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

EvgeniZyntx

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?

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.

Even though the physical activity may not be the same for everyone, very often the people who come around wanting to eat 800, 1000 or 1200, whatever are physically active. They talk about how they hit the gym 5 or 6 times a week. I'm not comparing anyone to myself. I'm saying that people need to break that mentality that they don't want to eat or need to eat because they want to lose weight. The truth is almost everyone here most likely loves to eat. If we didn't then we would have ended up here.

You're right about that, when I could work out and was impatient to lose the last bit of weight to hit my first goal, I was occasionally guilty when working out of not eating them back when I didn't feel like I needed to that day, but after a few days my body would tell me in no uncertain terms that enough was enough. And I would get cranky as a bear. Maybe some people can do it, but I sure couldn't.

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.

paperpudding

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.

jofjltncb6

Also, I sincerely hope that everyone spouting numbers (on either side of the argument) consistently weigh and measure their food so that they're working with reasonable estimates. Bad data/logging helps no one.

I have been weighing most of my food since the first week of January with the exception of eating out so my numbers are good. I also use HRM/pedometer so know my calorie burn numbers are good too.

My post was a general recommendation for the 50+ people posting (and the ~500+ people reading), not so much an invitation for every person to justify their numbers individually.

That said, I'm having trouble reconciling this statement: "with the exception of eating out so my numbers are good".

For that matter, I'm also struggling with this one too: "I also use HRM/pedometer so know my calorie burn numbers are good too."

WBB55

It's a wretched place

Starving yourself isn't going to help, ok? Starving yourself isn't going to help you be healthier. Your body needs proper nutrients over the long term to heal itself. I know nothing I say is going to change your mind, but to anyone reading this who thinks depriving your body of nutrients is the best way to be healthy, I urge you to consider what happens to people when they do this. Lifelong problems can and do result from not eating enough.

PinkyFett

What works for one does not work for all.

I am short (5'2) and I was MISERABLE at 1200, even eating back exercise calories. I also have Hashimoto's, so that could be why as well, but still. It was not for me.

jofjltncb6

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.

All the snark on which side of the argument? Because I see it coming from both sides. You seem to think it's only coming from one side. Any chance your views on this particular topic are influencing your perception of the feedback?

jenmom2myboys

OP so you say you got all your nutritional needs under 1200... now your logging is very inaccurate but it shows your protein is extremely low, your fats are low. The other issue with your calories so low you really shouldn't be using those precious calories for soda and chocolate when you aren't reaching your bare minimum nutritional needs. Keeping my calories at 1700 or so a day I can get all my nutrition and plenty of room left over for sweets, but protein comes first.

But it's also got lots of inaccuracies and inconsistent logging so would go with you were eating more than you think anyway.

Yeah the op's diary told a completely different story from what I expected after reading her first post.

I thought so, too! Not what I was expecting.

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.

And as john pointed out.....there is all kinds of "snark" from each side of the debate.

bellaa_x0

I'm inclined to believe you, seeing as I'm 5'10 (21 f) and my maintenance is somewhere around 1550 (net).

Unlikely.

OP fair enough it worked for you in your opinion but it's dangerous to then say it's ok for eveyone and screw the general medical consensus. Just because you think it worked for you doesn't mean another method wouldn't have been better (how long have you maintained for? Did you maintain your LBM? Bone density, nutrition, etc?) nor does it mean that it is going to be ok for others. Your personal experience does not a universal truth make. And for most people, eating at that level is just not healthy.

HIGHLY unlikely! i'm also 5'10, 25 year old female and my maintenance is almost 2600 cal!

_HeartsOnFire_

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.

These sound like excuses I used in the past, I have severe asthma, get allergy shots twice per week, and I've had multiple knee surgeries, as well as heart issues. But from slowly building up my exercise I have been able to improve everything but the allergies, and can now lift, run and ride my bike. There is always some type of activity you can do (walking, swimming, something)

Same here. I always said I couldn't do any real exercise, anything high impact (like running) because of my asthma. I've now run and by run I mean jogged & walked 2 5k's. I've found my asthma has gotten better with my increased exercises. Also, with every pound I lose the knee that hates me (knee cap isn't attached like it should be) feels better. Strengthening my quads also helps with that.

_HeartsOnFire_

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.

Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.

parkscs

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.

A person might be able to eat 1800 calories and still lose weight, but that same person would lose weight more quickly at 1500 or even 1200 calories. I'm not necessarily defending 1200 calories, but the notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" doesn't really fit everyone because what you're essentially saying is you should lose weight very slowly. If you take someone who is morbidly obese, the best move for their health is almost certainly not to lose at 0.5 lbs/week or less, hitting a healthy weight within several years time, but rather to lose weight at a significantly more rapid rate. On the other hand, if you're already lean and looking to recomp, staying within 10-15% of your TDEE is probably more appropriate. I don't think it's as bright a line as some make it out to be and 1200 can be appropriate for someone depending on their size and situation; others having the ability to eat more and still lose some weight (albeit slowly) doesn't change that.

paperpudding

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.

jofjltncb6

OP so you say you got all your nutritional needs under 1200... now your logging is very inaccurate but it shows your protein is extremely low, your fats are low. The other issue with your calories so low you really shouldn't be using those precious calories for soda and chocolate when you aren't reaching your bare minimum nutritional needs. Keeping my calories at 1700 or so a day I can get all my nutrition and plenty of room left over for sweets, but protein comes first.

But it's also got lots of inaccuracies and inconsistent logging so would go with you were eating more than you think anyway.

Yeah the op's diary told a completely different story from what I expected after reading her first post.

Which part? The dangerously low protein (frequently 21g and less) and fat (25g and less)? The gaps of several days each week of nothing logged at all? The likely huge shortfalls in many micros?

I don't personally believe in "good" and "bad" foods, but this is an overall "bad" diet.


(Actually, now that I think about it...(and not to mix themes, but) OP's diary looks like what those who don't understand IIFYM seem to think everyone who follows IIFYM's diary would look like. She's hitting her calorie totals (on the days she logs), but her macros are all over the place because of her choices in foods. (TL;DR - it's hard to reach your protein minimum when >50% of your calories are from candy and wine.))

Sun_Wukong

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?

QFT^

I love when people refer to elusive "studies" without citing sources...it is the equivalent of "because I said so!" or "I heard it from this guy who has a cousin..." etc

SezxyStef

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.

A person might be able to eat 1800 calories and still lose weight, but that same person would lose weight more quickly at 1500 or even 1200 calories. I'm not necessarily defending 1200 calories, but the notion of "eating as much as you can while still losing weight" doesn't really fit everyone because what you're essentially saying is you should lose weight very slowly. If you take someone who is morbidly obese, the best move for their health is almost certainly not to lose at 0.5 lbs/week or less, hitting a healthy weight within several years time, but rather to lose weight at a significantly more rapid rate. On the other hand, if you're already lean and looking to recomp, staying within 10-15% of your TDEE is probably more appropriate. I don't think it's as bright a line as some make it out to be and 1200 can be appropriate for someone depending on their size and situation; others having the ability to eat more and still lose some weight (albeit slowly) doesn't change that.

That's because there is a part missing from that statement which is...

"eat as much as you can and still lose a reasonable amount of weight"

and that is defined by the amount you need to lose...

It is not reasonable for someone with 30lbs to lose to aim for 2-3lbs a week...however if you have 100lbs 2lbs or more is reasonable but they will be eating more than 1200 to do that...

paperpudding

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.

Actually her diary is full of inaccuracies...so I bet she was eating more than 1200.

I am not commenting on OP's actual amount, which I agree may or May not actually be 1200. I am commenting on the assertions that 1200 is not a suitable net amount fir anyone at all.

walk757

1100 calories is perfectly acceptable. After all, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

Funny! Keeping it light!