Is 1200 really the minimum?

devil_in_a_blue_dress

You're a 22 year old male-- I'd argue that 1200 is below the minimum for you. It's not about starvation mode, it's about losing your lean mass (including your muscle) and getting adequate nutrients. To protect your muscle you should be aiming for 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass or if you don't know your LBM, 0.8 grams per pound of weight. Then you should aim for .35 grams of fat per pound of weight. Between those two things your calorie intake should get considerably higher.

You're young and possibly still growing. There's no reason to eat so little.

eta: also you only want to lose 10 lbs-- that means your body physically cannot burn fat quickly enough to keep up with your low intake. You should be aiming to lose half a pound per week TOPS.

This is the advice you should follow.

Everyone wants quick results, but that just isn't realistic and it's not worth damaging your body.

brisingr86

It doesn't sound like you're really interested in losing weight (or should be) but are interested in body recomposition (getting more muscle to tone those "problem areas"). Cutting calories as low as you are is probably not helping with that and you'll just end up losing the muscle you have. Definitely up your calories (emphasis on increasing protein as others have mentioned), but you may want to do it slowly, i.e., if you've been targeting 1200, start aiming for 1400 for a few weeks, then increase to 1600. Also, do a search for "body recomp" which (as I understand it) is more about lowering body fat (which is different than just losing weight). Just my interpretation of what your real goals are.

Ang108

I simply am just looking for clarification. I've read that anything below that can send your body into starvation mode, hindering your weight loss, obviously I don't want that. Multiple calculators have told me that with my current lifestyle, not including my workouts, I need 2600+ calories to maintain weight.
However, with my strict diet I've been finding it fairly easy to eat only around 1,000 calories and being able to burn off 200 - 300. Those giant salads that end up only being around 100 calories have been helping a lot. I usually then make up for it by eating something to get me just under or at 1,200.

I am under five feet tall, past my mid 60's and my BMR is 1221. I eat 1200 calories and could probably get by with 100-200 calories less. I don't do it, because the planning and watching to make sure that I get all my macros in would be a PITA.
There is no way that 1200 calories a day provide a healthy weight loss, or anything healthy in case you don't want to lose for you.
Also, there is no " giant " salad with only 100 calories......I am a volume eater and know that 100 calories of just leaves is a lot.......but it's not a salad. I eat full meal macro appropriate salads without dressing ( just lime juice or vinegar ) and they are usually around 350 calories, but easily can be more....which I think is a very good deal.

CaitlinW19

My BMR is 1650
So I should be bumping my calorie in take up to around 400 cals? I can easily do that, but my only fear is not losing fast enough to notice progress. That's been a major issue with previous diets and my result of giving up. I suppose I just have to be patient. I've mentioned before on here that my issue isn't significant weight loss, just enough to get rid of stubborn fat around my glutes, hips, and stomach.

What about exercise calories? If I were to consume 1400 before my workout, burn 200 - 300, then I should be eating back 400 or 500?

Burn out is a major factor for many people too...if you do something drastic that stresses you and makes it difficult to live your normal life, enjoying going out with friends, etc. you will likely throw in the towel before you see the results you want. Slow and stead wins the race. You'll be much happier and mentally better off if you take it easier on yourself and don't go for the fastest results possible.

cynthb65

What has been said here is all pretty good advice. I'd like to add that despite myths, you can't "spot reduce" problem areas (biology doesn't work that way), and there is no such thing as a magic super-food, just old-fashioned meat and vegetables that your great-grandparents would have eaten.

If you want nutrition advice based on repeatable science and reputable research, I would have a look at Precision Nutrition. Their advice is to eat mostly whole foods, with emphasis on proteins and healthy fats (avocados, nuts, fish). They have a lot of free information and articles on their site, and they give all the references to medical studies, etc. I've bought one of their cookbooks but I haven't signed up for a paid coaching program.

amosmoses88

It took me 6 months to lose 31lbs. I quit and gained some back, then quit again and gained the rest back. But I'm back now and I'm determined to make this work. Doesn't matter how many times you fall down, what matters is how many times you get back up. As long as you're trying, you're winning.

aliakynes

OMG, do not eat 1400 for cutting fat! It's not about starvation, it's about losing a whole lot of muscle with some fat but you wont cut. A young man your size shouldn't eat less than 1800 net. EDIT: someone above beat me to this info, so I'll just second that.

Take up some heavy weight lifting and eat maintenance or a very low deficit (250 calories maybe?). You can also get into some HIIT training on alternate days. At 140lbs, you'll do well on a surplus if you keep your macros neat and foods as whole as possible.

amosmoses88

Ps, I would definitely bump your cals up. 1200 isn't enough for anyone really. Even morbidly obese (Which is where I fit in) need more than that. Listen to the TDEE and BMR stuff. It truly works. Protein shakes really helped me fill up my calories if you're finding it hard to fill, but first do your tdee and all and set your goals to that. Look up TDEE ROADMAP 2.0

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet

mamasmaltz3

Just eat at maintenance and lift heavy weights. That's all you gotta do.

MrsATrotta

Eat less move more - Jillian Michaels

ReallyBigJAWS

Thank you all for the advice, but again, mixed information. I have been bumping up my calories quite a bit and lifting weights. But the things about just lifting weights and all: I've been told time and time again, as well read, that if you don't diet to lose weight and burn off those areas that fat is present, regardless of where/how little it is, you are not going to see any kind of muscle definition because your muscle is going to stay hidden under your said fat. For me, I want to look lean and possibly have abs. I'm not out to go a body builder route or anything.

I've even watched videos by well-known professionals/body builders and the like that say you're not going fix any fat problem unless you cut calories and exercise consistently.

As for protein; I'm getting plenty of it. Most of my meals consist of lean (I despise/gag on fatty meats regardless, so it works) chicken or turkey, sometimes beef, as the main dish. And I've been eating one or two (depending) 20g protein bars every other day. Even my go-to low cal snack is 1 or 2 oz of turkey jerky.

corgicake

Even if you're not aiming for the bodybuilder look, there are things to learn from them. Read stuff on nutrition as a tool for helping active people do what they do, not 'get thin fast' stuff. Jenny Craig is not your friend. 1200 is a figure you'll hear a lot because people connect anything below it with starvation diets... for -women- because societal pressures etc have resulted in them being more likely to starve themselves. There's a higher figure for men but you're not going to hear it as often and hovering near it isn't likely to get you what you want.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Thank you all for the advice, but again, mixed information. I have been bumping up my calories quite a bit and lifting weights. But the things about just lifting weights and all: I've been told time and time again, as well read, that if you don't diet to lose weight and burn off those areas that fat is present, regardless of where/how little it is, you are not going to see any kind of muscle definition because your muscle is going to stay hidden under your said fat. For me, I want to look lean and possibly have abs. I'm not out to go a body builder route or anything.

I've even watched videos by well-known professionals/body builders and the like that say you're not going fix any fat problem unless you cut calories and exercise consistently.

As for protein; I'm getting plenty of it. Most of my meals consist of lean (I despise/gag on fatty meats regardless, so it works) chicken or turkey, sometimes beef, as the main dish. And I've been eating one or two (depending) 20g protein bars every other day. Even my go-to low cal snack is 1 or 2 oz of turkey jerky.

It's true that your transition would be very slow. But you can recomp by eating at or close to maintenance and lifting. Over the past year my weight has stayed the same but I've lost 2 pants sizes.

If you've got weight to lose then the best approach imo is to eat at a small deficit and lift. But if you're already bordering on too light then recomping is a good strategy.

When you say "plenty" of protein what does that mean? How many grams? And how many grams of fat?

If you want to look lean you need to preserve your muscle. Even if you don't think you want to look like a body builder, you still most likely want to look fit, especially if you're thinking you might like to have abs. These two guys have about the same amount of fat. But they look vastly different because one has more muscle.

Strokingdiction

The subjects of the Minnesota Starvation Study ate 1570 calories a day with only 3 miles of walking each day as their exercise. At your age, you should definitely be eating far more than 1200 calories.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The subjects of the Minnesota Starvation Study ate 1570 calories a day with only 3 miles of walking each day as their exercise. At your age, you should definitely be eating far more than 1200 calories.

Yes, and I'd encourage you (OP) to read what happened to them.

Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

suremeansyes

If you want to look good for summer my recommendation is to do a progressive loading strength training program based on compound lifts, eat .8 grams of protein and .35 grams of fat per pound of weight, run a very small deficit (think 250 calories lower than your TDEE) and be patient.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Those pounds of fat are going to be extremely stubborn because you have to put on a bit more muscle. Eating such a low amount I'm sure you've already cut some.

mamasmaltz3

With the extremely low amount of cals you are eating you could very well be losing at a 50/50 ratio of fat to lean muscle. That is why your body shape does not seem to be changing. If you had been eating at a smaller deficit and lifting heavy weights you could have preserved more of your lean muscle mass. So, let's say your stomach is an issue and you've got some extra fat there, if your shoulders and chest had gotten bigger through lifting heavy weights the extra fat at the midsection is not going to be as noticeable. Plus, by keeping your lean muscle you are keeping your metabolism burning at a higher rate. By actually adding muscle all of the benefits would be even greater. If you want to lose weight, yes, you need to be at a deficit. But, you have already said you don't need to lose weight, you just want to lose fat. You can do that by eating at maintenance and lifting heavy weights. That's the truth. There is no controversy about that. You are applying things that people have said to people who are not in your situation. You don't need to lose weight. So, don't . Eat at maintenance and lift heavy weights.