers are tiny. So I try not to compare to others.......I try to compare mine from day to day.

I don't need to lose a lot of weight (some say I don't need to lose any). I'm finding myself eating better since I see how many calories and sodium everything has when I log it in.

So, for me MFP is great. Gives me something to shoot for.....eating only 1200 calories and increasing my calories burned (hubby sees a difference in my arms already.

Good luck to you.....do what's best for you.

WifeMomDVM · January 2012

You have to eat to lose. I always found upping my calories got my metabolism going again. But I'm glad you have found something that works for you! Thanks for sharing your experience!

missbis · January 2012

The exercise points do seem high, that's why I got a heart rate monitor. I cross-check it with the machine's reading at the gym and both are basically the same. Good luck!

scinamon1 · January 2012

Mine's kind of the opposite problem- Never tried WW, but I'm 5"9 and have always been put on 1200 cals with maintenance at 1400. My friend, who is at 5"2, had the same amount... That seems a bit low when I read what others' are,especially because I do a lot of exercise (if I stick to MFP, I have to to be able to eat enough!). Has anyone else had similar problems?

debussyschild · January 2012

I don't follow any of what MFP says or any other program like Jenny Craig or WW. I've tried Jenny Craig... and with the amount of food they gave me, I was CONSTANTLY hungry. It was miserable. The science behind weight loss doesn't have to be this complicated... Really, in order to lose 1 lb of fat, you have to experience a 3000-3500 calorie deficit over a week's time. That's after "exercise calories" and what not. Knowing what daily calorie goal actually puts you in a deficit of 500 calories a day can be a challenge, but usually online calculators are pretty useful for determining that. Basically, you want to eat enough to make sure you don't slow down your metabolism (if you notice that you don't have much of an appetite after a couple of weeks of eating 1200 calories, you might not be eating enough) and also so that you maintain that 3500/week deficit.

Sweeterescape · January 2012

I did WW for years, and I actually found it too hard to stick to. I feel that MFP is more flexible with foods you can eat.

There could be a few reasons why WW is better for you - it could be that you needed to eat more than 1200 calories, or it might be that you were eating too much fat or too many carbs even though you were counting calories.

Also it can sometimes help to vary how much you're eating each day, which is a long tested WW technique - see this: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy4/ahealthylifestyle/WendiePlan.html

Hopefully you find what works for you! Well done on the 5lbs so far!

ShannieRay · January 2012

The exercise points do seem high, that's why I got a heart rate monitor. I cross-check it with the machine's reading at the gym and both are basically the same. Good luck!

RANDOM BUT I LOVE THE QUOTE IN UR TICKER!!!

d5d14m66 · January 2012

I did WW for years, and I actually found it too hard to stick to. I feel that MFP is more flexible with foods you can eat.

There could be a few reasons why WW is better for you - it could be that you needed to eat more than 1200 calories, or it might be that you were eating too much fat or too many carbs even though you were counting calories.

Also it can sometimes help to vary how much you're eating each day, which is a long tested WW technique - see this: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy4/ahealthylifestyle/WendiePlan.html

Hopefully you find what works for you! Well done on the 5lbs so far!

Thanks for that link -- I read that and it makes a lot of sense. I'm hypothyroid, so I understand that our thermostats don't run on an even keel day in, day out. Even the fully-functioning ones.

I've also been trying to learn how to budget my "floater" points each week. At first, I tried to save all 49 for the weekend (I start counting points for the week on Mondays), especially with Christmas and New Year's falling on Sunday. I actually had points to throw away most weeks. Now, I try to spread out the floater points, and I enjoy my week more when I'm not being so strict.

soccermum75 · January 2012

Bump

SafireBleu · January 2012

The new plan goes down to 26 pts so you can, if you hit a plateau, switch it up a bit by dropping down to 26 pts. Also, if you know how many pts you need to eat you can go to wendie-plan.com and they will tell you ow to distribute your weekly points so you never hit a plateau because you are sort of zigzagging you points and your body ever goes into that starvation mode that cause plateaus.

stenodiva1 · February 2012

I'm 4'11" and have been 110-113 pounds for over a decade. I can never go under 110 pounds... even when I'm exercising regularly.

Since I got this app, I figured out that on a lot of days I'm under the 1200 calories. Maybe I was starving myself all this time and my body was holding onto the weight all these years???

Anyway, my new goal is to reach my 1200 calories (hard to do!) and exercise regularly.

We'll see what happens. It's really hard to eat all those calories... unless I go out to eat. Then I go over!

MFP, WW and those mysterious 1200 calories

Replies

Categories