What is the female obsession with a 1200 calorie diet?

acidosaur

One of my friends just posted this. A study done on what exactly happens to you when you eat a restrictive diet. Summary: You lose muscle mass and gain fat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1016612-why-1000-1200-calorie-diets-are-bad-backed-by-science

You cannot gain fat on a caloric deficit. It's not physically possible.

megalin9

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

This. MFP suggests it when we sign up. And when you're new, you go by that. That's it. It just takes a while to learn that it isn't the best way.

While it's true, I don't understand this. When I first decided to lose weight, I started out researching everything and trying to find every way possible to lose weight and still be able to EAT like a normal person. If I had to eat like a bird, it wasn't worth it to me. Not once did I ever set my goal to lose 2lbs a week because I knew that meant less food. I think this is where the problem lies: most people, especially women, want to lose the weight as quickly as possible instead of thinking about how they can lose weight slowly and sustainably and keep it off. Also, just because you set your goal to lose 2lbs a week doesn't mean that's what's going to happen, nor does setting your goal to lose 1lb a week mean that's what's going to happen. I set mine to lose 1lb a week, but there have been weeks that I've lost 5lbs and weeks that I have lost nothing. So why try for the fastest way possible to lose weight when it's not even guaranteed and you can be just as successful and more satisfied eating at a smaller deficit?

Vailara

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

This. MFP suggests it when we sign up. And when you're new, you go by that. That's it. It just takes a while to learn that it isn't the best way.

While it's true, I don't understand this. When I first decided to lose weight, I started out researching everything and trying to find every way possible to lose weight and still be able to EAT like a normal person. If I had to eat like a bird, it wasn't worth it to me. Not once did I ever set my goal to lose 2lbs a week because I knew that meant less food. I think this is where the problem lies: most people, especially women, want to lose the weight as quickly as possible instead of thinking about how they can lose weight slowly and sustainably and keep it off. Also, just because you set your goal to lose 2lbs a week doesn't mean that's what's going to happen, nor does setting your goal to lose 1lb a week mean that's what's going to happen. I set mine to lose 1lb a week, but there have been weeks that I've lost 5lbs and weeks that I have lost nothing. So why try for the fastest way possible to lose weight when it's not even guaranteed and you can be just as successful and more satisfied eating at a smaller deficit?

If MFP calculates your calorie burn without exercise as more than 1700 calories, then yes, you can select 1lb a week and be given more than 1200 calories. For the rest of us, we can't. It's not a question of choosing 2lb a week over 1lb a week - MFP will give us 1200 calories regardless. We would have either the same deficit as you (500 calories) or less. MFP always seems to recommend 1lb a week weight loss, and if we follow that we'll be on 1200 net. I hope that's clearer.

Personally, I've chosen to do TDEE - 20% which gives me a smaller deficit than you - but that still means that I sometimes net 1200 calories or less.

toutmonpossible

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

This. MFP suggests it when we sign up. And when you're new, you go by that. That's it. It just takes a while to learn that it isn't the best way.

While it's true, I don't understand this. When I first decided to lose weight, I started out researching everything and trying to find every way possible to lose weight and still be able to EAT like a normal person. If I had to eat like a bird, it wasn't worth it to me. Not once did I ever set my goal to lose 2lbs a week because I knew that meant less food. I think this is where the problem lies: most people, especially women, want to lose the weight as quickly as possible instead of thinking about how they can lose weight slowly and sustainably and keep it off. Also, just because you set your goal to lose 2lbs a week doesn't mean that's what's going to happen, nor does setting your goal to lose 1lb a week mean that's what's going to happen. I set mine to lose 1lb a week, but there have been weeks that I've lost 5lbs and weeks that I have lost nothing. So why try for the fastest way possible to lose weight when it's not even guaranteed and you can be just as successful and more satisfied eating at a smaller deficit?

Why employ the slowest possible way to lose weight when the process may be so incremental that you will stray from the diet? 1200 is sustainable for some people -- people who really want to lose weight at a fast pace. When they see progress their motivation is heightened. As you said, there are no guarantees.

Why is it so hard for some people on MFP to understand that others benefit from different approaches?

Vailara

Somebody has very helpfully posted an article here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017045-a-very-interesting-and-informational-read-on-deficits which explains the 1200 figure. According to the article -

A maximum of 2lb a week weight loss is recommended.

This equates to about a 1000 calorie deficit a day.

The average TDEE for a woman aged 23 to 50 is 2100.

Therefore the lowest the average woman should go is 1100.

Most health organisations round up to 1200 because it is a big deficit compared to men (the figure for men is 1800).

It's interesting to me to see how the figure came about. Why isn't there an equivalent male obessions with 1800? I don't know - but I have a feeling MFP uses 1200 as a minimum for men too, so you don't get lots and lots of men given 1800 calories as a base.

One thing I hadn't realised (and should have researched, my bad) is that the "average" woman's TDEE is for women aged 23 - 50. No wonder many older women find themselves eating less than expected - probably the average for older women is lower, I would guess. For a short, sedentary woman in her 60s, 1200 plus exercise calories might not actually be a huge deficit. In fact if I calculate my TDEE at my goal weight as if I was in my 60s, it's pretty close to 1200.

yarwell

One of my friends just posted this. A study done on what exactly happens to you when you eat a restrictive diet. Summary: You lose muscle mass and gain fat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1016612-why-1000-1200-calorie-diets-are-bad-backed-by-science

He failed to notice that the LCD group lost weight quicker and weighed less at both 3 and 6 months !

Fat loss was also greatest on the LCD. Your summary is an outright lie.

juliegrey1

yeah I aim for 1600 cals I exercise 3-4 times a week mainly walking and cycling,I just could not live on 1200cals a day I would be ravenous,life is for living!!

snookumss

I think a 1200 calorie diet is crazy! I just bought the body media fit. I love it. I just had a 4k calorie day a few days ago. It would be ridiculous to eat only 1200, much less the 1600 I was sticking to with MFP estimates! I don't understand why so many people think 1200 calories is the way to go, when they are probably way over doing it and making things way harder than it should be!

crazylikefox

OP: You say you are curious and you honestly want to learn, but that is a bit of a lie. What you want is to get people to talk so you can tell them your opinion. Seems like it worked pretty well by the amount of replies. Instead you should call this post "I wanna female dog about ______".

pinkraynedropjacki

Who reads cosmo? Bloody hell.... I read actual FITNESS mags...not trash like cosmo.

ironanimal

One of my friends just posted this. A study done on what exactly happens to you when you eat a restrictive diet. Summary: You lose muscle mass and gain fat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1016612-why-1000-1200-calorie-diets-are-bad-backed-by-science

You cannot gain fat on a caloric deficit. It's not physically possible.

No, but the ratio of fat:muscle can increase, thus increasing bodyfat %.

All you have to do to achieve that is lose more lean tissue than fat. Pretty easy if you get close to or exceed the body's maximum fat metabolism rate.

tizmi

My calories were set at 1200 by MFP because of my height (5'), age and sedentary workday, plus my goal of losing 2lb a week, what I had been told at Weight Watchers was the maximum amount you could healthily lose per week. I have since changed this goal to 1.5lb, but my calorie limit remains the same.

I had not heard of this 1200 limit anywhere else before I started using MFP so the number didn't shock me when I saw it, especially when I started adding food to my diary - I don't read women's magazines and other such rubbish about faddy diets. Unless I want something especially calorific 1200 does me fine if I plan it out, especially now I'm trying to eat my exercise calories which I did not at first (I get about 400-800 depending on if I go to Curves or not). I believe my BMR is 1632 calories, and my TDEE is 1953 or there-abouts.

So for me it's not an obsession - it just appears to be what is best for me and my goals. Not everyone is a 5' 6"+ beanpole (from my POV) who *needs* to eat 2k+ calories.

kellyyjean

I think mfp sets the intake at 1200 calories for any female who chooses to lose 2 pounds per week. Isn't that correct? If so, I would think that's why so many people come in to the forums asking about 1200 calorie diets.

I think you are correct. I think that is why mine is at 1200.

m0jk

it seems to be working for me .. just couldnt wait 1 more day before jumping on those scales haha

Vailara

I think mfp sets the intake at 1200 calories for any female who chooses to lose 2 pounds per week. Isn't that correct? If so, I would think that's why so many people come in to the forums asking about 1200 calorie diets.

I think you are correct. I think that is why mine is at 1200.

I think what happens is that MFP calculates your energy expenditure before exercise, according to the information you've entered. It then subtracts 500 calories a day for every pound that you aim to lose a week. So if you set it for 2lb a week weight loss you will have a 1000 calorie deficit. UNLESS the deficit takes you under 1200, in which case MFP will give you 1200 regardless.

So if your energy expenditure before exercise is 2000 calories, MFP will subtract 1000, but will then set you at 1200 calories because that's the minimum. If the average woman's TDEE is 2100, then obviously, the average woman will be given 1200 calories. In fact, you'd have to burn more than 2200 calories before exercise to not get 1200 calories.

It's not that every woman automatically gets 1200 for a 2lb loss, but that most women don't have a high enough burn before exercise to get allocated more than 1200.

This is the same, no matter how low your burn is. For instance, if your burn was, say, 1450 before exercise, MFP would let you enter 2lb a week (which would be a 1000 calorie deficit), but would give you 1200 calories (which is only a 250 calorie deficit). Even if you logged absolutely accurately and stuck to it, it would (theoretically!) take you 4 weeks instead of one week to lose 2lb. No wonder people get discouraged! In fact, in this case MFP would give you 1200 calories whether you set it for 1lb, 2lb or whatever.

amyx593

When people want to lose weight and MFP give them the option to lose 2lbs per week at 1200 calories..... Also, it's just a known fact anywhere on the internet that a woman should eat no less than 1200. Women are obsessed to look slim and sexy and want to achieve this as quickly as possible! Why not go with the bare minimum??

Of course, we know this isn't the healthiest way to lose......

DebbieLyn63

When people want to lose weight and MFP give them the option to lose 2lbs per week at 1200 calories..... Also, it's just a known fact anywhere on the internet that a woman should eat no less than 1200. Women are obsessed to look slim and sexy and want to achieve this as quickly as possible! Why not go with the bare minimum??

Of course, we know this isn't the healthiest way to lose......

That's the funniest thing I have read all day.:laugh:

GnomeLove

I thought it was because 1200 cals is MFP's minimum allowed.

Uhhh.......yeah. We are on this site.......soooo......That's why.

NatureChik1985

My calories were set at 1200 by MFP because of my height (5'), age and sedentary workday, plus my goal of losing 2lb a week, what I had been told at Weight Watchers was the maximum amount you could healthily lose per week. I have since changed this goal to 1.5lb, but my calorie limit remains the same.

I had not heard of this 1200 limit anywhere else before I started using MFP so the number didn't shock me when I saw it, especially when I started adding food to my diary - I don't read women's magazines and other such rubbish about faddy diets. Unless I want something especially calorific 1200 does me fine if I plan it out, especially now I'm trying to eat my exercise calories which I did not at first (I get about 400-800 depending on if I go to Curves or not). I believe my BMR is 1632 calories, and my TDEE is 1953or there-abouts.

So for me it's not an obsession - it just appears to be what is best for me and my goals. Not everyone is a 5' 6"+ beanpole (from my POV) who *needs* to eat 2k+ calories.

What does the *needs* imply. I honestly am new to forums and I have no clue what the *** things are about.

savithny

What does the *needs* imply. I honestly am new to forums and I have no clue what the *** things are about.

It's old-school internet stuff. This forum doesn't support underlining, bolding, italics -- it doesn't let you mark up text for emphasis.

Back in the day when *most* online forums were plain-text-only, lots of us got in the habit of using ** to indicate emphasis. It survives into MS Outlook, actually -- if you have Autocorrect turned on, and you type something between asterisks like that? It automatically bolds the text.

tizmi

What does the *needs* imply. I honestly am new to forums and I have no clue what the *** things are about.

It's old-school internet stuff. This forum doesn't support underlining, bolding, italics -- it doesn't let you mark up text for emphasis.

Back in the day when *most* online forums were plain-text-only, lots of us got in the habit of using ** to indicate emphasis. It survives into MS Outlook, actually -- if you have Autocorrect turned on, and you type something between asterisks like that? It automatically bolds the text.

Thank-you for explaining!

The asterisks were for emphasis, I'm sorry for any confusion NatureChik198. I just really dislike using capitals for emphasis, the asterisks are almost automatic for me!