1200 is not difficult.

FlaxMilk

Not to be a negative nancy but you don't know what works for you either. You won't know until you've shown that you can keep your weight off for years and for life.

Yeah but that really applies to everyone, not just those on 1200. But it's usually only the people on 1200 that hear that, even if it's proportionally the same as someone eating 1600.

theskinnylist

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.

But you're not taking into account the different levels of activity in those people. That alone will differentiate caloric intake.

withchaco

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 see taller women here posting things like "my BMR is 1600." Do you know what I would do for a BMR that high!?

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.

turboturtlepower

I too have done 1200 before, but as someone who WANTS to run marathons, I simply need more calories.

It is possible as long as you are eating lower calorie, higher protein foods.

FlaxMilk

another thing to add that I notice is a lot of people who say that a low cal diet is that easy don't tend to weigh all their foods and prep 100% of their meals. Its very easy to underestimate calories.

:laugh:

And that's my explanation for why people say they were on 1200 calories and in starvation mode!

I do measure my food because I'm awful at eyeballing portions. Terrible. If I get hungry or tired, I eat more. It works for me. Usually 1200 is enough. But there have been times when 1800 didn't feel like enough. I've learned to go with it unless it becomes a pattern.

victoria4321

Not to be a negative nancy but you don't know what works for you either. You won't know until you've shown that you can keep your weight off for years and for life.

Yeah but that really applies to everyone, not just those on 1200. But it's usually only the people on 1200 that hear that, even if it's proportionally the same as someone eating 1600.

Of course it does but I was talking to the original poster who says she knows what works for her.

FlaxMilk

Speaking as a diagnosed food addict, 1200 calories at this point would be impossible for me. I wish I could eat only natural, whole foods but just staying at 1800 calories is good enough for me! 1200 is the bare minimum anyone should go though, you need that just to keep your body going so I hope anyone eating that is very careful and if you exercise be sure you eat those calories back!

Good job though to everyone!! I am struggling big time with this weight loss. I wish 1800 calories were easy for me ugh

Love your friendly, open-minded post here. Good luck to you! You've got this. You've got the right attitude. :flowerforyou:

Crystal82186

[/quote]

When I get closer to a healthier weight, I will slowly increase my calories, but for now, 1200 is working, and not difficult.
and I'm not in a coma.
[/quote]

The part about not being in a coma made me smile I

Mine has me at 1640 a day, but I sometimes barely make it above 1200. There have been a couple days where MFP tells me that I'm eating too few calories, but I'm not hungry. Just as you said, I'm eating real food, not junk and I'm not going to eat after 10:00 at night just to get to 1200.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you =]

geekyjock76

What I do with my clients who I believe have chronically restricted calories is up their intake to find out what their true TDEE range is. Many end up becoming paranoid at the idea but the reality is most have no clue what their true maintenance range is. Without knowing this range, it's rather unwise to even initiate a fat loss strategy.

One of my current clients is a 5 foot tall, naturally very petite woman with a lean body mass of 83 lbs who reached a plateau on 1450 calories. Because I knew she had habitually restricted calories before coming to me, I told her she was going to gradually up calories to 1950 and maintain for two-and-a-half months and she freaked out, believing she'd gain a lot of fat. After 75 days of eating at 1950 calories, doing heavy strength training 3 days a week and completely omitting cardio, she weighed the exact same (121.5 lbs) and had an identical body fat percentage (31.3%) compared to prior to upping calories. She was shocked to see how significant her energy needs actually were. We deemed that if she consumed between 1850 to 1950 calories, at that level of activity, she was able to maintain weight.

This Monday, we began her 2nd attempt to reduce body fat and I have her set to lose 0.5 lbs per week, eating 1550 calories for her first three training days and 1430 during rest days. After this initial week, I'll up her calories to 1700 x 3 and 1525 x 4 which she will maintain. I suspect, now that her resting metabolic rate and endocrine system are better primed for fat loss, she should start losing on a more sustainable level while maintaining lean body mass until she reaches 19% body fat at an estimated 102 lbs .

MissMaryMac33

It's not hard ... but it's also not the best plan for most people.
I have no idea why people think that's the magic number and even then try to eat less than that...

If you do your settings correctly, very few people would come up with 1200.

FlaxMilk

Of course it does but I was talking to the original poster who says she knows what works for her.

I know, but I think it's a bit moot because weight loss and health is not a linear process. What works for me today might not work for me in two months. Some people benefit from a quicker loss and the motivation it gives them and will then have to rework something more sustainable. (This does not apply to eating an inadequate amount. I never want to give the impression that I support that. I do accept that 1200 is usually the lowest someone should go, and that people going under should have a doctor's approval and/or supervision.)

shorty35565

Isn't the general idea tho, the more u weigh the more you can eat because you burn more moving around than people who weigh less?

Well, that's only one part of the equation. Also consider that the more *fat* you carry, the bigger the deficit you can do safely. And if you're REALLY sedentary, you might not be moving around enough (except during purposeful exercise, and if you eat your burnt calories... well, that changes a lot too, doesn't it?) for your excess weight to allow you to eat more.

There is no single formula, no single number that works for everyone. People are all different. 1200 calories a day can mean very different outcomes for different people.

I was doing sub-1200 net calories at the beginning and it worked just fine back then. Now? No way.

True, I agree about the bigger deficit. But I mean, I weigh 122.8lbs & I'm sedentary. My TDEE is still ab 1900. (I this because of my bodymedia) So people who weigh more surely are burning more than that.
I did 1200 in the beginning too, when I didn't know any better. I wasn't on mfp, no1 was telling me otherwise. Did I lose weight? Sure did. Did I lose muscle as well? Sure did. Now I'm flabby & I hate it. I would hate 2 see someone else do that to themselves. Eating 1200 cals for me wasn't hard either. I did it just fine, but I realized that just because I COULD do it, didn't mean I SHOULD.
It does slow down your metabolism too, so whenever you're ready to up the cals, you're likely to gain weight. I would eat as much as I could to lose healthily. Seeing the number move as fast as you can isn't the object of the game. That scale can't tell you what it is that you're losing either.

ssohni

I do 1400 but most days never get near that. 1100-1200 is closer to the mark. But, I never eat more than one packet of oatmeal, although I do usually have a banana or peach sliced up in it. I am down 29 and have about another 70 to go. I am never hungry and if I get hungry I have some veggie or a piece of fruit.

vegamy

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.

Doesn't work for me, that's for sure!

I did start out around 1200 calories and worked my way up to 1400, then 1600, then 1800 for maintenance (but that's net, so on an average day my total calories burned is around 2200, so I actually eat around 2000 calories or more daily, typically).

Anyway, yes, my goals were to keep lean body mass and lose fat, while become stronger and more fit. Eating more worked out well for me, and I *am* physically hungry quite often, even on 2000+ calories per day.

I agree with other posters that different things work for different people, and for certain people 1200 calories is impossible, just like I've heard people say if they ate 2,000 calories they'd explode from being overfull!

WendyTerry420

It's not hard ... but it's also not the best plan for most people.
I have no idea why people think that's the magic number and even then try to eat less than that...

If you do your settings correctly, very few people would come up with 1200.

True that 1200 is not a magic number. MFP tried to put me at 1200 (or like 1240 or so) when I started. I bumped it 1700 and then 1800 hundred and I'm still averaging two pounds per week. There are a lot of variables that come into play when it comes to energy needs. Activity level is probably the biggest. I think that a lot of people come up with 1200 because of low activity level.

Rays_Wife

...
Also eating that low is slowing ur metabolism down like crazy.

Exactly. And when those people eating 1200 cals for months on end try to go up to their maintenance calories they are going to be in for a rude awakening. ...unless they plan on dieting the rest of their lives. Fun...

theskinnylist

...
Also eating that low is slowing ur metabolism down like crazy.

Exactly. And when those people eating 1200 cals for months on end try to go up to their maintenance calories they are going to be in for a rude awakening. ...unless they plan on dieting the rest of their lives. Fun...

Myth...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16

The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"

briannadunn

I would have to say that I thought that people who were eating around 1200 a day were insane. Then I cut diary, breads, and most meats out of my diet for medical reasons and I can barely meet my 1400 calorie goal. It was hard to keep it under 1900 when I was eating things I wasn't supposed. Now I wouldn't recommend doing what I did for some they can't I am not starving though, I eat every thing I can eat and a lot of it. I was just so sick that I had to stop eating what I couldn't eat and now I feel awesome. I was reading Eat To Live, which helped a lot but I am now basically a vegetarian.

Jester522

Its not impossible. It's just not smart.

withchaco

I would eat as much as I could to lose healthily.

Same here. I love tasty food after all.

It's just -- just because one person (e.g. you) or even most people at X height and Y activity level spend Z calories per day, doesn't mean all people at X height/ Y activity level spend the same amount of calories. You sound like a good example in proving that point. Sedentary, short, 122lbs and 1900+ calories TDEE? Certainly higher than what the equations predict (and I assume the equations come close to average).