1200 Calorie a day diet. Can it be healthy?

WalkingAlong

So you're saying you have a source that says it's dangerous to eat under BMR? That one I'd really like to see.

Gawanne

Not me! Chris, if you haven't given up on this site and seeing we eat somewhat similar, plus you being a chef, do you have any tips for adding to your meals as in spices. I sometimes use curry powder in my chicken and rice for instance. I think you wanted just simple yes an no's when you posted. Ha well, good luck on your journey and your diet can't be all wrong seeing I am still here to tell the tale. Let us know when you reach where you want to be.

Gawanne

Not me was response to the "laughing" comment. Still trying to figure out how to add quote -I think

WalkingAlong

Not me was response to the "laughing" comment. Still trying to figure out how to add quote -I think

(Do you see a Quote button in my post? Below this?)

Gawanne

Not me was response to the "laughing" comment. Still trying to figure out how to add quote -I think

(Do you see a Quote button in my post? Below this?)

So simple, aren't I the twit, thanks so much.????

dbmata

So you're saying you have a source that says it's dangerous to eat under BMR? That one I'd really like to see.

Plenty of sources to look through here.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=undernutrition&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Some neat factors:
compromised brain development
increased chance of obesity
increased chance of infectious disease
compromised ability to heal

amongst others both in human and animal studies. Well now.

WalkingAlong

Those are on 'undernutrition', which obviously exists. In years of asking, no one has come up with one thing that says eating under BMR is undernutrition or vlcd or any other dangerous situation.

melindafritz1976

ITs too few calories
no

Jeneba

I agree with BigT555.... I am fairly tiny and 1200 is just fine. I eat very well with occasional treats when I am trying to lose. I am vegetarian but eat organic eggs and dairy. I would NOT recommend this though for anyone who isn't my size, which is 5'1" and 104 lbs.

dbmata

Those are on 'undernutrition', which obviously exists. In years of asking, no one has come up with one thing that says eating under BMR is undernutrition or vlcd or any other dangerous situation.

I saw a couple abstracts talking directly about undernutrition as related to bmr. Nice try.

Listen, I understand, you have a bias, and you want to protect that so you feel correct. I do it all the time. I lash out at anyone that likes any of the new Final Fantasies. Thing is, and this is really a hoot... it doesn't mean your viewpoint is right. It just means you want it to be right. Much like my opinion of any FF after 10.

WalkingAlong

Those are on 'undernutrition', which obviously exists. In years of asking, no one has come up with one thing that says eating under BMR is undernutrition or vlcd or any other dangerous situation.

I saw a couple abstracts talking directly about undernutrition as related to bmr. Nice try.

Listen, I understand, you have a bias, and you want to protect that so you feel correct. I do it all the time. I lash out at anyone that likes any of the new Final Fantasies. Thing is, and this is really a hoot... it doesn't mean your viewpoint is right. It just means you want it to be right. Much like my opinion of any FF after 10.

Please share the abstracts that equate BMR to undernutrition in overweight people.

If there were threads all over saying that women will bulk from lifting heavy weights and you knew that was an old myth, would you just let them fly, left and right, or try to correct people? I don't have any agenda besides trying to challenge some of the myths here. I don't need to be right. I would be happy for you to be right because that would be easier. But there really is nothing that says that eating under BMR is dangerous or eating at 1200 is.

dbmata

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

VeryKatie

Where's your iron intake? You might find yourself getting sleepy!

ETA: I'd also recommend subbing whole grains - so when you eat rice, make sure it's brown rice. I read an article a few months ago that quoted studies showing that whole grains can help reduce the risk of some cancers (as can cucumbers ) - quinoa, whole wheat bread, couscous (I think?).

Do try to watch your other nutrient intakes:

Calcium (I didn't see much?)
Iron (Red-ish meats - don't know if you can have these, but you might need supplements if not. But the body absorbs better from animal sources rather than plant based and supplements are plant based minerals - according to my doctor and phamasist since I'm being treated for low iron).
Those were the obvious ones to me but I'm not fully aware of everything a man needs. Maybe talk to your doctor about a good recommendation for a multi-vitamin.

ETA2: I just wanted to say I find I can have quite a variety of food while averaging around 1200 cals (though that's not my goal any more). Even lean cuts of beef and pork (mmm tenderloin) fit nicely into a 1200 calorie goal. Lots of fruits and veggies but not many sauces. I do like to make sauces out of sour cream so that I can get some dairy in. Almond milk is an okay source of calcium too and the unsweetened kinds usually have only 35 - 40 cals per cup.

jofjltncb6

Seems a little low to me for an adult male...even one who is overweight.

I know we're all different and have our own unique circumstances, but I maintain on 2900 calories...and that's before exercise...and yes, I have a desk job. (If I ate 1200 daily, I'd lose a little over 3 pound/week...for a while...and then would lose less as my metabolism likely adjusted.)

WalkingAlong

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

BigT555

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

RGv2

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

:laugh:

The first thing that I thought of when I read that.

Iron_Feline

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

Yep yep yep yep

A little thing called ethics stops them from doing studies on people eating under their BMI.

But hey - that just means that it's safe right?

GauchoMark

I'll be honest and admit that I just read the first couple of posts of this thread, but to the OP:

I can tell you my personal experience. I am 6', 38 y/o male, and fluctuate between 180-190lbs at ~8-14% BF typically. I have experimented with periods of cutting calories by about 50% of TDEE which puts me at about 1250 calories/day. What I have found is that if I base my activity level and protein intake on Lyle McDonald's recommendations in his RFL book, that I can cut weight pretty quickly without losing muscle mass in measurable amounts.

So, is it safe? If done properly and for short periods of time it can be relatively safe
Is it sustainable? no
Is it going to screw up my metabolism? Not if you limit it to short periods of time

As for your food list, I would HOPE that you are eating a lot of fresh, green leafy veggies. They give you the fiber you need as well as many of the nutrients you need while on low calories. I go through about a head of lettuce a day when I do this.

Just my EXPERIENCE, although Lyle did quite a bit of research via literature studies.

GauchoMark

just to clarify, the key is SHORT PERIODS OF TIME

and a qualifier, I lost the 109+ lbs on my ticker by a small reasonable deficit over a long period of time. Not until I hit 10% BF did I even consider playing around with some of the weird stuff I do!

WalkingAlong

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

I know it proves nothing. That's why I don't glance at diaries or profile pics or tickers. It's all fiction here. But I'm accused of not being able to read, c'mon. :laugh:

They do studies on weight loss at levels way below BMR all the time. No one studies 'is it safe to eat below your BMR' for the same reason no one studies 'is it safe to eat standing up'. It's self-evident that it is because there is no reason to believe it isn't.

PikaKnight

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

I know it proves nothing. That's why I don't glance at diaries or profile pics or tickers. It's all fiction here. But I'm accused of not being able to read, c'mon. :laugh:

They do studies on weight loss at levels way below BMR all the time. No one studies 'is it safe to eat below your BMR' for the same reason no one studies 'is it safe to eat standing up'. It's self-evident that it is because there is no reason to believe it isn't.

smittybuilt19

You were so close to special snowflake status until you mentioned you were under professional supervision. (hence the reason the, as you describe, "internet professionals" backed off.

Iron_Feline

I lead you to knowledge, I did most of the work for you, and you still can't be bothered to look? All you have to do is look through several pages of abstracts and read. I know, I know, it's "difficult".

Keep walking along then, cheers!

I searched for BMR in the 10 articles on the first page of your google search on 'undernutrition' and it appeared in zero. Though none of those were applicable to this discussion, anyway. I saw articles about rats and hospitalized elderly and babies and all else.

There is nothing outside forums and blogs that says eating under BMR is dangerous.

I have a masters in information resources and teach research skills to college students. Reading isn't difficult but 'nice try'. :laugh:

first off, someone with a master in information resources should be smart enough to realize that certain studies have just never been performed, and that there will just never be human trials in certain areas for obvious reasons. do you have a study that shows eating under BMR isnt dangerous? didnt think so

second, saying you have a masters online makes you sound a little pompous. also it proves nothing, i myself am a cowboy astronaut millionaire, and spend my weekends touring the backyard of my mansion on top of mount Kilimanjaro searching for the lost medallion of everlasting bullsh*t

I know it proves nothing. That's why I don't glance at diaries or profile pics or tickers. It's all fiction here. But I'm accused of not being able to read, c'mon. :laugh:

They do studies on weight loss at levels way below BMR all the time. No one studies 'is it safe to eat below your BMR' for the same reason no one studies 'is it safe to eat standing up'. It's self-evident that it is because there is no reason to believe it isn't.

WBB55

The reason that there are no studies that research the effect of a human eating below their BMR is because it's unethical to force people of healthy weights to eat below their BMR for any extended period of time, and it would not be approved for legitimate scientific peer-reviewed research.

Kinda the same reason you can't do scientific studies on the effects of smoking by pregnant women. It's unethical to do that kind of research in a peer-review, double-blind, control group kind of setting and would not be approved in the research community.

Tedebearduff

I know that many people on here believe that a 1200 calorie a day diet is not sufficient to a healthy weight loss plan. Here is an example of one and please comment on if it is or isn't.

Breakfast; 2 eggs, 2 toast, 1 Tbl margarine
Lunch; 4 oz Tilapia, 2 cups steamed mixed veggies, 1/2 cup rice
Dinner; 4 0z chicken breast, 2 cups steamed veggies, 1/2 cup pasta
Snacks; 1 banana, 1 apple, 1 cup grapes Total Calories 1203

You can sub 4 oz of ground turkey for an additional 20 calories,
sub 1/2 mashed potatoes or baked potatoes no additional calories.
Steamed veggies can vary according to your taste except no peas or corn. Adjust calories according to types of veggies
Peas and corn can sub for starch.

If it works for you bud, stop asking what other people think and do what you want... at the end of the day you're going to do what you want to anyways right? and it is your life right?

If you are actually concerned about it speak to your doctor as he is the only one outside of YOU that knows your current medical condition and wither or not it is healthy for YOU.

PikaKnight

You were so close to special snowflake status until you mentioned you were under professional supervision. (hence the reason the, as you describe, "internet professionals" backed off.

MFP Plot twists. Gotta love 'em.

BigT555

I know it proves nothing. That's why I don't glance at diaries or profile pics or tickers. It's all fiction here. But I'm accused of not being able to read, c'mon. :laugh:

They do studies on weight loss at levels way below BMR all the time. No one studies 'is it safe to eat below your BMR' for the same reason no one studies 'is it safe to eat standing up'. It's self-evident that it is because there is no reason to believe it isn't.

links?

smittybuilt19

OP why not bring up that you are on a medically prescribed diet due to cardiac problems at the start of your thread. You should know that what is applicable to you is not applicable to a healthy person. In general it's not a good idea for the majority but if you at a risk of a myocardial infarction then the faster you lose the more likely you are to stay alive (and yes when it comes to cardiac arrest I am an expert)

My point is, so many people on is forum think they are experst, without knowing all the details. I decided to leave them out

Generally, those considered "true experts" on this site will ONLY provide input when they are given ALL details.

QuietBloom

You were so close to special snowflake status until you mentioned you were under professional supervision. (hence the reason the, as you describe, "internet professionals" backed off.

Yes. A case of the classic 'undisclosed medical condition' after multiple posts and lots of butthurt.