1200 is not difficult.
Replies
-
I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Catch 22 though, as you'll need to significantly increase your calories to "make more". I'm assuming you're talking about gaining lean muscle mass?
Why would you want to lose it and have to gain it back again when you could simply increase your calories to a reasonable level now, lose slower and have a better chance or retaining muscle?0 -
I probably should have ended with "THIS IS WHAT IS WORKING FOR ME" because in no way was i implying that this is how everyone should lose.
You didn't at all imply that. In fact, I thought you were pretty clear that it depends on the individual. You were responding to the general attitude that people on 1200 are miserable, weak, and starving.
lol.. true.
I'm not a nutrition expert by any means, but I am getting in plenty of protein I think (70-115 per day) and try to stay under carbs. I eat avocado once in a while, fish, and olive oil. I recently started trying tofu and quinua (sp?). My point was that it's possible. I suppose if I needed a big breakfast, it wouldn't be, but big breakfasts got me to a size 22.
I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Isn't the amount of protein u need dependent on ur weight? I think you really need more protein.0 -
Amen!I'm sorry OP, but this thread is not going to end well for you.
People are going to jump all over you, you're going to get angry, and it's going to devolve in to a debate about starvation mode.
1200 calories is a BARE MINIMUM to get adequate nutrition. You're likely sacrificing muscle mass by losing so fast, and you're going to hit an early plateau. I don't want to attack you, I'm happy for your success thus far, but that's the truth.
The point should also be made that hunger is not a good barometer for adequate intake. Consider obese people, who eat, say, 7000 calories a day. They still get hungry between meals, despite getting plenty of calories. Also, people on VLCD's lose their regular appetite. Hunger is largely a trained behavior- you get hungry when you're used to eating. Think about when you have a big breakfast- often you'll still be hungry at your regular lunch time. Hunger can't be trusted.
Ok, I have to jump in here. First off, do not assume that your way is the only way and everyone else on here will agree with you.
Do all of you realize that the OP is a 45 year old female?? Of course her caloric needs are less than a 30 year old, especially one who is lifting heavy and has very little excess fat. So please stop telling her that she needs to eat more, she is losing muscle mass, she is losing too fast, etc. What she is eating is healthy. She is getting in all the nutrients she needs. She makes good choices in her foods, so she doesn't have the carb cravings that someone eating donuts for breakfast would have. She is eating enough protein to sustain her muscle mass.
There are HORDES of women in their mid to late 40s and above who are losing safely and steadily at or even below 1200 cals per day. And guess what? They are even keeping the weight off! They never went into starvation mode. They kept their muscle mass by exercising and eating enough protein.
I have no idea who came up with the magic number of 1200 being the minimum that EVERYONE needed to get the proper nutrients. You will not find that on any reputable, scientifically proven website. The only reason this number is such a big deal is because that is the number that the MFP people decided was the minimum amount of calories that it would suggest for someone to eat. This is primarily to discourage eating disorders among young people who are already in a healthy or underweight range.
The goal of losing .5 to 1 pound a week is mainly for people with very little excess fat, who are trying to build muscle. You may want to spend hours a day lifting heavy weights and bulking up your muscles, but not everyone has that same goal.
Someone who is 100 pounds overweight NEEDS to lose more than that. It is perfectly safe for them to lose 2 pounds a week, or even more, as they have plenty of fat stores to use as fuel.
And your BMR is NOT the minimum number of calories to keep you alive if you are in a coma! I am so sick of hearing that. Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary. To lose weight you HAVE to either eat less or move more.
So those of you who want to spend hours in the gym burning 1500 calories a day so you can eat 3000 calories a day in food, and lose a half pound a week, good for you. Go right ahead.
For me personally, I would rather eat less, exercise moderately, and spend my time and energy with my family. You can choose how you want to do it, and the rest of us can choose how we want to do it. Neither side is wrong, if we do what is right for us.
But please stop with all the scare tactics and blanket statements. It is getting SO old.0 -
I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Catch 22 though, as you'll need to significantly increase your calories to "make more". I'm assuming you're talking about gaining lean muscle mass?
Why would you want to lose it and have to gain it back again when you could simply increase your calories to a reasonable level now, lose slower and have a better chance or retaining muscle?
No, I can see the logic in it. She values not having fat more than having muscles. And recently lost muscle can be made back pretty quickly. Not to mention that she can do a couple of build/cut cycles and not really put on *that* much temporary fat while rebuilding the muscle, so basically looking good throughout.0 -
Alright, so this may show a lack of knowledge on my part, but I'm confused.
People in this thread keep saying that the eat 1200 or 1400 or whatever, but that as they lose weight they will increase their calories. Isn't this backwards? Like right now I am a little over 300, and am 5'10, and i eat 2100 cals a day to lose 2 pounds a week. (although so far I've lost 12/13 in 2 weeks). But as I lose weight, won't my cals will decrease not increase? Or is it just for maintenance when your calories go up?
Too confusing. I'm going back to watching Dexter.
I think and this is just my observation that when people have a lot of weight to lose, many do the low cal thing to get a quick start. Seeing the weight come off quickly is motivating and from what I've read 1200 is fine for a short time if you have a lot of weight to lose. As you get closer to goal weight it probably is better to up your calories to get your body used to more food. Unless you intend on living off 1200 indefinitely, which very few people can sustain.
I can't speak from experience since my weight loss was very slow and it was done mostly eating 1400 calories and up. I had no luck with 1200, in 3 months I lost nothing..except a lot of my hair
0 -
And your BMR is NOT the minimum number of calories to keep you alive if you are in a coma! I am so sick of hearing that. Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary. To lose weight you HAVE to either eat less or move more.
So those of you who want to spend hours in the gym burning 1500 calories a day so you can eat 3000 calories a day in food, and lose a half pound a week, good for you. Go right ahead.
For me personally, I would rather eat less, exercise moderately, and spend my time and energy with my family. You can choose how you want to do it, and the rest of us can choose how we want to do it. Neither side is wrong, if we do what is right for us.
But please stop with all the scare tactics and blanket statements. It is getting SO old.
Um, no. Your BMR is basal metabolic rate. The medical dictionary definition is basal metabolic rate n.
"Abbr. BMR The rate at which energy is used by an organism at complete rest, measured in humans by the heat given off per unit time, and expressed as the calories released per kilogram of body weight or per square meter of body surface per hour."
TDEE, total daily energy expenditure, is the number at which you will maintain your weight. TDEE considers your BMR, plus all the extra things you do to burn calories, from brushing your teeth, working, to exercising (note, MFP doesn't include excercise in their calculations, so their number isn't a TDEE which is why they suggest eating back those exercise calories, but that is another topic altogether).0 -
Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary.
Wow. Just wow. My BMR is 1400, and if I sit at my desk all day (sedentary) my TDEE is 1900. Get your facts straight please.
Also, nobody is trying to scare anyone. Why eat 1200 per day if you can lose eating between BMR and TDEE?0 -
And your BMR is NOT the minimum number of calories to keep you alive if you are in a coma! I am so sick of hearing that. Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary. To lose weight you HAVE to either eat less or move more.
Are you being serious?0 -
I have a lot (a lot is relative of course, but I need to lose at least 65 more).I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Catch 22 though, as you'll need to significantly increase your calories to "make more". I'm assuming you're talking about gaining lean muscle mass?
Why would you want to lose it and have to gain it back again when you could simply increase your calories to a reasonable level now, lose slower and have a better chance or retaining muscle?
I could do it slowly, and get discouraged at the slow loss, and either give up, or get to my goal in another year or 2. Or I could do it quicker and remain motivated, and incorporate muscle building when I get closer to my goal.
FOR ME, the answer is easy.
on a side note, as I've said earlier I've lost a lot of weight before, very quickly. I was not without muscletone at the end. in fact, I looked great and was quite strong (I benched 250 after gaining back 20lbs... so either I only gained muscle, or I was already fairly strong and hadn't really lost much muscle at all)0 -
I eat @1200 calories a day and i think i eat very healthy, not normally hungry but we all have those times when our appetite fluctuates. I am only 5'2 and have never been a big eater, i have gained weight recently but that was due to a career change from been on my feet all day and lifting heavy things to now working a desk job. I never really had to exercise in the past now i do.0
-
Glad you can stick with it, but some of us prefer to minimize lean mass losses and would rather lose slower to do so.0
-
And your BMR is NOT the minimum number of calories to keep you alive if you are in a coma! I am so sick of hearing that. Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary. To lose weight you HAVE to either eat less or move more.
Please, tell us more.0 -
Alright, so this may show a lack of knowledge on my part, but I'm confused.
People in this thread keep saying that the eat 1200 or 1400 or whatever, but that as they lose weight they will increase their calories. Isn't this backwards? Like right now I am a little over 300, and am 5'10, and i eat 2100 cals a day to lose 2 pounds a week. (although so far I've lost 12/13 in 2 weeks). But as I lose weight, won't my cals will decrease not increase? Or is it just for maintenance when your calories go up?
Too confusing. I'm going back to watching Dexter.
I think and this is just my observation that when people have a lot of weight to lose, many do the low cal thing to get a quick start. Seeing the weight come off quickly is motivating and from what I've read 1200 is fine for a short time if you have a lot of weight to lose. As you get closer to goal weight it probably is better to up your calories to get your body used to more food. Unless you intend on living off 1200 indefinitely, which very few people can sustain.
I can't speak from experience since my weight loss was very slow and it was done mostly eating 1400 calories and up. I had no luck with 1200, in 3 months I lost nothing..except a lot of my hair
Thank you! That makes sense, although I think I'll stick with what I'm already doing and slowly work down. If I ate 1200 calories a day now....well....people would burn. haha.0 -
I'm sorry OP, but this thread is not going to end well for you.
People are going to jump all over you, you're going to get angry, and it's going to devolve in to a debate about starvation mode.
1200 calories is a BARE MINIMUM to get adequate nutrition. You're likely sacrificing muscle mass by losing so fast, and you're going to hit an early plateau. I don't want to attack you, I'm happy for your success thus far, but that's the truth.
The point should also be made that hunger is not a good barometer for adequate intake. Consider obese people, who eat, say, 7000 calories a day. They still get hungry between meals, despite getting plenty of calories. Also, people on VLCD's lose their regular appetite. Hunger is largely a trained behavior- you get hungry when you're used to eating. Think about when you have a big breakfast- often you'll still be hungry at your regular lunch time. Hunger can't be trusted.
Ok, I have to jump in here. First off, do not assume that your way is the only way and everyone else on here will agree with you.
Do all of you realize that the OP is a 45 year old female?? Of course her caloric needs are less than a 30 year old, especially one who is lifting heavy and has very little excess fat. So please stop telling her that she needs to eat more, she is losing muscle mass, she is losing too fast, etc. What she is eating is healthy. She is getting in all the nutrients she needs. She makes good choices in her foods, so she doesn't have the carb cravings that someone eating donuts for breakfast would have. She is eating enough protein to sustain her muscle mass.
There are HORDES of women in their mid to late 40s and above who are losing safely and steadily at or even below 1200 cals per day. And guess what? They are even keeping the weight off! They never went into starvation mode. They kept their muscle mass by exercising and eating enough protein.
I have no idea who came up with the magic number of 1200 being the minimum that EVERYONE needed to get the proper nutrients. You will not find that on any reputable, scientifically proven website. The only reason this number is such a big deal is because that is the number that the MFP people decided was the minimum amount of calories that it would suggest for someone to eat. This is primarily to discourage eating disorders among young people who are already in a healthy or underweight range.
The goal of losing .5 to 1 pound a week is mainly for people with very little excess fat, who are trying to build muscle. You may want to spend hours a day lifting heavy weights and bulking up your muscles, but not everyone has that same goal.
Someone who is 100 pounds overweight NEEDS to lose more than that. It is perfectly safe for them to lose 2 pounds a week, or even more, as they have plenty of fat stores to use as fuel.
And your BMR is NOT the minimum number of calories to keep you alive if you are in a coma! I am so sick of hearing that. Your BMR is the number of calories to MAINTAIN your current weight if you are sedentary. To lose weight you HAVE to either eat less or move more.
So those of you who want to spend hours in the gym burning 1500 calories a day so you can eat 3000 calories a day in food, and lose a half pound a week, good for you. Go right ahead.
For me personally, I would rather eat less, exercise moderately, and spend my time and energy with my family. You can choose how you want to do it, and the rest of us can choose how we want to do it. Neither side is wrong, if we do what is right for us.
But please stop with all the scare tactics and blanket statements. It is getting SO old.
How do u know they kept their muscle mass?
Lifting doesn't bulk women up either.
Wasn't there a lady up there eating 2100 cals & losing 2lbs a week? You don't have to eat low to lose that much a week.
Ur TDEE is what makes you maintain, ur BMR is different.
I don't think age has anything to do with it either. It's as Chalene Johnson says 'Ur metabolism isn't slowing down because you're getting older. It's slowing down because you're losing muscle.'0 -
I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Catch 22 though, as you'll need to significantly increase your calories to "make more". I'm assuming you're talking about gaining lean muscle mass?
Why would you want to lose it and have to gain it back again when you could simply increase your calories to a reasonable level now, lose slower and have a better chance or retaining muscle?
No, I can see the logic in it. She values not having fat more than having muscles. And recently lost muscle can be made back pretty quickly. Not to mention that she can do a couple of build/cut cycles and not really put on *that* much temporary fat while rebuilding the muscle, so basically looking good throughout.
egg-zackary.
(that's a little protein slang for "exactly")0 -
I'm not looking to be a bikini model, but if I suddenly find myself without any leg muscles because of the rapid loss, I'll just make more.
Catch 22 though, as you'll need to significantly increase your calories to "make more". I'm assuming you're talking about gaining lean muscle mass?
Why would you want to lose it and have to gain it back again when you could simply increase your calories to a reasonable level now, lose slower and have a better chance or retaining muscle?
No, I can see the logic in it. She values not having fat more than having muscles. And recently lost muscle can be made back pretty quickly. Not to mention that she can do a couple of build/cut cycles and not really put on *that* much temporary fat while rebuilding the muscle, so basically looking good throughout.
I'd be sceptical that someone who doesn't want to eat above 1200 now would then want to switch into a bulk cycle. But I see your point.
Given that we lose a % of muscle mass every year that we age above 20 (or whatever it is - happy for someone to correct me), the healthier (and less hangry) thing to do would be to try and retain the muscle while still losing the fat.0 -
I'm a 5'5, 19-year-old female. 1200 isn't difficult for me, but other than walking and the occasional elliptical workout, I'm pretty sedentary. There aren't that many nutritious options on campus, so I'm not as healthy as I'd like to be, but I make sure to get my protein and iron in. Take my vitamins. I have trouble keeping my sugar around 40 g, and I can't fight sleep deprivation off as well as I used to, but I don't have many cravings. I just eat small portions throughout the day rather than just at meal times.
I haven't been dieting for very long, though. If my weight loss does slow down, I'll probably boost my intake by an extra hundred calories or so, try to exercise a bit more. But for right now, it's working.0 -
Buuuut if I can eat over 2,000 calories and still lose fat and gain muscle, then why WOULDN'T I want to eat more? I just don't see the point of restricting my eating and being miserable if I don't have to...
If I could eat over 2000 and lose fat and gain muscle, I would. True story. I can't. Also a true story. I'm ok on 1200, especially as I will eat more if I need to or want to. Am I looking forward to maintenance and adding in a couple hundred calories or whatever I will get to eat? Of course!0 -
I've been reading the forums tonight and have read around 10 different posts from people saying that 1200 is impossible, or that unless they workout, there's no calories left for dinner, or that 1200 calories a day translates to starving yourself or living on only salads.
My diary is open- I eat 3 meals a day and 2 snacks. If you eat healthy, real food, 1200 calories is not difficult and I'm not starving. make good choices and avoid garbage - then if you go over, it's not a big deal. sometimes I'm under 1200 - I get busy and don't want to eat at 10pm just to get calories in.
Btw, I started at 255, 2 months ago and have lost 29lbs and feel good. I'm not saying that a person with less to lose should restrict as much, but for me, and a lot of other people, losing the weight fast is more motivating to stick to their plan than being allowed to eat more but only losing .5 lbs a week.
I totally agree with you. I thought 1200 calories was going to suck, but I'm finding it not bad at all. I eat healthy all day long - lots of fruits, veggies, good for you snacks and foods. I don't give in to temptation, but I also am not cheating myself. I put real thought into what I eat instead of just eating whatever I can find. This is a complete 180-degree turn from where I was at 3 weeks ago. And I'm exercising - not excessively, but just enough to help me get my heart rate up, burn some fat, gain some muscle, and gain some stamina. Today, I'm waaaayyyyy under in my calories, but it's not because I'm starving myself to lose weight. It's because I ate healthy foods that didn't contain a lot of calories, fats, etc.
I'm 33.5 y/o, 5'10", started at 196.8 lbs. In a little over 2-1/2 weeks, I've lost 7.4 lbs.0 -
Isn't the amount of protein u need dependent on ur weight? I think you really need more protein.
What is OP's weight? Going by the official recommendations in the USA, my protein needs are somewhere in the 30 or 40 g a day. (Not sure which because I don't like to get that little protein, so my goal is usually to get as much protein and healthy fat as possible.)0 -
Isn't the amount of protein u need dependent on ur weight? I think you really need more protein.
What is OP's weight? Going by the official recommendations in the USA, my protein needs are somewhere in the 30 or 40 g a day. (Not sure which because I don't like to get that little protein, so my goal is usually to get as much protein and healthy fat as possible.)
Most here will tell you it starts around 1g per lb of lean body mass.0 -
I agree! Seriously gotta love the "anti 1200 calorie" people rapidly denouncing the idea without any true knowledge of the health of the OP. People love to berate others offering their generalized advice to apply to everyone. What works for them won't necessarily work for others...I eat at 1200 too. I eat all the time. Every few hours. I'm never hungry. I feel great, except when I hit "clock in".
I'm also short. I can't even reach the cereal. :sad:
I understand that taller people need to eat more.
I'm satisfied at 1200. I don't like people telling me I need to eat more.
Different strokes for different folks.
:drinker:
you are right, people here jump on the calorie diets that seem to be too low, especially 1200cals.
its possible some heights / body types may be able to eat 1200 and be healthy. but like you say, its not something you can generalise for everyone.
1200 for most women may too low due to their height / body type, and it is also harder to eat a balanced diet and this can lead to serious health problems.
in the end the answer to "is 1200 healthy for women" is not a hard NO or a hard YES. it has its risks moderate risks for those who its not suitable for, so when people post on here without seeming to have checked if their diet is safe for them or not, people start telling them the risks, but noone here has the answer as everyones nutritional needs are different and people are airing on the side of caution.
in the end this is a terrible place to get specific and definitive nutritional information.
all they are able to say definitively is that "in general 1200 cals is too low for lot of women" and the other side of the argument (pro 1200) can say is "1200 works for me/can work for some" and you are both right.
what neither of side can say is what is right for the individual or apply our diets to another person, especially around the 1200 mark.
blah blah. i dont care anymore. just go to a nutritionist.0 -
I eat 1200ish from time to time. :indifferent:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/674322-chris-davey-s-1421-cals-in-3min-17secs
http://www.emma-leigh.com/basics_calorie_needs.html
Minus you're 1000 for 2lb weight loss goal. Too easy. (although weight loss is not linear)0 -
You didn't at all imply that. In fact, I thought you were pretty clear that it depends on the individual. You were responding to the general attitude that people on 1200 are miserable, weak, and starving.
Now see, I read the original post completely opposite, that 1200 shouldn't be hard. I am guessing our interpretation of the original post comes down to our views of the debate.
:laugh:
Quite possibly! I read her post more as a response to people who don't eat 1200 and proclaim that those who do are miserable. I see this a lot too, and it always grates, because I'm not miserable or underfed. So I probably do notice it more and get more annoyed by it. I thought her last paragraph though spoke to the different motivations for different people, not that one is better or worse.
(I very recently got a full medical workup including blood work and the medical professionals were extremely pleased with my results, so it's not just personal bias saying I'm ok.)0 -
i weight a 100 lbs more then you LOL....are you 62lbs by chance lol
Oh yah im real silly...well considering that eating 1200 is going to get you some weight loss then your gonna stop so you may end up doing it years or you give up return to over eating and gain it all back.
Or best case you add cals because you realize eating 1200 is dumb and just a low set number that means nothing and that you coulda ate 1500-1800 a day and still lost weight...probably more fat actually because on your crash diet your losing muscle to but hey who needs that enjoy your loose skin and chicken wings.
Hey what do i know not like ive lost much weight and lost little to no muscle nor do i have any loose skin to be found.
Enjoy your 1200 cals im gonna keep eating my 2200 and shedding fat and keeping my muscles.
You appear to be male and outweigh me by more than 100 lbs (at your high weight on your ticker). You are more than twice my weight but eat less than twice as much as I do in addition to being male and more muscled. Why would you expect that I can lose weight on similar numbers to you? If I could eat that much and lose (much less not gain), you'd be able to eat more than what you are now. (I have to be active to avoid maintenance/gaining on 1500, and for a lot of reasons, that's not possible for me right now. But even when active, I don't lose much on 1500, whether or not I've been in maintenance or in a deficit or an overage prior to that.)
Even at your current weight, you outweigh me by a significant amount and I'm sure have a much higher muscle mass which requires more calories.0 -
I highly doubt anybody will read my comment here but... everybody's different for God's sake.0
-
Isn't the amount of protein u need dependent on ur weight? I think you really need more protein.
What is OP's weight? Going by the official recommendations in the USA, my protein needs are somewhere in the 30 or 40 g a day. (Not sure which because I don't like to get that little protein, so my goal is usually to get as much protein and healthy fat as possible.)
I thought it has something to do w/ ur LBM. I cant remember the exact equation. But last time I did it, My number was over 100g & my weight is pretty low. I think it's even higher now, since I've dropped sum BF%0 -
i weight a 100 lbs more then you LOL....are you 62lbs by chance lol
See the quote you quoted, I edited (and it shows in the quote you posted) to mention that at your higher weight, and that at your current weight you still outweigh me by a lot.0 -
I highly doubt anybody will read my comment here but... everybody's different for God's sake.
I'm not.0 -
i weight a 100 lbs more then you LOL....are you 62lbs by chance lol
You appear to be male and outweigh me by more than 100 lbs **(at your high weight on your ticker).*** You are more than twice my weight but eat less than twice as much as I do in addition to being male and more muscled. Why would you expect that I can lose weight on similar numbers to you? If I could eat that much and lose (much less not gain), you'd be able to eat more than what you are now. (I have to be active to avoid maintenance/gaining on 1500, and for a lot of reasons, that's not possible for me right now. But even when active, I don't lose much on 1500, whether or not I've been in maintenance or in a deficit or an overage prior to that.)
***Even at your current weight, you outweigh me by a significant amount and I'm sure have a much higher muscle mass which requires more calories.***
[/quote]
I'll star it for you.
At your current weight, you are still about 1.5 of me. And male. And all that muscle.0
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