1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....

Ely82010

Under 5'1 here.

Ate 1200 calories for 8 months. Started off obese. Developed anorexia, heart failure, osteoporosis etc. Weight loss was very efficient @3lb/week average. Nobody on MFP suggested I was under-eating on 1200 cals bc I was short and fat, so clearly I 'needed' it.

Now eat 2500-3500/day. Can squat twice my bodyweight and have lower body fat %. Have gained 40lb @0.5lb/week average.


So FWIW, stats don't tell the whole story either. Using your brain and understanding your body's individual needs tends to work out pretty well in the long run.

You are 24 years old and you developed osteoporosis after eating 1200 calories for only 8 months? Sorry, but I don't believe that because osteoporosis is a very slow process specially in somebody of your age. Since it seems that you were obese, your problem probably started earlier and for another reasons.

Thanks for your medically informed opinion...? Yeah I totally made that up because...uh...hmm. Nope. That's the truth.

Being obese between age 17-22 does not cause osteoporosis. VLCD, causing loss of menstruation, does.

Fortunately, gaining back weight, getting my periods back, heavy lifting and eating properly mean I'm likely to reverse some damage, and I have a bone scan scheduled for next year to find out how things are looking.

Just to confirm that osteopenia and osteoporosis are well documented in some anorexia patients through calcium metabolism changes and significant bone loss may occur in short periods.
Anyone interested in this can google terms like "mineral balance" and "bone turnover" along with anorexia.

I agree, but not in 8 months and not in a person that was carrying a lot of weight to start with unless a genetic factor was in place or if the person had taken glucocorticoids for a long time. And by the way, Yes, I do have a medical and biological background.

Aaron_K123

OP the concern in eating as little as 1100 calories (no matter how short you are) is that you aren't fueling your body enough to exercise, you aren't therefore getting fit and you are not improving your health you are mearly shrinking. Shrinking in and of itself is not really improving your health unless you were previously morbidly obese. At the point you are going from slightly overweight to skinny losing weight is not a health benefit unless it goes along with improved fitness which requires exercise which requires fuel in the form of calories. Now if you are exercising and eating those calories back you aren't eating 1100 you are netting 1100 so that is a different story.

You might be able to survive at 1100 calories as long as you have some bodyfat left to burn but you aren't going to gain muscle, you aren't going to get fit....even if you were 4'6'' Chances are you are going to lose muscle.

People don't maintain weight at 1100 calories a day. Maybe if they are 70 years old, 4'11'' and sedentary, maybe.

levitateme

Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

Yep, that drives me crazy.

I just went on scooby's and found my tdee-20% at my age (30) and activity level (3-5 hours a week) and got 1920 to lose, which is what I currently eat. I then calculated for age 65 with the same activity level and got 1690 to lose.

*shrug*

People can eat 1100-1200 if they want to, but no one needs to.

Serah87

About 10 years ago I lost a lot weight doing less than 1200 calories. I have heart issues and it only made it worse by doing what I was doing. ETA: Plus I gained all the weight back plus more from doing VLCD.

Now that I am doing it right the way, eating more to lose (1600-2000 cals. to lose weight), I have totally improved my heart issues to almost no heart issues now.

Hondo_Man

About 10 years ago I lost a lot weight doing less than 1200 calories. I have heart issues and it only made it worse by doing what I was doing.

Now that I am doing it right way, eating more to lose (1600-2000 cals. to lose weight), I have totally improved my heart issues to almost no heart issues now.

I am sorry to hear you went through that. I'm sure it was very scary. But I am glad to see that you've recovered. I am wishing you all the best and hope your heart continues be healthy for years to come!

LoosingMyLast15

I think people forget that more important than losing the weight is maintaining. Can you maintain at the calories you are taking in for years and years?

^^^ this and in some (maybe a bit more than some) cases no they can't that's why we see so many people on here who start out with 5 yrs ago or 2 years ago or last year i lost X amount of weight in X number of months eating very little but now i've gained it all back plus some so i'm back on here. we all gain a few here and there but when you gain it all back it's probably because you went back to eating at a somewhat higher count and just can't do the whole 1200 day in and day out forever.

i'd rather loose it slow and eat at a semi normal amount of food than restrict to the point where i can't sustain it long term (and i'm talking 5/10/15yrs) and then gain it all back.

RGv2

Not to mention posters saying I am same height and I can lose at 1600 or whatever, totally ignoring fact they are 40 years younger than other posters.

Yep, that drives me crazy.

I just went on scooby's and found my tdee-20% at my age (30) and activity level (3-5 hours a week) and got 1920 to lose, which is what I currently eat. I then calculated for age 65 with the same activity level and got 1690 to lose.

*shrug*

People can eat 1100-1200 if they want to, but no one needs to.

And what if it was 0hrs of exercise per week at age 65?

SezxyStef

Gee...it's so nice to see so many people that are experts on diet and nutrition. i'll let my doctor know that i'm starving myself and punishing myself for being fat on the days i eat below 1200 cals (as instructed by him).

OP - you do what works for you

Everyone else who keeps telling her she is wrong - c'mon now. how can you know everything about what everyone needs? we are all different. telling people to eat under 1200 cals is just as bad as telling people to eat over 1200 cals. Unless you really are an expert and know each person individually. Everyone is different and everyone has to take a different path.

Neither is the OP and due to her logging inaccuracies and her mistakes at the TDEE site her post is full of mis information.

So what she thinks worked for her and her post are bogus...that's why I replied...

Again as for your doctor he is not a dietician...and only dieticians should be giving out advice to patients...a GP knows as much as most laymen who reads. Per my aunt who is an Ob/gyn and her husband another doctor oh and did I mention their daughter another doctor...

Aaron_K123

When you lose weight its a good idea to eat either at the maintenance level of the weight you want to be at or slightly below that so that the transition to maintenance at your healthy weight becomes easy and you can transition with no effort and no weight gain.

So just out of curiosity I tried to find out at what point according to Scooby's calculator do you maintain at 1100 calories.

You ready for it?

An 85 year old 70 pound 4 foot tall completely sedentary woman maintains at 1133 according to the calculator.

This, by the way OP, is why people baulk at 1200 calories a day even if you are 5 foot 1 and over 30.

At 1100 calories a day you are eating at a level to cleanly transition into being a 4 foot tall octogenarian who is bed-ridden.

rosebette

Gee...it's so nice to see so many people that are experts on diet and nutrition. i'll let my doctor know that i'm starving myself and punishing myself for being fat on the days i eat below 1200 cals (as instructed by him).

OP - you do what works for you

Everyone else who keeps telling her she is wrong - c'mon now. how can you know everything about what everyone needs? we are all different. telling people to eat under 1200 cals is just as bad as telling people to eat over 1200 cals. Unless you really are an expert and know each person individually. Everyone is different and everyone has to take a different path.

Your doctor put you on that. Don't assume because your doctor put you on that, that it's the way for everyone. We are not all different. We are all humans. Hang around a little longer before you start criticizing what the community says. You might learn a thing or two.

The whole expert thing fan go both ways here. The OP came off that way also, no?
Don't be part of the "omg people are so mean" group. No one likes a whiner.

No one likes bullies, either.

Quite frankly, if I didn't teach at a big campus, I would put my activity at sendentary. I have worn a pedometer for years, and when I stayed at home or worked an office job, my typical "mileage" stepcount was under a mile/2000 steps a day, not too many calories burned. Even a 30 minute walk for a small person burns under 100 calories -- what's that -- a Fiber One bar -- not an extra meal.

People are quick to call someone a bully just because they disagree with something someone says. Don't be so sensitive and allow people to get under your skin and maybe it won't feel like people are trying to bully you. The world is not rainbows and unicorns.

I am amazed it took 8 pages before Bully got thrown out...

The word "Bully" was thrown out because OP and one other poster were called whiners. A "whiner" is someone who complains -- "I track every day but I'm not losing because i ate that reese cup that I don't usually eat.....blah, blah." OP and some others are just stating what works for them.

DeadliftAddict

Thanks, OP, my thoughts exactly. I'm just under 5'2", older, and eat lower calories and get plenty of nutrients. I'm healthier than I've ever been since I changed my eating habits. I lost 80 lbs last year, have a few more to lose and my doctor is totally okay with the way I did it. I have also been able to stop my two blood pressure medications. I consider that a total win..

Congrats on all of this. You probably could have done it eating more calories as well. But, if it got you healthier, that's great.

rosebette

Gee...it's so nice to see so many people that are experts on diet and nutrition. i'll let my doctor know that i'm starving myself and punishing myself for being fat on the days i eat below 1200 cals (as instructed by him).

OP - you do what works for you

Everyone else who keeps telling her she is wrong - c'mon now. how can you know everything about what everyone needs? we are all different. telling people to eat under 1200 cals is just as bad as telling people to eat over 1200 cals. Unless you really are an expert and know each person individually. Everyone is different and everyone has to take a different path.

Your doctor put you on that. Don't assume because your doctor put you on that, that it's the way for everyone. We are not all different. We are all humans. Hang around a little longer before you start criticizing what the community says. You might learn a thing or two.

The whole expert thing fan go both ways here. The OP came off that way also, no?
Don't be part of the "omg people are so mean" group. No one likes a whiner.

No one likes bullies, either.

Quite frankly, if I didn't teach at a big campus, I would put my activity at sendentary. I have worn a pedometer for years, and when I stayed at home or worked an office job, my typical "mileage" stepcount was under a mile/2000 steps a day, not too many calories burned. Even a 30 minute walk for a small person burns under 100 calories -- what's that -- a Fiber One bar -- not an extra meal.

Stop with the bullying claims. Every time someone cries bully on these forums and in real life, it just undermines what people who have ACTUALLY been bullied have gone through.

Also, a thirty minute walk will burn more than 100 calories, even for a small person.

For a 5'1" 55-year-old woman, it burns 89 calories. I know because I do it and track it every day. My point is that many people overestimate how much activity they actually do. In fact, you'll find posters on other threads saying that people and even MFP overestimates activity levels. Let's face it, Americans are among the most sedentary people in the world.

milileitner

Under 5'1 here.

Ate 1200 calories for 8 months. Started off obese. Developed anorexia, heart failure, osteoporosis etc. Weight loss was very efficient @3lb/week average. Nobody on MFP suggested I was under-eating on 1200 cals bc I was short and fat, so clearly I 'needed' it.

Now eat 2500-3500/day. Can squat twice my bodyweight and have lower body fat %. Have gained 40lb @0.5lb/week average.


So FWIW, stats don't tell the whole story either. Using your brain and understanding your body's individual needs tends to work out pretty well in the long run.

You are 24 years old and you developed osteoporosis after eating 1200 calories for only 8 months? Sorry, but I don't believe that because osteoporosis is a very slow process specially in somebody of your age. Since it seems that you were obese, your problem probably started earlier and for another reasons.

Thanks for your medically informed opinion...? Yeah I totally made that up because...uh...hmm. Nope. That's the truth.

Being obese between age 17-22 does not cause osteoporosis. VLCD, causing loss of menstruation, does.

Fortunately, gaining back weight, getting my periods back, heavy lifting and eating properly mean I'm likely to reverse some damage, and I have a bone scan scheduled for next year to find out how things are looking.

Just to confirm that osteopenia and osteoporosis are well documented in some anorexia patients through calcium metabolism changes and significant bone loss may occur in short periods.
Anyone interested in this can google terms like "mineral balance" and "bone turnover" along with anorexia.

I agree, but not in 8 months and not in a person that was carrying a lot of weight to start with unless a genetic factor was in place or if the person had taken glucocorticoids for a long time. And by the way, Yes, I do have a medical and biological background.

Well my bones were fine and then I ate around 1000-1200 calories and then they were not fine. Draw your own conclusions folks.

/discussion

stefaniemazz

Stop spreading this misinformation.

Seriously.

I developed an eating disorder from thinking like this. I was eating 800-1000 calories a day, basically starving myself...yeah sure I lost all the weight, but I was hungry, my hair was falling out, and i was TIRED all the time.

And guess what? I gained it all back once I started eating normally again.


Now, yes if you look my diary I average 1000 calories NET 6 days a week BUT I also have a re-feed day of 4000 calories plus on Saturday, I average about 1400-1500 calories a week. I do it like this because it works for me and I have other reasons for the low days and high days.

When I hit maintenance, I will change it up a bit.

Stop eating averaging 1000-1200 calories. Seriously it's not good for you.

Aaron_K123

Question for the OP.

Have you been tracking your lean body mass during your diet? Have you at any point had your bone density checked?

SezxyStef

@ Milil and stef your posts are spot on...really.

and this should end the discussion but it wont unfortunately...

*shakes head* it's too bad too that so many people (not just women now) think it's fine when in reality it isn't...I feel bad for those people...to go through all that possibly develop immediate issues or most definately later in life when they don't have to....

jmv7117

Yeah, but I did work out. I did jog. I did bust my knees. Exercise did not improve my allergies and asthma, if anything, they were worse this past year than they have ever been. I don't blame exercise for that, by the way, I'm simply saying exercise didn't fix it and wasn't sustainable for me.

I'm getting a bit tired of people dismissing me when I say I simply cannot do something. You don't know me and my health problems. Advice is fine. Advice is welcome. But don't assume.

It's a shame that exercise is not working for you. Have you talked to your doctor about the inability to increase your activity through exercise? If you can't exercise, perhaps just increasing your general daily activity especially walking would help. I'm not sure of your age but I'm over 50. I specifically started exercising as a form of pain control. I can't do high impact or lift heavy but I've found a lot of exercises that I can do. My results have been a dramatic improvement in my asthma and I went from constant pain to greatly pain reduced. I have not had to take pain killers since last November! That doesn't mean I'm pain free, just the pain has been reduced through exercise to the point I can manage it without the use of pain killers. I have also experienced an improvement in gastrointestinal problems. So, I have had a very positive experience.

rosebette

I think people are confusing a VLCD diet with an LCD diet. A VLCD diet is 800 calories or less a day. A LCD diet is between 1000-1200 for women and between 1200 and 1600 for men. Granted, for a larger person, those numbers might qualify as VLCD, but for a sedentary mature petite adult (I'm not talking 20 year olds), eating between 1000-1200 calories does not create a huge deficit. For instance, if I were sedentary, my BMR requires only around 1380. So, for a person of that size, like OP, 1100 is not VLCD. Anyway, if the principle is that you are overweight and need to be burning extra fat, you are getting rid of fat reserves by eating at a deficit. Isn't that what the whole weight loss process is about? Of course, at some point, she will have to eat at maintenance, but that's only maybe 300 or 400 more calories.

SezxyStef

I think people are confusing a VLCD diet with an LCD diet. A VLCD diet is 800 calories or less a day. A LCD diet is between 1000-1200 for women and between 1200 and 1600 for men. Granted, for a larger person, those numbers might qualify as VLCD, but for a sedentary mature petite adult (I'm not talking 20 year olds), eating between 1000-1200 calories does not create a huge deficit. For instance, if I were sedentary, my BMR requires only around 1380. So, for a person of that size, like OP, 1100 is not VLCD. Anyway, if the principle is that you are overweight and need to be burning extra fat, you are getting rid of fat reserves by eating at a deficit. Isn't that what the whole weight loss process is about? Of course, at some point, she will have to eat at maintenance, but that's only maybe 300 or 400 more calories.

If the OP's diary wasn't full of inaccurate logging etc she wouldn't have made this post. She thinks she is eating under 1200..I call bull on that...

rosebette

I think people are confusing a VLCD diet with an LCD diet. A VLCD diet is 800 calories or less a day. A LCD diet is between 1000-1200 for women and between 1200 and 1600 for men. Granted, for a larger person, those numbers might qualify as VLCD, but for a sedentary mature petite adult (I'm not talking 20 year olds), eating between 1000-1200 calories does not create a huge deficit. For instance, if I were sedentary, my BMR requires only around 1380. So, for a person of that size, like OP, 1100 is not VLCD. Anyway, if the principle is that you are overweight and need to be burning extra fat, you are getting rid of fat reserves by eating at a deficit. Isn't that what the whole weight loss process is about? Of course, at some point, she will have to eat at maintenance, but that's only maybe 300 or 400 more calories.

If the OP's diary wasn't full of inaccurate logging etc she wouldn't have made this post. She thinks she is eating under 1200..I call bull on that...

What items do you thinks she is underestimating? Many of the items are European products, so it's hard for me to tell. The things I recognize seem to be fairly accurate. BTW, she is eating more than 1200 some days, but seems to have some activity level.