why are 1200 cal diets criticised on here?
Options
00mid
Posts: 79 Member
I, including many others have lost on that number of calories.
0
Replies
-
For quite a number of people, 1200 calories is not enough to get adequate nutrition. However, if you are a short, relatively inactive female, 1200 is OK as long as care is taken to ensure adequate vitamin and mineral content.0
-
Because it's an unnecessarily low number for the majority of women (and it is too low for men), and you and many others could likely have lost on a higher calorie goal anyways.0
-
I'm short. 5ft2 and tried to lose weight on 1200 cals. Could have eaten my own leg. I now have 1480 and lose weight AND feel full. So much better for me lol0
-
For some women (like me) approaching menopause as well as having hypothyroidism, 1200 is a fine number. I don't feel hungry and I usually eat back a lot of my exercise calories. I think it's just what works for you.0
-
It also depends on how much you have to lose since once you've lost 10-15lbs MFP recalibrates your calories. Once you're that low, if you hit a plateau--you've nowhere to go but below 1200 which isn't healthy--numerous threads by experts are on here, use search. So, it's best to keep your calories as high as you can and still lose. If you're short and only have 10-15 lbs total to lose, then you're OK at 1200.
0 -
mudmonkeyonwheels wrote: »For quite a number of people, 1200 calories is not enough to get adequate nutrition. However, if you are a short, relatively inactive female, 1200 is OK as long as care is taken to ensure adequate vitamin and mineral content.
What is your definition of "adequate nutrition?" Do you believe that nutrition is measured in calories? If so, who's getting more nutrients in them: Person A who eats 900 calories of leafy greens, lean meats, and whole grains, or Person B who eats 1400 calories of refined white sugar?
The "adequate nutrition" argument is crap. People are here on MFP because their diets were crap to begin with. Eating lots of garbage doesn't somehow make your diet nutritionally sound.Because it's an unnecessarily low number for the majority of women (and it is too low for men), and you and many others could likely have lost on a higher calorie goal anyways.
What evidence is there that it is too low for men? If there is a man and a woman logged onto this site with the same height, weight, age, body fat percentage, and activity levels, on what basis can you claim that the male needs more caloric intake? And if one can safely lose weight faster versus slower, then advising somebody to lose slower is actually harmful since it prolongs their period of obesity. There are advantages to more rapid weight losses.0 -
I'm 5'7 and on 1200, so I know I could probably up it to around 1400-1500, but I like to keep it lower to allow for inaccurate logging and so I can be a bit less strict at weekends. I find it easy to stick to during the week whilst I'm at work, plus I hate exercise!
I think it's just personal preference. With 1200 being the absolute minimum it can be quite restrictive for some people.0 -
For many people it is unnecessarily low and could risk muscle mass.
For others it is fine.
I would lose on 1200 too, and did when I was obese, but now I'm not interested in losing more quickly if I lose muscle mass--there would be no point.
Also, a lot of people say they have tried dieting and found it impossible to stick to in the past or diet for a while and then binge, and both of those things are probably related to conceptualizing a diet as working better if you go as low as possible and cut out foods that seem too pleasurable (often defined insanely broadly). IMO, that's not helpful, especially if you have enough to lose to justify 1200, which also means that you may have to be dieting for several months or a year. And if you think of the diet as an unpleasant short term means to an end, you won't have any pattern for maintaining the loss.
But as I said, I think it is right for some and was even right for me in the past. (I made sure I was enjoying everything I ate and didn't feel deprived when I was doing low calories, though, and I ate back exercise calories (in part) when I started having significant numbers.)0 -
mudmonkeyonwheels wrote: »For quite a number of people, 1200 calories is not enough to get adequate nutrition. However, if you are a short, relatively inactive female, 1200 is OK as long as care is taken to ensure adequate vitamin and mineral content.
What is your definition of "adequate nutrition?" Do you believe that nutrition is measured in calories? If so, who's getting more nutrients in them: Person A who eats 900 calories of leafy greens, lean meats, and whole grains, or Person B who eats 1400 calories of refined white sugar?
The "adequate nutrition" argument is crap. People are here on MFP because their diets were crap to begin with. Eating lots of garbage doesn't somehow make your diet nutritionally sound.Because it's an unnecessarily low number for the majority of women (and it is too low for men), and you and many others could likely have lost on a higher calorie goal anyways.
What evidence is there that it is too low for men? If there is a man and a woman logged onto this site with the same height, weight, age, body fat percentage, and activity levels, on what basis can you claim that the male needs more caloric intake? And if one can safely lose weight faster versus slower, then advising somebody to lose slower is actually harmful since it prolongs their period of obesity. There are advantages to more rapid weight losses.
Did not even read because your posts are constant trollery. So if someone wants to TL;DR summarize it, then please do so.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »For many people it is unnecessarily low and could risk muscle mass.
For others it is fine.
I would lose on 1200 too, and did when I was obese, but now I'm not interested in losing more quickly if I lose muscle mass--there would be no point.
Also, a lot of people say they have tried dieting and found it impossible to stick to in the past or diet for a while and then binge, and both of those things are probably related to conceptualizing a diet as working better if you go as low as possible and cut out foods that seem too pleasurable (often defined insanely broadly). IMO, that's not helpful, especially if you have enough to lose to justify 1200, which also means that you may have to be dieting for several months or a year. And if you think of the diet as an unpleasant short term means to an end, you won't have any pattern for maintaining the loss.
But as I said, I think it is right for some and was even right for me in the past. (I made sure I was enjoying everything I ate and didn't feel deprived when I was doing low calories, though, and I ate back exercise calories (in part) when I started having significant numbers.)
I had gastric bypass so it's a struggle for me to eat even 1200 calories in a day. But I eat very lean protein, beans/legumes, fresh veggies/fruit, and whole grains. So I make sure that I get my nutrients. I do take vitamins/calcium/B12 as I was instructed to do. But the biggest thing is that I do not think of how I'm eating as on a diet. You are right that implies that when you achieve a specific goal then you can stop. Eating this way is my lifestyle. And while I think MFP is the best place to log for someone who's had weight loss surgery, it's still not perfect.0 -
Haha adequate nutrition= getting at least RDI of all vitamins and minerals needed + meeting macro goals. Unfortunately, many people on 1200 will miss out on things. For example, essential fats (omega 3 + omega 6) is something people on 1200 commonly miss out on. That being said- if you are prepared to track everything and ensure you meet all guidelines it shouldn't be a problem for those with lower overall requirements. Those who have had gastric bands/other surgeries are often encouraged to supplement their intake.
I'm not knocking 1200 cal diets, in fact I follow 1200 on non-exercise days (I am only 4" 10) but I know that I miss out on certain things in my diet and am looking to fix that.0 -
Because you win when you address your weight whilst eating the most
0 -
MFP tends to allocate 1200 to anyone who puts in that they're sedentary and want to lose 2lbs a week. For many people, it is unneccesarily low and restrictive. I don't think it's the 1200 itself that's heartily criticised, but more the wide-ranging suggestion of it from MFP across the board.0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »MFP tends to allocate 1200 to anyone who puts in that they're sedentary and want to lose 2lbs a week. For many people, it is unneccesarily low and restrictive. I don't think it's the 1200 itself that's heartily criticised, but more the wide-ranging suggestion of it from MFP across the board.
PLUS the fact that lots of people will subsequently NOT eat back exercise calories on top of the 1200 limit.0 -
-
Did not even read because your posts are constant trollery. So if someone wants to TL;DR summarize it, then please do so.
You need a summary of 4 sentences?
If you are ill equipped to have a rational conversation, then you should refrain from offering advice. You are obsessed with this arbitrary, unproven, completely irrational dogma that 1200 and 1500 are numbers with magical properties that make them safe. Bad advice should be called out every time.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »MFP tends to allocate 1200 to anyone who puts in that they're sedentary and want to lose 2lbs a week. For many people, it is unneccesarily low and restrictive. I don't think it's the 1200 itself that's heartily criticised, but more the wide-ranging suggestion of it from MFP across the board.
PLUS the fact that lots of people will subsequently NOT eat back exercise calories on top of the 1200 limit.
Ah yes, that too.0 -
mudmonkeyonwheels wrote: »Haha adequate nutrition= getting at least RDI of all vitamins and minerals needed + meeting macro goals. Unfortunately, many people on 1200 will miss out on things. For example, essential fats (omega 3 + omega 6) is something people on 1200 commonly miss out on. That being said- if you are prepared to track everything and ensure you meet all guidelines it shouldn't be a problem for those with lower overall requirements. Those who have had gastric bands/other surgeries are often encouraged to supplement their intake.
I'm not knocking 1200 cal diets, in fact I follow 1200 on non-exercise days (I am only 4" 10) but I know that I miss out on certain things in my diet and am looking to fix that.
This at least makes sense, thank you. So many posters regurgitate this phrase that "you can't get adequate nutrition on 1200 calories!" without even understanding what they're writing. They are confusing nutrition with energy; the two are not the same thing, as you've noted above.0 -
I wonder if it would be better if MFP had separate settings for TDEE and NEAT methods... like people who join and decide "I'm gonna do 5 hours of cario every week" can select a TDEE setting for that amount of expected exercise, and then they don't have to bother with logging exercise. And then for those who don't plan to work out or if they just have variable schedules they can use NEAT method.Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »MFP tends to allocate 1200 to anyone who puts in that they're sedentary and want to lose 2lbs a week. For many people, it is unneccesarily low and restrictive. I don't think it's the 1200 itself that's heartily criticised, but more the wide-ranging suggestion of it from MFP across the board.
PLUS the fact that lots of people will subsequently NOT eat back exercise calories on top of the 1200 limit.
Ah yes, that too.
But also a far more obvious, in-your-face disclaimer of how the website actually works. Like huge neon sign when you sign up, telling you to eat back at least half of your exercise calories.
0 -
Did not even read because your posts are constant trollery. So if someone wants to TL;DR summarize it, then please do so.
You need a summary of 4 sentences?
If you are ill equipped to have a rational conversation, then you should refrain from offering advice. You are obsessed with this arbitrary, unproven, completely irrational dogma that 1200 and 1500 are numbers with magical properties that make them safe. Bad advice should be called out every time.
Also did not read this other than the first sentence, and quoting/replying to make it far more obvious that I am simply not at all bothering to read your posts because they are 100% trollery and not worth my time.
So all of the posts discussing needing to meet nutritional needs, and any that emphasize activity differences influencing one's ideal caloric intake, are 2nded and such from this point on.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions