Haters gonna hate. tired of the "1200 is not enough" speech
Options
Replies
-
First I'd like to point out before I post that I was at 120lbs and sedentary, bringing our TDEEs to the same, 1700 calories a day. I wasn't trying to lose weight fast, and my deficit, like yours, was 400 calories.
I knew I was slim, but I wasn't fitting into my older clothes and I had a gut I wanted to get rid of. Back in the day my temporary solution was the thought 'be healthy on 1200 calories'. It lost terribly, I also lost some hair and other things, for so many obvious reasons. I was all but I eat so much vegetables and I eat so healthy and I eat whole foods and salads and chicken. Looking back, I was pretty ignorant. There was so much in my diet I was missing, particularly calories. And my solution shouldn't have been eat less to be healthy. I was already slimmer then most of the world. It should have been why are you trying to be underweight, if you want to do that move more so you can eat adequately.
It's recommended that a adult female needs about 2000 calories to get about 98% of their nutrition.
When you're on a low calorie diet, your deficit has to come from somewhere. I mostly ate vegetables, and lean meats. My protein was abnormally low, my carbs were low, but most of all my fats were particularly low.
You need an adequate amount of fat to help promote health and absorb fat soluble nutrients. All the salads in the world couldn't make me absorb the nutrients in them without adequate amounts of fat.
You need an adequate amount of protein to help promote health and preserve LBM when on a calorie deficit. I was eating about 46g per day, the average minimum to avoid deficiency (apparently my minimum was higher). I heard a lot of people say that's to low but they were all body buildery exercise machines and that wasn't me. Looking back I was once again being ignorant. That's not 'adequate or optimum health', that's a minimum to avoid health problems that was below my own. I try to get about 100g now.
I think many people do read the threads and like someone else pointed out if the person has a health problem where it is recommended it is almost never pointed out in the opening thread. For the average case, I'd recommend against it. I have 4'9 friends who eat significantly more then that to lose weight because they decided health was important to them. It's unfortunate that many of us figure this out to late. And I see many people who recommend against it have their own stories of suffering. My sister started losing her hair and teeth (she's 5'0). I started losing my hair and nails. There's explainable reasons for this and it boils down to not getting adequate amounts of things in general. I highly recommend against it for the majority of people.0 -
You're tired of hearing the truth?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
0 -
Before I started giving any notice or thought about what I was eating, I would eat about 5 times a day until I was full. I was eating around 1200-1400 calories/day on the average day and I was consistently gaining weight. It was a slow gain, but my weight was slowly increasing. For me, that range was clearly slightly over my daily maintenance. I know I'm not some freak of nature. There must be others who have the same issue. Not every body is exactly the same.
If there is a way to raise my TDEE so I can nom on more food, please do tell!
0 -
Before I started giving any notice or thought about what I was eating, I would eat about 5 times a day until I was full. I was eating around 1200-1400 calories/day on the average day and I was consistently gaining weight. It was a slow gain, but my weight was slowly increasing. For me, that range was clearly slightly over my daily maintenance. I know I'm not some freak of nature. There must be others who have the same issue. Not every body is exactly the same.
If there is a way to raise my TDEE so I can nom on more food, please do tell!
Work out
Yep! Especially lift heavy things. Put them back down. Repeat.0 -
Well, I do work out now and can eat more as a result -- which is wonderful because FOOD.
But I mean just....when I was mostly inactive, I typically gained at around 12-1400 calories. Without working out, 1200-1400 might be enough for some people. 0 -
Before I started giving any notice or thought about what I was eating, I would eat about 5 times a day until I was full. I was eating around 1200-1400 calories/day on the average day and I was consistently gaining weight.
If you weren't giving any notice or thought about your eating, you were very likely underestimating your actual calories consumed. Even people who are paying close attention and logging their foods often underestimate.0 -
If you want to slow your metabolism and be stuck HAVING to eat so little. Go ahead. When the body does not get enough calories metabolism slows period. This is from caveman times when the body had no idea when the next food was coming. Of course you may be the special snowflake exception to science. If so great. Have at it enjoy your snacks. I will eat my meals at about 1700 calories having lost over 100 lbs doing so.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. People don't read the topics. Once they see the 1200 calories they give an immeadiate speech about it without reading anything else.
I repeat, I eat at a 400 calorie deficit. That will not make my metabolism to commit suicide. Good for you, you can eat 1700 and lose weight, my TDEE is 1700.
Just what I was thinking, but, shrug...this is only 1 of many knee-jerk reactions from vocal MFP'ers...use your ignore button & watch the quality of the time spent here soar. You'll find it's usually the same offenders every time :drinker:0 -
Before I started giving any notice or thought about what I was eating, I would eat about 5 times a day until I was full. I was eating around 1200-1400 calories/day on the average day and I was consistently gaining weight.
If you weren't giving any notice or thought about your eating, you were very likely underestimating your actual calories consumed. Even people who are paying close attention and logging their foods often underestimate.
This is possible too! I did start tracking my normal eating for a couple of weeks before I added in exercise though, and that's typically the range my calories fell into. My counts totally could have been off though, like you suggest. The interwebs is not always the most accurate source.0 -
Okay... here's the deal...
For most of the population, 1200 calories a day is dangerously close to malnourishment. Malnourishment triggers a hormonal response that is a mechanism to defend against starvation, which is why it is referred to as "starvation mode", but you really don't have to be anywhere near starving to reach it.
It's not hate to tell someone that their method is not effective. Sure, they can choose to do whatever they want, but just because they choose it, doesn't change the facts. Sooner or later, they will become malnourished and their body will release hormones to avoid the potential damage of starvation.
What you are saying is absolutely not true. The problem in some of the developed countries is that many people are very well fed, but are malnourished. There is a very big difference. It is more than possible to be well nourished on 1200 calories, just like it is possible to be malnourished on three times as much. The UN as well as WHO ( for which I work ) considers " very low cal " 800 calories and " starvation " from 700 calories down wards.
Only in the US and more specifically here in MFP are 1200 calories considered " starvation mode ". In many countries of this planet the daily average calories are way lower than in the US. In case you wonder,
I base my knowledge on 35 years of directly working in Humanitarian Aid, developing food plans based on ( among other things ) a Masters in Nutritional Science, Policy making and Humanitarian Aid from Tufts University. I don't want to brag with this, but since people are always asking why people think they can say certain things, I figured I just mention that I am qualified. Maybe not so much for the " the more you eat the more you lose " crowd....but definitely as far as average people are concerned.0 -
Most people that "get this speech" are those complaining 1200 isn't working for them. So you'd rather they cut their calories lower and lower until they just don't eat at all versus someone providing an alternative of upping their calories because a majority of people (most who did the 1200 to start) understand where someone is going wrong?
Not at all. I would like people to read the topics before giving the speech because it does not always apply
I get you, OP. Usually the people who flame you for eating 1200 calories are 25 year old MEN. And they think everyone should eat like they do. I wish I had the metabolism of, say, my 21 year old son, but that's not gonna happen.0 -
Maybe not so much for the " the more you eat the more you lose " crowd
We realize that more intake means a smaller deficit which means you lose more slowly. It also means that you are more likely to get adequate nutrition and to adhere to your plan, because you can eat more. Adherence is why the vast majority of "diets" (ugh that word) fail. So we address that by making it easier to adhere. And we like to eat!0 -
I personally don't give two figs what others think about how much I eat or don't eat. All of their starvation mode BS doesn't scare me mainly because I've been doing this for 20 months now and have just now slowed down to a crawl, not because of my eating habits but because I only have 60 lbs left to lose. What I have done worked perfectly for me. My hair is not falling out, I'm not going back to being overweight because of the amount that I chose to eat at. When you find something that works for you stick with it and tell everyone else to take a flying leap off a really high cliff. I get tired of seeing the 1200 calorie starvation mode crap but in the end it's okay because I know what is working for me, it may not work for you and that's fine, you got to do what you got to do for you. And by George I am a "special snowflake" and so are you :laugh: so enjoy your life. I don't even believe my metab is damaged at all. Slowed but that's because I'm closer to my healthy weight.
Actually it's slowed down to a crawl because with 60 lbs to lose, you need to have a smaller deficit than when you had 200 lbs to lose. When you have a lot of fat to burn, it's ok to eat less. But now that you have less, you noticed that you're not losing as much weight at all... it's normal. I've lost 53 lbs so far, and I'm eating 1700 a day, and I'm not super active by any means (ok, I just decreased my goal to 1650 now that I have 20 lbs to lose). Bottom line, it shouldn't slow down to a crawl when you have 63 lbs to lose... unless you're not eating enough (or damaged your metabolism by not eating enough for a while).0 -
First of all I am new, hello to all...I am supposed to be eating at 1200 calories a day. I have seen these posts going on and on about it about eating too little and who eats more than that, who is starving themselves etc..., WHO CARES? Let people do what they want, eat a little eat over, whatever, it is boring and there should probably be a more productive discussion going on. I started this and I realized after today and actually seeing the calories, fat content, sodium etc and I could not believe what I was doing.It really opened my eyes actually looking at it, and on top of not exercising, NO WONDER I am 217 pounds at the moment and 4'8''. I realistically according to many websites and things should really be around 100 pounds. I could really use some advice on how I can help my body learn to only take in 1200 calories and be fine with it because I feel I would be hungry all the time. I really want to lose some weight and would really like to get some motiviation. I need some new buddies to help with that...anyone willing ??:)
feel free to add me as a friend.
I am 41 years old, 4' 11-3/4" and i eat at 1400 PLUS my exercise calories (my diary is open). i started out at 1200 and was starving, constantly going over and yes i dropped some weight but the minute i hit my plateau i stopped loosing at 1200 and started to struggle. i pumped up my calories to 1400 and the weight is starting to come off again (slowly - slow is best).
to the OP to say that for some 1200 is adequate because of their height is not 100% accurate, i'm shorter than you and cannot/will not eat 1200 calories a day. i prefer to not faint while working out due to lack of proper nutrition. if it takes a year to loose my last remaining 20-22 lbs than so be it. i didn't gain 40lbs in a week - i gained it over the course of 5 years.
the biggest complaint "most" people have about the 1200 calorie posts is the fact that the poster comes on saying i do this and it's great and i love it everyone jump on my bandwagon and do the same. However the minute someone starts to contradict the poster and give their reasons why the poster's "diet" is unhealthy out come the claws and fights ensue.
But everyone is different. You are 3/4" taller than me yet I don't eat 1400 calories often. Everyones metabolism is different, even people of same height. I have never felt faint or weak eating 1000-1200 calories. And the whole "1200 calories or less put you in starvation mode IS simply BS" for many people. People, seek nutritional advice from your doctor your Registered Dietitian, not someone on the internet. Those people will know you as a whole person; medically, physically and mentally, than someone who knows you on the internet.
you don't mention how old you are which also factors into how your body handles food and calories. my opinion on the 1200 calorie diet is it's a quick fix (for some not all). drop your calories, exercise like mad and you'll drop weight fast. until you crash. been there done that - it is no longer for me. i would rather adjust my eating habits over the long haul than drastically reduce my calorie intake and risk gaining the lost weight back once i begin incorporating more food into my diet which is what some do - notice i did not say all.
i'm sorry but when i look at some diaries (for the folks on here posting oh i just don't know why i'm not loosing and i'm eating 1200 or less and i'm so full all the time) and all they're eating is lettuce, soup broth, veggies, fruits and nothing much more I have to wonder are they doing more harm than good eating that little and should they really be on here. i also find it very interesting that some (not all) of those posting these 1200 or less threads are quite young.0 -
You're tired of hearing the truth?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Your truth, but NOT the truth for everyone. Every person here has their own "truth". Seriously life is NOT a "One diet fits all" because it def. does not fit all.0 -
Everyone hits plateau's in weight loss. If your eating 1200 and your weight loss stalls, then how low will you go? 1000, 800 etc. Then when you hit another plateau, then where? Perpetual cycle of plateau's, until you eat slightly above maintainence to 'reset' then it will be weight gain hell.0
-
The biggest issue with eating so little is that it is very difficult to get your proper nutrition...i.e essential fats, protein, and essential vitamins and minerals. It's even worse when little 20 year olds who have about 5 vanity Lbs to lose gross 1200 but think they need to work off 800 and net to 400 or 500 calories or something ridiculous. Those girls scare the **** out of me and what they're doing has nothing to do with health or fitness.0
-
well i am very thankful for those "1200 is not enough" threads/posts. I stopped losing at 1200 upped my cals to now 1550-1800 calories. Guess what! I am still not losing. But I am much happier and have more energy. And I am so much stronger. So I am just hoping my body needs to recover from eating so little and working out so much then the weight will start to come off again. But really I am a lot nicer when I eat more...so its a plus to anyone who has to be around me too! And well, I get to eat more!!0
-
The site as a health and fitness site has to maintain very high standards and make sure that they don't support anything that could be dangerous to it's members. So what you do is fine and if it works for you, great...but the site has these guidelines.
Out of respect for the site I think it's members should follow their guide lines and eating under 1200 calories a day is considered dangerous territory and it outlined here:
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelines2010.pdf
So the site doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
Just my two cents.
No I'm not a moderator, but I have read the rules. +1.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions