1000-1200 calories, anyone?
Options
Replies
-
Wow, OP, you hit on a hot topic!
You asked if anyone out there has tried it & how it went. My TDEE is ~1750, so that is >500 cal deficit for me. Honestly, I can do 1200 for a couple days (or even 1000 for a day) if I hit certain macro minimums (25g fiber, 50g fat, 100g protein) and feel pretty good. If I'm eating low not on purpose (e.g. travel, not enough time or options), I'm probably not hitting my macro minimums but nonetheless fine for a day or two ...but will be pretty darn hungry by day 3. Conversely, if I've feasted like a king one day, I'm fine eating light the day after. A big deficit on isolated days, a la intermittent fasting, is no problem. When averaged over a week, though, an average daily deficit >250 is more that I can sustain. I am a binge waiting to happen if I'm averaging 1200.
tl;dr: A day here & there = no problem but 1200 (500cal deficit) is not sustainable for me, personally.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Totally agree, and love the new profile picture!
@WinoGelato thank you so much
I didn't bother replying to the comment on my comment LOL - there are those of us who lose weight the healthy and sustainable way (and wonder of wonders we succeed long term) and those who yoyo between eating too little and then re-gaining when they end their 'diet' duh! so I think I'll bow out apart from looking at newer comments and enjoy a bit of eye rolling and shaking head moments
The thing is I've been there myself, years of yoyo dieting didn't do me any favours. I always say to friends its a pity there hadn't been MFP 20 years ago, because now I could be saying I've been slim all my life rather than just for the better part of my 40s
The only way to sustain weight loss, is to not eat more calories than you burn.
Depending on where you get your information, anywhere from 80% to 97% of people who lose weight, gain it all (or even more back) within 5 years.
Point is, all anyone can do, is what works for themselves, and that involves eating less calories than you are burning to lose weight, and not eating more than you burn to maintain. What is the healthy, or unhealthy way to lose weight is something each of us should be consulting with our doctors about. No one on any internet forum can know what is right for someone else. There are many factors that go into this. Every diet will advise you to consult with your doctor before starting a weight loss program.
It is sheer arrogance to presume that you know best for anyone besides yourself. What qualifies you to decide that someone else is wrong? How can you possibly know? As long as you are eating at a calorie level that is safe, and have arrived at this number by consulting with a professional, how can anyone else tell you you are wrong, without know your medical history or anything about you.
If your program is working for you, that is fantastic and good for you. Unfortunately, we are not all the same, and that is a fact.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk.
I agree with Ruth.
I've dieted on and off for over 40 years.
Here's the greater issue behind the argument for eating more, particularly as you get closer to goal:
I personally found that as I went further along in my weight loss, fitness became a bigger part of my life, and as I had less body fat, I found I needed more calories to fuel my activity while still losing weight. I wasn't willing to sacrifice running performance to maintain a large deficit.
You are right, this might not be the same for you.
I do know that both Ruth and WinoGelato are very active people. Perhaps that is the difference here. Those of us who are active know what a difference those calories make, particularly once you start to lean out and have less and less body fat to burn to fuel your activity.
Thank you for telling me I am inactive, but no, that is not it. I have gone to the gym every single day (missed 2 because of snow storms) for over two years. Have had a fit bit for 4 years and get at least 15K every single day. Lost zip weight until I started logging here and cut calorie consumption to 1200 calories from 1600. Lost -23 since 1/1/17, but of course now I was told that is losing too fast. Why is it so difficult to believe that someone can not lose weight eating more calories than you think they should be eating.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk, but that is your experience, not mine.
What this tells me is that when you thought you were eating 1600 cals, you were actually eating quite a bit more and that's why you weren't losing. You said since Jan you have cut your calories to 1200 and started logging here. You are losing ~3 lbs/week, so that means you are eating at a deficit of 1500 calories from your TDEE. If you applied the same diligence to logging that you have since January, only aiming for the 1600 cals of before, or even higher, you should still be losing, just at a slower rate.
Mathematically it's impossible for you to maintain at 1600 but lose 3 lbs/week at 1200.
Seriously? I am done. You know nothing about me. This is not about mathematics. I know many people in my age group that are eating, or have eaten 1200 to lose. It is not uncommon. Some of us do not fit into your mold. I do weigh my food. I have dropped my calories to 1200 and am losing weight, and this was my doctors suggestion who also happens to be a weight loss specialist.
3 -
The laws of physics tend to apply to everyone in this universe; if you're losing 3 lb/week at 1200 calories, you're at a 1,500 cal/day deficit. That means that if you actually ate 1600/day, you'd lose 2lb/week. Heck, you could go with 2100 cal/day and lose 1 lb a week.
You do you. I'm glad you have medical supervision if your plan is to lose 3 lb/week indefinitely. I hope you have some support as you get close to goal, as that's a huge risk for regain.10 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Totally agree, and love the new profile picture!
@WinoGelato thank you so much I didn't bother replying to the comment on my comment LOL - there are those of us who lose weight the healthy and sustainable way (and wonder of wonders we succeed long term) and those who yoyo between eating too little and then re-gaining when they end their 'diet' duh! so I think I'll bow out apart from looking at newer comments and enjoy a bit of eye rolling and shaking head moments
The thing is I've been there myself, years of yoyo dieting didn't do me any favours. I always say to friends its a pity there hadn't been MFP 20 years ago, because now I could be saying I've been slim all my life rather than just for the better part of my 40s
The only way to sustain weight loss, is to not eat more calories than you burn.
Depending on where you get your information, anywhere from 80% to 97% of people who lose weight, gain it all (or even more back) within 5 years.
Point is, all anyone can do, is what works for themselves, and that involves eating less calories than you are burning to lose weight, and not eating more than you burn to maintain. What is the healthy, or unhealthy way to lose weight is something each of us should be consulting with our doctors about. No one on any internet forum can know what is right for someone else. There are many factors that go into this. Every diet will advise you to consult with your doctor before starting a weight loss program.
It is sheer arrogance to presume that you know best for anyone besides yourself. What qualifies you to decide that someone else is wrong? How can you possibly know? As long as you are eating at a calorie level that is safe, and have arrived at this number by consulting with a professional, how can anyone else tell you you are wrong, without know your medical history or anything about you.
If your program is working for you, that is fantastic and good for you. Unfortunately, we are not all the same, and that is a fact.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk.
I agree with Ruth.
I've dieted on and off for over 40 years.
Here's the greater issue behind the argument for eating more, particularly as you get closer to goal:
I personally found that as I went further along in my weight loss, fitness became a bigger part of my life, and as I had less body fat, I found I needed more calories to fuel my activity while still losing weight. I wasn't willing to sacrifice running performance to maintain a large deficit.
You are right, this might not be the same for you.
I do know that both Ruth and WinoGelato are very active people. Perhaps that is the difference here. Those of us who are active know what a difference those calories make, particularly once you start to lean out and have less and less body fat to burn to fuel your activity.
Thank you for telling me I am inactive, but no, that is not it. I have gone to the gym every single day (missed 2 because of snow storms) for over two years. Have had a fit bit for 4 years and get at least 15K every single day. Lost zip weight until I started logging here and cut calorie consumption to 1200 calories from 1600. Lost -23 since 1/1/17, but of course now I was told that is losing too fast. Why is it so difficult to believe that someone can not lose weight eating more calories than you think they should be eating.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk, but that is your experience, not mine.
I just allowed that it might be different for you, I never presumed anything about your exercise habits.
If you weren't losing at 1600, and you suddenly lost 2.5 pounds a week at 1200, all that says is that you weren't counting calories accurately at 1600, and likely aren't at 1200.
Here's the math - period of weight loss (rounded): 9 weeks
Calorie differential per week : 2,800 calories
Weight difference based on caloric differential
(weeks x weekly differential/3500) : 7.2
In other words, if all your logging were truly accurate, you still would have been losing weight at 1600. The difference of a 23 pound loss at 1200 calories for 9 weeks and 1600 calories for 9 weeks is not no weight loss, it's 7.2 pounds.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You said upthread that your maintenance calories were 1200-1300? And that's your TDEE, including all this exercise? What is your height and weight?
I don't get into the TDEE thing. I simply track calories (and yes protein and a few other things). Yes maintenance for me, at 138-140 pounds, has always been 1200-1300 calories, but note that on those day where I did something like a half-marathon, obviously I ate more that day. I don't do those runs anymore, sadly, but mentioned them simply to explain that I AM active, other than my job. I have a sit-down job, always have - for over 30 years (I am 61), and am on my butt for 8-9 hours a day, so I have always figured that was why I fall at that low end of the calorie scale. So to answer your question, for my normal days, cardio and gym, yes that is my maintenance. I fell off the logging wagon a couple of years ago and that is why I am using MFP (also have to use it for work) to log. I lost 10, but went right back to my bad habits (snacking!), and gained it back plus a few more. I was averaging about 1500 -1700 calories a day - DOH. And maybe 155-160 is fine for others at my height, but it is NOT fine for me. I know where I am happiest at, and feel best at. So back at the strict logging again to get back where i need to be, and stay there. I am 5'7", at 153 right now.
But enough about me. This thread is not about me. Back to the OP...please.0 -
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.
0 -
annacole94 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk.
I agree with Ruth.
I've dieted on and off for over 40 years.
Here's the greater issue behind the argument for eating more, particularly as you get closer to goal:
I personally found that as I went further along in my weight loss, fitness became a bigger part of my life, and as I had less body fat, I found I needed more calories to fuel my activity while still losing weight. I wasn't willing to sacrifice running performance to maintain a large deficit.
You are right, this might not be the same for you.
I do know that both Ruth and WinoGelato are very active people. Perhaps that is the difference here. Those of us who are active know what a difference those calories make, particularly once you start to lean out and have less and less body fat to burn to fuel your activity.
I agree - exercise does make a huge difference. I work out regularly at the gym, and walk/bike/elliptical/stepmill on my lunch hour, every day. It's normal for me to do 150 flights of stairs in my 30 minutes at the gym (have to leave time for a shower!). If I walk, I make sure I cover 3 miles. I have done 6 half-marathons, and many shorter races. I used to run every day, but I had a torn meniscus repair this past summer
and I'm not sure if my knee will ever let me get back to running, so I have to find other ways. I routinely bike 15-20 miles on the weekend, and have done as much as 35. Fitness is a normal part of my day and should be for everyone.
You said upthread that your maintenance calories were 1200-1300? And that's your TDEE, including all this exercise? What is your height and weight?
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.
This.2 -
OP - this is my second time seriously losing weight. The first time I stuck to the 1200/day pretty strict. I didn't slow my progress down when I was under 20 to go, and I burned my self out and quit. AKA gained all back plus some.
I'm still, generally sticking to 1200/day for at least 3 or 4 days a week. I workout regularly, both cardio and heavy lifting and running on the weekends. If I'm hungry I eat more. If I feel like my energy is low, I eat more. On the weekends, I eat more. When all is said and done - my net is likely 1500 - 1800. When I get closer to goal, ie 20 to go... I'll slow my progress down to 1 or .5/week loss. I've realized it's important to prepare for the end goal just as hard as you worked to get to the goal.
You just have to find that little magic formula that works for you.0 -
I think the OP 'left the building' a long time ago lol2
-
3rdof7sisters wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I have been using MFP for the past 4 years. I am a small person and have no problem staying around 1200 calories. I also exercise about 3 times a week and average about 1 lb. loss each week. I have found that if I don't log, the weight creeps back. At 1200 calories, it is important to make good choices for every calorie. I don't find myself hungry if I eat healthy fats and proteins.
So out of those 4 years have you kept off the weight you lost? Just wondering because if not then eating that low hasn't really worked for you... I'm also petite, been at goal for 4 years, lost 0.5lb a week eating 1700-1800 cals. And that's purely the reason I never regained as I wasn't depriving myself or ever felt like I was in a diet. Just had to make that point because there really is no need to eat low cal to have success.
Totally agree, and love the new profile picture!
@WinoGelato thank you so much I didn't bother replying to the comment on my comment LOL - there are those of us who lose weight the healthy and sustainable way (and wonder of wonders we succeed long term) and those who yoyo between eating too little and then re-gaining when they end their 'diet' duh! so I think I'll bow out apart from looking at newer comments and enjoy a bit of eye rolling and shaking head moments
The thing is I've been there myself, years of yoyo dieting didn't do me any favours. I always say to friends its a pity there hadn't been MFP 20 years ago, because now I could be saying I've been slim all my life rather than just for the better part of my 40s
The only way to sustain weight loss, is to not eat more calories than you burn.
Depending on where you get your information, anywhere from 80% to 97% of people who lose weight, gain it all (or even more back) within 5 years.
Point is, all anyone can do, is what works for themselves, and that involves eating less calories than you are burning to lose weight, and not eating more than you burn to maintain. What is the healthy, or unhealthy way to lose weight is something each of us should be consulting with our doctors about. No one on any internet forum can know what is right for someone else. There are many factors that go into this. Every diet will advise you to consult with your doctor before starting a weight loss program.
It is sheer arrogance to presume that you know best for anyone besides yourself. What qualifies you to decide that someone else is wrong? How can you possibly know? As long as you are eating at a calorie level that is safe, and have arrived at this number by consulting with a professional, how can anyone else tell you you are wrong, without know your medical history or anything about you.
If your program is working for you, that is fantastic and good for you. Unfortunately, we are not all the same, and that is a fact.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk.
I agree with Ruth.
I've dieted on and off for over 40 years.
Here's the greater issue behind the argument for eating more, particularly as you get closer to goal:
I personally found that as I went further along in my weight loss, fitness became a bigger part of my life, and as I had less body fat, I found I needed more calories to fuel my activity while still losing weight. I wasn't willing to sacrifice running performance to maintain a large deficit.
You are right, this might not be the same for you.
I do know that both Ruth and WinoGelato are very active people. Perhaps that is the difference here. Those of us who are active know what a difference those calories make, particularly once you start to lean out and have less and less body fat to burn to fuel your activity.
Thank you for telling me I am inactive, but no, that is not it. I have gone to the gym every single day (missed 2 because of snow storms) for over two years. Have had a fit bit for 4 years and get at least 15K every single day. Lost zip weight until I started logging here and cut calorie consumption to 1200 calories from 1600. Lost -23 since 1/1/17, but of course now I was told that is losing too fast. Why is it so difficult to believe that someone can not lose weight eating more calories than you think they should be eating.
The voice of experience is ignored at one's own risk, but that is your experience, not mine.
What this tells me is that when you thought you were eating 1600 cals, you were actually eating quite a bit more and that's why you weren't losing. You said since Jan you have cut your calories to 1200 and started logging here. You are losing ~3 lbs/week, so that means you are eating at a deficit of 1500 calories from your TDEE. If you applied the same diligence to logging that you have since January, only aiming for the 1600 cals of before, or even higher, you should still be losing, just at a slower rate.
Mathematically it's impossible for you to maintain at 1600 but lose 3 lbs/week at 1200.
Seriously? I am done. You know nothing about me. This is not about mathematics. I know many people in my age group that are eating, or have eaten 1200 to lose. It is not uncommon. Some of us do not fit into your mold. I do weigh my food. I have dropped my calories to 1200 and am losing weight, and this was my doctors suggestion who also happens to be a weight loss specialist.
Weight loss is always about mathematics... whether you choose to believe it or not.
I don't have a mold. I understand that there is a subset of the population who are older, sedentary, and very petite for whom going as low as 1200 cals is a requirement. You have described an active lifestyle and now, after logging diligently, are losing weight rapidly. You can feel free to ignore this, as I know you are not looking for advice, but you absolutely would still be losing if you were logging the way you are now but eating at a higher calorie amount. You would be losing more slowly, yes. Depending on how much weight you have to lose, you and your doctor may have chosen a more aggressive plan, but again - mathematically, it is impossible that you would be not losing ANYTHING at 1600 but suddenly start losing rapidly by only cutting 400 cals/day.
13 -
-
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.
3 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You said upthread that your maintenance calories were 1200-1300? And that's your TDEE, including all this exercise? What is your height and weight?
I don't get into the TDEE thing. I simply track calories (and yes protein and a few other things). Yes maintenance for me, at 138-140 pounds, has always been 1200-1300 calories, but note that on those day where I did something like a half-marathon, obviously I ate more that day. I don't do those runs anymore, sadly, but mentioned them simply to explain that I AM active, other than my job. I have a sit-down job, always have - for over 30 years (I am 61), and am on my butt for 8-9 hours a day, so I have always figured that was why I fall at that low end of the calorie scale. So to answer your question, for my normal days, cardio and gym, yes that is my maintenance. I fell off the logging wagon a couple of years ago and that is why I am using MFP (also have to use it for work) to log. I lost 10, but went right back to my bad habits (snacking!), and gained it back plus a few more. I was averaging about 1500 -1700 calories a day - DOH. And maybe 155-160 is fine for others at my height, but it is NOT fine for me. I know where I am happiest at, and feel best at. So back at the strict logging again to get back where i need to be, and stay there. I am 5'7", at 153 right now.
But enough about me. This thread is not about me. Back to the OP...please.
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.
7 -
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.
1 -
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?
9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
"The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".
I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?
Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.
That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.
Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.
There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.
I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.
I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...
No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.
None of that means that every person's approach should be to eat as much as possible while still losing. Some of us don't feel deprived or find it unsustainable to eat 1200 calories a day, and we still exercise and have energy and aren't lying, failing to log properly or starving. The blanket pronouncement that no woman should ever eat at 1200 calories unless she's extremely short and very inactive is you and others projecting onto others.
Maybe try being a bit less quick to insist that everyone adhere to your strategy of eating every calorie they possibly can lest they be doing it wrong. The limit at which I lose at my chosen rate is the most I can eat, if hungry. It's not an obligation, nor is it a failure to get to the end of the day and have some calories left in the green.
Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
Two years.
You've been eating at 1200 for two years?
Further questions:
You say you exercise and have energy - how much exercise do you get?
Have you ever taken a diet break?
What are your current stats?
There are reasons I'm asking these questions, I do have a point. I'll get to it once I know more information.
First, asking me about a diet break is nonsensical as this implies a temporary condition that exists until I "go back to normal." I am living my life, day in, day out. You might as well ask if I intend to take a breath break.
You misunderstand the concept of the diet break, then.
It's merely a period of eating at maintenance as opposed to deficit in order to replenish certain hormones.
Have you ever done that?Second, I run six days a week. Three to four miles per day on week days, and an eight mile run on the weekend. I may skip a run if I'm doing something else like backpack camping for a weekend. That is aside from whatever else I do hanging out with friends like going bowling or biking. In the summer, I like to motorcycle. Sometimes when I don't have a race coming up, I replace two short run days with rowing. I like yoga on Sundays.
Third, I'm at the high end of normal currently, BMi 24.8, and will probably drop to between 20 and 21.
I feel far better, less hungry, and more energetic now than I ever did at any point before in my life. Make whatever point you want, but if you think I'm trading this in to eat more so you'll be happy with my intake, I do t suggest holding your breath.
Ah, so you still have fat stores.
Yes, let me know how your running performance and dieting go when your BMI drops to say... 22ish and you're still trying to get down to 20-21.
This is why I was asking what I was asking you.
It's very easy to have bravado about a low caloric intake when you have body fat you're burning up. You don't realize what you're doing in the process, though, until you get down to those last pounds and start getting really lean while you try to keep up with athletic performance.
You seem to think this is all about people forcing food on you and that none of us have had any experience or anything and that you can sort all this out for yourself, so I'll just let you see how this all plays out.
First, flagging this was a totally inappropriate use of the flag function.
Secondly, I often recant this story in these threads about people exercising a lot eating 1200 calories gross. Someone on my FL did this. She started I think obese cat 2 (may even have been higher) but her doctor signed her off to eat 1200 and start exercising. she got into running in a big way. Didn't recheck her calories were still good with her doctor. Lost a LOT of weight, she may even be a healthy BMI at this point or close (sorry, I don't store exacts in my wonky brain on that front!). Well, running miles a day on no fuel caught up with her. Badly. She started to feel unwell and just a few days later ended up in hospital having seizures. Luckily this was caught quickly and she's rectified the problem. But she went from "I feel great, I've lost weight, I love running!" and in a few days was in hospital.
So there is most certainly a reason to make sure you are meeting what your body needs as a minimum to function properly, especially important when you have fewer fat stores and are active even a little bit. The body has finite resources, undereating can come with as many, if not more problems, than staying overweight a little longer than you'd like.11 -
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?
2 -
fitmom4lifemfp 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.2 -
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.0 -
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.19
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions