When is 1200 calories appropriate? (hint: almost never)

I'm fairly new to MFP so I think this is very helpful for us newbies. I'm going to calculate my numbers this weekend and see what I come up with. I notice I'm not so much hungry on 1200 net but I am having energy issues.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling people that they can eat more than 1200 and still lose weight.
So, THANK YOU!

ladyraven, do you see a difference between attempting to arm people with information and lobbing snarky, snide comments at them any time they share?

'Cuz I do. And I was quite explicitly talking about the latter.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling people that they can eat more than 1200 and still lose weight.
So, THANK YOU!

I agree with this completely! But I also think there is something wrong with telling people that they are doing it wrong if they are eating 1200.

I don't understand why 1200 calorie diet is bashed on mfp. My dietitian put me on a 1200 calorie diet- and tells me to be sure I eat my calories back when I exercise. I am not hungry, but I do have to make better food choices to stay within the range. Why not eat the amount of calories you think you should be eating and let others do the same?

Exactly. I'm tired of being made out to be an "eat more bully" for sharing what has worked brilliantly for me.

Do you recognize that "eat more bullying" happens? On my home page, in a conversation with friends, a lady just revealed that she keeps her diary closed because otherwise she is inundated with criticism for eating too little. Do you know anybody doing TDEE-20% who is afraid to share that information?

***I have not seen a thread about that system that has low calories eaters constantly sticking their heads in to make ****ty, snarky, insulting comments. It is guaranteed for us.


Could you TDEE-20% people agree that there is a liiiiiiiiittttttttttttle bit of a hostile environment here for people who eat few calories and that is not very nice?

** no, I have not seen a system where the low cal eaters berate the moderate defict people, and do you know why? There is nothing to berate them for, there is nothing about eating at a moderate deficit that can be considered unsafe or unhealthy. It is the perfect way for someone to lose weight. It is manageable and sustainable.

For SOME people, eating 1200 calorie is too much of a defict.
For SOME people it can be unhealthy, and that is why it is better for ALL people to be armed with lot's of information so that they can decide for themselves.

It's good for them to see that they don't have to stick with the 1200 just because that's what MFP spat out, and that it isn't their only choice.

I originally ate 1200, I hated it - I have people on my friends list that ate at 1200, and became ill and lost their hair. 1200 is the MINIMUM recommended calories by health professionals, not the standard and that's why MFP spits it out.

I am sure that if MFP allowed a calorie goal of 800, we would actually be having this same conversation about 800 calories, as so many people just aim for the lowest they can, thinking that less is better and they will get better results, without researching whether it is actually right for them.

I agree with everything you just wrote. But the point is, that many people do not express their opinions with respect like you just did. The OP did not say
For SOME people, eating 1200 calorie is too much of a defict.
For SOME people it can be unhealthy, and that is why it is better for ALL people to be armed with lot's of information so that they can decide for themselves.

No, he said that 1200 cals was not appropriate for 99+% of the people on here. Then went on to spell out what he considered were the official guidelines of who should or shouldn't be eating at that level.

This poster has a long history of creating threads with 1200 calorie in the title, with the sole intention of mocking and insulting everyone who eats at that level. After being called out for his narrow blanket statements, then he will start backtracking and say that he didn't intend to say this or that, and we are just taking it all the wrong way.

And then when I said something he didn't like, he reports me for insulting him.

He later goes on to say that everyone who claims to be eating 1200 are lying and they are really only eating 800 and don't want to admit to it. Really? So he can call us all liars, and that is ok? So his real problem is not with people eating 1200, but those who eat at 800? If so, then direct your vitriol towards those who eat at 800!

Everyone on here who eats at 1200 and admits it is mocked and challenged and put in a position where they have to defend their reasons for eating at that level. And anyone who doesn't see that trend, is not reading the right threads.

And if MFP were to change the minimum to 1400, then we would still have all these threads putting down people who eat 1400 calories that 'choose' to put the minimum amount of calories in their bodies.

The OP was not directed at only those who are 'struggling' with eating 1200 calories. For anyone who is struggling with eating that low, who is starving, weak, losing their hair, have no energy to do anything, then common sense should tell them to eat more. If they have to have strangers on the internet to tell them that they don't HAVE to lose 2 pounds a week, then that is just sad, really. But perhaps those caring souls who are so concerned about them and their health, should respond only to threads created by those who are complaining that 1200 is not working for them, and not flame the threads where someone is sharing what is working for them.

As was mentioned by someone earlier, who said they were accused of being an 'eat more bully' simply because they shared what was working well for them. If I share what is working for me, then I get a bunch of people telling me that I am losing all my muscle, my hair will fall out and I am 'skinny fat'. And also accused of triggering EDs and promoting unhealthy diets.

There have been numerous well written, intelligent posts on here explaining what the problem is, but others refuse to listen as well. We are not upset about people giving options and providing useful advice. We are tired of the rude, narrow-minded, insults and snarky blanketed statements made by SOME of the people who insist that they know what is best for everyone else.

BTW- I have carefully perused my post to ensure that I have not said or done anything that is against Forum Rules, but if anyone feels the need to report me again. Then have fun with that.

BUMP

some people on this thread didn't grasp the fact that i was simply pointing out how small the group of people are that legitimately qualify for TDEE-20% = 1200, by illustrating with a hypothetical example. it really is about BMR. people who have unusual conditions that suppress their BMR are obviously exceptions. however, ignoring for a moment the inherent error margin in the BMR calculations, BMR isn't really something that can be argued against. it is what it is and no matter how much somebody wants to be the exception to the rule, they aren't. if this sounds "judgemental" to some people, so be it.

thank you for seeing that Cupcake.

:pumpkinpieforyou:

As of now, I've been using MFP for about 6 weeks and in that time I've lost 6 pounds (YAY!!!) and estabilshed a habit of daily exercise. I think that's just about perfect.

My target for calories is 1200/day and I usually eat back exercise calories. This is working for me and I'm not hungry or any more tired than usual.

Unfortunately for me I have the metabolism of a 60 YEAR OLD WOMAN. Because I am one. So I'll stick with what's working, but thank you, anti-1200 guys, for all the suggestions, criticisms, and personal attacks. (jk) Thanks for caring!

Preach it. People disagree and argue and ask why people keep posting topics such as this...and the reason is that it needs to be heard. OP doesn't seem to be bashing anyone (I didn't read 14 pages of replies so I suppose I can't know for sure), just trying to help people get informed and stay informed. It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. Also, only go to Registered Dieticians or doctors for nutritional advice; people with no formal nutrition schooling are able to call themselves nutritionists in stores and such these days, and their advice can often be unsound. If you're doing fine at 1200 and getting enough servings of fruits and vegetables, great for you. All topics such as this are trying to say is that it's not feasible for the average person.

If I see my great-niece is about to touch a hot stove, I'm going to yell at her to get her to stop. Yelling might make her cry. It's not "nice." But it's better than watching her get burnt.

Since every other thing I wrote disappeared into the ether, I will simply say that "99% of the time, touching a hot stove with bare skin for longer than an instant will damage the tissue" is a scientifically well supported claim.

some people on this thread didn't grasp the fact that i was simply pointing out how small the group of people are that legitimately qualify for TDEE-20% = 1200, by illustrating with a hypothetical example. it really is about BMR. people who have unusual conditions that suppress their BMR are obviously exceptions. however, ignoring for a moment the inherent error margin in the BMR calculations, BMR isn't really something that can be argued against. it is what it is and no matter how much somebody wants to be the exception to the rule, they aren't. if this sounds "judgemental" to some people, so be it.

To what rule of BMR are you referring?

the idea that BMR calculations do not apply to them. BMR is well founded science at this point.

BMR calulators are based on population based averages. They will likely be correct for about as many people as BMI calculators will be for overweight/obese. Which is most, but certainly not all.

Realistically, they aren't actually accurate for anyone. Half the people will have a BMR well above the estimated amount and half will be below. (But for most people, as with any standard statistical distribution, it will be pretty close for most people).

There are some people who do have a BMR at or around 1200 but my issue is that I have yet to see any actual scientific evidence that suggests that an overweight person eating slightly below BMR is going to suffer any damage (either to BMR/RMR or muscle mass). [Although based on patterns I've seen for me, my BMR is probably right around 1291. Estimation based on weight and calorie trends] Of the several dozen studies I've read, they all suggest that whether you eat at or below your BMR doesn't really matter (except for creating a greater deficit).

Additionally, I would make a point that people who eat at TDEE -20% and workout can easily below BMR anyway. Example BMR of 1450 sedentary but works out 1-3 times a week for lightly active TDEE of 2000. TDEE-20% = 1600 cal during workouts burns around 500-600 calories for the hour (or less) 3 times in a week, their average net for the week is about 100 calories below BMR.

Anyway, like I've said, I think everyone should do whatever works for them. I do wish the boards were a little more friendly towards people who do want to follow the MFP method (or who net 1200 calories). It seems that people cannot post anything about a 1200 calorie diet without everyone telling them they are going to end up skinny fat, or in starvation mode (shown time and time again to not happen as people on here like to say but that's another thing entirely), or with hair falling out, or with people calling them "stupid" or some variation for having different goals and methods.

It is extremely difficult to get the required nutrients for your body on 1200 cal/day, unless you're under the guidance of a dietician or doctor. .

This is not true, except from a personal satisfaction perspective. It is quite easy to get adequate nutrition from 1200 calories of nutrient dense foods. An individual may not be happy without favorite foods lacking in nutrition making it "difficult" for them, but as a general statement, it's not true.