1200 Is Not For Everyone?

Options
2

Replies

  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    Options
    I think if it works for you, then go for it. I am 5' 1.5" and I cannot lose at that level... because I end up binging, I am so ravenous by the time dinner comes around... I am grouchy, moody, and have headaches... I much prefer the 1600 level even though I have quite a few pounds to lose.
  • justinproulx1
    justinproulx1 Posts: 335
    Options
    1200 is way too low!! wooooooooooow this is amazing me how many people on here thinks this is good to do. You will lose weight at first then stop after ya metabolic rate has been killed. Good luck with the 1200 cal diets smh . Where all you all calculating you cals? And why is everyone on here so obbessed with cals and noone metnions macros at all? the macro amount you eat are whats important not total cals
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    Or you aren't losing at 1200 because you aren't weighing and measuring your food, and are actually eating more than 1200 calories.

    +1

    +2
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    I've consulted a lot of non-professionals about this and I'm hoping that maybe they're right.

    I am 5 feet 1 inch and 131 pounds. I have been told that people my size should actually be eating LESS THAN 1200 calories a day. Specifically, I was told that 1050 calories a day is my minimum for losing weight without going into starvation mode. What's your take?

    I'm 5'1" and lose weight at 1800 cals/day.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    Or you aren't losing at 1200 because you aren't weighing and measuring your food, and are actually eating more than 1200 calories.

    +1

    +2

    plus another one
  • Brandolin11
    Brandolin11 Posts: 492 Member
    Options
    First, the cold, hard Truth: This is not a guessing game and it's absolutely fruitless to ask what "other people" are doing. Your specifications will apply ONLY to you, no one else, and you need to figure that out using math and science, not opinion.

    I used a basic BMR calculator to figure out your stats (based on exercising just 3x a week, which I'm assuming you're doing since you mention exercise in your profile). If you're exercising more let me know because that will affect this number.

    According to the calculator, in order to lose 1 lb a week on average, you should eat 1,635 a day. To lose 1.5 lbs a week, 1,385. To lose 2 lbs a week you'd have to drop below 1,200 and that's not safe so skip it. Stick with the 1 - 1.5 a week. You don't have far to go anyway so you'll get there in no time.

    So! Bottom line: You need to eat MORE to lose MORE. It's counter intuitive, but you should listen to what we're saying.

    Also, listen closely to the gal who suggested you're probably not tracking accurately either. In order for this to work, you have to be ACCURATE. You CANNOT cheat.

    It's science and biology. Not opinion and not a game.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    You might not be loosing much weight at 1200 cals per day because your body has already gone into starvation mode. Try 1300 cals per day and watch your fat and carb intake--I've always been told that no woman ought to be eating under 1200 cals per day if she is trying to loose weight in a healthy and sustainable way. No one can last long eating only 1000 cals per day!

    No one goes into starvation mode at 1200 calories a day.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    1200 is way too low!! wooooooooooow this is amazing me how many people on here thinks this is good to do. You will lose weight at first then stop after ya metabolic rate has been killed. Good luck with the 1200 cal diets smh . Where all you all calculating you cals? And why is everyone on here so obbessed with cals and noone metnions macros at all? the macro amount you eat are whats important not total cals

    NO.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    And why is everyone on here so obbessed with cals and noone metnions macros at all? the macro amount you eat are whats important not total cals

    It's because we hate macros. Everyone on this site practices FYM instead of IIFYM.

    That came out really snarky. I was amused because probably the most popular approach on this site is IIFYM. Sorry for the rude.
  • twixlepennie
    twixlepennie Posts: 1,074 Member
    Options
    First, the cold, hard Truth: This is not a guessing game and it's absolutely fruitless to ask what "other people" are doing. Your specifications will apply ONLY to you, no one else, and you need to figure that out using math and science, not opinion.

    I used a basic BMR calculator to figure out your stats (based on exercising just 3x a week, which I'm assuming you're doing since you mention exercise in your profile). If you're exercising more let me know because that will affect this number.

    According to the calculator, in order to lose 1 lb a week on average, you should eat 1,635 a day. To lose 1.5 lbs a week, 1,385. To lose 2 lbs a week you'd have to drop below 1,200 and that's not safe so skip it. Stick with the 1 - 1.5 a week. You don't have far to go anyway so you'll get there in no time.

    So! Bottom line: You need to eat MORE to lose MORE. It's counter intuitive, but you should listen to what we're saying.

    Also, listen closely to the gal who suggested you're probably not tracking accurately either. In order for this to work, you have to be ACCURATE. You CANNOT cheat.

    It's science and biology. Not opinion and not a game.

    +1
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    And why is everyone on here so obbessed with cals and noone metnions macros at all? the macro amount you eat are whats important not total cals

    It's because we hate macros. Everyone on this site practices FYM instead of IIFYM.

    That came out really snarky. I was amused because probably the most popular approach on this site is IIFYM. Sorry for the rude.

    :huh:
  • Some_Watery_Tart
    Some_Watery_Tart Posts: 2,250 Member
    Options
    Or you aren't losing at 1200 because you aren't weighing and measuring your food, and are actually eating more than 1200 calories.

    +1

    +2

    plus another one
    Jumping on this bandwagon. You can get an inexpensive food scale for about $15-20. Do it. Weigh everything. It. Is. Life-changing.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    And why is everyone on here so obbessed with cals and noone metnions macros at all? the macro amount you eat are whats important not total cals

    It's because we hate macros. Everyone on this site practices FYM instead of IIFYM.

    That came out really snarky. I was amused because probably the most popular approach on this site is IIFYM. Sorry for the rude.

    :huh:

    He said no one on here mentions macros at all. I disagree.
  • Pixt
    Pixt Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    My experience thusfar:

    I'm 5ft 2inches, 140(ish) pounds .... 1200 calories puts me in starvation mode, I take of and put back on the same 2 pounds over and over. However, 1400 works so long as I have one day a week where I aim for over 2k. Bear in mind, I'm 46 and my metabolism slowed way down at 40 so this is what works for "My" body and isn't necessarily what would work for others.
  • KaterinaTerese
    KaterinaTerese Posts: 345 Member
    Options
    Instead of cutting out 500 calories a day, why not:

    1) calculate your TDEE/BMR and find out how much to maintain your weight,
    2) cut 200-250 calories from that,
    3) exercise enough to make up the difference (e.g., lift free weights 3x a week, 30 minutes, vigorously or run 20 minutes everyday),
    4) be patient.

    Making yourself sad, sick and miserable on less food than you and your body need is awful. Trust me, I was stuck there for two years before I decided I like having a strong immune system and other bodily functions in working order...

    See if these ladies make sense, and after you shake your head and exit the page, go back after a few weeks of hunger and see if they make more sense: http://eatmore2weighless.com/
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    My experience thusfar:

    I'm 5ft 2inches, 140(ish) pounds .... 1200 calories puts me in starvation mode, I take of and put back on the same 2 pounds over and over. However, 1400 works so long as I have one day a week where I aim for over 2k. Bear in mind, I'm 46 and my metabolism slowed way down at 40 so this is what works for "My" body and isn't necessarily what would work for others.

    I'm 5'1".... dunno about starvation mode but 1500 cals/day puts me in super hangry mode... I lose at 1800 cals/day and seem to maintain around 2100 cals/day although it's hard to estimate as I maintain without tracking, i.e. just going by whether or not I feel hungry and making sure I'm getting enough protein and fat. However when i start logging, I feel like I have to "be good" so probably eat less when I actually log my food. In any case I lose on 1800 cals/day.
  • stillnot2late
    stillnot2late Posts: 385 Member
    Options
    Must be wonderful to be able to set a certain amount of calories and be able to lose. I'm 5-5, sedentary except for a very good workout schedule almost every day. I was set for 1200 calories also. I've gone from 1200 up to 1600 now, in the last year and I'm not losing anything. No too discouraged but it does bother me a little. Now that I'm insured I shall be visiting a doctor again, maybe something has happened to my body in the last 4 years.
  • asianmonkie
    asianmonkie Posts: 264
    Options
    I always thought carrying around a food scale was actually a joke that people make because of how ridiculous it seems but I guess it's real. "Waiter! Can you bring my Chicken Alfredo in pieces so I can measure it? KThanks."
  • kiki728305
    kiki728305 Posts: 7
    Options
    I think there are other variables you need to consider apart from gender and height, like build of your body, type of job (active or sedentary), workout type and duration, medical issues, etc.


    I agree, because when I first started Insanity it stated that I needed to consume at least 2300 calories (5'4 1/2) and at that time I was 203lbs but I didn't look it. I have a muscular/athletic build. I went into CVS one day and saw a nutritional guide book, that stated that if you are between the weight of 150-180 lbs or if you want to be between that weight (I cannot recall exactly at the moment what was right, sorry :( ) to consume 1200-1500 calories. So far it's been working for me I try to consume at least 1300, I now weight 185 lbs. So I do too think it varies and what workout plan you're on and what you eat...
  • sarafischbach9
    sarafischbach9 Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    No, it isn't.

    A lot of people can lose weight on more than 1200 calories. I know I can lose weight on 1400-1500 with my normal activities and 1700 or so with working out an hour a day. Obviously, men can eat more and lose weight, than women, but everyone is different.

    It depends on many factors: age, weight, activity, job, gender, etc etc.

    If I were you, I would personally not go under 1200 calories, as I consider that too low. How often are you exercising? you could do 1200 or a little more if you exercise more.

Categories