A question for 1200 calories per day consumers

DebbieLyn63

What's crazy about the direction of this thread is:

1. I never gave any advice (I didn't say eat more or less)
2. I definitely specified that calculators take into consideration weight, height, age, and activity level so the arguments of "I'm over 40, I can't exercise, I'm short" don't really apply
3.I don't have over 50lbs to lose, I have less than 15 now

Honestly, I'm not on a high horse or pointing fingers. It was a real question about WHY people choose the calorie goals they have. I didn't say that anyone was going to fail or that what they're doing doesn't work.

You can ask why I care over and over again; the reality is this is a public forum where people come to ask questions and get answers.

You could have done a search on the forums and have found 100s of threads on this very subject, giving you the 'answers' you say you wanted. You also should have figured out by now that this is a very volatile topic and immediately creates drama and arguments.

Every day, at least one person cannot resist the urge to create a thread like this, just to stir the pot and get some attention.
Then it brings out even more arrogant individuals who insist they know better than you, how your body works.

After almost a year of seeing this trend, it really has gotten old.

55in13

Please don't judge my diary when I'm happy with mine

I think you just summed up the counterpoint to the arguments against how I lost most of my weight. It worked, I am healthy and I am happy with it.

So if you eat 1200 you are netting 800 calories? As I stated that I was speaking about people who exercise but still only eat 1200 calories. As i'll admit I used to net 1200 calories and for me obviously that was far too low but for some people that's all they need, however I do not believe that by running 2.8 miles every day you only need 800 calories

Exactly! I ate less than I needed.And how did my body respond to that? It went through a bunch of my stored fat, because I had more than enough to provide for the deficit. It was not as efficient about it as I hoped and I did lose some lean mass, but the vast majority was fat. My point in debating this topic is that this is a reasonable choice that someone with a significant amount of fat to lose can make. TDEE - 20% is fine; TDEE - 500 * (pounds per week goal) is fine. Any deficit is fine as long as you meet the simple conditions - get enough nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc) and have adequate fat stores to cover the deficit at the rate they release (31.4 calories per day per pound of fat). The bigger the deficit the faster you will lose but it will be harder to stay on it and you have a bigger adjustment at the end. Those warnings are very legitimate and it is not for everyone. But saying it is bad and doomed to failure is just plain wrong, IMO. It also appears to me that common sense and science agree with that.

fuzzieme

I'm just doing what MFP recommended. And that is 1200.

DebbieLyn63

I feel so bad for people eating 1200 calories, I eat over double that and I'm losing around 1.5-2lb a week yet I still sometimes feel hungry. Not talking about those netting 1200 but those who eat 1200 or less without being exceptionally small or thin plus exercise on top of that are kidding themselves if they say they aren't hungry.

You are an 18 (?) year old boy. Of COURSE you should be eating well over 2000 cals per day. No need to feel bad for those of us who need much less.
It is all relative. For example-

Last night we had pizza. I was completely stuffed on 2 large slices. My 45 yo hubby was full on 3 slices. The 15 yo boy eating with us easily threw down 4 slices and wanted more.

Some people just don't understand the vast differences there can be in caloric needs.

BTW, I am almost 50, and 1200-1300 a day is perfectly fine for me at my activity level. There are times when I want something more simply because it looks good, but I haven't felt real hunger in quite some time. So I am not kidding myself. I just eat better food now than I used to eat.

Just realized the irony of that last statement, given that I ate pizza last night. lol. It was actually the first time in almost a year that we had ordered pizza hut. I generally stay away from breads, as my body does better without it.

connie_messina

mfp gave me 1200 when i started this journey and i wasn't losing any weight i boosted my cals to 1440 ish and i lost regularly!

yarwell

Exactly! I ate less than I needed.And how did my body respond to that? It went through a bunch of my stored fat, because I had more than enough to provide for the deficit. ..... But saying it is bad and doomed to failure is just plain wrong, IMO. It also appears to me that common sense and science agree with that.

+1

I happen to be reading http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724112/ in another tab, where half of the older obese folks were put on a 600 calorie / day diet deficit and both groups did 1 hr a day * 5 days/week of exercise at 65% VO2max (400 - 500 calories) for 12 weeks. Let's say a daily deficit of 600 cals in the exercise only (EX) and 960 cals for the exercise + calorie deficit group (EX-HYPO). No eating back calories of course.

Result ?

Greater weight loss in the hypocaloric group (−7.7 ± 0.5 vs. −3.3 ± 0.7%, P < 0.001)

Greater fat loss too −14.9 ± 4.1% FM, P < 0.01 vs. eucaloric or in mass terms 1.9kg of fat loss vs 5.1 kg. FFM loss 1.9 vs 1.7 kg.

So the added calorie deficit of eating less looked to be quite productive in addition to the prescribed exercise. At 3500 cals/lb the EX+HYPO group had a daily loss equivalent to 615 calories and the exercise only group 294 calories.

rosemaryhon

I feel so bad for people eating 1200 calories, I eat over double that and I'm losing around 1.5-2lb a week yet I still sometimes feel hungry. Not talking about those netting 1200 but those who eat 1200 or less without being exceptionally small or thin plus exercise on top of that are kidding themselves if they say they aren't hungry.

You are an 18 (?) year old boy. Of COURSE you should be eating well over 2000 cals per day. No need to feel bad for those of us who need much less.
It is all relative. For example-

Last night we had pizza. I was completely stuffed on 2 large slices. My 45 yo hubby was full on 3 slices. The 15 yo boy eating with us easily threw down 4 slices and wanted more.

Some people just don't understand the vast differences there can be in caloric needs.

BTW, I am almost 50, and 1200-1300 a day is perfectly fine for me at my activity level. There are times when I want something more simply because it looks good, but I haven't felt real hunger in quite some time. So I am not kidding myself. I just eat better food now than I used to eat.

Just realized the irony of that last statement, given that I ate pizza last night. lol. It was actually the first time in almost a year that we had ordered pizza hut. I generally stay away from breads, as my body does better without it.

I could have written this ^^ DebbieLynn, including this week ordering pizza for the first time in 6 + months and enjoying 2 big slices and being very full . (I generally stay away from breads, etc, as me too, I've discovered my body does better without).

I too have not felt real hunger since changing my eating style, whereas previously I was eating a LOT more and yet I felt ALWAYS starving.

So please don't feel sorry for me on my 1200/day ~ it fits me and my lifestyle and I'm totally satisfied and happy with my success.

jayrudq

[When I started I weighed 150. I'm a 5'4 f and I'm about to turn 43. I have a very inactive job and didn't work out. My TDEE was 1680 and I wanted to lose 1 lb a week. That brought me to 1180.

My mom lost weight a couple of years ago. She was 70 at the time, 4'11 and was unable to exercise. I'm sure hers was probably low also since she only weighed about 130ish at the time.

Same. But I am even older and menopause completely and totally kicked my butt the b*tch she is. My next hurdle is exercise. Need to. Can't make myself. Got to. Will...

hupsii

For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is ))

I am interested too LOL - 51 years old, 209 lbs, netting at 1600 kcals and maintaining - but would like to lose 1 lbs per week. Inactive job but 2 - 3 times at the gym for 1 hour

JaceyMarieS

Exactly! I ate less than I needed.And how did my body respond to that? It went through a bunch of my stored fat, because I had more than enough to provide for the deficit. It was not as efficient about it as I hoped and I did lose some lean mass, but the vast majority was fat. My point in debating this topic is that this is a reasonable choice that someone with a significant amount of fat to lose can make. TDEE - 20% is fine; TDEE - 500 * (pounds per week goal) is fine. Any deficit is fine as long as you meet the simple conditions - get enough nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc) and have adequate fat stores to cover the deficit at the rate they release (31.4 calories per day per pound of fat). The bigger the deficit the faster you will lose but it will be harder to stay on it and you have a bigger adjustment at the end. Those warnings are very legitimate and it is not for everyone. But saying it is bad and doomed to failure is just plain wrong, IMO. It also appears to me that common sense and science agree with that.

QFT! *claps hands and nods head*

stephaniefiteni

Just "food" for thought (pun intended)

I've literally seen hundreds of people who swear to the heavens that 1200 calories is right for them because they're "different" and eating more will not work for them.

People who are 5'9" to 4'11". People who weigh 300lbs to 105lbs. People who are 55 to people who are 16. People who exercise every day to people who never lift a finger.

TDEE calculators give you a calorie recommendation based on your height, weight, age, and activity level.

Why would you be more likely to be "different" like someone who is double your weight, half your height, and ten years younger/older than someone with your exact same data?

^ your pretty much summarizing the fact that everyone is different and some have higher metabolic rate than others - naturally or trained

Matt_Wild

Your thoughts on Metabolic Damage and what it is? This is what I see and what I agree with:

OK - this isn't a study as I know any study I post will be picked apart and not seen for what it is.

I start with a chap I consider very highly, he's always to the point and honest. He trains normal every day folk and also IFBB Pro's etc. He has a number of articles that discuss the metabolic damage issue I was trying to discuss. NOT starvation mode. So get that out of your head. That if one takes the time to understand and read my previous posts is not something I personally agree with.

Anyhow, read on...

Discussion of what metabolic damage is:
https://www.leanbodiesconsulting.com/metabolic-mind-games/

How to fix:
https://www.leanbodiesconsulting.com/faqs/repairing-a-depressed-metabolism/

Radio discussion on the subject:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-fit-bod-radio-show/2011/01/07/episode-2-the-fit-bod-radio-show-1

Its personally something I believe can be very real. Many people on this thread are dieting too hard, for too long, depressing their metabolisms. Whether I'm right, well its up to you believe.

Not with standing other well noted people and their views. Layne Norton here for example (PHD in protein synthesis):

Episode 1 on metabolic damage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

Episode 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY1DsZMNfNw

Episode 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3kfRkqVWU


Please make your own mind up, but don't be closed off. What is said makes a lot of sense. Just because there isn't study that shows the exact result doesn't make it so (and don't forget a study IS NOT PROOF by very definition. Unlike maths there is no absolutes, just the currently understood hypothesis.

Thanks for reading! smile

55in13

Matt,

You do seem concerned with trying to find the real answer. I do believe metabolic issues exist, but I think they are not very common. When they do the studies like the one Yarwell posted, most people with lots of fat lose mostly fat and don't have a significant change in their metabolic rate. But there is a bell curve and it would suck to be one of the people at the low edge. I do think that the argument made by people who believe in "that mode" is that it is not only common but likely that you will have a significant change in metabolism if you severely restrict calories. Based on personal experience, experience of those I know personally and examination of data, I do not think that is the case. I think if someone wants to try 1200 and their numbers makes sense, they should expect success.

jollyjoe321

I used to eat around 1200 a day and lost my weight without exercising, I spent all day sitting down since I worked in a computer shop.

Phase 2, I put 5 pounds back on over a period of eating cooked breakfasts every day etc, but working out a bit.

Now I'm working out and eating roughly 13-1400 calories a day, I'll start to see results soon.

eric_sg61

What happens when your eating 1200 or less calories a day and your weight loss stalls? Do you go down to 800, 500, -100. The person with the highest metabolic capacity with have the easiest time losing weight since they will have a larger "bank" to take calories from. When you stall on low calories your basically screwed. You'll have to eat more to increase your capacity and during that time you will gain weight. Here is my anecdotal story: When I first started tracking I realized I was only eating 1800 -2000 cals a day and not losing weight. I increased my cals to 2900-3100 for a period of a few weeks and gained about 3 pounds. then I started cutting at about 2400 cals a day. After a few short weeks I could see muscle on my body that I never though I had, my waist shrunk from 37 inches down to 32.

55in13

What happens when your eating 1200 or less calories a day and your weight loss stalls? Do you go down to 800, 500, -100. The person with the highest metabolic capacity with have the easiest time losing weight since they will have a larger "bank" to take calories from. When you stall on low calories your basically screwed. You'll have to eat more to increase your capacity and during that time you will gain weight. Here is my anecdotal story: When I first started tracking I realized I was only eating 1800 -2000 cals a day and not losing weight. I increased my cals to 2900-3100 for a period of a few weeks and gained about 3 pounds. then I started cutting at about 2400 cals a day. After a few short weeks I could see muscle on my body that I never though I had, my waist shrunk from 37 inches down to 32.

I cannot answer this question. Few people can. The slowdown you speak of happens to a very small percentage of people, like < 2%. Most people just claim it does when they get tired of dieting. In clinical studies, it is very rare. It never has happened to me or any of the people I know personally who have done low cal diets.

ETA - Your response doesn't indicate that you have any experience with this either; you extrapolate an experience at a completely different level of eating to this for reasons that escape me.