Not to beat a dead horse....

kyleekay10

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

/thread

Rage_Phish

"not to beat a dead horse.........but let's beat this dead horse"

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The only thing worse than a 1200 calorie diet are vaccinations!!!!

Aaaaanddd.... FIGHT!!!

<popcorn>

I thought the only thing worse was sugar??? :devil:

Well sugar and vaccines both cause autism. So there's that.

TigerBite

The more aggressive the deficit, the more muscle you will lose ... Slow and steady ...

Amitysk

What's wrong with beating a dead horse?

This is what I was waiting for....,

beachlover317

Just...so...tired....

RGv2

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

Agreed...

carrieo888

...not trying to start THE big debate...

Uh, yes you are, otherwise why post?

yarwell

They are fine for small sedentary women. But the thing to remember on 1200 cals it is very difficult to get enough protein and fat, while getting all the micro nutrients (vitamins and minerals) you need, which leaves very little room for any treats or empty calories.

100g of protein is 400 calories, only 1/3 of the way to the magic number. Essential fats are, what, 30 grams or 270 cals so only half way in total for these macros.

It does take effort to get everything into 1200 calories, but equally there are people eating 1800 or 2400 with probable micronutrient deficiencies.

carrieo888

The only thing worse than a 1200 calorie diet are vaccinations!!!!

Aaaaanddd.... FIGHT!!!

<popcorn>

I thought the only thing worse was sugar??? :devil:

And bananas. Darn those bananas.

cwolfman13

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

Agreed...

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I'll just go ahead and beat the dead horse:

PetulantOne

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

^That

erickirb

They are fine for small sedentary women. But the thing to remember on 1200 cals it is very difficult to get enough protein and fat, while getting all the micro nutrients (vitamins and minerals) you need, which leaves very little room for any treats or empty calories.

100g of protein is 400 calories, only 1/3 of the way to the magic number. Essential fats are, what, 30 grams or 270 cals so only half way in total for these macros.

It does take effort to get everything into 1200 calories, but equally there are people eating 1800 or 2400 with probable micronutrient deficiencies.

Your diet should consist of much more than 30 grams of fat. Try 0.3-0.4 grams per lb of body weight (if overweight 0.3, normal weight 0.35 to 0.4, obese can do less). So if you are 160lbs normal BF% you should aim for 60 grams of fat as a minimum which is 540 cals, + 400 for protein now at 940 cals and you still have to make sure you get enough fiber, vitamins and minerals.

And yes some people that eat more may still have micro deficiencies, but there is much less of a chance of that than those on such a low caloric intake.

ThatSoundsHard

Since I've chimed in on a couple of the 1200 posts, I'll bite.

It's not 1200 that I'm 'against', it's extreme calorie restriction. I just don't want anyone to be hungry, nor set unrealistic goals for themselves and give up.

Sure, some people are just fine on 1200+. But most people aren't.

MFP set me to 1200 when I started out because I was all 'Imma lose 2lbs a week and be awesome skinny so fast! YEAH!" That didn't happen. I was miserable, I was discouraged. I was hungry. I honestly knew nothing about weight loss other than extreme calorie restriction. I won't get into the blah blah blahs of it but starving myself was what worked in the past. That's what I was doing because 1200 calories a day is in no way an appropriate amount of fuel for my life.

And then I found in place of a road map. I read, I went to links, I measured my body, I used online calculators of all sorts, I read some more, used more calculators, took an online class on nutrition and continue to read. Basically I spent a few months learning about, well, being healthy.

I feel a lot more confidant about actually losing weight and being healthy now that I've learned a few things about weight loss, nutrition and exercise. I just want to encourage others, who may be in a similar situation I was when I started out to do the same, I guess.

There may be a lot of snark in the forums but, armed with the search function and a few key phrases, there sure is a lot of really great information readily available.

deksgrl

I am in no way trying to start a debate but have a simple question. For those who are strongly against 1200 calories diets, do you truly believe they are for no one?

I see many saying that if you stick to it you are killing your metabolism. MFP set me at 1200 calories. I work out 6 times a week and eat back all my exercise calories so I normally actually eat between 1500-1600 on most days. I do have a day every week or two where I do go over. At this setting, right now I am set to lose 1.2 lbs a week. I am 5'1 and I have about 33 lbs left to lose. Right now it is working for me. When I get within ten pounds, I plan on changing my settings to only losing .5 lbs a week.

I checked the TDEE calculators online and I feel more comfortable using MFP. I have a heart rate monitor for my workouts so I can get a more accurate calorie burn and my activity level is set at light activity. I am a stay at home mom.

It just seems like as soon as anyone mentions 1200 calories, everything blows up. Again not trying to start THE big debate but just trying ot understand if it is a blanket statement that no one should be on such a low diet.

The problem is, people come on here and choose "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" when that is not a feasible goal for them. This sets them too low, usually the default minimum of 1200.

Another problem is, people do not understand that MFP does not include exercise, they think that eating exercise calories will undo their hard work. So they are not eating 1200 Net, they are eating just 1200.

This is okay for some people who are very petite, sedentary, and older, but it is not for everyone. In your case, you seem to be doing it exactly right, so don't worry about it.

cuppycat

I think the thing to remember too, that I see people eating is, certain people who want to eat only 1200 cals a day are not eating healthy 1200 cals. If you eat fast food, and sweets, chips to add up to your daily then thats one thing.

MFP cals for me says 1700 or something. I changed it to 1200 and I make sure to eat fruits, veggies, protein, dairy, fiber at each meal or somewhere during the day. I am successfully losing weight at a healthy weight. Not that is works for everyone, but just contributing to the conversation.

adgirl618

I am following a 1200 calorie a day diet (most days) and do occasionally come in around 900. I am doing so under the watchful eye of a doctor. That being said, 1200 calories can be enough IF you are eating the right foods so that your body is getting the nutrients that it needs. I take fish oil tablets, eat a good amount of protein and very closely watch my net carbs - and I steer clear of most white foods (breads, pastas, etc). I started at 179 pounds and am down to about 162. I'm losing anywhere from 1.5-3.5 on average per week. I would most likely be losing more but I'm up against a medicine I take that was putting on 1.5-2 pounds per week before my current caloric plan. I'm 5" and still have a significant amount to lose but as long as you are getting the nutrients your body needs, I don't see anything wrong with 1200 GOOD calories a day.

QuietBloom

I think you will find that no one has a problem with netting 1200 calories. It's the ones who want to net less than 1200 that will get themselves into trouble.

WalkingAlong

"choose "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" when that is not a feasible goal for them. "

Why is it not a feasible goal for them? Losing up to 2 lbs. per week is considered a safe, conservative goal outside of this forum. Even MFP allows all users to choose up to 2 lbs/week. It would be easy enough to program it so only people with X or greater pounds to lose may select that goal. It lets them select it because it's considered safe.