1,200 - but what if you're eating good food?

juggernaut1974

Poor OP just asked a question and the trolls went to war!
Lol

Poor OP just asked a question and you came in here with nothing of value to add to the discussion. LOL

But here's a bizarre gif as a reward for you

I cannot stop staring at this gif.

Bizarre is an understatement. FREAKY!!!!

I know right?! I mean why is that hot dog just lying there????

Probably because it would be even more weird if the hot dog were also dancing, duh.

Sorry I forgot to fire up my sarcasm siren

WinoGelato

Poor OP just asked a question and the trolls went to war!
Lol

Poor OP just asked a question and you came in here with nothing of value to add to the discussion. LOL

But here's a bizarre gif as a reward for you

I cannot stop staring at this gif.

Bizarre is an understatement. FREAKY!!!!

I know right?! I mean why is that hot dog just lying there????

Probably because it would be even more weird if the hot dog were also dancing, duh.

The hot dog doesn't bother me so much as the freakishly long arms on the dancer. And the fact that I think she has better dance moves than me.

lemonsurprise

First of all, the title of this post would make more sense if it said, "1,200-but what if you're eating bad food?," because 1.200 calories is not enough calories for a person's body to function efficiently. Secondly, where the hell are you getting your protein if you're trying to completely cut-out meat and dairy products? I know there are other ways to incorporate protein into your diet, but do you? Fruit and veggies aren't going to suffice. Third, your metabolism is going to go to *kitten* if you're not eating enough, and at some point, you're going to reach starvation mode and completely counteract all of your efforts to lose weight or maintain a healthy weight. Lastly, I don't know you, and I don't know if my opinion will matter to you at all or why I'm even responding to this post in the first place, except that I'm currently recovering from an eating disorder, and it's some tough *kitten*. You don't want to end up where I did. It's mentally draining as well as physically, obviously. Do yourself a favor and feed your body what it needs. Don't deprive yourself. Consider exercising if you aren't. At least then you won't feel so uncomfortable with having to eat "so much" because FOOD IS FUEL.

I get my protein from looooads of other things. Kale, peas, nuts, beans, tofu. I also occasionally drink milk alternatives which have loads in. As does quinoa and I'm sure there's loads more too.
Secondly, I thought starvation mode didn't work like that? As long as your in deficit you'll loose weight and only plateau when you're not reaching deficit?
And I don't think I'll develop an eating disorder just from eating 1,200 calories a day. Like I say, I'm eating big meals. An example is a chicken(quorn)wrap (brown), loaded (literally bursting)with loads of different veggies, mayo(light) & lots of different seeds. Then a helping of Cous Cous on the side with stock. Under 400 calories.
Or I'll have a big helping of mediterranian veg on a jacket potato with quinoa, under 400 cals again.
I'm not eating tiddly little meals, because id be unhappy!

I was planning on doing 1200 until I'm out of the obese catagory and then slowly increasing it but I don't want to get ill in the meantime. I definitely don't feel Ill at the moment, so how long in would I start to feel it if I wasn't getting the correct nutrition?

Oh, and I barely do any excersise either for the people who were saying about having enough energy. I do 10,000 steps a day and that is it. Well, sometimes 10 mins on arms but my exercise is minimal.

IrisFlute

Just another voice to modestly point out that for me, right now, a baseline 1200 calorie diet feels good and seems to work for me. (I've been losing about 1 1/2 pounds per week.) I'm new to the world of dieting, and have been glad of the expertise here and the lively different opinions.

Here's how 1200 calories works for me:

I'm 58 years old, in good health except for slightly high blood pressure. I'm 5'8", and came here to drop the 20 lbs I gained in the past 30 years. I want to get down to 135 lb, which is what I weighed in my twenties, because the weight loss will help with blood pressure.

I find that I do have to eat back some or all of my extra exercise calories because I get too hungry if I don't. So, 1200 is the baseline for the days I'm more sedentary or just puttering around the house. When I'm out biking up and down hills on dirt roads, I burn more and eat more.

Eating 1200 calories for me means there's zero room for treats. I feel that I need every one of those 1200 calories for nutrient-dense foods. That works OK for me, but I could see that it would be a problem for some folks. It helps to live far away from stores and restaurants; I just don't have as many food temptations. It also helps to live alone, so I'm not responsible for feeding family members. That makes a huge difference.

My food diary is public, if anyone's interested in what 1200 calories looks like. I weigh and measure and count my food.

If 1200 calories stops working well for me in the future, I'll change what I'm doing. I just wanted to raise my hand and say, "Dieting is really personal and individual."

And for me, right now, this plan feels good.

jkal1979

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

lemonsurprise

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

AliceDark

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

It's absolutely fine to avoid those foods that are triggers for you to overeat. At the beginning, avoiding them can make it easier for you to adhere to your eating plan. It's also important to remember that it's the fact that you can't yet eat them in moderation that makes them off-limits, not anything inherently "bad" about the food.

lemurcat12

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

lemurcat12

It's absolutely fine to avoid those foods that are triggers for you to overeat. At the beginning, avoiding them can make it easier for you to adhere to your eating plan. It's also important to remember that it's the fact that you can't yet eat them in moderation that makes them off-limits, not anything inherently "bad" about the food.

Much shorter and better way of making the point I was trying to!

sarafischbach9

I think that you should do what is working best. I do think 1200 calories is an energy amount that is too low for the majority of people, especially active people. I eat 2000+ calories a day, but I'm also training for a marathon. People are floored when they see me eat, because I'm just under 5'4" and 103 lbs. People think my diet consists of just fruits, vegetables, chicken breast and other "healthy" foods, but I will eat anything in moderation. I love chocolate!! But really I just eat what I want.

Anyway, if this is working for you, then in the short term it may be okay. Once you get closer to your goals, you may want to consider slowly upping your calories. 1200 calorie diets and even 1400-1600 calorie ones are not always sustainable for the long term. Eventually you need to eat at maintenance. I actually exercise MORE now that I'm maintaining than when I was losing... because I have more energy!

I'm assuming you are losing weight and yes, you do feel more full when you eat healthier foods. That can help curb hunger on lower calorie diets such as 1200 or 1300.

And everyone has different energy needs, so one thing may work for you and not for another.

Kalikel

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

lemurcat12

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

Yes, it's a super screwed up way to approach sex that leads to neurotic behavior and self hatred, like it is a super screwed up way to approach eating, same. That was (rather obviously, I would have thought) the point!

PayneAS

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.

I don't have the time right now to adequately research your profile and such so I simply wanted to add that nuts & seeds are not low calorie in the least. I get the feeling that you aren't weighing your portions and underestimating your meals.

1800 calorie diets can be full of good, healthy foods with "no treats" whatsoever.

Kalikel

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

Yes, it's a super screwed up way to approach sex that leads to neurotic behavior and self hatred, like it is a super screwed up way to approach eating, same. That was (rather obviously, I would have thought) the point!

You never really finished the whole sex comparison. The premise alone was disturbing.

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

Meerataila

I've discovered something this month: The better quality of food I eat, the more calories I can eat without gaining because (in addition to exercise) I feel like getting out of my chair constantly throughout the day.

Your mileage may vary.

Edit to clarify my point in all this:

I was fine on 1200 net as far as losing weight slowly (too slowly for me!) because I am short, old, and was extremely slothy, but now maybe I'm not, and all because I am eating better food.

ukaryote

At 60 yo, my metabolism has slowed down a sh%$-load. A 1200 calorie diet suits me fine even with 20-30 min of daily exercise. I never feel hungry and I am not anorexic.

I'm carrying around an energy reserve, right? That's what it is for, right?

The challenge lately has been keeping up the protein levels, so I have learned to keep cottage cheese and canned tuna on hand to kick it up as needed. Not taken together.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AliceDark

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

Are you a cardiologist?

If you show my doctor my chart (healthy weight, works out regularly, no major medical concerns, occasional low blood pressure) and ask him if it's detrimental to my health for me to eat chips, he's going to tell you no, it's fine for me to eat chips.

lemurcat12

I've discovered something this month: The better quality of food I eat, the more calories I can eat without gaining because (in addition to exercise) I feel like getting out of my chair constantly throughout the day.

Your mileage may vary.

Edit to clarify my point in all this:

I was fine on 1200 net as far as losing weight slowly (too slowly for me!) because I am short, old, and was extremely slothy, but now maybe I'm not, and all because I am eating better food.

I was fine on 1250 net for the same reason (although I was still pretty fat, so losing at 2 lb/week) and now I'm not, for similar reasons (bike a lot, training for a half marathon). I'm doing 1400 net now, but gross is usually more, sometimes significantly more. (I'm still fatter than you, though.)

And yet I guess lots of people wouldn't think I eat good food at all! (I think I do, of course.)

And for me one type of food that makes a difference really is the carbs. I can tell the difference in my energy for a long run or (especially) long bike if I have a decent serving of carbs (including, maybe even especially, the evil potato!) the night before. And so I'd say people should pay attention to how they feel and what works for them.

And to go back to the context point, I was cutting carbs much more when I was less active (never low carb, but 100 g or under), because that helped me have a diet that was filling and sustainable at a lower calorie level. Now that diet wouldn't work for me at all. Because the context is different.

Someone who does physical labor needs a diet that supports more activity; others need more protein than me; so on.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Daiako

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.
I find when home cooking a meal, it's so easy for a BIG meal to be under 400 calories when all the ingredients are completely natural. Plus dairy is kept to an absolute bare minimum (soon to be none) and meat isn't in my diet (ethical reasons).
Surely this is better than an 1,800 calorie a day diet with a treat or 2? Or is it not?
And also people say that it's not a happy way to live and hard to keep up - but how can it be when you're eating two or 3 BIG meals a day and then a snack too?!

I prefer to eat 1800-1900 calories worth of good food, personally.

giggitygoo

This to me, is really more of a mental health and happiness thing. Can you get all your nutrients into a day with 1200 calories? Maybe, I've certainly never been able to do it though.

But the real question is: will you be happy eating this way? Are you going to have to sacrifice things you love when you otherwise wouldn't have to with a more moderate diet? Why would you needlessly eliminate things you love when you could just as successful keeping them?

Things to ponder.

SherryTeach

Most MFP posters don't think that there is any difference between potato chips and spinach. Nothing is good or bad. The other day someone was arguing that deluxe pizza is probably more healthy than baked chicken breast.

As far as weight loss goes, they're right. You can and will lose weight on a calorie deficit, even if all you eat is pizza and ice cream. You can eat a lot more food if it's healthy food, though.

Many people suggest that making junk food 1/5 of your diet is the best plan.

You should ask your doctor.

Than decide what you want.

I believe that everyone on MFP knows the difference between potato chips and spinach. They may still choose the chips, but everyone of them knows the nutrient difference.

lemonsurprise

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.

I don't have the time right now to adequately research your profile and such so I simply wanted to add that nuts & seeds are not low calorie in the least. I get the feeling that you aren't weighing your portions and underestimating your meals.

1800 calorie diets can be full of good, healthy foods with "no treats" whatsoever.

Nope, I always weigh things like nuts and seeds. I'll have 12.5g of mixed seeds and the same with cashews. This will total to 150 cals which is nothing! I'll have 25g of nuts and seeds on a meal and another 25 as a snack later on usually because my calories are too low.

lemonsurprise

This to me, is really more of a mental health and happiness thing. Can you get all your nutrients into a day with 1200 calories? Maybe, I've certainly never been able to do it though.

But the real question is: will you be happy eating this way? Are you going to have to sacrifice things you love when you otherwise wouldn't have to with a more moderate diet? Why would you needlessly eliminate things you love when you could just as successful keeping them?

Things to ponder.

Not sure if I'll always be happy eating like this. Now, I would say yes but if I'm not I can just change it when that arises. If I WANT something, I will just have it. I can't stop myself. But in this case I REALLY want to loose weight so I'm not sure if it's that real want to loose weight that has genuinely taken away all my want for treats.

But I wouldn't ever make myself unhappy with it, I couldn't do it to myself. If all I craved was treats then id have them! This is how I got myself in to this situation lol

Samstan101

Would it not ber more beneficial in the long run to learn to have the things you like in moderation? I spent years yo-yo dieting by eating low and cutting out lots of things I liked to a point where I just gave up and piled the weight on. I now eat what I want in moderation and can sustain my weight loss over the time its going to take (I have around 30lbs to go so I reckon another 12 months) and a lifestyle I can sustain when I get to target. I'm averaging around 2100 cals a day with a TDEE averaging 2800 a day (ignore this week's diary as am eating just a little under mainetance as have a half marathon at the weekend!).

Personally I couldn't eat 1200 cals and have the energy to live my life but more importantly, I couldn't cut out everything remotely calorific for a sustained period. I mean no chocolate or wine forever?! ;-)

I'm not getting into the 1200 cals argument (as long as its 1200cals net!) but would suggest you have a think about long term sustainability so you not only lose the weight but keep it off. Even if that means losing slower over the long term it may suit you better.

paperpudding

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

I would hope that like any person of intelligence, the cardiologist would say "In what context and dosage?" Because that's the better question.
But that takes a measure of critical thinking. So yeah.

Anyway, bye!!

The following is a true story.

I go to education evenings for health professionals,the sponsor provides dinner.
One evening the speaker was a cardiologist. I'm not sure what she had for main course but after that she had chocolate pudding and ice cream for desert!!!!

Not quite potato chips but shocking nevertheless :huh:



(Or perhaps most doctors understand moderation and context? :indifferent: )

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Branstin

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

It will really help to interject a little reality into this scenario. A lot of health factors will need to be considered before determining if potato chips are "bad" and spinach is the better choice. A cardiologist will not automatically pick the spinach.

lemurcat12

Dean Ornish might.

Of course, then we get into our battling gurus, who all have quite different ideas of what's "good" and what's "bad." Seems better just to eat an overall healthy, balanced diet and avoid bringing false moral claims into it.