When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)
Replies
-
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.0 -
If you don't do well on 1200 calories, don't eat 1200 calories, but don't dictate to other people.
It's really that simple.
Whoever made the above statement on this thread, I have to agree 100%!!!!!
I had someone message me saying I was wrong in what I was doing for my weight loss.....REALLY ??!!! What works for me is what works for me. Everyone is different and needs to do what works for them. This site should be for comparing and helping, not dictating what one should or shouldn't do.
:drinker:0 -
I personally don't care what other people do to get to their fitness goals, but for me, 1200 calories works. Not only that, I have never found any scientific evidence that 1200 calories causes LBM loss or BMR decrease.
And, if I may add, most of the arguments I have seen here against a 1200 calorie diet don't even attempt to use science. They use very technical language and talk over people's heads which makes it sound science-Y but it's not scientific. As a skeptic, that always gives me the unsettling feeling that somebody is pitching woo to me.
Simple science.
to lose 1lb a week, people need to consume 500 calories less than they burn, during their daily activities, including exercise.
When you consider that for the average female, 2000 is considered maintenance, they would lose 1lb a week eating 1500 calories a day.
For the majority of people, 1200 (Gross) is more than a 500 defict as not many people would have a TDEE of 1700.
People don't take the time to work out their individual needs, and a lot of the time people input the incorrect information into MFP in the first place. They say they are sedentary, when they aren't. They chose an aggressive loss target (2lb), and then when MFP gives them 1200 PLUS exercise calories, they ignore the exercise bit, and just eat the 1200.
These are the people that really need to reassess their goals.
OMG! I just love you for using the word (gross) when talking about 1200 calories. :happy:0 -
Reposting the original post to remind anyone who has just joined in what this thread is about. Sensible advice for anyone who has tried 1200 calories a day and found it hasn't worked for them.
Each to their own, but for anyone (newcomers in particular) who is struggling on 1200, the advice from WinnerVictorious is really, really helpful. It's not a "you must do this" post but simply a signpost towards an easier way to lose weight.
Too bad the original post didn't have the "found it hasn't worked for them" caveat. It might have been more well received than just the blanket "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement.
there is no "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement in anything i've posted. i left plenty of wiggle room for those for whom 1200 is valid or for those who decide to adhere to 1200. words matter. i choose and parse my words carefully so that my meaning is clear. i'm dumbstruck at the notion than anyone can read what i've written, disregard what those words actually mean, and then invent a new meaning and attack me for something i didn't write.
:frown:
Intent is often hard to discern in the written word, I'll give you that. But with pronouncements like --
"you should almost certainly be eating MORE than 1200 calories per day"
"too low for almost everyone who does not have an unusual medical condition requiring a low calorie intake, in which case that person would have to be under medical supervision"
"don't need to suffer the side effects of a 1200 calorie diet"
-- I don't think the "almost"s are really enough to make many infer that you think 1200 is okay for anyone other than the proverbial special snowflake.
do you believe that people can be healthy eating under their resting BMR for a prolonged period of time? resting BMR being the minimum amount of energy you need even if you were to sleep all day every day. this is the number of calories you need to survive. if you have fat reserves, of course those will be burned to make up any deficit. but eventually, those reserves will run out and your metabolism will slow. if you are still eating below that level, you will eventually starve to death.
if you answered NO to the above question, then i would simply point out to you that the overwhelming majority of people have a resting BMR above 1200. that was the point i made in the very first post of this thread. not everyone of course, i guessed that maybe 1% do not. perhaps it's more than that, perhaps it's less. but a large majority do. so by definition, a large majority of people will eventually starve to death if they were to only live on 1200 calories. do you disagree with that?
if the answer is again NO, then all 3 of my comments you quoted above are correct.
notice that i used "almost" in two of those comments to provide the necessary wiggle room for the 1% who can survive on 1200 calories. if you want to argue that the 1% is really 5%, then that's fine. but my point still stands.0 -
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!
Right there with ya, Chickie! I was set at 1200 calories and was eating my exercise calories, so I grossed around 1400 a day. It worked great (note ticker below) until around October when I plateaued. I am still in that same plateau. I am trying the TDEE - 20% to see if it works. So far, I will say that I am not as tired, and I feel like I have more energy. No weight loss yet, but I hear it takes a few weeks for your body to adjust.0 -
If you don't do well on 1200 calories, don't eat 1200 calories, but don't dictate to other people.
It's really that simple.
Whoever made the above statement on this thread, I have to agree 100%!!!!!
I had someone message me saying I was wrong in what I was doing for my weight loss.....REALLY ??!!! What works for me is what works for me. Everyone is different and needs to do what works for them. This site should be for comparing and helping, not dictating what one should or shouldn't do.
I hear ya.
I once posted a thread about whether my abs were coming through (as I lost a little fat on my stomach), and got a lecture from almost everyone about my 1200 calorie intake. :laugh:0 -
bump0
-
Reposting the original post to remind anyone who has just joined in what this thread is about. Sensible advice for anyone who has tried 1200 calories a day and found it hasn't worked for them.
Each to their own, but for anyone (newcomers in particular) who is struggling on 1200, the advice from WinnerVictorious is really, really helpful. It's not a "you must do this" post but simply a signpost towards an easier way to lose weight.
Too bad the original post didn't have the "found it hasn't worked for them" caveat. It might have been more well received than just the blanket "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement.
there is no "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement in anything i've posted. i left plenty of wiggle room for those for whom 1200 is valid or for those who decide to adhere to 1200. words matter. i choose and parse my words carefully so that my meaning is clear. i'm dumbstruck at the notion than anyone can read what i've written, disregard what those words actually mean, and then invent a new meaning and attack me for something i didn't write.
:frown:
Intent is often hard to discern in the written word, I'll give you that. But with pronouncements like --
"you should almost certainly be eating MORE than 1200 calories per day"
"too low for almost everyone who does not have an unusual medical condition requiring a low calorie intake, in which case that person would have to be under medical supervision"
"don't need to suffer the side effects of a 1200 calorie diet"
-- I don't think the "almost"s are really enough to make many infer that you think 1200 is okay for anyone other than the proverbial special snowflake.
do you believe that people can be healthy eating under their resting BMR for a prolonged period of time? resting BMR being the minimum amount of energy you need even if you were to sleep all day every day. this is the number of calories you need to survive. if you have fat reserves, of course those will be burned to make up any deficit. but eventually, those reserves will run out and your metabolism will slow. if you are still eating below that level, you will eventually starve to death.
if you answered NO to the above question, then i would simply point out to you that the overwhelming majority of people have a resting BMR above 1200. that was the point i made in the very first post of this thread. not everyone of course, i guessed that maybe 1% do not. perhaps it's more than that, perhaps it's less. but a large majority do. so by definition, a large majority of people will eventually starve to death if they were to only live on 1200 calories. do you disagree with that?
if the answer is again NO, then all 3 of my comments you quoted above are correct.
notice that i used "almost" in two of those comments to provide the necessary wiggle room for the 1% who can survive on 1200 calories. if you want to argue that the 1% is really 5%, then that's fine. but my point still stands.
1200 Gross or 1200 Net. I don't know which one you are talking about?0 -
How did you lose and gain at a consistent net calorie level?
Here is the response I gave you on the last page (thread is moving fast!)I can only put it down to my body being really unhappy with getting calories way below my BMR for months upon end. I was constantly hungry, my skin was constantly breaking out and I felt utterly miserable. I also struggled to do any endurance sport (up to six hours of mountain climbing most weekends) despite eating back my exercise calories. My body was being starved.
Once I started eating a calorie intake above my BMR, I felt tonnes better and the weight started shifting. Best of all my endurance when doing sport has gone through the roof and my bodyfat percentage has noticeably dropped.
Thanks, I did miss the reply. If it's not possible to gain on a calorie deficit then it still doesn't make sense, but I'm glad you found what works for you.0 -
Yawns. *eye roll*
I'm always amazed at the amount of people so focused on what other people are doing and eating....
Yep.
Its not so much what other people are doing... go read any thread that says someone is frustrated or hungry and read what they are eating... seriously 1200 calories is a recipe for eventual stall or even frustration and extreme hunger. People don't like hearing the truth.0 -
I personally don't care what other people do to get to their fitness goals, but for me, 1200 calories works. Not only that, I have never found any scientific evidence that 1200 calories causes LBM loss or BMR decrease.
And, if I may add, most of the arguments I have seen here against a 1200 calorie diet don't even attempt to use science. They use very technical language and talk over people's heads which makes it sound science-Y but it's not scientific. As a skeptic, that always gives me the unsettling feeling that somebody is pitching woo to me.
Simple science.
to lose 1lb a week, people need to consume 500 calories less than they burn, during their daily activities, including exercise.
When you consider that for the average female, 2000 is considered maintenance, they would lose 1lb a week eating 1500 calories a day.
For the majority of people, 1200 (Gross) is more than a 500 defict as not many people would have a TDEE of 1700.
People don't take the time to work out their individual needs, and a lot of the time people input the incorrect information into MFP in the first place. They say they are sedentary, when they aren't. They chose an aggressive loss target (2lb), and then when MFP gives them 1200 PLUS exercise calories, they ignore the exercise bit, and just eat the 1200.
These are the people that really need to reassess their goals.
OMG! I just love you for using the word (gross) when talking about 1200 calories. :happy:
That's why I added it - there is a huge difference between someone that just eats 1200 in Total (gross) , and someone that eats 1200 NET (plus exercise calories), so is actually eating 1700+ a day.0 -
Great post OP...
That said, I think a 1,200 calorie plan can be acceptable for people who have a lot of weight to lose, provided the individual knows and understands that it is 1,200 calories net. I just see way too many people who, for whatever reason, think 1,200 calories is their maintenance or something and that they need to shoot under that goal or exercise their *kitten* off to get to 500 calories net. I even had one young lady insisting that she needed to get to zero and that's the only way she loses weight. It is these kind of things that make me fearful for many on MFP...the ones who are completely ignorant of how this tool works...the ones who do not realize that there is a substantial deficit in their goal and there's no reason to make it bigger with a **** ton of cardio that you can't/won't fuel. Truly, there are many here that I fear for...unfortunately, I also fear that there is nothing that can be done for many of them...I've tried...they don't listen.0 -
Yawns. *eye roll*
I'm always amazed at the amount of people so focused on what other people are doing and eating....
Yep.
Its not so much what other people are doing... go read any thread that says someone is frustrated or hungry and read what they are eating... seriously 1200 calories is a recipe for eventual stall or even frustration and extreme hunger. People don't like hearing the truth.
1200 Gross or 1200 Net? Which one are you talking about. They are two different things.0 -
I personally don't care what other people do to get to their fitness goals, but for me, 1200 calories works. Not only that, I have never found any scientific evidence that 1200 calories causes LBM loss or BMR decrease.
And, if I may add, most of the arguments I have seen here against a 1200 calorie diet don't even attempt to use science. They use very technical language and talk over people's heads which makes it sound science-Y but it's not scientific. As a skeptic, that always gives me the unsettling feeling that somebody is pitching woo to me.
Simple science.
to lose 1lb a week, people need to consume 500 calories less than they burn, during their daily activities, including exercise.
When you consider that for the average female, 2000 is considered maintenance, they would lose 1lb a week eating 1500 calories a day.
For the majority of people, 1200 (Gross) is more than a 500 defict as not many people would have a TDEE of 1700.
People don't take the time to work out their individual needs, and a lot of the time people input the incorrect information into MFP in the first place. They say they are sedentary, when they aren't. They chose an aggressive loss target (2lb), and then when MFP gives them 1200 PLUS exercise calories, they ignore the exercise bit, and just eat the 1200.
These are the people that really need to reassess their goals.
OMG! I just love you for using the word (gross) when talking about 1200 calories. :happy:
That's why I added it - there is a huge difference between someone that just eats 1200 in Total (gross) , and someone that eats 1200 NET (plus exercise calories), so is actually eating 1700+ a day.
Can you imagine how this site would change if everyone would start using those two words? Possible the daily bickering would calm down a little... maybe? Ha! Well, maybe not.0 -
I'm pretty close to the hypothetical woman you wrote about - 4'11, 120lbs - but I exercise and net at least 1500 daily (sometimes close to 2000 calories on 'bad" days). Even when I didn't exercise I found that 1200 was too low for me. I have no idea how people much larger than me get by on less than 1200 calories a day! When I tried that I was chronically hangry (hungry + angry = THE WORST). It certainly made me lose weight (and I suppose it would do the same for most people) but I don't know how a fitness site gets away with recommending something that's probably not that advisable for most people.0
-
Great post OP...
That said, I think a 1,200 calorie plan can be acceptable for people who have a lot of weight to lose, provided the individual knows and understands that it is 1,200 calories net. I just see way too many people who, for whatever reason, think 1,200 calories is their maintenance or something and that they need to shoot under that goal or exercise their *kitten* off to get to 500 calories net. I even had one young lady insisting that she needed to get to zero and that's the only way she loses weight. It is these kind of things that make me fearful for many on MFP...the ones who are completely ignorant of how this tool works...the ones who do not realize that there is a substantial deficit in their goal and there's no reason to make it bigger with a **** ton of cardio that you can't/won't fuel. Truly, there are many here that I fear for...unfortunately, I also fear that there is nothing that can be done for many of them...I've tried...they don't listen.
I am sending a cheers to anyone who uses Gross or Net in their conversation about 1200 calories today. Well done sire! :drinker:0 -
I see the word "bump" all the time, can you pls tell me what that means? Thanks!0
-
I'm pretty close to the hypothetical woman you wrote about - 4'11, 120lbs - but I exercise and net at least 1500 daily (sometimes close to 2000 calories on 'bad" days). Even when I didn't exercise I found that 1200 was too low for me. I have no idea how people much larger than me get by on less than 1200 calories a day! When I tried that I was chronically hangry (hungry + angry = THE WORST). It certainly made me lose weight (and I suppose it would do the same for most people) but I don't know how a fitness site gets away with recommending something that's probably not that advisable for most people.
She said "net" :drinker:0 -
I have a question...most week days i don't eat 1200 calories (and I'm not ashamed of it), but on the weekends I eat more, have a few drinks whatever i want. I workout twice a week at the gym and twice a week on the treadmill at home. So do you think I'm on my way to starvation? :huh:0
-
Reposting the original post to remind anyone who has just joined in what this thread is about. Sensible advice for anyone who has tried 1200 calories a day and found it hasn't worked for them.
Each to their own, but for anyone (newcomers in particular) who is struggling on 1200, the advice from WinnerVictorious is really, really helpful. It's not a "you must do this" post but simply a signpost towards an easier way to lose weight.
Too bad the original post didn't have the "found it hasn't worked for them" caveat. It might have been more well received than just the blanket "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement.
there is no "do this or you're wrong" pronouncement in anything i've posted. i left plenty of wiggle room for those for whom 1200 is valid or for those who decide to adhere to 1200. words matter. i choose and parse my words carefully so that my meaning is clear. i'm dumbstruck at the notion than anyone can read what i've written, disregard what those words actually mean, and then invent a new meaning and attack me for something i didn't write.
:frown:
Intent is often hard to discern in the written word, I'll give you that. But with pronouncements like --
"you should almost certainly be eating MORE than 1200 calories per day"
"too low for almost everyone who does not have an unusual medical condition requiring a low calorie intake, in which case that person would have to be under medical supervision"
"don't need to suffer the side effects of a 1200 calorie diet"
-- I don't think the "almost"s are really enough to make many infer that you think 1200 is okay for anyone other than the proverbial special snowflake.
do you believe that people can be healthy eating under their resting BMR for a prolonged period of time? resting BMR being the minimum amount of energy you need even if you were to sleep all day every day. this is the number of calories you need to survive. if you have fat reserves, of course those will be burned to make up any deficit. but eventually, those reserves will run out and your metabolism will slow. if you are still eating below that level, you will eventually starve to death.
if you answered NO to the above question, then i would simply point out to you that the overwhelming majority of people have a resting BMR above 1200. that was the point i made in the very first post of this thread. not everyone of course, i guessed that maybe 1% do not. perhaps it's more than that, perhaps it's less. but a large majority do. so by definition, a large majority of people will eventually starve to death if they were to only live on 1200 calories. do you disagree with that?
if the answer is again NO, then all 3 of my comments you quoted above are correct.
notice that i used "almost" in two of those comments to provide the necessary wiggle room for the 1% who can survive on 1200 calories. if you want to argue that the 1% is really 5%, then that's fine. but my point still stands.
My answer would be conditional on the person and how you define "prolonged period of time". I believe an obese person can be healthy or improve health by being below BMR for a fairly long period of time. Some until they are no longer obese. They have plenty of fat stores to draw on for energy. A thinner person could not, but then a thinner person at 1200 calories per day would likely reach their goal weight before a 'prolonged period of time' had passed.
Certainly some need to eat more than 1200 calories.. And just as certainly almost all could eat more and still lose. But that doesn't mean some can't lose and be healthy while eating 1200. A lot of variables other than just calories consumed would matter.
But I absolutely believe that FAR more than 1% can survive on 1200 calories. In fact, I'd be surprised if much less than 1% could not survive on 1200 calories.0 -
I'm pretty close to the hypothetical woman you wrote about - 4'11, 120lbs - but I exercise and net at least 1500 daily (sometimes close to 2000 calories on 'bad" days). Even when I didn't exercise I found that 1200 was too low for me. I have no idea how people much larger than me get by on less than 1200 calories a day! When I tried that I was chronically hangry (hungry + angry = THE WORST). It certainly made me lose weight (and I suppose it would do the same for most people) but I don't know how a fitness site gets away with recommending something that's probably not that advisable for most people.
She said "net" :drinker:
Was that the right one to use? I hope so. I don't want a bunch of people to start yelling! AAHH THE YELLING!0 -
How did you lose and gain at a consistent net calorie level?
Here is the response I gave you on the last page (thread is moving fast!)I can only put it down to my body being really unhappy with getting calories way below my BMR for months upon end. I was constantly hungry, my skin was constantly breaking out and I felt utterly miserable. I also struggled to do any endurance sport (up to six hours of mountain climbing most weekends) despite eating back my exercise calories. My body was being starved.
Once I started eating a calorie intake above my BMR, I felt tonnes better and the weight started shifting. Best of all my endurance when doing sport has gone through the roof and my bodyfat percentage has noticeably dropped.
Thanks, I did miss the reply. If it's not possible to gain on a calorie deficit then it still doesn't make sense, but I'm glad you found what works for you.
I find my weight can go up and down each week quite easily, probably due to water retention, particularly after a mountain climb (6lbs up and down this week). I suppose what I was saying was that my weight just plateaued on 1200 net calories a day. By eating above my BMR I find I still get these fluctuations, but every time the water drops off I've gone down another pound or two (averaging 1lb a week since I started at the beginning of January).
I admit I hate that I don't get those big "whoosh" numbers on the scale that I got in the first couple of months I did 1200 net a day, but I don't hate the year-long plateau I got after the first initial loss. I'm also now at a lower weight than I was at my lowest doing 1200 net.
Mentally I've had to shift a gear and recognise that 1lb a week weight loss on TDEE-20% is still a loss and that I won't hit the plateau I did while on 1200 net.0 -
I see the word "bump" all the time, can you pls tell me what that means? Thanks!
If you have nothing to say but you don't want the thread to get pushed off the front page of this board, you would post, "Bump" in order to 'bump' the thread up.
It isn't necessary on such a active thread as this one. Not sure why it is happening here.0 -
I see the word "bump" all the time, can you pls tell me what that means? Thanks!
1 - it bumps the post to the top of the list again
2 - any time you post in a thread it gets put into My Topics, so it's a way of following threads yu are interested in.0 -
I think it is difficult for people just starting to choose anything under 2lbs/week; they are excited and have a long ways to go. Setting it for 1lb or less pushes the goal even further away. Until a week or so ago, I didn't even know I could manually adjust my goal (which I did in order to get it above my BMR). The site is all-too-encouraging for randomly picking your goal and calorie intake. It is also not even that clear on whether or not exercise calories should be eaten back ( I do, as do most of my friends, but there are many people who claim they don't lose when they eat them back). I believe MFP should get rid of the 2lb/week option and state "EAT BACK EXERCISE CALORIES" somewhere obvious, like the homepage.
Having said that, I do love this site, and it really is a great place for people to get together and accomplish their weight-oriented goals!!
On the same note as the post: I am eating 1640+/- and am losing just as much as I did using that horrible 1200 setting. My body is recovering faster from workouts, and I actually get to enjoy some snacks and more protein! Not to mention, I am sleeping better, have a HUGE appetite now (metabolism kicking in much?) where at 1200 I wasn't hungry really ever. I have a healthy glow to my skin, and at 1200 I looked like I was dieting. I didn't feel it, but looking back, I can tell the difference!
Great post!!!0 -
I swore I'd never comment on one of these threads again, but here I go.
I lost the first 30 pounds at 1240 calories a day. My doctor endorsed it. A nutritionist endorsed it. I'm 43 years old, somewhat sedentary, and 5'4". I was never hungry because I used my 1240 wisely, and didn't fill it up with 100 calorie snack packs and other cr*p foods. It's amazing how much healthy food you can eat on 1240 calories a day.
What works for one doesn't work for all. Be cautious about telling others they're "doing it wrong", particularly when what they're doing is working.0 -
I wish there was a new rule in the forums that said when you talk about the 1200 calories you are set at that you are eating NET OR GROSS. Without one of those words next to the 1200 then the conversation really can confuse new people. 1200 Gross means you are only eating 1200 calories a day period. 1200 NET means you are set at 1200, enter exercise and eat the calories back. Which means depending on what you burn in a day you are always eating more than 1200 calories. Regardless of what you personally want to do I don't care. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices. I just always see new people getting confused because we are not explaining it very well. It sure would stop a lot of confusion if we just added those two little words behind the number.
the elephant in the room is that many people who insist that 1200 calories is fine, really don't eat 1200. they eat less than that, but are too embarrassed to admit that they are only eating 800 or 900 calories per day. so even when we talk about 1200 calorie diets, we're talking about more than that... we're talking about all those eating less than that (over a prolonged period of time).
my goal was never to get into a debate with people who insist that 1200 is perfectly fine for them. it's their life, it's their choice. for some people, their physical size means that 1200 can be fine (if nutritionally sound). for some people who have yo-yo dieted, their lowered BMR means that 1200 can work as well. some people have medical conditions or medical emergencies and need to eat at 1200 or less. i think that's fine as well, so long as they are under medical supervision. there are probably a handful of other scenarios where 1200 works out to be the right daily goal.
but many people choose 1200 without understanding what their correct daily goal should be. i just wanted to pass along some helpful links to them so that they don't struggle on 1200 when they could thrive on 1400 or 1500.
a couple of people angry about previous threads in which i did not participate have posted their objections here. they are still fighting an argument they've had with other people. this was not the thread for that. i am not the one that they have an argument with. until today, i had no idea who these 4 or 5 people were. i wish them the best, but i wish they had exercised some self-restraint and not tried to hijack and derail this thread. i won't see anything they post from this point forward because all of them have earned a spot on my ignore list. i suggest they put me on ignore as well.
You have probably put me on ignore because we have different opinions but I would really like to see any scientific evidence that dieting (or yo-yo dieting) actually lowers BMR. I haven't found any nor has anyone ever posted any (that I can find).
Even here you are making judgements about who "should" and "shouldn't" be following 1200 calories per day. I don't see how you think that telling people whether they "should" or "shouldn't" be doing something with their own bodies is anything but judgmental.
I don't ignore anyone because different opinions are how we grow and learn. To each their own, though. I'm not trying to argue or debate anything, I'm just posting different viewpoint. And answering the question posed in the topic title.0 -
AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!! :flowerforyou:0
-
This thread is full of win.0
-
I swore I'd never comment on one of these threads again, but here I go.
I lost the first 30 pounds at 1240 calories a day. My doctor endorsed it. A nutritionist endorsed it. I'm 43 years old, somewhat sedentary, and 5'4". I was never hungry because I used my 1240 wisely, and didn't fill it up with 100 calorie snack packs and other cr*p foods. It's amazing how much healthy food you can eat on 1240 calories a day.
What works for one doesn't work for all. Be cautious about telling others they're "doing it wrong", particularly when what they're doing is working.
Completely agree with this! WHAT you eat can make a huge difference to how hungry you feel, no matter how many calories are in it.
Eating protein for breakfast instead of a rubbishy cereal usually keeps me full for a good few hours. Porridge is good for that too.
Perhaps we could emphasise quality, not quantity?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions