1200 Calorie Minimum?
fiddletime
Posts: 1,868 Member
I've read about this for months. I'm 60 and 5'2" and chose 1100 calories. I fought for rvery pound of loss (about 5#) for 6 weeks. Logged everything with no cheating. Finally I upped my calories to 1200 2 weeks ago and have lost 2 1/2 pounds. I figured that less calories would equal more weight loss. I'm finding it much easier to lose now, and I get to eat more. Thought I'd share this.
0
Replies
-
Congrats!0
-
Congrats! More calories may equal more energy which may mean you're moving more throughout the day whether you realize it or not. That's my theory on why eat more to weigh less works for some people.0
-
It seems like people try to go too low. Glad you took an open minded approach!0
-
interesting! i have also been at 1100 calories for about three weeks plus cardio daily and haven't lost anything yet. No cheating, healthy foods only, logging everything (first on diet coach, now on mfp), and i'm a vegan. Not sure why this would be but i am 52 and maybe it's just a lot harder to lose at this age? Not enough calories seems crazy...0
-
This content has been removed.
-
A follow up. I've lost steadily 3# a month since I first posted. Maybe 1100 was OK but I was hungry. At 1200 I've been much less hungry and even with slip days, have continued to lose slowly and steadily.0
-
Congrats, my goal is 1200 daily and I lost in one week 1kg and I am happy about it . I weight now 70kgs and must loose 10 kgs , if I continue I still need 9 more weeks . Good luck for u0
-
Thank you for this post! I had gone down to 1000 thinking "eat less, lose more" and this weekend I was RAVENOUS after having been doing this for the past 2 weeks. I just couldn't get full this weekend and was craving chocolate and then ate a brownie and a ice cream cupcake which I felt so guilty about! I have decided to go back up to 1200 and try to eat that. Sometimes it's hard and some days I only do 900 and then others it's 1200 and then others it's 800..it varies (not intentionally). Some days I'm hungrier than others it seems.
Nonetheless, 1200 SHOULD be my new norm and hopefully I can then keep losing. Thanks for this!!!!!
0 -
It amazes me how anyone can eat so little and not be hungry at the end of the day.
When I first started MFP I was on 1200 calories and I was starving all the time, I was angry and horrible.
I stuck to it for 10 weeks and then gave up and put more back on.
Now I am on 1510 calories, I am happier, less hangry and I am still losing weight. 1-1.5lb a week.0 -
If you eat below 1200 calories and go below the starving threashold, your thyroid hormones drop and weight loss will slow. Your body thinks that food is scarce and will hold onto fat and try to burn less energy so that you don't starve to death as quickly.
0 -
This is exactly what happened to me! I cut my carbs back and when doing so I realized I was only getting about 900 calories a day to stay at less than 40 carbs per day. I was always hungry. Then, I found the Ketogenic diet and my calorie count was calculated at 1500 calories a day! I thought omg I cant eat that many calories and keep my carbs down too! But, I have and Ive lost 39 pounds now! I eat wayyy more food and im not hungry all the time. Its amazing. The diet isn't like anything ive tried before. I wouldnt say you eat the healthiest foods on it (its a high fat low carb diet) but it appears to be working! The only downside ive found is that im in the kitchen A LOT cooking my own foods.
Also, my normal calories I end up eating is around 1200-1300, but I cant get over how full I am and Im losing weight!0 -
-
Now that I have a fit bit I can see that I certainly move more on the days that I eat more, as someone was guessing above - within reason. Sometimes when I exercise more it makes me much hungrier, which cancels out any benefit of more calories.
If I don't exercise - most days - I lose slowly on 1200
If I exercise moderately I can earn a few more calories and eat at 1300 and lose at same rate
If I exercise hard, I am starving and want to eat everything in sight and I struggle to stay at a deficit.
For now, my zone is low to moderate exercise while I lose.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
0 -
facex3nicole wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
If that were true, the contestants on survivor would get fat... Ethiopia would have no starving children, and My sister who lost 80 lbs eating 800 cal/day (totally unhealthy but she did) would be the size of a house.
"Starvation mode" isn't a thing.0 -
Expatmommy79 wrote: »facex3nicole wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
If that were true, the contestants on survivor would get fat... Ethiopia would have no starving children, and My sister who lost 80 lbs eating 800 cal/day (totally unhealthy but she did) would be the size of a house.
"Starvation mode" isn't a thing.
Notice I didn't use the term "starvation mode" but I referred to some very real physiological factors and loosely explained the process related to blood sugar and glycogen. Examples of using an extreme calorie deficit *having worked* doesn't negate the point. You've seen it work, I've witnessed time and time again when someone raises their calorie intake slightly and suddenly progress is being made again.
Did she reach her final goals? Is she still maintaining an 800 calorie diet? Did she keep the weight off?
Also, an extreme calorie deficit vs nearly no food and nutrition are very different. One is literally starvation and the other is being stupid and risky in an attempt to obtain quick results.
0 -
facex3nicole wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
Your fallacy of starvation mode is common ... but wrong every time.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »facex3nicole wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
Your fallacy of starvation mode is common ... but wrong every time.
An FYI to anyone questioning my point, do some research for yourself. Starvation "response" is an accepted term.
0 -
Adaptive thermogenesis does happen after prolonged undereating ... starvation mode as you presented it is a fallacy.
"If you eat below 1200 calories and go below the starving threashold" ... wrong
"Your body thinks that food is scarce and will hold onto fat " ... wrong
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Adaptive thermogenesis does happen after prolonged undereating ... starvation mode as you presented it is a fallacy.
"If you eat below 1200 calories and go below the starving threashold" ... wrong
"Your body thinks that food is scarce and will hold onto fat " ... wrong
I didn't present that. I presented a different (but related) and more thorough point clarifying the reality of what happens. It often becomes clear when someone has been making progress, works out regularly and maintains a deficit then hits a plateau. Working out harder and cutting calories further won't help if you've reached a point where your body has now depleted the resources it stored and has turned to your muscle for fuel. Food = fuel = energy. Without the balance your body needs to maintain energy and nutritional/hormonal balance, it does some "funky things" and eventually muscle = fuel = energy. I'm assuming I don't need to explain muscle vs fat and what this process means for fat loss.
0 -
I think you (Nicole) and Brian are both saying you lose weight if you eat less, but your body will burn muscle, which isn't healthy. ItstimeRK said that if you eat below 1200 calories you go into "starvation mode" and your metabolism slows and you stop losing weight.
I've never had that happen to me. The less I eat the more I lose below 1200 calories. When I've tried 1000 or 1100, though, I'm so hungry I sneak food, am miserable, and always gain the weight back. When I upped the calories to 1200 the weight loss wasn't more really, it was just a whole bunch less painful and more fun. It doesn't seem like the battle of the pound is so tolling or difficult now.0 -
facex3nicole wrote: »Expatmommy79 wrote: »facex3nicole wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Ummm...yes.
Your body needs a sufficient amount of calories for fuel and a balance of nutrients, healthy fats, etc to keep hormone levels stable. Your body absolutely is designed to store its resources if you aren't providing your cells with enough of what they need (from food) to burn, and therefore process for the health and actual physical content of your body. Without the appropriate balance you may experience low blood sugar levels, process insulin inefficiently and store excess glycogen. Without a calorie source for energy your body may also resort to burning your muscle. This is bad.
OP glad you had the realization you had. It's a common one and usually surprises whoever goes through it! Keep on keeping on!
If that were true, the contestants on survivor would get fat... Ethiopia would have no starving children, and My sister who lost 80 lbs eating 800 cal/day (totally unhealthy but she did) would be the size of a house.
"Starvation mode" isn't a thing.
Notice I didn't use the term "starvation mode" but I referred to some very real physiological factors and loosely explained the process related to blood sugar and glycogen. Examples of using an extreme calorie deficit *having worked* doesn't negate the point. You've seen it work, I've witnessed time and time again when someone raises their calorie intake slightly and suddenly progress is being made again.
Did she reach her final goals? Is she still maintaining an 800 calorie diet? Did she keep the weight off?
Also, an extreme calorie deficit vs nearly no food and nutrition are very different. One is literally starvation and the other is being stupid and risky in an attempt to obtain quick results.
She has maintained for over 6 years....
There is no magical starvation switch that gets activated from 1200 to 1100 calories...
You can explain all you want, but beyond it being difficult to accomplish mentally, and being unsustainable for most, less than 1200 will not cause your body to hold onto fat reserves therefor halting your weight loss or causing you to gain.
0 -
Umm not sure how 100 extra calories helps keeping you feeling fuller.....but glad you're having success.
When I was in losing phase I ate 1400 cals plus exercise cals to lose 1/2 lb a week, but for me slower and steady was better than being hangry all the time....
Each to their own...0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Umm not sure how 100 extra calories helps keeping you feeling fuller.....but glad you're having success.
When I was in losing phase I ate 1400 cals plus exercise cals to lose 1/2 lb a week, but for me slower and steady was better than being hangry all the time....
Each to their own...
I was replying to pp's starvation mode quackery... The body does not have a magic fat-loss vs starvation mode switch that magically gets activated at 1199, but not at 1200.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions