When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)
Replies
-
AMEN TO THIS!! No matter when I put in that thing it always tells me I should be on the 1200 cals and its so very wrong. I stick to 1600 and it's much much better!
Background: 5'4, 141lbs, desk job, gym 3-4x a week. 1200 is way too low.0 -
1200 calories works for me!!! Don't try to tell me I shouldn't eat 1200 calories because I have lost 50 pounds doing that!!!!
Until, I plateaued. And slowly started gaining back. And now I have gained back 35 of the 50 I lost. Everyone who has been a member here for a whole, 5 months and lost 20 poubnds eating 1200 calories... Just because it is working for you, doesn't mean you are doing it right. Sure you are losing now but wait until your body starts to stall out.0 -
Bump0
-
I'm a 65 year old woman, 5'3" and 151 pounds, very sedentary because I'm chained to a desk all day. My estimated basal calorie requirement is just over 1500 calories a day. In order to lose weight, don't I need to create a deficit? A friend advised me that 1200 calories is too low for me, but it doesn't seem that way because it's only a deficit of 300 calories, which should result in losing 1/2 pound per week.
If there are others who are ... er ... older and more sedentary, I'd appreciate hearing your point of view as to what worked for you. I just want to find the right combination to lose about 20 lbs.
And p.s. - this is my first post. I've enjoyed reading the experience of others!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.
I completely agree. In fact I can't remember a "diet" plan that has been published in the last 50 years that didn't claim at least 2lbs a week. Sad that we have to see 1lb a week loss as some kind of failure when, at least for me personally, it's helping me bring my bodyfat down without compromising my lean tissue and without hitting a plateau (and lifting weights helps too, of course!).
The "Lose 1lbs A Week Diet" would not fly off the bookshelves, even though it's proven to work!0 -
I don't want MFP to change. The way MFP is designed is working for me. I don't think they want you to eat 1200 calories. I think they set you at that if you are not going to move all day. To me it is encouragement to work out. That is why they have it set up that if you work out then you gain calories back to eat. I have done the whole tdee thing and the calories it gives me for the day is pretty close to MFP giving me 1200 and then letting me eat my calories back. So depending on how hard or how long I work out and what I earn I could be eating up to 1800-2200 a day. So it does work for some.
I agree with this to some degree, I lost 34 lbs in 3 months eating 1200 calories a day. If I wanted to eat more, I would excersize to earn more calories for that day... So it works, it got me moving! HOWEVER, I dont want to be eating only 1200 calories for the rest of my life, and I had concern that I may begin to gain once in "maintenance" .... after posting and reading the forums I have upped my daily calories to 1470 (only 3 days ago)... I have yet to see If I will continue to loose, gain or what..
my TDEE is 1902.. my BMR is 1585..0 -
I'm a 65 year old woman, 5'3" and 151 pounds, very sedentary because I'm chained to a desk all day. My estimated basal calorie requirement is just over 1500 calories a day. In order to lose weight, don't I need to create a deficit? A friend advised me that 1200 calories is too low for me, but it doesn't seem that way because it's only a deficit of 300 calories, which should result in losing 1/2 pound per week.
If there are others who are ... er ... older and more sedentary, I'd appreciate hearing your point of view as to what worked for you. I just want to find the right combination to lose about 20 lbs.
And p.s. - this is my first post. I've enjoyed reading the experience of others!
Using your BMR, your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) would be 1800 (sedentary). 1200 calories puts you at a daily deficit of 600 calories which is just over a pound a week. I'm not your age or anything so I cannot comment on what will work for you but I do want to point that out. Best of Luck!0 -
Bump0
-
1200 calories works for me!!! Don't try to tell me I shouldn't eat 1200 calories because I have lost 50 pounds doing that!!!!
Until, I plateaued. And slowly started gaining back. And now I have gained back 35 of the 50 I lost. Everyone who has been a member here for a whole, 5 months and lost 20 poubnds eating 1200 calories... Just because it is working for you, doesn't mean you are doing it right. Sure you are losing now but wait until your body starts to stall out.
:flowerforyou: And therein lies the problem for a lot of us. We may not reach the finish line first eating more but I honestly think we have a better chance of staying there.0 -
I'm a 65 year old woman, 5'3" and 151 pounds, very sedentary because I'm chained to a desk all day. My estimated basal calorie requirement is just over 1500 calories a day. In order to lose weight, don't I need to create a deficit? A friend advised me that 1200 calories is too low for me, but it doesn't seem that way because it's only a deficit of 300 calories, which should result in losing 1/2 pound per week.
If there are others who are ... er ... older and more sedentary, I'd appreciate hearing your point of view as to what worked for you. I just want to find the right combination to lose about 20 lbs.
And p.s. - this is my first post. I've enjoyed reading the experience of others!
I'm not convinced those calculators work well for older women. At least they didn't for me (I'm just shy of 52). I maintain on the amount of calories the calculators say I should lose.0 -
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).
I'm presuming you mean outside that which would be expected due to lower overall body weight?
Have you read this study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf
Let me know what you think.0 -
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.
then you don't believe that the various BMR equations are accurate. since they spit out a resting BMR above 1200 for almost everyone.
we'd have to look at a statistical distribution to find out exactly how much of the population is below the height/weight/age/gender combination cutoff for a resting BMR of 1200 to see what percentage could survive on that amount of calories for say... 3+ years. maybe it is higher than 1%. maybe it's 10%. maybe its more. as i think about it, if we just look at America, i can envision a low percentage. if we include China and India and the rest of the world, perhaps that percentage of the overall population goes up. however, since i specifically referred to MFP members, i still feel confident that it's a low percentage, but i may be wrong to state that it's only 1%. i was making a point though, since i don't know what the percentage is in reality. anyway, we'd have to do that statistical analysis and then factor in the metabolic slowdown over time to see exactly how many people could survive on 1200 per day for 3+ years. some certainly could. most of us couldn't. personally, i would starve to death on that number. i'll never have a resting BMR down at those levels.0 -
aside - i'm a bit saddened to see that a handful of people who are determined to stick to their 1200 calorie mindset have decided to come into this thread to defend their belief that 1200 is fine. for a small percentage of people it can be fine. for another percentage of people, there's nothing anyone can say to dissuade them.
As one of the people to whom this comment is probably addressed, we aren't defending "1200". We are attempting to make the distinction between EATING 1200 and NETTING 1200. They are very, very, very different. I wholeheartedly agree that people should do the research to find out where they should be. Go roadmap or whatever other calculators. But for me and a whole giant host of other people, using mfp as designed and eating exercise calories (eg NETTING) comes out to the exact same number (within 50 or so) of the roadmap. For a lot of us, that "base" number happens to be the evil, dreaded 1200. But the point that this handful of debaters is attempting to make is that NETTING and EATING are not the same. Therefore, if you're addressing a thread to people who are "doing" 1200, what exactly do you mean by "doing"? Eating or netting?0 -
Using your BMR, your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) would be 1800 (sedentary). 1200 calories puts you at a daily deficit of 600 calories which is just over a pound a week. I'm not your age or anything so I cannot comment on what will work for you but I do want to point that out. Best of Luck!
Where did your get the 1800 number? I was using what MFP and fitday.com estimate. Fitday is a bit higher at about 1575, but still not a huge difference. I'll be glad to eat more
but not if it's going to sacrifice the weight loss. I'm miserable and need to feel better in my clothes. 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:
No. Do you know what your average daily net for a typical week is?0 -
1200 calories works for me!!! Don't try to tell me I shouldn't eat 1200 calories because I have lost 50 pounds doing that!!!!
Until, I plateaued. And slowly started gaining back. And now I have gained back 35 of the 50 I lost. Everyone who has been a member here for a whole, 5 months and lost 20 poubnds eating 1200 calories... Just because it is working for you, doesn't mean you are doing it right. Sure you are losing now but wait until your body starts to stall out.
This is difficult to believe and I'll tell you why:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454084
I'm just saying, human beings are very good at denial and hiding the truth from ourselves. If you are not vigilant about that, you can easily end up incredibly wrong about your own behavior. That isn't just you. That is every human.
I think it is entirely possible that you gained because you couldn't sustain a 1200 calorie diet and that is fine and fair and valid. I do agree that a 1200 calorie diet is a bad idea if it makes you miserable.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.
I completely agree. In fact I can't remember a "diet" plan that has been published in the last 50 years that didn't claim at least 2lbs a week. Sad that we have to see 1lb a week loss as some kind of failure when, at least for me personally, it's helping me bring my bodyfat down without compromising my lean tissue and without hitting a plateau (and lifting weights helps too, of course!).
The "Lose 1lbs A Week Diet" would not fly off the bookshelves, even though it's proven to work!
It is sad...
On that note though...I've been on a 1/2 Lb per week loss plan now for about a month...it's even more awesome than my 1 Lb per week plan was...mostly because I can lose weight and eat even more awesome stuff...and I have even that much more energy for my lifts which I was really struggling with strength gains at 1 Lb per week loss.
It's slow, and it can be difficult to see week to week...which is honestly a bit troubling at first when you're used to seeing weekly progress...but definitely can see it on the scale over the course of a month. For some reason I also feel like my physique has actually improved even though I only lost 2.5 Lbs in Feb...before, I felt like and looked like I was just getting skinny...now I'm starting to look lean I think...but might just be my imagination or something.0 -
You know what is normally 1200 calories for me? My dinner...
I am 4'10"Ish.... I cannot subsist on 1200 calories- even while working out kind of (as in not really trying) I nom my friends. If 1200 calories works for you fantastic... just remember it probably wont work well for you forever and do not post about being hungry, stuck, or frustrated because god only knows that you will aruge that eating more is going to make you fat...
I wish people would use their damn heads..
Also stop being stupid... and eat b!tches.
totally not related to this topic, but i love your profile pic and ticker. pretty much awesome.0 -
1200 calories works for me!!! Don't try to tell me I shouldn't eat 1200 calories because I have lost 50 pounds doing that!!!!
Until, I plateaued. And slowly started gaining back. And now I have gained back 35 of the 50 I lost. Everyone who has been a member here for a whole, 5 months and lost 20 poubnds eating 1200 calories... Just because it is working for you, doesn't mean you are doing it right. Sure you are losing now but wait until your body starts to stall out.
This is EXACTLY what happened to me. I got about 25# from goal and stopped. I have been fighting it for almost 6 months. I changed to the TDEE- 20% a few weeks ago and still have not lost, but I am feeling better. I will admit that I am still adjusting to it and need to focus on my macros more, so that may make a difference too.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 probably have me on ignore now, so won't read this, but in case you do see this, allow me to explain my response to your thread.
Your OP did not simply give advice to those people who are struggling on 1200 a day and are miserable by respectfully suggesting an alternative to eating at a higher calorie level that was more appropriate for them.
Your post clearly spelled out a list of 'guidelines' that you declared to be the law as to whom a 1200 calorie diet would be appropriate, and that 99+% of the people on here should be eating more than 1200 calories.
You deemed that 1200 calories is 'starving oneself' and is an unhealthy VLCD that should only be done under unusual medical conditions and closely monitored by a doctor.
1200 calories a day is NOT considered a VLCD in any medical definitions.
Is 1200/day appropriate for everyone? Of course it isn't. It all depends on an individual. Age, height, weight, body comp, activity levels, hormone levels, all play a role in determining your TDEE.
1600/day is not appropriate for everyone either. Nor is 2000, etc.
If someone has a TDEE of 3000 and they eat 2000 cals per day, they are eating at a 1000 cal deficit which should result in a 2 pound per week loss. This is perfectly healthy and acceptable for someone who needs to lose a moderate to large amount of weight.
If someone else's TDEE is 1700, and they eat 1200, then they are eating at a 500 calorie deficit to lose 1 pound per week.
If both people need to lose say 40 pounds, then why is the first example perfectly fine, but the second example is unhealthy? The first example is eating at TWICE the deficit of the second person.
It is all relative.
When someone like yourself, gets all passionate and creates a thread with the blanket statements like you did, without rational arguments other than your own opinions, then you are bound to piss a lot of people off and receive some responses like you did.
There are a lot more than 1% of the members on here that are eating at 1200 and are succeeding in losing and keeping their weight off. I have almost 200 of them on my friend list alone, because most of them fall into similar age and activity levels that I am in.
If most of your friends are tall, young, active, heavy weight lifters, then certainly they all need to eat at considerably higher levels. I think this is what puts blinders on many of the people who constantly bash the lower calorie diets. They assume that what is appropriate for themselves and those around them, are automatically appropriate for everyone else.
I was surprised by this myself several months ago when I found a girl that maintained on 3000 cals a day. I could not imagine how that was possible. She was younger, taller, had a high LBM, and was extremely active. Her BMR was over 1800. So of course she could eat at 2000 and lose 2 pounds a week.
Since this was HER reality, then that made sense why she could not fathom ANYONE eating only 1200 a day, and declared she would surely starve on that amount. She probably would have eaten her own arm off on that amount!
Our realities were drastically different. Our needs were drastically different.
Being able to look outside one's own self and situation, to see that others do not always fit into the same mold as you do, and accepting that difference with respect, is a sign of maturity and will result in a much happier life for you and those around you.
There is very little in this world that is strictly black and white. When someone makes black and white statements, when there is so much grey, then arguments are sure to follow. And any helpful advice can be lost in the mayhem.0 -
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.
then you don't believe that the various BMR equations are accurate. since they spit out a resting BMR above 1200 for almost everyone.
we'd have to look at a statistical distribution to find out exactly how much of the population is below the height/weight/age/gender combination cutoff for a resting BMR of 1200 to see what percentage could survive on that amount of calories for say... 3+ years. maybe it is higher than 1%. maybe it's 10%. maybe its more. as i think about it, if we just look at America, i can envision a low percentage. if we include China and India and the rest of the world, perhaps that percentage of the overall population goes up. however, since i specifically referred to MFP members, i still feel confident that it's a low percentage, but i may be wrong to state that it's only 1%. i was making a point though, since i don't know what the percentage is in reality. anyway, we'd have to do that statistical analysis and then factor in the metabolic slowdown over time to see exactly how many people could survive on 1200 per day for 3+ years. some certainly could. most of us couldn't. personally, i would starve to death on that number. i'll never have a resting BMR down at those levels.
And I feel just as confident that you are wrong. The body would lower BMR to accommodate a lower calorie diet.0 -
This I agree with 100%!! If I were to do that my Net would be like 750-850 and there is no way that would be good for me, not to mention the fact that I would be starving which would result in me going on a binge. Anyone who follows the eating 1200 without adding back in exercise calories is just asking for trouble.
Agreed. With all the "OMGYOUCAN'TLIVEON1200CALORIES!!!!1111oneeeeee" posts on MFP I discussed it with my doctor last week when I was there. He looked over my food logs for the last two months (I print them out and take them with me) and was happy ....for the most part.
He agrees that 1200 is low, but *IF* I eat back my exercise calories and I feel fine then not to worry. I go for blood tests every three months anyway and those have been *AMAZING* since I've cut my calories down to 1200.0 -
TBf, 1100 a day worked for me. DIFFERENT THINGS WORK FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
And another thing, not everyone is fat because they overate in the first place. Certain types of cancer treatment also cause increased weight gain.0 -
Yawns. *eye roll*
I'm always amazed at the amount of people so focused on what other people are doing and eating....
^^ this + how many times are we going to do this topic???
Considering new people join MFP everyday I'd say forever. People need to be educated. The media screams all the wrong things. Fat free processed crap to lose weight. Don't lift more than 5 pounds if you are a woman or you'll bulk up.. Makes me sick. Thank you OP for educating the uneducated. Ignore the Naysayers0 -
: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!
Ok, so I'm 5'8", currently 174, I exercise at least 5 days a week if not more, some days are busier than others, but like today is a day that I stay parked at my computer at work. So what should I be eating (calories). I've been at 1200 for while, and the weight fluctuates like crazy and I don't see any real change. What do you suggest?0 -
Considering new people join MFP everyday I'd say forever. People need to be educated. The media screams all the wrong things. Fat free processed crap to lose weight. Don't lift more than 5 pounds if you are a woman or you'll bulk up.. Makes me sick. Thank you OP for educating the uneducated. Ignore the Naysayers
Honestly, the only media I ever see "Don't lift more than 5 pounds if you are a woman or you'll bulk up" on is MFP.
I do see exercise routines using 5 lbs weights, but I've never seen anythin say don't use more.0 -
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.0 -
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).
I'm presuming you mean outside that which would be expected due to lower overall body weight?
Have you read this study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf
Let me know what you think.
I do know about the Minnesota study. That is semi-starvation, famine related study. It looks at what happens when you deplete your fat stores.
Read this:
http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/203.abstract0 -
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.
THIS is excellent. This is what we've been looking for. I'll definitely read this. Thank you.0 -
Yawns. *eye roll*
I'm always amazed at the amount of people so focused on what other people are doing and eating....
Yes, thank you! Wondering why someone would start this thread. Like the kindergarten teachers used to say to my son, "Wil, worry about Wil!"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