why is 1200 cal/day too low?
Replies
-
I don't believe it is too low. ADA association says the average American needs 1500 to maintain health. So If losing weight is your goal you have to decrease calories, as well as jump start your metabolism by excersising. Dance, walk the dog, water walk, garden what ever it takes. I am someone that loves daytime tv and it showed. I started taping my shows and skipping the commercials later that day after going to the Y. The combination of calorie awareness, increased activity, and taping the shows that were making me sedimentary gave me a 3 pound weight loss this week. If you eat less than 1200 my fittness pal will allert you that your body is in danger of going into starvation mode. There you will release hormones that will make you store everything as fat. It's like having your own trainer right in your kitchen....If you're eating fresh fruits and vegetables and more fish and chicken I've found out my $200 a month food budget doesn't even suffer. If you need 1300 a day just increase your excersise what ever it is and like magic the weight you want to get rid of will drop off. Good luck
Sorry, but anyone reading this line of logic, please disregard it. Sorry. But this stuff isn't about what you think, or what I think or anyone else thinks. But that is what leads to confusion and why we have these questions. It's not about opinion. The body works in definite ways. And no, we're not all different. Again, sorry. Don't know any other way to say it. If you were telling her to eat 500 calories a day people would attack you vigorously. I see your statement the same way, but I'll hold off on attacking and just stick with being super blunt. You're wrong. And the ADA....well never mind. But raise your hand if you're "AVERAGE".... or want to base your health on other people....? It's NOT about exercise people. Undereating and overexercising is THE reason why people are confused. These statements lead to overexercising, underrecovery, and metabolic slowdown/damage, then a plateau/stall, which is usually incorrectly followed up by lower calories and more exercise. It's not about weight loss, it's about health. Ethiopians are very adept at losing weight.0 -
The days I eat more than 1200 it always causes a gain for me. Everyone is different. If I am hungry I eat more but if not I dont bother. I have lost 50 pounds in 13 months so I think that is slow and healthy for me!
0 -
I'm in a good mood today, another fallacy. Tell us how much and what nutrients are stored in fat cells? Another common mistake. People think fat isn't alive and kicking and releasing very important hormones. So starve it to death. Surely this works. Ok go.I think there are certain situations where 1200 cals is not necessarily a "bad" goal. If you are elderly or immobile you don't need a bunch of calories. The older you are, the less efficient your metabolism is. And if you are bed or chair bound, you probably don't need to eat much either (again, that also depends on age and how sedentary you truly are).
Also, severely obese people have plenty of nutrient stores in their fat cells, so they can take a big whack to their calorie intake without much damage to their bodies. And for them, the "cost" of stressing the body from such a calorie restriction is balanced by the "benefit" of quickly reducing the overall stress to the body from being so severely overweight.
Finally, some people claim that they eat severely restricted diets a couple days a week and less restricted diets other days (the 5/2 plan and similar diets) and that works for them. I'm not a doctor so i can't comment on how healthy it is to be constantly be putting your body on a roller-coaster ride of feast and famine, but overall their calorie intake over the course of a week averages out to more than 1200 cals/day, and they are losing weight.
So unless you consider yourself elderly, severely obese, or an invalid, reducing your intake to 1200 cals is probably not necessary. Some may argue whether it's healthy or not, or "doable" over the long term, but you have to ask yourself; is it necessary? based on just what you told us, probably not. But a doctor is much better able to advise you than any of us! :-)0 -
To the OP:
1. Take your self more seriously. go see a doctor because,(besides other reasons)...
2. Looking at your pic, your weight might not be a real issue to be concerned about. I don't know when that pic was taken though.
3. This might lead to you doing things that might not be in your best interest just to meet a goal that could be totally unrealistic,unhealthy, or arbitrary.
4. You might be more satisfied with a different ratio of muscle to change your aesthetics and weight goals.
5. MFP isn't a diety. It's estimating. From what I see, it gets those estimates severely wrong on many occasions. Like BMI. There's only so much you can do with simple estimates given by people on this site. It's great for tracking but it's not a dietary consultant or trainer.
6. You could live perfectly fine the rest of your life on 1200 calories a day, especially if it was packed with real food, which it won't be. The problem is that you will also probably lower your thyroid and other hormonal functions to a metabolic rate that would pretty much SUCK for lack of better words, and over time, we would call this metabolic damage. You want to lose fat at the highest caloric intake possible. This gives you more metabolic room to adjust and cheat later.
7. Again, to remind people, every part of your body burns calories! Not just your muscles when they move. Your eyelids, your eyeballs, your retina, your iris....your heart of course, your skin, your cuticles, your follicles, your spleen, your brain, your tendons. When sustenance gets low, your body will slow it's metabolism to protect you in the idea of living longer. Simply put, as it seems I am the only person who reminds people of this. If you were lost in the woods with only 1200 calories, would you want your metabolism to slow down? If you needed to run for 2 hours a day while you found your way home(ahem, ahem, cough cough, to the over-exercisers out there) would you want your metabolism to slow down or speed up? Would you want to burn more fat or less fat? Simple. The body doesn't know you have a fridge and cupboard fully stocked, and it won't any time soon.
8. Anecdotes should be taken lightly if you're serious. Sure many people have done just fine on 1200 calories. But you're not them, you don't have the same expenditure they do, you don't have the same genes they do(to an extent, but you get the point).
The reason why you and so many others can't be 100% white knuckle tight gripped on your intake and goals is because everyone thinks they're a damn trainer or dietician and want to talk about opinions when the thyroid could care less about what someone thinks. You liver has no opinion. Your fat cells are not enemies.
9. Chances are if you're exercising you need to increase your intake and increase your protein. You'll get a better thermic effect of food, you'll stabilize your metabolism better and probably feel better.
10. Remember women are designed to hold more fat. You're burdened with the direct responsibility of populating the planet which takes a little bit more back up energy requirements, as it should!0 -
It's not about weight loss, it's about health. Ethiopians are very adept at losing weight.
totally agree. can you lose weight at 1200? Sure. It will most likely be muscle as well as fat. Loss might happen faster at lower calories, but it usually isn't as healthy and you are less likely to keep it off. If your goal is just to get to your goal, fine. If you want to be healthy, fit, and set yourself up to keep the weight off, eat more. Get your protein. This is not a race.0 -
I generally ate between 1200-1300 for three and a half months and I lost 56 pounds. I had a ""cheat day"" every other week or so. I rarely exercised and when I did I didn't eat my calories back. I felt fine at that amount. Now, after taking a break from logging while pregnant, I am finding that range harder to stick to. I really think it depends on the person and what their eating. For some people it's sustainable and for some it isn't. If you're hungry all the time and have no energy you'll need to eat more. But if you're losing at 1200 and you feel good, stick with it until it's not working. There isn't one answer for every body, in my opinion.0
-
It is not too low if you are eating the right foods. Try eating mostly a high nutrient plant-based diet with lean protein. You can eat your fill of vegetables, making sure htat you are getting enough protein and fats in limited amounts. It has worked well for me, and I thought "there is no way I can eat ony 1200 calories". Now I have to make sure that I am eating my full 1200 because I often feel satisfied with only 1100. Go to Peer Trainer and join the Point of no Return Program (PONR). I have lost 34 pounds so far, and am working on my last 18. The food you eat is more important than the calories. Good luck!!0
-
....
9. Chances are if you're exercising you need to increase your intake and increase your protein. You'll get a better thermic effect of food, you'll stabilize your metabolism better and probably feel better.
10. Remember women are designed to hold more fat. You're burdened with the direct responsibility of populating the planet which takes a little bit more back up energy requirements, as it should!0 -
Everyone is not different.The days I eat more than 1200 it always causes a gain for me. Everyone is different. If I am hungry I eat more but if not I dont bother. I have lost 50 pounds in 13 months so I think that is slow and healthy for me!
You might gain weight because you NEED to. It might be your metabolism's last dieing horah of an attempt to protect itself! At 1200 calories???? You're planning on eating 1200 calories a day the rest of your life? Every chance your body gets it's gonna want to store! How many calories a day do you think your heart alone burns?0 -
My ilk, those passionate about the truth, have our work cut out for us. We have to battle an industry and culture that is bred from birth. Especially with females. That's not sexist, it's a truth, and we know it.
A large part of the problem is our general fear of meat. So we under eat and under eat protein, leaving no "thermic effect of food" which results in the need for low calories to lose weight. This is because it takes 8 to 10 times more energy to process and deal with protein than it does fat and carbs. In other words there's no internal "work" required to process fat and carbs. This is not good or bad. It just is. You'd be dead without fats, they aren't bad. You would NOT be dead without carbs, but in todays society you'd probably wish you were.0 -
I'm so happy I discovered this topic over the weekend.
I've adjusted my goals to increase calories and protein ration and making way more of an effort to drink my 2 litres of water a day
Thumbs up.0 -
1. The average amount of calories for maintaining weight is set at 2000 for female and 2500 for male. This is obviously for an adult person who moves and is relatively young, as from a certain point it decreases with age. ("relatively young" = 20-50 years, approx.)
2. The BMR - amount of calories your body needs just to stay alive differs according to one's gender, age, height, weight (especially amount of muscles - the more muscles = more calories needed). You can calculate your estimated BMR here: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ but there are some professional more accurate ways how to do it.
3. It is claimed that a calorie intake lower than 1200 can actually slow down your metabolism due to not receiving enough nutrients and going to starvation mode, however, I am not sure why exactly this number, as it would make more sense if this number (of when does your metabolism start slowing down) is at everyone's BMR level.
4. Also, once you lose weight and want to get off diet, you might start gaining weight once you eat at your "maintaining weight", as your body has gotten "used to" the incredible low intake, and due to having been practically starving is now not functioning properly.
I think it would be probably best to keep your lowest intake at your BMR, because that is the energy your body needs to sustain itself - for the right functioning of brain and life functions. Since this is the amount of kcal you'd burn without any activity you will still be loosing weight, especially if you add some sports.0 -
Personally, I am on 1200 calories a day but I exercise so I eat more like 1600 calories a day and then burn off 400-500 of that working out, which gives me my 1200.
I think if you are working out then it's a much more reasonable goal as you are actually eating more than that, otherwise you will be starving.
On the few days that I don't exercise, I find it incredibly difficult to stay to 1200 calories because I am left starving in the evenings. So I say up it and then work off the difference 0 -
Everyone is not different.The days I eat more than 1200 it always causes a gain for me. Everyone is different. If I am hungry I eat more but if not I dont bother. I have lost 50 pounds in 13 months so I think that is slow and healthy for me!
You might gain weight because you NEED to. It might be your metabolism's last dieing horah of an attempt to protect itself! At 1200 calories???? You're planning on eating 1200 calories a day the rest of your life? Every chance your body gets it's gonna want to store! How many calories a day do you think your heart alone burns?
If everyone is not different, then why do some people stall on 1,200 calories or are starving, while it works fine for others? Also, why do some people feel an obsessive need to eat a lot and get fat while others don't and stay thin? and so many other things that makes us different.
ANSWER: You are wrong. Everyone is different.0 -
It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?
I eat 2300 cals a day, my TDEE based on LIGHT exercise is 1885.
I lost weight on 1885 and I'm losing weight on 2300.
congratulations, you're not me nor are you the o.p. making a blanket statement that it won't work for anyone is ridiculous.
You sound hungry.
My point is that it's important to calculate your numbers based on your own situation. VERY few women have a BMR below or at 1200 calories.
If she works out her numbers using the links posted to the roadmap (which is what I did) she will have a better idea of what to eat based on HER particular level of activity and physical stats (height/weight/bf%).
I ate at the staple 1200 cals MFP gave me, loss was slow and painful. I upped my cals gradually and finally started to use TDEE-20% as a goal about a month ago and my weight loss has never gone easier. I have plenty of energy to work out and go to work and enjoy my day, I'm rarely hungry and I am still losing.
If the OP would care to run her numbers she may be pleasantly surprised to find she can eat a little more and still lose.
And in terms of body comp. activity level and weight/height, yes we do all vary, but the general mathematics and rules of thermodynamics apply to everyone. Barring medical complications, eating over BMR but under TDEE will equal weight loss.
OP doesn't have a lot to lose, so it might take a while, I'm cursed with still having 30lbs to go til my final goal, which means my TDEE is naturally going to be a lot higher.
Better?
Calling me "hungry" or "hangry" is pretty annoying. No I'm not overly hungry on a 1,200 calorie diet. FOR ME, it worked very well and I got to my goal. If 1,200 calories is bad for almost everyone, then either I'm the exception OR that's just wrong and 1,200 calories is fine. I found the roadmap to not be all that useful. Setting it to 1,200 and then either eating or not eating exercise calories back is basically the same idea. Does using random CAPITAL LETTERS get my point across better?
I didn't call you "hangry".
You clearly have a stick up your *kitten* about something, I'm glad whatever you did worked for you so you can come on here and yell at people who did it a different way. If you look at what I actually said in my reply, I did not slate 1200 calories or say it "doesn't work for anyone". All I said was that it didn't work for me. You're saying it did work for you. I did not try to pick a fight with you, you attacked me. I didn't deny that it worked for you, again, you chose to ram that particular nugget down my throat.
I lost four pounds last week alone by following the roadmap and improved my life. I've lost quite a bit of weight so far and I just wanted to share my experience in case it would help the OP.
Instead you're jumping down my throat. If you read what I actually wrote more carefully, you would understand I'm not actually saying anything about 1200 cals other than "it didn't work for me".
Saying I sound hungry is the same idea. It was rude.0 -
I did 1200 a day for quite a while with great results. I personally don't see why everybody gets all up in arms about it.
0 -
THIS 1000%To the OP:
1. Take your self more seriously. go see a doctor because,(besides other reasons)...
2. Looking at your pic, your weight might not be a real issue to be concerned about. I don't know when that pic was taken though.
3. This might lead to you doing things that might not be in your best interest just to meet a goal that could be totally unrealistic,unhealthy, or arbitrary.
4. You might be more satisfied with a different ratio of muscle to change your aesthetics and weight goals.
5. MFP isn't a diety. It's estimating. From what I see, it gets those estimates severely wrong on many occasions. Like BMI. There's only so much you can do with simple estimates given by people on this site. It's great for tracking but it's not a dietary consultant or trainer.
6. You could live perfectly fine the rest of your life on 1200 calories a day, especially if it was packed with real food, which it won't be. The problem is that you will also probably lower your thyroid and other hormonal functions to a metabolic rate that would pretty much SUCK for lack of better words, and over time, we would call this metabolic damage. You want to lose fat at the highest caloric intake possible. This gives you more metabolic room to adjust and cheat later.
7. Again, to remind people, every part of your body burns calories! Not just your muscles when they move. Your eyelids, your eyeballs, your retina, your iris....your heart of course, your skin, your cuticles, your follicles, your spleen, your brain, your tendons. When sustenance gets low, your body will slow it's metabolism to protect you in the idea of living longer. Simply put, as it seems I am the only person who reminds people of this. If you were lost in the woods with only 1200 calories, would you want your metabolism to slow down? If you needed to run for 2 hours a day while you found your way home(ahem, ahem, cough cough, to the over-exercisers out there) would you want your metabolism to slow down or speed up? Would you want to burn more fat or less fat? Simple. The body doesn't know you have a fridge and cupboard fully stocked, and it won't any time soon.
8. Anecdotes should be taken lightly if you're serious. Sure many people have done just fine on 1200 calories. But you're not them, you don't have the same expenditure they do, you don't have the same genes they do(to an extent, but you get the point).
The reason why you and so many others can't be 100% white knuckle tight gripped on your intake and goals is because everyone thinks they're a damn trainer or dietician and want to talk about opinions when the thyroid could care less about what someone thinks. You liver has no opinion. Your fat cells are not enemies.
9. Chances are if you're exercising you need to increase your intake and increase your protein. You'll get a better thermic effect of food, you'll stabilize your metabolism better and probably feel better.
10. Remember women are designed to hold more fat. You're burdened with the direct responsibility of populating the planet which takes a little bit more back up energy requirements, as it should!0 -
It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?
I eat 2300 cals a day, my TDEE based on LIGHT exercise is 1885.
I lost weight on 1885 and I'm losing weight on 2300.
congratulations, you're not me nor are you the o.p. making a blanket statement that it won't work for anyone is ridiculous.
You sound hungry.
My point is that it's important to calculate your numbers based on your own situation. VERY few women have a BMR below or at 1200 calories.
If she works out her numbers using the links posted to the roadmap (which is what I did) she will have a better idea of what to eat based on HER particular level of activity and physical stats (height/weight/bf%).
I ate at the staple 1200 cals MFP gave me, loss was slow and painful. I upped my cals gradually and finally started to use TDEE-20% as a goal about a month ago and my weight loss has never gone easier. I have plenty of energy to work out and go to work and enjoy my day, I'm rarely hungry and I am still losing.
If the OP would care to run her numbers she may be pleasantly surprised to find she can eat a little more and still lose.
And in terms of body comp. activity level and weight/height, yes we do all vary, but the general mathematics and rules of thermodynamics apply to everyone. Barring medical complications, eating over BMR but under TDEE will equal weight loss.
OP doesn't have a lot to lose, so it might take a while, I'm cursed with still having 30lbs to go til my final goal, which means my TDEE is naturally going to be a lot higher.
Better?
Calling me "hungry" or "hangry" is pretty annoying. No I'm not overly hungry on a 1,200 calorie diet. FOR ME, it worked very well and I got to my goal. If 1,200 calories is bad for almost everyone, then either I'm the exception OR that's just wrong and 1,200 calories is fine. I found the roadmap to not be all that useful. Setting it to 1,200 and then either eating or not eating exercise calories back is basically the same idea. Does using random CAPITAL LETTERS get my point across better?
I didn't call you "hangry".
You clearly have a stick up your *kitten* about something, I'm glad whatever you did worked for you so you can come on here and yell at people who did it a different way. If you look at what I actually said in my reply, I did not slate 1200 calories or say it "doesn't work for anyone". All I said was that it didn't work for me. You're saying it did work for you. I did not try to pick a fight with you, you attacked me. I didn't deny that it worked for you, again, you chose to ram that particular nugget down my throat.
I lost four pounds last week alone by following the roadmap and improved my life. I've lost quite a bit of weight so far and I just wanted to share my experience in case it would help the OP.
Instead you're jumping down my throat. If you read what I actually wrote more carefully, you would understand I'm not actually saying anything about 1200 cals other than "it didn't work for me".
Saying I sound hungry is the same idea. It was rude.
And attacking me with an aggressive series of replies was also rude. I can dance like this all night, I have plenty of energy
I suggested something you don't agree with and you snapped at me. Chill.
You told the o.p. that she will be starving all the time on 1,200 calories. You didn't just say you had that issue. You said she would too. Thus, you are claiming that everyone will. I told you that you are incorrect. With 1,200 calories I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds a week. It was 0.7 pounds at the beginning.
Actually, maybe that was someone else who said that in the quote. The quoting feature on here is terrible. It doesn't say who said what.0 -
If you were lost in the woods with only 1200 calories, would you want your metabolism to slow down? If you needed to run for 2 hours a day while you found your way home(ahem, ahem, cough cough, to the over-exercisers out there) would you want your metabolism to slow down or speed up? Would you want to burn more fat or less fat? Simple.
This makes no sense to me.
We are talking about energy use. When you say, "burn fat" you are talking about your body giving you fuel.
Are you saying that our bodies are able to get more or less energy out of the same amount of fat, depending on the situation? Our bodies have a mechanism for running at peak inefficiency? Any understanding of evolution makes that hard to believe.
You could mean that our bodies just stop giving us the energy to use but that won't work because you won't be able to find the food you need or run the 2 miles/day to get home.0 -
It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?
I eat 1600 and lose. I am at 140, with a goal of 130. For many women, 1600 is still below TDEE, which is all you need. I exercise 3 to 5 days a week and burn 350 to 400 calories per workout. I eat 1600-1700 calories, but don't eat my exercise calories back using this method, unless I do extra workouts. It does work. And it is a heck of a lot more enjoyable.0 -
It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?
I eat 2300 cals a day, my TDEE based on LIGHT exercise is 1885.
I lost weight on 1885 and I'm losing weight on 2300.
congratulations, you're not me nor are you the o.p. making a blanket statement that it won't work for anyone is ridiculous.
You sound hungry.
My point is that it's important to calculate your numbers based on your own situation. VERY few women have a BMR below or at 1200 calories.
If she works out her numbers using the links posted to the roadmap (which is what I did) she will have a better idea of what to eat based on HER particular level of activity and physical stats (height/weight/bf%).
I ate at the staple 1200 cals MFP gave me, loss was slow and painful. I upped my cals gradually and finally started to use TDEE-20% as a goal about a month ago and my weight loss has never gone easier. I have plenty of energy to work out and go to work and enjoy my day, I'm rarely hungry and I am still losing.
If the OP would care to run her numbers she may be pleasantly surprised to find she can eat a little more and still lose.
And in terms of body comp. activity level and weight/height, yes we do all vary, but the general mathematics and rules of thermodynamics apply to everyone. Barring medical complications, eating over BMR but under TDEE will equal weight loss.
OP doesn't have a lot to lose, so it might take a while, I'm cursed with still having 30lbs to go til my final goal, which means my TDEE is naturally going to be a lot higher.
Better?
Calling me "hungry" or "hangry" is pretty annoying. No I'm not overly hungry on a 1,200 calorie diet. FOR ME, it worked very well and I got to my goal. If 1,200 calories is bad for almost everyone, then either I'm the exception OR that's just wrong and 1,200 calories is fine. I found the roadmap to not be all that useful. Setting it to 1,200 and then either eating or not eating exercise calories back is basically the same idea. Does using random CAPITAL LETTERS get my point across better?
I didn't call you "hangry".
You clearly have a stick up your *kitten* about something, I'm glad whatever you did worked for you so you can come on here and yell at people who did it a different way. If you look at what I actually said in my reply, I did not slate 1200 calories or say it "doesn't work for anyone". All I said was that it didn't work for me. You're saying it did work for you. I did not try to pick a fight with you, you attacked me. I didn't deny that it worked for you, again, you chose to ram that particular nugget down my throat.
I lost four pounds last week alone by following the roadmap and improved my life. I've lost quite a bit of weight so far and I just wanted to share my experience in case it would help the OP.
Instead you're jumping down my throat. If you read what I actually wrote more carefully, you would understand I'm not actually saying anything about 1200 cals other than "it didn't work for me".
Saying I sound hungry is the same idea. It was rude.
And attacking me with an aggressive series of replies was also rude. I can dance like this all night, I have plenty of energy
I suggested something you don't agree with and you snapped at me. Chill.
You told the o.p. that she will be starving all the time on 1,200 calories. You didn't just say you had that issue. You said she would too. Thus, you are claiming that everyone will. I told you that you are incorrect. With 1,200 calories I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds a week. It was 0.7 pounds at the beginning.
Actually, maybe that was someone else who said that in the quote. The quoting feature on here is terrible. It doesn't say who said what.
That first post wasn't me. Thanks for *****ing me out for something someone else said.0 -
Oh damn the "everyone is different" flag is being waved... Some forum badass who lost 20lbs is going to disprove the law of thermodynamics because we're all special snowflakes.
I'm out before I lose my forum access by saying something really mean.
OP, if you would like help or want someone to help you work out a calorie goal, the gentleman with all the muscles knows exactly what he is talking about. Message him. If you would like a nice, supportive friend who is dedicated to healthy living, weightloss and exercise, please add me.
I'm done.
The forum software sets people at 1,200 calories. It has nothing to do with the special snowflake argument. 1,200 calories worked for me. If that makes me a special snowflake then so be it.0 -
It just is. You will be starving all the time, and it's really too little food for a human to live on over the long term, or for the rest of their lives. Most women can easily eat 1600 cals a day and still lose weight. Many can eat more than that and still lose. It's just a lame thing MFP does to women. Plus, most women put that they want to lose 2 lbs per week instead of a more reasonable 1 lb per week.
If you really want to know, go here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You can thank me later, and Dan, of course.
It just is? I don't think this woman could lose weight at 1600 unless she is doing some really heavy exercise and not eating back. She is already not overweight. Many women have no problem sticking to around 1200 cals, especially if they are eating back exercise calories.
OP- keep looking around the boards. Eat more to lose more? Ask yourself, Has that worked for you in the past?
I eat 2300 cals a day, my TDEE based on LIGHT exercise is 1885.
I lost weight on 1885 and I'm losing weight on 2300.
congratulations, you're not me nor are you the o.p. making a blanket statement that it won't work for anyone is ridiculous.
You sound hungry.
My point is that it's important to calculate your numbers based on your own situation. VERY few women have a BMR below or at 1200 calories.
If she works out her numbers using the links posted to the roadmap (which is what I did) she will have a better idea of what to eat based on HER particular level of activity and physical stats (height/weight/bf%).
I ate at the staple 1200 cals MFP gave me, loss was slow and painful. I upped my cals gradually and finally started to use TDEE-20% as a goal about a month ago and my weight loss has never gone easier. I have plenty of energy to work out and go to work and enjoy my day, I'm rarely hungry and I am still losing.
If the OP would care to run her numbers she may be pleasantly surprised to find she can eat a little more and still lose.
And in terms of body comp. activity level and weight/height, yes we do all vary, but the general mathematics and rules of thermodynamics apply to everyone. Barring medical complications, eating over BMR but under TDEE will equal weight loss.
OP doesn't have a lot to lose, so it might take a while, I'm cursed with still having 30lbs to go til my final goal, which means my TDEE is naturally going to be a lot higher.
Better?
Calling me "hungry" or "hangry" is pretty annoying. No I'm not overly hungry on a 1,200 calorie diet. FOR ME, it worked very well and I got to my goal. If 1,200 calories is bad for almost everyone, then either I'm the exception OR that's just wrong and 1,200 calories is fine. I found the roadmap to not be all that useful. Setting it to 1,200 and then either eating or not eating exercise calories back is basically the same idea. Does using random CAPITAL LETTERS get my point across better?
I didn't call you "hangry".
You clearly have a stick up your *kitten* about something, I'm glad whatever you did worked for you so you can come on here and yell at people who did it a different way. If you look at what I actually said in my reply, I did not slate 1200 calories or say it "doesn't work for anyone". All I said was that it didn't work for me. You're saying it did work for you. I did not try to pick a fight with you, you attacked me. I didn't deny that it worked for you, again, you chose to ram that particular nugget down my throat.
I lost four pounds last week alone by following the roadmap and improved my life. I've lost quite a bit of weight so far and I just wanted to share my experience in case it would help the OP.
Instead you're jumping down my throat. If you read what I actually wrote more carefully, you would understand I'm not actually saying anything about 1200 cals other than "it didn't work for me".
Saying I sound hungry is the same idea. It was rude.
And attacking me with an aggressive series of replies was also rude. I can dance like this all night, I have plenty of energy
I suggested something you don't agree with and you snapped at me. Chill.
You told the o.p. that she will be starving all the time on 1,200 calories. You didn't just say you had that issue. You said she would too. Thus, you are claiming that everyone will. I told you that you are incorrect. With 1,200 calories I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds a week. It was 0.7 pounds at the beginning.
Actually, maybe that was someone else who said that in the quote. The quoting feature on here is terrible. It doesn't say who said what.
That first post wasn't me. Thanks for *****ing me out for something someone else said.
you're welcome0 -
Aviva says:
The o.p. was around my starting weight and I'm around her age at 38 and 1,200 calories worked fantastically for me. I started at 140 pounds. My goal weight was 119. I kept going and now I'm sort of in a freefall because I got used to 1,200 and am now at 110.8. I never stalled like everyone said I would. I never lost my hair or had any vital organs shut down like everyone said it would. Now I really need to up my calories to stop this free-fall because 110.8 is getting to be sort of low. I think that 1,200 can work for some, not for others. It's REALLY annoying when people keep jumping into these threads claiming that it won't work for anyone. That is simply not true. Oh and I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds initially. At 1,200 calories it was only 0.7 pounds a week.
I think that you may need to re-evaluate what "success" you have gained from your 1200 calorie diet. Yes, you lost weight on it, but it doesn't sound like you gained fitness, emotionally or physically.
To OP:
If your goal is increased FITNESS, I suggest that you look at Lorina's pictures. She has done an amazing job of body recomposition. The woman knows what she's talking about.0 -
Everyone is not different.The days I eat more than 1200 it always causes a gain for me. Everyone is different. If I am hungry I eat more but if not I dont bother. I have lost 50 pounds in 13 months so I think that is slow and healthy for me!
You might gain weight because you NEED to. It might be your metabolism's last dieing horah of an attempt to protect itself! At 1200 calories???? You're planning on eating 1200 calories a day the rest of your life? Every chance your body gets it's gonna want to store! How many calories a day do you think your heart alone burns?
If everyone is not different, then why do some people stall on 1,200 calories or are starving, while it works fine for others? Also, why do some people feel an obsessive need to eat a lot and get fat while others don't and stay thin? and so many other things that makes us different.
ANSWER: You are wrong. Everyone is different.
Pretty much no. The basic biological processes are the same in everyone, the variability one sees in weight gain are a function of metabolism - but the basics are the same for everyone. Eating significantly below TDEE will result in a metabolic slow down, hormones from the thyroid, fat tissue, etc have a regulatory effect on glucose storage and lypolisis, just to name two of the processes in weight loss.
While eating at 1200 or lower can work ok for weight loss for some there are some significant risks of not eating enough variety to assure micro-nutrient needs which will have a long term effect on things like mental or hormonal function. It will basically guarantee metabolic down regulation and if the gap is large, it will also increase muscle catabolism. So you lose the weight, but then the body functions are reduced and put at some risk for either rapid weight gain (yo-yo effect), eating disorders and/or immune issues. This does not mean that everyone that eats at these levels will necessarily get these - but the likelihood is higher. If, for you, you've avoid these issues - congratulations! But why suggest that others play with fire when it is possible to do it with less risk.
Just like one can smoke a lifetime without getting ill, it isn't the best practice, in a health-focused life.0 -
Aviva says:
The o.p. was around my starting weight and I'm around her age at 38 and 1,200 calories worked fantastically for me. I started at 140 pounds. My goal weight was 119. I kept going and now I'm sort of in a freefall because I got used to 1,200 and am now at 110.8. I never stalled like everyone said I would. I never lost my hair or had any vital organs shut down like everyone said it would. Now I really need to up my calories to stop this free-fall because 110.8 is getting to be sort of low. I think that 1,200 can work for some, not for others. It's REALLY annoying when people keep jumping into these threads claiming that it won't work for anyone. That is simply not true. Oh and I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds initially. At 1,200 calories it was only 0.7 pounds a week.
I think that you may need to re-evaluate what "success" you have gained from your 1200 calorie diet. Yes, you lost weight on it, but it doesn't sound like you gained fitness, emotionally or physically.
To OP:
If your goal is increased FITNESS, I suggest that you look at Lorina's pictures. She has done an amazing job of body recomposition. The woman knows what she's talking about.
My goal was to lose weight. It wasn't to gain fitness. I didn't lose fitness in the process. I've achieved that goal. I can gain fitness now if I want. What does emotionally have to do with anything other than you insulting me?0 -
OP- keep looking around the boards.
This part here is really good advice. You'll see all sides of it.
I never latched onto 1200 calories like a dog with a stick, but seeing the results on people who ate more than 1200 and reading the science behind it was enough to get me to raise my goal. I always ate my exercise calories, so I never ate JUST 1200 anyway.
But at 1200 calories, the only time I lost more than one pound a week was when I had a stomach flu, so I figured, " Why not just set my calories to one pound a week and see what happens?"
I ended up with about 1350 and the next couple weeks, I lost 1.5 pounds a week. I realized I didn't have to be so strict. It leveled off after that, but when I aimed to lose one pound a week, on average, that's what I lost. When I got closer to my goal and changed it to a half pound a week, that's what I lost.
It seems to me that the people who've lost at 1200 like to TALK about their results, but they don't often SHOW it. I realize not everyone is comfortable showing a lot of skin, so I can understand that. I know I wasn't at other times in my life (last time I got to 130 pounds about 6 years ago, eating below 1000 calories, I wouldn't have been caught dead in a bikini because I looked like crap). But I'm so proud of my progress that I'm willing to let myself be a guinea pig and document every stage of the game.0 -
Everyone is not different.The days I eat more than 1200 it always causes a gain for me. Everyone is different. If I am hungry I eat more but if not I dont bother. I have lost 50 pounds in 13 months so I think that is slow and healthy for me!
You might gain weight because you NEED to. It might be your metabolism's last dieing horah of an attempt to protect itself! At 1200 calories???? You're planning on eating 1200 calories a day the rest of your life? Every chance your body gets it's gonna want to store! How many calories a day do you think your heart alone burns?
If everyone is not different, then why do some people stall on 1,200 calories or are starving, while it works fine for others? Also, why do some people feel an obsessive need to eat a lot and get fat while others don't and stay thin? and so many other things that makes us different.
ANSWER: You are wrong. Everyone is different.
Pretty much no. The basic biological processes are the same in everyone, the variability one sees in weight gain are a function of metabolism - but the basics are the same for everyone. Eating significantly below TDEE will result in a metabolic slow down, hormones from the thyroid, fat tissue, etc have a regulatory effect on glucose storage and lypolisis, just to name two of the processes in weight loss.
While eating at 1200 or lower can work ok for weight loss for some there are some significant risks of not eating enough variety to assure micro-nutrient needs which will have a long term effect on things like mental or hormonal function. It will basically guarantee metabolic down regulation and if the gap is large, it will also increase muscle catabolism. So you lose the weight, but then the body functions are reduced and put at some risk for either rapid weight gain (yo-yo effect), eating disorders and/or immune issues. This does not mean that everyone that eats at these levels will necessarily get these - but the likelihood is higher. If, for you, you've avoid these issues - congratulations! But why suggest that others play with fire when it is possible to do it with less risk.
Just like one can smoke a lifetime without getting ill, it isn't the best practice, in a health-focused life.
What you described does make everyone different. Thanks for playing though! Since it worked for me, why shouldn't I say that? I never claimed it would work for everyone just because it worked for me.0 -
Aviva says:
The o.p. was around my starting weight and I'm around her age at 38 and 1,200 calories worked fantastically for me. I started at 140 pounds. My goal weight was 119. I kept going and now I'm sort of in a freefall because I got used to 1,200 and am now at 110.8. I never stalled like everyone said I would. I never lost my hair or had any vital organs shut down like everyone said it would. Now I really need to up my calories to stop this free-fall because 110.8 is getting to be sort of low. I think that 1,200 can work for some, not for others. It's REALLY annoying when people keep jumping into these threads claiming that it won't work for anyone. That is simply not true. Oh and I wasn't set to lose 2 pounds initially. At 1,200 calories it was only 0.7 pounds a week.
I think that you may need to re-evaluate what "success" you have gained from your 1200 calorie diet. Yes, you lost weight on it, but it doesn't sound like you gained fitness, emotionally or physically.
To OP:
If your goal is increased FITNESS, I suggest that you look at Lorina's pictures. She has done an amazing job of body recomposition. The woman knows what she's talking about.
My goal was to lose weight. It wasn't to gain fitness. I didn't lose fitness in the process. I've achieved that goal. I can gain fitness now if I want. What does emotionally have to do with anything other than you insulting me?
Oh dear, now I see why we have a communication issue. But, that begs the question, why are you giving out "advice" on a FITNESS forum?0 -
OP- keep looking around the boards.
This part here is really good advice. You'll see all sides of it.
I never latched onto 1200 calories like a dog with a stick, but seeing the results on people who ate more than 1200 and reading the science behind it was enough to get me to raise my goal. I always ate my exercise calories, so I never ate JUST 1200 anyway.
But at 1200 calories, the only time I lost more than one pound a week was when I had a stomach flu, so I figured, " Why not just set my calories to one pound a week and see what happens?"
I ended up with about 1350 and the next couple weeks, I lost 1.5 pounds a week. I realized I didn't have to be so strict. It leveled off after that, but when I aimed to lose one pound a week, on average, that's what I lost. When I got closer to my goal and changed it to a half pound a week, that's what I lost.
It seems to me that the people who've lost at 1200 like to TALK about their results, but they don't often SHOW it. I realize not everyone is comfortable showing a lot of skin, so I can understand that. I know I wasn't at other times in my life (last time I got to 130 pounds about 6 years ago, eating below 1000 calories, I wouldn't have been caught dead in a bikini because I looked like crap). But I'm so proud of my progress that I'm willing to let myself be a guinea pig and document every stage of the game.
uh, if i don't want to post pictures of myself half naked on the internet, then i'm ashamed of my body? uhhhhhh okay then!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions