Haters gonna hate. tired of the "1200 is not enough" speech

deksgrl

The 1200 thing is pretty relative everyone!

I usually consider it this way

1200 = people wanting weigh around 120 lbs
2000 = around 180-200 lbs
3000 = around 300 lbs
and so forth.

lol No.

K_Serz

The 1200 thing is pretty relative everyone!

I usually consider it this way

1200 = people wanting weigh around 120 lbs
2000 = around 180-200 lbs
3000 = around 300 lbs
and so forth.

But even so that can fluctuate depending upon your metabolic rate, how much you exercise, and how strenuous & long the exercise is.

Similar to how a small animal might need a little food to live but a larger animal (like a giraffe), needs a lot of vegetation to survive.

Ummm. Survival? Have you looked around? Theres a friggin Starbucks and McDonalds on every corner. People arent exactly foraging for nuts and berries.

And the avg lifestyle of texting all day, driving everywhere to get from Point A to B, & watching Honey Boo Boo in their down time doesnt exactly burn that many calories.

WendyTerry420

you're wasting your breath.

sadly, insisting that 1200 calories is "perfect" for them has become a point of pride with so many of the ladies who eat 1200 calories, that they cannot and will not ever admit they are wrong or seek a more fulfilling and more effective way to lose/maintain weight.

i know that for a small percentage of women, 1200 calories (without any exercise!) is an accurate calculation. however, for the large majority it is not.

whenever i post on one of these threads, i do so only for the lurkers out there who are confused. they've read Cosmo which tells them that 1200 is ok, and they have a rail thin friend who insists that 1200 is ok, so they think 1200 must be ok... i want them to know that there is a better way than to embrace the silly yo-yo dieting program that inevitably follows from 1200 calorie diets.

Well, take me for one lurker who after reading your type of post, did take it to heart and researched and researched.

I was eating 1000-1200 calories and have upped them now into the 1900-2100 range. Yes, I did gain the 5 pounds of glycogen/water weight. No, I wasn't happy about it but knowing after eating at this level for awhile, I could cut back to 1700 and loose instead of 1200 quickly made me happy again.

I was one who did not need to be at 1200. I really appreciated all the logical, non-judgmental posts. And, even the heated ones. All the hoopla over "1200" caused me to research. I learned so much and thanks to all who took the time to post.

In light of this thread, yes, knee jerk reactions without reading or following completely aren't helpful to the OP. Considering how easy even family members often don't fully attend to conversations, Internet strangers doing likewise doesn't surprise me.

MFP put me at 1200 in the beginning as well. I was like, what? From the jump, I knew I wasn't going to last if I had to eat like a bird, so I changed to lost 1 pound per week instead of 2. Then guess what? I lost more than two pounds a week for the first 40ish pounds. People have way too much trust in computer applications.

etoiles_argentees

Oh and by the way, injuries can keep you flat out in bed ,
I have lost muscle but not weight even though I've been eating 2000 plus daily. Some members here have a hard time gaining.
If Alan Aragon can't put weight on me i'm certain you can't. Sorry for dropping names, sometimes it's needed

Then eat even more. You are not outside the laws of thermodynamics.

Oh I did, 2500+ daily, gained 1 pound per month after 6 months of eating as much as I could. Lost those 6 pounds in 2 weeks from not tracking. Science is not fact.

Might be that I never dieted and created an excess of fat cells. Who knows?

Escape_Artist

The 1200 thing is pretty relative everyone!

I usually consider it this way

1200 = people wanting weigh around 120 lbs
2000 = around 180-200 lbs
3000 = around 300 lbs
and so forth.

But even so that can fluctuate depending upon your metabolic rate, how much you exercise, and how strenuous & long the exercise is.

Similar to how a small animal might need a little food to live but a larger animal (like a giraffe), needs a lot of vegetation to survive.

:noway:

LBNOakland

Hey name dropper - who is Alan Aragon?

etoiles_argentees

Hey name dropper - who is Alan Aragon?

Someone quite respected on this board, or I would have used a different guy.

Cadori

this still here?!?!?!

IKR? Let's roll this sucker!

magerum

Oh and by the way, injuries can keep you flat out in bed ,
I have lost muscle but not weight even though I've been eating 2000 plus daily. Some members here have a hard time gaining.
If Alan Aragon can't put weight on me i'm certain you can't. Sorry for dropping names, sometimes it's needed

Then eat even more. You are not outside the laws of thermodynamics.

Oh I did, 2500+ daily, gained 1 pound per month after 6 months of eating as much as I could. Lost those 6 pounds in 2 weeks from not tracking. Science is not fact.

Might be that I never dieted and created an excess of fat cells. Who knows?

:huh:

quirkytizzy

Science is not fact.

brandyme

OP: I have not read the entire thread so I am sorry if I am repeating anything here.

I think for a majority of the people who are trying to lose weight 1200 is not enough. That being said, you are right... everybody is different and if the math works out for you individually or an expert advised you to eat 1200 healthily then that is fine. The problem is many people eat 1200 as a blanket and it may not work for them.. that is when it's not enough.

For me 1200 is not enough. I have a small frame, I'm only 5'3" but have a TDEE of 2544 or so but I workout twice a day and have nearly 50 pounds to lose. Now if I were fit and didn't do any exercise at all I'd have a TDEE of 1503 but still have a BMR of 1252 so I would want to at least eat over 1252 maybe by 100 cal or so, so like 1352.

The point I am trying to make with my example is that even at 5'3" 125 pounds without any exercise I would want to eat more than 1200 calories, so the people who fit into the healthy 1200 calorie max goal is likely smaller than those who actually eat 1200 but need to eat more... although I have no hard data to base that on so take my opinion with a grain of salt... it's just an observation based on the people I have met on here and in real life.

kevindhaliwal

agree!

magerum

Withdrawn...due to being ashamed of inferior gif.

AlongCame_Molly

Oh and by the way, injuries can keep you flat out in bed ,
I have lost muscle but not weight even though I've been eating 2000 plus daily. Some members here have a hard time gaining.
If Alan Aragon can't put weight on me i'm certain you can't. Sorry for dropping names, sometimes it's needed

Then eat even more. You are not outside the laws of thermodynamics.

Oh I did, 2500+ daily, gained 1 pound per month after 6 months of eating as much as I could. Lost those 6 pounds in 2 weeks from not tracking. Science is not fact.

Might be that I never dieted and created an excess of fat cells. Who knows?

Lolwut?

You might want to look up the root of the word "science". You might learn just how hilarious that statement was.

salladeve

you're wasting your breath.

sadly, insisting that 1200 calories is "perfect" for them has become a point of pride with so many of the ladies who eat 1200 calories, that they cannot and will not ever admit they are wrong or seek a more fulfilling and more effective way to lose/maintain weight.

i know that for a small percentage of women, 1200 calories (without any exercise!) is an accurate calculation. however, for the large majority it is not.

whenever i post on one of these threads, i do so only for the lurkers out there who are confused. they've read Cosmo which tells them that 1200 is ok, and they have a rail thin friend who insists that 1200 is ok, so they think 1200 must be ok... i want them to know that there is a better way than to embrace the silly yo-yo dieting program that inevitably follows from 1200 calorie diets.

Well, take me for one lurker who after reading your type of post, did take it to heart and researched and researched.

I was eating 1000-1200 calories and have upped them now into the 1900-2100 range. Yes, I did gain the 5 pounds of glycogen/water weight. No, I wasn't happy about it but knowing after eating at this level for awhile, I could cut back to 1700 and loose instead of 1200 quickly made me happy again.

I was one who did not need to be at 1200. I really appreciated all the logical, non-judgmental posts. And, even the heated ones. All the hoopla over "1200" caused me to research. I learned so much and thanks to all who took the time to post.

In light of this thread, yes, knee jerk reactions without reading or following completely aren't helpful to the OP. Considering how easy even family members often don't fully attend to conversations, Internet strangers doing likewise doesn't surprise me.

That's great!

Usually when there's a debate, the intended audience is the lurkers. I lurked for a long time and I'm very grateful for all the debates I read.

I did the same thing with a thread like this about 6 weeks ago. I was eating at 1000 cals a day (my goal was set at 1200), but after reading a thread like this one, I spent several days reading everything I could find and in the end upped my cals to 1650, I usually come in at around 15-1600, and I'm still losing! In the beginning I would have sworn that I couldn't lose on more then 1000 cals a day because that is how I have done it every time I have dieted in the past. Now I'm using the principles of the DASH diet, with eating 25% below my TDEE, and I feel great (as opposed to hungry and tired as I was before), and am losing steadily every week.

So these types of threads do help us lurkers If even 1 person reads this and is prompted to do their own research to find out what is best for them and their situation, then it is well worth it seeing the subject/debate repeated.

stillnot2late

I do 1200-1300 mostly. I have become sedentary because I retired, so I was told 1200 by PCP and MFP. I'm not starving either.

I am so sorry you felt you needed to apologize in case you didn't use "perfect" grammar. I'm sometimes shocked to read some of the stuff I type, sometimes you just read it the way you think you are saying it.

Alluminati

This thread, it's like herpes. Keeps coming back.

jofjltncb6

http://enough_already.tripod.com/anti-science_hypocrisy.gif

Probably not the best example to use for this point.


Edit: Removed pic as offending post has been edited and inferior gif withdrawn.

etoiles_argentees

Oh and by the way, injuries can keep you flat out in bed ,
I have lost muscle but not weight even though I've been eating 2000 plus daily. Some members here have a hard time gaining.
If Alan Aragon can't put weight on me i'm certain you can't. Sorry for dropping names, sometimes it's needed

Then eat even more. You are not outside the laws of thermodynamics.

Oh I did, 2500+ daily, gained 1 pound per month after 6 months of eating as much as I could. Lost those 6 pounds in 2 weeks from not tracking. Science is not fact.

Might be that I never dieted and created an excess of fat cells. Who knows?

Lolwut?

You might want to look up the root of the word "science". You might learn just how hilarious that statement was.

Hahaha!
Science leaves ample space for variation.
I am an outlier according to the tests I've had, or you can call me snowflake, freak, whatever you'd prefer.

magerum

[img]http://enough_already.tripod.com/anti-science_hypocrisy.gif[/img]

Probably not the best example to use for this point.

I was rushed! :grumble: