1000-1200 calories, anyone?

12346»

Replies

  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    You just have to find that little magic formula that works for you.

    Yep. And that is exactly the point many of us have been making. :)
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.

    I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile. :)
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I don't know what you mean "get into the TDEE thing". If you are accurately logging your calories, eating 1200-1300, and you are maintaining your weight at that level - that's your TDEE.

    I couldn't even tell you what that acronym means, and really I don't care. That's what I meant. It's not anything I need to be concerned with - counting my calories works fine for me.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    edited March 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I don't know what you mean "get into the TDEE thing". If you are accurately logging your calories, eating 1200-1300, and you are maintaining your weight at that level - that's your TDEE.

    I couldn't even tell you what that acronym means, and really I don't care. That's what I meant. It's not anything I need to be concerned with - counting my calories works fine for me.

    Ok well you don't care, but someone reading along may not understand or may be curious.
    TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure. It is the sum of all the calories you burn from just being alive (BMR) + your day to day activity (which totals to your NEAT), + your purposeful exercise.

    It is also why so many of us are incredulous that you are presumably accurately logging your calories at 1200-1300 and maintaining your weight. That is what you are saying, right? When you eat 1200-1300 your weight is constant? That's why you say this is your maintenance?

    I really don't know how to make it much clearer, and frankly I am tired of trying. I am not you. I am me. I have been meticulously counting calories (other than my stupid lapse a couple years ago) since 2002 - 2004. Actually long before that too, but never did the journalling thing like I learned to do with WW. So I am very comfortable in the knowledge of what MY body requires. No medical conditions. Extremely healthy. Physical every year, PCP knows how much I eat because she and I are (or were) both runners and we talk a lot about the whole fitness thing. Nothing ever said like "OMG you are going to collapse!" so that's that. I'm good. You believe what ever you want, and do what works for you. Okay? :|
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    HealthierMeforlife2016 wrote: »
    I'm on 1200 and I don't good lower not healthy to go lower than 1200

    A sweeping statement made with no proof. People can, and do, eat below 1200 calories and are healthy.

    Wait a minute. Why would you say going below 1200 calories is healthy, when that is below most people's BMR, the amount that sustains a person who is sedentary?

    Please give examples.

    Oh good grief. :/

    I'm not sure what your reaction means. Care to clarify?

    While Trigen pointed out some examples of why he believes below 1200 might be appropriate for some people, it's still remains true that for most people 1200 is too low.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your reaction means. Care to clarify?

    While Trigen pointed out some examples of why he believes below 1200 might be appropriate for some people, it's still remains true that for most people 1200 is too low.

    "Asking for examples". That was the reason for my reaction. I think this thread is full of examples. Perhaps I misunderstood. My apologies.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yep. This thread went about the way I thought it would. I think I will continue reading it from afar, while I sip my wine and eat my Girl Scout cookies enjoying maintenance. Best of luck to all of you, it seems like everyone has it all figured out!

    Some of us don't feel deprived by not having Girl Scout cookies and wine. For one, I don't like either of those. It's not torture. I'm not feeling deprived. Girl Scout cookies are not that good.
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    If anything, this poster is a cautionary tale about eating too little for too long, and then having the fun of doing that forever. This isn't a story about how eating 1200 calories has a happy ending.

    LOL. Right. ;)

    They say "having to" like I'm just crushed that I can't eat more. If I wanted to eat more, I would. I'm not interested in eating food for the sake of eating it.
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    You're a cautionary tale.

    And you're extremely arrogant thinking you know everything because you've been trying to lose weight for four years.

  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.

    I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile. :)

    Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?

    No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.

    What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.

    Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.

    You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.

    You're a cautionary tale.

    What would be great, is if you would actually tell me WHERE I stated that? Clearly I know that fall OUTSIDE the *normal" range. How many times do I have to say that?

    I am certainly not a "cautionary tale". What utter nonsense. I could not give a rat's patooty about bursting bubbles. I do log accurately, and if the fact that my metabolic rate is low enough that don't fit within that 90 or 95% of folks that "normal" covers, then yeah, that makes me an outlier. "Underfueling"? That's hilarious. I can't even run on an empty stomach. If I am hungry before the gym, I EAT.

    I am over this absurd push to somehow prove to others that I am not what I say, that I am not logging correctly, or have somehow damaged my health over the years. Such foolishness. I AM healthy, and I am not telling any tales about anything here (and I don't appreciate the insulation that I am.)

    There is actually a research article somewhere, I don't know where I saw it, but it gave statistics about people that have metabolic rates at the extreme ends of the ranges, and that the calories for those people can vary as much as 600 calories above and below what is considered normal for most people. I'd post it if I could find it, but really I think I have spent enough time here responding to these ridiculous assertions. Have a great day.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    kk_inprogress wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.

    I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile. :)

    Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?

    No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.

    What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.

    Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.

    You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.

    You're a cautionary tale.

    *mic drop*

    You wish.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    kk_inprogress wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.

    I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile. :)

    Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?

    No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.

    What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.

    Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.

    You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.

    You're a cautionary tale.

    *mic drop*

    You wish.

    There seem to be a lot of people on this site who can't imagine not wanting to eat everything in sight.
  • FitLaughLove
    FitLaughLove Posts: 125 Member
    Would this type of diet be safe for someone who's 4'11''? What would a healthy full day of eating look like? I'd still want to get in all the nutrients I'd need. But anyways, I feel like anytime I eat more than 1200 I actually gain weight..
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    She has stated that she was running half marathons eating even less than this. That would mean that she had an even higher TDEE and was underfueling. When you continually, for years, undereat, your body adapts and slows metabolism.

    These are facts, not arrogance on my part.

    I stated that I ate MORE on half-marathon days. Dang you can't even read what I wrote.

    You can think whatever you want, as long as it makes you happy. That doesn't make it so, but you go right ahead.
    Have a great night. I'm off to the gym. :)

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited March 2017
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    She has stated that she was running half marathons eating even less than this. That would mean that she had an even higher TDEE and was underfueling. When you continually, for years, undereat, your body adapts and slows metabolism.

    These are facts, not arrogance on my part.

    I stated that I ate MORE on half-marathon days. Dang you can't even read what I wrote.

    You can think whatever you want, as long as it makes you happy. That doesn't make it so, but you go right ahead.
    Have a great night. I'm off to the gym. :)

    What did you eat on training run days? I can read just fine. If you ran marathons and trained for them eating - I believe you said 1500 or so? You were underfueling.
  • salemnye
    salemnye Posts: 305 Member
    I'm eating around those calories a day :) I'm also extremely sedentary (currently unemployed) so I might increase my calories once I become more active. I have an open diary if you'd like to view it.
  • hamsammy67
    hamsammy67 Posts: 9 Member
    I am 5'2 and 49 years old. My calorie goal is 1200. I am a pretty devout food weigher (it really makes a difference I find), but won't beat myself up if i go over occasionally (like 1-3x a week). I keep reminding myself that this a sustainable change, not torture. I love a glass of wine (or 3) but I measure it out just like I do my food. If I have an evening with the gals (which we all know is a challenge) I still try and keep track...even if I double my goal for the day. With this attitude, I have been on MFP for 6 weeks and have lost almost 12 lbs. I try and move my body daily; some days it's just a brisk walk for 20 mins, other days it's a 10km cross-country ski. I try and do squats every morning before I get dressed. And don't forget to use a measuring tape!! Sometimes the scale doesn't move, but the tape measure does. Like you, I've gained and lost weight a few times over the years. But if you have a more sustainable attitude about it, you'll be much happier and healthier! Good luck @bugelsalmoncatgirl!
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I think it might be time for you to not be so blithe about "Oh, I've done this for years" and give some thought to the fact that you might have some metabolic adaptation going on.

    I've "adapted" to nothing. I assure you. Maybe it is time for you to accept the fact that we don't all fit the same profile. :)

    Do you know what metabolic adaptation is?

    No one is here trying to get you, personally, to eat more food.

    What would be nice is if you'd stop trying to normalize the intake as maintenance for 5'7" women weighing what you weigh as something that's within the realm of statistical possibility without some mitigating factor playing a role in why that's the case.

    Instead, you keep insisting that the rest of us just can't stand to have our bubbles burst.

    You're not a metabolic outlier, if anything, what you experience is likely a result of a combination of inaccurate logging combined with the cumulative affect of years of exercising and underfueling that exercise, which results in metabolic adaptation. Your innate metabolism isn't slow, you slowed it yourself.

    You're a cautionary tale.

    What would be great, is if you would actually tell me WHERE I stated that? Clearly I know that fall OUTSIDE the *normal" range. How many times do I have to say that?

    I am certainly not a "cautionary tale". What utter nonsense. I could not give a rat's patooty about bursting bubbles. I do log accurately, and if the fact that my metabolic rate is low enough that don't fit within that 90 or 95% of folks that "normal" covers, then yeah, that makes me an outlier. "Underfueling"? That's hilarious. I can't even run on an empty stomach. If I am hungry before the gym, I EAT.

    I am over this absurd push to somehow prove to others that I am not what I say, that I am not logging correctly, or have somehow damaged my health over the years. Such foolishness. I AM healthy, and I am not telling any tales about anything here (and I don't appreciate the insulation that I am.)

    There is actually a research article somewhere, I don't know where I saw it, but it gave statistics about people that have metabolic rates at the extreme ends of the ranges, and that the calories for those people can vary as much as 600 calories above and below what is considered normal for most people. I'd post it if I could find it, but really I think I have spent enough time here responding to these ridiculous assertions. Have a great day.

    That 600 calorie amount you remember is the difference between the two statistical outliers, not the variation from the norm for one end.

    https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/\

    So in other words, If the middle normal range was given as 2000, the lower end could be 1700, and the higher end could be 2300. Each would vary 300 from the norm.

    Neither end varies that far from the norm, and neither do you without some mitigating factor.

    That is all I am saying here. What you are experiencing is beyond what can be explained away by calling yourself an outlier.
  • jak1958
    jak1958 Posts: 82 Member
    This is getting old guys.. give it a rest. Take it offline if needed. Not very supportive (or becoming to either of you) for new folks viewing!
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your reaction means. Care to clarify?

    While Trigen pointed out some examples of why he believes below 1200 might be appropriate for some people, it's still remains true that for most people 1200 is too low.

    "Asking for examples". That was the reason for my reaction. I think this thread is full of examples. Perhaps I misunderstood. My apologies.

    No problem. :)

    However, the iissue is that too many people think they have to practically starve themselves (as in not eat enough) to lose weight.

    How is it that you are eating 1200 or less when you exercise and run marathons? That is not properly fueling your body.
  • sugaraddict4321
    sugaraddict4321 Posts: 15,894 MFP Moderator
    Dear Posters,

    I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
    The forum guidelines include this item:

    1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
    a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
    b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.

    If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines

    At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.

    With respect,
    Sugar
    MyFitnessPal Moderator
This discussion has been closed.

Categories