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

40andFindingFitness

Raising my FiberOne bar to this. 1200 calories... eh

ValerieMartini2Olives

Bumpity bump bump

babyj0

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!

rella_1003

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'

heybales

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.

dalguard

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?

nytrifisoul

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.

/thread

WalkingAlong

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.

Shrunk their stomachs? Really? Maybe shrunk their appetites.

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.

sassyjae21

Pretty sure your stomach doesn't shrink from your diet.

heybales

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.

Shrunk their stomachs? Really? Maybe shrunk their appetites.

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-loss

rella_1003

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.

smc864

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:

lola0003

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 please

Ely82010

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:

WalkingAlong

Even your pic of a scale for CI vs CO seems to indicate a balance - not an extreme.

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.

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?

KeepGoingKylene

:flowerforyou:

heybales

Even your pic of a scale for CI vs CO seems to indicate a balance - not an extreme.

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.

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.

BR48

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.

jofjltncb6

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.

WalkingAlong

"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.