**Controversial** Eating 1,200 Calories or Less
Options
Replies
-
I never "got" that one either. If you eat the calories you burned, then how the heck are you supposed to lose weight?
This may be fine for someone maintaining, but not me for sure. If I eat burned calories up then I can't lose a thing.
LOL...
QFT0 -
Been on this nearly a year. My caloric intake is normally between 1,200 where I can lose weight or 1,300 where I can maintain my weight. Due to age and health conditions (osteoporosis and osteoarthritis), bad knees (bone on bone arthritic) there's not a whole lot I can do that will improve a deteriorating condition. I was told to stop the cycling that it was causing more damage to my knees and concentrate on more of the flexing type exercises (isometric) instead and this is after a year of orthopedic study and Supartz shots to the knees.0
-
This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.
Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.0 -
Whatever! I am 68 years old, not thirty something.0
-
Whatever! I am 68 years old, not thirty something.
And what does that have to with anything, exactly?0 -
[Yes, but fat stores are just...fat. You can live off them for some time in suboptimal conditions, but you will suffer malnutrition long before you reach any kind of goal weight.
What do you think dieting is? All caloric deficits, no matter how small, require the dieter to "live off them for some time".0 -
Hummm.....my information here told me that a 5' 10" female should be eating 1,350 calories a day to lose 2 lbs. a week. I will have to try this out as I have never counted calories before. Think I will stick with 1,350 and see what happens. I don't want to get sick!0
-
agreed.This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.
Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.0 -
If we look back at the OP we will see that the original responses on Net calories etc was not based on the 1200 she was eating but the additional cardio and weights 5 times per week with no mention of eating any of the exercise calories back.
Actually 1200 seems quite high compared to some on this site, 500 calories now seem to be a regular thing and this is often twinned with 300-600 calorie burns.
So whether 1200 is considered low or not surely a net daily calorie intake of 900 or less can't be good?0 -
Well, I'm 5'2" and MFP tells me to eat only 1,200 calories a day. Sooo I don't know why people are freaking out.
No one should be getting angry at what another person chooses to eat or not - that's just silly.
I am 5'2 and eat between 1600-1900 calories, See ticker below!!! :bigsmile:
MFP is set up that you SUPPOSE to eat back all or most of your exercise calories. That's why when you put in your exercise your calories go up!! :ohwell:
Did you start off eating 1699-1900 calories to lose our is that what you eat now? Good job by the way
0 -
Actually 1200 seems quite high compared to some on this site, 500 calories now seem to be a regular thing and this is often twinned with 300-600 calorie burns.
A lot of that (if not most of that) is anecdotal. Over-estimating burn is almost as common as under-estiming intake.
It is very difficult to have any kind of meaningful excess burn if consuming sub-500 calories for any length of time. Energy has to come from somewhere, and once the glycogen is depleted and the blood serum is flat due to very low food intake, it simply won't be possible to be very active.
So I don't give much credence to most of those self-reported "situations".
Athletes will universally tell you that the quickest way to impact their ability to train is to put them on a long term restricted diet.0 -
My understanding is that, for women at least, our bodies -need- a minimum of 1200 calories a day to function properly. If you constantly go under 1200 calories a day your body decides it's "starving" and will start to break down muscles. These muscles include our internal organs, which are nothing more than muscles. These are the reasons I have been given, hope it helps!0
-
Actually 1200 seems quite high compared to some on this site, 500 calories now seem to be a regular thing and this is often twinned with 300-600 calorie burns.
A lot of that (if not most of that) is anecdotal. Over-estimating burn is almost as common as under-estiming intake. It is very difficult to have any kind of meaningful excess burn if consuming sub-500 calories for any length of time, so I don't give much credence to most of those "situations".
I agree that there is an over estimation of burns but then you take a look at the profile pictures and you realise that some of it isn't anecdotal0 -
I agree that there is an over estimation of burns but then you take a look at the profile pictures and you realise that some of it isn't anecdotal
Those aren't the bodies of people who are physically active. There are issues there that go well beyond "is it ok to eat below 1200 calories". Those people should not be on MFP, they should be under proper medical supervision.0 -
...Back then [200 years ago] if there were any fat people, it was the rich or wealthy... Today is all backwards where a head of lettuce costs more than a .99 cent double cheeseburger.
Yes. Off topic (sorry OP) but interesting point. Is it a generalisation to say calorie-dense food is cheaper than errr... calorie-sparse food? I can walk to the corner shop and see, in the first two aisles, shelves containing enough calories to feed a hungry horse for a lifetime.
What's the answer - cheeseburger tax? Chocolate tax? They tried to bring in a pasty tax in the UK... there was murder over it.0 -
I'm under 120 pounds, have an office job, and my maintenance calories are only about 1600 if I can't work out. 1200 is, frankly, on the high side if I want to lose anything, even a slow loss. I don't care what people say because I've seen it on my own body and I know what works for me. Great if you're a 110 pound lady who hits the gym an hour a day and can pound 2000 calories a day, but that's not my life and I can't eat like it is.
You're NETTING 1,200 calories then. Yes? Then you're good.I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"
Similarly, I'm sure plenty eating 2k, hell 4k+ don't get decent micronutrient levels, while some eating 900 probably do much better.
Most of the 'reasons' seem to be accounting for situations that may not be at all relevant to the person in question.
Quite like, as mentioned above, the bible, as it goes.
-If there were posts from young men asking if they should eat VLCD, they would get the same responses. However, those posts are practically nonexistent- I've literally never seen one.
-If someone is elderly, very short, and NETTING 1,100 calories a day I'm sure no one would say anything that bad in response. 1,100 NET calories for someone like that isn't unreasonable.
-No one should eat ONLY 900 calories a day unless they are VERY VERY short/VERY VERY old. Even then, doing so without doctor supervision is iffy.I never "got" that one either. If you eat the calories you burned, then how the heck are you supposed to lose weight?
This may be fine for someone maintaining, but not me for sure. If I eat burned calories up then I can't lose a thing.
Because your body needs fuel to survive. MFP does not account for exercise- so if you exercise, they WANT and EXPECT you to eat those calories back (at least 50% of them).This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.
Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.
No one "blames" Low Calorie Dieters for anything. 1,200 calorie diets become and issue because people will set their goal for 1,200, but then burn 200+ calories, which leaves them with a NET calorie count of less than 1,000 for the day. That is NOT okay. You should not eat below your BMR unless you are a very special snowflake who is being medically supervised.0 -
Yes, when I started I told the site I exercised 5 days a week...this has not changed.
and YES I DO CARE. I am very dedicated to loosing weight- and find this site to be a great help for me... I like being able to get advice for people...including yours...
MFP doesn't believe that you're going to do your exercise which is why it gives you more calories when you log it. If you don't believe me then go change your goals and say zero exercise...your calorie goal won't change provided you keep everything else constant.
1200 NET calories isn't a huge issue for most women...grossing 1200 and netting 500 calories per day is and should be done under the supervision of a health care professional. You have to understand that you have a basal calorie burn...the calories your body needs just to pump your blood and work your lungs, etc...when you do VLCD for extended periods of time your body starts shutting down "non-essential" functions like growing hair and nails and what not because it's needs that energy elsewhere.
There is no one size fits all magic number and if you're netting 1200 you're probably fine...if you're super short or super old or whatever you can probably get away with netting a bit less depending on how much fat you have stored and being that you would be a statistical outlier. Just keep in mind that the leaner you get the more damaging this becomes.
I've just seen way too many of these and nobody seems to listen until something bad actually happens to them...even then, they usually try to find some other excuse than their 500 calories per day as to why they don't have a menstrual cycle anymore and their hair is falling out by the handful in the shower.
If you have plenty of fat to burn it comes from there first. that's how humans work. if you don't eat enough you burn fat. the reason they say 1200 calories is for nutrition not because your body will shut down. if you have no fat to spare then it's trouble. Most of us don't have that problem and that's why we are here. 1200 calories Net won't kill anyone. It's not starvation if you get exercise and don't eat it back. Especially if you are a smallish height woman. 1200 net calories a day is fine. It's not the calories that the 1200 is about it's is about the nutrients. 1200 calories a day is the minimum they recommend for nutrient levels this is with or without exercise. exercising does not change your nutrient levels. They state this in the why 1200 calories section. You can go under 1200 calories with exercise just fine. at this point I am under a pound a week loss at 1200 calories with a lot to lose. It's not going to hurt me to not eat back my exercise calories. Yeah, if you are a big guy it might hurt. If you are already stick thin it might hurt but for many of us it's not a big deal and it's very irritating to have people who aren't in my shoes try and get sanctimonious about it. especially when they haven't walked a mile in my shoes.0 -
I'm under 120 pounds, have an office job, and my maintenance calories are only about 1600 if I can't work out. 1200 is, frankly, on the high side if I want to lose anything, even a slow loss. I don't care what people say because I've seen it on my own body and I know what works for me. Great if you're a 110 pound lady who hits the gym an hour a day and can pound 2000 calories a day, but that's not my life and I can't eat like it is.
You're NETTING 1,200 calories then. Yes? Then you're good.I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"
Similarly, I'm sure plenty eating 2k, hell 4k+ don't get decent micronutrient levels, while some eating 900 probably do much better.
Most of the 'reasons' seem to be accounting for situations that may not be at all relevant to the person in question.
Quite like, as mentioned above, the bible, as it goes.
-If there were posts from young men asking if they should eat VLCD, they would get the same responses. However, those posts are practically nonexistent- I've literally never seen one.
-If someone is elderly, very short, and NETTING 1,100 calories a day I'm sure no one would say anything that bad in response. 1,100 NET calories for someone like that isn't unreasonable.
-No one should eat ONLY 900 calories a day unless they are VERY VERY short/VERY VERY old. Even then, doing so without doctor supervision is iffy.I never "got" that one either. If you eat the calories you burned, then how the heck are you supposed to lose weight?
This may be fine for someone maintaining, but not me for sure. If I eat burned calories up then I can't lose a thing.
Because your body needs fuel to survive. MFP does not account for exercise- so if you exercise, they WANT and EXPECT you to eat those calories back (at least 50% of them).This is soooo true. You do not have to be skinny to be considered malnourished.
Nor do you have to eat 1200 calories. 1200 well-planned, micronutrient-heavy calories eaten with thought about the macros as well is not leaving anyone malnourished. 1200 calories of nonfat yogurt and Special K bars probably is, but that's equally possible on 1800 or 2800 calories. Let's not blame lower calories for people not getting adequate nutrients.
No one "blames" Low Calorie Dieters for anything. 1,200 calorie diets become and issue because people will set their goal for 1,200, but then burn 200+ calories, which leaves them with a NET calorie count of less than 1,000 for the day. That is NOT okay. You should not eat below your BMR unless you are a very special snowflake who is being medically supervised.
Quoting myself to add this: The "starvation mode" posts that always show up on 1,200 calorie threads are INCORRECT. However, just because your body doesn't go into starvation mode doesn't make NETTING less than 1,200 calories a day healthy for MOST of the population.
To make sure I'm being absolutely clear: When we revolt against 1,200 calorie diets, we are revolting against NETTING LESS THAN 1,200 calories a day. If you NET at least 1,200 calories, then more power to you.0 -
What works for one person doesn't work for everyone. I think people sometimes run off at the mouth way too much! Just because someone can eat high calories doesn't mean everyone can. There is different ages, fitness levels, medical conditions that need to be taken into consideration. Some think low carb, some think low fat, some don't watch anything but calories. Find what works for you and go with that. Listen to what your body needs.0
-
I'm always amused that no one seems to be THAT bothered by a 20 year old 6'4" bloke well muscled bloke eating 1400 calories, say.
But you get a 50 year old 4'11" woman eating 1100 calories and "OMG she's gonna die!"
You mean Coke Advert Guy? Noone gets to criticise Coke Ad Guy. That's one dude that's doing everything right and his pics speak in volumes which drown out the chatter on here.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions