What's wrong with eating under 1200?

Gamliela

I thought the bottom line requirements here were no less than 1200 for men and not less than 1000 for women.

That right?

dragon_girl26

Gamliela wrote: »

I thought the bottom line requirements here were no less than 1200 for men and not less than 1000 for women.

That right?

Currently it's 1500 for men and 1200 for women.

AspenDan

Eh...during some times of my 100lb (ish) loss, I've gone under 1200 calories. Some days as low as 900...if I'm not hungry, because the calories I ate were high volume (like tons of veggies) I wasn't going to go out of my way to eat more just to hit a number.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, this whole time I've paid close attention to how I feel. If I ever got extra hungry, I'd eat extra calories..if I really craved some french fries, I ate some assuming I might be low on sodium or something.. and in the end I averaged far more per week than my lowest calories days, because how hungry I get varies hugely by the day.
My docs told me to do what I wanted as far as the diet, but just have common sense and say/do something if I had any super obvious negative effects.. like hair loss, dizziness, lethargy (none of which ever happened).. and it all worked out pretty well for me.
That's my personal experience, and certainly not a suggestion at all..do with this data what you will.

Psychgrrl

AliceAxe wrote: »

what about supplimets? wouldnt these make up for what you are lacking on a low calorie diet?

Nutrients from foods are typically absorbed better than those from supplements. And then there are all the phytochemicals and macro nutrients they don't make supplements for--at least none proven to be effective.

nixxthirteen

I'm 5'10". 1200 calories or less EVERY DAY, and I'd throw in the towel and just stay fat.

1400-1600 allows me to lose 1.5 lbs per week. 1800 allows for 1 lb per week. These numbers mean I get to eat portions of all my favourite things, and never feel deprived or punished. This is healthy for me personally because I don't need to feel guilty for having something "bad" if it fits my calories. All while getting a wide variety of veggies, fruits, grains, meats, fish, eggs, oils, beans and lentils etc of course.

I'm trying to teach myself how to eat for the rest of my life. The changes I make need to make me happy, and be sustainable. No point torturing myself with a VLCD if I intent to stick with it and make POSITIVE changes.

MichelleLea122

While 1,200 calories isn't a hard number (and for some people a perfectly acceptable caloric goal), eating too few calories in general has many dangerous side effects besides being 'hungry'. The main problem with a low calorie diet isn't from lacking nutrients, but from lacking calories. A lot of people don't realize that the majority of their calorie expenditure isn't from physical activity, but rather from internal bodily functions. When you start restricting calories, your body turns to other energy sources (i.e. fat/muscle) to keep your bodily functions running. If you restrict your calories to an extreme degree for a prolonged period of time, it puts a lot of stress on the body. When your body has too few energy sources to utilize, it will start shutting down nonessential bodily functions. This is when you start developing problems such as hair loss, poor blood circulation, amenorrhea, etc. If calories/ energy stores get even lower, that's when you encounter organ failure and eventual death.

Ninkyou

Your body needs an appropriate amount of calories to sustain your vital life functions. You know, all that's required for you to continue living. It's important to get the right amount of calories for your body (based on your stats and activity, etc). If you deprive your body of too many calories, you're going to suffer from that. Eating too few calories for an extended period can result in:

abnormal blood counts
elevated liver enzymes
fatigue
dizziness or fainting
seizure
brittle nails
hair that thins, breaks or falls out
absence of menstruation (amenorrhea)
development of fine hair on the extremities (lanugo)
constipation
dry skin
intolerance of cold
irregular heart rhythms
low blood pressure
dehydration
osteoporosis, the loss of bone calcium, which may result in broken bones

Now, that is not to say 1200 isn't appropriate for some people, because it could very well be, but again, that's going to be based on your stats and activity level. It's important to be under your doctor's supervision if you are eating less than the recommended minimum, so that if you begin experiencing symptoms it can be corrected as soon as possible. But for most women, even 1200 calories in not appropriate. It's important to have realistic goals, be honest about your activity level and find the calorie amount appropriate for you.

emmadonaldson95

foxygirl14 wrote: »

Since starvation mode doesn't exist, what's wrong with eating less than 1200 calories a day? The only downside I can see is that a person would be hungry, but it will only help with weight loss so why are so many adamant about not eating less than that number?

I generally hit in under 1200 (you're welcome to see my diaries if you're interested how), i rarely feel hungry and probably get more important nutrients than i did previously.
I essentially swapped what i normally eat for a low calorie alternative e.g. bread for sandwhich bread thins-took 100 calories off my lunches and made 0 difference. At breakfast i ditched chocolatey pastries etc and have low sugar cereals, skimmed milk and sweetner not sugar. At dinners i try to stay heavy on veg to stay full and easier on carbs and proteins e.g. ill make homemade soups, big salads, omelletes etc. My flat mate is also using mfp but does her meals different to mine and still rarely gets past 1200.
However i should add i was only 140lb to begin with and 5ft7 and only looking for a 15lb loss so mine isnt a long term thing only maybe 6 weeks.

AspenDan

@frugalshrimp props for the non-alarmist info. 1200 is hardly a magical gateway into sickness and food disorder..

OP, 1200cal is really hard to maintain for some people, and can easily cause frustration to the point of giving up. Also, it's probably a larger deficit than you need to lose weight at a steady pace.

Looking back on my diary, when I started I really just wanted to lose weight quickly and I was very "dedicated"..averaging 1200-1600 calories a day, and rarely going much higher.

Over time, the weight came off, I felt better, my health stats like blood pressure and such all went back into good standing, so I laid off the deficit a little and my diary shows me eating 1500-2000 per day after a few months in.

The last 2 weeks I've been trying to eat 2300cal a day, logging religiously and I believe I'm still losing at least a pound per week, which is really nice considering how pleasant it is to eat 2300cal regularly.

I hope this all gives you some additional perspective..it's all a very long game of trial and error, good luck.

brower47

CoffeeNCardio wrote: »

synacious wrote: »

A slew of health problems including hair loss. Also losing too fast means you lose more muscle in addition to your fat, so you'll get to your goal weight faster but your body composition will suffer.

And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.

The real reason to not lose weight too fast: you'll be thin and pretty MINUS the pretty. (grey translucent skin, bland thin hair, weak broken nails, icky teeth and possibly breath, fatigue, possibly depression). Basically all the stuff anorexics suffer from depending on how low you go.

Their bodies will look nasty?



I don't advocate VLCD but that seems like the wrong way to go about convincing someone otherwise. Talk about the negative health consequences sure but saying a person's body will look nasty...

There are people who lose weight due to illness and lose a significant amount of muscle mass as a result. Are you really calling their bodies nasty? Seems like the sort of thing I've heard where someone tells an obese person to lose weight because their bodies are nasty but from the opposite direction.

ObsidianMist

personally, as a short and sedentary person (I don't work), I only eat about 1000 calories a day on rest days, a little more on gym days (to lose weight, not maintain) and I'm perfectly healthy physically. it really depends on the person and their circumstances. there are no hard and fast, written in stone rules when it comes to this stuff.

amusedmonkey

I want to tackle this from a different angle. Yes, you can get good nutrition on a low calories diet if you know what you are doing or are being medically supervised. Case in point, my plan for my next fast day (I do intermittent fasting):




So nutrition aside, here is the thing. It would be VERY hard to preserve muscle on a low calorie diet unless you are an extremely obese person who does it for a few weeks at a time. The more muscle you manage to preserve the better you will look when you reach your goal weight, otherwise you may end up being left with an undesirable amount of fat.

Constipation may become an issue, especially if you are predisposed. A low calorie budget would generally mean missing out on a good deal of water which resides in food. The smaller meals may make things even worse because you are missing on the bulk that helps things move along.

You have a much higher risk of developing gallstones when you lose weight rapidly, even more so since you are a woman.

Your hormones will play all kinds of nasty tricks on you, including inducing a binge, messing with your period, or having to deal with the side effects of chronically high cortisol like hair loss, acne, making your visceral fat (stomach) harder to lose, messing with your immune system, increased inflammation in the body, high blood pressure, and a long list of other stuff. That's the last thing you need.

You will likely experience fatigue. So when you couple not being as active as you could be with muscle loss, cortisol induced water retention, decreased energy expenditure due to decreased weight, and adaptive thermogenesis as a result of dieting, you will be looking at an increasingly slowed down weight loss and longer and harder plateaus.

Let's not forget the psychological aspect of it. How long will you be able to sustain such a diet? How will it affect your social life, your stress levels, your ability to perform certain activities, your sleep...etc, and what would it teach you about healthy moderation? My guess is not long and not much. Cycles of trying to lose weight, getting frustrating, quitting, regaining, repeat. Even if you do manage to muscle it through all the way to your goal weight, how will you maintain if you don't have the sustainable tools you acquire on a more sustainable diet? It would be a steep learning curve and a higher potential for regain.

WinoGelato

A wise person on MFP (whom I can't recall the name to tag them for credit) once said...

"The winner is the person who eats the most food and still loses the weight."

That has always been my approach to this, realizing early on that I would be pretty miserable on 1200 cals and that would not be sustainable for me. The fact that people ask about or see no problem with less than that, who are not morbidly obese and under a doctors care for a VLCD just flabbergasts me.

AspenDan

@WinoGelato +10 points for "flabbergasts"

rankinsect

WinoGelato wrote: »

A wise person on MFP (whom I can't recall the name to tag them for credit) once said...

"The winner is the person who eats the most food and still loses the weight."

That has always been my approach to this, realizing early on that I would be pretty miserable on 1200 cals and that would not be sustainable for me. The fact that people ask about or see no problem with less than that, who are not morbidly obese and under a doctors care for a VLCD just flabbergasts me.

Hell, even when I was morbidly obese, it was easy enough to stick to a sensible amount of food (~1850 calories) and lose rapidly anyway. Having so much mass meant my TDEE was huge.

Gamliela

I don't advocate eating under 1200, but sometimes I have found it easier to eat less for short periods of time, a few weeks, when I have to be sedentary than to eat more. I feel satisfied with primarily veg, meat, fish and some dairy when I'm in situations of not being able to be more active. Once my goal weight is acheived or activity is possible I can eat at my tdee, which is 1500 to 1700 depending on between sedentary or mild active. Some of us for reasons of age, height, we pretty much have to eat less to lose the fat! or give up (not a good idea)

MelodyandBarbells

hekla90 wrote: »

CoffeeNCardio wrote: »

And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.

Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...

Psst... We didn't even get to the saddest part yet. Which is that you can do everything "right" and still not end up with an "un-nasty" body when all is said and done. Nice.