The 1200 calorie imperative.

Slowfaster

I've always heard that dieters should never eat fewer than 1200 calories per day. This seems based on the belief that they can't get all the "nutrition," they need on, say, 1150 calories. I wonder.

I was sixteen the first time I tried the 1200 calories per day regimen and I lost ten pounds the first week. Later on, through my twenties and thirties 1200 calories would allow me to lose about 7 pounds the first week and 2 pounds a week thereafter. At that time my starting weight was usually about 130 pounds with my goal at about 110.

Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.

Here's my thought: Doesn't it stand to reason that if an older, sedentary person needs less calories he would also need less nutrients? Why would I need the same amount of protein, vitamins and minerals now, as I needed as a growing teen? I eat a very nutrient dense diet with lots of salmon, vegetables, and good fats and am probably already getting more good nutrition than lots of young people are getting with 3000 calories a day of donuts and fries.

mnbvcxzlkjhgfdsa12

Lots of people say don’t go below 1200. For lots of people that’s good advice.

It’s a generalization though, we are all different and some people do need less than this to loose. . Of course, if you’re not eating much it is going to be harder to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs from your food.

Listen to your body and ask your doctor if you’re planning a very low calorie diet.

fb47

mnbvcxzlkjhgfdsa12 wrote: »

Lots of people say don’t go below 1200. For lots of people that’s good advice.

It’s a generalization though, we are all different and some people do need less than this to loose. . Of course, if you’re not eating much it is going to be harder to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs from your food.

Listen to your body and ask your doctor if you’re planning a very low calorie diet.

Nobody should be eating below 1200 calories unless you're a sedentary dwarf.

kommodevaran

I don't have any strong opinions about what you're asking, I just want to comment on this:

Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.

The decreasing rate of loss you're experiencing is normal and to be expected, because your fat reserves are smaller at a lower weight. You just can't create the same calorie deficit anymore.

But if you can't lose weight on 1200 calories, your logging is off, or you're too impatient and start eating more without logging it. You would have to be, for instance, 95 pounds and 5'1 in order to maintain on 1200 true calories.

livingleanlivingclean

In regards to thinking you need less nutrients as you age, I'd have to disagree. I would think eating more nutrients would be important to help maintain muscle and to provide the body with more than sufficient nutrients to keep functioning optimally (or to slow the loss of functions)

WinoGelato

Honestly it sounds like someone who has always gone for rapid loss and an unhealthy mind set about weight loss and calories and is trying to justify that unhealthy approach now by saying that because you are older, surely you must need less calories.

AnnPT77

We need more intake of certain nutrients as we age, unfortunately, because we absorb and utilize them less effectively. Protein is one example. (I'm 62.)

Any form of movement you're able to do will help to increase your calorie burn, right down to fidgeting. It doesn't have to be full bore exercise.

Many of us face increased physical challenges as we age - arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiac issues, more - but it's important to think through whether there may be certain things we still can do, within our personal limitations, to gradually get stronger and fitter. Consider options like chair exercises, arthritis yoga or tai chi, pool exercises, etc. If you have major limitations, consider asking your doctor for a physical therapy referral to identify things that are achievable for you. It's all too easy to let "I'm too old to . . . ." infect our thinking, and allow it to limit us even beyond our physical limitations.

A good deal of our reduced calorie burn in later years is simply because we've gotten in the habit of doing less in our daily lives (sitting more, moving less), because our muscle mass has decreased with inactivity, and because - particularly for women - many rounds of too-rapid yo-yo weight loss have sacrificed lean muscle tissue and replaced it with fat. The good news is that those are also things we can chip away at reversing at any age

IMO, you'd be better sticking with 100% sound nutrition at the lowest calorie level that works for you, and striving for more movement of any type to increase calorie expenditure. Sacrificing nutrition is a risky bet. Personally, I aim for 0.8g of protein per pound of healthy goal weight; 0.35-0.45g fats per pound of healthy goal weight (as much of that as possible from sources like nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc); and a bare minimum of 5 servings of veggies and fruit (preferably more) daily; letting carbs fall where they may to balance out calories.

Best wishes!

ladyhusker39

The first thing that comes to my mind is how do you know you were eating 1200 calories all those times you tried to lose?

lynn_glenmont

Slowfaster wrote: »

I've always heard that dieters should never eat fewer than 1200 calories per day. This seems based on the belief that they can't get all the "nutrition," they need on, say, 1150 calories. I wonder.

I was sixteen the first time I tried the 1200 calories per day regimen and I lost ten pounds the first week. Later on, through my twenties and thirties 1200 calories would allow me to lose about 7 pounds the first week and 2 pounds a week thereafter. At that time my starting weight was usually about 130 pounds with my goal at about 110.

Now I'm 70 years old, can't really exercise much at all, and I find that, at the beginning of a diet while my weight is high (around 200 pounds) I can lose two pounds a week but after I reduce weight to about 180 I only lose one pound a week on the same 1200, and after that a half pound a week is the fastest it will drop. The worst part is -- and this has happened several different times in recent years -- that once I reach 160 pounds, I no longer lose anything at all on 1200 calories a day.

Here's my thought: Doesn't it stand to reason that if an older, sedentary person needs less calories he would also need less nutrients? Why would I need the same amount of protein, vitamins and minerals now, as I needed as a growing teen? I eat a very nutrient dense diet with lots of salmon, vegetables, and good fats and am probably already getting more good nutrition than lots of young people are getting with 3000 calories a day of donuts and fries.

One of the problems with your reasoning is that you were seriously undereating at 1200 kcal a day when you were a teenager, and were most likely not getting all the nutrients you needed then, and quite possibly the same was true in your 20s. Losing 10 ponds in a week or even 7 lbs in a week when you only had 20 lbs to lose is umdereating. And that doesn't even address the question of whether 110 lbs was a healthy goal weight. How tall were you?

The argument against going below 1200 kcal per day does not mean that everyone should go as low as 1200 in the first place. For many 1200 is already too low.

Slowfaster

WinoGelato wrote: »

Honestly it sounds like someone who has always gone for rapid loss and an unhealthy mind set about weight loss and calories and is trying to justify that unhealthy approach now by saying that because you are older, surely you must need less calories.

If you'll read more carefully, you'll see that I only lost quickly the first week of any diet -- probably mostly water weight -- after that I would lose 2 pounds a week for a few months and then either one pound or 1/2 pound a week for the rest of the diet until I reached goal. That has never been considered too fast. Now, I'm not trying to justify anything but trying to continue to lose. In recent years, I have found that I eventually stop losing at all and months go by with no loss at 1200 calories a day. After which I quit dieting because only a fool keeps trying what doesn't work.

ladyhusker39 wrote: »

The first thing that comes to my mind is how do you know you were eating 1200 calories all those times you tried to lose?

Because I was weighing and measuring what I ate and recording my calories in a notebook.

But if you can't lose weight on 1200 calories, your logging is off, or you're too impatient and start eating more without logging it. You would have to be, for instance, 95 pounds and 5'1 in order to maintain on 1200 true calories.

No. That's always the pat answer when someone stops losing, but I know my calorie counting is accurate. I eat only two meals, lunch and dinner, as I'm doing intermittent fasting as well and I eat the same thing every Monday, every Tuesday, etc. So it's easy to get the calories right, it's not like I'm guessing or snacking. I eat lunch out every day and something like an Arby's roast beef classic doesn't change from one day to the next, because it's always weighed. My calories were accurate in September when I was losing weight and they're just as accurate now when I'm barely losing anything.

---

I walk with a cane which keeps me from doing lots of aerobic activity but I do yard work, vacuum the house every day, walk the dog and do calisthenics and rehab exercises so I do get as much movement as possible into everyday. I just can't do enough to burn a significant amount of calories because it would further damage my leg.

---

I think it's remarkable how much faith some of you have in the common formulas of weight loss. They aren't magical and a calorie amount that causes weight loss for one person may not work for another. Sometimes a person's body definitely does adjust to a calorie deficit so what works in January may not continue to make you lose in July.

I'm 5' 5" and an under water body fat analysis done by a professional concluded that the ideal weight for me would be 102 pounds. I have extremely small bones. I'm only trying for a goal of about140 these days but I know lower would be better.

I'm just tired of all weight loss coming to a stop when I get to about 160 which is coming up soon. I started this current 1200 calorie diet September first 1917 and have gone from 212 to 167. Forty five pounds in ten months is not terribly fast I don't think.

4legsRbetterthan2

Slowfaster wrote: »

Forty five pounds in ten months is not terribly fast I don't think.

Thats pretty much 1lb/week. Thats a perfect pace. It feels slow, but you are actually doing great. Keep in mind, the smaller you get the less calories you need, therefor the less room you have to make a deficit. Most people close to goal are only losing half a lb per week or so. That is perfectly normal.

stanmann571

Slowfaster wrote: »

No. That's always the pat answer when someone stops losing, but I know my calorie counting is accurate. I eat only two meals, lunch and dinner, as I'm doing intermittent fasting as well and I eat the same thing every Monday, every Tuesday, etc. So it's easy to get the calories right, it's not like I'm guessing or snacking. I eat lunch out every day and something like an Arby's roast beef classic doesn't change from one day to the next, because it's always weighed. My calories were accurate in September when I was losing weight and they're just as accurate now when I'm barely losing anything.

Something like an Arby's roast beef classic can vary by as much as 50% of it's listed calories based on the mood of the preparer.

bfanny

And now I know what I should NEVER eat 1,200 cals or less....Thank you OP!

WinoGelato

It sounds like you have unrealistic expectations OP - 45 lbs in 10 months is a very good rate of loss for the amount of weight you have to lose and when you get within 20 lbs of your goal you should be trying to slow it down to 0.5 lb/week.

You also mentioned thinking that a weight of 102 for your height of 5’5 was ideal when you were younger - that is underweight! The 140 you are aiming for now is perfect - but it’s going to take some time to get there and going below 1200 is not advisable for all the reasons listed above.

Lisa8823168

All medical science/conclusions are based on averages concluded by people doing some sort of study over the years. Just like the idea that the Arby's sandwich can vary by 50% based on the mood of the preparer (because no restaurant ever uses portion control as a cost measure) so can scientific conclusion based on the parameters of the study, how conducted and the desires of the tester/poster. It is so easy to skew testing for any study and thinking that has not happened over the years is living in denial. In fact, I often see MFP "experts" commenting on "de-bunked" information...but who is de-bunked? Which one is REALLY right? Who's agenda is being followed?

Unfortunately, there is a lot faith in "averages" brought out of traditional science. This post is a perfect example of that. Averages are based on lumping a bunch of results together, adding and dividing to come to something in the middle. Concluding we are all in the middle and there are no deviations from that, is concluding that everyone ever studied was right there on that line and THAT is how the "number" or conclusion was derived. Forgotten are all those other people who were or were not in the middle to make that "average".

I don't know all your health risks nor the specific results of ANY of your formal testing or health Hx. There is SO MUCH MORE to you than what is posted. Concluding that 1200 is or is not good for you, is not appropriate. Concluding nutritionally what you need, requires a deeper evaluation of your health risks verses intake and medication affecting it. The same would be true for when you were a teenager or in your 30's or now in your 70's. Finding a medical Provider whom you feel comfortable and trust worthy, able to view all your medical records is the only real way to find answers to your questions about your uniqueness. Very few people are an "average" through their entire life, if at all.

Slowfaster

I agree with you Lisawolfinger. It's the possibility of all those variables that I was hoping to discuss -- instead I ended up with a lot of people making assumptions about how accurate my information was and basically accusing me of lying.




The only true weight loss professional I have encountered was the one who determined my ideal weight based on underwater body fat measurements and calipers. I have a 4 and 1/2 inch wrist which means my bones simply don't weigh as much as most peoples. I think the expert knew better about my body after examining it closely and measuring it in several different ways than WinoGelato does.

I know that the last few times I've tried to get below 160 pounds on 1200 calories that my loss had slowed and stopped with no loss at all for months and months. So, I'm different and was hoping some other people were "the same kind of different as me," and we could discuss things. On this current diet I was quite satisfied with my weight loss, until now at around 167 where I can see it slowing down to about one pound a month and I'm afraid all loss will stop soon. I don't think one pound a month is an "unrealistic expectation."

My doctor is no help with this sort of thing, he just looks at me and my cane and says he thinks I'm probably doing the best I can considering I can't exercise much. He hands out booklets that say, "Eat more fruits and vegetables and less fat." Keep in mind that most doctors receive one semester of weight control study and their information is often out of date.

LHFlynn

I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.

Kim_S_G

From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.

Slowfaster

LHFlynn wrote: »

I consulted my doctor and he told me our bodies need fat, protein, and carbohydrates -- in that order. he recommended that I eat no more that 20 grams of carbohydrates per day and no more than 1000 calories. I have found it to be pretty easy -- and, most importantly, I haven't been hungry. I usually eat eggs in the morning and have substituted Califia almond milk in my coffee because it tastes good and has very few carbs. My lunch is usually a baby spinach salad with either a pan fried salmon fillet or a skinless boneless chicken thigh or a hamburger or some leftover steak. And then for dinner some form of protein and a vegetable. Sometimes if I have enough calories and carbohydrates left over, I'll eat a full fat Greek yogurt for dessert in the evening.

Sounds like you have a smart doctor and I like your suggested menu. My vegetarian son just brought home some almond milk!

Slowfaster

Kim_S_G wrote: »

From looking at your food diary, it seems like you are weighing very little of your food and using mostly cups, tablespoons etc. You also have several general entries such as 1 chicken breast, 1 roll, 1 apple. Maybe you should try weighing everything you eat for a week and see if you notice any differences in the calories.

Thanks for checking out my diary, it's a little different right now due to some vacations, but yes I do seem to measure more than I weigh. That's because many of my regular foods were weighed in the beginning and later just matched with calories. For example my apples are always Kroger's "lunch box," galas. They are all small and around 50 calories so I just click the first fifty calorie apple in my list. I'm basically eating the very same things I ate ten months ago when I was losing 2 pounds a week so I don't think the total calories have changed that much.

yirara

Please don't put this down to bone weight. Bones have a fairly low density, and adding a few cm^3 doesn't have a very big influence on body weight.