STOP Under-Eating Folks!!

Wow. Just wow.

1200 is a "magic" number because it was once mentioned in scientific literature as a minimum caloric intake to still provide minimum basic nutrition for the average woman. (1500 was the "magic" number for the average man.) Since then it's been bandied about as THE low calorie diet goal.

If you're smaller, leaner, or whatever than the "average" woman you may be able to get by on less. If you're in any way larger, and especially if you're a man, you probably should be eating more to meet your basic nutrient needs (certain vitamins, minerals, essential amino and fatty acids, etc).

But if you can get your nutrients in at 1200 calories, are there any reasons to NOT eat that little? If your TDEE supports it, a higher caloric intake can reduce hunger pains, desires to binge, "cheat days" and so forth. In other words, less struggle. Also, if your TDEE at your target weight & exercise level is HIGHER than 1200 calories, and for most people it will be, you're going to have to learn how to eat more than that minimum at some point....

TDEE-20% is also bandied about as some sort of magical goal too. This one is a bit more practical as it is different for every person AND it adjusts as you lose weight and your body composition changes. But for higher BMI's, TDEE-25%, or 30% can make sense. For people with very little body fat, TDEE-10% might make more sense.

My personal take is that I wouldn't go much lower than my BMR for a calorie goal. Even a sedentary life style (walking to the bathroom, sitting up to watch tv, cooking and eating, etc) burns 20-25% more than that. So if you're not exercising, BMR is about TDEE-20%. A more active lifestyle and/or deliberate exercise (and not eating calories back) will increase TDEE and make BMR be an even greater deduction.

Going too low below TDEE will cause most people to be hungry and lead to problems with compliance. So in many cases, eating 1500 calories and being compliant will result in faster overall weight loss than a 1200 calorie goal with regular, hunger fueled binges. (Those number just pulled out of the air. They don't necessarily have ANY relationship to meaningful calorie goals for YOU, dear reader.)

Who was the original post meant for? I suspect primarily for the person who picked 1200 calories out of the air, hasn't a clue what their caloric needs actually are, and is struggling to stick to that goal. To those people, the message appeared to me to be, "Consider eating a bit more. You'll likely still lose and will probably have an easier time of it."

Who was THIS post meant for? For the people took OP's use of 1200 calories as a blanket indictment of ANYONE who is eating that little. I'm trying to help those people realise that if they're doing it under medical guidance (as I am, but at 3,000 calories and losing about 3 pounds a week), or that number DOES happen to be appropriate given their size, activity level, and metabolism, or are simply not struggling at it, then the original post in this thread DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU!

Okay? Make sense now?

Feel free to flame away. I like it warm....

Wow - there sure are A LOT of angry, hungry people on this site. Calm down everyone .. go have a donut.

SERIOUSLY

I eat 1200 calories and still gain muscle mass, netting just 500.

I am not always angry or hungry.
Though I lose concentration.
MMmmm, back dog.
Squirrel.

bump