"You can't build muscle on a deficit"

WalkingAlong

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

Grumpsandwich

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

Some people just have something lacking in their life and it makes them feel "special" or getting on their big boy pants to ridicule perfect strangers. It makes them feel important i guess?

RGv2

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

The gif was about the claim, not the diet...... Just,say'n

Timshel_

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

Some people just have something lacking in their life and it makes them feel "special" or getting on their big boy pants to ridicule perfect strangers. It makes them feel important i guess?

WalkingAlong

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

The gif was about the claim, not the diet...... Just,say'n

About the claim that people go ape**** over 1200, though. Which does happen, every time.

RGv2

2000 calories-- You're male, at maintenance (I assume), 16 years younger than me and well, you actually spend less time at exercise than I do. But you're probably more active overall, unless you too have a desk job.

Actually, 2000 seems kind of low for a young male in maintenance. Are you tiny? Can we make fun of you for being tiny? Because that's what it seems like when the men make fun of the women here for eating less, except they actually imply worse-- that we're stupid. Rolling eye gifs and outright ridicule. And then more men come in with "QFT" and "he's so right". It's bizarre.

The gif was about the claim, not the diet...... Just,say'n

About the claim that people go ape**** over 1200, though. Which does happen, every time.

I guess, IMHO, I don't think so.

Maybe when it's 18 year old kids trying to do it with 10 lbs to lose, or someone that defends it for 4 pages before brining up their stats...

parkscs

I don't really understand the whole "laughing at other people for eating so little" bit. If someone wants to lose the weight more quickly, that's their choice. That's equivalent to me laughing at someone who's morbidly obese for choosing to lose weight more slowly (e.g., 1 lb/week), even though they could safely lose weight at a much faster pace. Why care so much about how much other people are eating and how fast/slow they're looking to lose weight? And keep in mind we're talking 1200 target calories but calorie counting is reputably imprecise and many people tend to overestimate their caloric intake - meaning that their 1200 calories could be 1500 calories or it could be 1200 or it could be 1650 (you get my point). The target you set really isn't that important, as it's just an estimate anyways and should generally be adjusted over time anyways based on your progress. If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?

WBB55

If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?

Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.

If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.

Personally. Totally just MHO.

But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.

ShantesNaturalVanity

Okkkk thanks, I think I understand now. I will continue to lift and do squats etc..

I agree that people on this site can be WAY too judgmental about the 1200/cal diet when that is not the point of the thread and they have no idea about other factors. (People also don't understand that 4'9 women can and should eat a lot less. Lot's of knee-jerk reactions when one size does not fit all!) I also agree that explaining the reason why LC may not be great to newbies or 16 year olds with 10 lbs to lose can be helpful... I just wish people could be kinder/a little slower to react I feel the same way about people who say "you can't gain muscle on a deficit" without really reading the facts. This has been super helpful!

If you don't reveal the facts (like height) when stating that you're following a lower calorie diet could be construed as inviting those telling you that you're probably not eating enough.....IMHO

I see what you're saying, but I've posted things like asking about how to up my fat intake or what are good high protein snacks for a 1200 diet. That is not at all asking for opinions on my 1200 cal diet (which is actually a 1600/day average diet when looking at the whole week, but I am asking about getting in fats on 1200 cal days). So... disagree about the "inviting" part. I hate how I have to put a disclaimer on posts like "Please do not comment on the 1200 diet on this thread". Not a big deal, just a little annoying

I have the same problem. Maybe try asking something like " what are some good high protein snacks for a lower calorie diet?" That way, noone really knows what your specific plan is.

parkscs

If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?

Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.

If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.

Personally. Totally just MHO.

But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.

I'm skeptical that malnutrition is common for people eating 1200 net calories, particularly for people who are reasonably active. If you have sources to suggest otherwise, that's great, but I can't really recall any talk of malnutrition when we're talking about people eating 1400-1600 gross calories (unless we're talking about a pretty extreme diet). As for getting enough protein on those calories, how much do you think people eating this many calories need? 100g of protein is very likely sufficient and is all of 400 calories, putting it around 25-33% of their daily calories (sounds reasonable to me). What's more unreasonable (in my opinion) is the people that they think need way more protein than studies show is beneficial. But either way, you could go a bit higher or lower depending on personal preference and there's room to work within that caloric allotment. Balance the rest out between fat and carbs, get fiber if you find that's beneficial for you (fiber is not beneficial for everyone), and go from there. Honestly that doesn't sound that unreasonable to me.

If we're talking 600 or 800 calories, things become much more difficult and you need to follow an incredibly restrictive diet in order to avoid problems like malnutrition, inadequate protein and the like. But 1200 net calories for a smaller person that is reasonably active? It's not that unreasonable.

WBB55

fiber is not beneficial for everyone

I see we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To anyone reading this, if you are following a diet that doesn't have a minimum daily recommendation for dietary fiber, please consider another diet plan.

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/public_health_nut9.pdf
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002470.htm
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/consumers/eating-health/fiber

RGv2

If a 1200 target has them losing weight at their desired rate (and assuming it's a reasonable rate), what's the problem?

Because, malnutrition if you do this over the long term.

If people eating 1200 are guaranteeing me that they're getting all their vitamins and minerals and fiber and sufficient protein and fat to make their bodies work, then I'm fine(ish) with it. But look at the dietary guidelines. Without a lot of supplements, it. is. TOUGH to get adequate nutrition on only 1200 calories. Sure, it's enough calories to get out of bed. But vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein? THAT"S the real reason I urge people to eat as much as possible while still losing weight at a sensible rate. There's protein and fat you need to just make your body work. Not energy to move around. Just fat molecules to make your organs and nerves function properly.

Personally. Totally just MHO.

But I certainly don't, myself, make fun of them.

I'm skeptical that malnutrition is common for people eating 1200 net calories, particularly for people who are reasonably active. If you have sources to suggest otherwise, that's great, but I can't really recall any talk of malnutrition when we're talking about people eating 1400-1600 gross calories (unless we're talking about a pretty extreme diet). As for getting enough protein on those calories, how much do you think people eating this many calories need? 100g of protein is very likely sufficient and is all of 400 calories, putting it around 25-33% of their daily calories (sounds reasonable to me). What's more unreasonable (in my opinion) is the people that they think need way more protein than studies show is beneficial. But either way, you could go a bit higher or lower depending on personal preference and there's room to work within that caloric allotment. Balance the rest out between fat and carbs, get fiber if you find that's beneficial for you (fiber is not beneficial for everyone), and go from there. Honestly that doesn't sound that unreasonable to me.

If we're talking 600 or 800 calories, things become much more difficult and you need to follow an incredibly restrictive diet in order to avoid problems like malnutrition, inadequate protein and the like. But 1200 net calories for a smaller person that is reasonably active? It's not that unreasonable.

To be honest........

I think you're the first one to say 1200net, thus a different argument than the person you quoted.....

parkscs

fiber is not beneficial for everyone

I see we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To anyone reading this, if you are following a diet that doesn't have a minimum daily recommendation for dietary fiber, please consider another diet plan.

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/public_health_nut9.pdf
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002470.htm
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/consumers/eating-health/fiber

Do your reading on chronic constipation and fiber intake and you'll find quite a few studies that find a higher fiber consumption exacerbates the problem. And that actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it - if there's something else causing the problem, just adding more volume is only going to make things worse.

WBB55

To be honest........

I think you're the first one to say 1200net, thus a different argument than the person you quoted.....

OH! is it 1200 NET? Then my bad, carry on.

WBB55

Do your reading on chronic constipation and fiber intake and you'll find quite a few studies that find a higher fiber consumption exacerbates the problem. And that actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it - if there's something else causing the problem, just adding more volume is only going to make things worse.

yes, highER than recommended. You said it yourself right there. This in no way discounts the minimum recommendations.

parkscs

To be honest........

I think you're the first one to say 1200net, thus a different argument than the person you quoted.....

I'm just assuming, but given it's MFP I'm just assuming their caloric target is net calories. I could be wrong.

RGv2

To be honest........

I think you're the first one to say 1200net, thus a different argument than the person you quoted.....

OH! is it 1200 NET? Then my bad, carry on.

I was pointing that out to park, but still same point.

daynerz

This thread has a bunch of fancy words with no personal experience..
SO I can offer you mine...


I did p90x two years ago and was eating 900 cals a day, I was ripped an shredded at an obvious deficet, I was
at most toned and DID gain muscle..

I gained TONS of strength in a defiecit, the mass was minimal but DID happen
I was cranking a 100 pushups in a 5 min time span in multiple sets of course..