Science only please - the case against 1200 kcals

kinmad4it

Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.

And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.

That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.

The rest of us are pretty much trolls.

(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')

I had the exact same thought from just the first page alone. Seems people have either terrible reading skills or are just plain ignorant and self absorbed enough to believe their story is better than clinical science conducted under strict conditions.
They're so eager to argue against eating at just 1,200 calories, something I could never do myself, that they blatantly ignore the point of the thread in a vain attempt to get their point across, a point that bears no relevance to the original question that was asked.
Not that that should be a shock here, seems to be common practice.

yarwell

The 1200 seems to originate in the US - anyone know from where ? It isn't a common thing in the UK.

I can see a scientific argument around 1200 cals being an amount of food that can provide all the necessary macro and micronutrients, although having tried to do that on a web site it wasn't simple. Commercial lower calorie plans always nutrition up with additives in order to be complete.

However one could eat 2000 cals and fall short on a whole range of things, so tying it to calories seems odd.

Equally the "net calories" of this place don't chime with nutrition - if you've eaten the necessary on 1200 you don't lose the nutrients by exercising, Vitamin C for example.

DamePiglet

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.

And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.

That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.

The rest of us are pretty much trolls.

(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')


I had the exact same thought from just the first page alone. Seems people have either terrible reading skills or are just plain ignorant and self absorbed enough to believe their story is better than clinical science conducted under strict conditions.
They're so eager to argue against eating at just 1,200 calories, something I could never do myself, that they blatantly ignore the point of the thread in a vain attempt to get their point across, a point that bears no relevance to the original question that was asked.
Not that that should be a shock here, seems to be common practice.


Man, someone needs a hug.

I'm willing if he is. :-)

amflautist

Thank You, thank you, thank you to all three of you who are actually contributing to a scientific discussion here. I'm going to hop out of bed and head straight to the office so I can use a real computer (not this brain-dead tablet) to try to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread.

Woohoo - we're actually going to shine some scientific light on this subject. Can't wait!!!!

upscalelifedownscalebutt

Why not just let people do what they want and assume they have a modicum of personal responsibility with regards to their own health and the way their body reacts?

But how can people feel all superior if they aren't telling people they are WRONG!!!

Personally I'm happy with my erratic calorie intake, and intentionally pushing my calories up makes me feel yucky and has lead to health issues. I'd rather eat 600 - 1800 calories a day (averaging around 1150), and donate the rest to the food bank. I ate like this for years and was happy and healthy.

There are many hungry people in the world. They will be happier with my extra calories than I am.

mumblemagic

Has anyone read this? http://www.nowloss.com/starvation-mode-myth.htm
I found it interesting.

EvgeniZyntx

Ok, in because science.

CAVEAT: the science answer is "it depends". So take everything I write with that strong sense of weighed words and uncertain answers...

First off, I am pretty certain that losing with a low calorie diet makes a lot of medical and personal sense for a lot of people. However, there are strong scientific arguments to have a certain number of reserves.

As an aside we have a tendancy to see in the literature the definition of diets at the level of calories consumed (i.e. low 1200, VLCD 800 or less) where I believe that the definition would be more effective to look at the deficit itself. Clearly a person with a TDEE of 4000 on a 800 cal diet is not doing the same thing to their body as a person with a TDEE of 1800 on the same diet. At least one study posits that the effects of moderate calorie restriction can be harmful to certain populations such as lean, athletic individuals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341713).

I'll try to outline some of the risks known to me and reference a study or two. Again, I beleive there is a place for 1200 calorie diets, so don't bother answering this didn't happen to me so it's safe - science isn't about what you did.

Diets with large defecits have some risks associated with - these rapid weight loss risk include:

- death - People have died from rapid weight loss - usually at VLCD rates but even cardiac dysfunction is seen as a possibility of rapid weight loss (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/39/5/695.short) study is old. But in the case of people losing too severly it clearly is a risk (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209359)

- gall stones - There is a lot of risk (1 in 5, 1 in 4) of developing gall stones in rapid loss diets. Some of these resolve themselves some require surgery.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615889, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781321, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11792152

- performance and strength decrease - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015787, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047570

- nutritional deficiency, anemia (see the first study I cited)

- depression, disordered eating other mental issues - low calorie and vlcd show higher drop out rates, depression and psychosis especially in the younger and leaner dieters (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22990030) however other studies have shown no increase in EDs (http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.S32)

- body composition - lbm loss is higher in higher calorie restriction as is bone mineral loss (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908941) - However, it might be that the mineral loss does not lead to functional difference.

- thermogenic adaptation - did a whole research topic on this. You'll find that here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx?month=201308 with references.

- pituitary and thyroid disfunction - First of all it is known that thyroid volume and function is affected by weight (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2265.2003.01836.x/full)

Some of the other possible effects include (you can search references for these)
- stress, hair loss, headaches, fatique, general malaise, sleep loss
- loose skin for rapid weight loss

yarwell

- death - People have died from rapid weight loss - usually at VLCD rates but even cardiac dysfunction is seen as a possibility of rapid weight loss (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/39/5/695.short) study is old. But in the case of people losing too severly it clearly is a risk (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209359)

The older one is from the days on inadequate protein and led to the design of Protein Sparing Modifed Fast diets to avoid stripping the heart muscle of proteins. I think there was a period of problems before the FDA stepped in with labelling etc.

Is the second link correct ? "Context The association of body mass index (BMI) with cause-specific mortality has not been reported for the US population." seems to look at mortality vs BMI rather than weight loss per se.

VBnotbitter

Bumping for da science

Wildflower0106

Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.

And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.

That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.

The rest of us are pretty much trolls.

(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')

I had the exact same thought from just the first page alone. Seems people have either terrible reading skills or are just plain ignorant and self absorbed enough to believe their story is better than clinical science conducted under strict conditions.
They're so eager to argue against eating at just 1,200 calories, something I could never do myself, that they blatantly ignore the point of the thread in a vain attempt to get their point across, a point that bears no relevance to the original question that was asked.
Not that that should be a shock here, seems to be common practice.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence coming from the 1200 calorie supporters as well...

SapiensPisces

Ok, in because science.

CAVEAT: the science answer is "it depends". So take everything I write with that strong sense of weighed words and uncertain answers...

First off, I am pretty certain that losing with a low calorie diet makes a lot of medical and personal sense for a lot of people. However, there are strong scientific arguments to have a certain number of reserves.

As an aside we have a tendancy to see in the literature the definition of diets at the level of calories consumed (i.e. low 1200, VLCD 800 or less) where I believe that the definition would be more effective to look at the deficit itself. Clearly a person with a TDEE of 4000 on a 800 cal diet is not doing the same thing to their body as a person with a TDEE of 1800 on the same diet. At least one study posits that the effects of moderate calorie restriction can be harmful to certain populations such as lean, athletic individuals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341713).

I'll try to outline some of the risks known to me and reference a study or two. Again, I beleive there is a place for 1200 calorie diets, so don't bother answering this didn't happen to me so it's safe - science isn't about what you did.

Diets with large defecits have some risks associated with - these rapid weight loss risk include:

- death - People have died from rapid weight loss - usually at VLCD rates but even cardiac dysfunction is seen as a possibility of rapid weight loss (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/39/5/695.short) study is old. But in the case of people losing too severly it clearly is a risk (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209359)

- gall stones - There is a lot of risk (1 in 5, 1 in 4) of developing gall stones in rapid loss diets. Some of these resolve themselves some require surgery.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615889, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781321, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11792152

- performance and strength decrease - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24015787, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047570

- nutritional deficiency, anemia (see the first study I cited)

- depression, disordered eating other mental issues - low calorie and vlcd show higher drop out rates, depression and psychosis especially in the younger and leaner dieters (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22990030) however other studies have shown no increase in EDs (http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.S32)

- body composition - lbm loss is higher in higher calorie restriction as is bone mineral loss (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908941) - However, it might be that the mineral loss does not lead to functional difference.

- thermogenic adaptation - did a whole research topic on this. You'll find that here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx?month=201308 with references.

- pituitary and thyroid disfunction - First of all it is known that thyroid volume and function is affected by weight (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2265.2003.01836.x/full)

Some of the other possible effects include (you can search references for these)
- stress, hair loss, headaches, fatique, general malaise, sleep loss
- loose skin for rapid weight loss

I really like the points you brought up here about context. I feel like it's commonplace here to offer a "one size fits all" approach without really looking at the context of the person asking.

I also think that we need to be aware of the temporal context versus the physiological ones. What I mean by that is how LONG the person wishes to engage in the lower calorie intake not just their physiological indicators.

I will read through these links in more detail later, but thank you for posting them.

EvgeniZyntx

- death - People have died from rapid weight loss - usually at VLCD rates but even cardiac dysfunction is seen as a possibility of rapid weight loss (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/39/5/695.short) study is old. But in the case of people losing too severly it clearly is a risk (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209359)

The older one is from the days on inadequate protein and led to the design of Protein Sparing Modifed Fast diets to avoid stripping the heart muscle of proteins. I think there was a period of problems before the FDA stepped in with labelling etc.

Is the second link correct ? "Context The association of body mass index (BMI) with cause-specific mortality has not been reported for the US population." seems to look at mortality vs BMI rather than weight loss per se.

lost my post

I'd say the first one is still relevant given that many people do not necessarily follow a protein sparing diet. For example http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/very.low.calorie.diets/index.html.

Second link is correct - while the casual relationship can be brought into doubt - the observation of mortality at high weight loss is present in the data. The authors write "The estimates reported herein are for statistical associations of BMI with mortality. A variety of other factors associated with both weight and mortality, however, such as physical activity levels, body composition, and differences in medical treatment by weight, could be responsible for part or all of the observed associations. Our study does not address the association of BMI levels with risk factors such as hypertension or dyslipidemia nor with disease incidence or morbidity. In addition, our study does not address potential effects of weight loss or gain on associations between BMI and mortality."

As an additional reference - while verly low calorie diets have been found to have a lower risk of death than remaining obese, it is still an standard recommendation to avoid these for patients with cardiovascular risks (http://www.ttdinhduong.org/tailieudinhduong/30.pdf pg 430 plus their own references)

Obviously weight loss has a positive effect of disease risks - I would think that compliance and duration of loss, positive feedback are all elements that will impact success and the balances of risks between the methods of losing. The same personal risk/benefit can be considered for pills or surgery.



..

BTW: My personal "soft" bias is as follows - I'm mostly against high restriction as it does not fit my lifestyle and I consider LBM loss, nutritional impact poorly understood or a concern but I have also supported my brother who wanted a quick and dirty approach at 1200 for 6 months. Side by side our results are different as were our objectives (we currently weigh the same) - I went into this with body comp and fitness capability goals, he went into this with pure weight loss goals. We are each achieving our goals. I just look much better - he might tell you the same thing.:laugh:

yarwell

I'm still confused by the second one "In addition, our study does not address potential effects of weight loss or gain on associations between BMI and mortality." - while it shows adverse effects of low BMI it doesn't include the word "diet" and if you text search for "loss" or "calories" you draw a blank. So I'm not seeing how it helps us with the pros or cons of eating at a particular intake or losing weight at a particular rate. Can you be more explicit ? Maybe I need more coffee.

+1 for avoiding rapid weight loss if prone to heart disease etc, or if you're only trying to lose 10 lb like the woman on LighterLife ( a PSMF ).

EvgeniZyntx

I'm still confused by the second one "In addition, our study does not address potential effects of weight loss or gain on associations between BMI and mortality." - while it shows adverse effects of low BMI it doesn't include the word "diet" and if you text search for "loss" or "calories" you draw a blank. So I'm not seeing how it helps us with the pros or cons of eating at a particular intake or losing weight at a particular rate. Can you be more explicit ? Maybe I need more coffee.

+1 for avoiding rapid weight loss if prone to heart disease etc, or if you're only trying to lose 10 lb like the woman on LighterLife ( a PSMF ).

These are excess mortality rates corrected for illness induced elements - "thus, there was no indication that our results were biased by illness-induced weight loss prior to baseline (“reverse causation”) or residual confounding due to smoking."

The weight loss seen in this study and the sister study are based on evalautions of rapid non-disease loss - http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200731

While it's highly likely that some/most of those BMI changes and the related exess deaths ARE disease-related (despite the author's attempt to evaluate for) - there is a correlative effect being seen. It suggests further study. Causation, correlation, etc..

Poor excuse: in any case, causal death studies are a statistician's wet dream even associating cancer from smoking is an iffy process.

So....


Here are a few more articles associating some of the morbidity risks with low calorie dieting.... this bibliographic research is not mine but from here (http://www.apinchofhealth.com/forum/vbb/content.php?211-Research-into-the-Dangers-of-Very-Low-Calorie-Diets):

Starvation diet and very-low-calorie diets may induce insulin resistance and overt diabetes mellitus
We have observed seven initially obese individuals who, during the course of a strenuous weight-reduction program, developed diabetes mellitus: non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in five cases and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in two cases. None had any sign of prior diabetic symptoms. Although weight reduction is encouraged in obesity, crash diets without proper medical surveillance may have deleterious effects. This sequence of induction of diabetes has not previously been reported in the medical literature. The metabolic situation in extremely low-calorie diets may be comparable to that in starvation. An attempt is made to explain our observation concerning the induction of a diabetic state during such diets, on the basis of increased insulin resistance in states of starvation and anorexia nervosa, with a concomitant role in stress hormones.

Abstract: Koffler M, Kisch ES, Starvation diet and very-low-calorie diets may induce insulin resistance and overt diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications. 1996 Mar-Apr;10(2):109-12.



VLCD's and Gastrointestinal Organs
Gastrointestinal and cardiac response to low-calorie semistarvation diets
Effects of low-calorie semistarvation diets on gastrointestinal and cardiac organ systems were studied. Male Sprague Dawley rats were divided into two groups, Group I, control (C) and Group II, semistarvation (SS), and maintained on a diet designed after low- calorie modified-fasting regimens in popular use. C animals consumed this diet ad libitum; SS animals received 23% of the total calories of C but the same ratio of calories from protein, carbohydrate, and fat and the same quantity and quality of all essential nutrients. Final weights of total body, heart, liver, and small intestine were lower in SS than in C animals. Protein depletion in SS compared with C animals was evident for heart, pancreas, and intestinal mucosa. Unless aggressively supplemented, low-calorie SS diets may deplete protein stores of the gastrointestinal organs of digestion and absorption and contribute to decrease in body nitrogen stores, specifically cardiac muscle.

Full Text: Young et al, Gastrointestinal and cardiac response to low-calorie semistarvation diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Jun;47(6):981-8



VLCD's, Heart and Sudden Death
Cardiovascular Complications of Weight Reduction Diets.
Weight reduction diets may reduce the severity of risk factors for coronary heart disease such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Several case reports and small studies of patients receiving starvation diets have reported hypotension and sudden cardiac death. Myofibrillar damage was documented in 1 case. Very-low-calorie diets are generally safe and well-tolerated. However, low QRS voltage, QT interval prolongation, and both nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death have been described in subjects treated with such diets. Orthostatic hypotension may complicate very-low-calorie protein diets because of sodium depletion and depressed sympathetic nervous system activity. Bariatric surgery is associated with disproportionately high mortality rates in both the perioperative and postoperative periods.

Abstract: Ahmed et al, Cardiovascular Complications of Weight Reduction Diets. AJMS, 321(4):280-284, April 2001.



Cardiac effects of starvation and semistarvation diets: safety and mechanisms of action
A major concern with the use of starvation or semistarvation diets for weight reduction in severely obese people has been the reports of sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias. Obesity per se is associated with cardiovascular changes, including left ventricular hypertrophy and prolongation of the QT interval. With weight loss, the mass of the heart and left ventricle decrease, but some signs of left ventricular dysfunction remain. The effect of weight loss on the electrocardiogram abnormalities of obesity appears to depend upon diet duration and upon whether protein and mineral nutritional status is maintained. Copper, potassium, and magnesium deficiencies may play important roles in promoting an electrically unstable heart. Stress, by eliciting autonomic imbalance, may act upon an electrically unstable heart to provoke acute arrhythmias in a subset of the obese population with QT interval prolongation.

Full Text: Fisler, J S, Cardiac effects of starvation and semistarvation diets: safety and mechanisms of action, Am-J-Clin-Nutr. 1992 Jul; 56(1 Suppl): 230S-234S


Very low calorie diets and pre-fasting prolonged QT interval. A hidden potential danger.
The association of torsade de pointes and a prolonged electrocardiographic QT interval is well described. A prolonged QT interval may be congenital or acquired in several ways--by the use of anti-arrhythmic agents exemplified by quinidine, by the presence of hypocalcaemia or hypokalaemia, by the use of psychotropic drugs, and by the presence of intrinsic cardiac disease or bradycardias. Possibly less well appreciated is the potential for drastic weight loss to prolong the QT interval, as the present case report illustrates. A young woman weighing 244 pounds lost 24 pounds in two weeks with a consequent prolongation of QTc interval from pre-diet value of 0.57 seconds to 0.72 seconds at admission, when severely symptomatic paroxysms of torsade de pointes were recorded. Successful therapy with lignocaine and prompt re-feeding suppressed the arrhythmia and, three days later, the QTc was reduced to almost its pre-diet state. A (UK) DHSS report offers guidelines in the use of very low calorie diets. This case suggests that a pre-diet electrocardiogram should be carefully assessed for QT prolongation before initiation of dieting to achieve serious weight loss.

Abstract: BC Thwaites, M Bose, Very low calorie diets and pre-fasting prolonged QT interval. A hidden potential danger. West Indian Med J (1992) 41: 169-71.



Cardiac dysfunction in obese dieters: a potentially lethal complication of rapid, massive weight loss
During 1977 and 1978, 17 obese but otherwise healthy adult Americans died suddenly of ventricular arrhythmias during or shortly after completing rapid, massive weight reduction induced by very low-calorie diets consisting largely of collagen hydrolysates for 2 to 8 months. A reexamination of the data on these victims has disclosed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.824) between their prediet body mass index and their duration of survival on the very low-calorie diets. Since body mass index reflects degree of fatness, this observation indicates that the ability to defer the lethal effects of severe caloric restriction was a function of the proportion of body fat before dieting. During caloric reduction, the ratio of nitrogen loss to weight loss is inversely related to body fat content; accordingly, we suggest that the fattest dieters survived the longest because they were better able to conserve body (and myocardial) protein. Also, obese people have an enlarged lean body mass which may afford additional protection.

Full Text: Van Itallie TB, Yang MU., Cardiac dysfunction in obese dieters: a potentially lethal complication of rapid, massive weight loss, Am J Clin Nutr. 1984 May;39(5):695-702.



Sudden death associated with very low calorie weight reduction regimen
" We studied the cases of 17 individuals who died suddenly of ventricular arrhythmia after prolonged use (median 5 months) of very low calorie weight reduction regimens consisting entirely or largely of protein. The deaths appeared to be independent of type of medical supervision received during the diet, daily dosage of potassium supplementation, and biological quality of the protein product used. Factors common to all cases were marked obesity at the onset of dieting, prolonged use of extremely low calorie diets (approximately 300 to 400 kcal daily), and significant and rapid weight loss. Our review of available electrocardiograms and pathological specimens revealed a pattern of cardiac changes previously described in starvation. We conclude that use of very low calorie weight reduction regimens should be curtailed until further studies determine what modifications, if any, can insure their safety. "

Full Text: HE Sours et al, Sudden death associated with very low calorie weight reduction regimensAm. J. Clinical Nutrition, Apr 1981; 34: 453 - 461.


Sudden, Unexpected Death in Avid Dieters Using the Liquid-Protein-Modified-Fast Diet
SUMMARY Clinical and morphologic findings are described in 17 patients who died suddenly and unexpectedly during or shortly after use of the liquid-protein-modified-fast diet. Of the 17 patients, 16 were women, most were young (average age 37 years), and most lost a massive amount of weight (average 41 kg or 35% of their prediet weight) over a short period of time (average 5 months). Eight had one or more episodes of syncope. Multiple-lead ECGs were recorded in 10 patients. All had normal sinus rhythm; all had episodes of ventricular tachycardia; nine and possibly 10 patients had prolongation of the QT interval, unassociated with the recognized causes of QT interval prolongation in at least seven of the nine patients; and nine had diminished amplitude of the QRS complexes ("low voltage"). Histologic study of left ventricular myocardium in 14 patients disclosed attenuated myocardial fibers in 12, increased lipofuscin pigment in 11, and mononuclear-cell myocarditis in one. Similar histologic findings, however, also were found in 16 cachectic control subjects studied in similar fashion, but ECGs in them showed no prolongation of QT intervals or episodes of ventricular tachycardia. Thus, semistarvation, particularly in the face of antecedent obesity, is a cause of acquired QT interval prolongation, and repeated ECGs are recommended in patients on semistarvation diets for treatment of obesity.

Full Text: Isner et al, Unexpected Death in Avid Dieters Using the Liquid-Protein-Modified-Fast Diet, 60 (6): 1401. (1979),

mumblemagic

Awesome explanations people, loving the science links.

Can I just have a mini-rant, please (apologies). There are several people who have written all their posts in capitals. Please can I just say I find this annoying, and that I do not feel it makes their point more valid.

4daluvof_candice

I dont know the science behind it either but have been eating 1200 cals for over 3 yrs and have lost 115 lbs yup it works for me too

Please don't take this wrong, but for me, your diary would not be something I would say that 'works for me', especially if I were at maintenance. I would chew my own arm off if I could only have 1200 calories a day and was often netting only half that. Of course, I am probably taller than you and I like food a lot.

I have to concur. Do you! but, on personal levels rather than science..I want to eat NOW what I will be doing in Maintenance. My goal is to maintain my goal weight not lose and then not know what to do after Ive reached it. 1200 calories for me a day?!?!? Sorry I cant do that. I much rather eat my (weightloss)TDEE of 2091 commit to my fitness routine and still lose :bigsmile:

etoiles_argentees

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15

FizikallyFit

bump for the informative informationals

vim_n_vigor

The 1200 seems to originate in the US - anyone know from where ? It isn't a common thing in the UK.

I can see a scientific argument around 1200 cals being an amount of food that can provide all the necessary macro and micronutrients, although having tried to do that on a web site it wasn't simple. Commercial lower calorie plans always nutrition up with additives in order to be complete.

However one could eat 2000 cals and fall short on a whole range of things, so tying it to calories seems odd.

Equally the "net calories" of this place don't chime with nutrition - if you've eaten the necessary on 1200 you don't lose the nutrients by exercising, Vitamin C for example.

It seems it was the good old Mayo Clinic:
http://www.diet.com/g/mayo-clinic-plan-endorsed-by-clinic