Is this just a 'side effect' of the 1200 cal MFP gives ?

Yep Same here! If I stick to 1200 calories the first two days I am fine although my workouts are rough! After day three there is no joy in my life and I'm barely alive!

I now eat back all my exercise calories and although the weight is coming off slower I feel better and have energy to do things other than just going through the motions.

I agree here. Sometimes I feel a bit jealous of the ladies here who can eat at 1,200 daily, work out and not eat their calories back and feel great! Sometimes I can eat at 1,200, but I do better with more food. I work out stronger too. It just depends on the day. It's frequent that I get fatigued on the lower numbers. I lost 70 pounds doing about 1,500. That was enough for me.

bump

Unless a person has a metabolic disorder or has suppressed their metabolism through years of under eating then you will need more than 1200 calories. There are a lot more fit people eating 1800 + calories than 1200 calories. I cant tell you how many people i have gotten off of 1200 calories and started eating 1700-2000 and started to lose more weight. The issue with 1200 is it doesnt supply most people enough calories to even feed their bmr. And if you dont feed your body right it increases the chance of going catabolic which means your body will use the amino acids in your muscle to create energy. This also leads to a slower metabolism.

Yep Same here! If I stick to 1200 calories the first two days I am fine although my workouts are rough! After day three there is no joy in my life and I'm barely alive!

I now eat back all my exercise calories and although the weight is coming off slower I feel better and have energy to do things other than just going through the motions.

Great job. The faster weight loss was most likely muscle mass, since studies have shown that happens all too easily.

So at least now you know it's fat coming off, hopefully only fat. You'll appreciate that muscle later when trying to go into maintenance mode.

Skinny fat usually end up at maintenance, doomed to 1200 until they risk gaining to get their metabolism repaired and LBM increased.

1200 calories isn't enough really for anyone. When I was eating at that I was tired.....run down, zero energy, and didn't lose a pound. When I upped them my energy was up and the weight fell off. You need to feed your body in order to lose weight. Being tired and run down is your bodies way of saying I need more to function!

perhaps what you really mean is that 1200 calories wasn't enough for YOU.
i'm pretty sure you don't know what's right for me, as I am not run down and have more energy than ever.

She wasn't talking to you specifically, though. Why are you taking that as a personal attack when it isn't meant to be one?

lol, i know she wasn't talking to me specifically and I didn't take it personally. anytime I speak about my personal experience are you going to accuse me of taking things personally?
She said 1200 is not enough for anyone. I pointed out that since she doesn't KNOW EVERYONE, she's mistaken. LIKE ME FOR EXAMPLE.

You're going to owe me dinner if you keep riding my *kitten* my dear.

Perfect place to hide an ED or to show your true fear of food and physiology.
Congrats on your loss but I'd stand you next to any of my women who are losing at the same clip as you and watch you fail at deadlifts, squats and bench press.
At low cals its best to walk daily and rest.
Anything more and you're doing more harm than good.

This is close to the same conversation we've had with mcarter99 for months on end.

Just keep in mind that the more LBM you lose at low cals will at some point give you that luscious skinny-fat look that commonly happens when dieting incorrectly.
The only way to fix skinny-fat is to eat above TDEE and build muscle.
So keep defending how great the low cals are working.
The ones who do this right will look great naked and the ones who don't wont.
Period.

You got a point there. Building muscle does make all the difference. However, is it really that bad to eat below TDEE and put in the physical effort? I remember when I had lost most of my weight, I was eating at about 1,500 daily and was pretty toned. Of course, over time I gained some of it back and that's why I am here today.
I personally am afraid to eat at TDEE because it's hard to burn a lot of calories off. The lower your weight, the harder is seems to get to burn calories. I feel like if I ate at a higher calorie rate then I would have to be a slave to the cardio!

Just keep in mind that the more LBM you lose at low cals will at some point give you that luscious skinny-fat look that commonly happens when dieting incorrectly.
The only way to fix skinny-fat is to eat above TDEE and build muscle.
So keep defending how great the low cals are working.
The ones who do this right will look great naked and the ones who don't wont.
Period.

You got a point there. Building muscle does make all the difference. However, is it really that bad to eat below TDEE and put in the physical effort? I remember when I had lost most of my weight, I was eating at about 1,500 daily and was pretty toned. Of course, over time I gained some of it back and that's why I am here today.
I personally am afraid to eat at TDEE because it's hard to burn a lot of calories off. The lower your weight, the harder is seems to get to burn calories. I feel like if I ate at a higher calorie rate then I would have to be a slave to the cardio!

He was just referring to what happens at goal weight when skinny fat. The only way to get out of it then is eat above TDEE and accept weight gain along with some muscle gain.

But of course, you do have to eat below TDEE. But the axiom slower is better is true, but not if it's done because you've slowed your metabolism down and tearing down muscle.

Realistic deficit is best to encourage just fat lost.

It went on slow, just fat, best to take it off the same way, slow, just fat.

Edit - Dan, someone owes someone a Coke I think. Too bad we don't drink sugar drinks! Ha.

I try to eat between 1600 and 1700 calories when I'm at work (I work at aldi, non stop running around and loads of lifting) and between 1300 and 1400 on my day off

BMR = 655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age in years )
or your weight x 14-16

first formula gave me 1865.95
second formula gave me 3246

Yeah, I got 1,690 and 2,940. Maybe while the 1st one is only BMR, the 2nd one includes daily activities?

Personally, I have more energy eating 1200 cals than eating 2,000+ because I'm not stuffed and lethargic all the time.

Everyone is different!

You'd have better weight loss once you regulate using the extra calories.
Probably why you only have a 13lb loss since June.
Eat more and become more efficient working out and you'll see better losses and higher energy.

You seem to be mistaken, I started using FMP in June last year
But I started using it again in September this year, I've lost 13 pounds since September xx

Here's a thought... my goals aren't the same as your "women".
They should eat more if they are building muscle. No doubt.

Btw, as far as who lifts more, i held the state record bench press at one point. Not sure what my max is but it still might be pretty good...

Are you eating back your calories burned from activity?
What's your height and body fat%?

When I was on 1280 for a while, I was tired, cold and felt like a lethargic zombie ALL THE TIME but as soon as I moved it up to 1460 and 1960 I was awake, energized and "lets go go go go go !"

Food does give you energy but everyone is different. Smaller people can have energy on less calories and can't lose weight on the amount bigger people eat.

People should not compare their calories to others, just do what works for YOU.


1200 is such a stupid number to get stuck on. What you need to eat for a deficit is relative to your RMR.

To tell everyone eat more is wrong.

To tell everyone to eat less is wrong.

To find the exact amount of calories for you to be in a sustainable calorie deficit is correct. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others. Some people have emotional eating disorders and it comes into play. Even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux and everyone is different.

Everyone is different. There is no one size fits all. Too many changes at once can be hard on some people. I've always eaten healthy so it easy for me to simply eat less. Eating at a calorie deficit is hard on people; even a small deficit puts your body in a state of flux with hormones and such. Everyone is different. Some people can handle a deeper calorie deficit than others, this is not right or wrong, it just is. Stress in your life affects your hunger hormones; lack of sleep, fatigue, job stress, family stress, financial stress, etc. Add in emotional eating issues and it gets even more complicated. Most people can only handle so much change/stress at once, they try to do too much and fail. Sometimes it might be a better strategy to eat at maintenance and make some small changes first, it really depends on how much stress you are taking in at the moment.

There is no mystery to weight loss, everyone thinks something is wrong, their metabolism is broken, they have low thyroid, they have menopause or whatever issue, they are as unique as a snowflake, whatever. I thought a lot of these things once too but once the doctor helped resolve the health issues for me I learned there is still no magic pill. Most people eat more than they need to and are not at good at estimating calories as they think they are. Most people have a lower BMR than they think they do. The only way to know for sure is to go to a lab and have it tested. It doesn't seem fair to have to eat less and feel a little hunger. It's hard to face the truth of it, very hard. It's not fun. It's drudgery at times. But if you learn to enjoy your smaller amounts of food (necessary to lose weight, since the reason we got fat in the first place was eating too much whether we knew it or not), and rejoice in your victories it can be done.

I'm not offering an opinion on a daily calorie count one way or another; quite frankly I don't know enough about nutrition or how the body works yet to have one of my own.. however... I would like to put out a gentle reminder that sometimes, when people choose 1200 calories, its simply because (like in my case) I came to MFP knowing I had to change a lifetime of unhealthy eating and laziness. But I didn't have a clue about true nutrition and how to get what I need and lose all the excess fat and keep muscle, etc etc.. I just plugged in the numbers when I signed up and voila.. MFP said 1200 a day, lady. A doctor had told me to go on 1100 a day because I didn't exercise at all and didn't need any more than that to sustain me. I figured 1200 was pretty close, and I diligently logged my chocolate and chips and what not.. up to 1200 calories a day.




It wasn't until I started reading the forums and learning a LOT from others who are far more experienced and far more knowledgable than I am on the subject, that I learned about overall nutrition and how our bodies need/use it.. and that maybe 1200 wasn't right for me. It took me MONTHS of jumping from one idea to to the next and trying it all.. to figure out how to make this site work for ME.. I read something, I check out the poster's information, then I do some research myself, and combine it all into what works for me. I'm still not totally there with the "perfect equation", but I know enough now that I need to eat lots of good, healthy food and move, every single day... but when I first came here, I used the 1200 without hesitation because MFP told me to, and I didn't KNOW any differently.




This is an awesome site, and there are loads of resources and knowledge available to everyone but it takes a little time to find your way.. my only suggestion would be to use all the information available from all the MFP's, and be healthy!




(and maybe offer just a gentle reminder that when posting something to us newbies... be a little gentle..sometimes its just cause we don't know what else to do to start that we're there lol)

1200 is unhealthy. A 5 year old girl eats more. Cutting calories by 500 minus your BMR is what you should be doing. If you workout then add more.

BMR = 655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age in years )

or your weight x 14-16.

Dont cut calories to an extreme, you will lose weight but are you seriously going to eat under 1200 for the rest of your life? People get greedy and want it off fast, but really your just jumping to the middle of an already long line.


But I guess i should have read the entire post before i got all internet angry lol

This is wrong... you dont form a deficit off your bmr.. you do it fron your tdee... there is a lifestyle multiplier on top of this as well as exercise.

So my bmr is 2080, i have a desk job and burn about 500 calories. My tdee would be..

2080 * 1.2 + 500 =2996... this is where cut my 20% to form a deficit.

So, let's see. My choices are: a) Eat 1200 calories, and risk down regulation of my metabolism, lose lean muscle mass, and foul up my hormones that control hunger and satiety.
or
b) Eat at a 20% deficit to TDEE, workout and maintain lean muscle mass, keep my metabolism normalized and minimally impact leptin and gherlin. Plus not have to be OCD over my food intake?

Is this even a choice? What rational person would choose a)??

Unfortunately, many people choose option A and don't care - they just see the shiny 2 lb weight loss per week. Once their body begins to experience the dramatic changes in hormones, the psychological aspect kicks in and they convince themselves they don't need as much to justify the steep - and increasing - deficit.