1000 calorie diet for 2lb loss?
Replies
-
runningforthetrain wrote: »Where is the OP?
In another thread wondering if a 1000 calorie burn is ok.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »bethany_h_xx wrote: »if my BMR is 1500 and I eat 1000 calories a day should this put me on the road for losing 1b per week?
And if I did 2 hours walking per day burning 500 calories will this help me lose another pound?
Really hoping for a 2lb loss per week
you're confusing BMR with TDEE. You don't cut from BMR...BMR is just what you "burn" by merely existing on this planet. I assume you do more than exist.
Example...your BMR is 1500ish...then you get out of bed and whatnot and do your daily stuff...let's say your day to day hum drum burns about 500 calories. That puts you at 2000 calories per day right there without deliberate exercise...now lets say you exercise and burn 300 calories per day...that puts you at 2,300 calories per day to maintain. You would cut from 2,300 calories, not 1,500....
MFP's calorie goals already include your deficit to lose weight...it takes all of the info you put in and estimates your BMR and your daily hum drum and cuts from that. Also, 2 Lbs per week is very aggressive and if you aren't obese and beyond, you're just going to torch a bunch of lean mass.
EXACTLY THIS!
0 -
Doesnt the other thread say something a bit different? 1000 calories is too low.
Walking 2 hours a day is what it is. burning 500 calories a day through exercise easily doable as she has the time.0 -
The bottom line number for accelerated weight loss is 1,200 for women and 1,600 for men.
"Anything less will leave you miserable, hungry, and weak and possibly cause your body to cannibalize its own muscle tissue."
-Jillian Michaels0 -
What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone0 -
alieana008 wrote: »The bottom line number for accelerated weight loss is 1,200 for women and 1,600 for men.
"Anything less will leave you miserable, hungry, and weak and possibly cause your body to cannibalize its own muscle tissue."
-Jillian Michaels
Not to mention hair loss, brittle nails, and various other very nasty symptoms.0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
And everyone is telling you that is 100% an absolutely horrible, awful, terrible and ridiculous idea.
0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone
In one of your replies, you are 12 stone 2..
Now you are 11 stone 12 (could have lost some in a week, yes) -- and in another post you are 5 foot 2. Now you're 5 foot 3.
What diet are you following that allows you to grow an inch in a week? I need to follow that for a few weeks. I'd LOVE to be taller!0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone
Your OP said you want to eat 1000 Calories and burn 500 at the gym. 1000 Gross - 500 Burned = 500 Net.
Both of those ideas are very bad ideas, as has been pointed out in both of your threads. I highly suggest you follow the advice from the very first response in this thread.0 -
runningforthetrain wrote: »Where is the OP?
In another thread wondering if a 1000 calorie burn is ok.
THIS^^^
She already posted something similar asking if she should burn 1000 calories to lose 2lbs0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone
It is unrealistic to think that you can burn 1000 at the gym without eating more than 1200. Maybe if a person spaced their workouts enough they could do that and timed their meal just right, but your body has to have time to convert your fat into a form that you can use it during a workout. I have days when I burn more than 1000 calories with exercise, but I keep my calorie deficit near 1000 on those days. So, that means I eat more than 2400 calories on those days and a portion of those calories are carbs that I consume during the workout.0 -
dixiewhiskey wrote: »I will always maintain that eating 1200 cals for an adult is just too low but as ravenstar stated, trial and error. For most people, that amount is not satisfying and does not work. The OP didn't give enough info for anyone to really argue over what advice is being given.
I would agree with you if you would say that 1200 calories would be too low for " most " adults. I am going on 70 and am under 5 feet tall and only started to lose weight when I lowered my calories to 1200 a day. I don't snack ( I am from culture where snacking is almost not done, especially by people of my generation and that next to me ) and eating a natural diet makes 1200 calories enough for me. I also know that there are quite a few members here who because of age and or height ( and I am not even going to mention health problems ) do actually very well on 1200 calories.
In March I had two heart attacks and since the 55 pounds I lost over the last two years were not enough for my heart to work better ( I did not know until the second heart attack that I had a heart disease, because I walked every day, climbed stairs, walked the dog and led a normal life , but was overweight due to lack of portion control ) my cardiologist put me on a 1000 calorie diet for faster loss.
I am doing ok with the amount of all natural food I eat, but have trouble with my macros because I am supposed to be on restricted carbs, moderate protein and low fat and often wonder what I should eat to get to 1000 calories a day. Mostly I eat complex carbs and feel fine.
I did since March 27th ( last attack) lose almost five kilos ( about 11 pounds ) which in my case is supposedly a good thing. However, if I had not had the heart attacks, it's not what I would aim for. It just feels too scary for me.
I also ask myself what happens if I don't lose enough weight on 1000 calories, because even though I am fine now, I know I would not be able to stay otherwise healthy on let's say 800 calories a day.
I would never tell another MFP member what they should do unless directly asked for specific advise, but I do wonder why people voluntarily punish themselves by eating at an extreme deficit, when eating 100 or 200 calories more a day might make the difference between being miserable and feeling well, while at the same time the weight loss difference is not all that big either.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.
Based on what, exactly?
Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.
I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.
There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.
There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.
Based on what, exactly?
you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?
Also this^^^
@Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.
I don't understand.
I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.
Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.
So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?
1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?
Before you stop typing in reply to me being all angry take a second and look at this specific situation. First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick. The person has no idea how to calculate expenditure from the fact that she thinks 1500 is what at she burns daily. She then wants to limit her intake to 1000. Then she wants to burn an additional 500 while exercising. So think about it for a second, let's pretend what the OP though 1500 is really was like that. She would 1500 then eat 1000 then burn 500 more........net 500. Is that a good idea?
You're not going to school me on the dangers of 1200 calories. One thing you won't find in my posts is where I randomly say someone must eat 1200 calories for before you lump me in with any particular group save your energy. Feel free to search through my posts for a time where I've told someone "you must eat 1200".
Now is what her idea of netting 500 daily be wise?
You raise some good points; in my replies I was reflecting on my own response to the OP, which said she should eat 1300 based on her own calculations which had an error (subbing BMR for TDEE). So my responses were based on my advice, but I can see how that wasn't a fair approach since everyone else would (rightly) be commenting on what she said, not what I said.
On the other hand, I still don't think that it's terrible to eat your calories and not eat back exercise deficits. Is it unsustainable to net 500? Probably, yeah. But we're thinking beings, not robots. A person who is hungry and artificially creating a deficit will do what any thinking being would do, and eat more. There's a joke by the late comedian Mitch Hedberg that goes "If you have legs and are flammable, you're never blocking a fire exit." It's the same thing; if the OP tries for an unsustainable deficit they'll fail. But does failing necessarily mean going from net 500 to net 3000? If they go from net 500 to net 1500, is it still a total failure? I think a rational person would eat more until finding the point where they're no longer hungry, and then stop, and so I don't think it's dangerous per se to try it at the risk of failing.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.
Based on what, exactly?
Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.
I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.
There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.
There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.
Based on what, exactly?
you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?
Also this^^^
@Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.
I don't understand.
I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.
Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.
So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?
1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?
So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?
One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.
If you believe in CICO, why would you presume that she would ever plateau? Do you think that the poster could ever reach a TDEE of <1200? A pound of skeletal muscle adds about 13 calories per day to your maintenance needs. Losing lean mass doesn't make as drastic a difference as you seem to think it does.
I certainly do see why not eating more is good, and it's obviously due to the rate of weight loss. Simply put, people are motivated by many things, but motivation has limits. Nobody - yes, I am speaking in absolutes - nobody maintains a strict calorie goal unfailingly forever. At some point, every diet fails. It should be everyone's goal to lose as much weight as possible (to a healthy goal) before reaching the point of failure. There is harm that comes from being overweight. If one can be less overweight for longer, you can limit that harm. One's goal should be the fastest, healthiest means to get to their goal weight. If you have the option of 1200 calories in a healthy way (which I gather is what you dispute) versus 1700 calories in an equally healthy, slower way, the net benefit is in doing it faster because you'll spend proportionally less time overweight.
I understand that you would argue that the fast versus slow methods are not equally healthy, and I don't think that argument can be settled today, but at least I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Yes I do think that in this specific thread the main reason people are mostly disagreeing is because they are looking at 2 different situations that apply to the same person. To continue on the thought process of eating calories and not eating back any of what you burn it again comes down to the numbers.
Without getting into every single variable involved if we look at just a few of the couple basic ones, is the person getting adequate nutrition? How low is the actual intake and what's the activity level? Some will say that as long as we have adequate protein then we are addressing a big risk but how many grams is the person taking in? Is that person just meeting minimums for what we be considered adequate for someone that is sedentary or are they getting a bit more? Is anyone taking into consideration that 30% of that protein intake is completely gone even before we begin applying it to real life?
Where does that leave you after that? Now is the person participating in strength training and MPS is going to demand more than your sedentary friend? Where did their carbs land and what gluconeogensis doing now to compensate? Then we can try and look at fat but that's a whole new game.
There are variables, many variables to consider and the problem is you have groups of people that state their opinions and it turns into a cluster f. Let's say you have someone that comes in with a flawed plan due to all the valid reasons that make it flawed.
Then a few people that know what they are talking about begin giving some advice. Then other people that don't understand and the variable come in and give their opinions based on what they think. The people that tried to give advice now turn around and it turns into a bunch of people being called clueless and a bunch of people being called bullies and in the end the OP either vanishes, sides with the people giving anecdotal flawed advice and people start criticizing the OP or rarely the OP will decide to hear out those giving advice and take something out of the conversation.
Sadly the situation usually ends up bad, no one wins and we all start arguing. In the end everyone is wrong. It's the way of the internet, not just MFP. I know there are a lot of people that know their stuff on here and some might be surprised to find out if they actually saw it being presented. There are also some that are really good at faking it. With me it doesn't even really matter. My time here is limited so that's neither here nor there.
Side note: The thing Alyssa is more than likely referring to is if you start at the bottom you leave yourself no wiggle room. It's not uncommon to here that type of advice be given. It plays more on the thought process of we all do experience some sort of metabolic adaptation as we hold a prolonged deficit, it just is that way. But you rock bottom your calories and don't get proper nutrition, not only do you risk the chance of now breaking down muscle for necessities of life coupled with metabolic adaptation and you'll find yourself losing weight, then you don't lose weight and you still don't look the way you want. Then what? What do you do then?
The problem is when people do thoughtless things to reach a goal and get stuck you can't expect them to know how to fix it because they didn't know what they were doing to begin with. There is a real thought process behind the whole keep calories high and give yourself wiggle room but to sit here and type out 1000 words to just have it go just like what I described above, someone might decide it's not worth it if it's just going to turn into a war anyway so might as well shoot the first canon and skip everything else.
Congrats, you got me to type out more than just "Nope" or "Lol". That was too much I typed and I don't plan on doing it again anytime soon.
Eta: I broke it up into a bunch of paragraphs to make it easier on the eyes.
Congrats!!!!0 -
I couldn't even READ all of this!0
-
bethany_h_xx wrote: »What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone
Think you ar a little misguided.
1. Eating 1200 calories is fine, but its the minimum you should be eating for nutrition. You might find you can eat slighly more and it will be far more pleasant and sustainable.
2. In those stats I get a maintenance level of c1830 calories, whether shes 5'3 or 5'2" desnt make much difference. Maintetance is the level you can eat without losing or gaining.
3. If you wnat to try and lose 2lb a week then in theory being 1830-1200 calories= 630 calorie deficit from conumsing less, meaning youd be looking at 370 accurate calories from exercise, which you could burn in 45-90 minutes.
4. If you want to eat some of those accurate calories back, then its up to you, but you shouldnt run large deficits. Normally people eat 25-50% back so youd need to increase your overall burns to reflect this.
5. Be warned weight loss isnt linear so its all estimates and even if the math adds up its just an estumate and the body respnds when its ready.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bethany_h_xx wrote: »What do you all mean by netting at 500?
I want to eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 at the gym
I weigh 11 stone 12 at 5 foot 3
The photo I have is from when I was 8 and a half stone
That is such a horrendously bad idea that there aren't even words.
You'd collapse.
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