1200 calorie diet?

zoeysasha37

I totally understand the point your trying to make OP. And yes, sometimes its way too low for some people. I personally eat 1550/1850 a day (sometimes 2000 ;-)

jec285

I understand the point OP is trying to make as well, he maybe should have worded it better so it didn't seem so "attacky".

1200 calories for a 6'0" man does seem a bit ridiculous, so does does saying you're completely sedentary and wanting to lose 2 lbs a week. You can't be mad at the site for telling you what it's going to take imo.

Aaron_K123

I understand the point OP is trying to make as well, he maybe should have worded it better so it didn't seem so "attacky".

1200 calories for a 6'0" man does seem a bit ridiculous, so does does saying you're completely sedentary and wanting to lose 2 lbs a week. You can't be mad at the site for telling you what it's going to take imo.

Yeah fair enough I do get myself in trouble a lot for sounding combative when I don't mean to be.

And I agree of course there is an element of personal responsibility here and I dont think MFP is liable for the decisions people make it is just a tool. If you hit yourself with a hammer that isnt the fault of the hammer I understand that. That said to run with the analogy of a hammer MFP giving someone like me a 1200 cal meal plan is almost like a hammer coming with instructions on how best to hit yourself with it. Sure you would like to think people would know better than to follow those directions but then you walk onto the forum and half the people have big red hammer shaped welts on their foreheads.

jec285

I understand the point OP is trying to make as well, he maybe should have worded it better so it didn't seem so "attacky".

1200 calories for a 6'0" man does seem a bit ridiculous, so does does saying you're completely sedentary and wanting to lose 2 lbs a week. You can't be mad at the site for telling you what it's going to take imo.

Yeah fair enohh I do get myself in trouble a lot for sounding combative when I don't mean to be.

And I agree of course there is an element of personal responsibility here and I dont think MFP is liable for the decisions people make it is just a tool. If you hit yourself with a hammer that isnt the fault of the hammer I understand that. That said to run with the analogy of a hammer MFP giving someone like me a 1200 cal meal plan is almost like a hammer coming with instructions on how best to hit yourself with it. Sure you would like to think people would know better than to follow those directions but then you walk onto the forum and half the people have big red hammer shaped welts on their foreheads.

imo it's more like going to the hardware store looking for a hammer, and having a salesman help you find a hammer based on your needs. The only problem is the hammer is for a specific application, and if you try to use it for what YOU'RE doing it will slip out of your hand and hit you in the forehead.

Did I mention I'm quite tired right now.

grandmothercharlie

I do 1200 calores for a few reasons:
1. I'm a woman and we get less than you guys do.
2. I'm 5'1" so need less.
3. I'm 63 years old so need less calories and will need less every year.
4. At 1200 without exercise I can only lose 1.5 per week. I still work full time and yet find time to burn 400-500 daily six days a week in exercise, but that just brings me up to 2 pound loss a week. I still have 70+ pounds to lose so 2 pounds a week at this point makes sense as it will get less the closer I get to goal.
5. By the time I lose that weight I'll be 64 and my BMR will only be 1074 calories at 130 pounds.
6. My health is good right now but I've had tmes where I couldn't exercise at all.
7. Given all that, it makes sense to stick with 1200 calories now and get used to it.

I don't feel deprived at all. I eat well and when I get to my weight and if I have extra calories I can eat and still maintain, that will be a great bonus!

You can't paint everyone with the same brush as yourself. We are all so different 1200 works for some. Not for others.

1200 isn't the default but it is suggested that less is unhealthy. As you can see, there are probably many like me, who fall in the 1200 calorie category.

Aaron_K123

Did I mention I'm quite tired right now.

Maybe you should eat more. ;-)

Aaron_K123

I do 1200 calores for a few reasons:
1. I'm a woman and we get less than you guys do.
2. I'm 5'1" so need less.
3. I'm 63 years old so need less calories and will need less every year.
4. At 1200 without exercise I can only lose 1.5 per week. I still work full time and yet find time to burn 400-500 daily six days a week in exercise, but that just brings me up to 2 pound loss a week. I still have 70+ pounds to lose so 2 pounds a week at this point makes sense as it will get less the closer I get to goal.
5. By the time I lose that weight I'll be 64 and my BMR will only be 1074 calories at 130 pounds.
6. My health is good right now but I've had tmes where I couldn't exercise at all.
7. Given all that, it makes sense to stick with 1200 calories now and get used to it.

I don't feel deprived at all. I eat well and when I get to my weight and if I have extra calories I can eat and still maintain, that will be a great bonus!

You can't paint everyone with the same brush as yourself. We are all so different 1200 works for some. Not for others.

1200 isn't the default but it is suggested that less is unhealthy. As you can see, there are probably many like me, who fall in the 1200 calorie category.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that a 1200 calorie diet is wrong for everyone and if it came across that way it was poor wording on my part and I apologize. I think it likely is appropriate for a 5'1" woman in her 60s.

The point I meant to bring across is that regular reading of the forums here gives the impression that there are many people on a 1200 cal diet who shouldn't be but use MFPs calc as justification that it is okay and that concerns me.

You are of course correct that it would be incorrect and over generalized to suggest 1200 is wrong for everyone regardless of who the are or their circumstances.

HoverKitteh

I'm doing Dr. Ian Smith's Shred (6 weeks, 4 inches, 2 sizes). Some days my calories don't even hit 1200, some days they're more. I'm eating 4 times a day, with the option for 3 snacks and I don't feel the least bit deprived. I had 40 pounds to lose--the result of quitting smoking a couple years ago. I've tried every diet/exercise routine on the planet and NOTHING worked until Shred.

I've lost nearly 17 pounds in going on five weeks. If 1200 is what works for people and they're eating nutrient dense foods, then I say good for them. I spent months trying to make something work before I found Shred. I'm not sure if it's the four meals a day, but something about this particular plan finally kicked my metabolism into gear.

Many studies say that restricted calorie diets prolong lives...so who's to say? I feel perfectly satisfied staying around 1200-1300 with or without exercise (which I rarely log anymore).

It's all a matter of finding what works for you.

unFATuated

I do 1200 calores for a few reasons:
1. I'm a woman and we get less than you guys do.
2. I'm 5'1" so need less.
3. I'm 63 years old so need less calories and will need less every year.
4. At 1200 without exercise I can only lose 1.5 per week. I still work full time and yet find time to burn 400-500 daily six days a week in exercise, but that just brings me up to 2 pound loss a week. I still have 70+ pounds to lose so 2 pounds a week at this point makes sense as it will get less the closer I get to goal.
5. By the time I lose that weight I'll be 64 and my BMR will only be 1074 calories at 130 pounds.
6. My health is good right now but I've had tmes where I couldn't exercise at all.
7. Given all that, it makes sense to stick with 1200 calories now and get used to it.

I don't feel deprived at all. I eat well and when I get to my weight and if I have extra calories I can eat and still maintain, that will be a great bonus!

You can't paint everyone with the same brush as yourself. We are all so different 1200 works for some. Not for others.

1200 isn't the default but it is suggested that less is unhealthy. As you can see, there are probably many like me, who fall in the 1200 calorie category.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that a 1200 calorie diet is wrong for everyone and if it came across that way it was poor wording on my part and I apologize. I think it likely is appropriate for a 5'1" woman in her 60s.

The point I meant to bring across is that regular reading of the forums here gives the impression that there are many people on a 1200 cal diet who shouldn't be but use MFPs calc as justification that it is okay and that concerns me.

You are of course correct that it would be incorrect and over generalized to suggest 1200 is wrong for everyone regardless of who the are or their circumstances.

I see the point you're making, and I myself get ranty and stabby over the same issue quite often. I see far too many people torturing themselves on 1200 calories - and I mean torturing, they are miserable, cranky, logging every single bit of activity they can justify in order to get more calories to eat so they're not so miserable and cranky and thinking this is the only way they will ever lose weight (this was me 2 years ago, so I know what I'm talking about) because they haven't come across the information, or haven't researched or won't research it enough to find out that eating more can still mean weight loss and they'll be more successful at it because they won't feel so deprived. I'm also not saying this is everyone on 1200 calories, but it was certainly true for me and it is definitely true for a good number of people who are trying to stick to 1200.

However, I have come to realise that you can talk about how 'wrong' it is until you're blue in the face but you won't be able to fix everyone. There is a vast amount of conflicting information out there about how best to lose weight. There's a lot of different methods, some of them are very, very dangerous and have no basis in science, and others (IMO) which are perfectly fine as long as they work for the people following them.

Edit: and I don't think that there's really a way to adjust MFP (which is really not taking an individual's circumstances into account) in order to have it give more realistic recommendations for people.

pinkraynedropjacki

I started with 1200, was perfectly happy. Lost all the weight I wanted to lose & then kept it at 1200. Now I just do 4:3 and am better for it. Eat what I want (I have nothing 3 days a week) and am still losing slowly.

Just because people think 1200 is bad for THEM does not mean it's like that for all. I was not hungry, moody, lethargic and happily nourished on 1200.

Aaron_K123

I started with 1200, was perfectly happy. Lost all the weight I wanted to lose & then kept it at 1200. Now I just do 4:3 and am better for it. Eat what I want (I have nothing 3 days a week) and am still losing slowly.

Just because people think 1200 is bad for THEM does not mean it's like that for all. I was not hungry, moody, lethargic and happily nourished on 1200.

Absolutely true but arguing against a point I was not trying to make

jojorocksforeva

I know people who have lost hundreds Of pounds on 1200 -1300 Calories. So saying its bad is a lie whats bad is junk food and eating 4000 calories of that. everyone can pick their own calorie they want to choose so hey if someone picks 1200 Let them be. They are probley losing weight and rocking at it too.

lemurcat12

I agree there are plenty of people on 1200 calorie diets (the 18 year olds who need to lose 10 lbs, if that, being the prime example) who shouldn't be. But on the other hand I get annoyed--okay, not really, I'm not that sensitive--by those who keep claiming that 1200 (especially as MFP does it) means that you don't want to exercise or are tired and starving or are being unrealistic. So often someone says "my goal is 1200"--or 1400 or similar--and the immediate response is EAT MORE, even before information is exchanged.

What is it, of course, are just a couple of related quirks in how the MFP calculator works. Before coming here I thought of my "diet" as about 1600 cals, which I didn't count all that carefully and was often below, but on other days above, and was losing about 2 lbs a week, which is fine because I'm fat and was more so then. When I saw 1200 I was surprised and not happy, because it seemed so low. But then when I thought about the way it works, of course it's low--you can't take someone who doesn't have a high TDEE due to size or tons of activity (and that poses another issue) and cut 1000 calories out and have many calories left. Indeed, I tried changing to 1.5/week and got 1200, and even so it keeps telling me I can only lose 1.3 a week, which is ridiculous given the amount left to lose and because I do lose 2/week usually.

The reason, of course, is that most advice is more like "cut 500 from your daily calories and try to add an average of 500 from exercise." I do that, imperfectly, but MFP doesn't take that into account in its overall goal, only the daily one. That's why it's not accurate to claim that people get 1200 because they won't exercise. It has zero to do with how much you exercise under MFP's designed system. But that's also why if you do it right and exercise you ideally won't be eating 1200 on average.

The other related quirk, then, is that exercise is not taken into account in your activity level. Again, it bugs me (eh, not really, but for the sake of this post) when people accuse others of choosing sedentary because they don't do it right or are too ambitious or whatever, because the descriptions specifically focus on what you do at work. I walk a bunch most days and obviously exercise, but the latter specifically is not supposed to count and the former seems a lot less than someone who is on their feet AT WORK. So it seemed like lying to claim something other than sedentary as described. It certainly wasn't some desire to get lower cals.

Anyway, I use a fitbit and if I didn't would log some of the extra walking, so again if you use the tool as it is intended you don't end up with 1200 if your activity level doesn't support it. The generic goal, yes (unless you decide to change it), but not the actual calories it recommends you eat each day, assuming you understand how it works and use it right.

So the point of all this is that if you do it right and exercise the 1200 is really more like 1600, under MFP's own system, and for those for whom it's lower in many cases that's not unreasonable--lots of people here are middle aged women with lots to lose. I don't think it's fair to blame MFP for the fact that some people who need to lose far less want to do it really quick or that anyone doesn't bother to understand how it works or that, unfortunately, people are often messed up about weight stuff.

JulsiePie

I like food. Seeing a calorie goal of 1450 a day makes me want to get my butt moving to eat more of it lol. Once MFP gives me 1200 a day, I will most likely change my goals to lose 1 pound a week cuz no one likes a hangry woman lol.

But that's just me.

mrssunflowers

I am glad to read this discussion. I haven't been here in a while due to severely stressful job situation. MFP says for me to lose 2 lbs. per week I should eat 1200. I've always thought that seemed way too low but now I'm going to try it because I'm desperate. This morning I got on the scale and was horrified by the number I saw. I've counted calories a few times lately and have been finding at the end of the day I had consumed 2,700 or so.... so no wonder I gained weight!

crys_aintgivingup

Doesn't this depend on people's height as well? I'm 5 ft 1 inch (female), and have been told by some people on the forum that 1200 cal/day (and eating back my exercise calories) is what I should aim for. If I used the TDEE method, however, I could eat up to 1412 and still be 'reckless'.

Dang, I am confused. :sick:

Lesa_Sass

<<<<Got to goal on 1400 to 1500 a day. I am 5 food 3.5 and 45 years old. 1200 per day made me miserable. The hardest part about eating more for me was wrapping my head around it. After I did, BAM weight started dropping off again.

mrssunflowers

I am glad to read this discussion. I haven't been here in a while due to severely stressful job situation. MFP says for me to lose 2 lbs. per week I should eat 1200. I've always thought that seemed way too low but now I'm going to try it because I'm desperate. This morning I got on the scale and was horrified by the number I saw. I've counted calories a few times lately and have been finding at the end of the day I had consumed 2,700 or so.... so no wonder I gained weight!

seeingthelight

The younger you are and the more active you are the more you can eat. Your metabolism slows down as you age. Muscles burn more calories than fat. You can move faster and longer when you are young. It is best if we learn how to live a healthy lifestyle when we are young, then keep it up so we will have and know how to keep a strong body when we are 65 and 70! I could eat anything and everything I wanted until I was 35, then I had to watch a little to keep my weight under control, and now I have to be very faithful to a healthy life style to maintain my weight and downright obsessive to lose any. I wish I hadn't let it get ahead of me - I just couldn't believe how my metabolism had changed no matter how many times I proved it to myself by stepping onto the scale and growing out of my clothes. But I finally believe and hopefully it is not too late LOL. Be healthy everyone, learn from yourself and others, love yourself. :flowerforyou: MFP is helping me do all these things!