Seriously ... 1200 calories or less
Replies
-
This has probably been posted many many times, but I'm sick of people posting
topics saying they can't lose any weight, and you ask how many calories they consume.
And they'll tell you less than 1200. Are you serious? are you joking? A 10 year old eats more than that.
First of all, go find out what your calorie maintenance is.
Second of all, decrease the amount of calories by 10-20%. For example, if maintenance is 2000 calories
then to lose weight, consume 1600-1800. That's it, it's that easy. Why are people under eating?
Every single athlete which competes in a sport with specific weight divisions, whether it be an MMA fighter
or a wrestler or a boxer etc, and especially body builders (when it comes to cutting weight)
will tell you exactly the same thing, if you want to cut weight, eat 10-20% under your maintenance.
If you eat under at 1200 calories:
1) metabolism will slow down
2) body will try to retain what little that you eat as fat for energy
3) when you eat high calories again, you bet that you will gain all that weight you lost back
Anyway, that's just me venting. Not picking on anyone, it's more out of me wanting to help people.
Because I've been there and I've done that, and 1200 calories or less is not the way to go. You got to
eat to lose weight, SOUNDS RIDICULOUS RIGHT? well it ain't, not even the slightest. =]
Maybe you could explain to all of them exactly where the 1200 number comes from and why it chooses "eating" other parts of you over fat and why when you eat normally again the weight piles on? Then maybe once and for all they'd understand and not undereat because it makes sense to them... at the moment everyone is told, less calories in more calories out which makes more sense than eat 1200 or more (which to be honest I think is a figure based on the average female of a certain height/build and mass at a certain rate to drop weight and in fact taller and heavier women would need more...)Noone is clear if this is a NET goal or a GROSS goal as we're told more often than not that the "1200"kCal / day minimum is to allow us to get sufficient miconutrients and macros for a day... but surely if you're working out you need more, such as sodium, potassium, iron (all lost in sweat)???
Please if you're going to put statements like that down and make people feel like an idiot...which am sure some will be, then explain the science, because until you do and whilst eating less than 1200kCal NET people will continue to do so because it works.
PS... in spite of the rant I believe you are right but we need to explain the science... I don't know why it is so but I am not on a 1200kCal a day diet so wouldn't know as hasn't appeared on my radar yet!0 -
I think this post is mainly aimed to the people who are not morbidly obese where they have to get advice from a doctor. Even then they are monitored.0
-
Serious debate going on here. I suppose it is the matter of what works to whom. I personally discovered that i have to eat more to lose weight. Thank god for the community posts here!!
I have been tryingt to lose weight for some time now and thought that eating less is the key. So i was quite stressed out when i started exercising and still lost nothing for weeks..i was actually gaining!! (was eating around 1200-1300 cals). so now increased my intake to 1600. And it seems to be working now - been doing it for the last 2 days and my weight has gone down by apprx 0.5 pounds. So I personally am thankful for these posts...it helped me!! 0 -
I fully agree that everyone should do what works best for them as individuals. But unless you've tried different things, you can't really say what works best for you.
It's been my experience that with just about everything in life, there is such a thing as trying too hard. If you're dating and try to hard, you make the person you're trying to date run scared thinking you're desperate. If you're in school, learning all through the semester is better than cramming right before the test. Trying to run... you're better off slowing your pace and having enough endurance to run the whole distance than trying to sprint as fast as you can and burning out quickly. Family vacations were the epitome of trying too hard... soooo much work and fuss trying to make something the perfect relaxing moment! :laugh:
So why wouldn't losing weight be any different? Why wouldn't it be better to set an easily attainable goal with a small to moderate calorie deficit?
BTW... just upped my calories to 1840 plus exercise calories, and I'm still losing weight while "on maintenance." Yet a few years ago, I was struggling to lose while eating less than 1000 a day and blamed my crappy middle age metabolism. :laugh:
Just to highlight what has been said here. You need to bear in mind also that if you are losing weight on a VLCD, a large percentage of that will be lean mass and not fat. The number on the scale needs to be a low priority - health, wellbeing and fitness should take precedent.
Negative... if you are a lean individual this will be the case, if you are an obese individual the larger proportion of weight loss will be fat loss as body can handle it... http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode This article is backed up by leading experts in the field and there are links to their research. There's some good points on there too and why it can be potentially dangerous especially as to eating after being in starvation. Also it gives a nice reccomendation that you should eat the maintenance calories for your goal weight to safely lose weight as this will apply the right amount of calories for that body whether it to be lose or to gain (as some people on here want to do that too!)0 -
Have you ever heard of the military? I get weighed every month and my body fat is calculated. I must make progress every month and be in compliance within a year. Otherwise, I will be discharge. And I cannot gain the weight back within a year after loosing the weight as I won't be given another chance to loose it. So yes, there are reasons to loose by a certain date, and I am going to loose by that date by tracking calories along with swimming and weight training.
I agree with this and our military has just got really tough on this after not being so strict with it for years. Thankfully for me I'm not overweight and will never let myself get that way but I know plenty people who are and it's really stressful as they have to lose the weight by a certain time or at least be fit enough to pass the fitness test and then go on remedial training to lose weight and reduce waist size.0 -
I just checked out the suggested calories on the site mentioned and it was about the same as on here, they were the lowest you should go though.0
-
The last line of your post here says (maybe) you finally got the point. Do what works for YOU.,.. and let others do what works for them. What works for a body builder (whatever you call it), isn't necessarily what works for someone who is just trying to get in the normal range on the BMI chart and live a healthier life.Some people got all butt hurt and offended ;D
and I've realized there are only a few people who took it way too hard
ALSO i realized all the ripped body builders and people (both men and women) who replied, were very supporting,
so thanks for supporting ;D not that this is a cause or anything haha
ANYWAY! at the end of the day, I'm fit as f**k, so do what ever the FU*CK YOU WANNA DO
Ah, to have the metabolism of a 20 year old! I should have looked at some of the poster's ages before commenting. There's a world of difference between a 20 year old guy who's super fit and a 40 year old chick that's 100 lbs overweight. Big difference.
Exactly...There are a lot of things to take into account with regards to how much to eat.
For example
Gender
Height
Weight
Activity level
Body Composition (It is more dangerous for a lean individual to go on a calorie restricted diet than an overweight or obese person because some of the energy gained from breaking down the body can be from vital organs such as the heart in obese and overweight people, a larger percentage is from fat... however they should still exercise caution.)
The 1200 figure is based on averages using a standard model, so for some people this number should be less and others, more. For me, I believe it should be more (around 1300 as my TDEE is around 2300-3000 depending on if I do none, one or two workouts but it averages around 2700 and I'm 174.5cm, and weigh between 69Kg and 73Kg on a weekly basis, female, aged 23)
As you get older this number drops and as you get heavier, it increases.
My personal recommendation is that you shouldn't drop that low and be patient WHERE POSSIBLE, to lose the weight slower as you can ease in to the lifestyle changes, not put too much stress on your body and eat a good amount of food to sustain fat loss and keep you healthy. Look at it this way, getting your energy from a starchey potato full of vitamins and iodine(great for thyroid health) and slow release energy (keeps you going for longer so maybe you could do an extra 20 mins in the gym and burn off some fat!) versus fat? Which would you go for?
Also at a deficit of 1000 calories, you are putting so much strain and stress on your body and to lose weight the recommendation is that you workout moderately for 45-60 mins 5 days a week as opposed to 30 mins x 5 days a week to stay healthy. Your body needs nutrients to repair and get strong and build muscle where there was once fat...which will look smaller that the fat but be like a slick fast jet aeroplane burning lots and lots of energy but skinny! It's not fair on your poor old body to but it under this stress and strain, we all have enough with our daily lives... This is why some lean individuals die as a result of shocks to there diets especially in a calorie deficit, they can be using tissue from their vital organs, like heart, for energy, leaving them with a weakened heart... anorexia sufferers are like this and their compulsive exercising leaves the heart more vulnerable to arrest.
Just some things to think about. You can still lose a good amount of weight on any deficit, if you can eat the maintenance of what you want to become because that will be the best way to ease in to the new you and when it happens, you won't have to change anything! Just keep going! This provides a natural deficit (or increment if you're trying to gain) at a healthy loss. It may be slower but it certainly is safer!0 -
I just checked out the suggested calories on the site mentioned and it was about the same as on here, they were the lowest you should go though.
Why?
MFP isn't the god of knowledge on tis and is based on statistics of an AVERAGE person... 1200kCal would be far too low for a lass like me standing stauesque at a muscular 5' 9" and 72Kg, especially when i workout up to twice a day (hard cardio x2 AND weights) and so burning a lot more off.
That 1200 applies to someone who is of a certain height and build, weight and gender and (based upon a healthy BMI) who is sedentary and to allow them to get the right amount of bare nutrition HER body will need!0 -
Playing devil's advocate here....I recently had 2 heath checks, 1 BUPA and 1 Nuffield, neither of which shrank back when I told them of the 1200 calorie suggestion. Common sense ought to apply here, you know that a balance of lean meats, fish, pulses, oats and fibre are your friends and you can have a full tummy as much as you want as long as you try and offset it with some form of cardio activity.
I also know that as a 5'6" 146 lb woman of 30 trying to lose 1 stone it appears to be the hardest thing in the universe.
I absolutely know that I could survive just fine on 1200 calories. The biggest enemy for me is booze. Without a doubt, if I cut it out completely I would be certainly finding it easier to stay on 1200 and give myself a fighting chance of actually losing the weight.
I have precious little time in my life for exercise however I will be sticking to my 30 min walk in the morning and also re starting Zumba and 1 other exercise class in a week, just to get me moving more! Couple that with stripping out booze 6 out of 7 days I hope that will at least bring me closer to where I want to be without going into "starvation mode".
I believe it can be done.0 -
For those that reallllly don't get the science of it all, and having done starvation mode accidentally (eating the safe calorie amount but working out loads for my training and not eating it back... partly as a result of the exercise as the hard cardio supressed my appetite for about the length of my workout which was often 90 mins cardio twice a day plus weights) by myself and lost a lot of weight but gained it all back eating normally, I just want to show you a great article that explains it all quite scientifically and logically so that you have an understanding of nutrition for yourself and what a safe number is for YOU as an individual. I'm quite tall and was quite muscular and doing a lot of sports and should have eaten a lot more, I'd have still lost weight. I wasn't trying to lose a lot as was a healthy BMI, just a few lbs to look a little slinkier, I ended up losing 8lbs in 2 weeks one of those weeks it was a 5lb loss, more worryingly the second one. I "had" that much to lose but I "didn't" if that makes sense? As a result, my periods stopped. My boyfriends, aunty, uncle, parents and friends said i was too skinny and were concerned. I got fattened up over Christmas.
http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/page/1 Link to great article0 -
#Playing devil's advocate here....I recently had 2 heath checks, 1 BUPA and 1 Nuffield, neither of which shrank back when I told them of the 1200 calorie suggestion. Common sense ought to apply here, you know that a balance of lean meats, fish, pulses, oats and fibre are your friends and you can have a full tummy as much as you want as long as you try and offset it with some form of cardio activity.
I also know that as a 5'6" 146 lb woman of 30 trying to lose 1 stone it appears to be the hardest thing in the universe.
I absolutely know that I could survive just fine on 1200 calories. The biggest enemy for me is booze. Without a doubt, if I cut it out completely I would be certainly finding it easier to stay on 1200 and give myself a fighting chance of actually losing the weight.
I have precious little time in my life for exercise however I will be sticking to my 30 min walk in the morning and also re starting Zumba and 1 other exercise class in a week, just to get me moving more! Couple that with stripping out booze 6 out of 7 days I hope that will at least bring me closer to where I want to be without going into "starvation mode".
I believe it can be done.
Of course it works for losing weight! But my God is it a silly thing to do...especially if you are NOT overweight or obese... In the normal range you're going to use a larger percentage of lean tissue from broken down body than fat than an obese or overweight person and this is where the dangers come into play. especially for women. First your periods will stop (maybe a blessing but is more worrying than you think as I experienced it and I wasn't even intentionally starving myself!) Secondly it puts a great strain on your heart, especially if you're working out hard because your body is breaking down and building itself up regardless, but with no extra fuel in the tank, ESPECIALLY protein, your body WILL break down lean tissue for fuel and this DOES include vital organs such as your heart which inevitably makes it weaker.0 -
#Playing devil's advocate here....I recently had 2 heath checks, 1 BUPA and 1 Nuffield, neither of which shrank back when I told them of the 1200 calorie suggestion. Common sense ought to apply here, you know that a balance of lean meats, fish, pulses, oats and fibre are your friends and you can have a full tummy as much as you want as long as you try and offset it with some form of cardio activity.
I also know that as a 5'6" 146 lb woman of 30 trying to lose 1 stone it appears to be the hardest thing in the universe.
I absolutely know that I could survive just fine on 1200 calories. The biggest enemy for me is booze. Without a doubt, if I cut it out completely I would be certainly finding it easier to stay on 1200 and give myself a fighting chance of actually losing the weight.
I have precious little time in my life for exercise however I will be sticking to my 30 min walk in the morning and also re starting Zumba and 1 other exercise class in a week, just to get me moving more! Couple that with stripping out booze 6 out of 7 days I hope that will at least bring me closer to where I want to be without going into "starvation mode".
I believe it can be done.
Of course it works for losing weight! But my God is it a silly thing to do...especially if you are NOT overweight or obese... In the normal range you're going to use a larger percentage of lean tissue from broken down body than fat than an obese or overweight person and this is where the dangers come into play. especially for women. First your periods will stop (maybe a blessing but is more worrying than you think as I experienced it and I wasn't even intentionally starving myself!) Secondly it puts a great strain on your heart, especially if you're working out hard because your body is breaking down and building itself up regardless, but with no extra fuel in the tank, ESPECIALLY protein, your body WILL break down lean tissue for fuel and this DOES include vital organs such as your heart which inevitably makes it weaker.
And in addition, calories don't just equate to healthy and safe. on such a low calorie diet they must be balanced and nutritious! So alcohol calories are just as bad as starving yourself pretty much especially as the alcohol is such a laborious product for your body to metabolise, as its poison!0 -
Playing devil's advocate here....I recently had 2 heath checks, 1 BUPA and 1 Nuffield, neither of which shrank back when I told them of the 1200 calorie suggestion. Common sense ought to apply here, you know that a balance of lean meats, fish, pulses, oats and fibre are your friends and you can have a full tummy as much as you want as long as you try and offset it with some form of cardio activity.
I also know that as a 5'6" 146 lb woman of 30 trying to lose 1 stone it appears to be the hardest thing in the universe.
I absolutely know that I could survive just fine on 1200 calories. The biggest enemy for me is booze. Without a doubt, if I cut it out completely I would be certainly finding it easier to stay on 1200 and give myself a fighting chance of actually losing the weight.
I have precious little time in my life for exercise however I will be sticking to my 30 min walk in the morning and also re starting Zumba and 1 other exercise class in a week, just to get me moving more! Couple that with stripping out booze 6 out of 7 days I hope that will at least bring me closer to where I want to be without going into "starvation mode".
I believe it can be done.
Yes, it can be done, that is not the issue.
I was losing at 1200, but I am also losing at 1600.
Some people blindly follow the 1200 without realising that they don't have to. If they did some research on their BMR and TDEE they will find that they could be losing eating more, but lot's of people prefer the 1200 number as they want to feel deprived and don't feel they are following a diet properly if they aren't deprived.
I was that person but with some advice and education I upped my calories and have felt much better. I'm sure the thread has made some people stop and think about what they are doing, and whether there is possible another way for them, but I am equally as sure that there will be some people who refuse to even consider that anything other than 1000 calories is too much for them.
Personally if I had a choice of 1200 or 1600. I know not everyone would chose the same, but if threads like these help even a few to try something different that works for them that is great.
Some may try it and find it doesn't work for them, but at least they gave it a go. if 1200 isn't working they've got nothing to lose by trying something different.0 -
I lost at 1200. I lost at under 1000. For the most part, I was either not hungry or able to ignore being hungry enough to not feel hungry.
But I lost better at significantly more. More of what I lost was from fat. And it was psychologically a lot better to have my settings for, for instance, one pound a week and losing on average one pound a week, then trying to lose two pounds a week and losing at very most one pound a week. I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought there was something really wrong with me when I was eating under 1000 calories a day and losing about a half pound every OTHER week. I felt like a failure, and felt like I lacked discipline, and I made excuses like, "My metabolism is just slow." I thought I'd have to cut calories even more to lose.
And I was wrong.
Last time, losing weight did seem like the hardest thing in the world, because I was making it the hardest thing in the world. This time, it felt effortless, because I understood that when you don't have much to lose, progress will and should be slow. I knew in that final ten pounds, I was only going to lose a half pound a week. It was going to be slow... but slow doesn't mean hard.0 -
I lost at 1200. I lost at under 1000. For the most part, I was either not hungry or able to ignore being hungry enough to not feel hungry.
But I lost better at significantly more. More of what I lost was from fat. And it was psychologically a lot better to have my settings for, for instance, one pound a week and losing on average one pound a week, then trying to lose two pounds a week and losing at very most one pound a week. I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought there was something really wrong with me when I was eating under 1000 calories a day and losing about a half pound every OTHER week. I felt like a failure, and felt like I lacked discipline, and I made excuses like, "My metabolism is just slow." I thought I'd have to cut calories even more to lose.
And I was wrong.
Last time, losing weight did seem like the hardest thing in the world, because I was making it the hardest thing in the world. This time, it felt effortless, because I understood that when you don't have much to lose, progress will and should be slow. I knew in that final ten pounds, I was only going to lose a half pound a week. It was going to be slow... but slow doesn't mean hard.
Casing point!!!0 -
Before I started to use MFP to lose weight, I used because I was curious how much I was eating regularly (and I was overeating when I ate). I was eating some where around 1400 calories a day at most.
I am 5'3 and right now eat between 1000 and 1200 cals a day, sometimes more sometimes less.
I am however, never starving myself, I am by nature, just not a big eater.0 -
I'm 4'11" and most days I'm a little under 1200. And I feel like I'm doing fine.0
-
I'm 4'11" and most days I'm a little under 1200. And I feel like I'm doing fine.
ehhh---I'd reconsider. Also 4'11 and ate ~2500 calories today..maintaining yes but my point is that starvation isn't necessary.0 -
The thought is that if you have less than 50 pounds to lose that you're likely under 200 pounds already--the safe rate is generally 1% of your bodyweight. So if you're under 200 pounds you cannot "safely" lose 2 pounds a week if you go by the 1% standard.
Yes you can! Depending on your height and especially you shape, even the doctors and nutritionists say 2lbs a week is healthy. I was a size 20 at 200lbs and I'm sorry but saying you cannot lose 2lbs a week "safely" is not only inaccurate but scaremongering. Again not saying that it will necessarily happen that way and some weeks you'll lose 0.5lbs to 2lbs but saying it is not safe is just wrong.0 -
I think there is something MFP can do here to help. If I press the button to complete the day's entry at 1000 calories it gives a much lower projected weight in 5 weeks eg "If every day was like today you'd weigh 209 pounds". When I put the rest of my calories in - up to 1700 - the projected weight is much higher. This makes it look like the less calories you eat the more you will lose.
Of course there is the warning about dipping below 1200 cals but I think they should address this because the BIG part of the message is eat less cals and lose more weight.
Does that make sense? Or only to me....... 0 -
I think there is something MFP can do here to help. If I press the button to complete the day's entry at 1000 calories it gives a much lower projected weight in 5 weeks eg "If every day was like today you'd weigh 209 pounds". When I put the rest of my calories in - up to 1700 - the projected weight is much higher. This makes it look like the less calories you eat the more you will lose.
Of course there is the warning about dipping below 1200 cals but I think they should address this because the BIG part of the message is eat less cals and lose more weight.
Does that make sense? Or only to me.......
I tend to ignore it, as it keeps telling me I will gain weight in 5 weeks, when I am losing around 1.5lb per week.
it doesn't like 4ft 11 ladies eating 1600+ calories.0 -
If the "If every day were like today" message is something that motivates/frustrates you, make sure to change your activity level rather than just increasing your calorie goal.
At sedentary, I'd get about under 1600 calories, at lightly active, around 1700, and as active (where I have it set now) I'm at 1840. I'm not *that* active, but it's what it takes to get me the right amount of base calories.0 -
If the "If every day were like today" message is something that motivates/frustrates you, make sure to change your activity level rather than just increasing your calorie goal.
At sedentary, I'd get about under 1600 calories, at lightly active, around 1700, and as active (where I have it set now) I'm at 1840. I'm not *that* active, but it's what it takes to get me the right amount of base calories.
I agree about "If every day were like today". Today, I just turned the page for a new week in my little planner. This is where I first started jotting down the weight 5 weeks ahead, just to see. Well, I'm about 3 pounds off. I did this a few times a week, but maybe I should stop. I am definitely not losing that fast. :sad:0 -
Bump0
-
Um.. my TDEE is barely over 1500 calories because I'm short. I pretty much have to eat <1200 calories to lose weight.0
-
Um.. my TDEE is barely over 1500 calories because I'm short. I pretty much have to eat <1200 calories to lose weight.
Well, considering your goal weight is 90 pounds I'd say that losing weight altogether is something that you shouldn't embark on but i guess everyone has their goals.0 -
I lost all the weight I wanted eating 1200 calories and not exercising. I now eat 1400 to maintain. I also have a food scale so I know my portion size is correct. I think a lot of people are eating more calories then they think.
1400 should never be maintenance. The average female needs close to 2000. My TDEE is around 2200 and I only work out about 5 days a week. I'm short too, only 5'3" and a 136 pounds. 1400 is my cutting calories level (plus another 400 usually from the exercise calories I eat)... and I'm losing weight just fine (and I must say, more of it is fat and not muscle). To be honest, I have many days where I exceed 1800 (and sometimes without exercise) and I still lose weight.
Maybe I'm lucky... but I mostly think it is because I have kept my metabolism at a high from making sure I eat enough.0 -
i am using MFP as a diary only. i have set my calorie allowance manually. i am using 200 calories for my milk allowance so have set MFP at 1000 calories for the next 2 weeks (1000 + 200 milk = 1200) i am going to change this in week 3-4 of my diet to 1200 + 200 milk allowance. i like MFP for the diary purpose as I hate writing down on paper!0
-
Um.. my TDEE is barely over 1500 calories because I'm short. I pretty much have to eat <1200 calories to lose weight.
At sedentary it is. But if you do any type of exercise it gets bigger and bigger (even light exercise is 1792)
Hitting 90lbs at 5'1 would also have you underweight (even taking your race into account)
My opinion on the whole matter is, yes I could lose weight on 1200. But why do that when I can lose it on 1600? I was one of those 'huge, obese' people when I started (well actually still am ) and I don't need to starve myself to lose weight. It's ten months tomorrow for me. I'm only experiencing my first real plateau right now and a part of that is because I'm weight lifting. I might lose quicker on 1200 calories (and that's no guarantee) but why put myself through that? I like the fact that when I go to manitanence I can eat a lot more than I'm currently eating. Who seriously wants to eat like a three year old for their entire lives?
I would like to point one thing out. There are a number of posters who are saying 'however many years ago I lost weight eating at 1200 calories, see it works!' If you've put the weight back on because you've not stuck to it long term, then no it doesn't work. Try something that you can do for the rest of your life!0 -
Agreed. Especially as you age. 5'1'3/4 and midlife.....metabolism slows down even more at this age.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions