Still think your 1200 or less diet is a good idea?
Options
Replies
-
also, to be captain obvious again... people self-reporting 1200 calories or less a day, who are morbidly obese not losing weight are doing something to not lose weight, and I guarantee it's not their thyroid acting up, but stuff not being logged that is being eaten.
See? Do you see how this calm, rational undereater who is making a good point has to repeat herself over and over.
She isn't giving anybody a reason to make snarky, mean comments about her imagined hunger so she is ignored.
You guys select for angry posters.0 -
It worked for me in the past, but I didn't form the habits needed to maintain the weight loss.
VLC diet= quick but not long term results!
1200 is not considered a very low calorie diet.
It sure is if your maintenance is 2200-2500 or more. Context.
In strictly scientific terms, it is not. A VLCD is defined in the scientific community as a diet of 800 calories or less. The most flexible use of the term I've seen is 40% of TDEE (and that wasn't in a research paper). Even with maintenance of 2500 that would be 1000 calories not 1200.
Most research conducted on obese individuals (who probably do have a higher maintenance level) uses diets of 800 or less as the VLCD part and defines 1000-1200 calorie diets as calorie restricted, low calorie, or balanced daily deficit (or balanced daily diet when using the term to define a nutritious diet of 1200 calories).
It would be WAY to low for me. To me 1600 is my bare minimum to not feel lethargic. And honestly, 1700 is closer to my actual floor.0 -
Everyone is different. I've stuck to 1200 for months and have been fine. A little hungry at night, but nothing unbearable. Of course when exercising I eat calories back. I've gone from 136 to 123 since January (I am 5'5".) Not saying that people should force themselves to do something that causes them backlash, because it definitely happens for many people who go under 1200.0
-
And what is the proportion of people eating 1200 calories that fall within those parameters? Very small. Guaranteed.
Actually, not that small. Maybe on this website, but generally, the population is getting older and people of my parents generation are the baby boomers, falling square in this age demographic.
FWIW, I don't personally eat 1200 a day, (I eat more -- more like 1600-1900 depending) but I'm disputing that physics has been defied by people who don't lose weight at 1200... that's been disproven ad infinitum but do go on.0 -
also, to be captain obvious again... people self-reporting 1200 calories or less a day, who are morbidly obese not losing weight are doing something to not lose weight, and I guarantee it's not their thyroid acting up, but stuff not being logged that is being eaten.
I was logging everything. Every single thing that was going into my mouth. Lying on my log would only hurt myself. And I wasn't losing on 1200 calories. I went up to 1390 and started losing. And at 5'3 249 pounds, that qualifies as morbidly obese, I'm pretty sure. Now I'm up to 1510 and losing extremely slow so idk.
ETA: My initial 1200 a day count wasn't due to MFP or anything, it was suggested by a friend personal trainer when I first started trying to lose weight so I trusted it. And when I didn't see any movement on the scale or in measurements, I decided to slowly up the calories myself.0 -
Ummm... not that I'm an expert, but it seems like BMR and TDEE are getting confused.
If I've got it right:
BMR is what you need if you stay in bed ALL DAY LONG.
But I haven't come across anyone here doing that.
TDEE is what you need for everything you do - cooking, showering, walking to the bathroom...
So, you don't choose your intake based on BMR, but on your TDEE.
My BMR is under 1200, but my TDEE (with no exercise) is 1750.0 -
also, to be captain obvious again... people self-reporting 1200 calories or less a day, who are morbidly obese not losing weight are doing something to not lose weight, and I guarantee it's not their thyroid acting up, but stuff not being logged that is being eaten.
I was logging everything. Every single thing that was going into my mouth. Lying on my log would only hurt myself. And I wasn't losing on 1200 calories. I went up to 1390 and started losing. And at 5'3 249 pounds, that qualifies as morbidly obese, I'm pretty sure. Now I'm up to 1510 and losing extremely slow so idk.
ETA: My initial 1200 a day count wasn't due to MFP or anything, it was suggested by a friend personal trainer when I first started trying to lose weight so I trusted it. And when I didn't see any movement on the scale or in measurements, I decided to slowly up the calories myself.
So you say... but how do I know that?
Check my ticker... I've been there at that weight... and that is 14 lbs lower than my start weight.0 -
I was logging everything. Every single thing that was going into my mouth. Lying on my log would only hurt myself. And I wasn't losing on 1200 calories. I went up to 1390 and started losing. And at 5'3 249 pounds, that qualifies as morbidly obese, I'm pretty sure. Now I'm up to 1510 and losing extremely slow so idk.
Nobody thinks that those who under-report are lying. I don't think that is the mechanism. If I did, I could just as easily assume you are lying right now. That makes no sense, either.
I think it is denial.
If 1200 is too little for you, you would be more likely to accurately track calories that are inside of a larger, manageable range. If you are miserable at a low calorie range, you are more likely to lie to yourself or eat something you then forget about.0 -
Ummm... not that I'm an expert, but it seems like BMR and TDEE are getting confused.
If I've got it right:
BMR is what you need if you stay in bed ALL DAY LONG.
But I haven't come across anyone here doing that.
TDEE is what you need for everything you do - cooking, showering, walking to the bathroom...
So, you don't choose your intake based on BMR, but on your TDEE.
My BMR is under 1200, but my TDEE (with no exercise) is 1750.
I know the diff between basal metabolic rate and total daily energy expenditure... I was making a point when it was said nobody could have a BMR of under 1200 a day. It happens quite a lot. Now, their TDEE is higher but in an elderly person you are still looking at TDEE of approximately 1400 a day in a sedentary female.0 -
1171 is the BMR of a 75 year old, 5'6" female weighing 130 pounds. (Scooby's)
1,006 is the BMR of a 75 year old 5 foot tall female on this website, on Scooby's calculator its 1100 for someone this age and height, sedentary activity at 120 lbs (which could even be considered a bit overweight for that height)... still under 1200 a day.
Go on though, biology, math and physics shouldn't get in the way of a good internet argument, lol.
Lol you never bother responding to what people actually write. I said "the majority" not all. Also, lets take a look at the 1200-ers on this site. Very, very, very few fit your parameters and worthless argument. Most are teens - 50s. Find a BMR of 1200 on your calculator using a 21 year old girl, then we can talk.0 -
A 15 page thread filled with negativity ... sad. I don't agree or disagree with anyone here. All I know is that everyone is different.0
-
I think the problem is you can and do lose weight at 1200 calories or less, but keeping this up and maintaining it is different. People tend to focus on the short term weight loss rather than whether it's maintainable.
I used to eat very little and I lose weight, I maintained it for a couple of years but I had to keep eating less and less, every bit I ate seemed to make a difference. Was bed-bound for months, upped calories to around 1000 and I just started gaining. I've been ill recently, I started on this site last January and the months that I was active I lost, but I ate back exercise calories and was never anywhere near 1200, I was eating more than I have in a long time. Now the tumour started causing me a problem again last October, instead of panicking and eating less I made sure I was eating slightly above my bmr (I'm barely moving at the moment, I even need help with the shower, someone cooks for me an I can spend days in bed at a time) but I've maintained my weight lost, I finally feel normal again.0 -
:drinker:0
-
I think the problem is you can and do lose weight at 1200 calories or less, but keeping this up and maintaining it is different. People tend to focus on the short term weight loss rather than whether it's maintainable.
Even the people doing TDEE-20% don't keep it up forever. This is the weight loss phase. It will differ from the maintenance phase.
Your maintenance phase is a different plan. If you fail at maintenance, that doesn't mean your weight loss phase was poorly designed. It means your maintenance phase was.0 -
I would be willing to bet if people paid more attention to their macronutrients and vitamin intake rather than obsessing over this calories in/calories out BS, half of these threads would never have existed in the first place. Most people think they are eating healthy diets, but rarely even check the ingredients of the things they are eating. Wake up! If you are eating nutrient dense foods and shunning all the processed, "low-fat" gimicks, artificial, GMOs and eating REAL foods (meaning foods you actually have to cook instead of popping it in the microwave) then most of you would be fine without having to obsess over every little calorie you eat. If your body is getting proper nutrition then your hormones and insulin levels should be able to maintain a healthy BMI. Some days I eat 1200 cals a day and others I eat 2500 a day. The calories arent as big of an issue as one would think. Stop listening to what weight watchers and your 5th grade health teacher taught you and do some of your own research. You might learn something that could change your life. It's not about losing weight, it's about being healthy. Fix your health first. The weight loss will consequently follow.
A side note: Most people on a standard American diet do NOT get enough healthy fats in their diet due to the "low-fat", "fats are bad" fad that's taken over the nation. I know it's a hard concept to accept, but try adding fats into your diet. Foods like avocado, olive oil, coconut oil, and yes, even bacon. You might be shocked at the results you get.0 -
1171 is the BMR of a 75 year old, 5'6" female weighing 130 pounds. (Scooby's)
1,006 is the BMR of a 75 year old 5 foot tall female on this website, on Scooby's calculator its 1100 for someone this age and height, sedentary activity at 120 lbs (which could even be considered a bit overweight for that height)... still under 1200 a day.
Go on though, biology, math and physics shouldn't get in the way of a good internet argument, lol.
Lol you never bother responding to what people actually write. I said "the majority" not all. Also, lets take a look at the 1200-ers on this site. Very, very, very few fit your parameters and worthless argument. Most are teens - 50s. Find a BMR of 1200 on your calculator using a 21 year old girl, then we can talk.
LOL, the majority is not people under 30. Otherwise social security would not be in the mess it is in!
You and I are paying for those folks who are overweight and older... to the point where I won't see social security, and I've got a head start on ye, youngun.
(note, I don't mean this website, and have never meant just this website...also many people use this website who never use the forums, so we don't really have a good handle on how many older users there actually are)0 -
Just wanted to re-quote this.Here's how I look at it:
If 1200 is working for you, if it's easy for you... great! Keep at it!
But if you're one of the people who started those threads Taso linked to, if you're someone like me who was struggling on low calories, if you're tired, cold, grumpy, hungry, losing hair, losing sleep, etc. on 1200, if you blindly selected 2 pounds a week because you want this weight GONE as soon as possible... know there is another way.
I guess I can understand how someone how is only eating 1200 a day (for whatever reason) and is perfectly content with it would feel that this thread is some kind of attack. There seem to be at least a half dozen of you in this thread, maybe even a whole twelve pack, who fall into that category. Additionally I've seen a few posts--not a ton, but a few--from people who've said 'Oh wow, I've been eating 1200 and been miserable and THANK YOU!' There have been a lot of posts by folks who tried 1200 (and it worked) but found that they were much happier with more calories (and it STILL worked).
I think the thread is still a good one though, because there are a lot of people who follow 1200 because that's what they're told by calculators or magazines or whatever-whatever (and not a doctor/nutritionist/etc). And they find that they're failing at it (for whatever reason) and they start to feel bad, because that's the generally accepted advice out there and if they can't do it, are they going to be fat forever? ... But here's a whole bunch of people who had the exact same problem! And here is a way to change it! If you can't sustain 1200 a day, it doesn't mean something is wrong with you, that you'll be fat forever! ... And for that reason, I think taso's collection is, in fact, helpful.
Best wishes to all.
0 -
yep, which is why I said teens - 50s and not under 30.1171 is the BMR of a 75 year old, 5'6" female weighing 130 pounds. (Scooby's)
1,006 is the BMR of a 75 year old 5 foot tall female on this website, on Scooby's calculator its 1100 for someone this age and height, sedentary activity at 120 lbs (which could even be considered a bit overweight for that height)... still under 1200 a day.
Go on though, biology, math and physics shouldn't get in the way of a good internet argument, lol.
Lol you never bother responding to what people actually write. I said "the majority" not all. Also, lets take a look at the 1200-ers on this site. Very, very, very few fit your parameters and worthless argument. Most are teens - 50s. Find a BMR of 1200 on your calculator using a 21 year old girl, then we can talk.
LOL, the majority is not people under 30. Otherwise social security would not be in the mess it is in!0 -
Nobody thinks that those who under-report are lying. I don't think that is the mechanism. If I did, I could just as easily assume you are lying right now. That makes no sense, either.
I think it is denial.
If 1200 is too little for you, you would be more likely to accurately track calories that are inside of a larger, manageable range. If you are miserable at a low calorie range, you are more likely to lie to yourself or eat something you then forget about.
All I know is I didn't lose at 1200 and I did lose at 1390. I wasn't unsatisfied at either calorie intake and I certainly wasn't in denial about what I was eating at either calorie limit. Had I given it more time at 1200 I might have lost, but at the time I was doing alot of reading and was afraid to stay at 1200 and lose and have that number keep going down. I knew eventually I would have to eat more and didnt want to risk a gain when that moment came. So I began to gradually add. I haven't lost in a few weeks but I'm gonna keep the number where it is for awhile and see what happens before I decide if I need to go up or down. (currently 1510 and eating exercise back)0 -
yep, which is why I said teens - 50s and not under 30.
What you see in forums are just the tip of the iceberg of users... they are not a good barometer of who uses the app.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions