why is 1200 cal/day too low?
Options
Replies
-
Heres some science that doesn't need stat studies. A system can only expend as much energy as you put into it. Yay thermodynamics. So the only possible thing for your body to do when you give it less energy is to have less energy. So, your rmr would be suppressed. Thats one reason many dieters feel cold. They do not have access to as much energy so the system decides thermogenisus, I don't need that. So yep, it is possible to eat more and burn more calories and enjoy all the body stuffs. Your the first person in the vlcd group I have seen that doesn't believe that rmr is slowed. Anyone on a diet losing weight is slowing their rmr...the vlcd group is just doing it to the max. So while I agree everyones BMR is usually all over the place, there's usually a way to bring it back up to the regular averages.
Someone took the time to answer this questions for their reasons. I suggest if you do not understand why it's to low, you should read it:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/865024-1200-and-why-it-won-t-work0 -
That's what I'm sayin' right now...0 -
In Place Of a Road Map is the WAY TO GO!!0
-
I understand that people can lose and lose quite successfully on 1200 calories a day. What I want to know is are they able to keep it off long-term? I highly doubt it. I lost 30 pounds twice by eating 1200 calories a day and walking. I was eating healthier and felt great but I was skinny-fat and the weight piled back on when I began to eat normally.
I think people like me comprise the 90% of the population that regain the weight. Low calorie diets are effective in scale loss but you usually end up with a slowed metabolism and high bf %. This time I have upped my calories to around 1600-2000 a day. I still eat junk (working on that) and am lifting weights three times a week. I don't feel deprived, I'm not hungry and in the month and half I have not had one binge episode. The scale isn't moving much but my body fat % is going down and I am losing inches. I feel this is maintainable.
Thanks for the IPOARM Dan. I'm following the guidelines and am seeing success without much effort at all.
And this is why people use IPOARM. Couldn't have put it better myself - thanks for your story.0 -
OP...many people's BMR is above 1,200 calories. You should never eat below your BMR...BMR calories are simply the calories that your body needs just for proper organ function in a coma. There are a lot of factors that go into BMR...nobody is the same. For some people, 1,200 calories net is fine, but many others have a higher BMR than that. If you are older and shorter you are going to have a lower BMR...taller and younger you're going to have a higher BMR. Also, it depends on your weight...the more you weigh, the higher your BMR...the less you weight and less weight you have to lose, the lower your BMR.
I agree with others to follow the road map links. At minimum, net to your BMR...i.e. make your BMR your starting point and eat back any exercise calories. Particularly as you only have 20 Lbs to lose, you should not be as aggressive in your goals...you should be shooting for about 1 Lb per week...then dial that back to .5 Lbs per week once you're within 10 Lbs of goal. Large deficits and rapid weight loss when you don't have much to lose results in losing a lot of lean body mass by the time you're done. You will end up with a "healthy" body weight, but a higher % body fat to muscle ratio...i.e. skinny fat.0 -
I ate 1200 plus exercise calories for a couple of months last year and lost 14lbs. I then went back to eating around 1600 per day and put 10 of those lbs back on.
I'm only 5'3 and 1200 seemed to work well for me. I'm guessing my maintenance must be somewhere in the region of 1400 (based on the above) so eating in excess of this will just make me put on weight!0 -
Been gone a few days but heres my final point to anyone cutting at 1200....
At some point you will adjust.
At some point you will stop losing the fat.
So if....
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.
And the only true energy beyond basal needs is coming from fat then on what planet do you think your body is going to be willing to let it go?
You will adapt and you will plateau.
The only way out is to 1) Cut deeper. or 2) Raise metabolic rate by eating more.
I dont give a flying **** about any of your studies because i've seen studies showing people believe in magic if it involves a ritual.
A study will set out to prove what it wants to prove.
Ive had these conversations before.
Cough....Mcarter....Cough......
You can raise metabolic rate, it may take years btw, then eat like a normal human being.
When you stop losing weight/fat at 1200 youve got nowhere to cut.
You are wasting your time.
Eat like a normal human being.
Move like a normal human being.
Sleep like a normal human being.
Look like a normal human being!
Its that simple!
Thank you for the support gang!
Lots of huge wins this week on the IPOARM wall!
;D0 -
Does IPOARM come with a extra dose of arrogance, Dan?
You give good advice but the consistent attitude of "I know better for everyone" gets old even for those that agree on the overall basics of your method.
Variability is part of the normal - so to call someone that has a TDEE which is 20%-30% below the calculated TDEE as being not normal or metabolically damaged or having an eating disorder is incorrect. Without identified biological makers or actual biological issues there is no medical issue that can be diagnosed solely from a drop in BMR or even a low, long term actual BMR.
And given that the best of these equation only calculates residual variance of LBM to be 70% of the overall BMR in a generally healthy population, it pretty clear from dozens and dozens of metabolic estimation studies that significant variability exists and more so for obese individuals (with or without hormonal factors like circulating T3 and other hormones or diseases like diabetes)
BTW - a couple of questions on your "biological function of fat"
- how does fat protect from insulin resistance? It is my understanding that lipids induce insulin resistance via protein Kinase C activation. Is this wrong?
- estrogen decline - I have not seen the work that describes that fat protects from estrogen decline - doesn't mean it isn't true but I find that very interesting as the role of estrogen in a variety of aging functions and metabolism is primordial. It would suggest that fat tissue would protect from neurological decline and increase metabolism from this alone.
- fat has several other biological functions - the first is actually as a reservoir for all tissues of lipids for cell function. Lipid storage is essential. No lipids no life. So you can't "eliminate the reason for its existence". Another major function of fat is hormonal - leptin production, hormonal regulation, etc... essential and GOOD. Eating disorders, amenorrhea are all partially driven by fat tissue hormonal disfunction.
Keep up what you are doing, it is great, but no need to be insulting with the people that don't agree with you.0 -
Does IPOARM come with a extra dose of arrogance, Dan?
You give good advice but the consistent attitude of "I know better for everyone" gets old even for those that agree on the overall basics of your method.
Variability is part of the normal - so to call someone that has a TDEE which is 20%-30% below the calculated TDEE as being not normal or metabolically damaged or having an eating disorder is incorrect. Without identified biological makers or actual biological issues there is no medical issue that can be diagnosed solely from a drop in BMR or even a low, long term actual BMR.
And given that the best of these equation only calculates residual variance of LBM to be 70% of the overall BMR in a generally healthy population, it pretty clear from dozens and dozens of metabolic estimation studies that significant variability exists and more so for obese individuals (with or without hormonal factors like circulating T3 and other hormones or diseases like diabetes)
BTW - a couple of questions on your "biological function of fat"
- how does fat protect from insulin resistance? It is my understanding that lipids induce insulin resistance via protein Kinase C activation. Is this wrong?
- estrogen decline - I have not seen the work that describes that fat protects from estrogen decline - doesn't mean it isn't true but I find that very interesting as the role of estrogen in a variety of aging functions and metabolism is primordial. It would suggest that fat tissue would protect from neurological decline and increase metabolism from this alone.
- fat has several other biological functions - the first is actually as a reservoir for all tissues of lipids for cell function. Lipid storage is essential. No lipids no life. So you can't "eliminate the reason for its existence". Another major function of fat is hormonal - leptin production, hormonal regulation, etc... essential and GOOD. Eating disorders, amenorrhea are all partially driven by fat tissue hormonal disfunction.
Keep up what you are doing, it is great, but no need to be insulting with the people that don't agree with you.
All apologies to anyone who takes offense to my passionate soapbox speeches.
It's not a matter of whos right or whos wrong.
My point is and always will be "why give yourself the absolute minimum when you dont have too?"
Thats all.
I've had women join the group and gain several pounds before the effects reverse and the inches come off.
Its scary to think about having to gain before losing and its one of the top concerns for anyone joining the group and trying it.
Especially after dieting for years and failing!
Trust me!
I prefer hearing "That makes sense!" as opposed to "your F***ing crazy! Ive been at 1200 etc and its always worked!"
I do try to offer viable advice to the best of my ability and even some of the women who've joined and are O2 and higher know that I start them lower than 20% TDEE then slowly step them up as they lose the fat.
I truly hope the best for anyone struggling with weight loss and hope that they dont put themselves in worse condition than before.
Thats all.0 -
I am with the person who said:
"I did 1200 a day for quite a while with great results. I personally don't see why everybody gets all up in arms about it. "
I notice he lost a LOT of weight!!
I am older and sit in front of a computer all day... I mean all day ... for my job. I am slowly trying to add walking and I want to get on a hiking routine too. I think 1200 per day for me is realistic. If I feel I need to eat more, I will. But I like having 1200 as the baseline. I am post-menopause, new grandma, working in computer industry sitting. So this seems realistic. I also entered a goal of losing 1 pound per week. So... I started at 180 and want to get to 135. I need to lose weight slowly and increase exercise slowly. MFP is great!!0 -
Last year I was eating 1200 calories a day and eating my exercise calories usually around 350 calories a day back. I lost around 1.5 - 2.5 lbs a week doing that. Guess who gained it all back? I'm now eating 1670 and my exercise calories back, around 350 still, so I usually consume around 1900-2000 calories a day. I feel better, I have more energy and guess what? I'm still losing at the same rate.0
-
Now I am just starting a 90 day program and my trainer put me on a 1264 calorie day program with 594.8 calories from protein, 252.8 from fat and 416.4 from carbs which breaks down to 24.8 g protein, 4.7 g fat and 17.4 grams carbs for each meal (6 meals a day). This is also doing 3 bootcamps a week and 40 minutes cardio each day.
This is coming from a certified trainer/nutritionist. I am at 233 lbs now, down from 295. I am not starving by any means and actually find it difficult to eat it all.
Angie0 -
Congratulations! on your weight loss and getting healthier. It sounds like you are doing a great job! My brother got me to begin this. He has lost 132 lbs..eating healthy, counting calories and he swing dances 3 x a week. I am so proud for him. He is feeling so much better and no longer has diabeties. I have just begun a few days ago and have lost 2 lbs. I am excited and looking forward to more of the same.0
-
I'm a not-quite-5ft3, small framed, 35 year old woman. I eat 1200 a day plus most of my exercise calories. I've lost 49lbs so far doing this, steadily, and am still losing. So it's not always too low. I still have around 35-40 lbs to lose, so may find I have to up my calories at some point, but at the moment, it's just fine for me.0
-
All apologies to anyone who takes offense to my passionate soapbox speeches.
It's not a matter of whos right or whos wrong.
My point is and always will be "why give yourself the absolute minimum when you dont have too?"
Thats all.
Because some people do much better and are much happier and better able to keep the weight off if they take it off quickly. For some people, a slow, moderate loss can seem quite torturous and interminable. Big gains keep me excited about weight loss.I've had women join the group and gain several pounds before the effects reverse and the inches come off.
Its scary to think about having to gain before losing and its one of the top concerns for anyone joining the group and trying it.
Especially after dieting for years and failing!
Trust me!
I prefer hearing "That makes sense!" as opposed to "your F***ing crazy! Ive been at 1200 etc and its always worked!"
Of course you prefer it when your position is agreed with. Of course you want to ignore evidence that conflicts with your position. That is called cognitive bias. Everybody falls victim to it. It is why you have some bad science like what you referred to in an earlier post. Peer review process is meant to correct for that and there are measures in the scientific community to control that. What measures are you taking?
Everybody seeks to prove themselves right. It doesn't just happen in scientific studies.
What are you doing to ensure that you are not simply maintaining the comforting conviction that you are right? The passionate soap box speeches make it seem like you are doing nothing to that end. I can not trust anybody who doesn't demonstrate some vigilance in that area.
If you have Netflix, watch NatGeo's Is It Real? and notice that the passionate people always seem to be the ones who say the Loch Ness monster is real, spontaneous human combustion happens and psychic detectives find missing children. Look at how dispassionate the people who disagree are. That isn't accidental. That objective disposition is cultivated. People who really seek truth strive to remove their emotions from the subject because they know their emotions will blind them.0 -
1200 cals is too low for me. I stopped losing weight.
Plateau'd like a mu---- fu
....and the 1200 cals was recommended to me by my doctor. Sorry, doc.0 -
i was given 1200 calories when i joined here, but raised it to just under 1500, i was hungry all the time and wasnt ever going to lose weight.0
-
Bump to read later
0 -
I am older and sit in front of a computer all day... I mean all day ... for my job. I am slowly trying to add walking and I want to get on a hiking routine too. I think 1200 per day for me is realistic. If I feel I need to eat more, I will. But I like having 1200 as the baseline. I am post-menopause, new grandma, working in computer industry sitting. So this seems realistic. I also entered a goal of losing 1 pound per week. So... I started at 180 and want to get to 135. I need to lose weight slowly and increase exercise slowly. MFP is great!!
I'm happy it's working for you, but I'm sure you can see that the calorie goal of someone younger and more active should be higher than that of a fairly sedentary 64 year old woman?0 -
I am 48 years old and lost 24 lbs. last year at a rate of between .8 and 1 lb. per week eating 1650 and only exercising two days per week, then I upped my workouts to 6 days and my calories to 1850 (those numbers were without eating exercise calories back, but only because they were based on TDEE, not MFP numbers). It can be done. You don't even have to starve yourself. Or claim that you are stuffed on 1200 calories. I eat at least 2000 calories a day now, exercise 5 days (and only burn about 250 calories while exercising) and I'm maintaining since October.It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions