Not to beat a dead horse....

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

Agreed...

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

^That

Since I've chimed in on a couple of the 1200 posts, I'll bite.

It's not 1200 that I'm 'against', it's extreme calorie restriction. I just don't want anyone to be hungry, nor set unrealistic goals for themselves and give up.

Sure, some people are just fine on 1200+. But most people aren't.

MFP set me to 1200 when I started out because I was all 'Imma lose 2lbs a week and be awesome skinny so fast! YEAH!" That didn't happen. I was miserable, I was discouraged. I was hungry. I honestly knew nothing about weight loss other than extreme calorie restriction. I won't get into the blah blah blahs of it but starving myself was what worked in the past. That's what I was doing because 1200 calories a day is in no way an appropriate amount of fuel for my life.

And then I found in place of a road map. I read, I went to links, I measured my body, I used online calculators of all sorts, I read some more, used more calculators, took an online class on nutrition and continue to read. Basically I spent a few months learning about, well, being healthy.

I feel a lot more confidant about actually losing weight and being healthy now that I've learned a few things about weight loss, nutrition and exercise. I just want to encourage others, who may be in a similar situation I was when I started out to do the same, I guess.

There may be a lot of snark in the forums but, armed with the search function and a few key phrases, there sure is a lot of really great information readily available.

I think the thing to remember too, that I see people eating is, certain people who want to eat only 1200 cals a day are not eating healthy 1200 cals. If you eat fast food, and sweets, chips to add up to your daily then thats one thing.

MFP cals for me says 1700 or something. I changed it to 1200 and I make sure to eat fruits, veggies, protein, dairy, fiber at each meal or somewhere during the day. I am successfully losing weight at a healthy weight. Not that is works for everyone, but just contributing to the conversation.

I think you will find that no one has a problem with netting 1200 calories. It's the ones who want to net less than 1200 that will get themselves into trouble.

just try it and see if it works for you.

In my experience, there are two kinds of people who say they are eating 1200 calories.

Group A is the 1200 calories and more group. They always eat *at least* 1200 calories and include at least a part of their exercise calories, usually eating closer to 1500-1800 calories. While some people will wonder if 1200 is a good net goal for them if they're particularly tall, active, or male, most of us aren't concerned about the people NETTING 1200 calories.

Group B is the 1200 or less group. They always eat *less than* 1200 calories, ignoring exercise calories, and often mention that they work out for 2 hours a day, are training for a 5K, etc. They may also be tall, active, or male, but they eat 1200 or less per day, and usually their diaries show an amount closer to 900-1100 per day. They put in a very aggressive goal and then often ignore the recommendations and eat even less.

There are, of course, circumstances where 1200 calories GROSS are appropriate, but too many people here on MFP who eat 1200 GROSS actually shouldn't be, in my experience.

And recently, we've discovered a subset. Group A people masquerading as Group B people. :huh:

just try it and see if it works for you.

It works for me, it works for everyone when done right. It's simple math. Math doesn't only work for the obese. It does take careful logging but it's not impossible. The people it doesn't work for are usually logging intermittently or inaccurately, impatient, overestimating their exercise or all of the above.

OP to be honest it sounds like you are fine. I think it just depends on the person. My setup has been similar to yours and worked great. I only recently switched to TDEE because I wanted to work with more of an average with more calories and a slightly slower rate of loss, but I think they both work fine.

Sometimes people don't use their heads and get overly defensive about constructive criticism, and I think that is what makes people blow up.

I started with 1200 calories a day in August, and as of today I've lost 14 lbs. Not a huge loss, but as long as the numbers keep going down, I can handle it. If I'm being totally honest though, most days I probably have more like 1300-1400 calories. I work crazy shift work, and it makes it hard sometimes. I'm female, 48 yrs old, 5'2", and currently 186 lbs., so I have quite a bit to lose. I'm also very sedentary, my job involves sitting for 12 hrs a day. I take a mile walk when I can, and always eat those few calories back. For me, 1200 is probably about right. I will admit, though, that at the end of the day when I've already consumed my calories, if my stomach is growling and I'm absolutely miserably hungry, I will have a small snack anyway. I kind of play it by ear and as long as I aim for 'about' 1200 a day I'm satisfied. I'm not real religious about it.

Reposting my previous reply to a similar topic:

"How did you set up your MFP account? You need to pick an accurate activity level. Too many folks pick "sedentary" when they are actually lightly active or even more. Also set your goal to lose no more than 1 pound/week to achieve a sustainable weight loss. Plateaus, inadequate intake & hunger are the biggest cause for people to quit. View this as a lifestyle change, not a diet. You need to find a happy medium between eating too much & dieting, so you can live with it for life! After finding your actually calorie goal, then eat back exercise calories. I'm not sure how you are measuring your exercise calories? If using MFP then most folks find their calories burns high & thus eat back 1/2-2/3 of the actual calorie burn. Other methods of measuring vary in accuracy depending on the device.

If you prefer a more constant daily calorie goal, then you can switch to the TDDE-deficit method. The following I just posted in another thread:

If you let MFP set your calories, then yes, you eat back exercise calories. I decided to use the TDEE method mostly, because I didn't like the constantly changing calorie goal. ... If you want a more constant calorie goal, then I'd switch to the TDEE-deficit method & self-set your calorie & macro goals. For protein, ensure you are getting AT LEAST 1 gram/pound lean body mass--for most women that's 100-125 grams/day. Your fat should be set at 0.4 grams/pound of lean body mass. Carbs are whatever is left. ... meet your calorie goal most every day!!! If after 3-4 weeks, you're not losing then adjust your daily calorie goal by 100 calories & watch for another 3-4 weeks. You may need more calories or less calories, it can be a little trial & error from the TDEE-deficit calculation. If you need to lose >20 pounds, set your deficit at TDEE-20%. If your need to lose 10-20 pounds, then TDEE-10 to 15%, and once you're down to <10 pounds to lose, set your goal to TDEE-5-10%.

Meeting your macros, especially protein, is very important! You want to lose fat not muscle (lean body mass), so protein intake is very important. The more lean body mass you lose, the lower your BMR will be. That's where folks get lost in the "starvation mode" idea. It's not so much borderline/low calories cause "starvation," as it robs you of your lean body mass, and as the lean body mass drops, so does your BMR (i.e. daily basal calorie burn). Resistance training/heavy lifting is also essential for maintaining lean body mass/muscle as well."

Here's a link to Heybales TDEE calculator: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/heybales

"Go to heybales profile page & look for the link to his Excel spreadsheet. It's a few lines down from "About Me." The spreadsheet is great! I've been using it for 8 months now & have lost tons of weight, as has my family. The instructions are at the top of the document. You change the values in "yellow" & the others will adjust to give you your %BF, BMR, TDEE & macro goals. It also allows you to enter your activity in "hours." I redo my numbers monthly or after I've lost 5 pounds. The second tab also allows you to track your values over time, so everything is in one simple spreadsheet!"



Hope this helps! Good luck!!!

"Also, like others have said, most can lose weight on more than 1200 calories, so why would you force yourself to eat less? I completely understand though, that some short petite women can eat 1200 calories and be just fine. "


I'm one of those short petite women; 5'3" with about 8-9 more lbs to my goal. My daily calorie budget is set to 1200 which sometimes honestly is a struggle to meet when I try to drink 8 glasses of water. I just have no room for food. I exercise at least 5 times a week for 45 minutes or more bringing my goal up to over 1500 calories sometimes. I've found that my best weight loss per week is when I eat back some but not all of my exercise calories. 1200 net with extras built in for exercise is working fine for me. I don't eat junk food, have a very balanced diet of fruits and nuts and veggies and protein and fiber and even get to eat ice cream and cake in moderation.

"choose "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" when that is not a feasible goal for them. "

Why is it not a feasible goal for them? Losing up to 2 lbs. per week is considered a safe, conservative goal outside of this forum. Even MFP allows all users to choose up to 2 lbs/week. It would be easy enough to program it so only people with X or greater pounds to lose may select that goal. It lets them select it because it's considered safe.

It depends...it is a feasible goal if you have quite a few Lbs to lose...it is not a feasible goal if you have very few cosmetic Lbs to lose...you simply don't have the fat stores neccesary to lose that quickly.

I agree if you only have a few cosmetic pounds to lose that you're probably not going to ACHIEVE it in 2 lb/week increments because your margin for error is slim and you need to eat 1200 or so at least on average. But it's not unhealthy to AIM for that goal if you have the BMR and activity level to do so. I see people saying you shouldn't shoot for 2 lbs/week unless you're 50 lbs. overweight or more. That's silly.

I can AIM for flying to the moon on the back of the cow while the cat plays the fiddle but that doesn't mean it will happen. It's less frustration, less discouragement, and more satisfying to have a reasonable and attainable goal.

I am 5ft and 117lbs and lightly active and I lose plenty at 1350. In fact it is the lowest I can go without feeling lethargic. Going lower is counterproductive to losing weight for me (and yes I did try, because MFP seemed to think I should eat 1270), because I move considerable less and if I do work out I don't actually have the same energy to put into it. It doesn't mean I don't lose weight eating a lower number, but I actually lose the same amount, so I'd rather eat a bit more.