When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)
Options
Replies
-
If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.
That's pretty common though isn't it? Your body needs a higher metabolism to carry 250 lbs all day than it will to carry 150.0 -
1200 calories can be appropriate for breakfast. or lunch. or dinner.0
-
Thank you for responding. I guess I don't understand how TDEE differs from BMR. I'll go read up on that. But I've used a number of different calculators (fitnessfrog, QuickBMR, etc.) and all show "BMR" to be around 1550 (or within a few points of that).Are you talking BMR (basal) or TDEE (total expenditure)? When I put your information - age 65, 5'3" 151 lbs - info most calculators I get a BMR just over 1300 and wtih sedentary lifestyle a TDEE of 1567 on ftinessfrog.0 -
aside - i'm a bit saddened to see that a handful of people who are determined to stick to their 1200 calorie mindset have decided to come into this thread to defend their belief that 1200 is fine. for a small percentage of people it can be fine. for another percentage of people, there's nothing anyone can say to dissuade them.
As one of the people to whom this comment is probably addressed, we aren't defending "1200". We are attempting to make the distinction between EATING 1200 and NETTING 1200. They are very, very, very different. I wholeheartedly agree that people should do the research to find out where they should be. Go roadmap or whatever other calculators. But for me and a whole giant host of other people, using mfp as designed and eating exercise calories (eg NETTING) comes out to the exact same number (within 50 or so) of the roadmap. For a lot of us, that "base" number happens to be the evil, dreaded 1200. But the point that this handful of debaters is attempting to make is that NETTING and EATING are not the same. Therefore, if you're addressing a thread to people who are "doing" 1200, what exactly do you mean by "doing"? Eating or netting?
honestly, it depends. your body's energy needs are what they are. 1200 calories GROSS is an issue for many people because it's too few calories. even if it's not, you have to be careful to meet your nutritional requirements. when you talk about 1200 calories GROSS, you also get into the area where you have to worry about stalling your loss as well, as your body adapts to the diminished intake.
of course this all takes place over time. something like weeks or months for most of us. a couple of fasting days per month is not going to cause these problems so long as the rest of the month the intake looks good.
1200 calories NET can still be a problem, but has different side effects. from an energy perspective, 1200 NET is going to be too low for most people. your body still needs energy to function. if it's not getting enough over a long period of time, not only will it burn stored fat to make up the difference, but consensus seems to be that you risk muscle catabolism with a large calorie deficit. you may also still see some metabolic slowdown. the good news is that 1200 NET probably means that you're eating enough food to meet your nutritional goals though.
there is a grey area here that some people do fall within. people without a lot of weight to lose, eating at a modest deficit (250-500 or less perhaps) for a matter of several weeks or so, and whose daily calorie goal ends up being around 1200 NET, may not experience any of the side effects from being at either extreme mentioned above. this point was raised earlier in this thread and i cannot say for sure that somebody in such a situation should increase their calorie intake. for a person like this, their BMR and TDEE and calorie deficit just happen to align just right to yield 1200 NET as a suitable weight loss goal.0 -
If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.
That's pretty common though isn't it? Your body needs a higher metabolism to carry 250 lbs all day than it will to carry 150.
It is expect they raised calories to a level that should have ensured stable weight taking into account the loss of body weight.0 -
Thank you for responding. I guess I don't understand how TDEE differs from BMR. I'll go read up on that. But I've used a number of different calculators (fitnessfrog, QuickBMR, etc.) and all show "BMR" to be around 1550 (or within a few points of that).Are you talking BMR (basal) or TDEE (total expenditure)? When I put your information - age 65, 5'3" 151 lbs - info most calculators I get a BMR just over 1300 and wtih sedentary lifestyle a TDEE of 1567 on ftinessfrog.
BMR is the number of calories you burn while not moving. The number your body used just for breathing, digestion, other functions. TDEE is the total calories you burn in a typical day. If you choose sedentary, this would include things like light cleaning, cooking, slow walking, but sitting and lying down most of the day, with no added exercise.0 -
It is appropriate when your TDEE - 20% is 1250 due to size and age. I fall into this category. To make a blanket statement that 1200 is never appropriate is not true. The problem lies in that people are not making informed diet choices and are not eating back all activity calories which is what they are supposed to be doing.
But what others are doing is none of our business. We can inform if asked.0 -
I've seen the "In Place of a Roadmap" mentioned MANY times here, and I have read it several times. Now, I like math, but I'm still not sure I understand. My BMR is 1350. I would love to eat more to weigh less... I have plateaued now for 8 months. My average calorie intake is 1500 (during the week I consume between 1300-1700 on average, sometimes 2000 on a Saturday). I *think* I'm being told to average 1800 which just seems terrifying, considering - I thought - the less you weigh the less you need to eat. But I do work out every day. I don't have much more to lose but I'm so close to my goal I don't want to F-this up
0 -
Thank you for responding. I guess I don't understand how TDEE differs from BMR. I'll go read up on that. But I've used a number of different calculators (fitnessfrog, QuickBMR, etc.) and all show "BMR" to be around 1550 (or within a few points of that).Are you talking BMR (basal) or TDEE (total expenditure)? When I put your information - age 65, 5'3" 151 lbs - info most calculators I get a BMR just over 1300 and wtih sedentary lifestyle a TDEE of 1567 on ftinessfrog.
BMR is what your body would use if you slept all day. As soon as yuo get up, brush your teeth, put the kettle on, you use more calories than BMR.
To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:
•If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
•If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
•If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
•If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
•If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9
So even if you were sedentary, your daily calories would be BMR * 1.2 = 1860.0 -
If anyone is interested this study also shows a reduced metabolic rate in obese patients following large weight loss:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
It shows depressed metabolic rate despite raising calories to a level that should have secured weight regulation.
They were eating 300 cal/day!! 300!! That is absolutely, unbelievably low and should not be compared to a 1200 cal/day diet. I can bring up plenty of studies showing that eating 400 cal or less/ day will devastate your body in a plethora of ways. I'm talking about the 800-1200 cal/day that most studies are completed using. In those ranges, RMR/BMR is typically maintained, especially with higher protein and strength training.
Quoting a 300 cal/day diet study in no way negates or contradicts anything I have said these are VERY different things.
ETA: from the study:
Not only was their diet 300 cal/day, but there were 7 people. Not the most reliable sample size. But for real, 300 cal/day is nowhere near the same as 1200.10 individuals began
the study, 7 ofwhom completed it. Three
women dropped out; one began medication for asthma, one
was noncompliant with the modified fast, and social issues pre-
vented a third from complying with testing.
The protein-sparing modified fast consisted of
-~300 kcal/d,
with 45 g ofprotein. Potassium and multivitamin supplements
were provided. After the modified
fast, subjects were gradually
realimented over several weeks. A month after discontinuation
ofthe diet individuals were consuming a low-fat (< 30% of total
calories) diet at an estimated maintenance caloric intake
N-
1 100-1400 kcal/d).0 -
Stop! omg can these threads please, just stop already. I lost over 70 pounds in a year eating right around 1200. and I've maintained that loss for just over a year now. I wasn't deprived, I wasn't cranky, It was doable (obviously, I stuck with it for a year!) And you know what, during that entire time, I never once criticized anyone who ate more than 1200 calories a day. TO EACH THEIR ****ING OWN people. Worry about what youre doing, not everyone else.0
-
I should have been more specific. Yes I meant outside of expected amounts related to overall body weight.
I have read that study before but just perused it again. There are a couple things about it that are of interest. 1) This is a study of men who started at healthy body fat levels and were starved well into unhealthy body fat levels so it's not completely relevant to my point. But 2) even in this study (which has the above parameters) it discusses two adaptive thermogenesis responses. One is in relation to being at a deficit (any deficit without regard to actual quantity) which slows down the metabolism (very, very, very slightly according to this study) to preserve lean mass. The second which is the one most commonly referred to is the response which preserves fat mass and this study suggests (although they explicitly state more research needs to be done) that this response is dependent on amount of fat stores. It is not dependent on calorie amount or calorie deficit but instead on amount of actual fat left in the body. This was reached at levels of body fat essential to human life (as low as 3% in some subjects).
This second response is also what makes bodies store fat. Again, this study shows that this is in response to near depletion of fat stores (as in critical to life not the 15% body fat most subjects started at). I don't think most people on this site looking to lose weight are in that danger zone.
I cited this study when I first responded. (Many pages ago). This study also does not suggest that BMR will be slowed significantly for any period of time after calorie restriction is completed and it does suggest that BMR is slowed in response to critical levels of fat storage having been reached rather than by calorie deficit itself.
Apologies, I didn't know you had already discussed it. That was a reasonable analysis.
Adpative thermogenesis is a controversial subject I give you that and there is certainly a debate to be had about how the significant the slow down will be as a result of calorie restriction but we know it does occur (as the second study alludes to) and it is not all dependent on remaining fat stores0 -
And I feel just as confident that you are wrong. The body would lower BMR to accommodate a lower calorie diet.
meaning that nobody ever starves to death?
or that nobody ever starves to death on 1200 calories?
because at some point, it can't go lower without the body consuming itself (the real starvation mode). is that 1100? 1000? 900? 700? i don't know. but i do know that when your BF% gets low enough and your body can no longer operate any more efficiently, you will start to long slow march to death if you don't increase your calories.0 -
I agree. Why make this more difficult than it has to be. EAT for cryin' out loud :sad:
Hey, you may have a functioning thyroid for your whole life if you do!! Or you can blow it out by not eating and be on thyroid replacement pills for the rest of your life. Blood tests every three months!! Fun.
I'm talking to you, undereaters.0 -
I am on a 1200 calorie diet and it fits me well. I eat a day full of food, I currently eat Breakfast, snack, lunch , snack, dinner, snack. and they are all healthy meals. Its what you eat and how you prepare it.
I feel totally full and my energy is better.
ie: I am a accountant and that means I have a sit down job, and working in the office you have to be strong and say no to all the bad foods.
Example :
Breakfast - Yo Crunch authentic strawberry yogurt 8:00 am
Snack - Crackers and jif to go peanut butter - 10:00 am
Lunch - 6 in Lean Turkey and cheese sandwich with sweet peppers and mustard 12:00
Snack - Apple and a cheese stick
Dinner - Seared Salmon, asparugus, and a hearty salad0 -
My TDEE - 20% is 1206 calories... yep.0
-
It is appropriate when your TDEE - 20% is 1250 due to size and age. I fall into this category. To make a blanket statement that 1200 is never appropriate is not true. The problem lies in that people are not making informed diet choices and are not eating back all activity calories which is what they are supposed to be doing.
But what others are doing is none of our business. We can inform if asked.
please show me where such a blanket statement was made by me (the OP of this thread).0 -
Stop! omg can these threads please, just stop already. I lost over 70 pounds in a year eating right around 1200. and I've maintained that loss for just over a year now. I wasn't deprived, I wasn't cranky, It was doable (obviously, I stuck with it for a year!) And you know what, during that entire time, I never once criticized anyone who ate more than 1200 calories a day. TO EACH THEIR ****ING OWN people. Worry about what youre doing, not everyone else.
THAT!0 -
if you are a sedentary 38-year old woman, who is 4'10" and weighs 115lbs and does not exercise, then your TDEE-20% would be approximately 1200 calories.
Well, I am 38. I'm 5'2" and I weigh about 120. I'm far from sedentary, but honestly on the days I do my long runs, there's NO WAY I could eat all those calories back. I've been sticking to my ~1200 net and it's been working fabulously for me. I'm not hungry all the time, I choose high quality, filling foods, I'm really happy. I'm 1/2 lb from switching over to maintenance mode.
Having said that, just because 1200 is working for me, doesn't mean it's what will work for someone else. I agree that if you're miserable at 1200 cal/day, then you need to change something. No one is going to stick to something that makes them miserable and the goal here is finding a change that is sustainable.0 -
That's pretty cool.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it can't be done but the likelihood is for the average person without a team of researchers monitoring their intake things could go decidedly wonky (precise scientific term I know....)
Yes. People of MFP, do not fast for a year without constant medical supervision.
Okay, so I read that study and it does seem like it suggests that you can lower your RMR for an extended period of time with extreme calorie restrictions if you are obese. They site another study which indicates if you are in a normal weight range, your RMR normalizes within days of going into maintenance.
So, what is the difference? How would that even work? That is fascinating.
This study does not have a control group with a more modest caloric restriction. I wish they had done that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions