Not to beat a dead horse....

Cindyinpg

I'm one of those people who will tell people that they're not eating enough. I mean, really, someone who has 70 lbs to lose shouldn't be eating 1200 (I'm talking gross here). It's the best way to give up after a couple months.

Mostly I guess, what are they going to maintain on after... 1500? That just seems scary to me. I can't imagine that someone would be able to maintain on a reasonable amount of calories if they ate 1200 calories for months and months.

Agreed. Sustainability is a big factor. And the maintenance thing IS scary. I've seen too many people who "successfully" lost all their weight at 1200 and who are now maintaining at little more than that. The whole point IMHO is to always, at every stage, eat as much as possible for your goals.

Docpremie

I hate to tell you, but that is NOT a lot protein. The average woman needs 100-125 grams/day to prevent major losses of LBM, and at least 90 grams/day, if they are "small." You're a male, hence your protein needs are much higher than that, unless you are really tiny! If you only care about "weight loss" (i.e. the number on the sale), then have at it, but if you want to lose primarily fat, then your protein intake needs to be increased!

That's debatable. The Mayo Clinic recommends getting this:

Get 10 to 35 percent of your total daily calories from protein. Protein has 4 calories a gram. Based on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, this amounts to about 200 to 700 calories a day, or about 50 to 175 grams a day.

The US RDA is 46-56 grams.

http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html

Even this bodybuilder stance is only double that.

"This is about double the DRI for protein (at 0.8 g/kg) at maintenance calories. So for an overweight individual at say 200 pounds and 30% body fat (this would give them an LBM of 140 lbs or 63 kg), that would be a protein intake of 95 grams of protein per day."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html

MFP's goal for me is only 45g a day. I hit that easily without trying and I don't eat much meat or dairy.

For someone who just joined in November 2013, you are very opinionated about dieting. I don't really care what you choose to do, but I hate to see others lead astray. The protein goal I listed is quite widely known & accepted. The higher protein intake is done to spare LBM, while losing fat mass. It really does work. I've lost 60 pounds, but only about 2 pounds of LBM. Most folks I know want to decrease their % body fat while dieting, not just maintain it, hence the push to spare muscle loss with adequate protein intake & resistance training. If you just want to lose "pounds" no matter your body composition, have at it, but I have no desire to maintain a high body fat percentage. There are MANY studies which demonstrate the role of higher protein intake to limit loss of muscle mass. Here's a one involving women; I'll leave it to you to do your own searching for others, as there are many out there!

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/2/411.full

Abstract:
"Claims about the merits or risks of carbohydrate (CHO) vs. protein for weight loss diets are extensive, yet the ideal ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein for adult health and weight management remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of two weight loss diets with modified CHO/protein ratios to change body composition and blood lipids in adult women. Women (n = 24; 45 to 56 y old) with body mass indices >26 kg/m2 were assigned to either a CHO Group consuming a diet with a CHO/protein ratio of 3.5 (68 g protein/d) or a Protein Group with a ratio of 1.4 (125 g protein/d). Diets were isoenergetic, providing 7100 kJ/d, and similar amounts of fat (∼50 g/d). After consuming the diets for 10 wk, the CHO Group lost 6.96 ± 1.36 kg body weight and the Protein Group lost 7.53 ± 1.44 kg. Weight loss in the Protein Group was partitioned to a significantly higher loss of fat/lean (6.3 ± 1.2 g/g) compared with the CHO Group (3.8 ± 0.9). Both groups had significant reductions in serum cholesterol (∼10%), whereas the Protein Group also had significant reductions in triacylglycerols (TAG) (21%) and the ratio of TAG/HDL cholesterol (23%). Women in the CHO Group had higher insulin responses to meals and postprandial hypoglycemia, whereas women in the Protein Group reported greater satiety. This study demonstrates that increasing the proportion of protein to carbohydrate in the diet of adult women has positive effects on body composition, blood lipids, glucose homeostasis and satiety during weight loss."

**Note the "high protein" group's daily protein intake was 125 grams/day!

tigersword

It's an arbitrary number, and people flip their s___ over it for no reason. There are people for whom 1800 calories is much too low, and people for whom 1200 calories is actually too high. It isn't a one-size-fits-all issue. But people act like it is, because of MFP's arbitrary lower limit in its software programming.

It's not arbitrary, 1200 calories is the minimum recommendation for a woman by the World Health Organization, based on decades of research.

tigersword

I hate to tell you, but that is NOT a lot protein. The average woman needs 100-125 grams/day to prevent major losses of LBM, and at least 90 grams/day, if they are "small." You're a male, hence your protein needs are much higher than that, unless you are really tiny! If you only care about "weight loss" (i.e. the number on the sale), then have at it, but if you want to lose primarily fat, then your protein intake needs to be increased!

That's debatable. The Mayo Clinic recommends getting this:

Get 10 to 35 percent of your total daily calories from protein. Protein has 4 calories a gram. Based on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, this amounts to about 200 to 700 calories a day, or about 50 to 175 grams a day.

The US RDA is 46-56 grams.

http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html

Even this bodybuilder stance is only double that.

"This is about double the DRI for protein (at 0.8 g/kg) at maintenance calories. So for an overweight individual at say 200 pounds and 30% body fat (this would give them an LBM of 140 lbs or 63 kg), that would be a protein intake of 95 grams of protein per day."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html

MFP's goal for me is only 45g a day. I hit that easily without trying and I don't eat much meat or dairy.

RDAs are for people eating at maintenance, not people trying to lose weight. When eating at a deficit you need more protein as muscle mass is broken down along with fat for energy purposes, extra protein spares the muscle catabolization.

It is true, however, that a sedentary individual, maintaining weight, doesn't require that much protein.

WalkingAlong

"For someone who just joined in November 2013..."

The hours some have spent here debating starvation mode for 10,000 posts, others might've been spent reading published, authoritative information instead. They may have even joined before and left in sheer frustration at the ingrained myths. Though like I said when I came back this time, it's gotten MUCH better. So bravo to those of you who stay here and keep fighting the myths and misinfo.

pavrg

I don't know if this was covered already:

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?

Digging through the rabbit hole, the 1200 calorie MFP warning comes from the POSSIBILITY of being on the upper threshold of a very low calorie diet for SOME people. While going on a VLCD will cause weight loss, it's recommended to be done under the supervision of a physician to ensure you don't get ill from missing essential nutrients.

As everyone has a different height/weight/lean body mass, sub 1200 calorie diets may be appropriate without going into VLCD territory. For example, my 5'3" wife who only has 85-90 lb of LBM needs to eat sub 1200 calories to lose weight IF she did no exercise.

I think studies are linked in the below thread, I'm too lazy to look them up now:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1105627-top-10-mfp-community-falsehoods

rb16fitness

Arrgghh! please people stop asking the same questions every darn day! :mad:

Searching44

bump

DeeDeeMee

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.

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.

Lol, I joined MFP a couple of years ago, but wasn't ready to make it work for me. I've actually lost 10 kilos in the last 12 weeks, so yeah, it's working VERY well. Shame MFP doesn't reflect that.

kathylonergan

My doctor did a metabolism test on me and said I should have a minimum of 1400. I'm 5'3" , 57 years old and somewhat active. I've been having more success with weight loss after pumping up the calories.

amaninprogress

i think the 1200 cal diet works temporarily, but after awhile your body is going to go into starvation mode, and you are bound to put the weight back on. i believe strongly in having to make a complete change in eating habits and exercise, as a lifestyle change however.

inferiormeatsack

Every time I ever really lost weight before I did not count calories technically. I did write down or record everything I ate though. I think that sometimes seeing that number, for some people, like myself, it sabotages the bigger picture. There are days where I am stuffed on 900-1000 calories and days where I eat 2000 calories and I still lose. When I diet I forget to listen to my body telling myself hunger pains are false or I HAVE to eat at least 1200 calories a day or I will instantly go into starvation mode, when it just isn't true. Granted sometimes my body tells me to eat out of boredom, etc and likewise I can't just starve myself but for me right now my goals are about being healthy and yes I want to lose weight and if it takes me a year or two or more than so be it. I want to be fit and have a good relationship with food and sometimes being so rigid with calories or specific meal plans hurts more than helps. With that said there is not any one way to do this, and I am by no means better at this than any other person. Just find what works for YOU.

yarwell

I hate to tell you, but that is NOT a lot protein.

It isn't going to be, it's an adequate amount according to the tool used.

Just like hundreds of clinical studies feed people on weight loss protocols with similar amounts, I put "hypocaloric diet" into Google and hit the first study at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/6/602.full.pdf+html which used "800 kcal and 80 g of
high-quality protein". LOL. How do these guys get away with it ;-)

The point being that not everyone is a protein addicted body builder or compulsive eater, a short obese woman desperate to lose weight can do so safely.

The WHO say "0.83 g/kg per day of protein with a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score value of 1.0" on p243 of http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_935_eng.pdf is "safe".

yarwell

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?

Be interesting to see how nutritionally complete your intake looks - I did that using Fitday.com

Yes it is a bit crazy but it was necessary to hit the nutrients, the herring is for vitamin D for example, which was otherwise a big problem. The 2 ozs is to get enough Vit D without surplus calories and so on.

I took out the 4 oz sirloin steak, the apple and the banana because they contributed more calories without doing a lot for the nutrition. It was an interesting exercise.

beachlover317

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?

Be interesting to see how nutritionally complete your intake looks - I did that using Fitday.com

Yes it is a bit crazy but it was necessary to hit the nutrients, the herring is for vitamin D for example, which was otherwise a big problem. The 2 ozs is to get enough Vit D without surplus calories and so on.

I took out the 4 oz sirloin steak, the apple and the banana because they contributed more calories without doing a lot for the nutrition. It was an interesting exercise.

Yes, I come very close to macros, but not on the money often. I really am more concerned about hitting protein & fats. I am not a carb girl, so unless I'm lifting, I'm not hitting that as well. But I am able to hit my calories most days. Might be a little under some and a little over some. It's all about my weekly balance to me. It's a process for me, as I have eaten crappy for more years than I care to remember. This is a venture to be healthy. At 55, that is my first and only goal.

LOL - I would have left in the steak and the apple. I eat more chicken, but generally have an apple and pb every day.

pavrg

The 0.8 g/lb of lean body mass protein intake gets harped on by a small but vocal crowd of people who think they are serious weight lifting athletes (and maybe some of them are).

If you are not in the gym lifting weights everyday, a 0.8 g/lb of lean body mass protein intake is largely a waste of money. Someone who works out on a typical 3x per week program needs closer to 0.6 g/lb of lean body mass (1.2 g per kg of lean body mass).

It's pretty safe to say that if you are someone who is embarking on a VLCD, you are also someone who is not in the category of people who rigorously strength train everyday and thus the 0.8 g protein/lb of lbm is excessive.

Unless you just happen to like eating a lot of chicken/beef/fish, then have at it.