1200 calories is the bare minimum, not the norm.

As the title says.... There are quite a few posts at the moment from people mistakenly thinking that 1200 calories is some kind of standard weight-loss amount that everyone should aim for.  It's not.   1200 represents a bare minimum intake and even then, only applies to women over 21 who are already quite a low weight and sedentary.  If you're under 21 and sedentary, this bare minimum rises to 1500 because younger bodies have different nutritional needs.

If you're over 21, reasonably active (busy job or working out) and overweight,  1200 is usually too little.  Crash-dieting brings a host of problems and makes losing weight a thoroughly miserable and unrewarding business.  It also makes subsequent weight-gain more likely.

So please everyone... check the CC calculator, enter your stats and set a realistic activity level so that you get a reasonable calorie intake to work with.  It's better to go with a slightly higher number that you can trim back rather than too low a number that leaves you feeling washed out, demotivated and miserable.

Good luck

Well said!!

Thank you!  This is so true.  To be honest, most of the calorie calculators are still too low for me, and I'm sure for some other people around here.  Trust your body and eat enough to have energy.

I have lost 23 lbs, and am currently 130 lbs and still losing on ~1800 calories a day (even tho most sites tell me to eat 1300-1400).   I'd probably have to up that amount by about 300 to maintain.  So don't torture yourselves!  Eat!!

Good post. I think it should be stickied for a while.

I guess it will have to be trial and error for me then!  I updated to my current weight and it calculated 1293 for me to lose 5 more pounds in 4 weeks....??  I set myself at "light activity" as I don't do any set workouts...just busy cleaning, kids, etc.  It seems really low to me.  I am 5'3", 135lbs and 29yrs old. 

I find the calorie estimator on this site (and most others) to be too low as well.  If I go below 1500 calories I'm absolutely famished all the time, and I'm miserable.  I'm losing weight at 1550-1800 calories just fine.  I set a range for myself rather than a set number.  I find I stick to it better if I have a little bit of wiggle room.  I actually ate bad things more often when I was set at a specific number.  With a range, I find myself eating more fresh stuff, and less crap!! :)

Posting just to bump this up a bit.  I've seen a lot of 1200 posts lately, and I've done it (accidentally), and it's NOT healthy. 

Original Post by andi8983:

Thank you!  This is so true.  To be honest, most of the calorie calculators are still too low for me, and I'm sure for some other people around here.  Trust your body and eat enough to have energy.

I have lost 23 lbs, and am currently 130 lbs and still losing on ~1800 calories a day (even tho most sites tell me to eat 1300-1400).   I'd probably have to up that amount by about 300 to maintain.  So don't torture yourselves!  Eat!!

I also think it's too low for me. Appartently at lightly active I only burn 1,750 calories a day and to lose they expect me to eat 1,250. No way Jose.... At 1,450-1,600 I seem to do just fine.

Actually, I am 45 and started at 182 lbs. and I was told my maintenace Calories were just under 1700.  Subtracting 500 makes my weight loss target 1200 per day per the calculator.  So, you are wrong that it only pertains to low weight people.

If I work out (which I try to do) I get to eat my calories, but what you wrote isn't technically accurate unless you consider me low weight.

You must have input that you were completely sedentary to get that number...  I said in the original post 'set a realistic activity level'.  If you do nothing beyond roll out of bed and sit on a sofa all day then sedentary might cover it. 

Which is how many people enter the number so that they can appropriately "eat their workout."

I work at a desk for two shifts a day.  I think that makes me pretty sedentary and I appreciate that you are trying to implore people not to overdo it, but many of us old short people have pretty low caloric needs. 

tina, if I can butt in for a second. I'm guessing you are about 5'1" or 5'2"?

I put your stats into www.phord.com/cc, and it says your BMR is 1400. Might I suggest eating at least that much, since that's what your body would burn in a coma - I consider it the bare essential calorie limit (BMR, that is, not necessarily 1400).

Now, this does mean that you'd only lose half a pound a week, but with exercise (burning 250cal/day extra by being active), you'd be able to lose a pound a week.

I get what you are saying by "eat your workout" or as people often put it "eat back calories" but to me, this is a confusing way of looking at it, and it still has you eating below your BMR on days you don't exercise.

Just my two cents, but I've seen enough people on here that have had more success (keep losing for longer, without stalling) when they eat at least their BMR.

I used the calculator here and I am doing just fine.  I eat three meals a day plus at least two snacks a day (actually I munch a lot) and I get my water and I am doing fine.

I used the calculator here and as I said, it tells me that my maintenance is something like 1687 (without actually looking), which means that I am not even creating a 500 deficit on non-exercise days.

I believe we all come here for support, and I enjoy that people are telling me to eat more, but I do find it offensive that you are questioning my calculations using the tools provided by this site and direction directly from these boards.

Is there something inherently offensive about someone who eats 1200 calories?

Thanks for posting this gi-jane, well said.

Another thing that has been bothering me for a while is (and please feel free to throw in your 2 cents) when someone is complaining about how they, "are at 800 cals for the day and couldn't possibly eat 400 more to get to 1200". Then...someone will post something like, "oh just eat a few oreos or some doritio's".

Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of the bare minimum caloric intake? Isn't the whole point that you couldn't possibly get a basic amount of nutrition (e.g. 7-8 servings fruit and veg, 5-6 servings of grain, 2 servings of meat, 2 servings of dairy), in less than 1200 cals a day? So I guess what I'm saying is, if you're just going to use up your last 300 cals on crappy food, then what really is the point?

I'm sorry you felt offended by my suggestion. I pointed you towards a calculator that was developed by a CC member, because many of us feel that the calculator on CC under-recommends calorie intakes.

This is the joy of public forums - I am free to post suggestions, and you are free to ignore them.

Original Post by trikki:

Then...someone will post something like, "oh just eat a few oreos or some doritio's".

When did that happen? Usually people say eat peanut butter, almonds or hummus.

Yes that happens a lot too, and I was mostly exaggerating to make my point, but I have seen people recommend just eating snack food a lot.

Even recommending peanut butter sometimes doesn't make sense to me because:

    a) at 800 cals for the day I hightly doubt someone has had enough   vegetables and fruit for the day.

and

    b) because the person is probably going to go grab a few tablespoons of their jiffy, while is slightly healthier than oreo's, is really just a lot of sugar right?

I could be completely off base, but it's just something that has always puzzled me.

I'd say peanut butter is a ton more healthy than oreos, but I base that on natural pb - I've never actually had jiffy, and I don't consider it "peanut butter".

I think in general - it's important to get enough calories. Yes, it would be great if those are all super healthy calories, but realistically, you can only get people to do so much.

Plus, if they are complaining that they are full at 800 calories (a sign of a depressed metabolism, but whatever), then asking them to eat veggies - which will just add to the bulk won't work. It needs to be a food that will give them the extra calories without making them feel more stuffed. So nuts and oils are the easy answer.

So if my BMR is 1309, I need to eat at LEAST that many calories even though CC says 1293 (I know it's close enough)!  I also have my activity level set at "lightly active" to get that 1293.  I still think the 1309 is low...considering that's what I would burn if I were in a coma.  I am eating about 1500 calories/day and have only been losing about 1/2lb per month :<  I am ok with that, but it would be nice to get these last 10lbs off within the next couple of months :)

Yes!!

Here's another vote to sticker this post at the top. 

gi-jane

Thank you for posting this!  I've had questions about whether or not I'm eating enough, but haven't wanted to doubt the CC god's and risk tacking on a bunch of weight if I was mistaken!

I'm 5'9', approx 145-147lbs and I'm not trying to lose a lot of weight!  But I've tried to eat 1200 cals/day in hopes of dropping a few lbs quickly - and those are the times when I find myself ornery, tired and unmotivated.

Counting Calories and a healthy lifestyle is essential in weight loss and weight maintenance.  I also believe that most of us need to learn to listen to our bodies, and not deny it necessary nutrition in the name of weight loss when it's screaming to be taken care of!  We need to be more patient with ourselves and let go of the instant-result mindset!

So if you have to eat a few calories over what even CC says you should, it doesn't mean your entire lifestyle is down the tubes or that you won't lose weight - it probably means you're doing your mind and body a favor by sustaining energy, and training them to exist harmoniously :)