Results with 1200 Calories

I think it totally depends on where you start out. If you are already relatively thin and workout, 1200 is probably a little less than you need to burn and sustain energy. If you are pudgy & overweight and never workout and eat like crap, then 1200 is going to rock your world and of course you'll lose weight.

That's one of the things that drives me crazy about MFP and weight loss programs. I think they are geared towards those who don't already watch what they eat, count cals and workout 6 days a week... they are really for the folks who are over weight. sucks.

In any case, if you work out every day, lifting weights and cardio, I say go 1200-1500

Good luck

Hi Claire,
would you mind telling me your height ,BMI and calories suggested when you first started on MFP? ,I started WW a couple of months ago and I have lost a little weight and I really worked hard to do it.MFP seems the same as WW and its free!!!!!.........do you believe staying on 1200 (plus a it more ) you really loose weight? I also exercise roughly 5 times a week including walking 60 mins and swimming 45 mins.

Look forward to your reply.

Regards,
Cheryl

I have the 1200 calorie a day plan also. There's one thing it seems no one is taking into consideration - age. I'm 66 years old and I am losing an average of 1 lb a week. When I was 26 I went on a diet and lost 12 lbs in 3 weeks and didn't gain it back for 20 years. Well the metabolism and lifestyle have both changed since then. I really am pretty sedimentary but I am working out hard with Leslie Sansone 6 days a week from 30 - 60 minutes with stretchy bands as well as jumping on a mini trampoline. Still it is slow going. Oh I am not starving, in fact I eat way too many treats. I have lost 16 lbs so far and want to lose 22 more. Anyway, when you consider calories take into consideration the age you are. The older and less active you are the less the calories you can eat. If you did the questionaire when you joined they came up with the amount of calories for a reason and one was your age and another your activity level. To all of you who can eat 1700 or 1800 calories - You lucky dogs. I couldn't have cheesecake today but you could have.

what about a cheesecake flavored ice cream cone. they have them at coldstone, and they have kid sized stuff so it could be very few cals compared to cheesecake. I just hate to think of living life without cheesecake. ever.

UUURRRGG here we go...'you're starving at 1200'. What a load of cr**. I have tons of energy, I'm losing weight, my periods haven't stopped, I've not suddenly gained weight and you know what, I enjoy not eating f*** loads of food.

I'll see you at the finish line (I'll be there before you)!

I actually didn't say you were going to lose your period, and you obviously have a bad relationship with food if you thinking eating what your body NEEDS to simply maintain it's functioning level is "loads of food." Also it is starving yourself, the average body needs at least 1700 calories to function every day, anything less than that is starving it.

Do you expect your car to run without gas? Do you use your cell phone without charging it? Stop thinking of your body as a number on a scale, and start thinking of it as a machine that needs energy to function. The bottom line is losing weight at 1200 calories is not healthy because a) you aren't feeding it properly b) it's not ideal to live on 1200 calories for the rest of your life. The damage it does to your metabolism, and yes the potential harm it can do if your body goes into starvation mode and starts to consume it's own muscle. (Also your period doesn't need to stop for your body to be doing this, I was anorexic and my period never stopped not even when I was 115lbs so that's a mute point.) Also talking about muscle and starvation, guess what's a muscle in your body? YOUR HEART

Smart 1st response. Even SMARTER 2nd response. You're awesome!

1200 is sort of hilarious as a magic number. It's like people think it doesn't matter if they're 5' even or 6'2, 1.2K will magically expand or contract for you.

If you are tiny 1200 may be just what the doctor ordered. If you are tall it probably isn't. You might as well ask for 'looking for success stories of women who are five-foot three!'

I'm just about five-foot three...and it's been very successful for me. Yay, me! Five-foot-three works for me. It really really does.

I'm a 5'3" girl and my BMR is actually 1249 so 1200 REALLY IS my magic number.

5'3" here too, living contently on approx. 1200 daily as well

And, on another note- why is it so hard for people to educate themselves? Go figure out your resting metabolic rate (RMR), your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and if you want to lose weight, eat at TDEE -10 to 20%. Several others have provided links to easy websites that help you do that. This way, you can lose weight without harming yourself. 1200 is a silly number to be hung up on. You may find that your TDEE -20% is 1200, but you'll probably be about 5 feet tall; good for you! Just get educated, make a smart choice and be kind to your body.

Most folk that go after these 1200 cal threads here are genuinely concerned about the health of others. It can seem like we're all negative etc, but it genuinely comes out of a place of concern... it's no fun to witness someone ruin their metabolism, and self esteem, with yo-yo weight loss/ gain. I did it. I was on the VLCD for a while (accidentally, from a place of grief) and when I started eating "normal" again (aka 3 meals a day) I ballooned up! So I figured out my numbers, and I'm looking great again, with lots of energy, no crabbiness, lifting weights, and damn proud of myself. I look much better fit than I did skinny fat too.

By the way: MFP puts EVERYONE at 1200 when you want to lose 2 lbs per week. Doesn't mean it's right, scientific, or anything. I have no idea why they do that, it's a dangerous and stupid thing to suggest. It suggested 1200 for me; I calculated my BMR (basal metabolic rate- what it takes to keep me breathing and my heart pumping, organs alive, etc) and it's 1375!! How can 1200 sustain me? Answer is, it can't. I've been thinking for a while that all of us concerned folk should petition MFP to have a *real* BMR/ RMR/ TDEE calculator so that the newbies don't get mislead into dangerous feats with their poor metabolisms.

We care about all of you! Really! I hate to see you all disappointed in 1 year when that fast weight loss boomerangs back on you, leaving you in despair. Happened to me. Educate yourself, do it right the first time.
Sincerely
Greenmeena

Foremost, these are MY results with the whole 1,200 calories matter- I'm not nutritionally educated enough to recommend anything to anyone, so take it with a grain of salt.

The first time I lost a significant amount of weight (235 to 165 - and for the record, I'm 5'10), I did so eating around 1,200 a day. I was seventeen at the time and lost the weight gradually, over the course of about two years. I combined it with cardio exercise, pilates, and some light weights and had fantastic results- however, I filled those 1,200 calories with as many fruits, veggies, and lean proteins as possible. When I eat that little, I make every calorie count and try not to toss them out on processed foods.

I found my own way around the minuscule number in which I could be satisfied. For breakfast, I often had my favorite blended drink (1 small banana, 1/2 cup of almond milk, and a teaspoon of cinnamon or dark unsweetened cocoa powder.) or a piece of fruit with honey. Lunch would be a big kale/baby spinach salad with a small amount of dressing and a handful of nuts. Dinner would be fish, a small lean steak, or grilled chicken with veggies on the side. Very few times would my meals surpass 300 calories, unless we went out to eat- and even then I would scrounge up the nutritional information online and find the low-calorie menu whenever possible. By being creative with my fruits/veggies/protein, my meals were filling and I didn't feel as though I was starving.

I had success with that- my skin cleared up, I maintained my weight for years following a similar pattern, and rarely binged due to being content with my food choices. My main consequence was becoming too hung up on the numbers, and I've heard of numerous people feeling it necessary to dip their required calories lower and lower once they're used to 1,200. Depending on who's following the plan, it could be playing with fire. I wouldn't go around brazenly recommending it- just because it worked for me, doesn't mean it will work for everyone. As indicated by quite a few responses, some bodies will not take well to it.

I gained about 20 lbs. of my weight back over the 2012 holidays due to me tossing my routine out the window and eating whatever the hell I wanted- to unreasonable proportions. I don't think I turned down anything sweet or decadent!

Wow. Lots of post saying the same thing here but I need to reiterate.

I've lost weight 3 times eating 1200 calories...what does that tell you? Sure it works. But you can't eat 1200 calories forever. It screws your metabolism and puts you on an unhealthy yoyo dieting cycle.

You feel full after a long time eating 1200 calories because your body adapts to it, but it isn't actually getting what it needs. The RDA is based on 2000 calories because that is how much we need to eat to get all our essential nutrients.

No. The RDA is based on (a) men, who are used as the 'norm' even though there are large gender differences involved and (b) represent an "average" height/weight/age - meaning there's a normal distribution around that number. Nutritional requirements scale with size, age, etc. I'm 55-pushing-56, 5' 1/2", and my goal really is about 1200 calories (1250) to lose, but only 1350 or so to maintain.

...Those who argue most fervently for it are those who are in the midst of starving off the pounds...

I sincerely hope I don't come across as arguing fervently in favor of 1200 calories daily! Because I honestly see the point being made from the other side. For *me* I believe it makes sense because 1. I'm short, 2. I'm post-menopause with a naturally decreasing appetite (so I notice in myself), and 3. I'm quite sedentary (my exercise is usually a brisk walk with my dog). I absolutely agree 1200 is not for everyone! And I appreciate reading the valuable info to the contrary.

So I can't speak of long term.

With that said I offer anyone to look at my (open) diary and tell me it seriously appears I am "starving off the pounds".

As I said, I looked at the diaries of those who share the more calorie POV (not many have open ones), and I gotta say none (of the few I've seen) seem to be truly *eating* more than me. I've seen increased calories due to beer (I had 2 myself tonight LOL), lots of chocolate, sugary cereal, canned veggies, fast food ~ but honestly none impressed me as to having more healthy food volume than I eat.

see my ticker.