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

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.

AllonsYtotheTardis

okay well then...at 30lbs a TDEE-20% deficet is too high...sorry...

1/2lb a week is a good healthy rate of loss for 30lbs...so that is TDEE-10%

And when I input your starting stats into scooby...144lbs, 61 inches, 37 and sedentary..wow imagine it gave 1333, TDEE-10% was 1499, and I could snip the screen and go to photobucket and post here but eh...I have DC'd it...maybe you should have.

And if your profile pic is you and your son you are not sedentary...so imagine lightly active goes to 1718.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this...it is common knowledge that the AMA says that in order to get in all your macro/micros you need at least 1200...and the fact you mention starvation mode...really?

After a few months no you wouldn't be hungry, when the body isn't getting enough food it creates a hormone to alter your hunger signals to lower so you aren't in constant agongy...see even your body knows something is wrong

So...1200 is the limit for women regardless of their height...

When someone new writes a post about "is 1200 o.k." don't just jump in and say "you'll die." Say "what are your stats?" Please. Can we stop the misinformation?
<snip>
Weight loss doesn't last forever... unless YOU ARE SHORT AND EATING OVER 1200 CALORIES!

Ironic statement is ironic

Oh and stop spreading mis-information....

+1, I cannot understand why some folks want to brag about how little they can eat. Talk about bad info to new mfp'ers.

Seriously, right? I'm 1/2 inch taller than OP. 5 years older. No way was I eating that little.

RGv2

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

RGv2

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

The perceived "snark" is from seeing countless threads from kids in their late teens/early 20's touting "I net 800 calories a day and it works for me, I'm just super tired and not getting the "tone" I want".

There are a lot of "1200 defenders" here missing the forest for the trees. Yes, everyone knows that 1200 can/does work and is adequate for some individuals dependent upon ht, age, and activity, but there are so many individuals that start threads/defend it that are in the demographic from the first paragraph the intake level overall gets a bad rap.

Yes I agree it would not be suitable for people that age and consistently netting under 1200 is not good for anyone.

However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.

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.

However there also seems to be posters saying 1200 is not suitable for anyone at all and that is not true either.

Guess I disagree on that.

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.

Jestinia

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Thank you. I wasn't challenging your position by asking - pretty much everything has genetic influences, I was truly interested in reading studies one might be reading here. I'm kind of a study geek - and since I'm traveling over the weekend, I like to have some reading material on the plane. The first two have less to do with the genetics of fat distribution but more on BMD.
The third looks like an interesting read - especially as the author goes into some length to look at the phenotype of fat storage.

Aside from the influences of genetics, for all individuals some form of exercise and getting back to a normal weight (whatever that might be for the person) are likely to be greater factors than the genetic hand we get. I understand that you currently have difficulty exercising - I won't belabor the point - just wish you luck in finding a place/situation that is more livable and open to an active life. Consider that perhaps some of the OTC anti-allergy treatments might help (I do suggest the whole doc thing first, but if you can't - and are in an extreme situation where even basic exercise is awful...).

Best of luck, thanks for the links.

Thanks! I couldn't find the specific one I was looking for. It was a mouse study cited in a documentary. It was much more on point, basically if I remember right no matter what you fed the mice, no matter how you exercised or dieted them, some had a genetic tendency to store energy as fat more than the others.

And even so, I absolutely agree with you on exercise, no matter what genetic hand we're dealt. Which is one reason I'm so aggravated with my current issues.

I do take Sudafed, but it's just so-so and the other stuff does nothing. Tried them all. And one reason I don't go pester the doctor for something like an inhaler to stop the wheezing is that the possibility of being put on one of the steroid medications. It scares me. I don't like the side effects list at all!

Long term steroid use does have the potential for some serious side effects but there are many other possible non-steroidals that might help - anti leukotriene class drugs, bronchodialators (beta 2 agonists) ... (full disclosure - I used to market an ant-L, but no longer do, nor am I now involved in any asthma treatment marketing - I am not suggesting self medication of these products, just that there are non-steroidal options that can be discussed with a doctor).

Thanks, I will do some more reading if I truly find either moving out of this pollen-riddled hellhole is impossible or if I move and it doesn't help. It's not that severe...as long as I don't move much and stay inside all day in the filtered air conditioning. But eh, who wants to live like that forever?

Jestinia

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

EvgeniZyntx

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.

RGv2

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

You do understand that you completely missed the point of the OP you quoted first, right???

They weren't saying you should be able to eat 3500 calories and still lose weight. They were talking about people who have a high TDEE, but go to extreme caloric restrictions in order to lose weight when in reality they don't have to. Not the people whom it actually makes sense for.

1princesswarrior

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

What about water aerobics or water walking? There are all types of low impact or no impact exercises out there now.

I've had lower back surgery, came back from a broken neck, have a horrible knee (2 surgeries) and I still exercise daily. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But I also don't make excuses and the exercise and strength I've gained has actually helped with my chronic pain.

I'll be swimming this summer, actually. Chlorine isn't something that has ever bothered me. I'll need blasted 1,000,000 UV block sunscreen, though, or I'll fry in five minutes.

Good for you! I also fry in five minutes through clothing I think. I hope the swimming works for you.

Hondo_Man

Every time I see this topic, and it appears weekly at a minimum, I cringe. Literally. Just something to ponder over and I hope someone or sometwo, will take a moment to read the links here.

Consider that you are in hospital (I hope not in reality) and are comatose. This is the single most rest stage anyone can be in. You need to be kept alive and everything needs to function so there is no tissue damage. Hospitals go to great lengths to keep one's organs functioning and repairing in hopes of full recovery. How many calories does one need in such a state? That is where your BMR comes in.

So, consider I am a 49 years-old man, 188cm and 84kg. Most hospitals use Harris-Benedict to determine this. I would need 1847kcal per day. The macronutrients I would need would be very little fats (about 10%) and then it would vary on carbs and proteins depending on length of comatose state and current body mass (fat versus muscle).

Why does this matter here on MFP? Let's say I was released from hospital and after a few months I needed to lose some weight. Would I eat less then 1847 per day? No. I'm not comatose (hence not resting) so I need more calories as I am more active. That 1847 is the bare minimum for my body's function. To know how much I need to eat I'd need to know how active I am or plan to be.

In other words, the point I'm making is perhaps 1100 or 1200 calories per day is way below your BMR. By eating at such a large deficit, you are hurting your body and you might not be aware of how much you are straining your organs.

People here like information that comes from reputable sources:

http://medicina.iztacala.unam.mx/medicina/Nutritional support of the critically ill and.pdf
This pertains to hospitals, comatose and BMR.

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/metabolism.htm
This details metabolism, BMR and TDEE and safe, recommended calorie deficit to lose weight.

Perhaps, again, this might help.

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.