Not to beat a dead horse....
Replies
-
just try it and see if it works for you.
I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...
...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.
But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).0 -
I for one think 1200 is just fine for some people! This isn't a one size fits all approach. The only time I have a problem with it is when guys go on reddit to show their progress pics (or on here) and brag about how much weight they lost becaus they ate 1000-1200 calories a day so...you starved yourself. Then lost weight. Now you want accolades and to be showered in compliments becausd you did that? Uhhhh....no. That's not working at it and only puts yourself out there as a crappy example to others for how to lose weight.0
-
just try it and see if it works for you.
I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...
...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.
But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).
this ...
:flowerforyou:0 -
I can AIM for flying to the moon on the back of the cow while the cat plays the fiddle but that doesn't mean it will happen. It's less frustration, less discouragement, and more satisfying to have a reasonable and attainable goal.
Choose not to aim for 2 lbs/week yourself if you find it unrealistic. For the people that do make the choice, I don't think people should be telling them that it's unhealthy and unrealistic for anyone not obese. It's not unrealistic, which is why it's commonly referred to as the max you should aim for. Not the max IF you're >50 lbs. overweight.
People would agree that a person of any size can gain 2 lbs/week by eating 1000 calories a day more than they burn. Why would the inverse be false? The only reason it's unrealistic for many here is because it takes discipline and accuracy. But even if you lack those, it's probably better to shoot for 2 lbs. and achieve 1 then shoot for 1 and achieve 0.0 -
I can AIM for flying to the moon on the back of the cow while the cat plays the fiddle but that doesn't mean it will happen. It's less frustration, less discouragement, and more satisfying to have a reasonable and attainable goal.
Choose not to aim for 2 lbs/week yourself if you find it unrealistic. For the people that do make the choice, I don't think people should be telling them that it's unhealthy and unrealistic for anyone not obese. It's not unrealistic, which is why it's commonly referred to as the max you should aim for. Not the max IF you're >50 lbs. overweight.
People would agree that a person of any size can gain 2 lbs/week by eating 1000 calories a day more than they burn. Why would the inverse be false? The only reason it's unrealistic for many here is because it takes discipline and accuracy. But even if you lack those, it's probably better to shoot for 2 lbs. and achieve 1 then shoot for 1 and achieve 0.
I couldn't disagree more with the rationale and psychology behind this.0 -
I am ignoring most of what has been posted here and am choosing to only address the issue of 1200 calories or below being ok for anyone. While I am average height I have adult family members under five foot. So I do think there are people that can safely eat under 1200 calories and there are people who would be beyond starving on 1200 calories. I don't know where the magical number of 1200 came from, but while some people can eat safely at that level, most adults of average height cannot.0
-
But you can tell that it works by the fact that they're back for the 6th or 7th or 30th time to lose the same weight that they couldn't keep off for any significant length of time.just try it and see if it works for you.
I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...
...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.
But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).0 -
Can they do sugar vaccinations now? That way we can annoy twice as many folks in half the time.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.
As for 1200 calories, it's most likely too little for the majority of otherwise healthy MFP posters of "average" age for the forum to gross before exercise, presuming they are within statistically typical height range for their gender. If they're dealing with specific medical issues that reduce their TDEE considerably below statistical norms for the board, then they are.0 -
Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?0
-
Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
Don't know the specifics, but as you get older, your BMR goes down. BMR is what your body needs to maintain essential functions, organs, etc. Perhaps as we get older, organs get smaller/less effective? Seems like I have heard that as we get older, cells die off and are not replaced by the body. I'll bet a doctor could explain it, but I've never met a doctor that needed to lose weight...0 -
I think something it doesn't take into account is height. I have friends who are not even 5 feet tall and in their case eating 1200 or below isn't a bad idea.
I am of the "eat more" club but honestly you have to do what works for you. Each body is so different that there is no blanket approach that is going to work for everyone all the time.0 -
I think it works for some people but it's not a universal solution. MFP has me at 1470 calories (my activity level is set to sedentary since I have a desk job). Personally, I don't think I could do 1200 calories a day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for anyone else. In general I honestly don't care about this debate because I'm on MFP to do what I need to do for me, not get overly involved in or critical of what other people are doing.0
-
Not to beat a dead horse.... but does exactly that, use the search feature OP.
0 -
Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
Don't know the specifics, but as you get older, your BMR goes down. BMR is what your body needs to maintain essential functions, organs, etc. Perhaps as we get older, organs get smaller/less effective? Seems like I have heard that as we get older, cells die off and are not replaced by the body. I'll bet a doctor could explain it, but I've never met a doctor that needed to lose weight...
Is the age-related decrease more or less significant than the difference between a fit/active vs unfit/inactive adult?0 -
In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.
Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.0 -
Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
Don't know the specifics, but as you get older, your BMR goes down. BMR is what your body needs to maintain essential functions, organs, etc. Perhaps as we get older, organs get smaller/less effective? Seems like I have heard that as we get older, cells die off and are not replaced by the body. I'll bet a doctor could explain it, but I've never met a doctor that needed to lose weight...
I would surmise that they are counting on the fact that most people lose muscle mass as they age, leading to a lower BMR. I don't necessarily think it is inevitable, and can be staved off for a good while. At least that is what I am counting on!0 -
In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.
Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.
(Excellent...[Mr. Burns voice])
So it's likely more closely dependent on 1) activity and 2) muscle mass, right?
And what's one of the most important factors in maintaining high activity level and higher muscle mass, especially in those "dieting"/eating at a deficit?
I propose that it's an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit.
And thus completes the circle.0 -
Wanted to thank most of you for answering without it turing into the usual reponses. I really do need to watch the nutrients and make sure I am getting as much as I would on a higher calorie diet. I usually have too much room at the end of the night to endulge in the sweets and I have been trying to fill up with healthier choices throughout the day to only leave me with 100-200 (depending on if I have exercise calories) calories for something endulgent. I really did not think of how important this change will be for me if I am at such a low net. I just started this journey in late August and I know I still have a lot to learn. I want it to stick this time and I really do not think of it as a diet that is going to end, just a change that I want to keep up forever.
You can also look at your calories over each week (the mobile MFP app has a handy chart that will add up your weekly intake). Say you want to have 400 cal or ice cream tonight rather than 200... Do it, and cut out an extra 200 tomorrow. Sleep in and skip (a portion of) breakfast. If you net only 1000 tomorrow, you won't fall into a coma (like the poor kid in video).
Great work on thinking of this as a change for forever. That is exactly what we need to do in order to avoid gaining the fat back. Knowing how calorie restriction works is the tool that will let you monitor and maintain the weight you want.0 -
I don't recall disagreeing in the slightest with the sentence I emphasized. I have merely suggested that, based on my own experience and reading on the subject, "an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit" is not a number that stays static from the onset of adulthood until death by old age, and, in general, will tend to decrease a bit over time.
In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.
Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.
(Excellent...[Mr. Burns voice])
So it's likely more closely dependent on 1) activity and 2) muscle mass, right?
And what's one of the most important factors in maintaining high activity level and higher muscle mass, especially in those "dieting"/eating at a deficit?
I propose that it's an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit.
And thus completes the circle.0 -
These people usually don't eat back any exercise points and are usually burning 600 a day.... That's the ones people jump and and down about..........u are fine sauce u are eating back exercise points so you are not creating a Hugh deficient....and you are not complaining that you are hungry and tired.0
-
I don't recall disagreeing in the slightest with the sentence I emphasized. I have merely suggested that, based on my own experience and reading on the subject, "an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit" is not a number that stays static from the onset of adulthood until death by old age, and, in general, will tend to decrease a bit over time.
In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.
Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.
(Excellent...[Mr. Burns voice])
So it's likely more closely dependent on 1) activity and 2) muscle mass, right?
And what's one of the most important factors in maintaining high activity level and higher muscle mass, especially in those "dieting"/eating at a deficit?
I propose that it's an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit.
And thus completes the circle.
I didn't think we were disagreeing either...I was just using your post as a convenient prop/support for my post which was a commentary on the more general topic (and didn't mean it to appear as a rebuttal to your post).
(In other words, I think you and I are good here. :drinker: )
ETA: And yes, "a bit", I agree with. I disagree with those who use their age as some kind of automatic justification for extreme calorie deficits.0 -
Is the age-related decrease more or less significant than the difference between a fit/active vs unfit/inactive adult?
If I understand the question, I don't think it matters (fitness or activity level). BMR is relatively the same between people of the same height, regardless of fitness or activity. Looking at an obese person and a lean person of the same height, organ size is about the same. The difference in weight/apparent body size is mostly due to fat. Their BMR is "about" the same, regardless of weight difference.
And for fit/unfit, metabolism is about the same for people of the same height/weight. Two people, one with 20 lb of muscle more than the other would burn about 100 more calories per day in order to sustain the extra 20 lb of muscle (5 cal per lb of muscle). Not a big difference in calorie requirements for a huge difference in muscle mass.0 -
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.
That is actually not true. I eat 1200 calories or less ( due to age and being 5 feet ) and am most days over in fat and protein even though I don't eat meat, chicken or fish more than twice a week. If a person eats more or less healthy it is child's play to get enough fat and protein even with less than 1200 calories. It leaves room for treats , but you are right it does not leave much room for empty ( meaning without nutritional value ) calories.0 -
just try it and see if it works for you.
I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...
...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.
But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).
sometimes the horse isn't really dead, sometimes it's just lazy.0 -
sometimes the horse isn't really dead, sometimes it's just lazy.
how do you know it's not just lethargic cause it's eating less than 1200 calories :blushing:0 -
I eat 1200 calories or less ( due to age and being 5 feet ) and am most days over in fat and protein even though I don't eat meat, chicken or fish more than twice a week. If a person eats more or less healthy it is child's play to get enough fat and protein even with less than 1200 calories. It leaves room for treats , but you are right it does not leave much room for empty ( meaning without nutritional value ) calories.
Agreed. You have to take into account the food you are eating. You could consume all 1200 calories in a big mac, fries and thickshake (actually, I'm pretty sure that's more than 1200 calories) every day and be seriously malnourished. If you eat well every day and 1200 is appropriate for you there shouldn't be a problem. BUT: I'm set to 1200 and it's working really well for me but on days when I don't do any exercise I can't have any 'extras' - it's basic breakfast, lunch, dinner and two pieces of fruit and no creamy mushroom sauce on my steak at dinner. I have found that this is a motivating factor for me to exercise though, so there is a pro here I guess.
0 -
It's working really well for you. According to your ticker you've lost 5 kg in 2 years. Slow and steady wins the race. At this pace it will only take another 6 years to lose that last 15 kg. I look forward to reading your success thread in 2020.
I eat 1200 calories or less ( due to age and being 5 feet ) and am most days over in fat and protein even though I don't eat meat, chicken or fish more than twice a week. If a person eats more or less healthy it is child's play to get enough fat and protein even with less than 1200 calories. It leaves room for treats , but you are right it does not leave much room for empty ( meaning without nutritional value ) calories.
Agreed. You have to take into account the food you are eating. You could consume all 1200 calories in a big mac, fries and thickshake (actually, I'm pretty sure that's more than 1200 calories) every day and be seriously malnourished. If you eat well every day and 1200 is appropriate for you there shouldn't be a problem. BUT: I'm set to 1200 and it's working really well for me but on days when I don't do any exercise I can't have any 'extras' - it's basic breakfast, lunch, dinner and two pieces of fruit and no creamy mushroom sauce on my steak at dinner. I have found that this is a motivating factor for me to exercise though, so there is a pro here I guess.0 -
Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?
Don't know the specifics, but as you get older, your BMR goes down. BMR is what your body needs to maintain essential functions, organs, etc. Perhaps as we get older, organs get smaller/less effective? Seems like I have heard that as we get older, cells die off and are not replaced by the body. I'll bet a doctor could explain it, but I've never met a doctor that needed to lose weight...
You haven't met enough doctors...
TDEE (and BMR) goes down primarily due to LBM loss seen over time. If you maintain or develop LBM then TDEE will likely decrease a lot less. There are a few other factors such as hormonal changes (oh, pituitary, how you own us...) but the principal is LBM.
So if you figure out how to keep LBM .....0 -
1200 calories and hitting the nutrients takes effort and diversity. If you don't use supplements you have to add specific foods in some cases :-
0 -
1200 calories and hitting the nutrients takes effort and diversity. If you don't use supplements you have to add specific foods in some cases :-
I completely understand your point. However, this is very depressing. I would starve on this diet. 1/2 a medium egg? 2 oz. cooked herring? I realize you were making a point, but who eats like that? I need real food and at 55 years old I'm eating about 500 - 700 calories more a day than that. I still lose .8 - 1 pound a week most weeks. Effort and diversity? It would also take a boatload of "I don't care about taste or food enjoyment".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions