1200 calories = more likely to have problems?

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.

forgive yes...but you will pay later. *evil laugh*

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.

well said...ty

Ha!

well I could not live on 1200 cals a day I would be miserable I have 1500 no matter what i am doing I split it to 6 meals a day not evenly all the time I try to burn 500 calories in exercise but I will not allow myself to go hungry I think that is counterproductive and dangerous! Im 5 ft 2 and I have lost 26 lbs since April this year Im at 144 lbs now and I really dont care if I dont loose another pound Im fit and healthy and thats good enough!

I do 1200 - 1400 calories a day - My Dr. recommended 1300. When I first started MFP showed I should eat 1230 and all of the sudden it changed to 1440 so I try to stay between 1200 and 1400 per day. I have a lot of weight to lose and it works for me - I've lost 40 pounds so far. 1/2 of my calories are eaten in the eveing for dinner or after dinner snack. Yes, I am hungry at meal times but usually not starving - just hungry. 1200 calories may not work for everyone but it works for me! Worry about your habits - not everyone else's

1200 calories and below is bad for you...I eat about 1500 to 1700 a day and im doing fine

You are a registered dietician are you?

I find it is easy to stay under 1200 calories when you give up sugars and carbs. The cravings stop and you dont feel hungry.

I haven't read the replies, but I have no doubt that you've run into a bunch of people that have jumped on the band wagon and agreed that your statement is absolutely right. I'm here to offer a different perspective.

It's the fact that they're trying to eat only 1,200 calories worth of junk/fast/processed foods instead of healthy diets that are only 1,200 calories. There's a HUGE difference there. 1,200 calories a day of fast food isn't all that much food. Heck, look up "Burger King - Large Double Whopper With Cheese Meal, 1 burger and fry" ...that's 1,530 calories....and that's just the one big burger and a single order of french fries, nothing to drink, no breakfast and no supper and no snacks. That's no fiber....yep, zero, and double plus some of my saturated fat goal. It might be a big burger, but I would be miserable and starving most of the day.

I eat between 1,200 and usually 1,250, sometimes up to 1,300 calories a day. Today was about an average day for me with the exception of the 52 grams of smoked sausage, a processed food. Breakfast: Coffee with whole milk, Extra Thick Oatmeal and cinnamon. Dinner: Catfish Courtbouillon. Supper: Turkey Gumbo, green beans seasoned with smoked sausage and even a 1/4 cup of candied yams. Snack: I eat vanilla yogurt with 2 tbsp of flaxseed almost every day . I also ate a banana, a satsuma (it's a type of orange), a bowl of mustard greens with smidgen of bacon and half a large grapefruit. And to top that off, some vitamins and such that accounted for 65 of my calories. All of this food together was 1,226 calories. I got thirty one grams of fiber, 68 grams of protein and only 10 grams of saturated fat. Not too shabby for only 1,226 calories is it? I graze all day long and I'm never hungry.

Now is this for everyone? No way......but it can be done and done well.

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?"

That would be a fun thread. I would post in it. :laugh:

THIS!! I tried eating more to lose weight ... it DID NOT WORK for me and all I did was get depressed and finally give up. 1200 calories works for me and for many people out there losing weight.

But you have had gastric bypass. Aren't people that have it SUPPOSED to eat very little?

I should have clarified that ... I tried the high calorie approach BEFORE I had a gastric byapss. BUT after years out from a gastric bypass, you can still be on the high calorie diet to try to lose weight. As I said though, it just doesn't work for me, bypass or not.

1200 calories may WORK for people, but that doesn't mean it's not difficult and frustrating for a lot of people.
1200 is low. It's hard to get used to. There are a lot of things that won't fit into that diet if you don't want to go hungry all day.

IMO those on 1200 calories a day often look the worst physically and ignore those looking better physically (as in shape) saying eat more. Why do people think that is? Why would people say that if there wasn't something in it?

I don't think it's rocket science to conclude that the more severely you restrict energy (calorie) or nutrient intake the more likely it is that you will run into problems.

All dieting is a form of "starvation" (deliberately providing your body less than it needs to maintain itself.) The greater the restriction the greater the potential problems.

I don't think it's rocket science to conclude that the more severely you restrict energy (calorie) or nutrient intake the more likely it is that you will run into problems.

All dieting is a form of "starvation" (deliberately providing your body less than it needs to maintain itself.) The greater the restriction the greater the potential problems.

You're going to get banned from the forums if you keep using logic.

IMO those on 1200 calories a day often look the worst physically and ignore those looking better physically (as in shape) saying eat more. Why do people think that is? Why would people say that if there wasn't something in it?

so just because a woman eats around 1200 calories and doesnt fit YOUR *ideal* physique they should eat more? How do you really know how much they are really eating? They may be perfectly healthy too(BP,cholesterol, etc).

I'm not talking about my preferred look.

I'm talking about most efficient and best means of fat loss and lbm retention. If they are eating 1200 calories, they are not eating enough unless they are a hobbit or smaller. Simple really.

Why are people getting stuck with 1200 being a good figure in their head? Why use a single figure when everyone is different and has massively different energy expenditures.

It is retarded.

msf74 - exactly.

I wonder the same thing. Since many people are sheep, if MFP told them 1500 instead of 1200, there would be a lot less threads about not losing, less threads about starving, binging, etc. I dont know how MFP sets so many people at 1200 nor why they automatically set macros at the high carb, low protein numbers.

:laugh: