When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)
Replies
-
:flowerforyou:
We need to do our utmost to keep this thread at the top of the forums for as long as possible!
And when is MFP going to listen to common sense and stop advising everyone to eat 1200?!!
I lost and gained the same 7lbs for 12 months eating 1200. Now, in a fraction of that time, I have lost 9lbs following the Roadmap (eating around 1600 calories a day plus exercise calories). And the weight is continuining to drop off. I'm not as grouchy, I drink alcohol, I have the energy to run and lift weights, my skin is better, I'm less hungry and far happier.
'Nough said!
I agree completely, I haven't had a chance to look at the Roadmap thing but I started out at 1200 when I first started on MFP but it was so hard to stick to it because you honestly feel like you can't eat anything and half way through the day I was exhausted. I'm 5'9 and walk a lot (have a desk job but try to get up and move as much as possible) so 1200 was not enough and I was totally oblivious. Then I stopped using the app for almost 6 months- a year because I was to discouraged by the fact that I was going over my limit, even when I was eating (mostly) healthy. I still liked to have a snack or a treat from time to time but that didn't let me do that. Now that I've returned (after being fed up with gaining weight because I was buying food and overeating) I've switched to 1600 calories a day and feel so much better, especially when I'm still in the green after a good cardio workout.0 -
if you are new here or are trying to adhere to a 1200 calorie diet because you heard that's what you need to do to lose weight, i would urge you to read through Dan's Roadmap:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
So where is Dan's Roadmap? I click this link and it goes nowhere.0 -
if you are new here or are trying to adhere to a 1200 calorie diet because you heard that's what you need to do to lose weight, i would urge you to read through Dan's Roadmap:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
So where is Dan's Roadmap? I click this link and it goes nowhere.
Newer edition from this year...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-20130 -
if you are new here or are trying to adhere to a 1200 calorie diet because you heard that's what you need to do to lose weight, i would urge you to read through Dan's Roadmap:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
So where is Dan's Roadmap? I click this link and it goes nowhere.
Newer edition from this year...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
I'm confused. I thought Pu_ wrote version 3.
:ohwell:0 -
I'm confused. I thought Pu_ wrote version 3.
:ohwell:
He wrote a short and sweet version. Like condensed milk.0 -
I'm sure I selected active, as I am. I never really looked at what was happening as I logged. But am not sure what I have lost, maybe some of all, fat muscle and water. It was a loss of 22 pounds. My clothes fit smaller. I did notice gain in muscle in my legs and arms, and starting to form in abs area. I think if I was unsure of this then how many are there out there not knowing this. It's a learning process. Thought I did enough research...*facepalm*
Good job on choice of activity level.
Read the forums enough of those that stalled for long periods of time, and you'll many times hear comments selecting sedentary "just to be on the safe side" though their job is on their feet all day.
And they don't eat back exercise calories - to help the loss.
And overestimate food, to be on the safe side.
So even muscle takes up space, and when lost you lose inches with the weight, especially since muscle stores glucose and water together.
So yep, you lost all 3 then, but in losing fat you are exposing your working muscle. Ya, you didn't gain any eating that much of a deficit. I doubt your body had the needed energy for keeping the metabolism up, let alone making new muscle that would require even more energy demands.
There are a ton out there not knowing - the diet industry counts on them buying their products, and coming back again and again and again, each time they lose and gain it back.0 -
Is this still a reliable calculator to determine intake??
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Reliable as MFP is since you are selecting the options.
You gonna be honest with daily activity and exercise added together?
You gonna take a reasonable deficit selection for amount to lose?
Is 1 hr of walking the same as 1 hr of lifting as 1 hr of running?
Spreadsheet on my profile page can help - stick on Simple Setup tab for all the same stats you'd provide anywhere. Except more detail on your activity.
Thanks for taking the time to put the spreadsheet together. I think a lot of people can benefit from this if they actually take the time to put their information in and follow the output.
Thanks again!
0 -
Well, Im 5'3" and I try to stick to 1200 becuase I am a big eater and once I go over I will start eating junk. But by doing this I do have to meat more through out the day...smaller meals...but every 3 hours until a few hours before bed. I used to have the same problem just just trying to eat 2 big meals. I would get so hungry that I would say "F this diet" and pig out0
-
My apologies. I haven't read the entire thread, but I wanted to get my thoughts out before I forget them.
When I first joined MFP, my little beginners survey thing told me that my goal should be 1200 calories per day. It was incredibly difficult to make that, mainly because I love sweets, but I did my best to meet that goal for two months, while also eating back my exercise calories. One thing I noticed that sort of scared me into doing more research was that I would never get hungry, I would get terribly sick. I never felt hunger pains, but I would become dizzy, shaky and nauseated - so much so that while I was cooking dinner, I would often have to take a break and lay down or sit, otherwise I would throw up. Once I upped my calorie goal, I started to feel better, got hungry again (rather than sick) and started to see more progress with my exercise routine.
I'm not a medical expert - or versed in any of this health stuff beyond what I've tried - but based on my experience alone, I would definitely be concerned for someone trying to meet this particular calorie goal.0 -
this. 0 -
Raising my FiberOne bar to this. 1200 calories... eh0
-
Bumpity bump bump0
-
I just recently bumped my calories to 1350 from being at 1200 for months. I honestly feel a lot better. I have not stepped on the scale (and don't plan to for another couple weeks), but I am hoping for the best results.
Besides, when I was 1200, I would constantly snack on random stuff and not log, thinking it would be "okay". The whole time I was just being hungry from the miserable 1200. My weight loss has been super slow as well!0 -
Am I the only person whos on 1200 calories and feels fine? I eat frequently and snack on carrots the majority of the time and I hardly ever feel 'hangry'0
-
Am I the only person whos on 1200 calories and feels fine? I eat frequently and snack on carrots the majority of the time and I hardly ever feel 'hangry'
not at all, many people have shrunk their stomachs and messed up their hormones such they feel just fine on much lower calories than would really be required to lose fat.
Others are very short and little muscle mass and very inactive - and it's appropriate for them too.
But you feeling full, and your body being fully fed for your level of activity, or 2 separate things.0 -
Why do you think so few people are women over 40? I assure you, there are a lot of us - like maybe 25% of the population?0
-
I didnt read the 400+ posts, or the first post for that matter but, 1200 calories is appropriate when you want to eat....lets say.....400 extra calories the next day and not burn it off.
/thread0 -
Shrunk their stomachs? Really? Maybe shrunk their appetites.Am I the only person whos on 1200 calories and feels fine? I eat frequently and snack on carrots the majority of the time and I hardly ever feel 'hangry'
not at all, many people have shrunk their stomachs and messed up their hormones such they feel just fine on much lower calories than would really be required to lose fat.
Others are very short and little muscle mass and very inactive - and it's appropriate for them too.
But you feeling full, and your body being fully fed for your level of activity, or 2 separate things.
So everyone who can diet fine on 1200 is messed up, unmuscled and inactive?
And last- "Your body being FULLY FED for your activity level"? That pretty much is the definition of eating at maintenance. A deficit is needed to lose weight.
I know you fully believe that 1200 is too strict a deficit for the vast majority of people but science and medicine just don't agree with you. It just shocks me that people here who understand these things don't bother to set you straight. I assume they've tried and given up. I tried last time I registered here and gave up. But the people in your camp are much reduced since then, which is a good thing. That whole EM2WL thing seems to have finally dried up and settled back into the fanatic cracks where it belongs, with few exceptions.0 -
Pretty sure your stomach doesn't shrink from your diet.0
-
Shrunk their stomachs? Really? Maybe shrunk their appetites.Am I the only person whos on 1200 calories and feels fine? I eat frequently and snack on carrots the majority of the time and I hardly ever feel 'hangry'
not at all, many people have shrunk their stomachs and messed up their hormones such they feel just fine on much lower calories than would really be required to lose fat.
Others are very short and little muscle mass and very inactive - and it's appropriate for them too.
But you feeling full, and your body being fully fed for your level of activity, or 2 separate things.
So everyone who can diet fine on 1200 is messed up, unmuscled and inactive?
And last- "Your body being FULLY FED for your activity level"? That pretty much is the definition of eating at maintenance. A deficit is needed to lose weight.
I know you fully believe that 1200 is too strict a deficit for the vast majority of people but science and medicine just don't agree with you. It just shocks me that people here who understand these things don't bother to set you straight. I assume they've tried and given up. I tried last time I registered here and gave up. But the people in your camp are much reduced since then, which is a good thing. That whole EM2WL thing seems to have finally dried up and settled back into the fanatic cracks where it belongs, with few exceptions.
Kidding me, you aren't aware you can eat volumes and stomach can become extended, such that you eat smaller amount and it doesn't feel full.
Same other direction too when you eat very little. Or get it stapled or removed to shrink it.
But besides that physical change, yes appetite too, which has somewhat to do with stomach too.
Did you read the OP and my clarifying line as to when 1200 is appropriate, there are plenty it is?
You disagree, fine and dandy,
Fully fed for level of activity doesn't have to be maintenance, but a reasonable deficit that doesn't cause your body to adapt to extremes to make up for an extreme lack of intake. Fully fed is whatever level doesn't stress the body enough, which can be a deficit for sure.
Actually, you'll find more and more talking about reasonable deficits, folks starting MFP, realizing the error of 1200, and going to better sustainable method within a month or 2 before they have stalled in their weight loss for months on end. There's still that group too.
Whether it's Roadmap or EM2WL or EatTrainProgress or just general encouragement that extreme deficits outside the lab or Dr supervised support seem to rarely lead to sustained long term success - as evidenced by how many talk about how many times they have been successful losing weight through the years, there are plenty more trying to be reasonable, which frankly for vast majority means NOT starting at net 1200 (unless conditions I stated above apply), though obviously you could get there.
Even your pic of a scale for CI vs CO seems to indicate a balance - not an extreme.
The possible long term effects many experience just don't have to be a fact of dieting, hence encouragement.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss0 -
Am I the only person whos on 1200 calories and feels fine? I eat frequently and snack on carrots the majority of the time and I hardly ever feel 'hangry'
not at all, many people have shrunk their stomachs and messed up their hormones such they feel just fine on much lower calories than would really be required to lose fat.
Others are very short and little muscle mass and very inactive - and it's appropriate for them too.
But you feeling full, and your body being fully fed for your level of activity, or 2 separate things.
Well I don't know if my stomach has shrunken but my hormone levels are fine, in fact they've improved since i started mfp @ 1200 calories although there are other factors that help with that.0 -
Oh here we go... more fear mongering. Guess what? 1200 calories is perfectly fine. I lift weights 3-4 times/week, eat 1200 calories, feel amazing, and have lost 50 pounds. Just because you don't have the willpower to do it doesn't mean that it's not safe. Science is on my side.
Ignorance is annoying. :explode:0 -
One formula doesnt fit all...
not that I eat 1200 or anything but lets not put people down for eating less than we believe they should. its their body not ours. and if they are losing and not malnourished who cares
Yes I agree with this.. I'm sick of all people shouting at those who eat 1200, its there choice so stop going on about it already please0 -
Forget it people, the original posted deactivated her account. Let's just drop this thread, stop the arguments and eat what ever and how much you want. Your body, your goals.
Too many repetitious threads already that are not doing any good. It is getting boring :yawn:0 -
I'm pretty sure you would call that an extreme, since it's from Fitbit on a day when I accidentally hit my 500 calorie deficit about dead on, at 1300-some calories. Isn't it funny how some of us can have balance at the 1200ish level? Oh wait, we are written off as shrunken-bellied, unmuscled, uninformend, dwarvish couch potatoes who don't count.Even your pic of a scale for CI vs CO seems to indicate a balance - not an extreme.
You can post MFP threads about AT all day. There is also research that shows that in the majority of studies done, the dieters who maintained the best 5 years later are those who lost at deep deficits. I wonder where their adaptive thermogenesis and major loss of LBM went?0 -
:flowerforyou:0
-
I'm pretty sure you would call that an extreme, since it's from Fitbit on a day when I accidentally hit my 500 calorie deficit about dead on, at 1300-some calories. Isn't it funny how some of us can have balance at the 1200ish level? Oh wait, we are written off as shrunken-bellied, unmuscled, uninformend, dwarvish couch potatoes who don't count.Even your pic of a scale for CI vs CO seems to indicate a balance - not an extreme.
You can post MFP threads about AT all day. There is also research that shows that in the majority of studies done, the dieters who maintained the best 5 years later are those who lost at deep deficits. I wonder where their adaptive thermogenesis and major loss of LBM went?
Wow, ready to take offense when it doesn't apply - perhaps you are hangry. No that isn't extreme, it matches your level of activity.
Please quote where I said if you are eating down at that level you must be "shrunken-bellied, unmuscled, uninformend, dwarvish couch potatoes who don't count."
Not what you "feel" I must have meant with my words though, like trying to read my mind, but what I actually said.
Taking things a tad personal there I'd suggest for some reason, calm down, have a pop-tart and ice-cream.
And yes, there are some studies that show they maintained LBM in spite of deep deficits and VLCD.
Vast majority of those studies I've seen that comment on it, also started with participants that have no medical issues, weren't trying to lose weight and had no weight changes in 6 months prior to the start of the study, had all kinds of tests to confirm they were as healthy as could be except for the weight. They were fed nutritious shakes or food many times to nail the calorie level exactly and provide what the body needed.
And even there, not all studies take it out that far, read follow up articles on study participants that got counseling at the end of the 6 or 8 or whatever weeks of the initial study, which wasn't going for loss to healthy level, just whatever happened in that time period of the study. And the failure of folks to keep up that level of loss on their own, despite advice to back it off when on their own.
And guess what, they did have AT even during the study, the rate of loss did slow down greater than the supposed deficit would imply, ones I've seen anyway that did measurements of everything frequently through the time period to see that effect. They had such a deep deficit though, of course they kept losing despite AT.
Studies that had them on enough protein and resistance exercise did maintain RMR and LBM for their brief time period, but then again that's just showing where there is a bunch to be lost, you can keep that level. Keep trying to go on with it though at that level with much less to lose - which the studies don't do.
So I'm making assumption that rarely are ones eating so low when it's not likely the best level, do not get all that lab work and research backup for their diet, and usually don't even get assistance for their diet as to what to eat. No Dr oversight, no preliminary lab work, frequent checkups, ect.
My assumption, based on majority of comments I see in threads complaining of stalls, are ones tackling a diet change have gone gung-ho on diet deficit, food type changes (for the better at least), and usually thrown in a ton of exercise compared to before. But have no ideas of potential negatives to all their choices, until such time they get hit with them.0 -
1200 to 1400 is the correct amount of calories for me after I deduct my exercise calories, the balance cannot be over 1200 to 1400 Calories max or I will gain weight. That is what works for me. I know it does not work for everyone, but it is what works for me.0
-
Oh here we go... more fear mongering. Guess what? 1200 calories is perfectly fine. I lift weights 3-4 times/week, eat 1200 calories, feel amazing, and have lost 50 pounds. Just because you don't have the willpower to do it doesn't mean that it's not safe. Science is on my side.
Ignorance is annoying. :explode:
In...
...to figure out if I'm ignorant or if I should feel annoyed.0 -
"Wow, ready to take offense when it doesn't apply - perhaps you are hangry. No that isn't extreme, it matches your level of activity. "
I didn't read past this sentence. I'm not counting calories and I walk 10,000 steps a day and use kettlebells. I'm not going to engage. You clearly will never learn if you've been at this this long and still cling to this stance.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions