1200 calorie diet? But what about if you exercise?

tmauck4472

Depends on if your hungry or not, Why would you eat if your not hungry? Kinda silly if you ask me. But then again I happen to not believe in "starvation mode" Reality is it's just a plateau and everyone has them. If you've stopped losing all together then your maintaining and you need to do things differently.

If your hungry eat back some of your calories or until you no longer feel empty. I eat some of mine back sometimes but I'm not always hungry and may just crave a snack so then I get my snack. Sometimes I don't want anything so I don't have anything. Just be smart about it. I'm also NOT of the mind set that you have to eat back ALL your calories and look I'm losing with no issues and I'm not starving, no matter what some may think.

Prahasaurus

In before someone brings up "starvation mode"...

--P

Why? Starvation mode exists and it can make you gain weight, so it is important to bring up, even if it is mentioned 10000000 times.

Starvation mode may exist, but 99.9% of the people who use the term have not experienced it.

And it can't make you *gain* weight. If that were the case, nobody would ever die from starvation, would they?


--P

charl_hcafc

When I started using MFP I thought to myself there is no way I would stick to 1200. That amount is far too generic and it depends on the individual as to how many calories they need anyway.
I decided to limit myself to 1350 calories.. however in the last day or two I've been learning about BMR and TDEE's on here. I calculated my BMR as 1304.45, which isn't much less than what I'm netting.. I class myself as lightly active so using an equation tool on the internet, I multiplied the BMR by 1.375. This makes my TDEE 1793.62..
I understand that I'm supposed to aim between these two amounts, so 1550 or thereabouts. What I don't understand is whether 1550 calories includes exercise recorded or not? Should I be netting 1550, or eating 1550?
If that's my net amount, I may eat say 1650 in one day, and burn off 300 doing exercise making my net 1350. So should I then eat my calories burned? To me that's as if I'm wiping out my efforts of exercise.
I'm really quite confused! :frown:

Hendrix7

When I started using MFP I thought to myself there is no way I would stick to 1200. That amount is far too generic and it depends on the individual as to how many calories they need anyway.
I decided to limit myself to 1350 calories.. however in the last day or two I've been learning about BMR and TDEE's on here. I calculated my BMR as 1304.45, which isn't much less than what I'm netting.. I class myself as lightly active so using an equation tool on the internet, I multiplied the BMR by 1.375. This makes my TDEE 1793.62..
I understand that I'm supposed to aim between these two amounts, so 1550 or thereabouts. What I don't understand is whether 1550 calories includes exercise recorded or not? Should I be netting 1550, or eating 1550?
If that's my net amount, I may eat say 1650 in one day, and burn off 300 doing exercise making my net 1350. So should I then eat my calories burned? To me that's as if I'm wiping out my efforts of exercise.
I'm really quite confused! :frown:

If you are going the TDEE route there is none of this "eating back" and all that stuff.....this has already been figured into your calculations.

You eat 1550 every day....do it for 2 weeks, if necessary adjust the calories by 50 or so.....make your life simple!

charl_hcafc

Thank you for that! Looking forward to eating a little more
May increase my calories by 50 or so each week, I don't think an immediate sudden increase would do me any favours.

tmauck4472

In before someone brings up "starvation mode"...

--P

Why? Starvation mode exists and it can make you gain weight, so it is important to bring up, even if it is mentioned 10000000 times.

Starvation mode may exist, but 99.9% of the people who use the term have not experienced it.

And it can't make you *gain* weight. If that were the case, nobody would ever die from starvation, would they?


--P

I agree, only third world countries will experiance it, if that is indeed what's going on with them. Don't believe anyone here on this site will every experiance it or even know anyone who's experianced it. It's a term someone decided to use freely in place of the word plateau.

lwagnitz

In before someone brings up "starvation mode"...

--P

Why? Starvation mode exists and it can make you gain weight, so it is important to bring up, even if it is mentioned 10000000 times.

Starvation mode may exist, but 99.9% of the people who use the term have not experienced it.

And it can't make you *gain* weight. If that were the case, nobody would ever die from starvation, would they?


--P

I agree, only third world countries will experiance it, if that is indeed what's going on with them. Don't believe anyone here on this site will every experiance it or even know anyone who's experianced it. It's a term someone decided to use freely in place of the word plateau.

I beg to differ. Two years ago I tried a diet and wasn't eating enough and working out like crazy. I was only eating 900 calories a day, if that, but I didn't realize it. I would lose 10 pounds, gain 13, lose 9, gain 15. I didn't get what I was doing wrong. So, I went to my doctor to get checked for a thyroid condition. I was feeling lethargic, sick all the time, just wanted to sleep. I felt miserable. So, she sent me to a dietitian. She told me to keep a diary of what I ate everyday; I did. She told me I wasn't eating enough and that I did in fact put my body in starvation mode. This means that your body things you are starving, so when you eat things, even healthy things, your body instantly turns it into fat to store because it thinks that you aren't going to get food for a long time. This way, your body starts eating away at your muscle, and packs on the fat instead. That is why people in third world countries have bloated bellies.

"Starvation mode" is in fact real. And it happens to people who AREN'T just in third world countries. I have experienced it first hand. It took my body almost 6 months for my body to get back to it's regular metabolical rate, so I kept packing on pounds that long.

Hendrix7

Sigh,

This starvation mode discussion again,

Call it whatever you like, but severe calorie deficits combined with high stress (be that through exercise/life/work/whatever) will raise cortisol levels and put you in a place where your body is not eager to get rid of its fat reserves.If you want to call that "starvation mode" feel free to do so.

If you are saying that this is a complete myth, then why do we not all eat 500 calories per day and lose 10lbs per week instead, or maybe 200 per day and lose 15lbs per week ....... because your body does not work like that.

Everyone needs to read this

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

stupidloser

The more frequent the eating pattern, the lower the body fat and the higher the muscle mass. Instead of eating all your calories in 3 meals(breakfast, lunch, dinner), divide the same amount of calories over 6 meals(breakfast, snack1,lunch,snack2,dinner,snack3). This will keep your energy balaced. Avoid large peaks and valleys throughout your day. When you eat a large meal, your body will not utilize all that energy and store it as fat. When you go for more than 3 hours without eating your body will breakdown your lean mass and use it for energy thereby reducing your metabolism even more. A steady stream of energy is ideal.

Bobby_Clerici

Thanks for posting this.
You have proven yet again that starvation diets don't work.
Heed the advice you have been given.
Eat back your exercise calories. Good Luck :flowerforyou:

Hendrix7

The more frequent the eating pattern, the lower the body fat and the higher the muscle mass. Instead of eating all your calories in 3 meals(breakfast, lunch, dinner), divide the same amount of calories over 6 meals(breakfast, snack1,lunch,snack2,dinner,snack3). This will keep your energy balaced. Avoid large peaks and valleys throughout your day.

wrong wrong wrong wrong.

This has been shown to be incorrect in multiple studies.

Meal frequency has ZERO effect on body composition, this is a total myth, total calories and macros are all that matters.

google saerch
Alan Aragon Meal frequency
intermittent fasting

EAt however fits your lifestyle best, if that happens to be 5 times per day then great, but this does not give you some kind of metabolic advantage.

Prahasaurus

Sigh,

This starvation mode discussion again,

Call it whatever you like, but severe calorie deficits combined with high stress (be that through exercise/life/work/whatever) will raise cortisol levels and put you in a place where your body is not eager to get rid of its fat reserves.If you want to call that "starvation mode" feel free to do so.

If you are saying that this is a complete myth, then why do we not all eat 500 calories per day and lose 10lbs per week instead, or maybe 200 per day and lose 15lbs per week ....... because your body does not work like that.

Everyone needs to read this

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I didn't say it's a myth. I said 99.9% of the people who claim to be in starvation mode are not, or were not.

This would take prolonged periods of massive calorie deficits. You would also have to be at very low body fat levels, 10% for women, 5% for men. Most of the people claiming to have worked their way through a "plateau" (whatever that is) or ate more to get out of "starvation mode" were still quite overweight at the time, no where near 10% body fat.

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

Also, your example of eating 500 calories a day is in no way close to the examples I typically read here, where, for example, an overweight woman is eating 1100 calories a day and being berated for throwing herself into starvation mode, which is ridiculous.

I'm not saying people shouldn't eat more at times, especially if they are too tired to exercise properly. Or if they are trying to lose too much weight too fast, which may be detrimental long term.

I'm saying that the vast majority of people here claiming to have been in starvation mode are incorrect. And I'm also saying that people need to be careful before upping their daily calorie intake, thinking eating more is a panacea. Because if those additional calories are not accompanied by increased exercise, they will gain weight.

--P

Hendrix7

Sigh,

This starvation mode discussion again,

Call it whatever you like, but severe calorie deficits combined with high stress (be that through exercise/life/work/whatever) will raise cortisol levels and put you in a place where your body is not eager to get rid of its fat reserves.If you want to call that "starvation mode" feel free to do so.

If you are saying that this is a complete myth, then why do we not all eat 500 calories per day and lose 10lbs per week instead, or maybe 200 per day and lose 15lbs per week ....... because your body does not work like that.

Everyone needs to read this

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I didn't say it's a myth. I said 99.9% of the people who claim to be in starvation mode are not, or were not.

This would take prolonged periods of massive calorie deficits. You would also have to be at very low body fat levels, 10% for women, 5% for men. Most of the people claiming to have worked their way through a "plateau" (whatever that is) or ate more to get out of "starvation mode" were still quite overweight at the time, no where near 10% body fat.

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

Also, your example of eating 500 calories a day is in no way close to the examples I typically read here, where, for example, an overweight woman is eating 1100 calories a day and being berated for throwing herself into starvation mode, which is ridiculous.

I'm not saying people shouldn't eat more at times, especially if they are too tired to exercise properly. Or if they are trying to lose too much weight too fast, which may be detrimental long term.

I'm saying that the vast majority of people here claiming to have been in starvation mode are incorrect. And I'm also saying that people need to be careful before upping their daily calorie intake, thinking eating more is a panacea. Because if those additional calories are not accompanied by increased exercise, they will gain weight.

--P

The 500 calorie per day example was cleary exaggerated for me to illustrate my point, I am not suggesting that members here are actually doing that. Go back and read the post again. I was merely pointing out that there is an overwhelming attitude here that less is always better, which is not the case.

mcarter99

Sigh,

This starvation mode discussion again,

Call it whatever you like, but severe calorie deficits combined with high stress (be that through exercise/life/work/whatever) will raise cortisol levels and put you in a place where your body is not eager to get rid of its fat reserves.If you want to call that "starvation mode" feel free to do so.

If you are saying that this is a complete myth, then why do we not all eat 500 calories per day and lose 10lbs per week instead, or maybe 200 per day and lose 15lbs per week ....... because your body does not work like that.

Everyone needs to read this

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

What is a 'big deficit', though? The example in that article was like TDEE minus 80%.

I just read an article where Tom Venuto says TDEE minus up to 30% is fine, and some people might need to go higher.

Prahasaurus

The 500 calorie per day example was cleary exaggerated for me to illustrate my point, I am not suggesting that members here are actually doing that. Go back and read the post again. I was merely pointing out that there is an overwhelming attitude here that less is always better, which is not the case.

Of course more calories can be beneficial in certain circumstances. Probably fewer circumstances than people want to believe, but still, I agree it can be helpful.

My point, which you seemed to dispute, was that the vast majority of people here claiming to have been in "starvation mode" were not in starvation mode. To be in starvation mode, you need two things: (1) run massive calorie deficits for a prolong period of time; and (2) already have low body fat (10% for women, 5% for men).

Every example I read here is someone who is a long way from 10% body fat! They are still overweight, their weight loss has slowed, they're frustrated, and they start claiming to be in "starvation mode". Or, rather, others here try to tell them they are in starvation mode, or soon will be. Which is ridiculous.

--P

jsapninz

I don't know your "stats" as in how much you weigh currently, how much exercise you are doing etc. But I would have to say that 1,200 is too low.

Just arbitrarily saying that 1200 is to low is idiotic. 1200 goal is common for shorter women who aren't way overweight. :grumble:

well just to play devils advocate.....a 5"2 30 year old woman who weighs 120lbs (which would be normal weight range) would have a bmr of 1327. Considering that most people here are going to be overweight her statement is not totally idiotic, in fact it's probably correct for the majority of people here.

Yes, and if that woman wanted to lose weight at any reasonable pace she would probably have to eat below her bmr. (CUE GASPS NOW) because when you are within your healthy range and sedentary you don't have much wiggle room above your BMR.:noway:

Bexter11488

.

Bexter11488

Of course more calories can be beneficial in certain circumstances. Probably fewer circumstances than people want to believe, but still, I agree it can be helpful.

My point, which you seemed to dispute, was that the vast majority of people here claiming to have been in "starvation mode" were not in starvation mode. To be in starvation mode, you need two things: (1) run massive calorie deficits for a prolong period of time; and (2) already have low body fat (10% for women, 5% for men).

Every example I read here is someone who is a long way from 10% body fat! They are still overweight, their weight loss has slowed, they're frustrated, and they start claiming to be in "starvation mode". Or, rather, others here try to tell them they are in starvation mode, or soon will be. Which is ridiculous.

--P

I agree with you.

lwagnitz

The more frequent the eating pattern, the lower the body fat and the higher the muscle mass. Instead of eating all your calories in 3 meals(breakfast, lunch, dinner), divide the same amount of calories over 6 meals(breakfast, snack1,lunch,snack2,dinner,snack3). This will keep your energy balaced. Avoid large peaks and valleys throughout your day.

wrong wrong wrong wrong.

This has been shown to be incorrect in multiple studies.

Meal frequency has ZERO effect on body composition, this is a total myth, total calories and macros are all that matters.

google saerch
Alan Aragon Meal frequency
intermittent fasting

EAt however fits your lifestyle best, if that happens to be 5 times per day then great, but this does not give you some kind of metabolic advantage.

This method actually sustains your metabolism at a relatively balanced level throughout the day. That's why it is a myth that you shouldn't eat late at night. The only reason that it makes you fat is because people usually eat bad food. Eating smaller meals more frequently throughout the day helps rev up your metabolism so you are using all the food that you ate as energy instead of it just sitting there being used for ALMOST nothing. This is straight from a dietitian's mouth.

half_moon

-________________________-