to think 1,200cals per day should only maintain your weight if you've buggered up your metabolism?

(147 Posts)
DottyboutDots Mon 06-May-13 17:45:17

My friend and I are both trying to lose weight. She does around 800cals a day on the elliptical, while I swim and play squash.

She claimed that a woman approaching 40 can only eat 1200 cal a day and stay slim. I countered with, well I ate 1500 (adjusted with eating my excercise cals) a day on and off for a year and lost 3 stone.

Her examples are a) her mother who has eaten the same exact two meals a day for 20 years with a third option that she changes and is slim and b) our two friends who have openly admitted having food issues and don't eat very much.

She then mentioned that our overweight gynae (we met having our 3rd babies) had agreed with her. I said look to the messanger on that one.

Surely, there are healthy, slim women who eat more than 1,200 a day and stay slim. Please say there are, I need hope that the rest of my life is going to be a gastronomical desert.

lljkk Mon 06-May-13 17:49:06

I think you fail to grasp how little exercise or activity even, the average middle-aged woman does.
If I drove everywhere, did minimum physical stuff, I'd probably only need 1200 kcal/day, too. If that.

I probably have around 2400/day, too, in reality I am active without doing hardly any actual aerobic exercise.

Summer I was 38 the kids never wanted to go out, so I (SAHM) just stopped eating. It was so weird. I didn't gain weight but I seemed to live on air. It was either stop eating or middle age spread, I reckon.

Restorer Mon 06-May-13 17:50:41

I l

HollyBerryBush Mon 06-May-13 17:54:16

I think physical activity comes into play too.

Logic and common sense would dictate that if you need X calories as a fit and active 20yo, but are a bit of a couch potato in your 50's, your calorific intake should drop accordingly.

toboldlygo Mon 06-May-13 17:55:22

I can well believe it if a person is totally sedentary.

Cloverer Mon 06-May-13 17:55:25

1200 a day would be my limit if I was sedentary (I am short!). Any more than 1500 and I put weight on. I am not slim either, 5'1" and a curvy size 10.

ExcuseTypos Mon 06-May-13 17:56:24

I think that's a bit low.

I recently used MFP to log my calories and was eating about 1400 a day. I'm 8st, but only 5ft 2 so I would think anyone taller than me would need more calories.

ExcuseTypos Mon 06-May-13 17:57:32

Oh and I'm 47 and do "proper" exerciseoccasionally

I do walk the dog every day though.

Restorer Mon 06-May-13 17:58:19

I lose weight if i eat less than about 2500 calories a day. I am one of those annoying people who appears to be able to eat anything without gaining.

The reasons for this are all because of exercise. I run a lot and do some yoga and pilates , which means i am high % muscle, which burns more calories than other flesh, even when resting.

On top of that i am very active, i do some gardening everyday, walk or cycle all my everyday journeys, volunteer with cubs, you get the idea.

1200 max per day is nonsense, but may true for someone very inactive

I'm 51. I probably average 1900 cals a day (but to be honest I can't remember the last time that I tried to work out the calories I eat, but I eat quite a lot) and I'm a size 6 to 8 (5'5).

I used to have to watch what I ate when I was in my 20s and early 30s and gained weight very easily, but then I took up dancing as a hobby and I haven't had to think about my weight since. So I really do believe that exercise is the answer.

Rosa Mon 06-May-13 17:59:30

when I was on 1200 - I walk everywhere plus I was doing 3 watergym classes and 3 high cardio classes a week I lost ZERO ... I was not eating enough. On 1800 - 2000 I loose very very slowly and it pisses me off.. So what I am saying is everybody is different and when you find what works for you stick to it IMO....I wish I could find what works well for me .

FairPhyllis Mon 06-May-13 18:02:56

For someone in their late 30s, they would have to be totally sedentary, well under 5 feet tall and quite slight for this to be true, I think.

I'd say that is only realistic for someone a good 20-30 years older who also doesn't do any exercise. And it will be affected by height.

FairPhyllis Mon 06-May-13 18:05:59

Plus it sounds as though her concept of 'slim' is not terribly healthy if it is based on some people who sound like they have eating disorders ...

specialsubject Mon 06-May-13 18:06:31

if the woman was very short and sat on her arse all day.

if she gets off her arse and moves around, and is over 5 foot tall, then she needs more.

food issues, stick thin things etc - all abnormal.

1200 would keep my weight on if I were bed bound.
I'm 51 and 4' 11" I ate 1200 cal (with occasional cheating) plus exercise and was loosing 1-2lbs a week. This was last Autumn and Winter.
Now I've stopped counting but eat way more as I still exercise. Some weeks I still loose a pound but I'm trying not too.

scarlettsmummy2 Mon 06-May-13 18:13:18

I think everyone is different! I am a size 8-10 and probably rarely eat more than 1400 calories a day to maintain my weight- but this has been the case for many years.

crashdoll Mon 06-May-13 18:13:33

I'm 25 with a fucked up metabolism thanks to years of anorexia, then bulimia and a mobility disability, I lose about 0.5kg per month on 1200 calories. It's a right bastard. sad

DottyboutDots Mon 06-May-13 18:19:16

We are both active. She thinks that active people need to eat net 1200cals a day or they'll get fat. I just can't believe that maybe I've got my head in the clouds.

For eg, I think her, incidentally, rather lovely mother can't eat anymore (very fit, works and plays golf) because she's spent decades eating so little.

ExcuseTypos Mon 06-May-13 18:23:33

Your friend really can't say "all people have to eat 1200 calories to stay slim"

She's basing her "evidence" on such a small group.

Just smile and nod at her.

DupontetDupond Mon 06-May-13 19:39:03

You need to work out your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) which is an estimate of how many calories you use if you just sleep & then sit on your bahookey all day - you can adjust it for exercise

Linky:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator

VivaLeBeaver Mon 06-May-13 19:43:42

Exercise is definitely the key.

Normally on holiday I put on weight. Last year I had a week in London where I stuffed myself silly all week but also walked/tubed everywhere. My feet were killing me all week. I didn't put on any weight even with all the food and drink.

Normally I drive everywhere and struggle to maintain. I really need to move to London.

ToomuchIsBackOnBootcamp Mon 06-May-13 19:49:53

I low carb. Heaps and heaps of lovely delicious food, never need to count calories or worry. Lost 20lbs initially and now happily have maintained for 5 months at a healthy BMI weight and a size 12 for being 5'8" with a large frame. Come and join us on the LC bootcamp threads, we are definitely NOT a gastronomic desert!!

BinksToEnlightenment Mon 06-May-13 19:55:10

Yabu. People are designed to be calorie efficient and store the excess. Two thousand or even fifteen hundred is too much for a great deal of people. Clearly.

lljkk Mon 06-May-13 19:59:20

My BMR is 1300 kcal/day, on Dupont's link. I imagine it'd be less if I were shorter.
Goes down to 1220 kcal/day if I were 5'4".

So with rounding & counting fudging errors, 1200 easily possible.

thenightsky Mon 06-May-13 20:00:03

I was gaining weight on 1,500 a day whilst doing bloody marathon training!!! That's when I realised exercise has very little effect.

I threw away the calorie counting books 4 months ago and stuck with low carbing instead (thanks to MN threads) and have lost 2 stone with barely a stroke of exercise.

This is the truth.

After decades of bloody calorie counting and depriving myself, I have finally, at the age 53, sussed out how to be slim, with glowing skin and loads of energy.

Megsdaughter Mon 06-May-13 20:03:53

Using myfitnessal, on a lightly active job (Im a nanny), and doing little exercise apart from walking the dog, and at 55 years old, I am on 1200 calories a day, aiming to lose 1.5lbs a week.

Since new year, I have lost 44lb, so it definitely isn't enough for me to maintain my weight grin

GraduallyGoingInsane Mon 06-May-13 20:08:24

I think if you're trying to lose weight it's a good number to aim for, purely because most people miscount or forget a fair few calories each day. Aiming for 1200 means you probably come in around 1500.

I use my fitness pal to keep count and come in between 1200 and 1500 most days. But then if I think hard there's the cups of tea I forgot to add, with the milk. There's the spoonful of spaghetti sauce or soup I tasted whilst cooking, there's the sweet I took when offered etc. Counting 1200 out means there's scope for incidental calories!

lougle Mon 06-May-13 20:12:31

I'm around 9st, 5'8" and my BMR according to that site is 1342 calories per day.

I'd have to be 5'0" for my BMR to be 1200 calories.

Sparrowp Mon 06-May-13 20:14:13

My metabolism got messed up by being on benefits. I had to eat so little I literally had to give up moving around and exercising.

Before: ate loads, loads of physical activities.

After: dont eat, dont move a muscle. Very unhealthy.

Sparrowp Mon 06-May-13 20:16:41

And all the not moving made me put on weight! gah!

Chigley1 Mon 06-May-13 20:22:22

I am 40, 5'0" and my BMR is 1175 calories, so I presume I eat around that amount. I eat fairly well but never overeat. I am a pretty constant 7 stone. I do not exercise. People are always telling me I'm too skinny, and I think I could probably do with a few more pounds.

GillBates Mon 06-May-13 20:25:26

I am interested in whether people who regularly eat very low calorie end up messing up their metabolisms long term and then gain weight easily if they eat "normally". I have a friend who is very skinny, 5 foot 4 and weighs 8 stone, she hardly eats anything and has been like that for years. We recently spent a weekend together and she ate was she thought was massively excessive amounts of food (still less than I eat on a good day and I'm 5 foot 9 and a slim 10 stone) and said that she gained 3lbs over the weekend and had to live on apples and cottage cheese for a few days to lose it. Not healthy!

I have always eaten well, average amounts and treats fairly often. I do gain weight quickly if I eat too much but still eat at least twice what my friend eats and stay slim. Has she ruined her metabolism? I'd be interested to know if there is any scientific basis for this.

ChasingStaplers Mon 06-May-13 20:50:39

Just did that link and apparently my BMR is 811 calories a day!

Thank goodness I'm breastfeeding and have two preschoolers to look after or I'd be the size of a house.

(I am reading it right, aren't I?)

ChasingStaplers Mon 06-May-13 20:53:43

blush

Just realised I missed a number out.

Actual BMR is 1,434 which sounds about right. I've always cut down to 1500 calories when trying to lose weight, which has always worked.

FairPhyllis Tue 07-May-13 07:31:06

BMR is the bare minimum your body needs to carry out its functions (keep heart and respiration going etc) without you moving a muscle. It's not the same figure as what you need to eat to maintain weight, even if you are mostly sedentary - even if you don't do exercise you move around the house etc. I reckon even for most sedentary people their TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is say 2/300+ calories more than BMR.

I mean, I lose weight eating 1500 a day, and I am not a tall woman. I do not believe you can maintain on 1200/day unless you are tiny.

ellajayne Tue 07-May-13 07:47:44

I can believe it. I am quite sedentary (or was until I got an exercise kick up the bum recently) and if I ate more than 1600 calories a day I'd maintain and I am 5ft10in and clinically obese.

To lose weight I need to drop my calorie intake to 1400 and walk daily for 30 minutes plus add in yoga three times a week. It's just how people's bodies work. We're all different.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 08:05:39

there is lots of bad science on this thread.

anyone who is mobile who thinks they eat significantly less than 2000 cal per day and stays the same weight is getting something wrong - most likely how many calories they are consuming.

and if you are overweight, you need more than 2000 cal per day to stay the same weight.

and you don't 'bugger up your metabolism'. no doctor ever diagnoses a broken metabolism.

and exercise don't not use that many calories - the biggest use of calories is being alive.

I think our understanding of correct portion sizes has been lost in recent decades so someone can not think they are overeating but they actually are.

Samu2 Tue 07-May-13 08:35:05

I can only eat 1,300 cals if I want to maintain my weight unless I do a LOT of exercise that is. People over estimate just how little exercise can burn as well though.

I am short, small built and slim and I often wonder if my fast weightloss is what did this or that is just how I am. I do have an under-active thyroid though. I managed to lose 5 stone without even realising I had it but I guess that doesn't help how I can only eat a small amount to maintain.

I go to the gym 3-4 times a week now so I am hoping it is going to help.

Restorer Tue 07-May-13 08:46:26

I think almost no-one really eats as few calories as they think they do.

Eg i eat 3 healthy meals a day, not dieting, probably 2000 calories a day. Even if you're being 'good' there are always extras, that cake because it's someone's birthday, a glass of wine to be sociable, the latte because a friend needed to talk, some fruit to be healthy, the biscuits/sweets that were on the table in your meeting....

HotelTangoFoxtrotUniform Tue 07-May-13 08:54:50

I think our understanding of correct portion sizes has been lost in recent decades so someone can not think they are overeating but they actually are.

This.

When we lost weight (3 stone each a few years ago) I weighed everything I cooked and we were horrified at how small the portions were to start with. Fortunately I'm now horrified by how large the portion sizes are when I go out to eat/round to friends houses.

How often do we see threads where people say "I eat healthily but can't lose weight/am size of a house" and they can't possibly be eating as little as they claim. Portion control is what it's all about.

LeaveTheBastid Tue 07-May-13 09:01:07

Completely agree with fasterstronger.

I lost 6 stone over 18 months eating 1200 calories per day. I still lose weight eating 1200 a day when I have let myself slip a bit. Desk job, but the usual running around at home/after toddler, and I'm allergic to proper exercise.. The thought of killing myself running for half an hour to burn off a couple of slices of bread if I'm lucky brings me out in hives.

I think people greatly underestimate how much they actually eat, and equally overestimate how active they are. Recipe for disaster in terms of weight loss.

Samu2 Tue 07-May-13 09:05:01

I know exactly how many calories I eat because I weigh and track everything that goes into my mouth.

Samu2 Tue 07-May-13 09:06:19

Pressed enter too soon.

I used to think I ate quite little until I gained a heap of weight and when I weighed my food I was shocked by the amount of calories I was consuming in one meal.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 07-May-13 09:07:44

YANBU. 1200 is the World Health Organisation definition of starvation. Below that and, whatever's happening to your weight, you can't get enough nutrition from your food.

poozlepants Tue 07-May-13 09:09:12

I am 44 and have PCOS. To lose weight at more than 1lb a month I need to eat less than 900 calories a day and exercise. If I ate more than 1200 calories I would put weight on and that's with me being active the best part of the day and esercising 4/5 times aweek. Different strokes and all that. It's been worse in the last few years presumably because I'm older. Exercise alone doesn't make me lose weight it has to be diet. Exercise however does help maintain weight loss I think.

this calculator allows you to adjust the amount of time spent on various types of exercise and gives BMR and TDEE values.

I come out with a BMR of ~1500 and TDEE of ~3000. I think that's fairly accurate. I spend most of the day standing up, so that keeps my TDEE fairly high.

The important impact of chronic low calorie consumption, is that if affects the amount of moving around you do (not exercise, but things like whether you choose to take the stairs or to get up for a glass of water or not bother) - Non exercise thermogenesis to use the jargon. Most of these decisions are subconscious and this, cumulatively, has a huge impact on your overall number of calories you burn/need. So you don't need actual metabolic damage for a restricted diet to reduce your energy expenditure.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 07-May-13 09:11:01

People quoting BMR.... please note that BMR is the bare minimum energy your body needs to simply sit/lie completely still and for your vital organs to pump blood, breathe, etc. It doesn't cover any kind of movement at all.

LeaveTheBastid Tue 07-May-13 09:12:06

1200 calories is the definition of starving? hmm. Jesus Christ there's a first world problem if I ever heard one.

Yesterday I missed breakfast as I had a lie in, scoffed half of a chilled melon whilst sunbathing for lunch, ate 2 juicy horsey venison burgers in buns complete with a huge side salad and condiments, then had a maltesers chocolate bar. Including milk in tea I came in just under 1200.

I would not call that "starving" by any stretch of the imagination.

kelda Tue 07-May-13 09:12:51

I find it depressing that so many women still calorie count. I haven't done that since I was a teenager.

kelda Tue 07-May-13 09:13:07

Sorry that was unhelpful.

Being sendentary is terrible for your health whether or not you're overweight.

Go Kaleo writes really well on the relationship between exercise/metabolic health/weight control. She had PCOS and was very overweight. Severe dieting had just made things worse. Exercise and eating enough have totally turned her around.

My experience isn't as dramatic as hers, but finding kinds of exercise I enjoy and stopping seeing food as the enemy has totally changed my life and my relationship with my body.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 07-May-13 09:17:08

Yes it's starvation or, more accurately, malnutrition. Skipping meals and eating a melon for lunch means you're probably malnourished... even if you don't feel it. And it really isn't a first world problem, it's a very serious third world one.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 07-May-13 09:20:04

"I find it depressing that so many women still calorie count."

Weight gain/loss/maintenance is essentially a maths exercise. It's very easy to overeat, get acclimatised to over-large amounts, make poor choices or absent-mindedly graze your way through too much food. Counting calories or weighing portions or keeping a food diary are a good way to reset the bar. Similarly people who overspend are advised to keep a spending diary. Not depressing or a teenage fad... just a sensible monitoring exercise.

I eat way less than that in an average day and maintain my weight. If I ate that much daily I'd gain weight, I did when I was pregnant and breastfeeding.

But I have a genetically low metabolism, my father is the same, as was my grandmother and dd takes after us. We're just naturally tall and slim and need less calories than the rda.

I'm 5'8 btw, and about 55kgs. Not very active though.

YoniRanger Tue 07-May-13 09:25:13

A calorie is made up science. Very stupid dangerous science.

What food does in a controlled lab environment is not the same as what food does in your body compared to my body compared to my body at night compared to my body when breastfeeding etc.

Low carbing, paleo, primal and just not eating processed shit food makes calories redundant because they are.

500 calories of broccoli and 500 calories of chocolate are not equal. One will made you fat and one is nutritious.

I think diets and commercialism have made us forget how to eat and replaced it with how much to eat. Because it really doesn't matter about your portion size of cucumber, it matters about your portion size of frosties which aren't food to start with.

A calorie is not 'made up science'. You are absolutely right, though, that different food affects your body in different ways.

I don't think eating any particular kind of food makes calories redundant. It might be difficult to eat enough broccoli to make you fat, but it's not difficult to eat too much avocado or coconut oil or other paleo friendly healthy fats.

Both the quality and the quantity of food you eat is important (along with the quantity/quality of exercise you get, and sleep for that matter).

Purple2012 Tue 07-May-13 09:37:07

If I eat 1200 cals I don't lose weight - and I want to- as I exercise and 1200 is not enough. I eat around 1300 cals a day at the moment. And I am losing weight. I exercise at least 5 days a week so need more food to counteract that. If I didn't exercise I would probably only eat 1,000 cals and be able to lose weight

plinkyplonks Tue 07-May-13 09:37:24

thenightsky - you sure you weren't eating enough and your body wasn't going into starvation mode?

When I was doing distance training I was overloading on lots of carbs but wasn't eating enough, so my weight didn't budge sad

Since I have started eating low carb, low dairy but eating the right about of calories the weight has come off. I've lost around 1 1/2 stone from my heaviest point, with plenty of energy to do my distance training.

undercoversahm Tue 07-May-13 09:39:48

You can find out your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) using the Harris-Benedict equation:

BMR= 655.0955 + (9.5634 x weight in kg) + (1.8496 x height in cm) – (4.6756 x age in years)

That's what you need to eat to maintain your weight if you do NOTHING.

Multiply it up if you take any exercise:

Little to no exercise= BMR x 1.2
Light exercise (1–3 days per week) = BMR x 1.375
Moderate exercise (3–5 days per week) = BMR x 1.55
Heavy exercise (6–7 days per week) = BMR x 1.725
Very heavy exercise Daily calories needed = BMR x 1.9

but I also agree that it depends on "what" calories you eat eg raw meat has very indigestible calories (not that we eat much raw meat) and the same goes for wholemeal foods rather than processed. So you can eat more calories if you eat it in the form of veg and raw foods as your body can't use them all (the opposite is true of sugar whose calories are instantly and fully accessible)

ChunkyPickle Tue 07-May-13 09:47:43

I'm 5 foot tall.. I an eat bugger all and still put on weight. I can exercise hard (running and heavy weight lifting), 5 days a week and get fitter, but not lose any weight (OK, some of that is probably muscle replacement).

When you're my height your calorific requirements are so low that it's really, really hard to cut enough calories to lose weight, and really, really easy to eat too many and put on weight.

Like others, the only way I can lose weight is starvation (eg. when ill) or major low-carbing (monkeying with my body chemistry) - neither of which have been an option for a few years due to pregnancy and breastfeeding, so I've just maintained by being really, really careful.

Cantbelieveitsnotbutter Tue 07-May-13 10:23:30

I practically starved myself after ds, turns out my 600-800 calorie a day was actually making me put weight on. Since eating a bit more I seem to be losing weight, previous to ds I'd always counted fat grams as supposed to calories. It's the empty calories to avoid, the ones with no nutritional value.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 10:37:11

more bad science.

if you think you only need 600/1200cal per day to stay the same weight, you should be looked at by scientists as you could solve world hunger.

of course the more simple explanation is that you are eating more than you realise.

Tryharder Tue 07-May-13 10:43:42

Am shocked by this thread. Some of you are on starvation diets. I thought women needed at least 2000 calories a day to maintain a healthy weight.

Faster.... If I only put food past my lips twice in a day and didn't snack I'm hardly likely to have miscalculated.

People are built differently, my family on my father's side are all tall, lazy and slim and need very low calorie intake.

My mother's family on the other hand are plump, active, apple shapes who eat 3 times what we do and maintain their weight.

Yesterday for example I had 1277 calories, that includes tea which I take sweet and a handful of chocolates in the evening. That figure was high as we had pizza for dinner and everything else I ate was sugary (bank holiday!), the same amount of food on a normal day but healthier choices would probably be lower calorie.

So far today I've had 64 calories.... All tea. I don't do it to lose weight, I just don't get hungry til midday or so. I'll grab something in a while, I'm thinking a toasted bagal with butter, and then I won't be hungry again til dinner.

MoominmammasHandbag Tue 07-May-13 11:06:08

According to My fittness pal I need 1400 calories to maintain my weight. I'm small, reasonably slim, but have limited mobility. I think 1400 calories is actually quite a reasonable amount of food for me; I eat a healthy diet with the odd slice of cake or glass of wine.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 11:06:56

summer - then go and see the doctor as you are a medical miracle.

Or maybe not everyone fits the same physiological mean hmm

I've spent my whole life being told 'you don't eat enough!' by people. It never seems to occur to anyone that it could possibly be perfectly fine for a person to just eat to their appetite instead of forcing an extra 1000 calories down their throat because it's what the guidelines say.

The key word there is guide lines, not laws of physics or exact universally applicable rules. Guidelines.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 11:27:43

I am not telling you to eat more - I am saying your calorie counting is incorrect.

if you average around 1300 cal per day you are massively under calculating, or a medical miracle.

Weener Tue 07-May-13 11:38:04

I don't think someone who eats 1300 calories a day is automatically a 'medical miracle' just by virtue of that. I frequently eat around that amount on a daily basis and don't consider myself miraculous by any stretch of the imagination. I just don't eat a huge amount. I am 5'8 and around 9.5-10 stone (not weighed myself in ages), I go to the gym around 4 times a week and also frequently walk miles in a day. I don't starve myself, I just don't need to eat much!

TheFallenNinja Tue 07-May-13 11:42:28

It's not just about input it's about output also.

Chasing a numbers game is kind of futile if you are slim but unfit. I'm still a little paunchy but can run for miles at a good pace and feel great for it.

jojie79 Tue 07-May-13 11:43:25

Doesn't it also come down to your own definition of "slim"? Many posters describe themselves as slim but probably have very different weights and body shapes. I'm pregnant at the moment but usually won't let myself go above 57kg (just over 8 and a half stone), which at 5ft7 means I only eat 1200 calories a day. Depending on how and where you store fat and your bone structure, I reckon someone else could weigh a stone more and probably be the same dress size as me. And thus eat 500 calories more a day....

Also, if you weigh less, a 3 or 4 lb weight gain will be much more noticeable and instantly make your jeans tighter which it might not do to someone bigger so smaller people may find they are concentrating harder at maintenance.

But I must admit, I have always thought the 2000 calories a day guideline gives the wrong idea in that it implies you can't be overweight if you eat 2000 calories and no more. Sadly, I don't think that is true for a lot of people.

faster, there are lots of days I only eat one meal..... I've actually never counted up calories until today for my post above, I just know that its unlikely one portion of dinner is over 1000 calories. Therefore I must often eat less that 1200. No counting required for that calculation.

MrsMelons Tue 07-May-13 11:51:12

I used myfitness pal to work out how I could lose 5lb (I want to be 9st), I am 5ft 4 and it said I would lose 1lb a week if I ate 1200 (with no exercise) so doesn't sound too far off being the norm for someone who was quite slim already (say under 9st and similar height to me)

1200 is a fair amount really.

digerd Tue 07-May-13 11:57:01

I think it is genetic. My family are all slim and always ate loads. My DM did put on weight during the menopause with HRT, but she was the only one who had never had much of an appetite since a small child.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 07-May-13 11:57:23

Losing weight at the rate of 1lb a week means a calorie deficit of about 500 per day. So if you can lose weight at 1200, someone the same height, weight and activity level as you MrsMelons would technically need 1700 cals a day to maintain their weight. That's the difference.

Assuming that a dinner won't ever be more than 1000cals is a bit silly. Especially if you have something like pizza. You also said that 'everything else' you ate that day was sugary. One biscuit is often over 100cals on its own.

And anyone who has cereal for breakfast and has never weighed it is probably consuming well over 500cals for that one meal. 1200 cals is NOT a lot.

HotelTangoFoxtrotUniform Tue 07-May-13 12:10:05

I think MFP suggests everyone sedentary has 1200 calories a day to lose weight - it suggested it for both DH and me in spite of our 6 inch and 3 1/2 stone height and weight difference!

ToysRLuv Tue 07-May-13 12:20:31

gained weight on paleo. I think it's hard to do if you're veggie. My down fall us nuts and dairy. Hard to limit them if no calorie guide lines.
On the other hand, find it fairly straight forward and pleasant (everything's allowed in moderation) to lose weight on a calorie controlled diet. Around 1400 cals a day makes me lose 1 kg in a week. I'm tallish and of heavyish built. Walk a bit every day with ds, but don't do any other exercise (hate it).

I think the people who live on 1200 or similarly low cals a day to just maintain their weights (like a lot of celebrities on those food diary features in mags) are trying to maintain an unnaturally low weight. Sure it might be ok on a theoretical range (bmi), but might not be right for YOUR biology (regardless of what jeans size you'd like to ideally be).

I stopped losing weight on 1400 cals a day as a teenager, and had to maintain my achieved large weight loss with this low allowance. Clearly unhealthy, although I was still within the normal hmm bmi range. I was skeletal and my periods had stopped for a year. Not a way I want to live nowadays, just to fit in size 8 jeans. Size 14 is plenty svelte enough. smile

PoppyAmex Tue 07-May-13 12:26:34

Not all calories are born alike and eating 1200 calories all from refined sugars/carbs will not have the same effect as eating 1400 calories of Low GI food, for example.

Every single Endo consultant I met (and 3 different personal trainers I used) have moved on from this calorie counting approach to a healthy diet (including all WW type deserts full of aspartame) and when I came back to the UK I was very surprised to see most products still target low cal dieters.

PoppyAmex Tue 07-May-13 12:32:05

*deserts = desserts/puddings

ToysRLuv Tue 07-May-13 12:35:26

Paleo is fine (I know all the science) if you're a big meat eater (v. hard/ limited for a veggie) an never want to eat pasta, cereal or bread again. I recognise it must be good for some, but definitely not for me. Either a recipe for resentment or weight gain. Plus I like my muller lights and salads WITH a small bread roll with a huge glass if aspartame toxic waste cola <licks lips>

Horses for courses!

gindrinker Tue 07-May-13 12:36:14

It doesn't help that we a very seditary now.
I walk a mile to the station and a quarter of a mile to work (and the reverse on the way home) so 11ish miles a week.
People think I'm mad for doing this.
People need to realise exercise is more than sweating in a gym.
I try to eat 1500 a day, but know this goes goes to pot occasionally

Mintyy Tue 07-May-13 12:45:27

See this really FUCKS ME OFF when other people insist that people are underestimating what they are eating or are just plain lying about their calorie intake.

I have faithfully been doing the 5:2 woe since 1st September last year and in that time I have lost a few lbs, about 4 or 5 (despite having loads to lose). My dh has been doing it the same amount of time as me and we eat roughly the same - although obviously he has larger portions - and he has lost two and a half stone.

My friend started on 31st January and has already lost over a stone.

Some of us really do need very little food/calories to live on. Don't tell me I'm wrong, don't be so fucking patronising!!

Samu2 Tue 07-May-13 12:52:36

Well said Mintyy.

I am not lying or underestimating my calories.

I am very little, I don't need many and 1,300 is perfect for me. Now I am upping my gym usage that may change but for now, leading a pretty active lifestyle 1,300 is my sweet spot and no underestimating as I weigh every single thing I eat.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 12:54:00

it is not patronising to disagree with someone. stop being so defensive.

I think you are eating relatively more than your DH or friend.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 12:57:09

& the reason why I disagree with you I because doctors don't say some people only need 1200 cal per day to maintain a healthy weight.

DottyboutDots Tue 07-May-13 13:05:34

This is exactly what I'm wondering about. Do people who eat so little (naturally slim on little food is not naturally slim it is naturally dieting, surely) only need to eat so little because after effectively dieting for so long their metabolism has slowed down?

Also, only one poster (i think) has said they eat the supposed recommended 2,000 a day. Most women on here are eating around 25% less than that.

It is patronising to insist someone is obviously eating more than 1200 just because you couldn't survive on that.

I have a small appetite, always have. It's a pain in the arse actually, do you know how often I've had to leave delicious food on my plate because I simply cant fit a fill portion. I love food, really love it. But apart from when I'm pregnant or breastfeeding my body just doesn't need it.

No matter how calorie laden the food I could never consume over 1000 calories in one sitting as I simply couldn't fit that much food in my stomach. I had pizza last night yes, 2/3 of a ristorante pizza pollo after which I was full. Just over 500 calories according to the packet.

I don't diet, ever. I eat when I'm hungry, eat til full, snack. I just don't require much food to be satisfied.

When I was pregnant and breastfeeding I ate about twice as much and was 15kg heavier. As soon as I stopped feeding my appetite dropped and the weight fell off, no effort on my part.

It is patronising to insist someone is obviously eating more than 1200 just because you couldn't survive on that.

I have a small appetite, always have. It's a pain in the arse actually, do you know how often I've had to leave delicious food on my plate because I simply cant fit a fill portion. I love food, really love it. But apart from when I'm pregnant or breastfeeding my body just doesn't need it.

No matter how calorie laden the food I could never consume over 1000 calories in one sitting as I simply couldn't fit that much food in my stomach. I had pizza last night yes, 2/3 of a ristorante pizza pollo after which I was full. Just over 500 calories according to the packet.

I don't diet, ever. I eat when I'm hungry, eat til full, snack. I just don't require much food to be satisfied.

When I was pregnant and breastfeeding I ate about twice as much and was 15kg heavier. As soon as I stopped feeding my appetite dropped and the weight fell off, no effort on my part.

Sorry, phone rang in the middle of posting and I thought it hadn't gone through

"no doctor ever diagnoses a broken metabolism"

erm, there is a whole range of diseases which come under 'metabolic disorders'

PoppyAmex Tue 07-May-13 13:13:31

Mintyy I believe you - people have different metabolisms.

Also, calories and portions are just not reliable comparisons at all.

Eating 1,000 calories of bread/donuts/puddings is NOT the same as 1,000 calories of veggies/pasta/pulses no matter how many times organisations like Weight Watchers tell you it is.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 13:17:33

Willie - of course I agree that 'metabolic disorders' exist - but I was not aware anyone commenting on this thread had a diagnosed metabolic disorders or was commenting on an actual disorder. rather a 'broken metabolism'.

I could have been clearer.

Tingalingle Tue 07-May-13 13:18:50

No idea how many calories I eat a day. Roughly the same as 17-stone DH, I suspect. Both of us seem to fit the same clothes we always did.

But define 'slim'? I'd say I'm normal (weight, that is; not guarantee of sanity) and always have been, barring vast-as-a-house pregnancy.

It's mostly luck, I'd say, given I have one normal-size child, one skinny and one always a bit heavy.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 13:39:25

"Almost nine out of 10 GPs believe dieters are vastly underestimating the amount of calories they are consuming, according to a poll."

www.nursingtimes.net/dieters-underestimate-calorie-consumption-say-gps/5014792.article

I never said my metabolism was broken hmm

It works just fine, just at a different level.

FasterStronger Tue 07-May-13 13:43:29

is this something a doctor has told you or just a belief?

4 generations of my family have the same build as meand eat small amounts of food just like me. It's obviously just genetics. My dad had tests done once as a doctor as disbelieving as you couldn't believe he wasn't ill, no metabolic or thyroid issues and incredibly healthy. He's almost 60, still slim and never gets ill apart from a sinus infection every year or two.

My mother brought me for tonnes of tests as a teen too (she was convinced I was starving as I never ate more than a meal a day). I was declared perfectly healthy too.

Dd had intolerances when she was tiny, her gut couldn't handle wheat or cows milk protein. Tonnes of tests and 2 years with a dietician, not only was she declared perfectly healthy on a diet absent wheat and cows milk, she outgrew the intolerances at 5 and can eat a full diet now. She has a tiny appetite too, one slice of pizza and she's full. If I give her a bowl of pasta she'll be full after 3/4 bites.

I'm sorry it upsets you so much to hear about us freaks of nature hmm but you can dig all you want, you won't find a simple explanation that makes you feel better. I just don't need much food, its no more complicated than that.

ivykaty44 Tue 07-May-13 13:56:08

how do you know that your metabolism works at a different level? Have you had blood tests summer?

One other point... My father, me and dd are all naturally cold people. My hands are alway ice. Our bodies don't seem to expend as much energy on maintaining temperature as other people.

Dp for example eats loads more than me, similar activity levels and similar height and build. But his skin is always warm to the touch, whereas mine is always cool to the touch.

Eating more doesn't make me warmer... I spent almost 8 years pregnant and/or breastfeeding during which my appetite was doubled but I still seemed to be cold to the touch all the time, apart bizarrely from dds pregnancy where I felt like I was being boiled alive and spent all winter in t-shirts and opening every window. Hers was the pregnancy I ate the least as she was pushing on my stomach and I couldn't eat very much in one sitting, even by my standards!

Wishihadabs Tue 07-May-13 14:17:30

I think it's the 2000 a day which is misleading. I believe summer, I think the clue is where she says she is lazy. "Normal" activity levels vary massively. I think I am fairly active. But my BMR is 1300, my TDEE is 3,500 ! That is because my sitting time is "only" 6 hours. I don't think that is strange. I am standing or walking for my job, I bike to work, stand to cook. I spend 1.5-2 hrs doing housework. Activity levels make a massive difference.

ivykaty44 Tue 07-May-13 14:26:57

The only way to know for sure what your BMR or your TDEE is to strap a heart rate monitor to yourself and start it as you get out of bed and turn it off as you get back into bed - doing one day nothing and the next day a full active day.

That way you will have a complete calorie count for the entire day and will therefore know exactly what each count is without wide estimates done by a calculator on a pc

OneLittleToddleTerror Tue 07-May-13 14:29:10

Maybe I'm missing a trick. How do you all survive on 1200 calories a day? I have started tracking myself on myfitnesspal and I eat over 1600 a day! And I'm already cutting down on the snacks. I would also think 1200 is starving too.

FYI, I'm trying to lose the weight I gained from my week 12 miscarriage. I piled on 4kg during that 3 months sad. Otherwise I've never tried to lose weight before. I am 38 and still have a BMI of 20.9 at my current fat state. (But I'm small boned and have a BMI of 19.5 before the pregnancy).

So yes, it's entirely possible to eat way more than 1200 calories and still be slim.

Very true. I study, so spend huge amounts of time just sitting reading. My top relaxation activities are reading and tv.

I clean only as much as needed, I hate it so certainly don't spend much time doing it.

I hate walking so apart fron a half mile a day to collect ds2 don't do it.

I garden but enlist dp to do stuff like mowing the grass or digging beds so I can't imagine I get much exercise from weeding and pruning grin

I have decent enough energy levels when needed (did a 5k walk last year and ran most of it trying to keep in from of the kids at the front) but I don't have that urge to be active many people do.

mrsbaffled Tue 07-May-13 14:30:18

I eat 2000-2500 a day and have a BMI of 18.5. I would LOVE to gain some weight, but it just doesn't go on. i blame my genes.

Samu2 Tue 07-May-13 14:35:22

I don't get hungry on 1,300 cals a day. I rarely feel hunger, except after a good workout.

I miss being able to eat more as I love my food but I am not starving and certainly healthy enough.

Even when my thyroid levels have been good I still can't eat much. It can be a pain as I could happily eat 1,300 cals in chocolate every day but I am not starving or malnourished.

My mum is the same way, if you are short, slim, small built and not overly active you simply need less calories than the average woman.

I do not over-estimate or under-estimate my exercise or my calorie intake as much as some would like to think I do. I just need to less cals than most, if that is because I lost five stone pretty quickly and that messed with me somehow I do not know.

GlassofRose Tue 07-May-13 14:37:39

You're friends wrong. 1200 calories a day is minimum any woman should eat really.

You have to fuel your body for your lifestyle anyway.

GlassofRose Tue 07-May-13 14:37:55

*your

OneLittleToddleTerror Tue 07-May-13 14:40:43

To the poster asking the definition of slim. I'd think at a BMI of 20, I'm on the slim side of normal. I think you are defined as underweight if you are under 18.5.

Wishihadabs Tue 07-May-13 14:41:23

my DH is a "naturally" slim person he must eat and drink close to 4, 000 calories a day.But he is never still from when he gets out of bed at 7am until 730pm when he sits down for dinner. TBH I am the same many days. I can easily consume 3, 000 calories. I am now doing 5:2 previously had a BMI of 22-23 now 21. I can guarentee I eat at least 3, 000 when not fasting (in all reality probably closer to 4, 000)

ouryve Tue 07-May-13 14:42:07

I'm 43, BMI currently high end of "healthy" at 24.5, walk 3 miles a day and lose weight on about 1800 calories a day.

Wishihadabs Tue 07-May-13 14:44:04

But when our activities levels fall it takes very little time to get very fat.

Ivykaty... I do have a lower than average heartbeat, very low blood pressure and a reasonably low active heartrate. So if that's what bmr is calculated on I would come up low I imagine.

The human body is incredibly complex though, I honestly don't think high/low metabolism is linked to just one or two factors, I imagine it's far more complicated than that.

Accentuatethepositive Tue 07-May-13 15:03:30

I've been wondering about this too. I' don't habitually count calories but used mfp during the third trimester of my pregnancy just out of interest really. I was eating a healthy diet but for daily cake or biscuits and averaged 2300 ish a day. I gained 2 st during pregnancy and looked almost like my old self immediately after giving birth except for a bit of muffin top which is still there 5 months on!

I reckon I'm eating the same or more now, breastfeeding and perpetually starving. But I'm maintaining weight. Am I greedy or do I need these calories? I honestly can't understand how anyone could function on half what I eat which is what the OP is talking about, let alone 800 cals! I'm 5' 8 ish and ore preg was 9 st 4.

I found the 'eat more to weigh less' group on mfp interesting. I think thermodynamics (calories in / calories out) plays a very small role in weight loss compared to hormones.

Insulin / leptin / ghrelin / testosterone - levels of these are much more significant than 100 calories one way or the other.

i agree travelincolour

I eat 2000+ cals a day easily and healthily. I'm 5'8 and about 10.5 stone. I'm a normal build rather than slim and fairly active but not excessively so. When I want to lose weight I drop to about 1500 cals a day and up my exercise but eat those calores back.

manicinsomniac Tue 07-May-13 19:02:56

I have maintained my weight at a max of 1200 calories a day (NET) for more than 6 years.

But I think the difference is that it is an unnaturally low weight for me (6st at 5'1"). If I was at a more normal weight for me (no idea what as I've never allowed myself to have a normal adult weight but looking at my sister I guess around 8.5st) then I imagine I would lose on 1200.

It isn't difficult to get a full day's food at 1200, not be overestimating and feel satisfied and well nourished.
Today for example, I haven't exercised. My food diary will look like this by bedtime:
Breakfast:
100g blueberries (57)
100g 0% greek yogurt (57)

Snack:
Dried apricots, 35g (70)

Lunch:
Weightwatchers wrap (106)
Chicken mini breast fillets, 200g (208)
Mixed Salad Leaves, 50g (11)
Strawberries, 150g (48)

Snack:
Vanillamoo Frozen Yogurt, 100ml (76)

Dinner:
Salmon fillet, 110g (190)
Noodles, 150g (210)
Mangetout, 40g (14)
Babycorn, 65g (16)
Carrot, 180g (74)

Snack:
Options white hot chocolate, 11g (45)

That comes to a (real, not imagined) total of 1178 calories and is obviously a nutritious, decent amount of food that no small female adult is going to get hungry on.

Most days I exercise and I would eat similar to that plus enough protein shake, nuts or other similar snacks to bring it up to 1000-1200 net.

ArgyMargy Tue 07-May-13 19:29:03

1200 calories is a weight-loss diet, 800 calories is a very low calorie weight loss diet. Weight-neutral diet obviously depends on height, frame and activity levels. Clearly we are not all the same but most of us will fall within a reasonable range. Then there will be some interesting outliers like Summer...

I do like messing up the statistics grin

foreverondiet Tue 07-May-13 20:36:39

Calories are NOT all equal. Cut out grains and sugar and then you eat more calories and stay slim. I lose on 1200 a day - even without exercise - but I don't eat much grains.

ivykaty44 Tue 07-May-13 22:23:01

The human body is incredibly complex though, I honestly don't think high/low metabolism is linked to just one or two factors, I imagine it's far more complicated than that.

Your metabolism can be tested with a blood test - have you had a blood test to check your metabolism as you stated I have a genetically low metabolism and I asked had you had a blood test and what are the results?

I do have a lower than average heartbeat, very low blood pressure and a reasonably low active heartrate. So if that's what bmr is calculated on I would come up low I imagine.

The only way you will find out is to wear a heart rate monitor for a day and see how many calories you have burnt by the end of the day - this will show you what is happening all day - apart from in the shower as they don't work in water.

Do you know your waking heart rate?

Haven't taken my heart rate in ages but it used to be 50-55.

Active heart rate 90-110 usually.

At least that's what I say... I'm probably lying though. Really I'm an obese comfort eater with delusional behaviours which cause me to seek validation by making the internet think I'm thin and have a low appetite as my self worth is reliant on the opinions of people who don't know me and I'll never meet hmm

Mimishimi Wed 08-May-13 04:49:04

I am on an average of about 1300 calories a day with MyFitnessPal. I found 1200cals difficult to maintain but not sure why people are saying it's impossible. A piece of toast, a fried egg, a piece of fruit and a cup of coffee with skim milk and stevia will come to about 300 calories. For lunch, half a cup of rice and 1 cup of vege curry with not too much oil comes to another 300 calories. A piece of fruit and 100g of plain yogurt with 2-3 walnut halves comes to about 200 calories for a mid afternoon snack. A small piece of meat or a larger piece of steamed fish and veges ( whilst limiting the carby ones like potatoes) will come to about another 300 calories. Add another small 100 snack like a piece of fruit or a sweet yogurt after dinner and you are at 1200 calories. You need a bit more if you are very active though. It's easy to find meal recipes which fit within the 300 calories limit and it doesn't have to be particularly monotonous, especially with spices etc.

ToysRLuv Wed 08-May-13 06:17:46

Minishimi: I certainly don't think it's impossible. I've done a similar amount for months/years even. But the difference to some of the othe women on this thread is that I literally couldn't/wouldn't want to live on it forever just to maintain an unnaturally low (for my body) weight. I know people are different in their appetites, though (although, as a biology graduate/health professional of a sort, I'm a bit taken aback by the extremeish samples on this thread) - Live to eat vs. eat to live.

ToysRLuv Wed 08-May-13 06:19:05

To clarify, I kind of fall in the live to eat category grin

Mimishimi Wed 08-May-13 07:03:34

It wouldn't be healthy to do it for years or even weeks on end. Your body would assume that times are scarce and your metabolism might slow right down. Better to have a day or two a week where it goes up to 1600-1800 so it doesn't go into fasting mode. It's also carbs that trip up most people, it's really unhealthy (and aging) to try and cut out all fats.

ivykaty44 Wed 08-May-13 08:24:23

summer, if you are lying that is a shame for you, but it is of no real consequence to anyone else on here.

plinkyplonks Wed 08-May-13 08:24:27

SummerRainIsADistantMemory - seriously, you are being a bit OTT. This thread isn't all about you ;/

I think 1200 definitely is manageable. Through my late teens I was calorie counting to 1200. That including a good breakfast, lunch, tea and snacks throughout the day. As I've grown older, I've gone more towards ToysRLuv's approach - I find 1,200 calories too low to really enjoy my food smile I prefer eating a mostly vegan diet, but with the odd veggie treat, reducing carbs etc which means I can eat a lot whilst maintaining my weight.

FasterStronger Wed 08-May-13 09:48:05
plinkyplonks Wed 08-May-13 09:54:00

thanks FasterStronger , having a read through now - looks interesting smile

I'm being OTT hmm

As opposed to those saying I can't possibly have a low metabolism because I can't give them blood test results as proof of that fact.

Alright so confused

1200 calories can be a decent amount of food as others have pointed out, I'm hardly starving myself. I eat when I'm hungry, which doesn't happen to be as often as lots of others.

KevinFoley Wed 08-May-13 10:21:36

I'm really surprised how many people on here seem to know the calorie values for what they eat every day. Some of these posts seem a little obsessive to be honest and i suspect there are a few extreme dieters on this thread. I wouldn't have a clue what I eat in terms of calories but I bet it is quite high.

plinkyplonks Wed 08-May-13 10:24:44

SummerRainIsADistantMemory - we could end up with a Donald Trump situation where we demand to see your weighing scales, food diary, waist measurements.. the list goes on and on.. If you are an exception to the rule, people will find it very difficult to believe you and you'll never convince them, so it's not worth trying or getting offended.

DottyboutDots Wed 08-May-13 10:30:22

I look at the 1,200 diet and just cannot ever think 'that's plenty'. Where the glasses of wine? The odd dinner out? Living on 1,200 a day seems to be an extreme diet to me. Are there any nutrionists, doctors or nurses on this thread.

FWIW i put on masses with my pregnancies and am still trying to lose 40% of it. But then I craved white, bread, strong cheddar and mayo sandwhiches and the like. I had no will power as, if i didn't eat, i felt hideous.

Post babies, i think if i eat 1800 i stay the same. So i keep half an eye on what i eat (try to have just a bowl of salad for lunch a few times a week) so that I can enjoy dinner parties etc at the weekend.

DottyboutDots Wed 08-May-13 10:31:36

kevin, i think you are quite right about the extreme dieters.

Tingalingle Wed 08-May-13 10:31:48

I'm with Kevin -- I have bugger all idea how many calories I consume each day. But I'm aware that I'm lucky rather than virtuous!

Tingalingle Wed 08-May-13 10:32:35

Caffeine, now, there's another matter...

FasterStronger Wed 08-May-13 10:42:33

Living on 1,200 a day seems to be an extreme diet to me. Are there any nutrionists, doctors or nurses on this thread.

I agree very much with these and similar sentiments.

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eat-less.aspx#you here is the NHS saying women need around 2000cal. no mention of 1200cal which only 60% of the figure they mention.

OneLittleToddleTerror Wed 08-May-13 10:48:05

Kevin I wouldn't have a clue until I used myfitnesspal grin. I still don't really know for the homemade things, but I use the closest I found on there. I was truly suprised how easy it is.

ToysRLuv Wed 08-May-13 10:53:47

freely admit that I'm an all or nothing kind of person, and in the early 90s, as a teenager, I decided to lose a lot of weight (was only borderline overweight) by obsessively calorie counting. Kept it up for ages, until my mind and poor body just snapped and I started bingeing like a maniac, until I was back in my starting weight and then some.

The problem now is that because my eating has been so disordered for so long (a fair bit of yoyoing gone on since initial dieting), I can't rely on my appetite to guide me, so I do rough calorie counting on most days, although tend try and relax on special occasions, and just try not to binge.

After you've counted calories for the best part of two whole decades, it just kind of naturally happens, whether you're conscious of it or not.

OneLittleToddleTerror Wed 08-May-13 11:02:01

I think you get many people who count their calories. Unlike ToysRLuv I never have problems with my weight, and never dieted. (Current slight overweight at BMI 20.9 is pregnancy induced). I use myfitnesspal and the calorie counter to remind me not to snack. I'm known as the snack queen in the office. I can happily munch on three donuts in one morning if someone brings them in to share. I always drink normal coke, and when it's hot I end up buying one every day. It's this snacking habit I'm trying to curb on. For example, yesterday, someone took in a tray of danishes. After eating one and entering it on my phone, I know that it's nearly 300 calories each. (I could find said danish by the shop name, the app is that good). That put me right off having another one.

So not everyone counting calories are obsessed or are dieters.

ToysRLuv Wed 08-May-13 11:09:19

Bmi 20.9 is NOT overweight confused

OneLittleToddleTerror Wed 08-May-13 11:24:39

No, as I said, I've never been overweight or even heavy in my life. I've gained enough weight during the first trimester (which ended in a mmc) that I couldn't fit into my jeans anymore. That's why I'm trying to cut down on the crap I eat. I'm not buying a size bigger and am currently living in leggings and dresses.

It's a response to Kevin's post that there are many types who count calories. And I joined this thread originally because I don't think you could live on 1200 calories. It seems extreme to me. I'm quite petite at 160cm and have a desk job. Even then, myfitnesspal thinks I need 1700 to maintain my weight, not 1200.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now