A question for 1200 calories per day consumers

There are clearly some legit cases here - older women (with all due respect, sorry no offence intended) and some injured people who clearly don't move around a lot.

But clearly there are a lot of people here who are eating far less than they should.

Now clearly for those who are steadfast and WANT to eat 1200 calories for any predefined notion fine... but you equally forget a lot of people eat at 1200 not through any science or understand because they THINK less calories = more fat lost when if anything they are straining the metabolism and causing a slow down of it by the way they eat (the body isn't dumb, it uses leptin to control the metabolism, the lack of hunger you may feel is the down regulation of ghrelin (the bodies hunger hormone) after a period of dietary deficit - lack of hunger isn't a sign you are doing it correctly, simply the body has adjusted itself.

A lot of people will simply get to a point where the body will not release any more body fat as it fights the fat loss as the body wants homeostasis, it likes being at a set weight. Indeed, any binging will then bump fats into the fat cells and with the body fighting the weight loss so heavily may even adapt to this higher body fat amount. Why are there so many threads on this subject where people are struggling to lose?

Why do you think there is more and more studies being done on metabolic damage? Why do you think there are cases of people eating the same amount of foods as you 1200 calorie and below people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories? Its clear the body doesn't like being hit in the way you are doing.

Now it matters not to me if you want 1200 calories going into you and please go ahead, its your life and body. But to say nothing is wrong too - the dozen/two dozen emails I got from MFP users and those on here, on this very thread asking for what they need shows there is a A LOT of people who are unsure what they should eat and have defaulted to 1200 because MFP has told them when they've put in an unachievable goal based on how much they move around (lots of people who mailed me did nothing daily and wanted 2lb a week hence 1200 calories it spat out as the minimum.

And thats not withstanding people who have insulin resistance and when they increased calories put on weight simply because they need to reduce this resistance and increase the bodies cellular insulin sensitivity.

Anyway, as I said yesterday I'm out.

When I first signed up for MFP it asked me questions about my age, height, weight and activity level. MFP was the one that told me to keep it 1200 or less. Now with that said when I first started using this app two years ago I was religious abou it and I found it to be my goal to live with just as many calories as I could just so I was not passing out. Many of those days I would eat maybe 700-800 calories and work my butt off in the gym every day. I lost a lot of weight to start with but then plateaued. Thats is when I looked into things a little more. I figured out that I wasn't eating enough and was doing harm to my body.

I don't know if MFP tells all women to only eat 1200 but some education behind it would be nice too.

Now clearly for those who are steadfast and WANT to eat 1200 calories for any predefined notion fine... but you equally forget a lot of people eat at 1200 not through any science or understand because they THINK less calories = more fat lost when if anything they are straining the metabolism and causing a slow down of it by the way they eat (the body isn't dumb, it uses leptin to control the metabolism, the lack of hunger you may feel is the down regulation of ghrelin (the bodies hunger hormone) after a period of dietary deficit - lack of hunger isn't a sign you are doing it correctly, simply the body has adjusted itself.

A lot of people will simply get to a point where the body will not release any more body fat as it fights the fat loss as the body wants homeostasis, it likes being at a set weight. Indeed, any binging will then bump fats into the fat cells and with the body fighting the weight loss so heavily may even adapt to this higher body fat amount. Why are there so many threads on this subject where people are struggling to lose?

Why do you think there is more and more studies being done on metabolic damage? Why do you think there are cases of people eating the same amount of foods as you 1200 calorie and below people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories? Its clear the body doesn't like being hit in the way you are doing.

Now it matters not to me if you want 1200 calories going into you and please go ahead, its your life and body. But to say nothing is wrong too - the dozen/two dozen emails I got from MFP users and those on here, on this very thread asking for what they need shows there is a A LOT of people who are unsure what they should eat and have defaulted to 1200 because MFP has told them when they've put in an unachievable goal based on how much they move around (lots of people who mailed me did nothing daily and wanted 2lb a week hence 1200 calories it spat out as the minimum.

And thats not withstanding people who have insulin resistance and when they increased calories put on weight simply because they need to reduce this resistance and increase the bodies cellular insulin sensitivity.

Oh - a starvation mode believer. A passionate post that almost sounds like facts. What about references to those studies? They show a minor slowdown that does not ever offset the reduction in intake. Here is some input from a respectable source and a link to an article where the quote comes from that has links to the studies. Don't be fooled by well phrased pseudo science.

Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

Now clearly for those who are steadfast and WANT to eat 1200 calories for any predefined notion fine... but you equally forget a lot of people eat at 1200 not through any science or understand because they THINK less calories = more fat lost when if anything they are straining the metabolism and causing a slow down of it by the way they eat (the body isn't dumb, it uses leptin to control the metabolism, the lack of hunger you may feel is the down regulation of ghrelin (the bodies hunger hormone) after a period of dietary deficit - lack of hunger isn't a sign you are doing it correctly, simply the body has adjusted itself.

A lot of people will simply get to a point where the body will not release any more body fat as it fights the fat loss as the body wants homeostasis, it likes being at a set weight. Indeed, any binging will then bump fats into the fat cells and with the body fighting the weight loss so heavily may even adapt to this higher body fat amount. Why are there so many threads on this subject where people are struggling to lose?

Why do you think there is more and more studies being done on metabolic damage? Why do you think there are cases of people eating the same amount of foods as you 1200 calorie and below people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories? Its clear the body doesn't like being hit in the way you are doing.

Now it matters not to me if you want 1200 calories going into you and please go ahead, its your life and body. But to say nothing is wrong too - the dozen/two dozen emails I got from MFP users and those on here, on this very thread asking for what they need shows there is a A LOT of people who are unsure what they should eat and have defaulted to 1200 because MFP has told them when they've put in an unachievable goal based on how much they move around (lots of people who mailed me did nothing daily and wanted 2lb a week hence 1200 calories it spat out as the minimum.

And thats not withstanding people who have insulin resistance and when they increased calories put on weight simply because they need to reduce this resistance and increase the bodies cellular insulin sensitivity.

Oh - a starvation mode believer. A passionate post that almost sounds like facts. What about references to those studies? They show a minor slowdown that does not ever offset the reduction in intake. Here is some input from a respectable source and a link to an article where the quote comes from that has links to the studies. Don't be fooled by well phrased pseudo science.

Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

I've never said anything such as starvation mode whatsoever. Get those words and take them out of my mouth and back on your keyboard please.

Ta.

As for references, of course I can get some, but like your post, there is none included.

Heck I posted a few weeks ago with a referenced study on diets around 1000 calories, around this figure (+/- 15%) and instantly people started picking it apart to suit their own goals. I'm not going to waste my time on MFP referencing every bit of data I know only for people to ignore it all because they don't want it to apply to them.

The difference is I have people around the globe following my methods and succeeding. I'm happy in the knowledge with what I say is true, and works. I have a literal working knowledge and clients to prove it.

So please stop putting words in my mouth.

One of the issues for people and they don't actually realise - they often do not eat correctly for years.

They eat at around the suggested sensible amount which is 300-600 more than 1200 and don't lose because of insulin resistance and simply put it down to calories rather than trying to understand the science behind their lack of weight loss.

Even when they diet on the higher amount, they don't realise what they are eating may have any effect, macros do often matter - calories are usually the culprit but not the only reason for a lack of weight loss.

Get insulin resistance under control, you'll be on a much better level ))

Could you explain that? also, I have mine set at 1200. I do not exercise right now because I do not go regularly to the gym, so I figure any exercise is just gravy.. so i set the thing here at 0 exercise and 1200 calories. Now please explain what you said about insulin resistance, AND also clarify this for me - am i reading that 1200 is a Net amount, not the goal? I do not understand that. I thought I was to aim for 1200. I am confused about this "net" and "gross" 1200. I thought you total your food and it should add up to 1200 per day (if thats what i set it at).

Now clearly for those who are steadfast and WANT to eat 1200 calories for any predefined notion fine... but you equally forget a lot of people eat at 1200 not through any science or understand because they THINK less calories = more fat lost when if anything they are straining the metabolism and causing a slow down of it by the way they eat (the body isn't dumb, it uses leptin to control the metabolism, the lack of hunger you may feel is the down regulation of ghrelin (the bodies hunger hormone) after a period of dietary deficit - lack of hunger isn't a sign you are doing it correctly, simply the body has adjusted itself.

A lot of people will simply get to a point where the body will not release any more body fat as it fights the fat loss as the body wants homeostasis, it likes being at a set weight. Indeed, any binging will then bump fats into the fat cells and with the body fighting the weight loss so heavily may even adapt to this higher body fat amount. Why are there so many threads on this subject where people are struggling to lose?

Why do you think there is more and more studies being done on metabolic damage? Why do you think there are cases of people eating the same amount of foods as you 1200 calorie and below people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories? Its clear the body doesn't like being hit in the way you are doing.

Now it matters not to me if you want 1200 calories going into you and please go ahead, its your life and body. But to say nothing is wrong too - the dozen/two dozen emails I got from MFP users and those on here, on this very thread asking for what they need shows there is a A LOT of people who are unsure what they should eat and have defaulted to 1200 because MFP has told them when they've put in an unachievable goal based on how much they move around (lots of people who mailed me did nothing daily and wanted 2lb a week hence 1200 calories it spat out as the minimum.

And thats not withstanding people who have insulin resistance and when they increased calories put on weight simply because they need to reduce this resistance and increase the bodies cellular insulin sensitivity.

Oh - a starvation mode believer. A passionate post that almost sounds like facts. What about references to those studies? They show a minor slowdown that does not ever offset the reduction in intake. Here is some input from a respectable source and a link to an article where the quote comes from that has links to the studies. Don't be fooled by well phrased pseudo science.

Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

I've never said anything such as starvation mode whatsoever. Get those words and take them out of my mouth and back on your keyboard please.

Ta.

As for references, of course I can get some, but like your post, there is none included.

Heck I posted a few weeks ago with a referenced study on diets around 1000 calories, around this figure (+/- 15%) and instantly people started picking it apart to suit their own goals. I'm not going to waste my time on MFP referencing every bit of data I know only for people to ignore it all because they don't want it to apply to them.

The difference is I have people around the globe following my methods and succeeding. I'm happy in the knowledge with what I say is true, and works. I have a literal working knowledge and clients to prove it.

So please stop putting words in my mouth.

Wow - you think you can just say I had no references even though I explicitly linked to article that has them and mentioned in my post that I was linking to the article that had the references? And then accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I did not say you said starvation mode. I said you are a believer in it, which is obviously my opinion based mostly on this:

A lot of people will simply get to a point where the body will not release any more body fat as it fights the fat loss as the body wants homeostasis, it likes being at a set weight. Indeed, any binging will then bump fats into the fat cells and with the body fighting the weight loss so heavily may even adapt to this higher body fat amount. Why are there so many threads on this subject where people are struggling to lose?

Why do you think there is more and more studies being done on metabolic damage? Why do you think there are cases of people eating the same amount of foods as you 1200 calorie and below people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories? Its clear the body doesn't like being hit in the way you are doing.

You talk about a point where the body quits releasing fat, metabolic damage and weight gain at low calories, mentioning that there are lots of posts about that. Yes, there are and they generally are about the so called starvation mode. You summed up the premise of it pretty well (again IMO) even if you did not use the words. I don't know whether you avoided using the words on purpose or not, but you definitely espoused the philosophy.

As I said before and just said again, the references are there in the article I linked to and they support what Lyle says. I encourage you to take it up with him if you think he is wrong. I would like to see the documented cases of people ballooning up 30-40lb on minimal calories.

Please don't judge my diary when I'm happy with mine

I think you just summed up the counterpoint to the arguments against how I lost most of my weight. It worked, I am healthy and I am happy with it.

I feel so bad for people eating 1200 calories, I eat over double that and I'm losing around 1.5-2lb a week yet I still sometimes feel hungry. Not talking about those netting 1200 but those who eat 1200 or less without being exceptionally small or thin plus exercise on top of that are kidding themselves if they say they aren't hungry.

So? If kidding themselves is working, why do you feel sorry for them if they are having success? If you eat over double that, lets say 2500, and can lose 2 pounds a week then you must have a TDEE of 3500 or so. Very few people do. I am a 175 pound man, I run over 20 miles a week and mine is much lower than that.

My current TDEE is 3596 based on "5-6 hours of hard exercise a week" while I'm at the gym usually around 1 and a half hours a day 6 days a week and I also do trolleys 4-5 days a week at work for different amounts of time at 199lb

I am jealous. I am 3 times your age and I have to warn you it will slow a bit...

Wow this got REAL deep lol

Well, when I first started MFP, based on my goals of losing 1lb a week and exercising 3/x a week for 30 minutes, they set my calorie goal at 1830. I thought that was a bit too high, so I changed my goals to lose 2lb a week....well, that is when they set my calorie goal at 1230-too low!!!!! I like to eat!!!! So I went to the middle at 1.5lbs a week, and MFP set my goals at about 1530. Then I changed my exercise setting to 6/x a week, and now my daily goal is 1510. Which to me, is doable, especially if I eat my calories back. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Then I find out about TDEE and that's anywhere from 2800-3400 calories based on different sites....which if I decrease it by 20% that is anywhere from 2200-2400...which is too much if you eat healthy!!!!! Yesterday, I reached my goal of 1800+...well, I was 55 calories under but I was within my range!!!! With that being said, people's needs change from time to time.

I didn't get that the OP was judging ANYONE....she was just asking a question. Some people who eat 1200 calories a day or less have to for certain reason. People who get gastric bypass surgery only can eat a maximum of 1000 calories a day and I know of someone who struggles to eat even that....but their stomach is the size of a pea or something like that so of course they can't eat a large amount of food. Everyone is definitely different. For ME personally, I know I would not be able to sustain 1200 for life because that is just a too low amount of food for ME!!!! but if people really could, then so be it. to each his own.

I can say some maybe are different I sure am by my activity level I should need 1550 by MFP and Dietician agreed close enough her calculations were 1600 but in order to maintain I am havng to eat 2,000 for base and oh yes hot topic or not I eat all exercise calories back. It is not age ( I am 52!) related my metabolisim changed why no one really know so I do fight hard to get all the calories in with some days being over 3,000 I feel like I eat all day. Most however have messed with their metabolism to where it has gotten too slow and yes, if they ate more they might initially gain but then they would loose and be healthier I am sure.

For someone who says 1200 is there "number".... feel free to post here or message me your details (age/height/weight/sex/how much you do cardio/lift/how busy your job is) and lets see what the score really is ))

Hi this would be cool, thanks-
am 33yrs old, 5ft 2in, 128lbs, am a nurse so on my feet alot of the time. intermittently exercise 3 x a week, bits of cario and 30DS type exercise (currently have a rubbish knee after my chin up bar fell down!)
MFP =1200, other calculators have come up with a similar number.

Why is everyone getting aggressive about this?

I eat between 1100 - 1300 a day and i'm not hungry. When I am hungry, I will eat something else! I'm fairly active and aim to run 4 times a week and this is enough calories for me to live and not be hungry and I tend to maintain the same weight.

I eat this amount because its what i'm comfortable with, If I ate more i'd feel sick, if I ate less i'd be hungry.

It really is that simple......

Please don't judge my diary when I'm happy with mine.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm