1200 is not difficult.
Replies
-
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.
She posted earlier that she has physical problems such as a bad back. And being sedentary is one attribute for 1200 calories diets.0 -
whats the big deal about ppl who eat 1200 trying to convince other ppl.. OR ppl eating more trying to convince 1200 is not enough??
If you eat 1800 and lose, good for you, if you eat 1200 and you lose ALSO good for you. What works for you might not work for me and viceversa.
Make love not war, to each their own.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.
She posted earlier that she has physical problems such as a bad back. And being sedentary is one attribute for 1200 calories diets.
I am 5'4" (i tell people I'm 5'5" but my doc insists I'm 5'4").
my current exercise is walking 30 minutes at a time, 3 days per week.
I have a bad back and a bad shoulder. The injuries are a few years old, but I can't lift heavy anymore because of them, but I'm going to start soon.
If i could eat more like some of you, lose the same amount of weight that I am and not binge, I would. If it's working for you- then why not eat more? it doesn't work for me, however. The good news for ME is that I've discovered that I can be quite satisfied and not hungry by eating healthy- something I didn't used to do.0 -
SO with this whole BMR/TDEE thing- is it safe to say no matter what- you should be eating over your BMR and under your TDEE to be healthy, lose fat and not muscle? Just a question because I'm trying to understand all this. I am 5 ft nothing and I have been eating 1200 calories for 5 weeks without an ounce lost. I have now figured out my BMR and my TDEE and my BMR is 1320. I would assume then the reason i haven't lost any weight is because I'm eating below that BMR which puts my body in "starvation mode" . Am i way off track here? It's so confusing- so much info and so many different angles and opionions.0
-
I have a nutritionist and she recommends to me that I am to eat
2000-2200 calories on a normally day with no work and no exercise
And up to 2700 calories on a normal day with work and one training session.
And she insists ill lose the weight I need to and still be able to be able to compete with mu sport while receiving. Full nutritional intake.
Everyone is different with different levels of expenditure at work and every day life. Its getting a good balance.
Good luck guys0 -
SO with this whole BMR/TDEE thing- is it safe to say no matter what- you should be eating over your BMR and under your TDEE to be healthy, lose fat and not muscle? Just a question because I'm trying to understand all this. I am 5 ft nothing and I have been eating 1200 calories for 5 weeks without an ounce lost. I have now figured out my BMR and my TDEE and my BMR is 1320. I would assume then the reason i haven't lost any weight is because I'm eating below that BMR which puts my body in "starvation mode" . Am i way off track here? It's so confusing- so much info and so many different angles and opionions.
Whenever you lose weight you will always lose lean body mass, ie muscle. What some try to do is minimize the loss of muscle by keeping a smaller calorie deficit and getting enough protein along with exercise.
As for your issues, there are many things that can be at play here. It's hard to answer but I would suggest posting a new topic for it (open your diary for better answers if it's not ). That said, keep in mind Scales are not accurate reflections of fat loss. I went 4 weeks without seeing a change on the scale but had noticble losses.0 -
Thanks! I got my body fat measured yesterday so that should help me with seeing progress that way. I know I need to add in more protein. I guess it's just trying to figure it all out and what works best for me. I read all this stuff on here and there is so much variation it's hard to grasp sometimes.0
-
0 -
Something I find very interesting is that many of the 1200 calorie eaters say things like "everyone is different, I'm fine on 1200", "eating more might work for you, but it doesn't work for me". However they are ALL eating the magical 1200 number.
Others that have calculated their specific calorie needs are all eating different numbers that pertain to them. If 1200 is the value that you have calculated as a small deficit for you, then fantastic - you should be able to head down the weightloss path hopefully retaining as much LBM as possible. If not, how can you be so sure that you are doing what's healthiest for your body?
You are all different ages, sizes, physiques, etc, yet you are all eating 1200 calories but still trying to argue how suitable it is for you.0 -
^^I'm with Lulu. If you calculated your energy needs and it so happens to be 1200 calories, great. But many people are basing their energy needs off of the 2 lbs per week loss strategy which gives 1200 minimum to a very broad population base regardless of weight, sex, activity, age, etc. Find out what your actual TDEE by eating the maximal amount of calories for several months without significant weight increase and then take a cut from that to establish an appropriate deficit depending on how much fat mass you have: this will lead to an optimal fat loss with the least amount of alterations to one's endocrine system. Note: The more someone weighs, the larger the deficit and longer it can be maintained with minimal alterations - the less fat mass someone has, the smaller the deficit has to be to avoid unnecessary and excessive alterations.0
-
I think to each their own. Just because it is easy for you to commit to 1200 right now does not mean that it will always be easy. I was on a low calorie vegetarian diet that helped be lose 30lbs in 2.5 months but afte losing an additional 10lbs I was HUNGRY! No amount of veggies and lite bread crisps would do it. Id be lucky to have a 1600 calorie day. Since the OP does have alot of weight to lose, she might want to anticipate this smooth sailing being tested tremendously as she's within 20lbs of her medically ideal weight.
To the poster who said that she didn't lose weight in 5 weeks, have you had your hormones checked?
I come from atkins so I always have a bias to eat protein and fat before carbs now regardless of whether or not I'm counting calories. The most accessable and cheapest low calorie options are often simple carbs in which you WONT derive satisfaction once your done eating. On top of that each macronutrient (carb, fat, protein) have PROFOUND effects on our hormones and our ability to lose FAT.
Also, just because you are lowering your calories doesn not mean your body is burning fat, you could very well be hoarding fat and burning muscle. It's ridiculous but many humans will find that their bodies will prefer to waste muscle instead of burning the maximum amount of fat (we don't really need alot of our muscle like we think we do in modern times). Fat burning is seen as an absolute last resort under the wrong conditions (stress, diet, disorders, diseases, intoxications, etc.)
On the flip side, I recently committed to 1200 cal a day and to be truthful, high quality low carb fat-free Greek yogart has been a meal for me. It just happened however. If I would have told myself ahead of time that I would only had yogart then I would not have given it a chance to satisfy me.
I tried going the "plentiful veggies" route again and it turned out that veggies for me right now are a waste of time, calories, and effort if I don't like them. I'll be hungry after an hour. I eat what gives me satisfaction/fullness (protein) while remaining low on carbs even if it is sweet. Eating mainly protein with small amounts of SOLID fat (not oil) will help keep you fuller longer and as long as you measure your fat and keep it low, you will be able to lower your calories more successfully regardless if you are struggling to get down to 1200 or 1500.0 -
I agree with you, but for some people it isn't enough; i think it also depends on how much calories each person needs and how much calories they burn. I feel good with eating 1200 calories (i eat similar to you, and i don't feel like starving ever) but not all bodies are the same and we all have different metabolisms so maybe for some people it wouldn't really work. I guess if someone feels like starving they will soon or latter screw up their progress and give up easily.0
-
Something I find very interesting is that many of the 1200 calorie eaters say things like "everyone is different, I'm fine on 1200", "eating more might work for you, but it doesn't work for me". However they are ALL eating the magical 1200 number.
Well, I guess it's something to take up with MFP. Because they have me on 1200 for .5 lbs a week or 2 lbs a week. The only way they don't is if I put myself in as a construction worker, which I am not, and even then, I only get a bit over 1300 calories a week. If I were following the same math as everyone, and if MFP didn't have 1200 as the bottom, I'd actually eat lower than 1200, but I don't feel that's healthy for micros/macros.
Nothing magical about it. I'm not attached to 1200 because it has mystical powers.0 -
Something I find very interesting is that many of the 1200 calorie eaters say things like "everyone is different, I'm fine on 1200", "eating more might work for you, but it doesn't work for me". However they are ALL eating the magical 1200 number.
Well, I guess it's something to take up with MFP. Because they have me on 1200 for .5 lbs a week or 2 lbs a week. The only way they don't is if I put myself in as a construction worker, which I am not, and even then, I only get a bit over 1300 calories a week. If I were following the same math as everyone, and if MFP didn't have 1200 as the bottom, I'd actually eat lower than 1200, but I don't feel that's healthy for micros/macros.
Nothing magical about it. I'm not attached to 1200 because it has mystical powers.
That didnt make any sense at all....
Are you saying you use 1200 to lose the slight weight you had to lose?0 -
hehehe
0 -
No, I think she is saying her BMR would be below 1200 if sedentary, but she eats to 1200 because 1200 is used as the magic number at which she gets all her nutrients, as determined by MFP.
I am 110 pounds, 5'1 and 39. If I did no exercise, my bmr is very close to 1200 a day. It sucks to be small, light and old. Lucky for me I exercise my butt off (literally)!0 -
I posted yesterday about how hungry I was, even pushing things up to 1500 was leaving me cranky and miserable - mostly because I still believed 1200 to be the holy grail. My weight loss was also non-existent. Someone kindly pointed me to helloitsdan's post he made a while ago, I've book marked it now because it was so useful and made me realise where I was going wrong.
My BMR is OVER 1200, no wonder I felt so awful! I had put in the wrong activity level for me and hadn't realised that fact until I read more and more. I'm basically a munchkin at 4'10" but with a big house, big dog and big family and caring for my Mum I never stop flitting about doing stuff, I hadn't factored that in at all.
I'm small but stocky too, I develop muscle quick - none of that I had factored in either. At 1200 and eating back all exercise calories I was still eating below what I should have and below what I can cope with.
So - I did exactly what he recommended, I found out my measurements, my activity level, my BF level and put that all in the link he provided to come up with the number I needed to maintain...and then knocked 20% of off that. The result was much higher than MFP put for me and it said on that I would lose 0.4lbs a week. I am really interested to see what a weeks loss really is.
However, 0.4lbs a week I'm cool with if it means I can function, work-out, run with the kids and the dog, do my mums housework, sling myself about my living room in full boogie mode and eat well and....BE HAPPY.
1200 works for some, but it was making me feel bloomin' depressed...and tired...and I was shedding a ton of hair (?)...and hungry enough to feel like I'm shaking...and resenting other people eating normally....etc. I'm happier going slower I think.0 -
[/quote]
but you're right. 1200 is not difficult FOR ME. you are correct and I should have clarified that for those who get offended easily.
[/quote]
Ok, there is the tone a previous comment was refering. You could have left the "those who get offended easily" part off. That is the rude part of that statement. Just saying..0 -
I'm sure you've heard this a million times but I feel like I'm morally obligated to tell you that never, ever under any circumstances is this healthy for you. You are are doing your body serious damage. Even if you weigh 100 pounds, which few do, that is still dangerous territory. Your organs, including your brain, need more than that to function. You can shut your body down by doing this for a prolonged period of time. Please think of your health and be safe.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 -
No, I think she is saying her BMR would be below 1200 if sedentary, but she eats to 1200 because 1200 is used as the magic number at which she gets all her nutrients, as determined by MFP.
I am 110 pounds, 5'1 and 39. If I did no exercise, my bmr is very close to 1200 a day. It sucks to be small, light and old. Lucky for me I exercise my butt off (literally)!
Yes, this exactly. According to MFP, my BMR is below 1200 and my TDEE pre-exercise is 1420. At 1200 calories, my projected weight loss is .4 lbs a week. That said, I'm going to bow out and do my part to let the thread die though.0 -
It's silly how people get fixated on the number 1200. Some of us are well under five feet tall and have much lower BMR/RMR. Sub-1200 can be a safe, healthy option for such people, if they are sedentary.
Seriously, I'd never wished I were taller (am 5' 2") until I started counting calories... I want a higher BMR dammit!
I know plenty of women on here who are short and eat more than 1200 calories per day. Hell, I know someone who is 4'11" and eats 2,000+ calories per day. She is fit and healthy. Height matters a little, but it is not everything.
I'm 5'2 and eat 1850-2000 calories to lose weight. And I don't do any excessive cardio. I lift heavy weights 3 times per week for about 35 minutes and I get 10 000 steps in every day.
And according to my bio imdedence analysis I have a very slow metabolism which I believe is because of years of eating at 1200 cals or less. I am working to fix that and in the last 6 months of increasing my calories and lifting weights I have increased my metabolism (though I still have a long way to go to get it to normal levels).0 -
I see taller women here posting things like "my BMR is 1600." Do you know what I would do for a BMR that high!?I know plenty of women on here who are short and eat more than 1200 calories per day. Hell, I know someone who is 4'11" and eats 2,000+ calories per day. She is fit and healthy. Height matters a little, but it is not everything.
Never said all short ladies need sub-1200 to lose weight. My whole point is that there is no magic number that means the same outcome to EVERYONE. One short lady might need 2000+ calories, another might need as little as 1300. Hell, even I can't do 1200 net these days, even though I was doing just fine at 1000 net back when I was obese.
I am 5'2 and my BMR is 1650.0 -
God, it cracks me up how everyone on this site thinks they're a world renowned expert in nutrition, biochemistry and physiology. Each person is made differently, so there is no right or wrong "answer" here.0
-
God, it cracks me up how everyone on this site thinks they're a world renowned expert in nutrition, biochemistry and physiology. Each person is made differently, so there is no right or wrong "answer" here.
I agree. now
0 -
What a stupid thread.
I found learning to drive easy. Therefore it should be easy for everyone.
I also find advanced math easy. Therefore advanced math should be easy for everyone.
I also find jumping out of a plane easy. Therefore it should be easy for anyone to jump out a plane.
Yep. We're all the same, don't ya know.0 -
This is what I think every time I see this thread...and ive seen hundreds of this thread BTW....usually followed months later by the "Eating 1200 and not losing! What gives?" Thread.
Then I'm like.....
The 4 major biological functions of fat tissue are
(1) energy storage
(2) toxin storage
(3) protection against insulin resistance, and
(4) protection against estrogen decline in women.
Eliminate the functions of fat tissue also eliminates the reasons for its existence.
Eating below BMR gives fat a reason to exist.
Period.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-120 -
Don't tell these people :-Eating below BMR gives fat a reason to exist.
Biggest fat loss at 3 and 6 months was the 890 calorie group who ate 890 until 15% weight loss (< 3 months) and then maintenance. I bet the 25% CR people were envious.0 -
0 -
These threads.. it always turns into the same thing.
Someone has to say something like "OMG why are you people complaining 1200 calories is easy! Stop eating crap!"
Then you get the group of people who are like "Damn, you be starving yourself"..
Then you get OP who says something like "Well it works for me, I never said everyone"
THEN WHY EVEN START THE THREAD?! >.<
By saying it is "easy" etc etc you are implying that all the people complaining are doing things the wrong way and everyone can do it if they just do like you.
These threads always just end in drama llama and are absolutely pointless except to debate the same things that have been debated over and over while people get offended, angry, defensive and butt-hurt.
i don't say it to be mean, but it is pointless to argue over such things, so why even start?0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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