Who has been able to lose with 1200 calorie diet?

a057085

I'm sorry but how the heck do you loose 35 pounds in 1 1/2 months.?

markyholton

I've lost 6kg in 24 days on 1200kcal a day net. I'm a (pretty good) racing cyclist, but like a lot of cyclists I'm more than capable of eating more than I burn off. So progressively over the last few years my weight has crept up, and I've always found it very difficult to keep on top of it. So a few weeks ago I decided to blitz it using MFP. Also want to swap over to Ironman so want to be as light as possible to help ease my muscles into running training, and have also started swimming but I want to avoid putting on any upper body muscle if possible. Started at 75kg (BMI 23.6), with a goal of 68kg (BMI 21.4).

To be fair I lost the first 3kg in 3 days! I have large glycogen stores so my body very rapidly burnt those off. But I then stabilised for a while before the weight started dropping off very consistently at 1kg a week. And it's definitely primarily fat that I've lost (very obvious from pinch tests/appearance/definition of muscles etc.).

I have been scared of 1200kcal days, so contrary to the normal way I train I haven't had a single day without some exercise (300kcal plus). But in the first week I did a couple of days where my net kcals were less than 1200, and I felt horrible the next day. So subsequently I've made sure I've hit 1200 net pretty much exactly - as a number for me it's doable, but on the limit. In fact it's taught me something - I realise now I frequently wasn't replacing enough calories on long training days (2-4000kcal exercise), which meant that on subsequent days I felt horrible (not recovering) and usually ended up binging a day or so later as a result. So sometimes now (even running the deficit) I have to eat a bit of a food mountain to get to 1200kcal net, but feel so much better for doing it the next day.

I suspect that the exercise has significantly helped me, allowing me to eat a largish volume of foods most days, and keeping my metabolic rate high. The deficit has limited my ability to train intensely quite drastically, however I've been able to do some very good steady training, and in fact the rate I can burn fat for fuel in exercise seems to have gone up considerably and my glycogen stores seem higher than after the first week of dieting. My fitness is good, just top end race speed lacking while running the deficit. Cruised around 83miles in less than 4hrs on Saturday and felt good and steady, so my body is definitely not in starvation mode, it's coping fine.

I'm nearly at my 68kg goal, at which point I will slowly step up calories (realise I will need to stabilise for a while) to my typical expenditure of ~2030 + replacing any exercise kcals. Once running a lower (or no) deficit I will start taking rest days again. One week of dieting to go, then a week stabilising, then I'll be off to the Alps for a weeks training, flying up the Cols 10% lighter! and maybe a little cheese and red wine

Definitely going to keep using MFP to maintain. Takes all the guess work out, and this has shown me that eating enough is just as important as not eating too much.

So for me 1200 net has been very successful (as a fairly light guy to start with). But I've hit it pretty much exactly every day, and total kcals have been 1500-4000/day due to lots of aerobic exercise.

lemurcat12

There was a recent discussion on something similar. These were some studies posted that showed higher deficits usually lead to better weight loss maintenance.

Sidesteel posted this one-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

This is one that is pretty convincing to me-
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

Thanks. I will read them.

heybales

I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out.

So when you burn less because of moving less mass around, where exactly are you going to lower your eating goal to in order to continue to lose weight?

Or will you just increase exercise to accomplish that?

And what happens when you get sick, or go on vacation and eat more/move less, prepared to just gain fat weight?

Your total daily burn goes down about 75 calories for every 10 lbs lost.

So that means your daily burn would drop about 525 calories at goal weight.

So looking at last few weeks to reach goal weight, can you drop 525 calories from your current diet, or leave that alone and exercise about 525 more calories worth on average daily? Or a combo to obtain that same amount?

That's scary low, or a whole lot of exercise.

And that means maintenance will be 525 lower too. Ready for maintenance that low, that can be adhered to for rest of life?

I don't follow your math. It sounds like you're assuming that near goal weight she'll be near her TDEE at 1200 calories. More likely, her starting TDEE was maybe 2500 and her ending (525 less) is 1975. So at 1200, she'll still be losing fine. Or even if her starting to ending was 2200 to 1675, still plenty of deficit at 1200.

Her TDEE is going to go down based on lower weight whether she loses it fast or slowly. Her LBM will change in either scenario. There is plenty of evidence that there is no metabolic damage or LBM hyper-reduction from 1200 calorie diets. I know you choose to believe the few studies that found that there is but you should at least recognize that their dieting choice is a valid choice, not 'uninformed' and not dangerous.

I'm not following either, and I'd like to.

Based on the Mifflin-St Jeor calculation, assuming the same level of exercise I'm doing now (which I was not doing then), my TDEE when I started would have been about 2700, and my TDEE at goal will be more like 2000. Now it's supposed to be 2300, which is generally consistent with my own calculations, possibly even low.

Obviously it will get harder to lose at a 1.5-2 lb rate as I get closer to goal (I'm resigned to that), but isn't that consistent with the recommendation that you lose more slowly? So far I've maintained the same rate while actually increasing my calories--when I started I couldn't work out that hard and ate about 1200-1300 calories on average, now I work out more and eat more. I'm assuming as this goes on I'll maintain my current workout rate and see my loss slow somewhat. The one time before that I lost significant weight (and maintained it for about 5 years before starting to regain, so I'm skeptical about an argument that I regained due to lowered metabolism due to the weight loss rather than the other factors I am aware of), I lost at about 1.5-2 lbs per week until I was about 20-25 from goal and then slower/stalled a bit which I got over by upping exercise. I did not strength train but mostly ran a lot, and that's something I'm trying to correct this time.

I would like to avoid lowering my metabolism to the extent possible, of course, so am interested in whether losing at a lower rate for a longer period of time actually accomplishes that. So far I haven't seen sources that indicate there's a lot of difference depending on rate of loss, but I would like to read those that exist, as I haven't been doing all the research. Currently I'm aware that (a) of course one's BMR and TDEE go down, all else equal, as one loses weight and more if one loses more LBM, and (b) that studies indicate that there's a negative effect beyond this from losing substantial weight in general, presumably from extended time on a deficit, but that it's counteracted somewhat by exercise.

This is assuming the only thing you are losing is fat, and unless you are doing strength training, that's not a fact, you are losing muscle mass. But maybe you are.

Eating 1200 gross. (assume accurate logging)
Losing 1.5 - 2 lb weekly, or implied deficit 750 - 1000 calories.
TDEE is 1950 - 2200 (1200 + 750 & 1000) with all that exercise that is done now. 55 - 62 % deficit (that even sound good?)
Don't do that level of exercise, TDEE is less by how much you figure?

TDEE goes down by 525 by goal weight, if you keep your workout burn the same. Perhaps you have workouts that will increase correspondingly. Perhaps not.

1950 to 2200 - 525 = 1425 to 1675 TDEE with same level of exercise by the time you reach goal weight.

So yes, if you even attempted 750 or 1000 cal deficit, I'd hope that would look ridiculously low.
So indeed, 250 deficit by the end will keep you at 1200 - 1400 eating level.
But would you rather chose a smaller reasonable deficit, or have the body force it on you. Guess which one has better response to exercise.

But you must be doing the same level of exercise as now to have that daily maintenance on average. Is that sustainable?
What happens when you get sick and can't workout, how low must you eat now not to gain fat?
What happens on vacation with eating more and less exercise?

Study with what body is willing to do with even a 25% deficit. But at least a way out. Also shows it's not a required way of doing it.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

Different study, same results, more of the why it happens. They have much more negative view of long-term effect even though they didn't test for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A

Specific effects for women, but the negative impact to exercise applies to both genders, though males have hormone advantage so not as bad effect.
http://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-female-athlete-triad-not-as-fun-as-it-sounds/

And to other studies - indeed, Dr supervised or research study supervised VLCD can have great success. With folks in studies anyway that were only allowed to join that had no health issues except weight, no weight loss attempts, full burning metabolism going in to the study.

I'm not sure why so many think 1200 is informed diet eating level - unless tabloid headlines and blindly following MFP recommendation based on user choices is informed.

Enough time in the forums, you catch many that are totally informed about 1200 calorie diets, they've done it each of the last 5 times they lost weight before gaining it back, so they feel they are very knowledgeable about it.
Being able to drive a car takes experience, not knowledge of why it works.

If you are informed, and glad to see you doing the math, keep it up. Suggest getting Bodpod early and later to see how much LBM was lost. Some will, but big amounts will include muscle mass as expected.

WalkingAlong

Your sources are skepchick, youtube, your blog and 'time in the forums'? I do see an actual study in the blog post, though. The first table in the results section seems to show the only significant effect was found at month 6 for the 890 calorie/day dieters. That's not really the same.

Do you notice too in those results how the LBM loss is about the same for the '12% deficit + exercise' vs. '25% deficit' dieters?

Your math is not correct, also. You can't back into her past TDEE by adding 750-1000 to 1200. For one, she's lost more than 1.5-2 lbs/week. More like 3. Which would be adding 1500, so 1200+1500=2700 potential TDEE now (higher if not perfectly logging). Subtract 525 gives her still over 2100 TDEE.

No matter what speed someone loses at, their BMR will go down and their LBM will go down.

The rest, I can't make much sense of. :drinker:

anhpazam

How long did it take you to loose the 8 pounds?

heybales

Your sources are skepchick, youtube, your blog and 'time in the forums'? I do see an actual study in the blog post, though. The first table in the results section seems to show the only significant effect was found at month 6 for the 890 calorie/day dieters. That's not really the same.

Do you notice too in those results how the LBM loss is about the same for the '12% deficit + exercise' vs. '25% deficit' dieters?

Your math is not correct, also. You can't back into her past TDEE by adding 750-1000 to 1200. For one, she's lost more than 1.5-2 lbs/week. More like 3. Which would be adding 1500, so 1200+1500=2700 potential TDEE now (higher if not perfectly logging). Subtract 525 gives her still over 2100 TDEE.

No matter what speed someone loses at, their BMR will go down and their LBM will go down.

The rest, I can't make much sense of. :drinker:

At least you looked at one link. Kind of. 3 months was max effect BTW, the VLCD group had started to recover after 3 months of eating at maintenance. The other group had recovered a tad still eating in deficit.
Yes - LBM loss about the same - RMR per LBM maintained by the exercise group though despite that.

Youtube is just a visual/audio blog with study references basically - like reading McDonald, Aragon, Schoenfeld - who talk and reference studies and make application - what's the difference when it's the actual study researchers themselves talking - they aren't a good reference, the actual scientist that discover leptin?

References in the other link too.

She said currently losing 1.5 - 2 lbs weekly, I'm guessing the range is because that is over several weeks. Currently eating 1200. Doesn't matter what it was. Actually, you prove the point exactly, weight has gone down TDEE has gone down, 1200 + current observed deficit from current weight loss still applies.
The 525 is based on current weight though, not past weight.

Perhaps you were reading the lines about last time weight was lost.

WalkingAlong

I was reading the only post in the last few days from the poster you directly quoted.

"I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out. "

I don't plan to watch video blogs from people who verbally reference actual studies, then find the studies, read them and refute the bloggers' interpretation. I've read too many books to fear they're all missing the actual evidence and it's hidden in blogs and internet forums.

I'm fine with people choosing not to diet at 1200 or 1500 or whatever level. I just wish the "1200 is dangerous" battle cry would stop. At least the old "it's dangerous to eat below your BMR" claim of yours has been shot down enough times that you rarely see it anymore, though.

heybales

I don't plan to watch video blogs from people who verbally reference actual studies, then find the studies, read them and refute the bloggers' interpretation. I've read too many books to fear they're all missing the actual evidence and it's hidden in blogs and internet forums.

You misunderstood my comment.

The video is the actual research scientists talking about their own study.

I was merely equating it to the same way bloggers, you likely have no problem reading, do discuss a study or several and reference them.
Because you seemed to dismiss a video as worthless merely because it's a video and you couldn't read it.

And I'd still suggest that unless you have the same lab study ability to have yourself tested for issues, drawing a line in the sand at an arbitrarily number of BMR is not a bad idea at all, but at least use BMR based on BF%, and best test you can get for that then. Everyone agrees there is obviously a point where too low is not healthy on the body, so why start at bottom of barrel when it's just as easy to start high and work your way down anyway.

lemurcat12

Edit: sorry if this is improper, but no one wants a long boring discussion of my stats, and it just seemed too self-indulgent.

This is assuming the only thing you are losing is fat, and unless you are doing strength training, that's not a fact, you are losing muscle mass. But maybe you are.

I am aware of that, and am doing strength training, although not as much as I should be, since I haven't found a program that is totally working for me yet. For what it's worth, my TDEE does not seem to have gone down disproportionately in that it's what it should be according to the calculations.[/quote]

Eating 1200 gross. (assume accurate logging)
Losing 1.5 - 2 lb weekly, or implied deficit 750 - 1000 calories.
TDEE is 1950 - 2200 (1200 + 750 & 1000) with all that exercise that is done now. 55 - 62 % deficit (that even sound good?)
Don't do that level of exercise, TDEE is less by how much you figure?

TDEE goes down by 525 by goal weight, if you keep your workout burn the same. Perhaps you have workouts that will increase correspondingly. Perhaps not.

1950 to 2200 - 525 = 1425 to 1675 TDEE with same level of exercise by the time you reach goal weight.

So yes, if you even attempted 750 or 1000 cal deficit, I'd hope that would look ridiculously low.
So indeed, 250 deficit by the end will keep you at 1200 - 1400 eating level.
But would you rather chose a smaller reasonable deficit, or have the body force it on you. Guess which one has better response to exercise.

Where are you getting these numbers? They are different than those I gave in my post. Edit: I see now that you were conflating me and another poster. I don't currently eat 1200 gross, although I started there (set my goal at 1250, to be specific) and think that was a reasonable decision.

But you must be doing the same level of exercise as now to have that daily maintenance on average. Is that sustainable?

Desirable. I enjoy it. I'm happier as a more active person. Yes, I know sometimes I won't exercise as much or won't be able to, but that's life. At my height and age (and the fact I'm hopefully going to get older), my TDEE is never going to be great without good amounts of exercise.

Study with what body is willing to do with even a 25% deficit. But at least a way out. Also shows it's not a required way of doing it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

This is what I'd like to focus on. I read this (your summary--still need to dig into the study for myself) and found it really interesting, but it compares having a 25% deficit without exercise to building that deficit from cutting plus exercise. The latter is what I'm doing, but with a higher overall deficit in an effort to maintain a 750-1000 deficit overall, through exercise plus calorie reduction.

If I were to use the TDEE method and cut no more than 25%--or no more than 20%, as is often recommended--even at my fattest, when I was well into the obese category, that would have meant that I could have lost LESS than a lb a week at best, which really doesn't make much sense to me. Frankly, it doesn't make sense to me even now, at my current weight, in that I still have a ways to go. I'm not physically hard on myself by nature, so you can bet if I felt hungry or too tired I would be eating more, but I feel good.

I'm not sure why so many think 1200 is informed diet eating level - unless tabloid headlines and blindly following MFP recommendation based on user choices is informed.

Like I said, I don't do 1200 gross, but why I did it and why I eat the calories I do now is that I know my TDEE. I'd like for it to be higher, but I can't get younger or taller. Actually, though, I was shocked when I saw the 1200 recommendation (I never counted calories before and only dieted one other time, so I guess I was out of the loop and didn't know that was a common number given), and checked and rechecked with the calculators to see if it was really right and then pushed to get my exercise up. I assumed it would be horrible, but it wasn't, really, just not something I could do consistently for a year without getting bored and non-compliant since I like food.

lemurcat12

She said currently losing 1.5 - 2 lbs weekly, I'm guessing the range is because that is over several weeks. Currently eating 1200. Doesn't matter what it was. Actually, you prove the point exactly, weight has gone down TDEE has gone down, 1200 + current observed deficit from current weight loss still applies.
The 525 is based on current weight though, not past weight.

Perhaps you were reading the lines about last time weight was lost.

Now I'm confused. I jumped in to say I didn't understand the post to the first poster who gave stats, but she and I are different people.

MyNameIsBeki

At first MFP had me on 1200 calories a day but I found that I was always hungry! I changed my goals and now I'm on 1400 calories a day but I still don't stick to that. I have a an active job and burn around 600+ calories a day so I usually eat around 1500-2000 a day and I'm still losing weight!

Lian98

Well, I think it depends on the person. For example, I am fine on a 1200 calorie limit, I'm not hungry but I do eat. You have to get used to eating lots of high fiber/volume foods. But then again I have a small frame and don't do crazy amounts of exercise everyday. Obviously not everyone is like me and so if you don't feel comfortable with a 1200 calorie limit just set another goal. It doesn't change the fact that you are taking care of your health and you will still see a difference on the scale and how your clothes fit.

pita7317

I averaged my BMR/TDEE and from that number decided to set my daily goal at 1350. On occasion, I go over that. But not often.
Getting close to goal and losing approx .5 lb a week.

amandzor

I"m down 30lbs at the mom, but lose 2-3 lbs a week eating 1200 cals, and exercising for an hour or so 4-5x a week.

SouthGaPeach

At 1200, I was starving constantly and wasn't losing consistently. At 1400, I am doing much better.

SuzeyFitness

bump

richcup1989

I have been on a 1200 calorie diet for a month and a half, I also don't eat back my exercise calories, usually at the end of the day I end up with an excess of 500 calories with my 350 put back that I burn walking 3.5 miles daily. I have lost 20lbs since the first of June.

crystalblair2355

I have been on this diet for 36 days now and I have only lost 1lb. I'm getting discouraged I only have 20 lbs to lose. How long should I give this diet a chance to work.

Did you take your measurements as well at the beginning?? if you did remember not to just focus on the amount of weight but reward yourself of any inches lost
dont focus on the numbers focus on how you feel in your jeans and learn to EAT CLEAN!!

RebelMiltonMom

I go with 1200/day but actually shoot for 8500/week or under. Some days I eat significantly over and some under so the weekly calculation works for me. I try to anticipate an over eating day and cut some calories the few days before and after. It works for me but it's not a real popular idea around here. Also, I'm not "dieting," I eat what the rest of the family eats...smaller portions, skipping obviously horrible items, and making little adjustments (ie; skip buns, either potato salad or macaroni NOT both, a beer or ice cream NOT both, etc...). To me this makes it a lot easier to lose if I'm not trying to be a separate entity and also doesn't focus anyone else on my diet.