Why 1000/1200 calorie diets are bad - backed by science

You're also above average in height for a female. There are a lot of women who are much smaller than you and don't have your caloric requirements. There's nothing magic about the number 1200.

...Lots of people fall off the wagon on a LCD because it's too restrictive, lots of people fall of the wagon exercising (including lifting) because it takes up too much time etc. Plenty of people would think that eating lots of protein to support lifting and looking ripped was just as unsustainable as a LCD and could argue that if you stop exercising when you are accustomed to eating that much food you are gonna get huge pretty quickly....

So YES 1200 cal diets are bad....for quite a lot of people, quite a lot of the time but with loads and loads of exceptions - Backed by Science

One thing that stands out from the first study is the average 454 calories decrease in the TDEE of people in -25% caloric restriction group after 3 months. This means that the slowed metabolism would fully counteract the -25% caloric deficit if your starting TDEE is less than 1816, resulting in the dreaded plateau.

Let's say a sedentary person's TDEE is 2000 calories. A 25% caloric reduction would put him on a 1500 calories diet. If that 25% reduction ends up slowing his metabolism to 1546, he only has effectively 54 calories of deficit, which is barely perceptible and can easily be negated by miscounting a couple of tablespoons of sugar.

The most important point is that you can combat slow metabolism through exercise.

in...for the oncoming sh$t storm and show!

One thing that stands out from the first study is the average 454 calories decrease in the TDEE of people in -25% caloric restriction group after 3 months. This means that the slowed metabolism would fully counteract the -25% caloric deficit if your starting TDEE is less than 1816, resulting in the dreaded plateau.

Let's say a sedentary person's TDEE is 2000 calories. A 25% caloric reduction would put him on a 1500 calories diet. If that 25% reduction ends up slowing his metabolism to 1546, he only has effectively 54 calories of deficit, which is barely perceptible and can easily be negated by miscounting a couple of tablespoons of sugar.

The most important point is that you can combat slow metabolism through exercise.

But your hypothetical people likely do not need to lose weight. I used my height (69.5") and age (54) and selected sedentary on a TDEE calculator and got 1968 when I set the weight for a BMI of 25 (171). When I set it to my old weight of 225, it went up to 2371. Throw in moderate exercise and it goes over 3000. Older and/or shorter people can have the lower TDEE numbers but again, if you add in extra pounds, the numbers go up. I don't think the study validates the idea of plateaus at all.

I agree about the exercise, but I am not sure whether that study proves it or not.

You must have a calorie deficit to loose weight. Burning more than 3500 calories than you consume results in the loss of 1 pound. By reducing your calories/ day by 500 (from your maintenance calories/the calories your body burns without additional exercise) you will loose 1 pound a week. By only loosing 1 pound a week you also prevent your body from going catabolic and using your muscle as an energy source.

So, if my maintenance calories works out to be about 1850/day than I should be eating 1350 calories/day. Which I have been doing and which has helped me to loose 40 pounds. When I was swimming varsity I wasn't calorie counting and although I was swimming 2 hours every day plus lifting I was eating to my maintenance and therefore had no deficit.

Now if a body building male tried to eat 1200 calories it would be devastating and he would loose muscle mass because his maintenance calories are so high. The average woman however has a maintenance of about 1700 so therefore 1200 would be the perfect amount.

Source: Varsity swim team coaches, online research, personal experience dieting bodybuilding and varsity swimming.

One thing that stands out from the first study is the average 454 calories decrease in the TDEE of people in -25% caloric restriction group after 3 months. This means that the slowed metabolism would fully counteract the -25% caloric deficit if your starting TDEE is less than 1816, resulting in the dreaded plateau.

Let's say a sedentary person's TDEE is 2000 calories. A 25% caloric reduction would put him on a 1500 calories diet. If that 25% reduction ends up slowing his metabolism to 1546, he only has effectively 54 calories of deficit, which is barely perceptible and can easily be negated by miscounting a couple of tablespoons of sugar.

The most important point is that you can combat slow metabolism through exercise.

I don't know how much of the lowered TDEE was slowed metabolism, and how much was just that people didn't expend as much energy when they ate less. I'm not talking about exercise (as this was the non-exercise group), but maybe generally just moving about.

I've noticed that when I was younger my weight maintained within a couple of pounds for years even when my activity levels varied wildly. I've always thought that was because if I moved about more I naturally felt hungrier and instinctively ate the right amount to maintain. But perhaps it works the other way round too - the less you eat, the less you feel like moving around - instinctively maintaining again.

But yes, either way, I think it might help to explain plateaus.

The study shows that the group that did both calorie restriction and exercise did not see any reduction in their TDEE.

The study shows that the group that did both calorie restriction and exercise did not see any reduction in their TDEE.