why are 1200 cal diets criticised on here?

Options
124»

Replies

  • ogmomma2012
    ogmomma2012 Posts: 1,520 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    ogmomma2012 wrote: »
    ana3067 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.

    Yeah, I am. The hair loss has slowed, I'm not losing huge chunks anymore. I will be switching to 1lb per week once I'm under 200, which is very soon if I keep track and behave!
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    ZebsterBC wrote: »
    kami3006 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ZebsterBC wrote: »
    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.

    *No* deficit is sustainable.

    Pretty sure she meant sustainable until you're ready to move on to maintenance.

    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.
    And some can easily struggle with binging, further slowing down progress.
    maidentl wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    kami3006 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ZebsterBC wrote: »
    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.

    *No* deficit is sustainable.

    Pretty sure she meant sustainable until you're ready to move on to maintenance.

    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.

    Right, but that's kind of my point. I'm not being unrealistic when I set my goal at 1200. I get that some people are, but it does get tiresome being lumped in with them.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Options
    Zedeff wrote: »
    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.
    ana3067 wrote: »
    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.

    I consider "adequate nutrition" getting 100% of my micronutrients from food. I make sure I get all my vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein and fat. I can do that on 1200 calories, but it's easier on 1350.

Categories