why are 1200 cal diets criticised on here?
Replies
-
Sophsmother wrote: »I get all my nutrients on 1200 calories a day and have no problem sticking to it. I think people who eat more calories feel their way is better for some reason. I have yet to understand why. You can get all your nutrients from an even lower calorie total if you eat the right stuff. Bariatric patients do it all the time. I feel sorry for people who have to eat more to get in their nutrients. That must be very frustrating.
It's frustrating deciding how to use'em all up everyday. I have to incorporate pesky foods like ice cream and chocolate. Not to mention all that chewing. So.much.chewing.
0 -
I don't see an aversion to 1200 calorie diets on MFP. I do see an aversion to under 1200 calorie diets. Why? Health, sustainability, keeping ones hair...0
-
Sophsmother wrote: »I get all my nutrients on 1200 calories a day and have no problem sticking to it. I think people who eat more calories feel their way is better for some reason. I have yet to understand why. You can get all your nutrients from an even lower calorie total if you eat the right stuff. Bariatric patients do it all the time. I feel sorry for people who have to eat more to get in their nutrients. That must be very frustrating.
What? Anyway, I hit my macros in 1200 calories. I just like to continue eating delicious things after that and I don't feel sorry for myself. Thanks though.0 -
Sophsmother wrote: »I get all my nutrients on 1200 calories a day and have no problem sticking to it. I think people who eat more calories feel their way is better for some reason. I have yet to understand why. You can get all your nutrients from an even lower calorie total if you eat the right stuff. Bariatric patients do it all the time. I feel sorry for people who have to eat more to get in their nutrients. That must be very frustrating.
As someone who eats 1,200 (plus exercise calories) I can't understand what you think would be frustrating about eating more and still losing weight.
0 -
The reason people comment on 1200 is because most people can eat more without realizing it. People that have a few pounds to lose don't need aggressive goals, and people around here (myself included) advise upping your intake so you'll feel more satiated - and be more inclined to stick with it and be successful.
I don't think there's excessive criticism for a1200 calorie intake. I think there is a lot of ignorance about the necessity of a 1200 calorie intake.0 -
Sophsmother wrote: »I get all my nutrients on 1200 calories a day and have no problem sticking to it. I think people who eat more calories feel their way is better for some reason. I have yet to understand why. You can get all your nutrients from an even lower calorie total if you eat the right stuff. Bariatric patients do it all the time. I feel sorry for people who have to eat more to get in their nutrients. That must be very frustrating.
It's frustrating deciding how to use'em all up everyday. I have to incorporate pesky foods like ice cream and chocolate. Not to mention all that chewing. So.much.chewing.
0 -
I, including many others have lost on that number of calories.
On reason of than the nutrition argument is the majority come back 6 months or more later asking why they put all their weight back on, basically because they were eating unsustainable amount and as soon as they hit their goal and ate normally their weight reappeared.0 -
People assume that everybody has a normal metabolism. Of course, many of us do not.
I am very tall, very active and I did just fine on moderate carbs and 1200 calories/day for several years. Right now I am experimenting with higher fat and 1300-1400 calories, but I can certainly get decent nutrition and feel energetic on 1200 calories/day.
The minimum recommendation is actually 1000 for women, 1200 for men.0 -
The 1200 target number was created as a shortcut to represent the minimal calories the general person should eat based on BMR. But, for an overwhelming number of adults, 1200 is actually below their BMR so if they adhere to 1200 calories, they are not supplying their bodies with enough fuel to do its basic daily functions. Nobody should be eating under their BMR or they will do damage to their metabolism and force their body to break down muscle to survive.0
-
I'm on 1200 because I am completely sedentary after fracturing my ankle. I'm still losing but I am much happier on a 1400 with exercise.
I was a couch potato when I started, with really bad eating habits. Learning how to eat better whilst exercising makes me feel much better about myself and I have more energy. So I think the psychological factor also plays a role.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »I, including many others have lost on that number of calories.
On reason of than the nutrition argument is the majority come back 6 months or more later asking why they put all their weight back on, basically because they were eating unsustainable amount and as soon as they hit their goal and ate normally their weight reappeared.
People who lose slowly have the same likelihood of regaining the weight as those who lose quickly.
0 -
If you browse the forums for a while, you'll see a trend. People with unrealistic expectations, some with admitted eating disorders, all gravitating to the most extreme way to lose weight. Attempting to steer people away from that by encouraging weight loss at a rate that is more likely to be sustainable is a good thing.0
-
-
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
0 -
For me, personally, it's too low. I couldn't sustain 1200 calories. I didn't have the energy to exercise to "earn" more, and I was always hungry.
At 1400, I've lost 22 pounds (I've only maintained for the last month because I wasn't being as careful as I could be, but I'm back on track now) and I'm rarely hungry. It's _easier_ to eat at 1400 than at 1200. So I'm only losing 1# per week, not 2#. That's fine, because I'm losing at a rate I can sustain.0 -
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
Thanks for linking the tons of empirical evidence that discusses small caloric deficits (10-15% below maintenance calorie needs) maintained for longer periods and how that lessens the chances of adherence!0 -
Smaller deficits needing longer periods of caloric restriction to achieve the same weight loss is something we know from CICO. If you believe in CICO, then you believe in that, by definition.
If you don't believe in CICO, there probably isn't sufficient common ground upon which ot have a meaningful conversation.
:drinker:
0 -
If you browse the forums for a while, you'll see a trend. People with unrealistic expectations, some with admitted eating disorders, all gravitating to the most extreme way to lose weight. Attempting to steer people away from that by encouraging weight loss at a rate that is more likely to be sustainable is a good thing.
yup, this. weight loss winners are the ones eating the most while losing, not forcing themselves to lose 30lbs in 2 months or less.0 -
If BMR calculators are mostly correct, eating at or beneath 1200 is dangerous especially long term because you are not eating enough to even sustain a comatose body. I have a large amount of weight to lose, and weight loss has been dramatic for me. I am also losing a little hair, a by-product of eating below my BMR.
HOWEVER, I don't have metabolic issues or other medical problems that might make a 1200 calorie diet important to weight loss. I could lose weight slower, but it was important for my health to lose faster.0 -
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
I was just referring to your quibbling over the word sustainable.
0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »If BMR calculators are mostly correct, eating at or beneath 1200 is dangerous especially long term because you are not eating enough to even sustain a comatose body. I have a large amount of weight to lose, and weight loss has been dramatic for me. I am also losing a little hair, a by-product of eating below my BMR.
HOWEVER, I don't have metabolic issues or other medical problems that might make a 1200 calorie diet important to weight loss. I could lose weight slower, but it was important for my health to lose faster.
If you're losing your hair as a by-product of eating so little then you're doing damage to your health... a 1.5lb/week weight loss goal is probably a better option...0 -
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
This is so true!! The quicker you can get it over with, the better! Less chance of caving from constant dieting and just giving up.
0 -
Thanks for quoting. I couldn't see past the jail bars.
Sustainable until they reach maintenance, but I'm sure we all know what I meant.
The method that gets them to goal weight is ultimately fastest and if they give up because the diet is too restrictive, it's not really that fast after all.0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »If BMR calculators are mostly correct, eating at or beneath 1200 is dangerous especially long term because you are not eating enough to even sustain a comatose body. I have a large amount of weight to lose, and weight loss has been dramatic for me. I am also losing a little hair, a by-product of eating below my BMR.
HOWEVER, I don't have metabolic issues or other medical problems that might make a 1200 calorie diet important to weight loss. I could lose weight slower, but it was important for my health to lose faster.
If you're losing your hair as a by-product of eating so little then you're doing damage to your health... a 1.5lb/week weight loss goal is probably a better option...
It is set to 1.5 but my calorie limit is still 1350. The Dr. and my nutritionist aren't concerned, they are bascially leaving it up to me because I still have QUITE a bit left to lose.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
This is so true!! The quicker you can get it over with, the better! Less chance of caving from constant dieting and just giving up.
This is how I feel! People say to lower my "aggressive" goal to 1 pound per week. Yeah, that gives me 1220 calories. WOW! Twenty more calories! I can lower it to .5 pounds per week but with 40 pounds left to go I would really rather NOT have to diet for the next two years.0 -
I'm pretty tiny, as people go.
I didn't have so much to lose, even to start.
I'm over 40.
I'm a lazy-a22 couch potato. FULL CARB, yo.
Lost weight easily on 1400+ Woo! Yolo!
0 -
And some can easily struggle with binging, further slowing down progress.
Thanks for quoting. I couldn't see past the jail bars.
Sustainable until they reach maintenance, but I'm sure we all know what I meant.
The method that gets them to goal weight is ultimately fastest and if they give up because the diet is too restrictive, it's not really that fast after all.christinev297 wrote: »
Larger deficits mean getting to maintenance quicker. Smaller deficits mean you have to diet longer.
And there is tons of empirical evidence that the longer a restriction (diet or otherwise) is in effect, the greater the odds of non-adherence.
This is so true!! The quicker you can get it over with, the better! Less chance of caving from constant dieting and just giving up.
This is how I feel! People say to lower my "aggressive" goal to 1 pound per week. Yeah, that gives me 1220 calories. WOW! Twenty more calories! I can lower it to .5 pounds per week but with 40 pounds left to go I would really rather NOT have to diet for the next two years.
If it's giving you only a 20 calorie increase then that means you should be losing around 1lb/week right now anyways.0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »If BMR calculators are mostly correct, eating at or beneath 1200 is dangerous especially long term because you are not eating enough to even sustain a comatose body. I have a large amount of weight to lose, and weight loss has been dramatic for me. I am also losing a little hair, a by-product of eating below my BMR.
HOWEVER, I don't have metabolic issues or other medical problems that might make a 1200 calorie diet important to weight loss. I could lose weight slower, but it was important for my health to lose faster.
If you're losing your hair as a by-product of eating so little then you're doing damage to your health... a 1.5lb/week weight loss goal is probably a better option...
It is set to 1.5 but my calorie limit is still 1350. The Dr. and my nutritionist aren't concerned, they are bascially leaving it up to me because I still have QUITE a bit left to lose.
Are you eating back your exercise calories? At this point I'd opt for 1lb/week because it wouldn't be worth subjecting my body to more health concerns tied to caloric/nutritional deficiencies.0 -
I've discovered that on 1400 I don't lose any and since going back to 1200 I'm losing again right now I'm not very active between work and taking 2 college classes plus driving my girls to and from activities i don't have 5 min to put together. The first couple days ya I was hungry a bit more but I feel like my stomach is adjusting and I feel full on much less than I was eating pre- weight loss journey. I think once I am finished with school I can then use some of that (sitting on my butt for hours reading text books/writing papers) time toward exercise and then maybe I'll experiment with eating those workout calories and see if I can still lose weight that way. Which will then be more likely those 1400 cal. It's kinda the same thing. 1400+exercise=1200=weight loss
1200+no exercise=weight loss
Just two different ways of saying the same thing.
So let peace reign,
Karen0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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