When or do you change your 1200 calorie diet as you lose weight?
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.0 -
ummijaaz560 wrote: »I wonder why MFP won't just automatically adjust a males lowest goal to 1500? Or can you manually override the amount?
The 1500 is a bit baseless, not actually implemented and overridden by Custom Goals anyway.0 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.0 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.2 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
Being in a rush to lose weight is foolish and dangerous.
You didn't gain weight overnight; losing it will take a while, too.
I set my calorie goal lower because I have a LOT to lose - I can afford to be a bit more aggressive. For someone who only has 30 lbs to lose, there's no reason to set such a low calorie goal.
If you're hungry ALL THE TIME, maybe it means you should be eating more. I have a 1200/cal day goal and I'm not hungry all the time (and trust me, this is coming from someone who used to manage to eat a whole pizza by herself). And some days, I allow myself to go a bit higher - as long as I'm below maintenance, I'm good. AND GUESS WHAT. I DON'T GO HUNGRY.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.1 -
OP has not been back since he gave a "thank you shout out" ealrier in the thread. He is convinced at this 1200 calorie goal is spot on and wants to keep pushing weight loss beyond what he needs to do in order to meet goal in a fast fashion.
Should he get ill, or start having metabolic issues (esp at his age) he will either start eating more or need to get to the doctor.
It is a sad day when a man of his age really does think 1200 is a great goal and thinks he should decrease it more. Where did the process go wrong in his case?
edited to add: in this case I hope he not weighing or logging food accurately.. meaning he is eating a bit more.. could be the case scenario!
1 -
OP has not been back since he gave a "thank you shout out" ealrier in the thread. He is convinced at this 1200 calorie goal is spot on and wants to keep pushing weight loss beyond what he needs to do in order to meet goal in a fast fashion.
Should he get ill, or start having metabolic issues (esp at his age) he will either start eating more or need to get to the doctor.
It is a sad day when a man of his age really does think 1200 is a great goal and thinks he should decrease it more. Where did the process go wrong in his case?
can't teach an old dog new tricks maybe?
the 1200 calorie thing has been around as long as I have and that's 40 odd years so....I suspect it has been around a lot longer.....0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.
actually it proves it is true in a way. Metabolic damage occurs in people with chronic eating disorders and starvation. I don't mean a 6 month experiment either...but the experiment you referenced did indicate a lower RMR in those in the study and it only returned to "normal" when all fat stores had been recovered.
I mean people who have starved themselves purposefully or due to famine have been starved for years.
There is a protocol to help them recover and it is very specific...if you give someone who is so starved too much food too fast it kills them....proof of that is when food was given to concentration camp survivors by well meaning liberators...didn't go well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-followup-qa.html/0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.
actually it proves it is true in a way. Metabolic damage occurs in people with chronic eating disorders and starvation. I don't mean a 6 month experiment either...but the experiment you referenced did indicate a lower RMR in those in the study and it only returned to "normal" when all fat stores had been recovered.
I mean people who have starved themselves purposefully or due to famine have been starved for years.
There is a protocol to help them recover and it is very specific...if you give someone who is so starved too much food too fast it kills them....proof of that is when food was given to concentration camp survivors by well meaning liberators...didn't go well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-followup-qa.html/
They had a lower bmr because they lost some muscle mass AND they lost weight. Your bmr doesn't stay the same when you weigh more as it does when you weigh less. The same thing can be said about people losing weight. Everyone's BMR decreases. It also decreases with age as well as weight loss.
That doesn't indicate metabolic damage.2 -
OP has not been back since he gave a "thank you shout out" ealrier in the thread. He is convinced at this 1200 calorie goal is spot on and wants to keep pushing weight loss beyond what he needs to do in order to meet goal in a fast fashion.
Should he get ill, or start having metabolic issues (esp at his age) he will either start eating more or need to get to the doctor.
It is a sad day when a man of his age really does think 1200 is a great goal and thinks he should decrease it more. Where did the process go wrong in his case?
edited to add: in this case I hope he not weighing or logging food accurately.. meaning he is eating a bit more.. could be the case scenario!
I think its often the case with those of us who 'eyeball' the calories to believe we are eating less calories than we really are.
So maybe the 1200 is actually 2 or 3 hundred more. That's so easy to do like that vidio example shows.
0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.
actually it proves it is true in a way. Metabolic damage occurs in people with chronic eating disorders and starvation. I don't mean a 6 month experiment either...but the experiment you referenced did indicate a lower RMR in those in the study and it only returned to "normal" when all fat stores had been recovered.
I mean people who have starved themselves purposefully or due to famine have been starved for years.
There is a protocol to help them recover and it is very specific...if you give someone who is so starved too much food too fast it kills them....proof of that is when food was given to concentration camp survivors by well meaning liberators...didn't go well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-followup-qa.html/
They had a lower bmr because they lost some muscle mass AND they lost weight. Your bmr doesn't stay the same when you weigh more as it does when you weigh less. The same thing can be said about people losing weight. Everyone's BMR decreases. It also decreases with age as well as weight loss.
That doesn't indicate metabolic damage.
I am well aware that RMR reduces with weight loss...
but regardless there is such a thing as metabolic damage and it can be for the most part fixed but not always....people with chronic eating disorders that have yet to get in treatment and those exposed to years of famine.
I won't argue back and forth over this any further...1 -
Yes, I am an older but certainly willing to learn new things. I carefully count my calories; and I do not feel hungry or weak at 1200/day. It seems that everyone (practically) is convinced that I need to increase the total. Okay, I will increase to 1500/day. Not in that big of a hurry, just like seeing results. Minor point, some are quick to stereotype older people, that particular one about new tricks is pretty common - we are not dogs. Because of those kind of assumptions otherwise imminently qualified older people often have difficulty getting jobs or promotions.1
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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