Calories at 1,000 to 1,200 for women...

Options
124

Replies

  • booksgiver
    booksgiver Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    Good food choices. Thank you for sharing your diary as it helps others also trying to average 1200 per day.
  • littlelady2b
    littlelady2b Posts: 104
    Options
    Everyone on here says they eat 1200. I highly doubt they are as accurate in their tracking as they believe. Cognitive dissonance and dieting start to become synonymous after awhile.

    Oh so you are calling me a liar?? I eat 1200 cals or less usually less a day and I track everything and I'm losing weight just how I want to for me so your comment is judgmental and your lack of knowledge of people who you are judging not only makes your point mute but makes you seem quite rude.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options

    will you lose on 1200 cal? yes.

    will you gain it all back? yes.

    will you then have to start over? yes.

    or you could just eat an appropriate amount from the beginning and never worry about having to do it all over again.

    This would be a valid argument if the rates of dieting failure weren't extremely high regardless of method used to lose. The problem isn't that you ate 1200 calories. The problem is that you ate over maintenance for an extended period of time after you lost your weight. My question to you--at what point is it no longer the 1200 calorie diet's fault when someone gains all the weight back? At what point do we stop blaming their "deprivation diet" for their binging and compulsive overeating? Their "failed metabolism?" 10 lbs? 50 lbs? When?

    (I don't think 1200 is a great number for a lot of people, though I do think it's fine for some. I strongly disagree with the argument that is tossed around on this site that 1200 means regain, and the implication that people that eat more don't regain. It's not true. The people on this site who eat more and don't regain are not a representative sample of the population.)
  • buffydork6
    buffydork6 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    If someone ate the 2nd "meal plan" that you gave, they would reach 1,200 calories before or at lunch...and would have nothing left over for dinner.
  • buffydork6
    buffydork6 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I believe there is a huge difference between 12,00 calories this:
    AM: fruit, dairy, whole grain cereal or oat meal, unprocessed organ raw honey, steel oats, cage free eggs with raw cheese, raw butter, etc

    Lunch: Fresh or frozen if need be...veggies, lean protein source, fruit, good fat, (olive oil, walnut oil, grape seed oil)

    Dinner: More veggies, More lean protein, more good fat, more fruit, more whole grain....etc......

    and 1,200 calories this:

    AM: McDonalds Egg McMuffin, Hash browns, coffee, or OJ, OR Sugar sweetened cereal, Pop-Tart, cheese danish...etc

    Lunch: Canned soup, frozen dinner, ham n cheese sandwich, chips, snickers, or a trip to fast food joint of your choice....etc....

    Dinner: More frozen, processed, white, in the form of: "Home-made" mac n cheese, Hot-dogs, Spaghetti n Meatballs, lasagna, canned veggies, a huge glob of mashed potatoes, deep fried "anything", or more fast food: half a pizza, 12" sub, Big Mac n fries..

    I think eating this way^^^^ is what leads to being "MALNOURISHED" , ANEMIC, DIABETIC, etc etc....Not eating under any specific "set" calorie amount....
    Just sayin s'all....:)

    If someone ate the 2nd "meal plan" that you gave, they would reach 1,200 calories before or at lunch...and would have nothing left over for dinner.
  • redraidergirl2009
    redraidergirl2009 Posts: 2,560 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately, they are close to being right on...at least for me. I have to keep it under 1400 to lose.

    Second this. I have to eat at or below this in order to lose weight, doesn't matter if I exercise or not, but if I eat more than 1500 per day I do not lose at all.
  • shannashannabobana
    shannashannabobana Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    How DARE anyone imply that the people doing 1200 are not capable enough to count their calories and this supposed inability is responsible for the success they have had.
    I think it's pretty much impossible to track calories 100% accurately without going to ridiculous lengths (weighing everything, doing your own calcs, etc). There are doubtless some people who are quite ocd about it, but it's easy to miss a bit of sauce here, a bit of condiment there. I always figure I'm missing something in mine or overfigure on other items to make up for it. But a lot of it is guesswork, unless everything you are eating is out of a package (and even then, calorie counts are probably still off by a bit).
  • missability
    missability Posts: 223
    Options
    Um, don't take advice from the US government.


    ^^^^^AMEN!!!!
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    I keep mine well under 1200/day and it's worked for 3 months (30 pounds). If I eat more, I don't lose. But do what works for you. I am glad some of you can eat more and lose! I wish I could!

    you will have to eventually. that works for the short term, but not in perpetuity.

    I am so frustrated with this debate like others on here about weight loss the fact of the matter is this: everyone is different everyone loses weight differently and there is a big difference between men and women when it comes to weight loss muscle mass etc etc!! If you want to lose weight you need to find out the calories and exercise level that works best for you as an individual. We all have different metabolisms, we are different ages, have different schedules, fitness levels and interests are different, yo yo dieters starting over, live in a different environments, and are in different stages in life. Some are in menopause, some have just had babies and some are still planning families. Some people are living with pain and disabilities and are unable to w/o like others. It all plays a part in weight loss. What works for some doesn't work for others and that's what is best about calorie counting because it can be adjusted to the individual! There is no debate about what works for everyone because weight loss doesn't work that way. Some advice may help some people but not others. The diet and exercise industry have made money off of turning people into herd animals for years.We are not herd animals we are all individuals.

    :flowerforyou:

    Some of the criticisms might be valid if people weren't SUCCEEDING, but unlike some people here I've never been overweight, know how to maintain and know how to lose weight and if I'm in weight-loss mode and not exercising I need to be 1200 or under.

    There's nothing funnier than hearing people who have failed time and again repeating the same old or outdated weight loss myths that didn't work for them and which you figured out five years ago wouldn't work for you. It's as if they're in love with their misinformation.

    And obviously, if this is not for you, then DON'T DO IT. But stop telling everyone else that it's not possible when it is and that it is unhealthy to eat 1200 calories on average.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    It's also the wrong answer to the wrong question as far as health advice goes. The real question is what form of weightloss yields the longest-lasting results. Most people can succeed in weightloss, but then regain.

    exactly.

    will you lose on 1200 cal? yes.

    will you gain it all back? yes.

    will you then have to start over? yes.

    or you could just eat an appropriate amount from the beginning and never worry about having to do it all over again.
    I ate at 1200 for about 3 months, and then slowly increased my calories to maintenance(2000 calories). I've been in maintenance for 2 months with no problems. I know for a fact that I won't have to start over
    EDIT: I also happened to lose 25 pounds

    that's just my point

    1200 doesn't work in perpetuity, which is what i said.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options

    that's just my point

    1200 doesn't work in perpetuity, which is what i said.

    The only diet plan that doesn't involve upping your calories at some point is the one where you eat the number of calories needed for maintenance at goal weight. That's a valid plan for some, but some people need or just want to take off more sooner.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options

    will you lose on 1200 cal? yes.

    will you gain it all back? yes.

    will you then have to start over? yes.

    or you could just eat an appropriate amount from the beginning and never worry about having to do it all over again.

    This would be a valid argument if the rates of dieting failure weren't extremely high regardless of method used to lose. The problem isn't that you ate 1200 calories. The problem is that you ate over maintenance for an extended period of time after you lost your weight. My question to you--at what point is it no longer the 1200 calorie diet's fault when someone gains all the weight back? At what point do we stop blaming their "deprivation diet" for their binging and compulsive overeating? Their "failed metabolism?" 10 lbs? 50 lbs? When?

    (I don't think 1200 is a great number for a lot of people, though I do think it's fine for some. I strongly disagree with the argument that is tossed around on this site that 1200 means regain, and the implication that people that eat more don't regain. It's not true. The people on this site who eat more and don't regain are not a representative sample of the population.)

    1200 is a deprivation diet so I think they go hand in hand. Me saying it's 1200's fault IS me saying it's deprivation that causes the rebound. I agree with you.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options

    that's just my point

    1200 doesn't work in perpetuity, which is what i said.

    The only diet plan that doesn't involve upping your calories at some point is the one where you eat the number of calories needed for maintenance at goal weight. That's a valid plan for some, but some people need or just want to take off more sooner.

    the reality, however, is that most people on this site ARE NOT on a "plan" besides what MFP told them to do. There's no progression, no endgame. Many people plug in "lose 2 pounds a week" because that's the biggest loss the site allows. Invariably the calculations come out showing they should eat 1200 calories, so they do. They ignore that they should be NET calories, and they ignore the fact that this is probably too little for them to be eating (or they're just ignorant). They do this, lose a bunch of weight, then their weight loss plateaus (because they're not eating enough) and they get frustrated and quit. Is this everyone? I guess not, but it's a very, very large number of people. The odds are NOT in your favor if you're looking for long-termed, sustained success on a 1200 cal diet.

    This is what happens with the majority of people who jump on MFP without any knowledge of nutrition, heath and fitness. This is a huge failing on the part of the site, and it's a shame they haven't corrected it.

    1200 as a number only EXISTS because of this site.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options

    1200 is a deprivation diet so I think they go hand in hand. Me saying it's 1200's fault IS me saying it's deprivation that causes the rebound. I agree with you.

    I agree that if people feel deprived on a 1200 calorie diet, they should up their calories and not attempt to stick to it, because they will rebound and yo yo diet. For those who don't feel deprived, however, there is no more reason that they will regain than on any other calorie goal. I actually struggle more to stick to my calorie goal when I try higher calorie plans because I don't need to be as careful and I can get more in. I do better having to be careful and making each food choice count. It makes me more mindful. I gave the 1600 a shot for a few months and did terribly on it. Not because of my physiology, not because it doesn't work, but because of the way my mind works.

    Anyone who struggles on 1200 should stop trying that plan, and I would say that for other plans too. You want to try paleo and hate it? Don't do it. You won't succeed anyway.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    Fascinating. And by fascinating I mean kinda amusing/sad? But what people want to eat is what they want to eat, more power to them, and even more so if they wish to put their faith in the American Government to back up their diets.


    Me, I'll keep eating around 1700 and planning my next increase to around 1800, while still losing around a pound a week. I suppose 1200-1000 would net me faster results but would it get me the lean strong body I desire or the muscular arms I so covet? Do I really want/need to lose an extra pound a week at the cost of the image I'm seeking?

    For me the answer is no.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    Fascinating. And by fascinating I mean kinda amusing/sad? But what people want to eat is what they want to eat, more power to them, and even more so if they wish to put their faith in the American Government to back up their diets.


    Me, I'll keep eating around 1700 and planning my next increase to around 1800, while still losing around a pound a week. I suppose 1200-1000 would net me faster results but would it get me the lean strong body I desire or the muscular arms I so covet? Do I really want/need to lose an extra pound a week at the cost of the image I'm seeking?

    For me the answer is no.

    What people don't really understand here is not everyone can lose on 1700. Not a pound a week. MFP predicts a .6 lb a week loss for me on 1200 calories. I didn't set it for 2 lbs.
  • yanniejannie
    yanniejannie Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Once again: It. Works. For. Me. Notice; I am NOT saying it would work for you.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options

    the reality, however, is that most people on this site ARE NOT on a "plan" besides what MFP told them to do. There's no progression, no endgame. Many people plug in "lose 2 pounds a week" because that's the biggest loss the site allows. Invariably the calculations come out showing they should eat 1200 calories, so they do. They ignore that they should be NET calories, and they ignore the fact that this is probably too little for them to be eating (or they're just ignorant). They do this, lose a bunch of weight, then their weight loss plateaus (because they're not eating enough) and they get frustrated and quit. Is this everyone? I guess not, but it's a very, very large number of people. The odds are NOT in your favor if you're looking for long-termed, sustained success on a 1200 cal diet.

    This is what happens with the majority of people who jump on MFP without any knowledge of nutrition, heath and fitness. This is a huge failing on the part of the site, and it's a shame they haven't corrected it.

    1200 as a number only EXISTS because of this site.

    That's a user error, though. I don't have it in as 2 lbs. I get the same goal pretty much no matter the setting unless I try to go to the highest activity setting, which isn't accurate for me. They put recommended next to 1 lb a week. 1200 exists outside of this site. That's the basis for this thread. MFP is a great program. It's not their fault if people don't read the directions of the program they are on properly.

    I don't worry about trying to eat a net number, either. I use my exercise calories or don't depending on the day. But MFP only predicts .6 lbs a week loss for me on 1200. If it went lower than 1200, 1 lb a week for me would be less calories than 1200, so I feel just fine not "netting" 1200. But obviously this isn't going to work for many, depending on height, weight, activity, etc.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    Fascinating. And by fascinating I mean kinda amusing/sad? But what people want to eat is what they want to eat, more power to them, and even more so if they wish to put their faith in the American Government to back up their diets.


    Me, I'll keep eating around 1700 and planning my next increase to around 1800, while still losing around a pound a week. I suppose 1200-1000 would net me faster results but would it get me the lean strong body I desire or the muscular arms I so covet? Do I really want/need to lose an extra pound a week at the cost of the image I'm seeking?

    For me the answer is no.

    What people don't really understand here is not everyone can lose on 1700. Not a pound a week. MFP predicts a .6 lb a week loss for me on 1200 calories. I didn't set it for 2 lbs.

    MFP calculations are borderline laughable. It told me I'd lose a pound a week eating 1325; I suppose it worked but I was too busy losing my entire mind to really be sure. I did my own research for myself and came up with a goal that works for me and now MFP projects I'll lost .4 pounds a week, yet I've lost 7.8 since May 7th. This is with less activity now than I was doing at 1325, by the way. (I was doing 30DS, hitting the treadmill daily, and doing a circuit training class twice a week. Now I lift 3 days a week, do 30ds whenever the mood strikes me, and spend the rest of my time playing DOTA on my couch.)

    Is 1200-1000 right for some people? Sure! Hell, everyone could lose weight on 1000 calories a day! But most people don't need to be that low, they just think they do.
  • vgirl21
    vgirl21 Posts: 37
    Options
    I know for women, we should consume no less than 1200 calories a day. Below is where the risk comes in. If you want to exercise and get toned you need to be eating more calories and working out on a daily basis. So like eating 1500 calories a day and burning 500 calories through exercise. That brings you back to 1200. It is also recommended to lose no more than 2 pounds a week. You have a greater risk of gaining it back later. If you are eating under and losing weight it is not healthy. Period. Personally I don't know who could find happiness in that.

Categories