1200 calories = more likely to have problems?

Seriously. Why is this issue still being argued? Eat at the calorie level that is right for you and quit trying to force your opinions on everyone else.

You never see threads that say "2500 calories = more likely to get fat?"

I am okay at 1200. It is all about just eating better foods really. I struggled the first two days because I was always hungry! But now I think I have a handle on it.

Can someone explain how upping calories makes you lose weight though? I do not understand this.

if your body senses that you are eating too low, it gets scared that you are stuck in the basement without food so it starts conserving and slows down to do that conserving.

if you eat more (but less than your tdee) it doesnt get scared and lets you lose weight

What I can't understand is why anyone gives a crud how many calories I'm eating. I mean, I'm not preaching to anyone else to eat this low, but I'm 43 years old, short and have a sedentary lifestyle. It's Dr. approved to do what I'm doing. So why does it bother people so much?

I can only assume that they are not of a height or build where 1200 is remotely healthy for them, and had to be convinced rather hard that that was not the case for them, and are trying to pay it forward... like a person who has to give up alcohol because they are an alcoholic, but rather than recognizing that there are differences in people, goes on a crusade to "save" anyone else who isn't teatotal already. It's well intentioned but in an annoying high horse kind of way.

8^/

(Hey, it's me, the OP that dared to suggest the correlation.)

Good guess, but not quite accurate. I've never been significantly overweight. A year ago, I decided I didn't like my level of health, but overall weight wasn't really a problem.

So now that everyone knows that I've never BTDT, they can even more quickly discount and dismiss my radically insensitive comment about the correlation I've noticed in my many months here.

For those who are most upset about my post, this message isn't for you...at least not yet. And for those who are early in your plan to reach your GW, I commend your commitment to getting healthy and appreciate your input, but until you have reached a healthy weight and have maintained, you honestly don't *know* what works long-term...yet. Nothing personal, and in no way am I saying you shouldn't say what's on your mind, but you don't and can't know...yet.

Eh, I'm just being redundant. I've already said as much earlier in this thread.

And for those concerned about my stress level, I can assure you, it's fine. I'm not *worried* about your diary...however, I have *observed* this correlation nonetheless.

Oh, and I have several friends who eat at 1200...some of whom have even posted in this thread. Somehow, they forgive my remarkable rudeness of daring to comment in the forums like this.

What I can't understand is why anyone gives a crud how many calories I'm eating. I mean, I'm not preaching to anyone else to eat this low, but I'm 43 years old, short and have a sedentary lifestyle. It's Dr. approved to do what I'm doing. So why does it bother people so much?

I can only assume that they are not of a height or build where 1200 is remotely healthy for them, and had to be convinced rather hard that that was not the case for them, and are trying to pay it forward... like a person who has to give up alcohol because they are an alcoholic, but rather than recognizing that there are differences in people, goes on a crusade to "save" anyone else who isn't teatotal already. It's well intentioned but in an annoying high horse kind of way.

8^/

(Hey, it's me, the OP that dared to suggest the correlation.)

Good guess, but not quite accurate. I've never been significantly overweight. A year ago, I decided I didn't like my level of health, but overall weight wasn't really a problem.

So now that everyone knows that I've never BTDT, they can even more quickly discount and dismiss my radically insensitive comment about the correlation I've noticed in my many months here.

For those who are most upset about my post, this message isn't for you...at least not yet. And for those who are early in your plan to reach your GW, I commend your commitment to getting healthy and appreciate your input, but until you have reached a healthy weight and have maintained, you honestly don't *know* what works long-term...yet. Nothing personal, and in no way am I saying you shouldn't say what's on your mind, but you don't and can't know...yet.

I'm pretty sure you can be in a situation where 1200 isn't remotely healthy for you without being "Significantly Overweight." You could have a high muscle mass, you could be tall, you could have a naturally high metabolism... any of those things could raise your TDEE to a point where 1200 is TOO LITTLE.

Saying that 1200 is OK for some people isn't the same as saying everyone should do it or it's the best way or even the only way. It's saying that for a certain subset of people, greater than 0, it is healthy and works. The point isn't that it's for everyone (which is why you don't see "1200 defenders" jumping into threads where people lost by eating more.) The point is that 1200 CAN in fact be fine, healthy and not a "huge deficit" for people with a low TDEE.

The better correlation is probably that people experience problems when they set their deficit to above certain percentage of their TDEE... for which further research would need to be done.