1200 calorie meal plan for road trip?
Replies
-
pack you own food that totals 1200 cals0
-
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
I was going to throw out Sara's name as well. She's in her late 40's and has an amazing amount of muscle mass. She's hot and strong. And certainly weighs more than 130 and eats more than 1200 calories a day to lose. Yet, she's still tiny. And hot, did I mention hot?
While what you gain in muscle and strength will be limited by your own genetics, age is not necessarily the biggest factor.
PLUS - OP is young!!!! So I don't get how you are using yourself as an example, if as you seem to think, that age is a big problem in being able to gain muscle mass?0 -
Why does the husband get to decide the parameters of the trip? Make some changes.0
-
I took it to mean that he is, like me, a person who does not want to spend one more minute on the road than necessary. Hurry up, pee, get back on the road, fast-fast-fast, we are losing time!Why does the husband get to decide the parameters of the trip? Make some changes.
No, we aren't stopping to see the World's Biggest Horse Statue. No, you can eat in the car. No, we aren't stopping to ride a rollercoaster...or buy your cheap cigarettes...or see if Pepsi gives tours of the plant..or to see an antebellum home. No, no, no. Hurry, move, let's go!
We are the people who turn three day trips into two day trips. We turn 23 hours into 18.
We cannot be argued with.
We also do most of, if not all, of the driving.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Lap band surgery is a bariatric procedure.
You are altered. You have a medical device that was surgically placed inside you, that is restricting what you can intake. Due to this device, you have different nutritional rules than the rest of us. What work for you may not work others who are not altered.
With all due respect, unless you're a bariatric surgeon, I think I know the difference between my nutritional and caloric needs as a lap band patient versus those of a gastric bypass patient or gastric sleeve patient, etc. better than you do. I researched the different procedures for a year before I made my decision. The only restriction I have is physical - my physiology is no different than before the surgery. I'm not going to discuss this further.
Back to my point: regardless of whether someone has had lap band surgery or not, 1200 calories is not too low for many many people.
You're not going to "discuss it further" because I'm accurate.
If it's not a bariatric procedure, then a bariatric surgeon wouldn't be doing it. Again, as was stated, you are an outlier. As you are altered your needs, rules, and parameters for success/failure are going to be different from unaltered people.
It's not debatable, it's fact. You have a medical device implanted in you. You are altered. Done.-1 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »
Aren't you a bariatric patient?0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Lap band
And you don't think (aside from the age difference) that THAT was a vital piece of info to include or at least one that should have made you realize the difference in your nutritional needs?
LOL, but she's just like everyone else.... lol. As she refuses to realize, that makes her rules different from ours. It's not good or bad, it's just different.
Good for her, but her requirements are different from everyone, including the OP, unless the OP is altered as well.0 -
Pika's going to get some angry pm's. lol.jofjltncb6 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
I would assume she is taking issue with what you're saying/advising, not you personally. I don't recall seeing any personal attacks in this thread.
SOP.
Also, lol, lapband doesn't effect physiology one bit.0 -
angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
Your BMR is much, much more than that. This is a pretty good calculator: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
I punched in your numbers, and got a BMR of 1850 kcal. Meaning you'll burn that much lying in a bed in a complete coma. If you sit around and watch TV all day, your TDEE is 2500 kcal and with one hour of moderate activity you should be burning around 2750 kcal in a day.
If you have been eating 1200 kcal, you have been seriously starving yourself so your metabolism is probably way out of whack, or you have some other underlying health issues that are seriously affecting your metabolism, such as a thyroid problem. Whatever it is, I seriously urge you to see a doctor before you do anything else.
Seriously, 1200 kcal is OK if you are a woman, are 4' tall and weigh under 100 lbs. If you exceed those specs, 1200 kcal is just way, way too little as a daily goal.0 -
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200.
No, you will have to exercise more.
Starvation is not, I repeat, NOT a healthy way to lose weight, and if you are eating significantly below your BMR for any longer period you are essentially starving yourself.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »
Ugh ok now I'm in bed on my phone so can't type so well.
Way back on page 1 someone started telling the OP that 1200 was too little FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYONE. I merely pointed out that many people, like myself, being short and middle aged, can't eat much more than that and lose weight. So the statement that JUST ABOUT EVERYONE should eat more than 1200 is incorrect.
I DIDNT BRING UP THE BAND BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE EXCHANGE. Then I was put in the position of having to explain that the band has in no way affected my physiology and that my caloric requirements would be the same without it. Then your post about how I should have mentioned the band previously....blah blah blah.
This is tedious and I really really need to sleep now.
just about everyone =/= everyone0 -
And this will NOT ring true for everyone! I'm 46, 136 and I eat 1650 a day. If you seriously think you need to eat that little to lose, I would re-evaluate my logging.Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
OP, try prepacking snacks and use restaurants. It's 20 hours-go, eat, log, move on.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Lap band surgery is a bariatric procedure.
You are altered. You have a medical device that was surgically placed inside you, that is restricting what you can intake. Due to this device, you have different nutritional rules than the rest of us. What work for you may not work others who are not altered.
With all due respect, unless you're a bariatric surgeon, I think I know the difference between my nutritional and caloric needs as a lap band patient versus those of a gastric bypass patient or gastric sleeve patient, etc. better than you do. I researched the different procedures for a year before I made my decision. The only restriction I have is physical - my physiology is no different than before the surgery. I'm not going to discuss this further.
Back to my point: regardless of whether someone has had lap band surgery or not, 1200 calories is not too low for many many people.
You're not going to "discuss it further" because I'm accurate.
If it's not a bariatric procedure, then a bariatric surgeon wouldn't be doing it. Again, as was stated, you are an outlier. As you are altered your needs, rules, and parameters for success/failure are going to be different from unaltered people.
It's not debatable, it's fact. You have a medical device implanted in you. You are altered. Done.
I will explain again.
Most bariatric procedures -- gastric bypass, gastric sleeve, and the like -- reroute and/or remove a part of the digestive system, removing the body's ability to make certain enzymes and process nutrients and calories in the same way. The changes are physical and chemical. The lap band, however, only physically restricts part of the stomach, but doesn't remove anything, thereby allowing the entire digestive system to function as before. The change is only physical. So I while I can't wolf down an entire pizza in 10 minutes, I could eat it over the course of 2 hours and the number of calories and the way my gut absorbs those calories would be the same as if I had done it in 10 minutes without the band. If someone with gastric bypass or gastric sleeve did it, they would be unable to digest it and would be very sick out of both ends.
It's like condoms (physical) vs. IUD (physical and chemical).0 -
Right, you are altered and have different nutritional rules that don't apply to unaltered individuals.
That's not negating your knowledge or achievements, it's simply putting the subtext in the open.-1 -
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
LOL...ok.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
i walk on the treadmill daily for 1.5 hours walking at 10% incline and 3.1 mph and i eat back the calories burned
Then you aren't really sedentary. I'd say you could change to lightly active and be fine. Change it to 0.5b/week loss too (assuming you have only 5lbs to lose, of course)
And to just include - Another reason that Serah also probably has a higher metabolism then some would be the fact that she includes strength workouts into her routine which helped her minimize muscle mass loss during her time she lost weight. Having a lower body fat % (higher LBM) is why people at the same weight and height (and even close to the same age) can be different sizes and maintenance calories (the one with lower body fat % being smaller and needing to eat more than the other to maintain weight).
I agree with Pika. I am set to active due to my workout schedule, which is heavy weight lifting, running, and elliptical, but I have a desk job. I lost 44 pounds this way, and I've been maintaining for a year.0 -
Right, you are altered and have different nutritional rules that don't apply to unaltered individuals.
That's not negating your knowledge or achievements, it's simply putting the subtext in the open.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I can only assume that you're just *kitten* with me by refusing to understand what I'm saying. Oh well. Cheers. -1 -
Noshesnomore wrote: »This is the worst string of feedback and advice I have seen in a very long time.
Do you have something constructive to contribute?
I'd appreciate specifics on your opinion stated above.0 -
why is this thread, even a thread????0
-
I started out doing 1200 calories, but I got tired of being hungry all the time, started reading on the forums about TDEE's etc and tried upping my calories, started gaining, read more abut weighing food, so started doing that, then upped my calories more and the weight was coming off, pretty much a pound a week and I was much happier and family was happier about it also.0
-
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Right, you are altered and have different nutritional rules that don't apply to unaltered individuals.
That's not negating your knowledge or achievements, it's simply putting the subtext in the open.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I can only assume that you're just *kitten* with me by refusing to understand what I'm saying. Oh well. Cheers.
That person is correct, you have been altered, so your eating and loss is bit different then normal people with no medical issues. Nothing wrong with that, but people need to know.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Right, you are altered and have different nutritional rules that don't apply to unaltered individuals.
That's not negating your knowledge or achievements, it's simply putting the subtext in the open.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I can only assume that you're just *kitten* with me by refusing to understand what I'm saying. Oh well. Cheers.
Nope, I'm just not biased due to having had it done to me, because I haven't. I'm able to look at it objectively without projection or other confounding elements.
There's also a significant difference between not understanding the small words and simple concepts you are responding to me with, versus not agreeing and explaining why in this case a sweet potato is not a russet potato.0 -
The OP didn't ask if 1200 Cal a day was okay......she just wanted to know of some good food ideas to keep within her goal of 1200 Cal a day.
To defend the OP I will use myself as an example. According to MFP as a 195 Lb Male I need 2500 Cal a day for maintenance and 1500 a day to lose my 2lbs per week. I devoted 1 year of my life to lose the 100 lbs, then my next year is to build muscle. I personally do not think my goals are unrealistic or unhealthy......I feel better, stronger, faster, and have more endurance than I ever have in my life. So if you guys wanna attack my goals that MFP has set up for me then by all means go ahead. The chart, pictures, and the way I feel justifies it all.
0 -
The OP didn't ask if 1200 Cal a day was okay......she just wanted to know of some good food ideas to keep within her goal of 1200 Cal a day.
To defend the OP I will use myself as an example. According to MFP as a 195 Lb Male I need 2500 Cal a day for maintenance and 1500 a day to lose my 2lbs per week. I devoted 1 year of my life to lose the 100 lbs, then my next year is to build muscle. I personally do not think my goals are unrealistic or unhealthy......I feel better, stronger, faster, and have more endurance than I ever have in my life. So if you guys wanna attack my goals that MFP has set up for me then by all means go ahead. The chart, pictures, and the way I feel justifies it all.
Actually for a 37 yr old male, you should be eating more then 1500 calories. JS0 -
Why would a person go to such a deficit to lose a large amount of weight, to turn around and have to eat at a surplus to bulk back up/build muscle. Wouldn't it make more sense to eat at a sensible deficit, lift while losing to maintain LBM so you can skip the whole bulk phase and all the insane work involved in building muscle, because....efficiency. Just typ'n.0
-
Wait, the OP "needs to be defended"?
Did a wild white knight appear?-1 -
The OP didn't ask if 1200 Cal a day was okay......she just wanted to know of some good food ideas to keep within her goal of 1200 Cal a day.
To defend the OP I will use myself as an example. According to MFP as a 195 Lb Male I need 2500 Cal a day for maintenance and 1500 a day to lose my 2lbs per week. I devoted 1 year of my life to lose the 100 lbs, then my next year is to build muscle. I personally do not think my goals are unrealistic or unhealthy......I feel better, stronger, faster, and have more endurance than I ever have in my life. So if you guys wanna attack my goals that MFP has set up for me then by all means go ahead. The chart, pictures, and the way I feel justifies it all.
Actually for a 37 yr old male, you should be eating more then 1500 calories. JS
And while losing weight, you should be lifting weights so you can maintain muscle. Because building muscle is hard work yo.
0 -
The OP didn't ask if 1200 Cal a day was okay......she just wanted to know of some good food ideas to keep within her goal of 1200 Cal a day.
To defend the OP I will use myself as an example. According to MFP as a 195 Lb Male I need 2500 Cal a day for maintenance and 1500 a day to lose my 2lbs per week. I devoted 1 year of my life to lose the 100 lbs, then my next year is to build muscle. I personally do not think my goals are unrealistic or unhealthy......I feel better, stronger, faster, and have more endurance than I ever have in my life. So if you guys wanna attack my goals that MFP has set up for me then by all means go ahead. The chart, pictures, and the way I feel justifies it all.
Actually for a 37 yr old male, you should be eating more then 1500 calories. JS
because charts...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions