**Controversial** Eating 1,200 Calories or Less

Mr_Knight

Actually 1200 seems quite high compared to some on this site, 500 calories now seem to be a regular thing and this is often twinned with 300-600 calorie burns.

A lot of that (if not most of that) is anecdotal. Over-estimating burn is almost as common as under-estiming intake.

It is very difficult to have any kind of meaningful excess burn if consuming sub-500 calories for any length of time. Energy has to come from somewhere, and once the glycogen is depleted and the blood serum is flat due to very low food intake, it simply won't be possible to be very active.

So I don't give much credence to most of those self-reported "situations".

Athletes will universally tell you that the quickest way to impact their ability to train is to put them on a long term restricted diet.

sterlingwolf

My understanding is that, for women at least, our bodies -need- a minimum of 1200 calories a day to function properly. If you constantly go under 1200 calories a day your body decides it's "starving" and will start to break down muscles. These muscles include our internal organs, which are nothing more than muscles. These are the reasons I have been given, hope it helps!

ChrisM8971

Actually 1200 seems quite high compared to some on this site, 500 calories now seem to be a regular thing and this is often twinned with 300-600 calorie burns.

A lot of that (if not most of that) is anecdotal. Over-estimating burn is almost as common as under-estiming intake. It is very difficult to have any kind of meaningful excess burn if consuming sub-500 calories for any length of time, so I don't give much credence to most of those "situations".

I agree that there is an over estimation of burns but then you take a look at the profile pictures and you realise that some of it isn't anecdotal

Mr_Knight

I agree that there is an over estimation of burns but then you take a look at the profile pictures and you realise that some of it isn't anecdotal

Those aren't the bodies of people who are physically active. There are issues there that go well beyond "is it ok to eat below 1200 calories". Those people should not be on MFP, they should be under proper medical supervision.

Hildy_J

...Back then [200 years ago] if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.

Yes. Off topic (sorry OP) but interesting point. Is it a generalisation to say calorie-dense food is cheaper than errr... calorie-sparse food? I can walk to the corner shop and see, in the first two aisles, shelves containing enough calories to feed a hungry horse for a lifetime.

What's the answer - cheeseburger tax? Chocolate tax? They tried to bring in a pasty tax in the UK... there was murder over it.

kyleekay10

I'm under 120 pounds, have an office job, and my maintenance calories are only about 1600 if I can't work out. 1200 is, frankly, on the high side if I want to lose anything, even a slow loss. I don't care what people say because I've seen it on my own body and I know what works for me. Great if you're a 110 pound lady who hits the gym an hour a day and can pound 2000 calories a day, but that's not my life and I can't eat like it is.

You're NETTING 1,200 calories then. Yes? Then you're good.

I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"

Similarly, I'm sure plenty eating 2k, hell 4k+ don't get decent micronutrient levels, while some eating 900 probably do much better.

Most of the 'reasons' seem to be accounting for situations that may not be at all relevant to the person in question.

Quite like, as mentioned above, the bible, as it goes.

-If there were posts from young men asking if they should eat VLCD, they would get the same responses. However, those posts are practically nonexistent- I've literally never seen one.

-If someone is elderly, very short, and NETTING 1,100 calories a day I'm sure no one would say anything that bad in response. 1,100 NET calories for someone like that isn't unreasonable.

-No one should eat ONLY 900 calories a day unless they are VERY VERY short/VERY VERY old. Even then, doing so without doctor supervision is iffy.

I never "got" that one either. If you eat the calories you burned, then how the heck are you supposed to lose weight?
This may be fine for someone maintaining, but not me for sure. If I eat burned calories up then I can't lose a thing.

Because your body needs fuel to survive. MFP does not account for exercise- so if you exercise, they WANT and EXPECT you to eat those calories back (at least 50% of them).

This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.

Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.

No one "blames" Low Calorie Dieters for anything. 1,200 calorie diets become and issue because people will set their goal for 1,200, but then burn 200+ calories, which leaves them with a NET calorie count of less than 1,000 for the day. That is NOT okay. You should not eat below your BMR unless you are a very special snowflake who is being medically supervised.

astartig

Yes, when I started I told the site I exercised 5 days a week...this has not changed.
and YES I DO CARE. I am very dedicated to loosing weight- and find this site to be a great help for me... I like being able to get advice for people...including yours...

MFP doesn't believe that you're going to do your exercise which is why it gives you more calories when you log it. If you don't believe me then go change your goals and say zero exercise...your calorie goal won't change provided you keep everything else constant.

1200 NET calories isn't a huge issue for most women...grossing 1200 and netting 500 calories per day is and should be done under the supervision of a health care professional. You have to understand that you have a basal calorie burn...the calories your body needs just to pump your blood and work your lungs, etc...when you do VLCD for extended periods of time your body starts shutting down "non-essential" functions like growing hair and nails and what not because it's needs that energy elsewhere.

There is no one size fits all magic number and if you're netting 1200 you're probably fine...if you're super short or super old or whatever you can probably get away with netting a bit less depending on how much fat you have stored and being that you would be a statistical outlier. Just keep in mind that the leaner you get the more damaging this becomes.

I've just seen way too many of these and nobody seems to listen until something bad actually happens to them...even then, they usually try to find some other excuse than their 500 calories per day as to why they don't have a menstrual cycle anymore and their hair is falling out by the handful in the shower.

If you have plenty of fat to burn it comes from there first. that's how humans work. if you don't eat enough you burn fat. the reason they say 1200 calories is for nutrition not because your body will shut down. if you have no fat to spare then it's trouble. Most of us don't have that problem and that's why we are here. 1200 calories Net won't kill anyone. It's not starvation if you get exercise and don't eat it back. Especially if you are a smallish height woman. 1200 net calories a day is fine. It's not the calories that the 1200 is about it's is about the nutrients. 1200 calories a day is the minimum they recommend for nutrient levels this is with or without exercise. exercising does not change your nutrient levels. They state this in the why 1200 calories section. You can go under 1200 calories with exercise just fine. at this point I am under a pound a week loss at 1200 calories with a lot to lose. It's not going to hurt me to not eat back my exercise calories. Yeah, if you are a big guy it might hurt. If you are already stick thin it might hurt but for many of us it's not a big deal and it's very irritating to have people who aren't in my shoes try and get sanctimonious about it. especially when they haven't walked a mile in my shoes.

kyleekay10

I'm under 120 pounds, have an office job, and my maintenance calories are only about 1600 if I can't work out. 1200 is, frankly, on the high side if I want to lose anything, even a slow loss. I don't care what people say because I've seen it on my own body and I know what works for me. Great if you're a 110 pound lady who hits the gym an hour a day and can pound 2000 calories a day, but that's not my life and I can't eat like it is.

You're NETTING 1,200 calories then. Yes? Then you're good.

I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"

Similarly, I'm sure plenty eating 2k, hell 4k+ don't get decent micronutrient levels, while some eating 900 probably do much better.

Most of the 'reasons' seem to be accounting for situations that may not be at all relevant to the person in question.

Quite like, as mentioned above, the bible, as it goes.

-If there were posts from young men asking if they should eat VLCD, they would get the same responses. However, those posts are practically nonexistent- I've literally never seen one.

-If someone is elderly, very short, and NETTING 1,100 calories a day I'm sure no one would say anything that bad in response. 1,100 NET calories for someone like that isn't unreasonable.

-No one should eat ONLY 900 calories a day unless they are VERY VERY short/VERY VERY old. Even then, doing so without doctor supervision is iffy.

I never "got" that one either. If you eat the calories you burned, then how the heck are you supposed to lose weight?
This may be fine for someone maintaining, but not me for sure. If I eat burned calories up then I can't lose a thing.

Because your body needs fuel to survive. MFP does not account for exercise- so if you exercise, they WANT and EXPECT you to eat those calories back (at least 50% of them).

This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.

Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.

No one "blames" Low Calorie Dieters for anything. 1,200 calorie diets become and issue because people will set their goal for 1,200, but then burn 200+ calories, which leaves them with a NET calorie count of less than 1,000 for the day. That is NOT okay. You should not eat below your BMR unless you are a very special snowflake who is being medically supervised.

Quoting myself to add this: The "starvation mode" posts that always show up on 1,200 calorie threads are INCORRECT. However, just because your body doesn't go into starvation mode doesn't make NETTING less than 1,200 calories a day healthy for MOST of the population.

To make sure I'm being absolutely clear: When we revolt against 1,200 calorie diets, we are revolting against NETTING LESS THAN 1,200 calories a day. If you NET at least 1,200 calories, then more power to you.

bsuew

What works for one person doesn't work for everyone. I think people sometimes run off at the mouth way too much! Just because someone can eat high calories doesn't mean everyone can. There is different ages, fitness levels, medical conditions that need to be taken into consideration. Some think low carb, some think low fat, some don't watch anything but calories. Find what works for you and go with that. Listen to what your body needs.

Hildy_J

I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"

You mean Coke Advert Guy? Noone gets to criticise Coke Ad Guy. That's one dude that's doing everything right and his pics speak in volumes which drown out the chatter on here.

kyleekay10

What works for one person doesn't work for everyone. I think people sometimes run off at the mouth way too much! Just because someone can eat high calories doesn't mean everyone can. There is different ages, fitness levels, medical conditions that need to be taken into consideration. Some think low carb, some think low fat, some don't watch anything but calories. Find what works for you and go with that. Listen to what your body needs.

Netting at least 1,200 calories is not "high calorie". It's called safe and healthy.

Edit to add: Assuming that the individual is not extremely short/old/or has medical reasons (that are supervised by a doctor) to net less than that.

emmy_jane_n_hearts

It can (not saying it will) trigger eating disorders. 1,200 is right on the brink of keeping your body out of starvation mode. That's why when you eat a couple calories under 1,200 myfitnesspal will send you a message saying You should eat more in the future or you will send your body into starvation mode which can actually promote weight gain.

It also puts you in an unhealthy relationship with food. I'm 5'8" and I once (for a period of about 5 months) ate 1200 calories religiously! It meant for breakfast: fruit, for lunch: half of whatever the cafeteria served, for snack; a yogurt, and normal dinner so my family wouldn't ask questions.

You will deprive your body and mostly likely make up for it later.

whierd

What works for one person doesn't work for everyone. I think people sometimes run off at the mouth way too much! Just because someone can eat high calories doesn't mean everyone can. There is different ages, fitness levels, medical conditions that need to be taken into consideration. Some think low carb, some think low fat, some don't watch anything but calories. Find what works for you and go with that. Listen to what your body needs.

You are being disingenuous. The human body, generally and in healthy adults, works the same. There are some outliers with food allergies or intolerances that are different, but for the sake of argument I am ignoring them as they are a small segment of the population.

The phrase "You have to do what works for you!" is not meant to imply that everyone's body works differently. It is meant to imply that everyone has different preferences and tastes. Low carb works for some people because they enjoy their meats and fats or because carby foods are a trigger for them to overeat and they haven't been able to address their negative relationship with food. Paleo works for some because it gives them a bit of a mental boost knowing that they are eating nutrient dense food most of the time, regardless of whether or not they have met their nutrient goals. IIFYM works for some because they prefer variety and do not have a negative relationship with any foods or any real trigger foods.

All of those diets work because they inherently follow the weight loss rule of a calorie deficit. People just need to find something that they personally find sustainable.


And "high calories" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't have substance. Caloric needs are based off of age, weight, body composition, and activity levels. (again, ignoring medical conditions) Those are all fairly easy to calculate, despite a small variance in actual caloric needs from person to person. And guess what? The scale over a period of time will tell you if you are correct or not if you are weighing and logging your food honestly and diligently.

RebeccaBecca26

Wow- You are great- I loved everything you said. It's like having small pee pee syndrome. Always feeling inadequate again the big pee pee's. LOL

peleroja

It can (not saying it will) trigger eating disorders. 1,200 is right on the brink of keeping your body out of starvation mode. That's why when you eat a couple calories under 1,200 myfitnesspal will send you a message saying You should eat more in the future or you will send your body into starvation mode which can actually promote weight gain.

It also puts you in an unhealthy relationship with food. I'm 5'8" and I once (for a period of about 5 months) ate 1200 calories religiously! It meant for breakfast: fruit, for lunch: half of whatever the cafeteria served, for snack; a yogurt, and normal dinner so my family wouldn't ask questions.

You will deprive your body and mostly likely make up for it later.

"Starvation mode" is a myth. Moving on.

ash8184

I have seen these too. I have been on a specific elimination diet at the behest of the Dr. and sick as a puppy for the last month. I am usually under 1200. I have just not mentioned it to anyone. I don't need the grief.

Being under the supervision of a doctor on a prescribed diet is a lot different than some 19 year old girl with about 2 lbs of fat on her eating 500 calories per day. Get real...

But the problem is that EVERYONE is treated as though 1200/day is bad. On the forums, a 19 year old is treated exactly the same as a group of 350-lb women who are on a medically supervised weight loss program. It's like it's a red flag for everyone to jump up and down and shout at someone for doing something wrong. It's situational and should be addressed that way.

Anselee

I've always heard 1200 or below can be unhealthy.

Serah87

What works for one person doesn't work for everyone.

I HATE this saying, because it's not true!!!! :grumble:

KANGOOJUMPS

I DO IT!
who cares what others think.
do it for u.

Siansonea

Because one of these threads is never enough. :yawn:

Phoenix_Warrior

It's one of those things that might as well just say "Sure, do what you want." BUT if it backlashes on you weeks, months, years from now then don't come crawling back here and complain. Or do and prove as another example of why to not under eat. I don't know everyone's specific "healthy" range of intake, sure. I can only guess given the amount of failings and my own personal experience of doing 1200 or below that it SUCKS. I tricked myself into thinking I was full, I convinced myself that I didn't need to eat any exercise back and guess what? I lost weight. I lost 3 lbs per week for my first month on this site because it was the default setting for 2 lbs per week. Who doesn't want to lose FAST? Well, reading all the success people have had with more food and the faults of eating 1200 and below, I chose to baby step my intake upward. I went up about 50-100 calories a week until I am at where I am (1550). Why would I subject myself to less energy for my body when I could eat more and still lose? I'm losing 1.5 lbs a week with this intake, which is still pretty fast given the fact I'm down to my last 10 lbs.

walkinthedogs

I agree---- I'm 5'0 and 26... They told me 1,300 and change.... So what is the problem... I have people saying I should be eating 1,800+++ isn't that what got me here in the first place....

Doubtful, what got you "here in the first place" was probably more like 2500+ and maybe little to no exercise. The 1200 that MFP starts with is assuming no exercise. As you add your exercise, you will see your calorie "allowance" increase, which means the more you exercise, the more calories you should be consuming to keep you body functioning properly. You see, your organs need certain amounts of "fuel" to function at it's optimal self, which is in whole what counts as being healthy, not just skinny. I'm not saying that is what you are trying to do, but eating at such a large deficit every single day, does not feed your insides and therefore you do not function optimally. The 1800 or so cals that "people are saying you should eat" is probably because they assume or you have told them that you exercise regularly. If you watch your MFP info, when you put your exercise in, I bet it goes up to about 1800 a day. That's about the number I get on average due to the amount of exercise I do.

SteveJWatson

I think people & society in general are focusing too much emphasis on just the numbers more than reality. We can perfectly survive & function on a low calorie diet. 200 years ago people didnt worry about calories, they got up in the morning and went about their day, they were much more physically active than we are today, and were overall much more slender than the average person today. They didnt have to jog, eat salads all the time in order to lose weight, or be haunted by that bag of potato chips thats hiding in the pantry. They were already slender because of a much more active lifestyle. Back then if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.

The best thing is to focus on a healthy lifestyle, such as eating food, real food that is low in calories yet very healthy, such as fruit and vegetables and lean meats and just becoming more active. The result is weight that that you can live with and maintain for a very long time... Stop worrying about the numbers and eat sensibly folks....

Except that its rubbish.

I used to work a hard, manual job outside (was fish-farming) used to live on the farm, miles from town so couldn't pop in for junk food. I lived on wholesome, home cooked meals with plenty of veg etc. Problem was I ate a shedload cos working in the cold makes you HUNGRY. Guess what? I ended up at 17st. I still eat relativeley little junk food, but I now 'pay attention to the numbers' and am now 12 and a half stone.

brower47

1200 calorie diets, here's the rub. You have to be EXTRA careful and EXTRA dedicated to getting all the nutrition that your body requires to perform at optimal health. What I'm saying is that you can't waste any of your calories on nutrient sparse foods or you risk shortchanging your body into poor performance and possibly poor health. So make sure you're ready to eat grilled/baked chicken breasts, blueberries, spinach, peppers, fish and all the other nutrient dense foods and know that you'll need to completely avoid treats such as flavored coffees, any and all deserts and food prepared beyond boiling, steaming and baking.

Many people on 1200 calorie diets, because it's so restrictive calorie wise, tend not to get a lot of protien. With this scenario, you run the risk of losing a disproportionate amount of muscle to fat. They then hit goal weight and aren't satisfied with their body's appearance. Also, since their body now has less muscle than it did before (one of the major drivers of metabolism) the rate of metabolism is lower, thus fewer calories can be consumed at maintenance. This is a major factor to many people putting their weight right back on. Maintaining existing muscle should always be a priority when losing but it is often ignored in a bid for fast results.

Most people on 1200 calorie diets allow themselves to indulge when they shouldn't. If you can lose weight at 1400, 1500, or 1600 calories, you can have those treats and you can have a better chance of keeping the muscle your body already has. People who do it a little more slowly are better prepared for when they will go on maintenance because they haven't been depriving themselves of not only the 'treat' foods they love but of food in general. People who eat a bit more than the minimum as they lose weight see their weight loss as less of an arduous task to defeat and vanquish but more as a gradual change to something they will be able to maintain for long into the future.

Can you lose safely on 1200? Yes. Is it easy to do and get all the nutrition your body needs? No. Can it be done? Of course but you have to be completely honest with yourself the entire way.

For me, I'd rather do it slowly while enjoying the foods I love, than do it quickly and gain it all back when I finally give into my dreams of eating all the food again (been there, done that and never want to do it again).

Holly_Roman_Empire

I think people & society in general are focusing too much emphasis on just the numbers more than reality. We can perfectly survive & function on a low calorie diet. 200 years ago people didnt worry about calories, they got up in the morning and went about their day, they were much more physically active than we are today, and were overall much more slender than the average person today. They didnt have to jog, eat salads all the time in order to lose weight, or be haunted by that bag of potato chips thats hiding in the pantry. They were already slender because of a much more active lifestyle. Back then if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.

The best thing is to focus on a healthy lifestyle, such as eating food, real food that is low in calories yet very healthy, such as fruit and vegetables and lean meats and just becoming more active. The result is weight that that you can live with and maintain for a very long time... Stop worrying about the numbers and eat sensibly folks....

Except that its rubbish.

I used to work a hard, manual job outside (was fish-farming) used to live on the farm, miles from town so couldn't pop in for junk food. I lived on wholesome, home cooked meals with plenty of veg etc. Problem was I ate a shedload cos working in the cold makes you HUNGRY. Guess what? I ended up at 17st. I still eat relativeley little junk food, but I now 'pay attention to the numbers' and am now 12 and a half stone.

THANK YOU! For being a perfect example of why eating "healthy foods" and not monitoring calories doesn't work. I genuinely mean that. I wish more people understood that a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.

khelm31

I often have this question. I have been diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and have tried eating 1200 calories. Even with exercise I'm lucky if I can get off 1 pound a week. I know even the doctor says that they don't encourage eating less than 1200 calories because if you body gets less than that you can go into starvation mode which will make it even harder to lose weight. To be honest the only way I could lose more than a pound a week is if I eat less than 1200 calories. For some people dropping to 1200 does miracles, but for some that doesn't seem to work. I've came to the conclusion that for some people less than 1200 calories could be all their body needs to stay at a healthier weight. For instance people who get the lapband most of the time do not eat 1200 calories a day because they don't need to. The band allows you to eat small amounts and digest them slower to keep you fuller longer. So I think it depends on the person and what their body needs. As long as you are getting the vitamins and nutrients you need and are healthy, then the rest is just figuring out how many calories your body needs to be at a healthy weight.

Carol_L

1200 calorie diets, here's the rub. You have to be EXTRA careful and EXTRA dedicated to getting all the nutrition that your body requires to perform at optimal health. What I'm saying is that you can't waste any of your calories on nutrient sparse foods or you risk shortchanging your body into poor performance and possibly poor health. So make sure you're ready to eat grilled/baked chicken breasts, blueberries, spinach, peppers, fish and all the other nutrient dense foods and know that you'll need to completely avoid treats such as flavored coffees, any and all deserts and food prepared beyond boiling, steaming and baking.

Many people on 1200 calorie diets, because it's so restrictive calorie wise, tend not to get a lot of protien. With this scenario, you run the risk of losing a disproportionate amount of muscle to fat. They then hit goal weight and aren't satisfied with their body's appearance. Also, since their body now has less muscle than it did before (one of the major drivers of metabolism) the rate of metabolism is lower, thus fewer calories can be consumed at maintenance. This is a major factor to many people putting their weight right back on. Maintaining existing muscle should always be a priority when losing but it is often ignored in a bid for fast results.

Most people on 1200 calorie diets allow themselves to indulge when they shouldn't. If you can lose weight at 1400, 1500, or 1600 calories, you can have those treats and you can have a better chance of keeping the muscle your body already has. People who do it a little more slowly are better prepared for when they will go on maintenance because they haven't been depriving themselves of not only the 'treat' foods they love but of food in general. People who eat a bit more than the minimum as they lose weight see their weight loss as less of an arduous task to defeat and vanquish but more as a gradual change to something they will be able to maintain for long into the future.

Can you lose safely on 1200? Yes. Is it easy to do and get all the nutrition your body needs? No. Can it be done? Of course but you have to be completely honest with yourself the entire way.

For me, I'd rather do it slowly while enjoying the foods I love, than do it quickly and gain it all back when I finally give into my dreams of eating all the food again (been there, done that and never want to do it again).

^^^^ This!!! :drinker:

sunnshhiine

I think people & society in general are focusing too much emphasis on just the numbers more than reality. We can perfectly survive & function on a low calorie diet. 200 years ago people didnt worry about calories, they got up in the morning and went about their day, they were much more physically active than we are today, and were overall much more slender than the average person today. They didnt have to jog, eat salads all the time in order to lose weight, or be haunted by that bag of potato chips thats hiding in the pantry. They were already slender because of a much more active lifestyle. Back then if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.

The best thing is to focus on a healthy lifestyle, such as eating food, real food that is low in calories yet very healthy, such as fruit and vegetables and lean meats and just becoming more active. The result is weight that that you can live with and maintain for a very long time... Stop worrying about the numbers and eat sensibly folks....

Except that its rubbish.

I used to work a hard, manual job outside (was fish-farming) used to live on the farm, miles from town so couldn't pop in for junk food. I lived on wholesome, home cooked meals with plenty of veg etc. Problem was I ate a shedload cos working in the cold makes you HUNGRY. Guess what? I ended up at 17st. I still eat relativeley little junk food, but I now 'pay attention to the numbers' and am now 12 and a half stone.

THANK YOU! For being a perfect example of why eating "healthy foods" and not monitoring calories doesn't work. I genuinely mean that. I wish more people understood that a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.

THIS. a calorie is a calories is a calories is a calories. 100 calories are 100 calories -- it doesn't matter if you ate them in carrot form, banana form, or cupcake form (person preference = cupcake, hands down).

What matters at the end of the day is the number of calories you consumed. calories in; calories out. as long as you end your day on a deficit (correction: a "healthy" deficit) you should see the scale drop at a healthy rate.

BerryH

1,200 or less a day would cause serious physical decline in my nearest and dearest, because I'd get violent.

RonW956

I think people & society in general are focusing too much emphasis on just the numbers more than reality. We can perfectly survive & function on a low calorie diet. 200 years ago people didnt worry about calories, they got up in the morning and went about their day, they were much more physically active than we are today, and were overall much more slender than the average person today. They didnt have to jog, eat salads all the time in order to lose weight, or be haunted by that bag of potato chips thats hiding in the pantry. They were already slender because of a much more active lifestyle. Back then if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.

The best thing is to focus on a healthy lifestyle, such as eating food, real food that is low in calories yet very healthy, such as fruit and vegetables and lean meats and just becoming more active. The result is weight that that you can live with and maintain for a very long time... Stop worrying about the numbers and eat sensibly folks....

Except that its rubbish.

I used to work a hard, manual job outside (was fish-farming) used to live on the farm, miles from town so couldn't pop in for junk food. I lived on wholesome, home cooked meals with plenty of veg etc. Problem was I ate a shedload cos working in the cold makes you HUNGRY. Guess what? I ended up at 17st. I still eat relativeley little junk food, but I now 'pay attention to the numbers' and am now 12 and a half stone.

THANK YOU! For being a perfect example of why eating "healthy foods" and not monitoring calories doesn't work. I genuinely mean that. I wish more people understood that a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.

And if you read his response, he admitted what his problem was.... and I quote ....." Problem was I ate a shedload" ............. There ya go, stop eating a "shedload" and you'll lose the weight....