1200 is not difficult.
Replies
-
AMEN SISTA!!!OP, I completely agree with you. 1200 isnt hard for me to do either. Just depends on what I choose to eat as there isnt much wiggle room. But I often eat 1200 and never feel hungry. And i don't think your post was offensive or condescending at all. Not sure why people get so upset by people who eat 1200. I dont care how many calories people eat. Do what works for you. The end.0
-
>>Strength gains are not muscle gains. Muscle appearing "firmer" is not muscle gains either. That's the muscle tissue retaining >>more water for repair.
So if I am able to squat or curl more weight it does not mean that I gained muscle?
Yes, that is correct. Strength gain does not necessarily mean muscle gain. Hoping someone will chime in who can explain it much better than me.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/426093-does-building-strength-necessarily-mean-building-muscle-mass/
In a nutshell... ^^^this.
Adequate protein is also essential.0 -
I agree. It isn't impossible at all. Sure, when I started it wasn't exactly easy but I adjusted and like you, I sometimes hit a point where I don't even hit 1200 and I'm not starving myself by all means!
Keep doing what you're doing because it seems to be working! Great job!0 -
If i could go down to 1200, and be alright and feel good at that base I would..but I have felt sticking to that was just hard. I was always hungry, not fueled enough for workouts, it just didn't work for me..,most days and this is my NET I would avg between 1600-2000 calories a day. I'm 5"6 198lbs and 2000 calories at most would still be under what I concider "losing range".0
-
I agree, if you plan it out well, it totally works. I dont lose if i go higher. Higher may work for some but 1200 is making a difference for me. WTG on your weight loss0
-
hi :flowerforyou:I agree. It isn't impossible at all. Sure, when I started it wasn't exactly easy but I adjusted and like you, I sometimes hit a point where I don't even hit 1200 and I'm not starving myself by all means!
Keep doing what you're doing because it seems to be working! Great job!0 -
I'm a vegetarian but eat mostly vegan and 1200 isn't hard for me at all.. most of my meals are vegetables which have like no calories, so I always try to OD on them lol I don't really like being at 1200 but it happens. I'm also very short/petite, so whatever works for your body 0
-
everybody is different, ive lost 174pounds i first started on 1800cals then when the weight slowed to half a pound losses 1600, now im on 1400 and it works well for me its enough because i home cook absolutely everything (with odd exceptions if at my inlaws etc) so its easier to make it work but i can see how some people will struggle. today i did way more exercise than usual and burned almost what i ate and i feel drained and hungry now. guess it depends on your routine and everyones body works diff xxx0
-
Nobody is different.
You are not special, unique, or a delicate snowflake.
Personal preferences, ailments, and lifestyles might lend themselves better to one paradigm or another. But the same basic principles apply to everyone:
Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight.
Eat too much less than you burn and a greater portion of that weight lost will be from LBM and can result in health issues
Eating adequate protein supports LBM retention on a deficit and growth on a surplus
Resistance training supports LBM retention on a deficit and growth on a surplus
Weight loss/gain and LBM loss/gain are not linear processes0 -
To use your example, that 400 lb woman is probably somewhere in the 40-60% BF (body fat) range, which means her LEAN MASS is approximately 160-240 lbs.
Interesting idea,
Obese: 194 lbs, FFM 111 lbs, 42 %fat
Morbidly obese: 239 lbs, FFM 122 lbs, 48% fat
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12641641
I'm not seeing 40% BF at 400 lbs somehow0 -
To use your example, that 400 lb woman is probably somewhere in the 40-60% BF (body fat) range, which means her LEAN MASS is approximately 160-240 lbs.
Interesting idea,
Obese: 194 lbs, FFM 111 lbs, 42 %fat
Morbidly obese: 239 lbs, FFM 122 lbs, 48% fat
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12641641
I'm not seeing 40% BF at 400 lbs somehow
The calculators I have used said that I started at 68% body fat (263 lbs) and now 56% body fat (225 lbs). That *does* seem rather high, but how should I now? :ohwell:
The same calculator showed me at 89 pounds LBM in the beginning and now shows 96 pounds LBM. I always hope that it's really higher. There's no way to know for sure, I guess.0 -
I read all 14 pages of this thread.
The 1200 calories and me being 5'2" will probably work for a while.
At 1200 calories may be starving my husband to death. He'll be happy to know, I'm increasing his calorie intake.
0 -
The calculators I have used said that I started at 68% body fat (263 lbs) and now 56% body fat (225 lbs). That *does* seem rather high, but how should I now? :ohwell:
The same calculator showed me at 89 pounds LBM in the beginning and now shows 96 pounds LBM. I always hope that it's really higher. There's no way to know for sure, I guess.
Calculators like that are NOTORIOUSLY bad for folks at extreme ends of the spectrum (short, tall, heavy, light). I weigh 300 lbs. BMI doesn't have a shot in hell of accurately assessing my actual BF%. Don't sweat it.0 -
I think 1200 is reasonable. I have a way to test my muscle mass and body fat whenever I want and that helps to make sure I am not shorting myself on calories.. I am not a tall person and I feel more than happy with 1200 calories and my doctor said that most people who are on the shorter side like me, I am five foot and one half inch can do okay with it as long as they are not doing hard core training.0
-
When I was into losing (before pregnancy), 1200 worked fine for me. That was 1200 net, so if I exercised I ate more. It wasn't that hard and I wasn't starving at all.0
-
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.0
-
Winston Churchill is not impressed.0 -
I was excpecting this.
1200 is not difficult...said no one...ever.
I'm leaving now0 -
I try to pre-plan what I am going to eat the day before. 1200 calories is tough. I'm either 100 calories over or like 60 under. Any thoughts or suggestions on a great meal or day of meals/snacks?0
-
I ate 1200 calories for months, and started at 221 pounds, and I felt 'full' too.
Then suddenly I wasn't losing anymore, and my family was complaining how cranky I was, and how saggy I looked.
Went to the doctor and most of the weight I lost was fat, and muscle.
I had to start strength training to rebuild what my body had eaten to fuel itself.
I now eat almost 1800 calories a day and I lose weight steadily.
I have a *kitten* ton more energy, I am not longer cranky, and I look fit...not skinny.0 -
Since OP keeps pointing out that we're all special snowflakes, and what works for some people, won't work for everyone...
I can only assume the whole point of this thread was to bow down to her awesomeness that "1200 is not difficult"
I ran outta gold stars so I hope this will do:
0 -
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
I agree. There are certain people for whom 1200 is not too few.0 -
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
well said.
This can sum up this whole thread.0 -
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
well said.
This can sum up this whole thread.
But the OP isn't a petite female. She's 220lbs (ish) or 100kgs.0 -
Great job. It is seeming difficult to me. I'm sure that the more I learn, the easier it will get, though. I am 57-year-old, with firbromyalgia and Type 2 diabetes, so it will take adjusting at a slower pace, I think. You are an inspiration!0
-
Nobody is different.
You are not special, unique, or a delicate snowflake.
Personal preferences, ailments, and lifestyles might lend themselves better to one paradigm or another. But the same basic principles apply to everyone:
Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight.
Eat too much less than you burn and a greater portion of that weight lost will be from LBM and can result in health issues
Eating adequate protein supports LBM retention on a deficit and growth on a surplus
Resistance training supports LBM retention on a deficit and growth on a surplus
Weight loss/gain and LBM loss/gain are not linear processes
So everyone has the same BMR and TDEE??
I can guarantee that a 60 year old woman needs fewer calories than a 25 year old man. Yes, we are different. I am not a unique snowflake, for there are many snowflakes just like me. But I am a different snowflake than you!0 -
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
well said.
This can sum up this whole thread.
But the OP isn't a petite female. She's 220lbs (ish) or 100kgs.
She is also 45. Her metabolism is a lot lower than a 20 year old.0 -
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
well said.
This can sum up this whole thread.
Does it make me a dirty old woman if I say you have awesome abs?!0 -
1200 for me is over what I normally do. I thought I had to stay above 1,000 when I started dieting until I came on here. When I track my foods it always says I'm under and that I should be eating 1600 (YEAH RIGHT!) I always try and eat 1000 or less.0
-
Some may hate me for it, but generally, if you're a petite female, 1200 is perfectly fine. 10-11 calories per POUND of body weight for sedentary individuals is a healthy amount. Granted, this is of course such a diet has sufficient EFAs, micronutrients, and protein. 1200 calories of just fats/carbs and no fiber/micros/protein IS unhealthy.
well said.
This can sum up this whole thread.
But the OP isn't a petite female. She's 220lbs (ish) or 100kgs.
She is also 45. Her metabolism is a lot lower than a 20 year old.
I looked at her diary, she doesnt exercise.. If you dont exercise its easier to eat less, I eat about 1250-1400 calories a day. 1200 is not doable if you are exercisely intensly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions