Science only please - the case against 1200 kcals
Replies
-
Where does the "rest of your life" straw man come from? I don't know anybody who expects to spend the rest of their life losing weight - it's a temporary process to get to a specific goal.
if you want to keep the weight off for life, then you have to change your eating and exercise habits for life. If you see dieting as a temporary thing to drop the weight, followed by going back to how you ate before, then say hello to a lifetime of yo-yo dieting, which is actually less healthy than just being obese.
maintaining a healthy weight for life is about maintaining healthy eating and exercise habits for life. And the best way to achieve that is to make your healthy lifestyle as pleasant, easy and sustainable as you can, so you can stick to it for life. 1200 cals/day will not achieve that for the vast majority of people.0 -
Just personal experience -
When I started, much like many others, I started at 1,200 calories. I lost a little bit of weight but was miserable for about a month. The loss did not equal the discomfort it put me through. When I started friending females who were eating significantly more (1600-2200 net, depending on activity level) and weight training along with some or no cardio, it's like a door opened for me.
I can actually eat a decent amount of food, and food that I like, and not have anxiety over every calorie I put in my mouth as long as I make reasonable decisions, strength train, get in a bit of cardio (for its many health benefits as well as added calorie burn), and end up looking and feeling better than if I restricted to 1,200.
I also wouldn't have crazy days on the weekends where I felt the need to eat all the things to make up for eating so low during the week.
The weight loss may be slower with an 1,800 calorie net rather than a 1,200 calorie net, but I'm also making sure I'm getting the nutrients I need and I am sustaining as much lean mass as possible. Part of the yo-yo diet syndrome is that people eat very low, see the scale weight drop dramatically, but don't realize they've lost muscle along with it. This lowers their resting metabolic rate, meaning even if they continue to eat at 1,200 or decide to raise their calories slightly, their bodies will be less efficient in burning off that extra energy and they'll be more prone to store that fat.
There's also the effect of hormonal changes when you reduce your calories to such a low number. Look up ghrelin on google and see what I mean.
This isn't a'scientific study', just a personal experience. The slow and steady weight loss with strength training and some cardio thrown in usually offers the best chance of keeping the weight off because you're making subtle, sustainable life changes, you're retaining as much lean body mass as possible, and you're not sending your hormones into a tizzy by drastically reducing what energy it's used to receiving, so it has less reason to rebel and store any extra energy you give it.0 -
just for the record, the arguments against 1200 calorie diets are directed at the METHOD, not the PERSON. there are a million threads on here where an OP posts about their 1200 calorie diet, gets negative feedback about that diet, and proceeds to take all of the negative feedback as direct personal insults.
it's almost never a direct personal insult until that happens. then they respond with their own insults and the thread gets derailed into a pissing contest.
so if you're going to post about 1200 calorie diets, be mature enough to understand that:
a) you will get negative feedback
b) the feedback should not be taken as personal insults
there are many arguments against 1200 calorie diets. a simply search will yield an abundance of threads and an afternoon's worth of reading. however, for a very small percentage of women, who have taken the time to read all of those threads, double check their numbers, and ensure that their nutritional goals are being met, 1200 may be an acceptable calorie goal. nobody disputes that. those women do exist and some have taken the time to understand and verify the science behind their choice. for those women, i simply say "more power to you!".
however, for everyone else, why deprive yourself of the pleasure of food for the rest of your life to stick with a 1200 calorie diet when you can get the same (or better) results eating a bit more? it seems like punishment to me. i don't understand why anyone would want to punish themselves. oh well...
personally, if i never see the number "1200" again on here, it will be too soon. i actually hate the "1200" threads.0 -
All I know is that there are far too many people who said they 'successfully' lost at 1200 and are now maintaining on only 1200 too. I will do what I can to avoid that, thanks.Where does the "rest of your life" straw man come from? I don't know anybody who expects to spend the rest of their life losing weight - it's a temporary process to get to a specific goal.0 -
Why not just let people do what they want and assume they have a modicum of personal responsibility with regards to their own health and the way their body reacts?0
-
Why not just let people do what they want and assume they have a modicum of personal responsibility with regards to their own health and the way their body reacts?
^^^^ this.0 -
I know everyones different.
However i dont need science to know that i had no energy and was hungry at just 1300 calories. Now at 1600 calories i feel awesome and have actually lost weight a little quicker?! I can be patient and lose slow since i hope to make this ongoing. Not a diet.0 -
Tagging to read some of these studies and add my thoughts at some point.0
-
Tagging to read some of these studies and add my thoughts at some point.
^^what he said0 -
INterested.0
-
Tagging to read some of these studies and add my thoughts at some point.
^^what he said
Tagging to read what they say.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Considering that we are living in the real world and not a laboratory, with so many variables and confounding factors at play, I believe this ultimately comes down to opinion, not science. Sad but true.
Many take the better safe than sorry approach. Many take the I want to lose weight now approach.
Honestly, humans are pretty tough animals and success is often a matter of degree, not a yes or no.
What would be nice is if people showed their concern for people they believe are doing something unhealthy in a way less incongruous with their professed concern.0 -
I'm wondering if this thread should have been titled "the case against <1200 calorie diets"? because as I understand it the 1200 calorie mark is the low end but still inside the threshold of a healthy amount for certain people.
I think the problem comes in when some people who are taller, more active or otherwise not prescribed it choose this number simply because it is the lowest possible offered option on here and they wanna be "hardcore" or "I mean it this time" or "doing everything I can" or "giving it all I got" or something. And then after choosing this lowest number possible as a target they proceed to workout and put themselves in a deeper deficit and then NET less than that amount either be exercise or by simply NOT being a short sedentary woman. I mean I'm sorry guys, I know you all wanna be a short inactive previously injured sometimes achy woman who has to lollygag on a chaise lounge some days and limit her foods severely but this 1200 net cal gig ain't for everyone....only the sexy people.
OOoops I forgot OP asked for science...does this count?
0 -
d'oh! i forgot my science.
here you go... the Meissner Effect!
0 -
I dont know the science behind it either but have been eating 1200 cals for over 3 yrs and have lost 115 lbs yup it works for me too
If your at your goal weight, why are you not eating at maintenance calories?? Is it because you were gaining?? Just wondering.
I'm 5'2, 44 yrs old, weigh 137 and I eat 1600-2000 calories, once I hit goal weight, hoping I will be eating around 2500 calories. I'm glad I get to eat more!!! JS :bigsmile:0 -
Tagging to read some of these studies and add my thoughts at some point.
Tagging to read what he said and then have my 1000 calorie dinner.0 -
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1108368
This was a randomized controlled study that basically showed that metabolism decreases with prolonged calorie restriction.
The problem with 1200 cal diets isn't that you can't lose weight on them it's the fact that your bmr decreases and makes maintenance that much harder, and who only wants to eat 1500 cals the rest of their life to maintain weight. With that said I think people just have to be smart and have a maintenance plan in place to build BMR back up if they find they gain weight when eating 1500 cals and not think their only option is to drop cals even lower.
I read this study and I found it very interesting. I'll respond first to the points you make and then cite a few things I found especially useful from the study for those who do not care to read it (it is a little jargon dense). The study doesn't show that metabolism decreases with prolonged calorie restriction; it shows that metabolism as measured in maintenance is lowered following an interval of calorie _deficit_, with the researchers claiming no difference between the slight calorie deficit+exercise group and the extreme calorie deficit group.
Secondly, in this study, the BMR reduction (and corresponding markers of body temperature and insulin) is considered a _positive_ thing because they are considered markers of longevity. The study results aren't conclusive about whether severe calorie restriction will make us live longer but it seems clear enough that the authors think that might be the case though more research is required.
Anyway, on to other things I liked in this study:
The graph of weight loss is compelling - note that the low calorie diet is 890 kcals which is quite a bit below 1200 kcals, and it was a non-real food diet that turned into real food a short way into the study:
Also this quote is very interesting:Fat-free mass was significantly reduced in the calorie restriction group (−5% [1%]), the calorie restriction with exercise group (−3% [1%]), and the very low-calorie diet group (−6% [1%]) compared with baseline and controls at month 6 (all P<.001).
because it shows that those whose calorie restriction was only 25% lost almost the same amount of lean mass as the folks who were on the very low calorie diet.
Osric
P.S. One last quote from the study in support of what I've written in my own words above:The metabolic adaptation in the calorie restriction with exercise group was similar to that observed in the calorie restriction group, suggesting that energy deficit rather than calorie restriction itself is driving the decrease in energy expenditure
...
Whether metabolic adaptation following calorie restriction persists during weight maintenance remains to be determined in humans.0 -
In to read later0
-
BUMP to actually read again later0
-
Figure 2 of that article is quite interesting, on the other hand, it is what MFP people calls a plateau.
The flat section in the graph is by design of the researchers. They stopped the very low calorie diet once those people had approached 15% weight loss and switched them over to real food so that by the end of the study they'd be eating a maintenance diet of real food (which by then they'd been doing for 2/3rds of the study, with the other groups not even having hit the 15% goal weight yet).
Osric0 -
Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.
And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.
That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.
The rest of us are pretty much trolls.
(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')0 -
Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.
And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.
That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.
The rest of us are pretty much trolls.
(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')
I wouldn't call folks like you bookmarking the thread to read "trolls" 0 -
just for the record, the arguments against 1200 calorie diets are directed at the METHOD, not the PERSON. there are a million threads on here where an OP posts about their 1200 calorie diet, gets negative feedback about that diet, and proceeds to take all of the negative feedback as direct personal insults.
it's almost never a direct personal insult until that happens. then they respond with their own insults and the thread gets derailed into a pissing contest.
so if you're going to post about 1200 calorie diets, be mature enough to understand that:
a) you will get negative feedback
b) the feedback should not be taken as personal insults
there are many arguments against 1200 calorie diets. a simply search will yield an abundance of threads and an afternoon's worth of reading. however, for a very small percentage of women, who have taken the time to read all of those threads, double check their numbers, and ensure that their nutritional goals are being met, 1200 may be an acceptable calorie goal. nobody disputes that. those women do exist and some have taken the time to understand and verify the science behind their choice. for those women, i simply say "more power to you!".
however, for everyone else, why deprive yourself of the pleasure of food for the rest of your life to stick with a 1200 calorie diet when you can get the same (or better) results eating a bit more? it seems like punishment to me. i don't understand why anyone would want to punish themselves. oh well...
personally, if i never see the number "1200" again on here, it will be too soon. i actually hate the "1200" threads.
ALL of this ^^^^ especially the bit in bold. I really don't understand why people get so defensive over 1200 calorie diets, when the vast majority of people can get the same results, or even better, by eating quite a lot more. I don't see what's so fantastic about 1200 calorie diets that make them so worth defending.
This goes a bit beyond the "magic number 1200" but generally speaking I think there are legitimate reasons in some individuals for choosing an aggressive deficit. Certainly depends on context.0 -
IM NOT A SCIENTISTS, AND I FAILED IT IN HIGH SCHOOL. THAT BEING SAID, FOR ME, THE BEST SCIENCE IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I LOST 95 POUNDS, IN LESS THAN 11 MONTHS, EATING 1200 CALORIES A DAY.
No, my metabolism did not get screwed, I have been at maintenance for 2 months now, eating an average of about 2000 calories a day when you factor in my crazy weekends, and I am still slowly losing.
No, I did not feel tired, starved, or like I had no energy...
No, I did not lose only muscle, I lost mostly fat, BODY FAT WENT FROM 44% TO 22%... however, with any large loss of weight, muscle loss can be expected...
No, I am not flabby, I exercised since day 1, with both cardio and strength training...
My scientific proof??? All I have are my before and after pictures...
MAYBE IM A SNOWFLAKE, SINCE I DID NOT EXPERIENCE THIS END OF THE WORLD YOUR GOING TO DIE STARVATION MODE "MYTH"
All I know, is I lost the weight, I feel great, and keeping it off has been fairly easy, since I am still losing after transitioning to maintenance...
***I chose 1200 because I wanted fast results. I know my personality, and all my other failed attempts at weight loss were because it seemed like such a long daunting road... I wanted it gone fast, and thats what I did. NO REGRETS!0 -
Long-Term Effects of Low-Calorie Diet on the Metabolic Syndrome in Obese Nondiabetic Patients
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/28/6/1485.long
I couldn't find enough information in this one to say much about the diet described. It seems that the participants lost a very moderate amount of weight (about 9kg) over the course of 24 months and the researchers concluded that weight loss treatment alone is effective in reducing the risks due to metabolic syndrome.
Thanks for the reference
Osric0 -
The flat section in the graph is by design of the researchers. They stopped the very low calorie diet once those people had approached 15% weight loss and switched them over to real food so that by the end of the study they'd be eating a maintenance diet of real food (which by then they'd been doing for 2/3rds of the study, with the other groups not even having hit the 15% goal weight yet).
Osric
Ah yes, I missed that part while skipping through the article. Thank you! Thus the article got even more irrelevant unless someone actually expects a linear energy expenditure despite the weight loss.0 -
Taking inventory... So, we've had 2 posts listing publications, and one linking to other threads that (with adequate digging) link have at least one publication link.
And truckloads of personal testimonials for and against 1200 calories.
That means that 2 people (okay, I'll go with 3) provided the OP with what she requested.
The rest of us are pretty much trolls.
(Please note: I included myself in 'trolls')
Oh i'm sorry I thought we were chiming in as "test subjects".0 -
I know everyones different.
However i dont need science to know that i had no energy and was hungry at just 1300 calories. Now at 1600 calories i feel awesome and have actually lost weight a little quicker?! I can be patient and lose slow since i hope to make this ongoing. Not a diet.
Preach! 1300 did not work for me either. I'm also at 1600 and still losing. But I also know what works for me does not work for everyone either.
Do what works for you :drinker:0 -
Long-term effects of a very low calorie diet (Nutrilett) in obesity treatment. A prospective, randomized, comparison between VLCD and a hypocaloric diet+behavior modification and their combination.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488
I couldn't figure out how to get to the full version of this one. Its most interesting conclusion was:Twenty-four months weight maintenance and drop out rates are independent of whether the initial treatment commences with VLCD or a hypocaloric diet
which means that in these test subjects, maintenance and behaviour was not impacted whether they lost their initial weight quickly or slowly. The diet used was < 500kcals per day which seems super severe. The study was done in 1997, which doesn't seem too old ... I wasn't aware you could put people on such a low calorie regimen without really strong justification.
This one:Long-term low-protein, low-calorie diet and endurance exercise modulate metabolic factors associated with cancer risk
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/6/1456.long
looks like a good starting point for a new thread on Paleo vs low-protein, since it makes the exact opposite claims. i.e. Paleo supporters believe that protein is essential for lowering IGF-1 and other risk factors associated with cancer, while this study shows that endurance cardio combined with very low protein is beneficial. The data for the study look too inconclusive to me but they are suggestive.
Osric0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions