When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)

myofibril

If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.

They were eating 300 cal/day!! 300!! That is absolutely, unbelievably low and should not be compared to a 1200 cal/day diet. I can bring up plenty of studies showing that eating 400 cal or less/ day will devastate your body in a plethora of ways. I'm talking about the 800-1200 cal/day that most studies are completed using. In those ranges, RMR/BMR is typically maintained, especially with higher protein and strength training.

Quoting a 300 cal/day diet study in no way negates or contradicts anything I have said these are VERY different things.

They are different as you say but non comparable?

The point is that there is a spectrum and there will be over lap in the adaptations that occur. These are not discrete boundaries - for example 800 calories is the cut off line for VLCDs and that somehow anything above that means that no slow down will occur.

I am not meaning to be alarmist here though. It may well be the benefits to the individual in pursuing an 800 - 1,200 calorie approach outweighs the potential costs, however there are still costs.

Trilby16

Is it just me or does it seem like these threads about how 1200 cal diets are wrong/bad always started by young/youngish males? Do people not comprehend that what's right for a 20-, 30-, 40-YO man is different from what's right for a 60-YO woman?

bcattoes

And I feel just as confident that you are wrong. The body would lower BMR to accommodate a lower calorie diet.

meaning that nobody ever starves to death?

or that nobody ever starves to death on 1200 calories?

because at some point, it can't go lower without the body consuming itself (the real starvation mode). is that 1100? 1000? 900? 700? i don't know. but i do know that when your BF% gets low enough and your body can no longer operate any more efficiently, you will start to long slow march to death if you don't increase your calories.

Meaning that few would starve to death at 1200 calories. And aren't most of us on a long slow march to death?

Edit: changed last sentence from "all" to "most of us". Ufortunately, some are probably on a faster march.

bcattoes

If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.

They were eating 300 cal/day!! 300!! That is absolutely, unbelievably low and should not be compared to a 1200 cal/day diet. I can bring up plenty of studies showing that eating 400 cal or less/ day will devastate your body in a plethora of ways. I'm talking about the 800-1200 cal/day that most studies are completed using. In those ranges, RMR/BMR is typically maintained, especially with higher protein and strength training.

Quoting a 300 cal/day diet study in no way negates or contradicts anything I have said these are VERY different things.

They are different as you say but non comparable?

The point is that there is a spectrum and there will be over lap in the adaptations that occur. These are not discrete boundaries - for example 800 calories is the cut off line for VLCDs and that somehow anything above that means that no slow down will occur.

I am not meaning to be alarmist here though. It may well be the benefits to the individual in pursuing an 800 - 1,200 calorie approach outweighs the potential costs, however there are still costs.

Are you saying that you think a 300 calorie per day fast and a 1200 calorie per day (gross or net) diet are comparable. I'd have to go with a big NO on that one.

CristinaL1983

If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.

They were eating 300 cal/day!! 300!! That is absolutely, unbelievably low and should not be compared to a 1200 cal/day diet. I can bring up plenty of studies showing that eating 400 cal or less/ day will devastate your body in a plethora of ways. I'm talking about the 800-1200 cal/day that most studies are completed using. In those ranges, RMR/BMR is typically maintained, especially with higher protein and strength training.

Quoting a 300 cal/day diet study in no way negates or contradicts anything I have said these are VERY different things.

They are different as you say but non comparable?

The point is that there is a spectrum and there will be over lap in the adaptations that occur. These are not discrete boundaries - for example 800 calories is the cut off line for VLCDs and that somehow anything above that means that no slow down will occur.

I am not meaning to be alarmist here though. It may well be the benefits to the individual in pursuing an 800 - 1,200 calorie approach outweighs the potential costs, however there are still costs.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you in that extreme low calories can wreck your body. There are plenty of studies that show that even at 600 cal/day in obese individuals no slow down will occur. There is one study that was done that had 4 groups one at 400 one at 600, one at 800, and one at 1000. The group at 400 cal lost the most weight but was also the only group that experienced significant metabolic slowdown. The study concluded that for obese individuals, 600 calories should be the minimum recommended in a VLCD (when under the supervision of a doctor). That study is the basis for the recommendations after gastric bypass or lap band surgeries etc... Again, that study was in obese individuals only so the results could be different for people who are only overweight and the majority of studies on overweight individuals have a lower limit of 800 cal.

All I'm saying is that there is a difference between 300 and 1200 calories and studies in the 800-1200 calorie range show a "normalization" of RMR/BMR within days of raising calories to maintenance.

pucenavel

1200 total or 1200 net?

What types of foods is the person eating?

I contend that 1200 calories of fresh vegetables, lean protein, a small amount of healthy fats & fruit will sustain a person far better than a single BK Whopper Meal a day. Which choice will actually give the body a usable dose of 1200 calories?

I ask only because I try to run between 1200 & 1500 net each day (in that I eat back exercise calories - or more accurately, I pre-fuel for my planned workouts - you don't drive you car 20 miles and THEN put gas in, right?). I tend to eat most of my calories as wholesome food - not that I don't indulge in a little junk here and there, but I'd say at least 80% of what I eat is what I would call "clean food". If I go over 1500-1600 (net), I gain. All the calculators say I should be at 1700-1800. If I stick to 1200-1300, I lose about a pound a week, maybe two.

Perhaps what I eat is the difference, perhaps my body is very good at getting every last drop of energy out of food, perhaps because I am conditioned for endurance sports, I burn less than what the "all powerful MFP calculator" says I do, perhaps my HR calculations are far enough off the "norm" that my calorie burn for an hour of 140 bpm is actually far less than 700 calories per hour. I don't have all the answers.

My experiences may not match your ideals & platitudes.

sammycat1

I've been on 1200 calories for a month and look and feel (no other way to put it) like hell!!!! Even my hubby said so.

I'm upping my calories to 1450 in accordance with the 'road map' and see what happens. Saying that I did lose 7lbs this month but not worth the agro.

WinnerVictorious

i'd like to wish good luck to everyone here who actually read and understood the initial post in this thread. the choice is always in your hands. 1200 may be right for some people. i never said it wasn't. i simply said that it wasn't the only way or even the best way for the large majority of people here (probably even vast majority). in any event, all i want for people to do is to make informed decisions on how they proceed. read. learn. then decide. i've passed along 2 good links in the original post and for anyone new or confused or stalled, i would urge you to check out both links. for those of you who are happy on a 1200 calorie diet, i hope it works for you. there is some interesting give and take on this thread and even a handful of skeptical people whose posts deserve to be read.

for those who came in here with an agenda of their own and anger in their hearts aimed at me for things i didn't say, i most likely didn't read most of your posts since i put several of you on ignore. good luck to you folks anyway. i have no animosity toward you and never passed judgment on your choices. this thread was only about information. i hate seeing people struggling on VLCD because they are deathly afraid of increasing their calories. i'm firmly in the faction that recommends eating a bit more to make this whole process easier whenever that is an option.

:drinker:

anasantos61

Bump

SRH7

i'd like to wish good luck to everyone here who actually read and understood the initial post in this thread. the choice is always in your hands. 1200 may be right for some people. i never said it wasn't. i simply said that it wasn't the only way or even the best way for the large majority of people here (probably even vast majority). in any event, all i want for people to do is to make informed decisions on how they proceed. read. learn. then decide. i've passed along 2 good links in the original post and for anyone new or confused or stalled, i would urge you to check out both links. for those of you who are happy on a 1200 calorie diet, i hope it works for you. there is some interesting give and take on this thread and even a handful of skeptical people whose posts deserve to be read.

for those who came in here with an agenda of their own and anger in their hearts aimed at me for things i didn't say, i most likely didn't read most of your posts since i put several of you on ignore. good luck to you folks anyway. i have no animosity toward you and never passed judgment on your choices. this thread was only about information. i hate seeing people struggling on VLCD because they are deathly afraid of increasing their calories. i'm firmly in the faction that recommends eating a bit more to make this whole process easier whenever that is an option.

:drinker:

:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:

And a big thank you to Winner Victorious for the OP.

newmrswood

please do yourself a favor and find out the right calorie goal for yourself that allows you to change your body in a healthy and satisfying way. you don't need to starve yourself and you don't need to suffer the side effects of a 1200 calorie diet.

I did exactly this, and guess what?? I found that 1200 per day is the appropriate calorie goal for me to lose 1 pound per week. Wow. Guess I must be a unique snowflake to fall outside your standards of what I should be eating. And the only side effects I am 'suffering' is being 37 lbs down, and stronger and healthier than I have been in 12 years.

Seriously. Give it a rest and quit trying to tell everyone else what they should be doing. Get over yourself, and whatever insecurity you have in your life that makes you feel that you must control everyone else. Control yourself. That is all you can do.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught the "suffering" part. I am on 1200 calories per day and am fine with it, I eat 1200 a day and then eat back my excercise calories if I can. Just because you eat 1200 calories doesn't mean you're suffering...it makes more sense for people to talk to their doctors about their calories and workout! YES do your research about diets and what is or isn't healthy for you but it makes much more snese to listen to a doctor in the end. Your doctor knows you, your habits and your health and can better guide you towards a healthier life style. Read what they posted, read some other threads, do your OWN research and then talk to a doctor!

artbkward

saving for later

uberkrafty

I totally agree! Like some of the ladies that responded to this thread, I too started off with 1200 calories / day based on MFP's suggestion. I found that I don't really lose any weight this way. I have since upped it to 1350-1400 and so far I've lost a pound

Tlink34

That is awesome!

wrests

I hope I can post here, as I'm struggling with this concept...I've read up a lot on it but I still can't grasp it. At 1,200 (my MFP-set goal) I'd be eating below my BMR, which seems pretty terrible (a 51% cut from TDEE!). But -20% from my TDEE would be 1,855 which is a terrifying number.

I've been stalled for a month now (lost a single pound...) so I'm not sure if I should just work harder, exercise more consistently (well yeah I need to do that, too!) and see if it changes, or really just inhale all food that comes near me and go by my TDEE-20%. Any help from someone who's knowledgeable would be appreciated!

Try to find a "happy medium" between your BMR and TDEE? Up your calories slowly, maybe 50-100 per week.

I'll put it at BMR for two weeks and see how I react! Part of the reason I'm resistant is that I know I'll probably make up the calorie difference in chocolate and other junk food :blushing: I just can't imagine making up those cals in broccoli...and yes I know butter and oils will help but I'll just have to change my thinking again!

phoebeleb

thank you for this post!

lika50

bump

nicolemtracy

So I have a question. MFP says my goal for calories IS 1200... That's the deficit I need to lose weight isn't it? Additionally to that question, here's another one. Do I HAVE to eat the exercise calories? I just burned 1004 calories doing 45 minutes on my elliptical. I feel like eating 1000 more calories would be a set back to my progress... What's a healthy way to eat them?

proudandprejudiced

I agree that it's almost never appropriate, there are too many people eating 1200 when it's under their BMR.

I'm 5'1" and I maintain my weight eating 1200 and exercising. BMR is affected by other factors than your height, weight and age. So sometimes, you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

ademiter

And I've seen people who have their calories set to 1200 or even 1300 and they still eat 800-900. How can that be healthy? For a thin person, I could see it, but for someone who has quite a ways to go??? I'm so confused. lol