1200 not necessarily "magic number"?

I know everyone always says that women need to eat a minimum of 1200 calories, but is this different for very petite people? I am just over 5' 0" and my maintenance is only 1600. This means that if I want to lose a modest 1lb/week, I would have to eat 1100 calories. Does that extra 100 calories actually make a difference if your deficit isn't very high?

http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-minimu m-females-all-body-types-q8621

You're right that you have to have a deficit of 3500 calories a week to lose a 1 lb, but that deficit should not come solely from food intake, it should include calories burned through exercise. I still wouldn't eat less than 1200 calories per week, I would find a way to burn AT LEAST that extra 100 per day through exercise. 100 calories burned isn't much, 30 minutes of moderately paced walking would do the trick.

You give no stats other then height, so it is hard to give advice that will answer your question.

How old you are depends a lot on the 1200 calorie rule.  If you are 21 or under you need to consume at least 1500 calories, period.  If you are over 21, 1200 is the lowest to consume.

And then do you need to lose fat or to just tone up your muscles?

The number does vary by person.  1200 is not a perfect magic number for everyone.  It's the "magic number" for very short very petite very sedentary women.  Essentially, it's the BMR of a woman who's 5 feet tall and weighs 100 pounds.  In other words, the calories her body would burn if she was in a coma.  Eat any less than that and your metabolism will slow down to compensate.  It's also very very difficult to get enough nutrients eating less than 1200 calories and should not be attempted unless told to do so by a doctor who knows what she's talking about and is closely supervising the diet.

Anyone larger than 5 feet tall/100 pounds (in either dimension) actually has a higher "magic number" that they can work out using sites such as this one: http://www.phord.com/cc/  Note that if you're under 21, you'll need to add about 300 calories to the number you get off any site that is not specifically tailored to teens.

It's also worth noting that, unless you're relatively heavy to start with, it's difficult for a totally sedentary person to safely have a deficit of 500 calories/day because they're just not doing enough.  Make yourself lightly active and you'll have a much easier time of it.

I just went to the phord website and entered this information. 4' 6", weight of 125, age 21.  It said I shoud eat 1123 calories.  However my real stats are 5'6", 157 lbs, and 49 years young.  It said that I should consume 1350 calories.  BTW, all this info was to lose .875 lbs a week.  So yes, the numbers do vary.

I am 5 zip and I eat more than 1200.  I am losing on 1500-1700.  Just get moving.  take a walk, ride a bike, clean the house, go dancing etc.  By the by, my maintenance is about 2300.  I am now down to 125 so, its not like I am huge.  i just move! 

Muscle atrophy is a big part of calorie restriction........if someone is fairly sedentary muscle loss is generally in the 40 to 60 % of total weight loss. If your finding yourself justifying weight loss with your stats because of excess body fat, then you might want to focus more on body composition. Further restriction will not burn just fat, percentage wise............you'll look like a smaller you, but just as fat. just saying.

Here an example of concentrating on fat loss as opposed to weight loss:http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition /new_view.htm

*Case Study #1:
National Level Cross Country Skier; Female - 20y

Client Information from September 2002:
5’6" ; 160lb ; 22% fat
(125lb lean, 35lbs fat)

Exercise Expenditure:
~1200kcal/day

Energy Intake:
~2500kcal/day
15% protein
65% carbohydrate
20% fat

Client Information from December 2002:
5’6" ; 135lb ; 9% fat
(123lb lean, 12lbs fat)

Exercise Expenditure:
~1200kcal/day

Energy Intake:
~4000kcal/day
35% protein
40% carbohydrate
25% fat

Net result — 12 weeks:
25lbs lost; -23lb fat; -2lbs lean

*Note that in case study #1, we increased energy intake by a whopping 1500 per day while energy expenditure remained the same. Since the athlete was weight stable in September—prior to hiring me—you might have expected her to have gained weight during our 12 week program. However, as you can see, she lost 25lbs (while preserving most of her muscle mass). Since the energy balance model above, as it appears, can’t explain this very interesting result, that’s one strike.

Okay, thank you everyone. I was not trying to be unhealthy or rebellious! Just curious.