1200, and why it won't work

Interesting read but too many pages to get through right now. Bedtime reading!

bumping for a friend...good info!

Wow that blew my mind!
i always knew 1200 calories was to low but you just made me realize i need to up my calories kuzz im eating like a small breakfast 300 cal and small lunch of 300 and a big dinner of like 800 - 1000
ive tried the 1200 calorie thing in highschool and 3 days later I fell off the wagon
i dont really count my calories as much i just eat what i think is a decent meal and sort out the calories at the end of the day..

great post, love it

I love the post and here's why....

I'm in my 40s, I'm short and I'm 257 pounds. I'm also not a complete idiot so before embarking on my latest round of weight loss initiatives I went to the doctor and had full blood works done so I started out with the knowledge that my hormone levels are normal, my thyroid is fine and I have absolutely normal blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol.

I then plugged my numbers into MFP and did the old 'sedentary lifestyle' and '2lbs a week weightloss' and got the old magical '1200 calories' answer. However, I was deceiving myself in two very important ways:

1. Actually my lifestyle is not sedentary. Yes, I have a desk job (and that's why I clicked the button) but I then remember I also have a dog and do 1-1.5hrs a day walking with him.
2. Losing 2lb a week would be wonderful, but in fact it's completely unrealistic that I'll lose that much week in, week out.

The fact is that, for ME at my weight, 1200 a day is a starvation diet. I've been maintaining weight at 257 for about a year and I've been eating up nearer the 3000 calories a day mark - a 1800 calorie drop a day is just too much of a shock to the body *and* to the pscyhe. At it is, my TDEE is 2561 so I'm working on the basis of deducting 20% off that.

What I don't like about the 1200 plan for people like me who are obese with no particular health issues, is that it's just not sustainable. Studies tell us that over 90% of dieters put back on all the weight they've lost within 5 years and I've been part of that statistic myself having previously gone for the 'go as low as you can to lose the maximum amount of weight' approach. I did Lighter Life for 4 months and lost a total of 58lbs on 500 calories A DAY. Yes, everyone said how amazing I had done. Yes I was blown away by shrinking body BUT it was not sustainable...my incredible shrinking body was pretty much consuming itself and within a few short months of stopping Lighter Life I was well on my way to gaining ALL the weight lost, even though I was eating healthily and supposedly at a maintenance level of calories.

I'm new to the boards, but looking around I sometimes think there's an almost perverse one-upmanship that goes on around how few calories people can eat and how much exercise they can do. Me? I'd rather cut back a little (I'm doing 5:2 intermittent fasting because of the wider health benefits that studies are showing) and lose slow and steady but have a reasonable chance of both keeping on the wagon and keeping the weight loss off.

Bump

I'm new to the boards, but looking around I sometimes think there's an almost perverse one-upmanship that goes on around how few calories people can eat and how much exercise they can do. Me? I'd rather cut back a little (I'm doing 5:2 intermittent fasting because of the wider health benefits that studies are showing) and lose slow and steady but have a reasonable chance of both keeping on the wagon and keeping the weight loss off.

I encounter one-upmanship in all the posts in which women boast about how many calories they're eating and act as if strength training is miraculous, instead of good, basic exercise. If I regularly consumed 2000-plus calories and used direct weight resistance on the wrong parts of my body I'd be obese and have a humongous butt and hips.

For some reason, the message is not getting through that weight loss success is specific to the individual.

I am one of those people, obese, who finds it very difficult to stick to 1200 a day. I have tried this in the past and failed horribly. I have set my cals around 1600 and am exercising, weights and interval three times a week. The scales are going down slowly but I am losing inches and feeling so much better. My knees no longer creak when I climb stairs and I actually look forward to going to the gym. I am averaging a 1 pound a week loss. Sometimes the scale moves, sometimes not but over a month all good!

To the Op. should I up my cal intake and do more exercise or keep going as I am? I have lost 18 pounds to date but have another 5 stone to go so this will take time. i found your post very intermesting and it has got me thinking... i never want to eat at 1200 ever again. It made me feel terrible and i got ratty with everyone!I

Bump

For some reason, the message is not getting through that weight loss success is specific to the individual.

Yup, it absolutely is individual. Everyone's going to have a different maintenance calorie intake and it's not even a case that 'one size fits all' with exercise either. The latest research is showing that different people respond to different exercise and it should therefore be tailored.

What I don't get is the defensiveness some people seem to have about what they're doing. Personally, I don't give a flying shyte what diet/exercise plan anyone else is doing, I only care about what *i'm* doing and if what I'm doing doesn't work, then I'll start looking round for answers.

The one thing I *do* know from around 30 years of yo-yoing weight and every diet under the sun is that it's way easier to get it off than keep it off. I always looked for a quick fix - the 100lb shed in 6-8 months answer. It's only now in my mid-40s that I realise that I've spent a lifetime being fat so 3, 4 or even 5 years getting it off and changing my lifestyle rather than crash dieting is the answer for me. I'm sick of the 'diet merry-go-round' - this time around I made sure it was something that represented a lifestyle change rather than another diet.