Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

neandermagnon

Speaking as someone who was married to a bariatric surgery patient, just because she lost a bunch of weight after the surgery, it didn't mean she was healthier. She suffers to this day from vitamin deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, and anemia, all of which have been traced back to her surgery and her body's inability to absorb enough nutrients. The same thing can be said of people who are eating very low calorie diets. It's not worth it in the long run. Just eat a sensible number of calories, exercise as best you can, and let the weight come off at a reasonable rate.

This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious....why can't you eat a low calorie diet and still get enough vitamins? For instance, if you eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts every day, as part of a low-calorie diet, why wouldn't you get enough vitamins and nutrients? I don't believe I practice a low-calorie diet (2000/day isn't low?), but I do watch calorie intake and focus primarily on nutritious foods. I prefer not to take vitamin supplements, but since my goal is health, I don't want to sabotage myself either.

2000 cals/day is not a low calorie diet - this may even be too many calories for smaller people and sedentary people. The exact amount of calories needed varies depending on size and activity levels. Your approach sounds very sensible, i.e. ensuring adequate calorie intake plus paying attention to the other nutrients.

regarding your question - protein-energy malnutrition is a lot more severe and will make you ill and kill you much more quickly than any vitamin or mineral deficiency. That fact is overlooked by pretty much everyone on ultra-restrictive diets (which goes for diets like fruitarian and the like too). They overfocus on vitamins, minerals and fibre at the expense of other nutrients. It really does not matter if someone is getting all the vitamins and minerals they need, if they're not getting enough protein and energy to support basic survival. It's like if you want to build a house and you have no bricks and no builders, but someone says "but we've got lots of wall paper and curtains" - the wallpaper and curtains are no use without the bricks and builders. Protein is like the bricks, and energy is like the builders - this is what's needed to grow new cells and repair old ones... vitamins and minerals help out with a lot of functions around the body (including some minor aspects of growing and repairing cells), but without protein (including all 8 essential amino acids) and sufficient energy, your body can't repair or regenerate its own tissues, or keep the existing cells alive and no amount of vitamins and minerals can make up for this. Protein and energy are essential and cells need a constant supply of them. People can survive a long time on insufficient calories and protein by drawing on its own resources (fat stores, skeletal muscle), but there's a big cost in terms of health when the body has to catabolise skeletal muscle in order to make up a shortfall of either protein or energy or both. A fat loss diet needs to give the person all the nutrients they need, and just the right amount of energy, so the body draws only from the fat stores in order to make up the energy shortfall. This results in slow fat loss - because the body can't use all that much fat at one time - and it requires patience.

VLCDs are fine for certain people in certain circumstances under medical supervision, when the benefits outweigh the risks and problems (e.g. if someone's likely to die of obesity related illness unless they drop the weight quickly - the risk of the body drawing on lean tissue to supply an energy shortfall is minimal in people who are severely obese, and so long as protein intake is adequate there's no need to draw on skeletal muscle for amino acids either so not only are the benefits greater for these people, the risks are smaller too).... but for most people the risks far outweigh the benefits, and most people on here doing VLCDs are not super-morbidly obese, they're people who really don't have that much weight to lose, but they're looking for a quick fix, because they want to fit into a nice bikini on their summer holiday in 6 weeks and aren't going to have time to lose the weight the healthy way. And they're also the kinds of people for whom the risks of VLCDs are that much greater, because they don't have that much fat to lose. Which is why people promoting them on here are generally not well received. Most people on here promoting them are the very people who are most likely to be harmed by them.

likitisplit

What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.

This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.

Seriously???

I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.

The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)

If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.

It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.

While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.

Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.

Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:

I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.

Oh, my comment was addressed to the original PEG post. Not the rebuttal.

BMR is a theoretical consideration as to what might be a minimum based on zero activity. It has often been confused in the research with RMR (resting metabolic rate).

I consider it a red herring because no one is recommending PEG feeding nor does it really relate to normal diet or a VLC. In a PEG, the liquid nutrients provided directly to the stomach have a low calorie "cost" of digestion and are easily available to the body. Furthermore, as has been noted, PEG feeding can vary from sub-800 cals to up to 2400 cals per day based on weight loss monitoring.

The intent of PEG isn't weight loss but functional organ maintenance, so even if it was 1200 as some minimum, there is no real reason to consider this as the "absolute minimum" for VLCs under proper medical supervision. The idea of a VLC is to maximize weight loss and might make sense for some people, under proper medical supervision, for a limited period of time and not as a MFP diet of the week thing.

A different example, again medical, it might be to good to suggest to people to avoid electric shocks given that burns and death might occur however there is a place for defibrillators. The fact that people have died on 20 volt and 100 J shocks doesn't negate the usefulness of 200-1000V and 100-200J AEDs under certain medical conditions. Context matters.

Having said that - I recognize that if people somehow believe 1200 is some sort of minimum "coma" limit and that gets addressed, then it might serve an info purpose. Are there really that many people saying that? Didn't see one in this thread until the PEG post.

Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.

I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.

EvgeniZyntx

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

likitisplit

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

EvgeniZyntx

Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.

I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.

Well, here is a personal experience.

My mother was well below 500 cals (orally) and conscious for several months and when we discussed a PEG (which my father and I both refused based on my mother's wished but he wavered on it, since reality is sometimes trying) the possible cals per day would have been around 800 for maintenance.

EvgeniZyntx

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

And I think that is the other element - we want people to succeed long term - I think it is easier to be content and reach your goals when you haven't limited the "field of play" with calories to the minimums... staying very active, having the maximum LBM (or the minimum loss) and the minimum risk of adverse effects of dieting is what people should, in my opinion, recommend...

likitisplit

Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.

I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.

Well, here is a personal experience.

My mother was well below 500 cals (orally) and conscious for several months and when we discussed a PEG (which my father and I both refused based on my mother's wished but he wavered on it, since reality is sometimes trying) the possible cals per day would have been around 800 for maintenance.

Thank you for sharing that insight. I'm very sorry about your loss.

bcattoes

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

I have seen many success stories on MFP from women who ate 1200 or less, especailly at the beginning when they were very overweight. And one recently from a man who ate that low.

It really is not necessary to eat the same number of calories throughout the entire period of weight loss. A VLCD in the beginning for those that are obese is not necessarily a bad thing. And 1200 calories for the obese is rarely a bad thing. Being obese is a bad thing. Obesity is very hard on the body. Sometimes, getting rid of the fat quickly is the most important thing.

DebbieLyn63

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:

Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?

I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?

The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.

ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.

Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.

The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.

Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?

It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.

I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.

likitisplit

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

And I think that is the other element - we want people to succeed long term - I think it is easier to be content and reach your goals when you haven't limited the "field of play" with calories to the minimums... staying very active, having the maximum LBM (or the minimum loss) and the minimum risk of adverse effects of dieting is what people should, in my opinion, recommend...

Yeah. I wish more people would start out with "what is the very minimum that I can do to change the direction that I'm going?" Instead of "I'm serious this time and it's going to be a LIFESTYLE change!"

I mean I get it, I understand why. I HATED how I looked and felt when I was obese. I would have done anything to change - I'd tried eating less and just ended up binging and feeling worse. I was working full time, pumping during my breaks and every minute not working was spent trying to parent. I had no more time. And there were all the popular magazines: "put a single blueberry in your mouth and just savor it instead of eating chocolate" Why not "here's how to figure out your calorie needs and here's how to work nutritionally beneficial chocolate into them"?

WalkingAlong

You still see BMR posted as the 'coma limit', so of course we still see 1200 as it. Though at least it's going down over the years! :laugh:

Even in the last few posts, there is '1200 shaming'. "Few people know what they're doing at it", "the risks, the dangers", "few people succeed at it", etc. Do you think that maybe the people who succeed at it don't post that because they get their **** jumped from the people who assume they don't know what they're doing and need educating and saving?

Do you think if it's dangerous MFP would use it? I think they'd have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if 1200 was dangerous.

DebbieLyn63

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

In the 2 years I have been on this site, I have known numerous people who have succeeded on 1200, and have not regained their weight, nor had any serious complications due to that calorie level. For some it is appropriate.
There have also been numerous 'Success Stories' from these people on the forums. The problem is, if they state what calorie level they were on, it turns into a shouting match between those who are determined that NO ONE should be on that level, and those that are fine on that level, and soon the thread gets locked and deleted.

This is why you can't find any success stories in the forums.:flowerforyou:

likitisplit

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:

Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?

I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?

The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.

ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.

Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.

The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.

Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?

It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.

I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.

The only support my doctor had was a 1200 calorie a day plan. My BMR is 1750. I tried portion control and failed and failed and failed.

It wasn't until I came to MFP and found that I could lose at 2300 calories a day that I felt like I had any control, that it wasn't going to be impossible. And I wouldn't have believed it except for all the regulars on the forums. I don't know where else I was supposed to "learn about my body" outside of here? Shape magazine?

My best friend has a thyroid disorder, is 5"3' and 41. She eats 1400 before exercise.

There are a LOT more of her and me in the population than there are of the 60 year old 5' obese women.

I was obese. I lost weight just fine at 2000+ I wouldn't have lost any weight at all if I'd tried to stick to the 1200 - 1400 diets.

bcattoes

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:

Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?

I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?

The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.

ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.

Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.

The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.

Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?

It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.

I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.

Well said!

scubasuenc

1200 calories isn't a VLC diet. Typical VLC diets are below 1000. I've done those in the past, and the real problem is they are generally not sustainable. Nor do they help you plan for how to eat after the weight is lost. Most people return to the same eating patterns that caused them to gain weight in the first place. Then they act surprised that they regained the weight they had lost.

I believe the less restrictive methods advocated here on MFP are more sustainable. Also, I've learned that there is very little difference between weight loss mode and maintenance once I reach my goal. I should be able to add a couple of hundred calories per day, but I need to eat the same types of foods and continue to exercise. In other words for weight loss to be permanent, the eating patterns that helped lose the weight need to be sustained.

1200 calories might be appropriate for some depending on their age, height, weight and activity level. For others like myself, it is too little. When I tried 1200 calories, I was tired and didn't recover from my workouts very well. I am much better at 1700 calories per day. I would not automatically tell someone eating 1200 calories they need to eat more. I do suggest they understand their TDEE and deficit so they are sure they are eating at an appropriate level.

bcattoes

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:

Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?

I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?

The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.

ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.

Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.

The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.

Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?

It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.

I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.

The only support my doctor had was a 1200 calorie a day plan. My BMR is 1750. I tried portion control and failed and failed and failed.

It wasn't until I came to MFP and found that I could lose at 2300 calories a day that I felt like I had any control, that it wasn't going to be impossible. And I wouldn't have believed it except for all the regulars on the forums. I don't know where else I was supposed to "learn about my body" outside of here? Shape magazine?

My best friend has a thyroid disorder, is 5"3' and 41. She eats 1400 before exercise.

There are a LOT more of her and me in the population than there are of the 60 year old 5' obese women.

I was obese. I lost weight just fine at 2000+ I wouldn't have lost any weight at all if I'd tried to stick to the 1200 - 1400 diets.

I don't understand the point of this reponse? What is "a LOT"? What is the percentage of early 40's obese women who are able to lose on more than 1200 calories compared to 60 yo 5' obese women who can not? And how is it applicable to the post that quoted, re: not saying 1200 is not appropriate for anyone?

WalkingAlong

I agree that it's normally men or 20-something women trying to educate me about my energy needs. Likitisplit, you are one exception, though to be honest you lost credibility with me with the "I lost it all on 2000+ and would have lost nothing on 1200-1400." Because that is impossible.

kommodevaran

I agree that it's normally men or 20-something women trying to educate me about my energy needs. Likitisplit, you are one exception, though to be honest you lost credibility with me with the "I lost it all on 2000+ and would have lost nothing on 1200-1400." Because that is impossible.

Why is that impossible? If you get so hungry on 1200-1400 that you just have to eat something, and blow your diet, you won't lose weight. Of course a big guy can lose weight on 1200-1400, in theory, but that is very difficult to do in practice. And not necessary. And not healthy. I'm 43 by the way.

msf74

Likitisplit, you are one exception, though to be honest you lost credibility with me with the "I lost it all on 2000+ and would have lost nothing on 1200-1400." Because that is impossible.

Eh? No it isn't because cals in as an effect on cals out which has an effect on the deficit you are running or its magnitude.

Say, for the sake of argument my current TDEE is 1,500 cals (yes, I know I don't look like a short, attractive woman but hear me out sister.) This is based on the amount of activity, both planned and unconscious, I do during the day currently.

I decide to drop to drop the cals I eat to 1,000 calories per day to lose 1lbs of fat per week. Groovy. This presumes however that my activity levels stay constant, particularly my spontaneous physical activity (so not planned exercise). However, it doesn't because, unless well planned, the 1,000 calories leaves me sluggish. I end up doing far less. Rather than have my evening walk I prefer to sit on the couch of an evening. I don't stand as much during the day as I am frequently tired. I do far less unconsciously. What was a 1,500 calorie TDEE now drifts down to a 1,200 calorie TDEE or lower. Weight slows slow to the point it is imperceptible or non existent.

Now let's say I raise cals to 1,800 per day (what heresy is this I hear you ask, I am trying to lose weight?) However, because of the additional food I feel energised and invigorated. I move more generally. I find that instead of exercise being a chore, I freakin' love the stuff. I do much more of it. Even hill repeats* (*lies). My TDEE rockets up to 2,300 a day. This leaves me a deficit of 500 cals per day and weight loss.

Scenario 1: less cals and no or very small deficit
Scenario 2: more cals and a deficit

Ok, this is a highly hypothetical scenario and I have fudged the numbers somewhat to make my point but I hope I did have a point. Somewhere. Maybe. I forget what it is now.

There is a bigger reason why I think that low cal may result in no weight loss when higher cal will but that is psychological (how logging accuracy can be compromised / unconscious bingeing) but it seems most people are much more hung up with physiology around these parts so no doubt it will be pooh poohed.

And I don't like being pooh poohed.

rosebette

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:

Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?

I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?

The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.

ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.

Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.

The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.

Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?

It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.

I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.

Oh, no, I'm not so far from that 5'0" 60 year old woman who walks her dog for 10 minutes and only needs around 1000 calories! And the scary thing is that I'm only 5'1.5" so I might be only 5'0" at 60. Scary, scary, scary....