1200cal/day really works.

MrsBingley

My 4' 10", 82 year old grandma with 2 fake knees probably eats about 1200 to maintain.... So I won't say that NO ONE should eat that little

Collier78

My 4' 10", 82 year old grandma with 2 fake knees probably eats about 1200 to maintain.... So I won't say that NO ONE should eat that little

^^This made me smile...

MyChocolateDiet

Biotin?

I will have to google this to see if it's something I want to add to my repertoire. As it stands though, if I am faced with the choice of eating while on maintenance..:

1) 1200 cals plus a biotin pill, capsule, sub-lingual dose or whatever
OR
2) 1200 cals plus 300 more cals while on maintenance, I'm pretty sure I'm going to opt for the 300 extra cals.

(Probably in the form of a daily pop tart and a glass of milk.)

Shaylyn1986

I don't even get why people are so mad. Who gives a F?

You learned that exercise allows you to eat more calories? Super for you. Some people aren't like you.

I totally agree.

Do what works for you. Some people just cannot let it go that others don't eat and exercise like them.

1200 a day is not easy and takes getting used to. You'll learn what foods work for you and you'll learn what you need to do for maintenance after you lose.

Feel free to friend me. My diary is open. :]

Some people just don't get that it's not about YOU, it's about letting the thousands of silent lurking readers know that 1200 is NOT the only option, that the vast majority of people can eat quite a bit more than 1200 and enjoy themselves while getting healthy, instead of choosing between one or the other.

it's also not about YOU. And letting those thousands of silent lurkers know that they don't have to go to the gym 3 hours a day or lift heavy either. It's their choice!

Both Valid points..however heavy lifting has never been a gateway to an eating disorder. Which I believe is the particular point this poster is trying to make. There are a lot of impressionable young women (or men I suppose) that will eat below this because they don't like what they see in the mirror. Therefore, promoting it as a long term solution can be far more detrimental than someone lifting heavy.

I congratulate you on your success, but even in maintenance, limiting yourself so seriously during the week, only to "eat whatever you want" on the weekends is setting yourself up to fall back into bad habits, or develop an ED. Allowing yourself whatever you wish in moderation everyday doing calories in vs calories out will help people who have had a poor relationship with food their ENTIRE life learn that they can have those carbs they love without being the hefty. It took me 20 long years of yo yo dieting to get it.

I understand what you're trying to say and I don't do 1200 a day as a long term solution. I stagger my calories. I've been doing this for 5 years and never fell back into bad habits. I don't wish for anyone to have an eating disorder and think they should do what works best for them. People seem to have an issue with what works best for some people is 1200 calories or staggering their calories. I don't have an issue or problem with anyone doing weight loss their way. I'm giving a perspective and it's not an unhealthy one that leads to anorexia.

Shaylyn1986

Biotin?

I will have to google this to see if it's something I want to add to my repertoire. As it stands though, if I am faced with the choice of eating while on maintenance..:

1) 1200 cals plus a biotin pill, capsule, sub-lingual dose or whatever
OR
2) 1200 cals plus 300 more cals while on maintenance, I'm pretty sure I'm going to opt for the 300 extra cals.

(Probably in the form of a daily pop tart and a glass of milk.)

Biotin promotes healthy hair and nail growth. My nails grow so fast that it's a bit ridiculous. My hair normally grows slowly but with Biotin I've seen it growing much faster. If you're maintaining you can probably up those calories.

elbeerock

Is the point of the thread to say that 1200 works for some, but not for others? Because that's totally true...But maybe I'm missing the point.

I've lost a total of 115 pounds since 2009 in spurts (40 pounds hardcore for a couple of months, maintenance for a few months, 20 pounds for a couple, maintenance...so on). I'm pleased with my progress, because for me, it was realistic. I like having beers during the summer!

That being said, I know my body at this point, and the only way I can lose weight is if I eat roughly 1200 cals a day, with very little carbs. I've recently upped my carb intake because I've started a more-intense-than-I've-been-used-to workout regime within the last few weeks and I was not getting the most out of the workout.

Anyway, that works for me...actually, it's the only thing that works for me. I've had my metabolism tested, seen endocrinologists, got hormone tested, etc etc. All signs point to "you can't eat as much or what everyone else does, young lady".

And before anyone says "are you sure you're eating only that much?", yes, yes I am sure. I have a digital scale and I'm militant about measuring out my recipes. I freak out if I can't properly quantify how much/exactly what I ate in a day.

But! point is! That's just me! That's what works for me. Other people have different strategies, and great success! And that's great. I'd love to be one of those people, but i'm not...that's all.

(Stats: 29/F/5'7" SW: 300 lbs in 2009 CW: somewhere around 185 lbs. I stopped weighing myself since I started working out because my body does not want to lose weight when I weight train, and I didn't want to discourage myself)

Please elaborate, what specific conditions turned out to be the cause for this? What is the incidence of said condition in the general population according to your understanding from said Dr. appointment or reliable google research?

Jeez louise, that's a bit snarky, don't you think?

I have PCOS and insulin resistance (thanks to a ****ty diet/lack of exercise for the first 25 years of my life) both tested and confirmed from blood testing and continued visits with my Dr over the last 10 years. I have *also* had my metabolism checked because I was convinced that the steroid treatment after a small tumor was removed from my breast had changed the way I metabolised food.

Now, the "incidence of said condition(s)" are probably pretty low, in combination, I'd say. But, again, *for me* this is the sitch, 'tis what it is. For others, it isn't. And that's fine. But no one formula works for everyone, I don't think.

Thank you so much for clarifying. It was not my intent in the least to come off as snarky but only as asking a sincere question in earnest regarding what type of condition would necessitate this. I had heard of PCOS and suspected it might be that and just wanted the clarification for anyone who might be reading and not have access to health care to know that it's a specific diagnosis and that they are free to google it and see it's actual incidence in the general population and weigh those odds in when deciding if they think this might actually apply to them or not.

My apologies if my brief and to the point tone came off as snarky :flowerforyou: . I really meant no harm.

Eh, no worries, I probably read a tone that was non existant. We're square.

I guess the point of me participating in this conversation after being a member of mfp for two years of lurking is to say that aren't we all fighting the same battle? We're all here for the same reasons - to better ourselves in one way or another.

But isn't it safe to say that "bettering ourselves" doesn't necessarily mean *just* losing weight? Maybe it's getting to know one's body as well. It's not going to be okay to eat the way you used to anymore in order to succeed, so this isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle. And how best to make it a lifestyle, than to have better knowledge of how your body works?

What I'm trying to say is that we all are fighting the same battle, but with different weaponry. Why speak ill of someone else's weapons? Maybe it works for them! Maybe they're doomed for failure! Who knows? But the point is, no matter what, they figured it out. And learning from your mistakes is what creates for a long lasting result, I think.

I'm questioning myself why I've participated in such a debate, as I don't normally speak up nor care, but when I read things like "just because you're a special snowflake" or "This isn't about YOU", I get a bit disheartened because this is a community. A community of people voicing what worked for them, and how excited they are to find out that it worked for them. it just seemed like the opposite of that was happening; people were being isolated, called out, because the methods used weren't the same as consensus.

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Collier78

Is the point of the thread to say that 1200 works for some, but not for others? Because that's totally true...But maybe I'm missing the point.

I've lost a total of 115 pounds since 2009 in spurts (40 pounds hardcore for a couple of months, maintenance for a few months, 20 pounds for a couple, maintenance...so on). I'm pleased with my progress, because for me, it was realistic. I like having beers during the summer!

That being said, I know my body at this point, and the only way I can lose weight is if I eat roughly 1200 cals a day, with very little carbs. I've recently upped my carb intake because I've started a more-intense-than-I've-been-used-to workout regime within the last few weeks and I was not getting the most out of the workout.

Anyway, that works for me...actually, it's the only thing that works for me. I've had my metabolism tested, seen endocrinologists, got hormone tested, etc etc. All signs point to "you can't eat as much or what everyone else does, young lady".

And before anyone says "are you sure you're eating only that much?", yes, yes I am sure. I have a digital scale and I'm militant about measuring out my recipes. I freak out if I can't properly quantify how much/exactly what I ate in a day.

But! point is! That's just me! That's what works for me. Other people have different strategies, and great success! And that's great. I'd love to be one of those people, but i'm not...that's all.

(Stats: 29/F/5'7" SW: 300 lbs in 2009 CW: somewhere around 185 lbs. I stopped weighing myself since I started working out because my body does not want to lose weight when I weight train, and I didn't want to discourage myself)

Please elaborate, what specific conditions turned out to be the cause for this? What is the incidence of said condition in the general population according to your understanding from said Dr. appointment or reliable google research?

Jeez louise, that's a bit snarky, don't you think?

I have PCOS and insulin resistance (thanks to a ****ty diet/lack of exercise for the first 25 years of my life) both tested and confirmed from blood testing and continued visits with my Dr over the last 10 years. I have *also* had my metabolism checked because I was convinced that the steroid treatment after a small tumor was removed from my breast had changed the way I metabolised food.

Now, the "incidence of said condition(s)" are probably pretty low, in combination, I'd say. But, again, *for me* this is the sitch, 'tis what it is. For others, it isn't. And that's fine. But no one formula works for everyone, I don't think.

Thank you so much for clarifying. It was not my intent in the least to come off as snarky but only as asking a sincere question in earnest regarding what type of condition would necessitate this. I had heard of PCOS and suspected it might be that and just wanted the clarification for anyone who might be reading and not have access to health care to know that it's a specific diagnosis and that they are free to google it and see it's actual incidence in the general population and weigh those odds in when deciding if they think this might actually apply to them or not.

My apologies if my brief and to the point tone came off as snarky :flowerforyou: . I really meant no harm.

Eh, no worries, I probably read a tone that was non existant. We're square.

I guess the point of me participating in this conversation after being a member of mfp for two years of lurking is to say that aren't we all fighting the same battle? We're all here for the same reasons - to better ourselves in one way or another.

But isn't it safe to say that "bettering ourselves" doesn't necessarily mean *just* losing weight? Maybe it's getting to know one's body as well. It's not going to be okay to eat the way you used to anymore in order to succeed, so this isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle. And how best to make it a lifestyle, than to have better knowledge of how your body works?

What I'm trying to say is that we all are fighting the same battle, but with different weaponry. Why speak ill of someone else's weapons? Maybe it works for them! Maybe they're doomed for failure! Who knows? But the point is, no matter what, they figured it out. And learning from your mistakes is what creates for a long lasting result, I think.

I'm questioning myself why I've participated in such a debate, as I don't normally speak up nor care, but when I read things like "just because you're a special snowflake" or "This isn't about YOU", I get a bit disheartened because this is a community. A community of people voicing what worked for them, and how excited they are to find out that it worked for them. it just seemed like the opposite of that was happening; people were being isolated, called out, because the methods used weren't the same as consensus.

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Ewwww...Miracle noodles

Collier78

Biotin?

I will have to google this to see if it's something I want to add to my repertoire. As it stands though, if I am faced with the choice of eating while on maintenance..:

1) 1200 cals plus a biotin pill, capsule, sub-lingual dose or whatever
OR
2) 1200 cals plus 300 more cals while on maintenance, I'm pretty sure I'm going to opt for the 300 extra cals.

(Probably in the form of a daily pop tart and a glass of milk.)

Mmmmm..Peanut butter poptarts....

Shaylyn1986

Is the point of the thread to say that 1200 works for some, but not for others? Because that's totally true...But maybe I'm missing the point.

I've lost a total of 115 pounds since 2009 in spurts (40 pounds hardcore for a couple of months, maintenance for a few months, 20 pounds for a couple, maintenance...so on). I'm pleased with my progress, because for me, it was realistic. I like having beers during the summer!

That being said, I know my body at this point, and the only way I can lose weight is if I eat roughly 1200 cals a day, with very little carbs. I've recently upped my carb intake because I've started a more-intense-than-I've-been-used-to workout regime within the last few weeks and I was not getting the most out of the workout.

Anyway, that works for me...actually, it's the only thing that works for me. I've had my metabolism tested, seen endocrinologists, got hormone tested, etc etc. All signs point to "you can't eat as much or what everyone else does, young lady".

And before anyone says "are you sure you're eating only that much?", yes, yes I am sure. I have a digital scale and I'm militant about measuring out my recipes. I freak out if I can't properly quantify how much/exactly what I ate in a day.

But! point is! That's just me! That's what works for me. Other people have different strategies, and great success! And that's great. I'd love to be one of those people, but i'm not...that's all.

(Stats: 29/F/5'7" SW: 300 lbs in 2009 CW: somewhere around 185 lbs. I stopped weighing myself since I started working out because my body does not want to lose weight when I weight train, and I didn't want to discourage myself)

Please elaborate, what specific conditions turned out to be the cause for this? What is the incidence of said condition in the general population according to your understanding from said Dr. appointment or reliable google research?

Jeez louise, that's a bit snarky, don't you think?

I have PCOS and insulin resistance (thanks to a ****ty diet/lack of exercise for the first 25 years of my life) both tested and confirmed from blood testing and continued visits with my Dr over the last 10 years. I have *also* had my metabolism checked because I was convinced that the steroid treatment after a small tumor was removed from my breast had changed the way I metabolised food.

Now, the "incidence of said condition(s)" are probably pretty low, in combination, I'd say. But, again, *for me* this is the sitch, 'tis what it is. For others, it isn't. And that's fine. But no one formula works for everyone, I don't think.

Thank you so much for clarifying. It was not my intent in the least to come off as snarky but only as asking a sincere question in earnest regarding what type of condition would necessitate this. I had heard of PCOS and suspected it might be that and just wanted the clarification for anyone who might be reading and not have access to health care to know that it's a specific diagnosis and that they are free to google it and see it's actual incidence in the general population and weigh those odds in when deciding if they think this might actually apply to them or not.

My apologies if my brief and to the point tone came off as snarky :flowerforyou: . I really meant no harm.

Eh, no worries, I probably read a tone that was non existant. We're square.

I guess the point of me participating in this conversation after being a member of mfp for two years of lurking is to say that aren't we all fighting the same battle? We're all here for the same reasons - to better ourselves in one way or another.

But isn't it safe to say that "bettering ourselves" doesn't necessarily mean *just* losing weight? Maybe it's getting to know one's body as well. It's not going to be okay to eat the way you used to anymore in order to succeed, so this isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle. And how best to make it a lifestyle, than to have better knowledge of how your body works?

What I'm trying to say is that we all are fighting the same battle, but with different weaponry. Why speak ill of someone else's weapons? Maybe it works for them! Maybe they're doomed for failure! Who knows? But the point is, no matter what, they figured it out. And learning from your mistakes is what creates for a long lasting result, I think.

I'm questioning myself why I've participated in such a debate, as I don't normally speak up nor care, but when I read things like "just because you're a special snowflake" or "This isn't about YOU", I get a bit disheartened because this is a community. A community of people voicing what worked for them, and how excited they are to find out that it worked for them. it just seemed like the opposite of that was happening; people were being isolated, called out, because the methods used weren't the same as consensus.

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Thank you for this post. You eloquently said exactly as how I was feeling.

When someone said this site is for tracking and that we're not here to be "pals" it upset me a little. I always thought of the people on my newsfeed and in the forums as my weightloss pals. I love reading the success stories and different ways pwople have lost and kept the weight off. I admit, when someone comes at me with a snarky attitude I retaliate. But hopefully everyone can let their differences go and celebrate others successes.

delicious_cocktail

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Why speak ill of one's methods? Por ejemplo, "I lost all my weight regurgitating after meals."
a) functional b) sustainable c) not the method that most are using. Bad idea.

Shaylyn1986

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Why speak ill of one's methods? Por ejemplo, "I lost all my weight regurgitating after meals."
a) functional b) sustainable c) not the method that most are using. Bad idea.

Nobody said their throwing up their meals, lol.

elbeerock

In short, i guess, why speak ill of one's methods, if a. it worked well for them, b. they're able to sustain the method in order to become a lifestyle, and c. it's not like the method that you're using? Isn't that a bit mean? We're all here for the same reasons.

Just my two cents. Who knows. We're all here to get positive feedback, so hell, if 2300 calories a day works for you, **** yeah! If you need a much lower caloric intake to see any results, cool too! lets eat some miracle noodles together.

Why speak ill of one's methods? Por ejemplo, "I lost all my weight regurgitating after meals."
a) functional b) sustainable c) not the method that most are using. Bad idea.

Oy. That's a bit of a reach, don't you think? But okay. Obviously I forgot a key ingredient - d. is healthily sustainable.

The scenario I was thinking of is something like the whole Atkins vs. Weight Watchers debate, obviously not Eating food vs. Not eating food.

delicious_cocktail

Nobody said their throwing up their meals, lol.

This is true. I was taking an outrageous example that satisfied the proposed criteria to establish that it isn't reasonable to say that we should be supportive of any/all approaches.

So then the question becomes, where does one draw the line between "healthy" success and "unhealthy" success.

This thread illustrates one such possible line. Rhetorical questions, then: would that line change if MFP recommended no less than 1300 instead of 1200? Would 1200 still be the line or would it become 1300?

I certainly have my own strongly held opinions on the matter but don't want to piss into the wind on this thread. Trench warfare sucks.

penrbrown

*pokes head in*

*looks around*

*slowly retreats so as not to be noticed*

Shaylyn1986

Nobody said their throwing up their meals, lol.

This is true. I was taking an outrageous example that satisfied the proposed criteria to establish that it isn't reasonable to say that we should be supportive of any/all approaches.

So then the question becomes, where does one draw the line between "healthy" success and "unhealthy" success.

This thread illustrates one such possible line. Rhetorical questions, then: would that line change if MFP recommended no less than 1300 instead of 1200? Would 1200 still be the line or would it become 1300?

I certainly have my own strongly held opinions on the matter but don't want to piss into the wind on this thread. Trench warfare sucks.

TBH, I'm not sure where that line is but I don't think not supporting 1200 a day is reasonable considering the site itself recommends it as bare minimum. I choose not to judge what someone is doing or comment on their lifestyle but I will stick up for others and myself.

NataBost

I don't even get why people are so mad. Who gives a F?

You learned that exercise allows you to eat more calories? Super for you. Some people aren't like you.

I totally agree.

Do what works for you. Some people just cannot let it go that others don't eat and exercise like them.

1200 a day is not easy and takes getting used to. You'll learn what foods work for you and you'll learn what you need to do for maintenance after you lose.

Feel free to friend me. My diary is open. :]

Some people just don't get that it's not about YOU, it's about letting the thousands of silent lurking readers know that 1200 is NOT the only option, that the vast majority of people can eat quite a bit more than 1200 and enjoy themselves while getting healthy, instead of choosing between one or the other.

LiftAllThePizzas

Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?

elbeerock

Nobody said their throwing up their meals, lol.

This is true. I was taking an outrageous example that satisfied the proposed criteria to establish that it isn't reasonable to say that we should be supportive of any/all approaches.

So then the question becomes, where does one draw the line between "healthy" success and "unhealthy" success.

This thread illustrates one such possible line. Rhetorical questions, then: would that line change if MFP recommended no less than 1300 instead of 1200? Would 1200 still be the line or would it become 1300?

I certainly have my own strongly held opinions on the matter but don't want to piss into the wind on this thread. Trench warfare sucks.

Firstly, is that what this whole thing is based on? Because MFP recommends an absolute minimum of 1200 cals/day? Huh. I don't pay much attention to that, I strictly use it to track my caloric intake and macros, but that's just me.

I guess the difference is, I've been battling my weight for as long as I can remember (I was that 9 year old at weight watchers, I was that 11 year old at Jenny Craig crying because I gained a pound and was told that I wasn't being "entirely truthful in my logs" after busting my *kitten* for a week hoping for *anything*). Over the last few years, this has become more of a mental battle than solely a physical one for me. I have gotten to know who I am, and what my body is like, and more importantly, who I am *not*.

And it's the finding out who I am *not* that is just important as finding out who I *am*. And that was all through trial and error. Through weightwatchers, atkins, paleo, nutrisystem, starvation, medication, etc. I found what works for me...it's seems like others have too! Which is great. We're all learning more about ourselves.

But, it seems like others in this thread have found what *doesn't* work for them...isn't that just as important? You've learned something about yourself. Great.

But, again, I must ask, why isolate those who have some success using a method that doesn't ring true with the crowd? Why not celebrate it?

kyleekay10

Some people just don't get that it's not about YOU, it's about letting the thousands of silent lurking readers know that 1200 is NOT the only option, that the vast majority of people can eat quite a bit more than 1200 and enjoy themselves while getting healthy, instead of choosing between one or the other.

So much this.

Will you marry me?

kyleekay10

I understand what you're trying to say and I don't do 1200 a day as a long term solution. I stagger my calories. I've been doing this for 5 years and never fell back into bad habits. I don't wish for anyone to have an eating disorder and think they should do what works best for them. People seem to have an issue with what works best for some people is 1200 calories or staggering their calories. I don't have an issue or problem with anyone doing weight loss their way. I'm giving a perspective and it's not an unhealthy one that leads to anorexia.

EXACTLY. YOU DO NOT FOLLOW A 1200 cal/day DIET.

I don't fully intend to come off as screaming there, but holy crap man, you just said what a bunch of us have already told you. You are not following the "diet" that you are so aggressively defending.

No one has an issue with Calorie Cycling (what you called staggering). "We" have an issue with those who eat 1200 cals/day and have no reason to.

I repeat, the issue lies with those individuals who should NOT be eating that little because they have no medical/health/height/activity reasons to be doing so.

delicious_cocktail

TBH, I'm not sure where that line is but I don't think not supporting 1200 a day is reasonable considering the site itself recommends it as bare minimum. I choose not to judge what someone is doing or comment on their lifestyle but I will stick up for others and myself.

As long as we agree that there is some line, then we are (to abuse Winston Churchill) now merely haggling over [the line].

I'll not hold myself up as holier than thou while debating in this thread. Sticking up for the trampled masses is not as noble as you think, particularly when you have more experience.

There is a reason that so many people are so quick to condemn. Lurk for a little while. The same threads come up day after day after day. Look for patterns. Look at what is routinely successful. Look at what is routinely unsuccessful. Look at what is sustainable. Look at what is unsustainable.

Be as outraged as you like about people's attitudes, that's a matter of opinion and yours is valid. The broad inapplicability of a 1200-calorie daily intake is not a matter of opinion, but indeed, a matter of fact.

QuietBloom

Used the fit bit site and mfp.

Your stories keep changing.

Yeah, well she just admitted that grad school is finished, so she is just trolling on here for fun.

Shaylyn1986

I understand what you're trying to say and I don't do 1200 a day as a long term solution. I stagger my calories. I've been doing this for 5 years and never fell back into bad habits. I don't wish for anyone to have an eating disorder and think they should do what works best for them. People seem to have an issue with what works best for some people is 1200 calories or staggering their calories. I don't have an issue or problem with anyone doing weight loss their way. I'm giving a perspective and it's not an unhealthy one that leads to anorexia.

EXACTLY. YOU DO NOT FOLLOW A 1200 cal/day DIET.

I don't fully intend to come off as screaming there, but holy crap man, you just said what a bunch of us have already told you. You are not following the "diet" that you are so aggressively defending.

No one has an issue with Calorie Cycling (what you called staggering). "We" have an issue with those who eat 1200 cals/day and have no reason to.

I repeat, the issue lies with those individuals who should NOT be eating that little because they have no medical/health/height/activity reasons to be doing so.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I did 1200/cal a day to lose the weight I needed to just like the OP is trying to do.

Do you know everything about the OP and that she doesn't have a medical/health/height/activity reasons to be doing so?

QuietBloom

Is the point of the thread to say that 1200 works for some, but not for others? Because that's totally true...But maybe I'm missing the point.

I've lost a total of 115 pounds since 2009 in spurts (40 pounds hardcore for a couple of months, maintenance for a few months, 20 pounds for a couple, maintenance...so on). I'm pleased with my progress, because for me, it was realistic. I like having beers during the summer!

That being said, I know my body at this point, and the only way I can lose weight is if I eat roughly 1200 cals a day, with very little carbs. I've recently upped my carb intake because I've started a more-intense-than-I've-been-used-to workout regime within the last few weeks and I was not getting the most out of the workout.

Anyway, that works for me...actually, it's the only thing that works for me. I've had my metabolism tested, seen endocrinologists, got hormone tested, etc etc. All signs point to "you can't eat as much or what everyone else does, young lady".

And before anyone says "are you sure you're eating only that much?", yes, yes I am sure. I have a digital scale and I'm militant about measuring out my recipes. I freak out if I can't properly quantify how much/exactly what I ate in a day.

But! point is! That's just me! That's what works for me. Other people have different strategies, and great success! And that's great. I'd love to be one of those people, but i'm not...that's all.

(Stats: 29/F/5'7" SW: 300 lbs in 2009 CW: somewhere around 185 lbs. I stopped weighing myself since I started working out because my body does not want to lose weight when I weight train, and I didn't want to discourage myself)

Please elaborate, what specific conditions turned out to be the cause for this? What is the incidence of said condition in the general population according to your understanding from said Dr. appointment or reliable google research?

Jeez louise, that's a bit snarky, don't you think?

I have PCOS and insulin resistance (thanks to a ****ty diet/lack of exercise for the first 25 years of my life) both tested and confirmed from blood testing and continued visits with my Dr over the last 10 years. I have *also* had my metabolism checked because I was convinced that the steroid treatment after a small tumor was removed from my breast had changed the way I metabolised food.

Now, the "incidence of said condition(s)" are probably pretty low, in combination, I'd say. But, again, *for me* this is the sitch, 'tis what it is. For others, it isn't. And that's fine. But no one formula works for everyone, I don't think.

So you got your basal metabolic rate tested? Do you mind my asking what it is? I see a lot of posts from women struggling with PCOS and have a friend with insulin resistance who really struggles with her weight, so I'm very curious.

Shaylyn1986

Used the fit bit site and mfp.

Your stories keep changing.

Yeah, well she just admitted that grad school is finished, so she is just trolling on here for fun.

I don't even know wtf you're talking about. Grad school just ended over the summer. I still live a sedentary lifestyle.

But yes.. trolling! Actually no, sticking up for a young woman who was getting **** on for her success.

Shaylyn1986

TBH, I'm not sure where that line is but I don't think not supporting 1200 a day is reasonable considering the site itself recommends it as bare minimum. I choose not to judge what someone is doing or comment on their lifestyle but I will stick up for others and myself.

As long as we agree that there is some line, then we are (to abuse Winston Churchill) now merely haggling over [the line].

I'll not hold myself up as holier than thou while debating in this thread. Sticking up for the trampled masses is not as noble as you think, particularly when you have more experience.

There is a reason that so many people are so quick to condemn. Lurk for a little while. The same threads come up day after day after day. Look for patterns. Look at what is routinely successful. Look at what is routinely unsuccessful. Look at what is sustainable. Look at what is unsustainable.

Be as outraged as you like about people's attitudes, that's a matter of opinion and yours is valid. The broad inapplicability of a 1200-calorie daily intake is not a matter of opinion, but indeed, a matter of fact.

Right. I never disputed the idea that 1200 a day is not good in the long-term. The OP is doing it for weight loss until she is ready for exercise again and thus, eat more.

delicious_cocktail

But, it seems like others in this thread have found what *doesn't* work for them...isn't that just as important? You've learned something about yourself. Great.

But, again, I must ask, why isolate those who have some success using a method that doesn't ring true with the crowd? Why not celebrate it?

I'm not sure. I doubt anyone wishes to attack individuals for being successful. I have an issue with people promoting protocols which are not simply ineffective but actually counterproductive for the majority. I feel it is critical for people to know the circumstances under which such protocols are appropriate.

So I will from time to time criticize the protocol, and may even criticize people for promoting the protocol, but would not begrudge someone their success. Using the bulimia example, however, I also wouldn't be high-fiving people for it either.

delicious_cocktail

Right. I never disputed the idea that 1200 a day is not good in the long-term. The OP is doing it for weight loss until she is ready for exercise again and thus, eat more.

High five. By the way you look amazing in your before/after.

Shaylyn1986

But, it seems like others in this thread have found what *doesn't* work for them...isn't that just as important? You've learned something about yourself. Great.

But, again, I must ask, why isolate those who have some success using a method that doesn't ring true with the crowd? Why not celebrate it?

I'm not sure. I doubt anyone wishes to attack individuals for being successful. I have an issue with people promoting protocols which are not simply ineffective but actually counterproductive for the majority. I feel it is critical for people to know the circumstances under which such protocols are appropriate.

So I will from time to time criticize the protocol, and may even criticize people for promoting the protocol, but would not begrudge someone their success. Using the bulimia example, however, I also wouldn't be high-fiving people for it either.

Unfortunately, that is what this thread has become. A young woman posted her success with 1200/cal a day and all she got was "that's not success!" "come back when you've done it longer than a week!" instead of positive feedback. I'm take all the flames for sticking up for her.

elbeerock

Is the point of the thread to say that 1200 works for some, but not for others? Because that's totally true...But maybe I'm missing the point.

I've lost a total of 115 pounds since 2009 in spurts (40 pounds hardcore for a couple of months, maintenance for a few months, 20 pounds for a couple, maintenance...so on). I'm pleased with my progress, because for me, it was realistic. I like having beers during the summer!

That being said, I know my body at this point, and the only way I can lose weight is if I eat roughly 1200 cals a day, with very little carbs. I've recently upped my carb intake because I've started a more-intense-than-I've-been-used-to workout regime within the last few weeks and I was not getting the most out of the workout.

Anyway, that works for me...actually, it's the only thing that works for me. I've had my metabolism tested, seen endocrinologists, got hormone tested, etc etc. All signs point to "you can't eat as much or what everyone else does, young lady".

And before anyone says "are you sure you're eating only that much?", yes, yes I am sure. I have a digital scale and I'm militant about measuring out my recipes. I freak out if I can't properly quantify how much/exactly what I ate in a day.

But! point is! That's just me! That's what works for me. Other people have different strategies, and great success! And that's great. I'd love to be one of those people, but i'm not...that's all.

(Stats: 29/F/5'7" SW: 300 lbs in 2009 CW: somewhere around 185 lbs. I stopped weighing myself since I started working out because my body does not want to lose weight when I weight train, and I didn't want to discourage myself)

Please elaborate, what specific conditions turned out to be the cause for this? What is the incidence of said condition in the general population according to your understanding from said Dr. appointment or reliable google research?

Jeez louise, that's a bit snarky, don't you think?

I have PCOS and insulin resistance (thanks to a ****ty diet/lack of exercise for the first 25 years of my life) both tested and confirmed from blood testing and continued visits with my Dr over the last 10 years. I have *also* had my metabolism checked because I was convinced that the steroid treatment after a small tumor was removed from my breast had changed the way I metabolised food.

Now, the "incidence of said condition(s)" are probably pretty low, in combination, I'd say. But, again, *for me* this is the sitch, 'tis what it is. For others, it isn't. And that's fine. But no one formula works for everyone, I don't think.

So you got your basal metabolic rate tested? Do you mind my asking what it is? I see a lot of posts from women struggling with PCOS and have a friend with insulin resistance who really struggles with her weight, so I'm very curious.

I had a BodyGem test (it was cheap - $100 through my gym which was conveniently located in a hospital), but didn't believe it, so I had this sleep study thing for actual results. BodyGem had me around 1300 I think, the sleep study had me at 1114 exactly.

This is going to be controversial, but I've been living with PCOS for years, and this is my experience - the only way I know how to handle PCOS is to eliminate carbohydrates.