wondering about that 1200 calorie thing...

anjukins

I understand that this site probably can't legally recommend that anyone eat less than 1200 calories a day, but I'm feeling like I ate plenty and have about 1000 calories logged for the day. I'm not hungry, I'm not interested in any more food, and I don't like to eat this late anyway. I'm SURE this is a hot-button topic, but... if I'm averaging 1000-1200/day during the week, but am having some 900 and some 1400 days... eating what I like, in the portions that are appealing... does this seem "good enough" for now?

camy_chick

1200 is what the body NEEDS to function properly daily, and to stay out of starvation mode.

i'm not going to lecture to you about making sure you get those calories, cause we all have days where we are under, or where we are over.

at least do your best to make sure your weekly AVERAGE is 1200 a day. also make sure it's as healthy of foods as possible, not just junk food!

hope that helps

anjukins

Thanks I guess I'll do a little more independent research into the 1200 calorie thing. I'm pretty curious about how that number was calculated. And I'm really not much of a junk food eater... thankfully! I wish this site logged sodium and glycemic index, too... that would be so awesome.

cheddle

Ive always read that so long as you can average it weekly your on the right track... try and created an average "deficit" each day, sometimes more, sometimes less and im sure you will see weight loss. also remember, watch those carbs! you cant use your fat reserves if your blood-glucose is too high!

remember, advice is always general, maybe you can do just fine with less than 1200 calories per day, maybe you cant... it takes more than a 5 min signup to determine that.

Pebble321

1000 cals seems like a very small amount of food to keep your body healthy and to give you all the nutrition you need.
Depending on your height and current weight you may lose weight at this rate, or your body might get even more stressed about being underfed and slow your metabolism even futher.

As you have some medical issues, it would be a good idea to get some professional advice about what is best for you, none of us on these forums know you or you particular situation, but to me it seems risky to eat such a low amount over an extended period of time.

I don't think being hungry is a good indicator - most of us seem to have such messed up systems that "listening to your body" might not be the best idea!

And you can track sodium - go to your settings and you can add it to your diary.

camy_chick

you can change you food journal settings to show sodium...not sure about the other one though. i don't put sodium on mine, cause more times then not, i'm over on it.....can't help my ♥ for ham! lol

capriciousmoon

I can't seem to find it now but there was a list showing how many calories your organs and brain use to function, that came out to 1200. So the 1200 calorie minimum that some people diet on is also starving yourself since it doesn't give any extra to fuel whatever activity takes place in your day.

anjukins

Awesome! I didn't know about the sodium tracker. That's so great- I'm sure lots of folks are over on sodium consistently... I love me some sea salt, for sure.

And yeah... the wonky thyroid... she needs her own thing. I just try to stay away from brassicas and eat lots of seaweed...

(of course I had onions AND cauliflower tonight for dinner... oops...)

_Ben

This always seems to always become a big big argument thread, so Im gonna keep my point brief. Peoples bodies are different. 1200 is not always the same magic number for everyone. Some people can function at lower than 1200 without any problems. You body can go into starvation mode, so certain steps need to be taken to prevent this if you decide to eat less. Not gonna say more

Artemis_Acorn

The 1200 calorie thing is just for the women. The men's number is actually 1800. There is no glycemic index tracking, but there is one for sugar, and foods with a high GI seem to come in high in the sugar category, so you might switch your grid to show sugar and see if it helps with what you're doing. You might have to fish around to find database entries that are complete since you're tracking those items - I track potassium, and find a lot of inadequate entries - which I try to fix if I can find the corrected data.

anjukins

yes... definitely don't want to start any more fights (i hit another hot button topic yesterday... vegetarianism... oops!). just wanted some clarifying direction with the calorie counting stuff. i'm so please to have found the sodium and sugars tracker...

AI1108

you should try to keep yourself at an average of 1200 or else you may find it harder to maintain once you're off your weight loss stage. i don't think 1200 is the number for everyone. some of us have slower metabolisms, others have faster metabolisms and need more food to keep them going.

i'm not a health professional so I'm not going to tell you that you absolutely must but maybe look into a multivitamin to make sure you're also getting all the vitamins you need. 1000 cals is a little low to get you what you need.

and yeah you can change your diary to show any 5 nutrients you'd like.. just go into your settings and click diary and it'll give you drop down menus for them.

splackk

To be honest I think it's silly how riled some people get about "OMG IF YOU GO UNDER 1200 AT ALL EVER YOU'LL STOP LOSING WEIGHT AND KILL YOUR METABOLISM FOREVER AND THEN GET EVEN FATTER!!" Your body needs enough to function, but that number depends on your body alone.

I am 5'1'' and 117 pounds (BMR of ~1342) and if I say I am eating 1100 calories a day would get jumped on, while another woman 5'10'' and 310 pounds (BMR ~2224) eating 1200 calories a day isn't seen as a risk, simply because she hits the magical 1200. That 1100 calories is a lot closer to my BMR and less likely to put me in "starvation mode" than 1200 for the other woman. This isn't exact science, where 1199 calories is BAD and 1200 is GOOD.

What is important is to set yourself up for long term success. It isn't rational to think you'll never again eat a scoop of ice cream or a cookie, so cutting those totally out of your diet is more likely to do long-term harm than good. Neither is it rational to think you'll be eating your exact maintenance calories every single day forever, so a day now and again under your calorie goals won't hurt anything in the long run. Try and eat as much as you should for your own body, but don't force yourself to eat when you really don't want to and don't force yourself to never enjoy more than your daily allotment.

I hope we can one day all forget about that magical 1200 and instead calculate specific calorie needs based on the person.

capriciousmoon

To be honest I think it's silly how riled some people get about "OMG IF YOU GO UNDER 1200 AT ALL EVER YOU'LL STOP LOSING WEIGHT AND KILL YOUR METABOLISM FOREVER AND THEN GET EVEN FATTER!!" Your body needs enough to function, but that number depends on your body alone.

I am 5'1'' and 117 pounds (BMR of ~1342) and if I say I am eating 1100 calories a day would get jumped on, while another woman 5'10'' and 310 pounds (BMR ~2224) eating 1200 calories a day isn't seen as a risk, simply because she hits the magical 1200. That 1100 calories is a lot closer to my BMR and less likely to put me in "starvation mode" than 1200 for the other woman. This isn't exact science, where 1199 calories is BAD and 1200 is GOOD.

What is important is to set yourself up for long term success. It isn't rational to think you'll never again eat a scoop of ice cream or a cookie, so cutting those totally out of your diet is more likely to do long-term harm than good. Neither is it rational to think you'll be eating your exact maintenance calories every single day forever, so a day now and again under your calorie goals won't hurt anything in the long run. Try and eat as much as you should for your own body, but don't force yourself to eat when you really don't want to and don't force yourself to never enjoy more than your daily allotment.

I hope we can one day all forget about that magical 1200 and instead calculate specific calorie needs based on the person.

I think the way people use "1200" is kind of ridiculous as many of the people that eat 1200 and go on about starvation mode are actually only fooling themselves into thinking they are eating enough because they have that magic minimum number to fall on.

It is best to listen to your body and figure out what works for you. I would just recommend for people to eat as many calories as they can at their current weight, while still losing weight at a healthy pace, since you will have to decrease your calories as you go to continue losing. If you start out at the minimum you won't really have anywhere to go from there and will most likely stall out.

At my highest weight I tried eating 1200 and exercising and couldn't lose anything (BMR 1,738), when I switched to around 1500 it worked out better. Now my BMR is 1,339 so I wouldn't hit starvation mode if I hit 1200 or even went a bit lower.

I just worry when people set their calorie goal too low from the start.