1200 Calories some sort of sin??

WalkingAlong

Walking along... Your profile says that you're 49 years old. We over-40 types don't need as many calories as younger people. And from your name, I'm guessing that you aren't into strength or resistance training (an assumption, of course, I could be wrong)
Like so many others have said, CONTEXT means much.

SO MANY of the "under 1200 calorie" threads are from young people trying to shed a few vanity pounds while killing themselves in the gym.
Not only is the that not enough food to fuel them, they start running the risk of injuries because they're pushing themselves to run without adequate fuel.

Some may go overboard, but most of us identify with those young people and don't want them to make the mistakes we made.

Oh I agree, for the most part. I don't like to see the teens try biting off too much.

But I think there is a difference between telling a teen "you're at a healthy BMI, you are not going to lose 5 lbs. eating 1200 calories for 2.5 weeks, and working out 3 hours a day is a bad idea" and what I see here daily, which is more like "1200 is only ok if you're old and sedentary, and even then it's not a good idea because you'll have no lean body mass."

And I think the teens are going to try a low cal diet for a short time regardless and realize it's not any quick fix and quit and be fine. I don't think dabbling at 1200 calorie dieting causes anorexia and I don't think forum admonitions cure or prevent it.

What I think does happen is obese teens and others read the admonitions and think they have to walk some calorie tightrope to both avoid bad effects (metabolic, LBM) and to show some losses. And they underestimate food intake like we all do and don't lose and feel like they can't safely cut calories, so they quit. It's too much math, too many dangers. It doesn't have to be so hard and it's rarely dangerous to diet at a rate where you can see some actual losses to keep you motivated.

Branstin

While it may be a stretch or pushing it for you, it still may be dangerous for others. The main point is it all boils down to the dietary requirements of each individual and should be looked at on a case by case basis because some are netting 1200 while others are consuming 1200 as a total. With a 1200 calorie total and creating a larger deficiency with exercise won’t just leave some people hungry with lack of will power. It could be very dangerous over a long period of time.

I would be interested in outside sources that say 1200 in food intake (including with normal exercise levels, so not even 'eating back') is dangerous for anyone overfat.

I would be interested in outside sources that states it can't be dangerous for some individuals.

Just about everything "can" be dangerous. A baby can choke on a lego. You can stab yourself with a pencil. You can die from drinking too much water. You're not going to find studies that say 1200 calories can never be dangerous for any individual, ever, under any circumstances - but that's a silly thing to expect in the first place.

Assuming proper nutrition and for an overfat individual, what is this mysterious danger you keep talking about? And I'll go ahead and say that I don't think 1200 calorie diets are the best idea for the vast, vast majority of people, but that's more due to restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time, not some unnamed danger.

I know just about everything “can” be dangerous so I don’t know what was the point of that first part of your post. So please do not be condensing to me.

If an over fat person is actually getting proper nutritions then it’s silly to believe I am suggesting any mysterious or unnamed danger. In addition, it is equally silly to keep missing my point. How many times do I have to post that it is an individual issue based on the health profile of each person? What part of this do you not understand? Just like a person may be fine with 1200, another person may not be getting the required amount of nutrients then it could be dangerous for that person. The danger will be in the manner of how that nutrient deficiency affects that individual's health. Therefore, I don’t agree that 1200 calories are merely about restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time for some people.

seltzermint555

So noted. You are following your doctor's recommendation. Please, carry on.

This.

If I had a nickel for every time a person crashes a thread with "well, I'm older/physically disabled/morbidly obese/under a doctor's care/metabolically compromised."

People are usually not talking about you. They are usually talking to someone in their mid-twenties who is otherwise healthy and trying to lose a few pounds of vanity weight by starving themselves.

I agree with all of this.

Kalikel

There is no One Size Fits All. Every individual is unique. It's why everyone should see a doctor before beginning a weight loss journey. That way you get good advice, tailored to you, from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Some people wig out about eating disorders...but they usually mean anorexia. If you so much as suggest healthy food or are eating fewer calories, the anorexia thing comes up. It's immediate.

Nobody ever mentions Binge Eating Disorder, which is probably a LOT more prevalent and as worth investigating. I see way more discussion of that type of behavior than I do the anorexia-type.

It's interesting.

Both should be discouraged, obviously. But eating 1200 calories does not an anorexic make.

DamePiglet

Walking along... Your profile says that you're 49 years old. We over-40 types don't need as many calories as younger people. And from your name, I'm guessing that you aren't into strength or resistance training (an assumption, of course, I could be wrong)
Like so many others have said, CONTEXT means much.

SO MANY of the "under 1200 calorie" threads are from young people trying to shed a few vanity pounds while killing themselves in the gym.
Not only is the that not enough food to fuel them, they start running the risk of injuries because they're pushing themselves to run without adequate fuel.

Some may go overboard, but most of us identify with those young people and don't want them to make the mistakes we made.

Oh I agree, for the most part. I don't like to see the teens try biting off too much.

But I think there is a difference between telling a teen "you're at a healthy BMI, you are not going to lose 5 lbs. eating 1200 calories for 2.5 weeks, and working out 3 hours a day is a bad idea" and what I see here daily, which is more like "1200 is only ok if you're old and sedentary, and even then it's not a good idea because you'll have no lean body mass."

And I think the teens are going to try a low cal diet for a short time regardless and realize it's not any quick fix and quit and be fine. I don't think dabbling at 1200 calorie dieting causes anorexia and I don't think forum admonitions cure or prevent it.

What I think does happen is obese teens and others read the admonitions and think they have to walk some calorie tightrope to both avoid bad effects (metabolic, LBM) and to show some losses. And they overestimate food like we all do and don't lose and feel like they can't safely cut calories, so they quit. It's too much math, too many dangers. It doesn't have to be so hard and it's rarely dangerous to diet at a rate where you can see some actual losses to keep you motivated.

I think you and I see different things. For every case where 1200 calories is a responsible choice (the OP here, for example) I see 5 where the scenario is the one that I described. (or, of course, "I need to lose 40 lbs in 3 weeks... HELP!" )

And in those 5, I see where the "A guide to get you started on your path to Sexypants" link is provided with many, many "+1s" or "this"
I think the guide isn't all that difficult to follow. And it really doesn't require all that much math - actually, almost none.

If I'm still assuming correctly, that walking is your exercise of choice, that's usually NOT someone's method of exercise when he or she is ready to shed those pounds quickly.

They're usually running on a treadmill, killing it on the stair climber, whatever it takes to make those calories FLY off ("oh no! I've only burned off 1600 calories by running 8.6 mph on the treadmill... I still gotta burn another 400. But I'm about to PUUUKE! But hey... that's good... I'll lose even MORE weight then!")
It's much more likely that they will get lightheaded or injured doing those things than simply walking. (BTW... I love walking, too. I like other exercise too, but walking is way up there as a favorite.)

Most people here also believe that "if it's not sustainable, the likelihood that you can MAINTAIN the weight loss goes down significantly" - and that's based on statistics (which often say that it's tough to keep it off even if you lose slowly) and also because of personal experience.

I know teens will do things that aren't wise. But some of the teens that we advise actually DO take the advice. And honestly, if I save one girl from passing out and getting her hair caught in the treadmill, it's all been worth it to me.

parkscs

While it may be a stretch or pushing it for you, it still may be dangerous for others. The main point is it all boils down to the dietary requirements of each individual and should be looked at on a case by case basis because some are netting 1200 while others are consuming 1200 as a total. With a 1200 calorie total and creating a larger deficiency with exercise won’t just leave some people hungry with lack of will power. It could be very dangerous over a long period of time.

I would be interested in outside sources that say 1200 in food intake (including with normal exercise levels, so not even 'eating back') is dangerous for anyone overfat.

I would be interested in outside sources that states it can't be dangerous for some individuals.

Just about everything "can" be dangerous. A baby can choke on a lego. You can stab yourself with a pencil. You can die from drinking too much water. You're not going to find studies that say 1200 calories can never be dangerous for any individual, ever, under any circumstances - but that's a silly thing to expect in the first place.

Assuming proper nutrition and for an overfat individual, what is this mysterious danger you keep talking about? And I'll go ahead and say that I don't think 1200 calorie diets are the best idea for the vast, vast majority of people, but that's more due to restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time, not some unnamed danger.

I know just about everything “can” be dangerous so I don’t know what was the point of that first part of your post. So please do not be condensing to me.

If an over fat person is actually getting proper nutritions then it’s silly to believe I am suggesting any mysterious or unnamed danger. In addition, it is equally silly to keep missing my point. How many times do I have to post that it is an individual issue based on the health profile of each person? What part of this do you not understand? Just like a person may be fine with 1200, another person may not be getting the required amount of nutrients then it could be dangerous for that person. The danger will be in the manner of how that nutrient deficiency affects that individual. Therefore, I don’t agree that 1200 calories are merely about restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time for some people.

You asked for expert opinions/studies suggesting something cannot be dangerous for at least some individuals. I'm not trying to be condescending - I'm pointing out that that's an unreasonable request and the lack of such opinions/studies proves nothing. Water is generally safe to consume but you're not going to find any proof that water cannot be dangerous to at least some individuals under any circumstances, and the lack of such proof does not mean water is dangerous.

What part of this do you not understand? Just like a person may be fine with 1200, another person may not be getting the required amount of nutrients then it could be dangerous for that person. The danger will be in the manner of how that nutrient deficiency affects that individual. Therefore, I don’t agree that 1200 calories are merely about restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time for some people.

You seem to be assuming a 1200 calorie diet will be nutrient deficient. Your nutrient intake is just as much influenced by your food selection as your calorie total, if not more so, and just because someone is eating 1200 calories doesn't mean that they will become malnourished. To be dangerous, a diet would have to deprive you of something that's essential for your body, and we've got ample evidence of overfat individuals getting their essential nutrients on well under 1200 calories (take any VLED for example). I'm not really disagreeing that 1200 is less than optimal/a poor choice for the vast majority of people - I just don't see the need to over-dramatize it and suggest it's "dangerous" for overfat individuals.

smittybuilt19

I am a 27 year old and a son, uncle, and nephew.

That is all...

mswoodsy

So noted. You are following your doctor's recommendation. Please, carry on.

This.

If I had a nickel for every time a person crashes a thread with "well, I'm older/physically disabled/morbidly obese/under a doctor's care/metabolically compromised."

People are usually not talking about you. They are usually talking to someone in their mid-twenties who is otherwise healthy and trying to lose a few pounds of vanity weight by starving themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree! Completely. But honestly.....
Some people on here are just douches. Really.
I'm 5'6 , 21yrs old (not just vanity weight to lose though) and eat just over 1500 a day. And I closed my diary because I was getting a hard time for it! 1580 calories! THATS WHAT MFP RECOMMENDS! I don't get it. Whatever.

Some people give valid advice to younger people who are making shotty decisions because they want fast results, not lasting ones.
Some people are just jerks who think they know what's best for everyone (and that doesn't just apply to the 1200 cal debate).

mswoodsy

I think people hate on the 1200 calorie thing because most of the posts on are from girls with profiles who say they're 18, who are actually 15, who think they're fat, who are actually only 105lbs, and who want to lose 3 more lbs to they can fit into a slightly smaller bikini for Chad's awesome pool party is next week.

Ha well put

jofjltncb6

Anyone's calorie intake is based on age. I am a grandmother so I do fine with 1200 calories a day. Now someone who is 21 years old, needs more.

First, OP is following doctor's orders...so nothing to add to that. Best of luck, OP. Not every doctor will prescribe the same approach, however, so if you struggle with this doctor's approach, know that there *may be* another way.

With that out of the way, I'll respond to ^this post. Calories burned may be *affected by* (to an arguable extent), but it is not solely *based on* age. There are a half dozen other factors more relevant than age and it is misleading to single out age as a primary factor.

Sincerely,
43 year old not overly active guy who maintains on ~3000 daily.

yellowlemoned

There isn't anything wrong with eating 1200 calories. Especially if your doctor tells you to. Even if a doctor hasn't though, if you live a sedentary life style, there isn't much need to eat more than 1200 calories a day.

jofjltncb6

I've found people in forums just like to stir stuff up. Ignore them if its working for you.

Funny, that's exactly what I thought the OP was doing.

When people post something with which you agree, it's because they just want to get the truth out there.

When you disagree, it's because they "just like to stir stuff up".

MFP #327

stealthq

There is no One Size Fits All. Every individual is unique. It's why everyone should see a doctor before beginning a weight loss journey. That way you get good advice, tailored to you, from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Some people wig out about eating disorders...but they usually mean anorexia. If you so much as suggest healthy food or are eating fewer calories, the anorexia thing comes up. It's immediate.

Nobody ever mentions Binge Eating Disorder, which is probably a LOT more prevalent and as worth investigating. I see way more discussion of that type of behavior than I do the anorexia-type.

It's interesting.

Both should be discouraged, obviously. But eating 1200 calories does not an anorexic make.

Hmm. I'm going to have to disagree here. The reason you go to your doctor before starting a diet and exercise plan is to make sure you're healthy enough to follow said plan and don't have any contraindications. Most doctors are minimally educated in both exercise and diet. I would not go to a doctor for exercise advice or for diet advice unless their specialty is in those areas.

You're right about the 1200 cals, though. It's just that you have to be careful about getting your nutrition in order on 1200 cals. There's just not a lot of leeway for eating something just because you want to - not like there is with a higher calorie diet.

diannethegeek

There isn't anything wrong with eating 1200 calories. Especially if your doctor tells you to. Even if a doctor hasn't though, if you live a sedentary life style, there isn't much need to eat more than 1200 calories a day.

<-- sedentary lifestyle, 1700 calories a day, losing 1 pound a week. There may not be much "need" for me to eat more than 1200 calories, but I can and still lose weight at the pace I want. I'm not saying that 1200 calories is a good or bad thing for anyone else, but I don't believe that "sedentary" is enough information to blanket suggest 1200 calories for a person.

cwolfman13

If I had a nickel for every time a person crashes a thread with "well, I'm older/physically disabled/morbidly obese/under a doctor's care/metabolically compromised."

People are usually not talking about you. They are usually talking to someone in their mid-twenties who is otherwise healthy and trying to lose a few pounds of vanity weight by starving themselves.

WalkingAlong

I think you and I see different things. For every case where 1200 calories is a responsible choice (the OP here, for example) I see 5 where the scenario is the one that I described. (or, of course, "I need to lose 40 lbs in 3 weeks... HELP!" )

And in those 5, I see where the "A guide to get you started on your path to Sexypants" link is provided with many, many "+1s" or "this" I think the guide isn't all that difficult to follow. And it really doesn't require all that much math - actually, almost none.

If I'm still assuming correctly, that walking is your exercise of choice, that's usually NOT someone's method of exercise when he or she is ready to shed those pounds quickly.

They're usually running on a treadmill, killing it on the stair climber, whatever it takes to make those calories FLY off ("oh no! I've only burned off 1600 calories by running 8.6 mph on the treadmill... I still gotta burn another 400. But I'm about to PUUUKE! But hey... that's good... I'll lose even MORE weight then!")
It's much more likely that they will get lightheaded or injured doing those things than simply walking. (BTW... I love walking, too. I like other exercise too, but walking is way up there as a favorite.)

Most people here also believe that "if it's not sustainable, the likelihood that you can MAINTAIN the weight loss goes down significantly" - and that's based on statistics (which often say that it's tough to keep it off even if you lose slowly) and also because of personal experience.

I know teens will do things that aren't wise. But some of the teens that we advise actually DO take the advice. And honestly, if I save one girl from passing out and getting her hair caught in the treadmill, it's all been worth it to me.

Thanks for discussing it civilly. You might be right about how many are diet-crazed teens. I only read in a couple forums so I see a tiny percentage.

I don't just walk or base anything in this on what I do. One thing I know we differ on is I don't see a lot of people passing out on treadmills from under-eating. I think bodies fuel workouts fine from body fat calories. I think low blood sugar is an issue for some. I think over-exercising is an issue for some. I feel like those are separate issues, though.

I'm with you on the sustainability and on learning new habits. If the advice was about that I would have no gripes. It's just the 'dangerous for nearly everyone' and the dire LBM warnings that I think is misrepresenting things. Well, and 'you have to fuel your workouts'. Your body doesn't treat workout calories any differently from BMR or NEAT calories. Something's being fueled by body fat in a deficit. If my NEAT is high and I don't 'work out', it's ok to have a higher deficit than someone with low NEAT but a workout, all else equal? That doesn't make sense to me.

hookilau

The problem with mfp is that a lot of people on here 'think' they're an expert except they're not experts at all. Some of it is well-intention-ed but a lot of it is just arrogance and ignorance which is just the worst combination and unfortunately a common combination on these forums. Unfortunately many people on here are just big know-it-alls and they would in fact try to contradict God himself given the opportunity. I'm really sorry that you've encountered this. Try not to let it get to you and don't argue with them, here's why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPfWt0l0V8
(48 second vid that'll make you smile)

Wish you the absolute best with your weightloss journey :flowerforyou:

but, how do you really feel about MFP peeps? :laugh:

lol :laugh: I re-read that. Im sorry if that sounded a bit harsh. It's just after 3 years on here, I've noticed a pattern. And a lot of the time its the same people over and over again, they think they know best and they're not content to give their own views, they have to put down everybody else's views. You get used to reading it and 99.99% of the time I keep quiet and stay out of it. But then I read the op's post and she's trying to lose on 1200 on her doctors advice and people are telling her she should do this or that instead...who contradicts medical advice?! well that's a new level. I mean that's just not on and I'm pretty sure it breaks forum rules.

But look it, for the most part mfp peeps are the absolute salt of the earth I have met so many wonderful, wonderful, wonderful and inspiring people. I have been very lucky to have made such great friends here

:laugh: I totally get you, it's just that the 1200 cal thing is a tiger net that every one runs to get snared in, as opposed to just getting snared. It's up to *you* as the individual to question, given the advice as to the possible consequences, whether or not it's for you.

Multiple times in this thread, people have pointed out that if you're following your doctor's advice & you trust your doctor, this doesn't apply, so carry on. Really, it's appropriate for some people, not necessary for most, but if you know the how & why, you can argue your point succinctly. Instead there's just hurt feelings and had pats being passed around for poor little 1200 sad sack that everyone is just kicking around as if there aren't any puppies left

:blushing: However, you, my friend, get bonus points for using the phrase 'look it' :blushing: I've only ever heard that phrase on the streets of NYC

hmm I suppose for me, the crux of it is, did the op ask the forum for opinions on her doctors orders to go to a 1200 cal diet? If she did, fair enough carry on forum carry on but if not...:huh: well I think liberties have been taken. ..and apologies are due. Our op has been upset by some unsolicited advice.


Ha do they say 'look it' in NYC, well I'm impressed, that is definitely an Irishism :flowerforyou:


Also *hides all the puppies* :laugh: (just in case)

:laugh: We do indeed say 'look it'!....something I've only heard people from Astoria, & other areas in Queens. I do recall a high Irish population growing up, so it *does* make a lot of sense Just curious...do you 'cross yourself' as in 'make the sign of the cross' when you walk past or drive past a church?

hookilau

ETA: I wasn't referring to the OP when I made the comment about 'sad sack 1200 & hand pats' & crazy issues with quotes & eerie double post

Branstin

While it may be a stretch or pushing it for you, it still may be dangerous for others. The main point is it all boils down to the dietary requirements of each individual and should be looked at on a case by case basis because some are netting 1200 while others are consuming 1200 as a total. With a 1200 calorie total and creating a larger deficiency with exercise won’t just leave some people hungry with lack of will power. It could be very dangerous over a long period of time.

I would be interested in outside sources that say 1200 in food intake (including with normal exercise levels, so not even 'eating back') is dangerous for anyone overfat.

I would be interested in outside sources that states it can't be dangerous for some individuals.

Just about everything "can" be dangerous. A baby can choke on a lego. You can stab yourself with a pencil. You can die from drinking too much water. You're not going to find studies that say 1200 calories can never be dangerous for any individual, ever, under any circumstances - but that's a silly thing to expect in the first place.

Assuming proper nutrition and for an overfat individual, what is this mysterious danger you keep talking about? And I'll go ahead and say that I don't think 1200 calorie diets are the best idea for the vast, vast majority of people, but that's more due to restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time, not some unnamed danger.

I know just about everything “can” be dangerous so I don’t know what was the point of that first part of your post. So please do not be condensing to me.

If an over fat person is actually getting proper nutritions then it’s silly to believe I am suggesting any mysterious or unnamed danger. In addition, it is equally silly to keep missing my point. How many times do I have to post that it is an individual issue based on the health profile of each person? What part of this do you not understand? Just like a person may be fine with 1200, another person may not be getting the required amount of nutrients then it could be dangerous for that person. The danger will be in the manner of how that nutrient deficiency affects that individual. Therefore, I don’t agree that 1200 calories are merely about restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time for some people.

You asked for expert opinions/studies suggesting something cannot be dangerous for at least some individuals. I'm not trying to be condescending - I'm pointing out that that's an unreasonable request and the lack of such opinions/studies proves nothing. Water is generally safe to consume but you're not going to find any proof that water cannot be dangerous to at least some individuals under any circumstances, and the lack of such proof does not mean water is dangerous.

What part of this do you not understand? Just like a person may be fine with 1200, another person may not be getting the required amount of nutrients then it could be dangerous for that person. The danger will be in the manner of how that nutrient deficiency affects that individual. Therefore, I don’t agree that 1200 calories are merely about restrictiveness, satiety issues, and a greater risk of non-adherence over time for some people.

You seem to be assuming a 1200 calorie diet will be nutrient deficient. Your nutrient intake is just as much influenced by your food selection as your calorie total, if not more so, and just because someone is eating 1200 calories doesn't mean that they will become malnourished. To be dangerous, a diet would have to deprive you of something that's essential for your body, and we've got ample evidence of overfat individuals getting their essential nutrients on well under 1200 calories (take any VLED for example). I'm not really disagreeing that 1200 is less than optimal/a poor choice for the vast majority of people - I just don't see the need to over-dramatize it and suggest it's "dangerous" for overfat individuals.

No, I did not ask for any expert opinions or studies. Your water scenario is the very reason I support those who question OPs that consumes a 1200 calories diet outside of a doctor's care. It could be safe on one hand and dangerous on another. The only difference is there are studies that indicate low calories diets are not safe for some people.

Even though I agree 100% that nutrients intake is just as much influenced by food selection as your total calories intake, it doesn’t change the fact that even in those cases some people still aren’t meeting their nutrient requirements with 1200 or less calories. I have seen some smart people post about their 1200 calories diet. They know their stuff and hit their nutrient requirements and that is great for them but you don't see many of them here.

Many new comers to MFP do not understand exercise, food, nutrients, or weight management. They are not dumb or stupid. They just never got the tools and support needed before. People have posted about doing detoxes and juice fast, eat at or below 1200 calories, sometimes not even that much, not because their bodies can handle it. It is because they don’t know any better. How likely is it they are hitting their nutrient requirements? How about some of those who eat 1200 total calories then bust their *kitten* in the gym to burn 400-500 calories? What is that going to do to their health to net 700-800 calories a day over a long period of time? Whether this appears to be over dramatized or not, it doesn’t take away from the fact that this could be very dangerous. How can it not be dangerous because most of those people are not the over fat ones who could afford such a deficiency over a long period of time? To state some people “can” meet their nutrient requirements with 1200 or less calories means nothing because most of the time they are not doing so. Frankly, I think it’s a bit naïve to believe some people who can’t even set-up their profile correctly will automatically understand the manner in which to hit their nutrient levels with 1200 calories. Therefore, I don’t see any problems with people questioning 1200 or low calories diets.