Question about the 1200 Calorie minimum

Okay, I just wanta make sure I understand this correctly. You have to reach 1200 calories a day, minimum for a woman to keep from going into starvation mode?now is this the net calories? What I mean is, I did three hours worth of walking today?which I put into the activity log and it said I burned an additional 735 calories?.so simply put does that mean I need to eat a total of 1935 calories today to make my 1200 calorie minimum. That seems like a lot of extra calories to eat to me?and is the activity log accurate?  I weigh 260 I?m 5 foot 5 and 32 years old?not sure exactly what in those numbers matters. That just seems like a lot of calories burned for strolling through the malls school clothes shopping for my kids. (well at times it was way more than strolling lol---keeping up with a teenager is hard work lol)

there is some controversy over this but the majority opinion say's yes you do.  And that makes sense because if you burn all your food walking, what's your body going to do to breath later, well hopefully it's burn some fat but if it's solely dependant then it will go to starvation mode....nutrients are an issue as well.  I eat 1200 a day plus any excercise - her they call that 'eating back' the cals.  I mean on some days you can go under a little...I am careful though because If I slow down my metabolism by under eating I will sabotage all my hard work and it takes more work to stabilize it again and maybe even a weight gain.  I am losing about 2lbs a week steady.  (whoohoo for me)

At 260 I would expect that you would burn more calories because it takes more energy to move 260lbs than say 100, no offence or anything that's actually a bonus for you right now.  You can check though in the activities section of CC.  I burn about 260 an hour, I'm 180 although I walk fast.

You also may need more than 1200 at 260.  The rule of thumb is a deficit of 1000 cals although on medically supervised diets I know they do more.  The best way though is to lose it fairly slowly, because you keep it off, the skin can adjust, you can build some muscle, and it's easier for long term...congrats on your decision to lose weight and I wish you well on your journey..

Chris

I know of no study or obesity specialist that says if your "net" calories are less than 1200 you go into starvation mode. Can someone quote a reliable expert source on this?  I have looked hard, and I can't find it.

Another point, say you burn 100 calories per hour just sleeping.  If you then get up and walk for an hour, you burn 245 calories.  But if you eat back 245 calories, you are eating back 100 too many. You didn't burn an extra 245... you burned an extra 145... 145 more than if you just slept.

And you are right, how do you know the calories for exercise are at all accurate... it all depends on how vigorously you personally exercised. I do a free-weights exercise class... I do five times the weights as some women. In a step aerobics class, some women use more risers and just do larger arm and leg movements than others.

In my opinion, eating back calories for exercise makes this too complicated.  It's more simple than that.  Eat the same calories every day,  enough to cover your general activity level.. it will average out.  Just don't eat under 1200 or lose more than 2 pounds a week.

You put that well, and I was wondering if you were suppossed to eat back the WHOLE amount or just that extra that you burn.

You don't HAVE to eat 1200 NET calories to lose weight, but you should consider it if you feel too hungry or have any other symptoms (being lightheaded, weak, overly tired, etc).

Bright eyes,

Eat around 1800 calories.    I'm your height and 250 as of yesterday.  I burn about what you listed each day that I swim and that's what I eat (which is what the site gives me for moderate activity AND what was recommended by my registered dietitian and doctor).

Lisa

Hi,

I'm a 51 yr old woman currently at 178 lbs. I am also wondering about the 1200 minimum. It seems I have to eat 8oo or less to lose  anything these days. I still eat healthy, but with 1200 I don't lose anything.

 I make sure I have anough protein and that I have the right percentages for the different components. So is this a problem?

Honestly, you can just use the expenditure calculator for your level of activity and calculate your desired intake from that.

However, do look at your sedentary burn and that will help you figure out your maximum safe deficit. If your sedentary burn is 1700 calories, your max deficit is 500 calories. So if you do light activity and your expenditure goes up to 2000 calories, you need to eat 1500 minimum.

As for the eating back, you only have to eat back the extra that you burn beyond sedentary (and you only have to eat them back if you are actually limiting yourself to 1200 calories a day otherwise!)  So during those three hours, you burned 735 (that's some fast walking!) but you would have burned 300 (or whatever) being sedentary, so you only need to eat back the 435.

Make sure your "sedentary self" gets 1200 calories for vital functions.  Honestly, since you are a big woman, you might want to give your sedentary self 1500, in order to ensure you don't get too hungry.

I agree with morninggirl. Eating 1800 calories a day, every day, whether you exercise or not, will help you get into a routine of eating and not have to recalculate all the time - and you will still lose weight, even if you are sedentary.

Remember that underestimating calories is very common and keeps many people from actually sinking into conservation mode.

Bakitgul, how tall are you? How accurate is your calorie counting? It seems that if you are being accurate, your metabolism is not working properly. That could be because you are in conservation mode, or it could be because of other medical issues.

I am 5ft 2 in

I think my calorie counting is very close.....:(

Then if you really are not losing by eating 1200 calories a day, you might want to see a doctor. You should be burning about 1700 calories just by being sedentary. If you are only burning 1200, that means your metabolism is slower than it should be.

You could double-check your calorie counting by spending a couple of weeks eating only "prepared" weight-loss foods (bars, shakes, cans of soup, frozen diet meals) that total 1200 calories (read labels!), and not drinking any calories either (water, zero-calorie diet drinks, and black tea/coffee only). No snacks, even healthy ones. That way you know for sure, exactly, what you are ingesting and can be quite accurate when you go to the doctor (i.e. I ate 1247 on tuesday, 1226 on wednesday, etc...) Your doctor will take you more seriously and won't just assume that you are underestimating your calories, like most do.

Couldn't batikgul not losing on 1200 mean she's not eating ENOUGH?  Were I to eat this little (and I have,) I would go into starvation and stop losing.  I have to eat more than most, partly because I'm starting out 'big' (231 lowest so far) and partly just what I've learned about my own deficits.  Perhaps your deficit is more than 1000 and your body is shutting down?  If bumping your calories up doesn't work (some people say it takes weeks for the body to readjust) then a doctor's visit surely is in order.

<>   

zeebi, you are absolutely correct and I apologize for the oversight. Starvation mode might indeed be the culprit in what is slowing down her metabolism from 1700 to 1200 calories a day (that's about a 30% drop!).

However, if she is sedentary and is actually eating at least 1200, it's not a very likely candidate. She is a bit older, and not very tall, and weighs only 178. Also, statistically, calorie underestimation is more likely.

But yes, batikgul, I hereby modify my advice. Try eating 1400 calories, carefully controlled and completely honest with yourself. If you are in starvation mode, you will first gain about half a pound to a pound, and then level off, and then start to lose.  Give it two months, and do be perfectly accurate in your counting because even a few hundred calories extra every day will stop you from losing.

If, in a couple of months, you have not lost any weight, see your doctor.

Is it possible to slow metabolism by 30%? I realize you can decrease metabolism that much by either significantly reducing physical activity or body weight.  But if the activity level and body size is the same, I believe the most you can decrease by much less than that. One source I have (quotes obesity experts) says you can slow the metabolism "more than 10%" if you eat under 800 calories a day. Another study that put people on 500 calorie diets, recorded a slowing of RMR by 7 to 12%. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you know of any studies that show you can decrease RMR by 30%?

Bear in mind that although you burned 735 calories, you need to adjust your basic calorie expenditure to allow for the time that you exercised so you're not double counting.  CC will do this for you automatically.

I like to take the total, exercise + basic and then subtract the calories I eat.  So the difference is ideally between 500 and 1000, keeping the minimum calories at 1200 no matter what.

bakitgul:  I am older than you and it is truly amazing how SLOW my metabolism has become.  I stay at 1,200 cal. and have light activity.  (I did have a little binge recently)  but in the 6 weeks I've been on here and logging all calories and trying to keep more active, I've only lost 1.4 pounds a week.  Years ago I would have dropped twice that.

My doctor doesn't even think I need to be doing more exercising and he voted for me to quit jogging and walk.  He just reminds me I'm gettng older.  (I'm 5'6 and 185)

I tend to weigh everything, and I find that rather than under estimating I over estimate?don?t ask me why but I always think I?ve eaten more than I actually have. I was shocked to learn, upon starting to count calories that a lot of the foods (And quantities) that I thought were too large or unhealthy were actually smaller than your average serving. Except for meat?I was eating way too much protein.

On strawberries what I was assuming was a 1 cup serving by eyeballing it?turned out to be just over ½ a cup?I blame it on the bowl. 

Taken a few thoughts from my journal?you can go there to read my rfull rant if you like....

I have always eaten my veggies, the serving size of a starch on my plate looks the same now as it always has (and I?m now weighing EVERYTHING---the only difference on my dinner plate is half the meat, twice the veggies.

I?m trying to make sure I get those 8 glasses of water a day (I must have walked around dehydrated 99% of the time because I really drank next to NO liquid in a day---and this has actually been the hardest part of eating better for me---Just trying to drink that daily water allotment

My other problem, just trying to eat regularly. I?m one of those people (Always have been---goes back to childhood) that skipped breakfast and lunch and started eating around 3:30 in the afternoon---didn?t stop till bedtime (10:00 PM). I know, awful habit and I?m trying to retrain myself



I have always eaten margarine sparsely, been thrifty with the miracle whip?ate plenty of fruit and veggies. I?m not a chip or Ice cream eater by nature. And other than some minor changes the only difference now that I?m losing weight is that I am eating more often and more food. I?ve cut back on the meat (I suspect a lot of my calories were coming from there) but now I?m trying to replace those calories with fruit?s and veggies and it?s hard for me to eat as much food as I?m supposed to in a day. 

Not to mention a new problem I?ve noticed?the busier I am (the more active)?the less I tend to eat.

It makes me wonder if I wasn?t in starvation mode when I started counting calories.