Why 1200 calories isn’t for me

RecognitionT

I'm a man.

SisterSueGetsFit

RecognitionT wrote: »

I'm a man.

Touché

fitoverfortymom

SisterSueGetsFit wrote: »

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

Why 1200 wasn't for me...

I first started MFP at 256lbs and wanting/needing to lose +/-100 lbs. I signed up for a 2lb per week lost, and MFP spit out a little more than 1200 calories. I stuck to it for about 7 months, and rarely ate exercise calories back. To be fair, I didn't exercise much--mostly walking the dog and a lunchtime walk.

When I hit the 5 month mark and had lost around 50-60lbs, I should have felt amazing. Instead, my skin was a mess, I had a weird rash, my hair was falling out, and I was so tired I couldn't even see straight. This is definitely not what I imagined losing weight to feel like.

I went to the doctor (which I almost never do), and learned I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. I was given a 50,000 unit per week supplement and told to eat more. At that point, I adjusted my calories to 1500 and I continued to lose between 1.5-2lbs for a week for a few more months. With the supplements I did start to feel better, and my took a few months to clear up (we're talking super, super dry psoriasis-type skin), and my energy levels returned to normal.

At that point, I began exercising more seriously and heeded advice to at least some of my earned exercise calories back. While I'm still chiseling away at the last few pounds I want to lose, if I could do it all over again, I would have started with a MUCH more conservative weight loss goal, like 1lb per week. I think I would have saved myself some discomfort and been more equipped to figure out my true maintenance calories.

This. Thank you for saying what I was trying to, but clearly not doing a good job at it.

I was just coming in for reinforcement. Your post echoed everything about my 1200 calorie experience. I'm also 5'6" tall, but I totally get how shorter people might genuinely have lower maintenance needs. Now that I've lost *most* of the weight and am extremely active, I can't imagine sticking to 1200 calories unless I'm sick. Sometimes I eat that much before lunch!

amberellen12

I eat a LOT of vegetables and fruits so 1200 isn’t hard for me. I’m always full. At my age (60) 1250 is my maintenance without exercise. Everyone is different.

kiela64

Semele0 wrote: »

I don't understand something: many are replying saying that they tried 1200 but they couldn't do it because for them was too high a deficit. Why did you try? And why are you saying that the problem were the calories? I agree that you should lose slowly, and even more so if you have little to lose, but for somebody 1200 is a big deficit, for others it's a small deficit. So why everybody tries to eat just 1200 when it's too litlle for them? And why then they say that it is too little for everybody?

I can't speak for other people, but I think when it's offered by MFP as the fastest healthy/safe way to lose weight it sounds like an awesome deal. It's also not always even at the 2lb/week loss rate for everyone, sometimes if you're a shortie it's at 1.5lb/week (moi), 1lb/week, etc.

I technically tried below 1200cal. I have a few days at like 1100-ish. I personally tried it because I wanted to know where my hunger was, what affected it, etc. I didn't go out and say "hey I'm going to try eating 1200/1100 cal today! And stick with it!" I went out saying "I am going to wait until I absolutely NEED to eat". Especially after eating so much for so long, I was used to never being hungry. I wanted that information, and I didn't expect it to be sustainable.

I learned that if I changed my macros (maybe low or slow carb, more fibrous veggies and lean protein), and was more careful with what I was eating, and allowed my hunger signals to be the only arbiter of eating I could probably do 1200 (or 1280, as my 1.5 lb loss per week says) comfortably as a short and fairly sedentary woman.

I'd need to learn a lot more about nutrition, get a food scale, and plan meticulously. It would probably be beneficial in the long run because I'd gain that awareness. But the energy (mental energy, not calories, sadly lol) it would take for me to learn how to do that, I can spend on other things. Like enjoying a date night out with my SO, and eating dinner with my friends and family. And y'know enjoying food

And I think it's better for me to spend more thought and attention on increasing my activity and ability, rather than just focusing on diet and weight loss. I want to make a total lifestyle change. The 1280cal with precise nutrition and timing would be one too, but I really want my body to function more than I want to be smaller. Being smaller is part of what will help me achieve my goal - less stress on my joints, etc. But it's not the whole thing. Becoming more active is a real challenge for me, and it's more important than significant/fast weight loss.

It was a cost/reward analysis, where I made a choice that works better for me. My goals could totally change in the future, and I'm really happy I have that information about how I react to a lower calorie goal. But for these reasons I don't really want to stay there right now

Semele0

I totally agree with you, weight loss is not my number one priority either! I don't want to miss on any social thing just to be a little smaller, I go to eat out with my boyfriend or drink with friends whenever I want, that's way I'm losing oh so slowly, but it's ok for me, I'm not in a rush. It just sometimes irks me to see people react to the fact that my limit is 1250 saying can't you just eat more? Well yes I could, and I often do, but in this way I don't lose weight. If I'm hungry and wan to eat more than 1250 I do, it's not the end of the world, but in order to lose weight I need the 1250.
I understand that many who want the quick fix will go to the 1200 hoping it's going to be the magic number, but I don't like to see how it gets the demonic number when the too fast too much diets don't work

deannalfisher

kiela64 wrote: »

Semele0 wrote: »

I don't understand something: many are replying saying that they tried 1200 but they couldn't do it because for them was too high a deficit. Why did you try? And why are you saying that the problem were the calories? I agree that you should lose slowly, and even more so if you have little to lose, but for somebody 1200 is a big deficit, for others it's a small deficit. So why everybody tries to eat just 1200 when it's too litlle for them? And why then they say that it is too little for everybody?

I can't speak for other people, but I think when it's offered by MFP as the fastest healthy/safe way to lose weight it sounds like an awesome deal. It's also not always even at the 2lb/week loss rate for everyone, sometimes if you're a shortie it's at 1.5lb/week (moi), 1lb/week, etc.

I technically tried below 1200cal. I have a few days at like 1100-ish. I personally tried it because I wanted to know where my hunger was, what affected it, etc. I didn't go out and say "hey I'm going to try eating 1200/1100 cal today! And stick with it!" I went out saying "I am going to wait until I absolutely NEED to eat". Especially after eating so much for so long, I was used to never being hungry. I wanted that information, and I didn't expect it to be sustainable.

I learned that if I changed my macros (maybe low or slow carb, more fibrous veggies and lean protein), and was more careful with what I was eating, and allowed my hunger signals to be the only arbiter of eating I could probably do 1200 (or 1280, as my 1.5 lb loss per week says) comfortably as a short and fairly sedentary woman.

I'd need to learn a lot more about nutrition, get a food scale, and plan meticulously. It would probably be beneficial in the long run because I'd gain that awareness. But the energy (mental energy, not calories, sadly lol) it would take for me to learn how to do that, I can spend on other things. Like enjoying a date night out with my SO, and eating dinner with my friends and family. And y'know enjoying food

And I think it's better for me to spend more thought and attention on increasing my activity and ability, rather than just focusing on diet and weight loss. I want to make a total lifestyle change. The 1280cal with precise nutrition and timing would be one too, but I really want my body to function more than I want to be smaller. Being smaller is part of what will help me achieve my goal - less stress on my joints, etc. But it's not the whole thing. Becoming more active is a real challenge for me, and it's more important than significant/fast weight loss.

It was a cost/reward analysis, where I made a choice that works better for me. My goals could totally change in the future, and I'm really happy I have that information about how I react to a lower calorie goal. But for these reasons I don't really want to stay there right now

just because its offered by MFP doesn't mean its safe and/or healthy...they just do the number crunching for you

DomesticKat

Choosing a reasonable deficit is part of playing the long game for me. I could choose 1200 and it would essentially be a crash diet since I will likely maintain at over 2000 calories based on what I'm eating now to lose. I can maintain that high because of NEAT mostly. I'm never going to stop loving food even as a formerly fat person, so a smaller deficit means I can SUSTAIN this diet for as long as it takes and then I'm prepared to eat at maintenance since there's very little difference between the two. I've established better habits over a long period and learned proper portion sizes. I don't have to take cheat days. I don't feel deprived. I can keep on living my life by just eating a little less. In the last year of losing close to 60lbs., and the two years before that when I lost 70lbs. there was no crashing and burning. I could have lost weight a lot faster I suppose but I'm not in a hurry. A reasonable deficit is all part of the process, and for me it is absolutely tied to my success.

Edit to add that eating enough is also essential to sustain that additional NEAT that helps me eat more. They're mutually dependent. If I only ate 1200 a day I would essentially be a couch potato, and would likely lose a ton of muscle from not having the energy to use them.

getskinny1973

I'm only 5'3... MFP says I'm allowed only 1200 Calories to lose a pound a week, so I just increased my activity levels . I always eat over 1200, because 1200 just isn't enough, I'd starve to death. But I make sure to burn anything over 1200. And this has been working for me.

rheddmobile

Pastaprincess1978 wrote: »

OP and others - do you feel 200 cals more makes a huge difference to perceived/hunger?

200, not so much. 400 is like night and day, and I can get that with an hour or less of moderate to intense exercise. So worth it. 1200 is not even three full meals (for me, anything less than 500 feels like a snack) while 1600 is two full meals, a lighter meal, and a substantial snack.

I seem to maintain at around 1750 before exercise, so adding exercise means I can have one meal a day which is not "diet food" - full fat cuts of meat larger than a pack of cards (what restaurant in the history of mankind ever served a steak that was only 3 oz?), enough dressing on my salad, that sort of thing. Even at 2100/day it's not possible to eat the way I used to eat - dessert every day to the tune of 700 calories or more, pizza 1500 calories or more, large fries 1000 calories. And being diabetic puts most of those things permanently on the forbidden list for me anyway, so it's easier to abstain. But 400 calories of exercise allows me to have some of the things I used to enjoy eating, some of the time.

HoneyBadger302

MFP and similar sites give me just over 1200 a day without activity.

I cannot manage it unless I am completely sedentary, and even then it's a struggle.

So, I exercise. I spend a good 10 hours a week doing focused physical activities, some weeks are higher. This lets me eat a reasonable amount of food, and I can avoid the hangries (most of the time) on what this lets me eat. Plus, I feel better overall, and there's muscle under the fat, so it's not all flabby.

Yes, I still have weight to lose. It's slowly coming off, but too much deficit just leaves me starving or my workouts start to suffer, and I'd rather have my physical abilities than have the bikini body I want (priorities n all that).

DottyBoos

I fall into the Triple Whammy Zone of being over 40, short (5ft 3) and not very active, so even at a 1lb a week target, MFP only gives me 1200 to play with. It's doable, but also kinda miserable. Life is too short for misery, so I manually bumped it to 1300 which for some reason is infinitely easier. That extra 100 makes all the difference. I see you tall folk losing on 1800+ and I am jealous. Damn my stumpy legs...

AnnPT77

It's absolutely vital that everyone trust her own perceptions and results: I can't repeat often enough that the calorie needs "calculators" (really "estimators") only provide a starting point. Pay attention, and adjust!

When I joined MFP, I was 59 y/o, sedentary in daily life (outside of intentional exercise), 5'5", even hypothyroid - pretty close to that "old, sedentary, short" stereotype. When I set myself up on MFP, it recommended 1200 net calories. With my estimated NEAT, that should be less than a pound of weight loss weekly, which my starting weight would justify (30+ pounds to lose at that stage). I could do the 1200 net (usually 1500-ish gross), and felt fine . . . until I didn't. I started losing weight too fast, and got fatigued and weak. I adjusted quickly, but it took some time to get my energy level back. I lost most of 50+ pounds in less than a year at 1400-1600 net.

Because - as it turns out - my TDEE is mysteriously high for my demographic (for which I'm grateful, BTW), I have to assume that some people will find theirs to be mysteriously low, unfortunately. Furthermore, I suspect that even with the same basic caloric need, some people will be satisfied and energetic on with a larger (still sensible) deficit, while others will experience fatigue, "hangry" spells, poor satiation, or other negative effects.

I grant that there are a lot of possible challenges, confounders, or potential failure points in this whole calorie-counting process (underestimating intake, overestimating exercise, satiation problems, water weight weirdness, more). Still, I think an essential element is paying attention to our individual results, subjective and objective, and adjusting accordingly.

Running_and_Coffee

When you have less to lose and/or are smaller or older, you really have to get strategic in terms of what foods fill you up the most, both physically and emotionally. And, 1300-1400 feels very different from 1200. I think it pays to try different kinds of foods to figure out what satisfies you the most and also seeing how 1350 calories a day impacts your loss vs. 1200. I raised my limit to 1360 and find that much more doable.