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

Icandoityayme

1200 worked for me the first couple of months but after that I got dizzy with headaches and just plain felt sick. I also was at a plateau for a couple weeks and wasn't losing anything and couldn't figure out why. I bumped mine up to 1400 and now I am back to losing weight and I am not feeling sick anymore. It may work for some people, but for me it turned out 1200 wasn't enough. I know a lot of people start with 1200 and I can't really tell somebody not to because they are going to do what they want anyway, but I am thinking now that unless you have some health issue that requires that low of calories, I wouldn't go that far down. That's just me though.

WalkingAlong

I will be delighted when I no longer people saying, "Donuts and ice cream aren't bad for you! There are no bad foods! There are no good foods, It's just a matter of calories!"

Weight loss is just a matter of calories. Health isn't. Satiety isn't.

There is not a universally bad or good food. To many, "good food" is good tasting food, or they don't attach such adjectives to foods. To you, good food is low cal, high nutrient, low fat, apparently. That's ok but that's your 'good', not a universal 'good'.

It's like arguing who's the prettiest woman or best singer. It's subjective.

Hornsby

Dont know what you arguing about , but i always look at "quality of kcal" I wish get maximum benefits of every kcal i intake.And there are healthy and unhealthy food in my opinion.

And you have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

akgreen324

Hahah I just had this discussion on my wall. Add me to see what my friends said!!:flowerforyou:

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.

hearthwood

A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. So if you're suggesting that you can consume more calories, because you're eating healthier--NOT.

I watched one of my fat shows, where this guy goes to the doctor, and the doctor told him to lose weight, and he said well all I do is eat oranges all day long. The doctor said--"Then you're eating too many oranges."

Hornsby

Hahah I just had this discussion on my wall. Add me to see what my friends said!!:flowerforyou:

Sounds like a trick...lol.

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????

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.