What's the big deal about 1,200?

Options
1246

Replies

  • lthames0810
    lthames0810 Posts: 722 Member
    Options
    maillemaker wrote: »
    >Your average everyday Joe Blow "I need to lose 50 lbs" guy is going to end up lethargic, with terrible looking skin, hair loss, brittle nails, and no sex drive when doing such a diet. When it is over, he's going to look in the mirror and think "this is not what I thought I'd look like at this weight" and then will spend the next few years trying to build back the muscle that he lost so that he could get to the point where his friend who dieted on 2000 calories was once he hit his goal weight.

    I wonder if it would be worth the trade-off though. I've never been able to sustain a moderate weight loss long enough to hit a goal weight. Ever.

    I wonder about this too. I have often read on here that slower weight loss is more sustainable than faster (and I do not mean VLCD fast) and is more likely to be maintained. Is it really? Might this just be one of those truisms that sounds so plausible that it isn't questioned?

    If 90% (or something) of weight losers gain it back, do the fast losers really account for the majority of these?

    Might not a faster rate of loss help some people stay more motivated for the duration?

    As to the belief that fast losers don't learn anything...If they had to learn how to eat to lose weight, are they not capable of learning a new thing to maintain weight?

    If by losing weight quickly someone ends up at goal weight with lower muscle mass than they want, can't they work it back up after they reach goal? Maybe this would counter the feeling that they are "done" when they get to goal.

    Just feeling curmudgeonly and skeptical today, I guess. Carry on.
  • sfa90
    sfa90 Posts: 105 Member
    Options
    To be honest, I can live of 1200 calories a day for example today I did 1 hour of weight training and 40 min of cardio and I ate today 1263 calories. But, I do feel more tired after a day like this, so I am really trying to eat more food.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    JenHuedy wrote: »
    maillemaker wrote: »
    For the whole "nutrient" thing, can't you just pop a multi-vitamin? I mean one of those Penn and Teller dudes lost a bunch of weight really fast by going to like a 500-calorie-a-day diet.

    I heard Penn talk about his weight loss on his podcast. He was on a medically-supervised diet because his blood pressure was so out of control that he had to be hospitalized and put on several medications. He didn't go on this diet to look better, he was treating a life-threatening medical condition.

    I've seen the after pictures. He sure doesn't look better :)

    His approach is not one I would suggest to anyone. He started with just potatoes for 2 weeks. Not sure if the 500 cals a day is correct or not (can't see any reference to that) but he kinda wen off the deep end with his diet. I know he was under doctor supervision, but it really seems like a bad idea. And I see he wrote a book on it.

    I like Penn, but this just seems wrong on so many levels..
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lthames0810 wrote: »
    maillemaker wrote: »
    >Your average everyday Joe Blow "I need to lose 50 lbs" guy is going to end up lethargic, with terrible looking skin, hair loss, brittle nails, and no sex drive when doing such a diet. When it is over, he's going to look in the mirror and think "this is not what I thought I'd look like at this weight" and then will spend the next few years trying to build back the muscle that he lost so that he could get to the point where his friend who dieted on 2000 calories was once he hit his goal weight.

    I wonder if it would be worth the trade-off though. I've never been able to sustain a moderate weight loss long enough to hit a goal weight. Ever.

    I wonder about this too. I have often read on here that slower weight loss is more sustainable than faster (and I do not mean VLCD fast) and is more likely to be maintained. Is it really? Might this just be one of those truisms that sounds so plausible that it isn't questioned?

    If 90% (or something) of weight losers gain it back, do the fast losers really account for the majority of these?

    Might not a faster rate of loss help some people stay more motivated for the duration?

    As to the belief that fast losers don't learn anything...If they had to learn how to eat to lose weight, are they not capable of learning a new thing to maintain weight?

    If by losing weight quickly someone ends up at goal weight with lower muscle mass than they want, can't they work it back up after they reach goal? Maybe this would counter the feeling that they are "done" when they get to goal.

    Just feeling curmudgeonly and skeptical today, I guess. Carry on.

    Just my personal opinion, but...
    If you lose really fast and then have to learn to maintain, that is two different things to learn. Learning how to deprive yourself, deal with real hunger, etc while losing weight quickly, is different than learning how to eat foods you like at the proper amount for calorie level and nutrition to maintain your weight.

    If you take the time to learn how to eat in a way that fuels your body and makes you happy as you slowly but surely lose the weight, then you don't have to learn a second thing. At least that's how I see it.

    In my very limited experience, people cut out lots of yummy foods, exercise way more than they want to, and generally put up with feeling like crap so they can lose the weight fast. Then when they reach goal, they feel so deprived and worthy that they treat themselves to a break from exercise and to all the foods they've been missing, and before they realize it, it's a year later and they gained most of it back.

    Also it is WAY easier to maintain your muscle mass, than it is to build it back up after it's lost. Especially for women, it is borderline tragic to sacrifice muscle for fast weight loss and then attempt to rebuild it later.

    Just my two cents :drinker:

    This! ^

    Why would I want to start from scratch when I get to goal? Sure, it's possible to do that, but why not put in the effort up front, learn about bad habits.

    I think there are many people that don't associate losing fast with lean muscle loss. They assume weight loss = (just) fat loss. The thing to counter fast weight loss to them = more weight loss. Women especially, who get to goal (are unhappy with how they look) their solution is more weight loss still.

    Regaining lost muscle? Strength training is not my favorite thing and I'm lazy. Keeping more muscle is less work in the long run.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,108 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    GauchoMark wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.

    Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.

    SCoil123 wrote: »
    For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.

    While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.

    Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.

    Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.

    I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.

    The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    lthames0810 wrote: »
    maillemaker wrote: »
    >Your average everyday Joe Blow "I need to lose 50 lbs" guy is going to end up lethargic, with terrible looking skin, hair loss, brittle nails, and no sex drive when doing such a diet. When it is over, he's going to look in the mirror and think "this is not what I thought I'd look like at this weight" and then will spend the next few years trying to build back the muscle that he lost so that he could get to the point where his friend who dieted on 2000 calories was once he hit his goal weight.

    I wonder if it would be worth the trade-off though. I've never been able to sustain a moderate weight loss long enough to hit a goal weight. Ever.

    I wonder about this too. I have often read on here that slower weight loss is more sustainable than faster (and I do not mean VLCD fast) and is more likely to be maintained. Is it really? Might this just be one of those truisms that sounds so plausible that it isn't questioned?

    If 90% (or something) of weight losers gain it back, do the fast losers really account for the majority of these?

    Might not a faster rate of loss help some people stay more motivated for the duration?

    As to the belief that fast losers don't learn anything...If they had to learn how to eat to lose weight, are they not capable of learning a new thing to maintain weight?

    If by losing weight quickly someone ends up at goal weight with lower muscle mass than they want, can't they work it back up after they reach goal? Maybe this would counter the feeling that they are "done" when they get to goal.

    Just feeling curmudgeonly and skeptical today, I guess. Carry on.

    When I say that slower weight loss is more maintainable for some people, I am talking about the actual weight loss process. I am not talking about maintaining your loss after you finish losing. I am talking about the fact that losing quickly often requires a calorie level so low as to make people miserable. That increases the odds that they will quit entirely or repeatedly break the diet and overeat. That's what I'm talking about when I say that slower weight loss can be more maintainable.

    Also, "slower" is relative. One pound per week is slower than two pounds. A half pound per week is slower than one pound. One pound per month is slower yet. But if a person has repeatedly tried dieting (and let's face it, for many people that means they slash their calories down to the bone and start exercising like crazy) and failed, it is worth taking a step back to review what he has tried and then try something different.

    As for a faster rate of loss helping people--yes, that can help and that's often in the beginning when people are more overweight. Lyle McDonald has a good article that breaks down small, medium, and large deficits and that is one of his points in favor of a large deficit. Here's the article:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html/
  • LittleChipin
    LittleChipin Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    I'm pretty small height wise at 5'2" and I upped my calories from 1225 to 1300 just because I've seen a bit of a stall in weight-loss, but it's not hard reaching my calorie goal and I feel satisfied all day :)
  • NewGemini130
    NewGemini130 Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    There's a semi- recent journal article (I.e. a research study) that found that fast losing dieters were more likely to meet the weight loss goal (both groups had same goals like losing 12%of weight), but basically 70% of people gained all losses back in maintenance, in both groups no matter how fast they lost. Think it's Australian, maybe the journal is Lancet. Of course this was all medically supervised so maybe doesn't apply to we regular Janes & Joes. But interesting (and depressing).
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,838 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    GauchoMark wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.

    Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.

    SCoil123 wrote: »
    For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.

    While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.

    Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.

    While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)

    After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.

    A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.

    ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,838 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    msweeks83 wrote: »
    So I put in my information when I started MFP again after a few years because I have gained a lot, it said I need to consume 2700 calories a day (33yrs - 5'9" - 310.8) that was on the 1st of Jan. I have been eating a lot better than I was, one cheat meal a week, but have been averaging about 1100 calories. I mean even doing a slim fast diet only gets you to 1200 calories if your following it 100%.

    But my question is this. Can you eat healthy low calorie foods all day and be well nutrified without having to hit such a high calorie number? By the way Im down 23 pounds as of this morning, and I rarely feel hungry during the day. I do a bit at night right before i go to sleep but i use water to combat that.

    Any advice would be great, as Im losing some weight but I want to do it safely and make sure Im not going to damage my body in the long run

    The concern about eating so low (about 2000 or more below maintenance) is that you could be losing far more muscle than you need to, and it's probably not sustainable and could lead to a huge crash and inability to continue, as well as some health issues.

    On the other hand, when you have a lot to lose and a high starting weight, you can lose faster (1% of total weight, so around 3 lb per week for you) is a reasonable estimate. And the muscle loss won't be as big a risk while you are still quite obese, at least if you eat a good amount of protein, which it sounds like you are.

    Appetite isn't a good measure, since many obese people have screwed up appetite signals and many react to dieting and that rush of motivation by being able to eat quite low calories for a while (I had this and was accidentally eating under 1000 at around 200 lb before I realized I was overdoing). I also don't know what current exercise goals are, but it's especially unhealthy if you are engaging in vigorous activity.

    My thought is that if you have a need to take it off quickly and are big enough to do so (you might be), then it should be done under the supervision of a doctor or registered nutritionist, at least.

    If not, I'd try to slow it down to no more than 2-3 lb/week and over 1500 calories (likely over 1800 or 2000 calories). How to do this is figure your losses per week excluding any large drop at the beginning and add 500 for each lb less you'd like to lose. If it's 4 lb per week, eat 500-1000 more than you have been.

    If not, the appetite will come back at some point and you don't have a sustainable way of eating in place, as 1200 is simply not sustainable for a 33 year old man, even without being 300 lbs. When you have a great deal of weight to lose (over 100 lbs), you need to think of this as the long haul and what you would want to be eating as a normal diet over time. That's why comparisons to such things as the slimfast diet aren't a great idea. (Slimfast drinks aren't particularly great options, IMO.)

    It's great you've found some things that are working for you and are doing so well, but you just probably want to make some changes to make sure you can sustain it. OR, if you want to keep to the low cal approach, talk to a doctor or RD.

    I just wanted to see that one (^^^^) in writing one more time, because it's really good advice, IMO.
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    Whether or not 1200 is a "healthy" level for your body depends entirely on your height, sex, age, activity level, etc. I am very short (just under 5 feet tall) and close to my goal weight. My BMR is under 1200. So 1200 is my "baseline" calorie goal for days in which I do little physical activity, but I also eat most of my exercise calories back on days when I exercise. I'm quite active--a distance runner who also does strength and cardio cross-training.

    For me, this is a sustainable approach to weight loss; I've been doing it for over two years now, have lost 90 lb out of a goal of 100 lb lost, and all of my medical checkups have been great. I'm losing about 0.5 lb/week at this point--like I said, really short, really close to goal weight, so even with a low calorie budget my deficit isn't very big. I'll be going into maintenance pretty soon, so my calorie goals will go up.

    All of this means that I'm pretty good about getting nutritional value in my calories, but I also still fit in chocolate.

    Would 1200 calories be appropriate for *your* body? That's a different question. But does it work for *some* people? Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's helpful to overgeneralize about what is and isn't "healthy" or "sustainable" because our bodies and their needs vary so much.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Options
    NewGemini130 wrote: »
    By the way, the NIH has revised previous recommendations to say that for women, 1,000 is the new minimum (1200 for men). MFP has followed suit. If you have an older version of the app it might still warn you under 1200, but now it's 1000. This is research based and of course is a minimum.

    I'd like to know how much of the "research" behind this change is actually the research demonstrating that people underestimate their calorie intake (rather than based on actual nutrition). I'm fairly certain that's what's behind Health Canada switching to the absurd recommendation that the average woman should eat 1500 calories/day - completely inappropriate for any woman who isn't sedentary (and certainly inappropriate for most female teens). For most women, that's a weight loss number not a weight maintenance number.

    The problem with these sorts of blanket statements from public health agencies is that blanket statements of this nature will always be inaccurate. A 5'8 woman needs more of every nutrient than a 5'1 woman and therefore has a higher minimum required calorie intake to get those nutrients. So, which of those women is the official minimum actually for? Does it go as low as the 5'1 woman can go (in which case, it's far too low for the 5'8 woman)? Or does it only go as low as the 5'8 woman can go (in which case, it's quite a conservative estimate for the 5'1 woman)? But they make the blanket statements anyway because they feel it's easier to just have one rule for everyone. Given today's technology, I'd rather they just make an app that the person can plug their height and weight into - or tell people to use one that already exists!
  • chase8oliver
    chase8oliver Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    1,200 is the number a lot of women assume is every other woman's calorie intake. I'm not even sure where this number originated. Anyways, you have to base your calories on your current weight, body fat percentage, height, and even age. Everyone's calorie intake is different depending on the goal. There's no universal calorie intake for women or men.
  • GauchoMark
    GauchoMark Posts: 1,804 Member
    Options
    SCoil123 wrote: »
    GauchoMark wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.

    Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.

    SCoil123 wrote: »
    For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.

    While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.

    Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.

    Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.

    I never implied that when you eat less than you burn you lose the ability to lose fat. What I said was that I do not believe it is healthy long term to eat below BMR because that is what your body needs to maintain basic function. I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to preventing fat burn from that. I never even mentioned weight loss or fat in my reasoning as it was purely a health concern I was noting.

    The result of not eating enough to fuel basic functions like breathing and your heart beat would actually be death - not the inability to burn fat

    I understand BMR. However, energy is energy whether you get it from food or fat stores. You said that you think that if you don't EAT enough energy, that you would drop below the BMR energy requirement and that is unhealthy/dangerous. That implies that the energy from fat stores would not be used to make up the difference. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is what I read.
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    GauchoMark wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    It must also be noted that intake isn't just about nutrients. Sure they should be the primary concern but calories purely from an energy standpoint are hella important too. Your body needs those to fuel basic bodily functions, it can't get all it needs from stored fat every day. Eating too little fat will impact hormone function and ability to absorb those precious tricky to hit on a low intake nutrients.

    Reducing body weight is important, retaining health and lean body mass is more important.

    SCoil123 wrote: »
    For me I'm 5'7" and work out daily which includes a few sessions of Insanity and weight lifting. 1200 cals would not be healthy for me. I personally don't like the idea of eating below BMR and believe long term this can be dangerous for anyone though, since that is the number your body requires for basic functions.

    While I don't recommend anyone to go sub 1200 for very long if they can lose weight other ways, I don't think these statements are correct. If you are truly getting sufficient essential nutrients and micro nutrients, the entire purpose of fat deposits are to supply energy. These statements are implying that for some reason, when we eat less than we burn, that our bodies lose the ability to oxidize fat to make up the energy deficit.

    Do either of you have anything besides opinion to back this up? I'd like to see the mechanism that would lead us to the inability to convert fat deposits to energy in times of vlc intake.

    While I know of no mechanism for the inability to convert fat to energy while in calorie deficit, I've seen some research suggesting that there's a limit to how much fat we can metabolize when eating at a deficit - on the order of 30-something calories per pound of body fat per day, IIRC. (Did I bookmark that cite? Nah, that would require my being organized.)

    After that, we're likely to burn lean tissue in addition to fat, and that would be a reason to avoid a vlcd that led to high weight loss rates.

    A presumed limited ability to metabolize fat is the basis for various rules of thumb like "don't lose more than 1% of your body weight per week" or "cut your loss rate to 1 pound a week at X pounds before goal, and 0.5 pounds at Y pounds before goal". (I've seen X=50, Y=25; or X=25, Y=10.) I think both of those will end up having a safety margin built in for most people.

    ETA: Found a link to one of the studies (well, to the abstract - full text is behind a paywall, unless you have institutional access). It's sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175

    Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wanting to see! So, according to this theory, the maximum fat oxidation rate is 290KJ/KG fat per day. Going through the conversions, you could figure out the breaking point of where you would start losing lean body mass.

    For a 200 lb person with 25% BF they would have 22.7kg fat. Their maximum rate would be (22.7kg*290KJ/KG) 6,583 KJ/day which is a limiting rate of 1,572 calories per day from fat stores. That comes out to a limiting fat loss rate of about 3 lb/wk.

    So if their BMR was 2000 and TDEE was 2400, if they ate 1200 calories, the extra 1200 calories to reach TDEE from fat stores is still within the limiting rate.

    Assuming that they were able to get proper nutrition within those limited number of calories (big assumption), I would not think they would have any trouble burning fat stores to support BMR functions...
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    sketchdoll wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    sketchdoll wrote: »
    Okay, so confused newbie here. I pretty much just joined MFP with 15-20 lbs to lose. I was a bit worried because MFP set my caloric intake to 1200 calories a day. That seemed pretty extreme, but I am aiming to lose 1lb a week. I'm 5'4" and have my setting on sedentary (I spend vast majority of my day sitting at my day job.), but I do have my Fitbit hooked up and throughout the day I'm allotted more calories to eat due to steps so sometimes I get a bit more than 1200. Does this sound right to you guys? Or should I be aiming for something higher? I haven't really been miserable, so long as I eat high-protein foods throughout the day. Then again, I've only been doing this for about a week in a half :neutral:

    What's your current weight at 5'4"? That is a factor too in the goal MFP gives you.

    135. I would be happy to be anywhere between 115-118 though. That's where I've felt my healthiest.

    Since you are not overweight set your goal to .5 lb per week. With mfp you are supposed to eat calories earned from exercise. A lot of people only eat some of those calories to account for errors in calorie burn estimates.

    Exactly what I was aiming at. Yes. 1200 calories when not overweight, seems too severe.

Categories