fasting and calories

markswife892

I hope I can explain this, it's in my mind, but not sure I can convey it. LOL (52F)

"1200" calories seems to be some number I hear alot in the diet world, it's kind of a go-to number that I've heard for years when dieting or trying to lose weight. But, many people will say that 1200 calories is too low (in general) and that problems can arise if one were to eat only 1200 calories per day; starvation, not being properly fueled, muscle break-down, etc.

Many people fast, for dieting or spiritual or religious reasons, but no one ever has a problem with those people having zero calories. My question: Why is it ok to go hours or even days without any calories at all, but it's a problem to eat "only" 1200 calories?

(I'm not for or against fasting in general, it's not really about fasting, as much as it is about the difference in reactions when someone fasts vs. eating very low calorie.)

Rockmama1111

You’re hearing different people (experts?) reacting to the different methods. Proponents of fasting for weight loss usually tout some perceived cleansing, which I think most people who know anything about nutrition would frown upon. But you can Google and find support for it for sure. You can find vocal advocates or opponents for keto, IF, paleo, whatever. People love to be trendy!

If you come to MFP forums, you’ll see lots of people saying 1200 is too low for someone of average height who does more than sit on the couch. And it probably is unless you’re really tight with your nutrition; that leaves little room for fitting everything in.

You really have to be your own advocate. By that, I mean read about the latest science (or pseudoscience), research further, and then tune out the noise. Because in the end, what’s good for you is whatever will keep you fed, healthy, and at a comfortable weight.

tomcustombuilder

For many, probably, most, 1,200 IS too low however there is a portion of the population where 1,200 is perfectly fine and actually necessary for fatloss and in some instances it is actually preferred when someone is obese.

penguinmama87

To your point about religious fasting, that word can mean different things depending on the faith tradition and period in history. Christian fasting (which is what I'm most familiar with) has gone through a lot of changes and it has almost never meant zero calories even when fasting norms were much stricter (the strictest in Western Christianity, to my knowledge, were one meal with no animal products per day after sundown in Lent, and the only "no food at all" days were Ash Wednesday and then on Good Friday until after sundown on Holy Saturday). Many people have also been exempt from participating in these fasts for health reasons, including hard labor as part of one's livelihood.

Because these are spiritual devotions, too, the difficulty and the hunger are kind of the point - you detach yourself from the sense of hunger to instead put your focus on divine rather than material reality. And you offer up your voluntary sufferings to God as a form of prayer. It is understood to be a temporary deprivation for a season for spiritual growth, not a perpetual way of life (there are some saints venerated who did take on extraordinary fasting practices, but they are an exception and there is not the expectation that everyone will emulate them.) These fasting seasons are also followed directly by seasons of feasting and joy. The very strict Good Friday Fast (36-48 hours depending on how you count) is followed by an eight-day feast for Easter. That's rather different than the fasting that health gurus talk about.

SuzySunshine99

I honestly believe that many people (including doctors) recommend 1,200 to women because they assume you are not going to log calories accurately and will likely eat more than that. I think that THEY think by telling you 1,200, you'll probably be more in the 1,500-1,600 range.

Here in the MFP forums, members tend to encourage logging as accurately as possible by weighing foods and checking database listings to make sure they are correct. If that advice is followed, then a true 1,200 is not necessary and can be way too little for many people.

As far as fasting, many people pay attention to their weekly calories instead of daily. As long as your weekly calories average out to an appropriate amount per day, then it's not likely to be unhealthy. For most people, there's nothing necessarily wrong with not eating anything for an entire day, but you should make up those calories on another day.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@markswife892 : You've brought up a good point! For some period of time, you can eat zero calories per day. Many people alternate high/low calorie days. There are all sorts of strategies to rein in your eating to eating at a reasonable

If someone says that 1200kcals per day is "too low," ask "too low for what?" The point is that there are a wide range of situations, including a person's mean TDEE (average daily caloric need to maintain weight), which varies considerably, and how fast you want to lose weight, which also has a wide range of acceptable values with room for personal preference.

MFPs helps you to choose a calorie plan, which I think is a better start than picking an arbitrary number. Still, it can take some experimentation to find a plan that produces the intended results. For one thing, the "activity level" selection is very hard to assess. But, the final result is your weight trend. But, it's a slow result, as daily weight variations can exceed your weekly trend. It just all takes patience, persistence, and adaptation to get it right.

tomcustombuilder

When it comes down to calorie amount it’s really about calorie AVERAGE amount. Add a weeks worth and divide by 7 and that is your actual calorie amount. It’s better to not fluctuate a substantial amount day to day so that you have some semblance of consistency however it really doesn’t matter

AnnPT77

markswife892 wrote: »

I hope I can explain this, it's in my mind, but not sure I can convey it. LOL (52F)

"1200" calories seems to be some number I hear alot in the diet world, it's kind of a go-to number that I've heard for years when dieting or trying to lose weight. But, many people will say that 1200 calories is too low (in general) and that problems can arise if one were to eat only 1200 calories per day; starvation, not being properly fueled, muscle break-down, etc.

Many people fast, for dieting or spiritual or religious reasons, but no one ever has a problem with those people having zero calories. My question: Why is it ok to go hours or even days without any calories at all, but it's a problem to eat "only" 1200 calories?

(I'm not for or against fasting in general, it's not really about fasting, as much as it is about the difference in reactions when someone fasts vs. eating very low calorie.)

If people are speaking to one thing (like daily calorie level), what they're saying may not take into account other things (like fasting). Their remarks are simplified remarks about just that one aspect. To give an absurd analogy, I might say that I prefer wearing jeans, and I like red clothing, but maybe if I'm buying a dress for a certain event my preference for some reason would be a black one. Choices of certain aspects of a thing don't necessary apply in all varied scenarios.

I feel like a lot of people over-focus on Just One Day, in various ways, when it comes to dieting. I think it makes more sense to think in terms of "on average over a day or few". If my calorie goal were (made up number) 1500, and I ate 1200 on Monday, 1700 on Tuesday, 1600 on Wednesday . . . that's about the same effect as 1200 rigidly each and every day.

There are some perfectly sensible ways of fasting. (I won't say that I think all forms of fasting are sensible, at least for weight loss reasons.) Some people like 5:2 fasting, where they eat at maintenance for 5 days, then really low calories for 2 days, averaging out over the week to a sensible calorie level for their goals. If that helps them with weight management, super. Some people like one meal a day (OMAD) because they find it simpler, and they maybe prefer big meals. As long as that gets them eating a sensible number of calories so there's adequate fuel and good nutrition, and if that helps them with weight management, super.

As far as 1200 calories, that goes way back. I'm older than you (67), and while calorie counting has been known as a mechanism for weight management for well over a century, actually logging and counting calories with a flexible eating plan hasn't been practical until pretty recently for regular people, with the apps. Doctors and others used to hand out 1200 calorie diets (detailed meal plans) to people because it was a calorie level most people would lose weight on, and that wouldn't be super dangerous for most (plus there was an assumption that probably a lot of people would not completely stick to the plan).

That 1200 calorie idea kind of got stuck in the popular imagination, I think. On top of that, through large chunks of my life there's been this idea for women specifically that it was kind of virtuously feminine to eat like a little bird, not a robust adult. In my youth, women were told not to eat a lot on dates, not so much to save the guy money (guy was supposed to pay, always!), but because it wouldn't be attractive to have a hearty appetite. Women would bond over "how good they were doing" with their 1200 calorie (or less) diet, and that sort of nonsense.

Some people (usually smaller, older, female, not very active) need to eat as little as 1200 in order to lose weight. Way more people than should do it, think they need to do it, as an outgrowth of some of the above history. I'm non-big (5'5"), older (67), not very active outside of intentional exercise (for which I add calories), and when I was losing weight (almost 8 years back now), 1200 plus all the exercise calories was way too low for me, had bad consequences. 1200 isn't the universal "women lose weight" number that it's still sometimes presented as.

Fasting (other than religious/spiritual fasts), i.e., fasting for weight loss, is fairly new as a popular thing. The research on it (for weight loss) is still somewhat limited, so there's a lot of opinion and speculation, buttressed by so-far mixed research results. Research on diet/weight generally tends to be short term if tightly controlled, and poorly-controlled if long term (you can't lock people in a room for years and monitor their nutrition, at reasonable cost). That kind of environment lets nonsense flourish, on top of all the other issues.

Edited to correct arithmetic, which I should never, ever do in my head.

Taniagirly

I think that 1200 calories supports medium paced weight loss in most women, by that I mean women of average height, build and activity levels (light). I personally have tracked on and off for many years so I know that 1200 won’t do much for me if I’m not exercising. Currently on 1000-1100 with intermittent fasting and seeing steady fat loss (not training as I’m recovering from an injury). If I eat 1300-1500 calories and don’t move I will definitely gain weight, but it all depends on my muscle mass at the time.

The body uses up the most accessible energy first, so that is our glycogen stores, which can be depleted in a day or two with fasting (depending on activity levels). Prolonged fasting/starvation means our diet will not contain enough calories to maintain muscle mass, which then begins to waste (catabolic state). Intermittent fasting tells our body that it can still continue to build muscle and move (anabolic state) because food will be coming soon.

markswife892

I really appreciate everyone's comments. I've been reading through them. I'm doing 1200 cal/day right now (trying for 4 weeks total) and I've added strength training, too. I am toying with "eating half my exercise calories" to see what happens. Again, much appreciated everyone's time and input.

ETA: I was 100 lbs overweight, lost 21 lbs since December 7, so I still have a way to go.

paperpudding

Please note that MFP's 1200 assumes you will be eating back exercise calories - that is how the system works: you get a base number and that is your net number - ie that plus exercise calories.

some people find the excercise calorie counts are inflated so only eat back half or suchlike.

But don't eat back none.

kshama2001

markswife892 wrote: »

I really appreciate everyone's comments. I've been reading through them. I'm doing 1200 cal/day right now (trying for 4 weeks total) and I've added strength training, too. I am toying with "eating half my exercise calories" to see what happens. Again, much appreciated everyone's time and input.

ETA: I was 100 lbs overweight, lost 21 lbs since December 7, so I still have a way to go.

How many calories does MFP tell you to eat when you put in your stats and say you want to lose 2 pounds per week?

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change-goals-guided

If you use MFP to set your calorie goal, exercise, but don't eat back any exercise calories, you are not using MFP the way it was designed.

https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-

Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated for them and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.

kshama2001

My favorite article on 1200 calories: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

soniakircher1

Hi I am on day 111 I think fasting manly 16/8 might be 18 or 15 some days. Yes I am on 1200 if I eat 1500 which I don’t I wouldn’t loose. I am losing slowly half kilo to kilo a week. Havnt been walking I think that’s the key. Was unwell happy to have lost one kg off my first goal total 14 or 15 kg. Good luck everyone lots salad salad salad salad once a day lunch - big service small serving of protein and salad or veg at night, am drink green tea having advo chia seeds everyday and vitamins. Some electro drinks as I was Isick long time wobbly passing out blood pressure now feeling sooo much better ! Still looking for fasting I saw it once in app hope to find it again soon lol have a great week 1200 suits me love it find it is plenty and my weight moves down. Everyone is different also using macros ect

paperpudding

I am losing slowly half kilo to kilo a week.

or 1- 2 lb per week

I wouldn't call that 'slowly'.