Curious

BuffySlays2000

I have seen posts and topics on not doing 1200 calories and I am curious why this is not recommended by so many people. I just started on MFP last month and I started out at 1500 but I was going under that on a daily basis and no where near starving at the end of the day. I changed to 1200 and have felt very comfortable with it. I still don't feel I'm starving at the end of the day. I have lost 9 pounds since January 2.

I would really love some feedback on what the healthier choices are.

Thanks in advance!

BioMechHeretic

Anything under 1200 and your body is going to start slowing your metabolism down because it thinks you don't have access to sufficient nutrients. Once it slows down you will burn off food and fat slower, and when you do eat a bit more it will not burn off as much and you will gain weight, or stop losing it. That is why it's not recommended.

You should be more worried about consuming good beneficial foods and working out to burn fat then just lowering down your calorie count by itself.

brokenjawedmuse

Really, it depends on how much you weigh and how much you have to lose. The higher the amount of weight you have to lose, the lower you can drop your calories. I have 125ish lbs to lose as of today, my DO said I could drop my calories as low as 900 a day with no severe effects until I get under a BMI of 35ish.

The closer you get to a normal BMI, the harder that kind of deficit will be on you.

And very very few of the people on this site are nutritional experts, doctors, or anyone you really ought to listen to anyways.

Talk to your doctor, find out what he/she thinks.

Duck_Puddle

There's a difference between eating 1200 and netting 1200 (meaning you're also eating the calories you burn through exercise). It's really difficult to get all the nutrients your body needs (vitamins and minerals and such) when you're consuming only 1200 (or less) calories a day-not impossible, but difficult. Exercise burn energy (calories), presumably requiring your body to have additional "fuel" to maintain adequate nutrient levels. So if you eat 1200 calories (or less), then go off burning a gazillion calories a day at the gym, there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more. If you are "netting" 1200 calories (or thereabouts), you are likely doing better (although there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more). Also realize that many people here on the mfp boards started at 1200-felt and did great for weeks/months-then it started to wear on them and they got tired, cranky, plateaued, etc.

For the record, I NET 1200-I consume significantly more than that.

cwolfman13

I have seen posts and topics on not doing 1200 calories and I am curious why this is not recommended by so many people. I just started on MFP last month and I started out at 1500 but I was going under that on a daily basis and no where near starving at the end of the day. I changed to 1200 and have felt very comfortable with it. I still don't feel I'm starving at the end of the day. I have lost 9 pounds since January 2.

I would really love some feedback on what the healthier choices are.

Thanks in advance!

There are a lot of factors that play into this. For one thing, 1,200 calories is the most aggressive setting...MFP will not let you go under this number. For many people, their BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is more than 1,200 calories and eating below your BMR for significant amounts of time can cause problems. This is particularly true for people that don't have a lot of weight to lose because they just don't have the fat stores to adequately provide for that kind of deficit. BMR is essentially the calories required to support basic organ function in a coma...ie if you were in a coma in the hospital, they would feed you your BMR calories through a tube.

A lot of the comments you see in RE to people starving themselves, etc are due to people going way below their calorie goal by not eating enough or doing insane amounts of cardio...a lot of these same people basically have a handful of cosmetic pounds to lose, not 50+. Many of these people are essentially establishing an eating disorder, no a safe and healthy weight loss program.

It is generally advisable to be under the watch of a doctor if an aggressive weight loss approach is going to be taken...basically anything below your BMR for an extended period of time. You just want to make sure your body is getting proper nutrition and calorie intake is adequate to support basic, resting bodily functions.

There are numerous calculators that estimate your BMR...you can also get it professionally tested.

BuffySlays2000

I am changing my eating habits, more veggies, fruits, chicken and vegetarian meat substitutes. I had been a heavy soda and coffee drinker and have been able to cut out the soda altogether and have only one cup of coffee a day. I am also working out, strength training and cardio. I started out with a goal of 30 minutes three times a week but have since upped it to 45 minutes four times a week. I'm taking the stairs instead of the elevator.

The impression that I'm getting is that it is better to eat back calories gained from working out to get as close to 1200 as possible or even a little over. Or perhaps I should up my intake? I will find out about getting my BMI also.

Thank you all for taking the time to give me advice! It is much appreciated!

CristinaL1983

Really, it depends on how much you weigh and how much you have to lose. The higher the amount of weight you have to lose, the lower you can drop your calories. I have 125ish lbs to lose as of today, my DO said I could drop my calories as low as 900 a day with no severe effects until I get under a BMI of 35ish.

The closer you get to a normal BMI, the harder that kind of deficit will be on you.

[bold] And very very few of the people on this site are nutritional experts, doctors, or anyone you really ought to listen to anyways.[/bold]

Talk to your doctor, find out what he/she thinks.

^^^ So much of this!

Mrs_Bones

There's a difference between eating 1200 and netting 1200 (meaning you're also eating the calories you burn through exercise). It's really difficult to get all the nutrients your body needs (vitamins and minerals and such) when you're consuming only 1200 (or less) calories a day-not impossible, but difficult. Exercise burn energy (calories), presumably requiring your body to have additional "fuel" to maintain adequate nutrient levels. So if you eat 1200 calories (or less), then go off burning a gazillion calories a day at the gym, there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more. If you are "netting" 1200 calories (or thereabouts), you are likely doing better (although there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more). Also realize that many people here on the mfp boards started at 1200-felt and did great for weeks/months-then it started to wear on them and they got tired, cranky, plateaued, etc.

For the record, I NET 1200-I consume significantly more than that.

This is a good explaination of this! Eating less that 1200 just isn't going to be enough to provide you with sufficient nutrition for your body. The reality is, it's quite possible to get enough "calories" and still be nutritionally starving because you're deprived of vitamins and minerals. If your body think it's starving, weight loss is going to be a challenge to sustain! If you get a good amount of exercise in and net 1200, then you'll lose weight well while not depriving yourself of what you need.

megsmom2

There's a difference between eating 1200 and netting 1200 (meaning you're also eating the calories you burn through exercise). It's really difficult to get all the nutrients your body needs (vitamins and minerals and such) when you're consuming only 1200 (or less) calories a day-not impossible, but difficult. Exercise burn energy (calories), presumably requiring your body to have additional "fuel" to maintain adequate nutrient levels. So if you eat 1200 calories (or less), then go off burning a gazillion calories a day at the gym, there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more. If you are "netting" 1200 calories (or thereabouts), you are likely doing better (although there are lots of people that will encourage you to eat more). Also realize that many people here on the mfp boards started at 1200-felt and did great for weeks/months-then it started to wear on them and they got tired, cranky, plateaued, etc.

For the record, I NET 1200-I consume significantly more than that.

This!

AnvilHead

I have seen posts and topics on not doing 1200 calories and I am curious why this is not recommended by so many people....

Read through all the threads with titles similar to these:

"NOT LOSING!!!!!1! HEELLLLP!!!11!!1!"

"STALLED - CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT!!!1!"

"OMG WHAT'S GOING ON??? HAAAAALP!!!!"


You'll see a common denominator....almost every one of them are eating/netting at or below 1200 calories/day. Some are also exercising frantically and netting 0-300 cal/day.

"Starvation mode" is one of the most abused/misused terms on this site - but while it's not "starvation mode", there is truth to the fact that metabolic adaptation/downregulation can occur from excessively large caloric deficits. You don't gain weight and your body doesn't "hang on to fat" as some mistakenly claim, but your hormones can get screwy and your metabolism can significantly slow, making it very difficult to sustain weight loss.

As others have alluded to, very obese people can generally tolerate larger deficits longer due to the fact that the body has a more than ample amount of stores to draw from - but it can still eventually lead to stalls/plateaus.