Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad - backed by science

BrainyBurro

inb4 the special snowflakes attack the OP for being a man and having the gall to tell them how to do anything.

ETA: d'oh! too late.

jonnythan

You can say what you want but I have been surviving on a 1200 calorie diet, as recommended by my dietician, since December. It is the first time I have been successful at losing weight. I have tried dieting with higher calories allotments and with as much exercise as I am doing now...but with no results. ABSOLUTELY NONE. As I said, this is the FIRST TIME that I have been successful at losing weight in a very long time.

I also know that, as I continue on this journey of mine, my exercise is increasing not decreasing. I am moving more than ever, and loving it.

I believe everyone is different and there is no exact science to weight loss. My diet is working, better than I ever hoped it would, and I am sticking with it. It is balanced, thus providing me with all of the nutrients I need, and I can do this. No charts and graphs are going to change my mind. Thanks for trying, though.

There is an exact science to weight loss. you do not defy the laws of energy
well did you confirm not having hypothyroidism?
Did you weigh all your food out?
Did you have a diary?

Yes - I was referred to the dietician by my endocrinologist.
Yes - I weighed all of my food out...I was EXTREMELY exact.
Yes - I used MFP
BELIEVE ME, I was extremely exact and dedicated, which was why I was so upset when nothing worked. It is also why, when I left the dietician's office on December 27th, I was sure I could follow the diet she gave me but was also sure that it would not work. Imagine my surprise when it did!

I have to wonder if any of the subjects studied were 54 year old, post-menopausal, diabetic women. HMMMM....

And let me also mention that my MFP ticker does not indicate my actual weight loss. When I left the dietician's office that day, I weighed 256.4 pounds. Today I weigh 207.4. That's a 49 pound weight loss in less than 6 months...so I am definitely going to argue that the "methodology" that you are pushing is "exact science."

your diary is closed.

da_bears10089

You can say what you want but I have been surviving on a 1200 calorie diet, as recommended by my dietician, since December. It is the first time I have been successful at losing weight. I have tried dieting with higher calories allotments and with as much exercise as I am doing now...but with no results. ABSOLUTELY NONE. As I said, this is the FIRST TIME that I have been successful at losing weight in a very long time.

I also know that, as I continue on this journey of mine, my exercise is increasing not decreasing. I am moving more than ever, and loving it.

I believe everyone is different and there is no exact science to weight loss. My diet is working, better than I ever hoped it would, and I am sticking with it. It is balanced, thus providing me with all of the nutrients I need, and I can do this. No charts and graphs are going to change my mind. Thanks for trying, though.

There is an exact science to weight loss. you do not defy the laws of energy
well did you confirm not having hypothyroidism?
Did you weigh all your food out?
Did you have a diary?

Yes - I was referred to the dietician by my endocrinologist.
Yes - I weighed all of my food out...I was EXTREMELY exact.
Yes - I used MFP
BELIEVE ME, I was extremely exact and dedicated, which was why I was so upset when nothing worked. It is also why, when I left the dietician's office on December 27th, I was sure I could follow the diet she gave me but was also sure that it would not work. Imagine my surprise when it did!

I have to wonder if any of the subjects studied were 54 year old, post-menopausal, diabetic women. HMMMM....

And let me also mention that my MFP ticker does not indicate my actual weight loss. When I left the dietician's office that day, I weighed 256.4 pounds. Today I weigh 207.4. That's a 49 pound weight loss in less than 6 months...so I am definitely going to argue that the "methodology" that you are pushing is "exact science."

So if we all want to share our personal experiences, figured i will join in. In 2008, i decided i want to lose weight, and do it fast. I weighed around 173 (i don't think that scale was right though) I got down to 136 in less than 3 months by eating less than 1000 calories on average daily and exercising like a maniac. I would hop on an elliptical for an hour and then later in the day, i would go for a 10 mile bike ride.
I was moving more than i ever had before. Also, if i had eaten a meal that was average sized, i would become physically sick and usually end up puking it up. Once i got down to that 136, it wouldn't matter what i did. Anything i tried eating would lead to putting on weight and all that weight i had lost came back at me and then some. My body was in the mode of "i'm going to save EVERYTHING this b*tch eats in case she tries to starve me again"

So there I was, in February, a size 4... by the time August came around, my 7/8s were too tight for me.

This time, i'm working on eating at a reasonable deficit, and lifting more to preserve my LBM instead of letting it whittle a way like i had done in the past. My biggest question pertaining to the 1200 calorie diets is... if you could lose weight by eating more, why wouldn't you?

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

I see a lot of people living off energy bars and yogurt on MFP. To me thats no way to live. Im not going to STARVE myself skinny. I eat a ton of food and still meet my MFP calorie goal. I have steadily lost about 2 lbs a week and I work out. When I reach my goal weight (in about 6 months hopefully) I anticipate that I will still need to eat 1500-1800 cals a day to maintain since I dont plan to ever give up exercise and lifting. Yes this site is designed on the numbers game but its really more about giving your body the NUTRIENTS it needs. I follow this eating concept:

B: protein, carb, fruit
L: protein, carb, veggie
protein, veggie
Snack: protein, fruit


As you can see I love protein. I also have "cheat days". I continue to lose weight. Everyone is different, but science does show that a 1200 cal diet can be too little. remember if you starve yourself skinny whats going to happen to you on that fateful day you start eating again? I want lifetime results not a quick fix.

SisterhoodoftheShrinkingPants

So if we all want to share our personal experiences, figured i will join in. In 2008, i decided i want to lose weight, and do it fast. I weighed around 173 (i don't think that scale was right though) I got down to 136 in less than 3 months by eating less than 1000 calories on average daily and exercising like a maniac. I would hop on an elliptical for an hour and then later in the day, i would go for a 10 mile bike ride.
I was moving more than i ever had before. Also, if i had eaten a meal that was average sized, i would become physically sick and usually end up puking it up. Once i got down to that 136, it wouldn't matter what i did. Anything i tried eating would lead to putting on weight and all that weight i had lost came back at me and then some. My body was in the mode of "i'm going to save EVERYTHING this b*tch eats in case she tries to starve me again"

So there I was, in February, a size 4... by the time August came around, my 7/8s were too tight for me.

This time, i'm working on eating at a reasonable deficit, and lifting more to preserve my LBM instead of letting it whittle a way like i had done in the past. My biggest question pertaining to the 1200 calorie diets is... if you could lose weight by eating more, why wouldn't you?

Exactly.

_lyndseybrooke_

It's amazing that there are still people that think eating 1200 calories per day (especially if you're either not exercising or not eating back your calories) is perfectly healthy. Unless you're tiny, that's not enough calories. It's simple math.

I'll use myself as an example. My BMR is 1500 calories. As we all know, BMR is the amount of calories our bodies need just to function if we were in a coma. If I get up and walk to the restroom, I've burned more than 1500 calories that day. So, there's absolutely NO reason you should eat below your BMR unless you're completely sedentary. It's simply illogical. I follow the TDEE-25% rule and am now eating about 1500 per day. And I should be eating more, but I'm working my way up so I don't gain. I exercise almost every day, but I don't have super intense workouts that require a whole lot of extra calories.

All eating 1200 calories per day will accomplish is breaking down your body. As soon as you stop eating that way, you'll gain weight. This is coming from someone that was stubborn and continued eating 1200 calories a day until it stopped working. Now I have to work on getting my metabolism back to normal from years of ruining it by eating too little. I just started, but eating 1500 calories instead of 1200 has made me feel so much better. My energy has increased like you would not believe. I no longer dread going to the gym, because I've fueled my body instead of starving it. And I was in so much denial before regarding how good I felt that it's not even funny.

"I've been eating 1200 calories a day for a year and I've been just fine" really isn't an argument. Of course you lose weight! You might even get so used to it that it feels like plenty of food. But you're harming your body, no doubt about it. We only get one body in this lifetime - we should treat it right. The biggest problem with 1200 calorie diets is just that - it's a diet. And diets just don't work. You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life. Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again, and then what? You gain it all back. I'm glad I've gotten myself out of this viscious circle and I'm on my way to real weight loss that lasts. I'm so sick of being on a roller coaster with my weight - gain, lose, gain, lose, gain, lose. I'm done with it! It's time to worry more about my body and less about the number on a scale.

myofibril

“For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels.”

The part I have put in bold I think is the key part - it show how important NEAT / NEPA can be in regulating weight.

In short, the lower your calories the more likely it is that your physical activity levels will fall (outside of planned exercise) either consciously and unconsciously and therefore the smaller your deficit will actually be in comparison to what it actually would be if you ate more.

I have linked this article a number of times which makes a similar point and is an excellent examination of the subject:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=415

mojohowitz

The pubmed article is pretty reliable. I've seen many many pathologists refer to studies there. I guess the take away is: eat less and exercise more but don't go crazy.

megalin9

So if we all want to share our personal experiences, figured i will join in. In 2008, i decided i want to lose weight, and do it fast. I weighed around 173 (i don't think that scale was right though) I got down to 136 in less than 3 months by eating less than 1000 calories on average daily and exercising like a maniac. I would hop on an elliptical for an hour and then later in the day, i would go for a 10 mile bike ride.
I was moving more than i ever had before. Also, if i had eaten a meal that was average sized, i would become physically sick and usually end up puking it up. Once i got down to that 136, it wouldn't matter what i did. Anything i tried eating would lead to putting on weight and all that weight i had lost came back at me and then some. My body was in the mode of "i'm going to save EVERYTHING this b*tch eats in case she tries to starve me again"

So there I was, in February, a size 4... by the time August came around, my 7/8s were too tight for me.

This time, i'm working on eating at a reasonable deficit, and lifting more to preserve my LBM instead of letting it whittle a way like i had done in the past. My biggest question pertaining to the 1200 calorie diets is... if you could lose weight by eating more, why wouldn't you?

Exactly.

Yup. Nobody's disagreeing that one will lose weight on 1200 calories. But if you can do so eating more, why wouldn't you? Also, is eating 1200 calories just for the purpose of losing weight the most healthy option? This is what drives me nuts about the 1000/1200/1300, etc. VLCD's. It's all about, "Lose weight! Lose weight! I gotta lose weight!" That is at the forefront of most of these ladies' minds when they set their diary to lose 2 lbs a week. It's not, "How can I lose weight, retain lean body mass, and do so in a sustainable way?" Never once did I think to set my diary to lose 2lbs/week because I knew that would mean less food, and from the very beginning, I researched as much as I could to try to find a way to get this done and not starve.

katejkelley

If you think 200 calories make a significant difference then carry on doing what you are doing.

EDIT

Have you not made goal in over a year?

I made my first goal, then reset it. I try to stay at 1200 net, and I work out every day. I'm at a healthy weight now, so I don't obsess about reaching that second goal. It's a "would be nice" but I feel good where I am. However, I find if I routinely go over 1200 net, I start gaining back very quickly.

myofibril

I think the key point is simply this: if you are going to go down the low calorie route you must do as much as possible on a conscious level to keep your activity levels from falling. This is true for all dieting in reality but seems more problematic the less you eat.

You could always eat a little more though...

rosemaryhon

...You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life....

Says who?

...Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again....

I trust I eat "like a normal person".

_lyndseybrooke_

...You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life....

Says who?

...Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again....

I trust I eat "like a normal person".

It's not eating like a normal person if you're consistently eating less than your body REQUIRES just to function correctly.

rosemaryhon

...You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life....

Says who?

...Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again....

I trust I eat "like a normal person".

It's not eating like a normal person if you're consistently eating less than your body REQUIRES just to function correctly.

I took a look at your diary and it seems very similar to mine (even that we both had pork tenderloin and sweet potato this week, and I snack on pretzels too ).

OliviaVandenberg

You must have a calorie deficit to loose weight. Burning more than 3500 calories than you consume results in the loss of 1 pound. By reducing your calories/ day by 500 (from your maintenance calories/the calories your body burns without additional exercise) you will loose 1 pound a week. By only loosing 1 pound a week you also prevent your body from going catabolic and using your muscle as an energy source.

So, if my maintenance calories works out to be about 1850/day than I should be eating 1350 calories/day. Which I have been doing and which has helped me to loose 40 pounds. When I was swimming varsity I wasn't calorie counting and although I was swimming 2 hours every day plus lifting I was eating to my maintenance and therefore had no deficit.

Now if a body building male tried to eat 1200 calories it would be devastating and he would loose muscle mass because his maintenance calories are so high. The average woman however has a maintenance of about 1700 so therefore 1200 would be the perfect amount.

Source: Varsity swim team coaches, online research, personal experience dieting bodybuilding and varsity swimming.

jonnythan

...You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life....

Says who?

...Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again....

I trust I eat "like a normal person".

It's not eating like a normal person if you're consistently eating less than your body REQUIRES just to function correctly.

Um, if you want to lose weight, you literally HAVE TO eat less than your body requires to function correctly.

When you eat less than your body requires, the body breaks down body tissue (preferably fat) to make up for the calorie deficit.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Also, no, no one wants to eat a calorie deficit forever. Who wants to lose weight forever? You eat a calorie deficit until you don't want to lose weight anymore.

_lyndseybrooke_

Rosemary - Yes, our diaries are quite similar. But, like I said, I'm just starting to increase my caloric intake after being educated on health, nutrition, and how my body works. Those calories will eventually never go below 1500.

...You can't sustain 1200 calories per day for the rest of your life....

Says who?

...Eventually you'll start eating like a normal person again....

I trust I eat "like a normal person".

It's not eating like a normal person if you're consistently eating less than your body REQUIRES just to function correctly.

Um, if you want to lose weight, you literally HAVE TO eat less than your body requires to function correctly.

When you eat less than your body requires, the body breaks down body tissue (preferably fat) to make up for the calorie deficit.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Also, no, no one wants to eat a calorie deficit forever. Who wants to lose weight forever? You eat a calorie deficit until you don't want to lose weight anymore.

What I mean by "what your body requires to function" is your BMR. When you're trying to lose weight, you need a calorie deficit, yes, but you should never go below BMR. So, no, you don't need to eat less than your body requires just to function in order to lose weight. In fact, you should eat more than your BMR and you should still be losing weight. And I think I was pretty clear in stating that eating 1200 calories per day will slow your metabolism, making it nearly impossible to eat much more than that without gaining weight. So, if you lose all of your weight at 1200 and can go up to 1400 or 1500 to maintain, that's probably still a huge deficit (or what would be a deficit if you didn't screw up your metabolism) that you'd have to maintain for life in order to keep the weight off.

Like someone else said, if you CAN lose weight eating more and harm your body less in the long run, why wouldn't you?

jonnythan

What I mean by "what your body requires to function" is your BMR. When you're trying to lose weight, you need a calorie deficit, yes, but you should never go below BMR. So, no, you don't need to eat less than your body requires just to function in order to lose weight. In fact, you should eat more than your BMR and you should still be losing weight. And I think I was pretty clear in stating that eating 1200 calories per day will slow your metabolism, making it nearly impossible to eat much more than that without gaining weight. So, if you lose all of your weight at 1200 and can go up to 1400 or 1500 to maintain, that's probably still a huge deficit (or what would be a deficit if you didn't screw up your metabolism) that you'd have to maintain for life in order to keep the weight off.

Like someone else said, if you CAN lose weight eating more and harm your body less in the long run, why wouldn't you?

BMR is what your TDEE would be if you laid in bed and didn't move all day. I assume none of us do that. That's the usefuless of BMR: as a theoretical minimum TDEE, which you use as a starting point to figure out your actual TDEE.

There is no magic significance to BMR once you have a TDEE. If your BMR is 1300 and your TDEE is 1600 for a given day, there's nothing wrong with eating 1200 that day if your goal is weight loss. The fact that it's lower than your BMR is purely incidental and meaningless.

There is no reason to think that eating 1200 calories in a given day will slow your metabolism, provided those 1200 calories represent a reasonable calorie deficit and you exercise. That's the entire thrust of the scientific paper linked to in the OP's blog. Look at the data: mild calorie restriction leads to roughly the same metabolic depression as severe calorie restriction. However, mild calorie restriction combined with exercise does not lead to any depression in metabolic function.

_lyndseybrooke_

What I mean by "what your body requires to function" is your BMR. When you're trying to lose weight, you need a calorie deficit, yes, but you should never go below BMR. So, no, you don't need to eat less than your body requires just to function in order to lose weight. In fact, you should eat more than your BMR and you should still be losing weight. And I think I was pretty clear in stating that eating 1200 calories per day will slow your metabolism, making it nearly impossible to eat much more than that without gaining weight. So, if you lose all of your weight at 1200 and can go up to 1400 or 1500 to maintain, that's probably still a huge deficit (or what would be a deficit if you didn't screw up your metabolism) that you'd have to maintain for life in order to keep the weight off.

Like someone else said, if you CAN lose weight eating more and harm your body less in the long run, why wouldn't you?

BMR is what your TDEE would be if you laid in bed and didn't move all day. I assume none of us do that. That's the usefuless of BMR: as a theoretical minimum TDEE, which you use as a starting point to figure out your actual TDEE.

There is no magic significance to BMR once you have a TDEE. If your BMR is 1300 and your TDEE is 1600 for a given day, there's nothing wrong with eating 1200 that day if your goal is weight loss. The fact that it's lower than your BMR is purely incidental and meaningless.

There is no reason to think that eating 1200 calories in a given day will slow your metabolism, provided those 1200 calories represent a reasonable calorie deficit and you exercise. That's the entire thrust of the scientific paper linked to in the OP's blog. Look at the data: mild calorie restriction leads to roughly the same metabolic depression as severe calorie restriction. However, mild calorie restriction combined with exercise does not lead to any depression in metabolic function.

Well, personal experience and math tell me that losing weight on 1200 calories is not nearly as healthy as losing weight on 1500+ and exercising. I think we'd both agree weight loss without exercise isn't ideal.

jonnythan

What I mean by "what your body requires to function" is your BMR. When you're trying to lose weight, you need a calorie deficit, yes, but you should never go below BMR. So, no, you don't need to eat less than your body requires just to function in order to lose weight. In fact, you should eat more than your BMR and you should still be losing weight. And I think I was pretty clear in stating that eating 1200 calories per day will slow your metabolism, making it nearly impossible to eat much more than that without gaining weight. So, if you lose all of your weight at 1200 and can go up to 1400 or 1500 to maintain, that's probably still a huge deficit (or what would be a deficit if you didn't screw up your metabolism) that you'd have to maintain for life in order to keep the weight off.

Like someone else said, if you CAN lose weight eating more and harm your body less in the long run, why wouldn't you?

BMR is what your TDEE would be if you laid in bed and didn't move all day. I assume none of us do that. That's the usefuless of BMR: as a theoretical minimum TDEE, which you use as a starting point to figure out your actual TDEE.

There is no magic significance to BMR once you have a TDEE. If your BMR is 1300 and your TDEE is 1600 for a given day, there's nothing wrong with eating 1200 that day if your goal is weight loss. The fact that it's lower than your BMR is purely incidental and meaningless.

There is no reason to think that eating 1200 calories in a given day will slow your metabolism, provided those 1200 calories represent a reasonable calorie deficit and you exercise. That's the entire thrust of the scientific paper linked to in the OP's blog. Look at the data: mild calorie restriction leads to roughly the same metabolic depression as severe calorie restriction. However, mild calorie restriction combined with exercise does not lead to any depression in metabolic function.

Well, personal experience and math tell me that losing weight on 1200 calories is not nearly as healthy as losing weight on 1500+ and exercising. I think we'd both agree weight loss without exercise isn't ideal.

You're also above average in height for a female. There are a lot of women who are much smaller than you and don't have your caloric requirements. There's nothing magic about the number 1200.