I abandoned 1200 calories per day, and so should you

I'm currently on about 2000 kcal a day. For years, I haven't felt hunger, until now. I'm cooking my dinner, at the moment, and because I'm feeling hungry, I'm a bit clueless, about what to do, as the food is not yet ready...As, I am usually a slow eater, I don't want to 'inhale' the food, once it's cooked. So, in the last half hour, I've drunk 800ml of water, and I'm planning on drinking some more, as it's helped a bit.

www.fitnessfrog.com has answered most of my questions. Unlike, some other websites, that contradicts.

1200 calories is ideal......for a long lunch:drinker: :bigsmile: thank me, thank me very much!

I aim for 1,200 cals a day, but I accept that sometimes it's not enough, especially if I didn't choose nutritious food during the day or went to a restaurant for a treat.

I tried to bump my calories up to 1,500 a couple of weeks back but bizarrely felt more hungry and kept going over my calories; and actually put on some weight, so I went back to what works for me. I'm 5'3".

You felt hungry because your Leptin levels returned. It happens to everyone. I maintain around 2100 with minimal activity and even easing up by 100 a week to get there I had moments of hunger. Hunger is a terrible queue for whether or not you're eating enough. Depending on how long you stayed at that amount and your logging accuracy can make a difference, too. Plus water weight fluctuations from adding calories and how you went about that. I'm 5'3.5" .

I treat hunger as a cue that I haven't had enough nutrition. When eating around 1,200 cals I am purposely eating more nutrient dense food so I reach my macro goals, therefore I don't feel hungry between meals. Whereas when I upped my calories the extra allowance tempted me to snack on less nutritious food and I was more inclined to eat even more calories.

I'll stick to what works for me, I think.

Yep I abandoned 1200 cals a day. 3 times a week for 40 hours each time I eat 0 calories & then for the other times I'll eat about 3000.

But then I enjoy being healthy, being able to heal from a nasty VMO injury in a week rather than months & love being able to eat what I like & still lose weight.

BTW my TDEE is 1900 roughly... so for me eating more than that every day would lead to gaining.

Ah yes, the famous Minnesota starvation study. What I pulled from a scientific study is the following:

Like most of us on a diet, their metabolisms did slow down. In fact, after they'd been on this diet for a while -- we're talking months, not days here -- their body fat percentage got to a point below what is considered minimal to live on (about 5% for a guy, 6% for a gal). At this point, their metabolism had slowed down as much as 40%. But -- and this is the important point for those of us on a diet -- they continued to lose weight. Even with that big of a slow down in their BMR, they were still operating at a great enough calorie deficit to lose. If this is true with a 40% slow down, it's even more true when the slow down is somewhere in the 14 - 22% range, which is more where if falls with normal dieting.

The important point to note about this study is that it was performed on normal-weighted men. When starvation studies have been done on the obese, they find that the impact of the starvation diet is much less. Our bodies have fat stores designed to get us through a famine (i.e., a diet) and when we have a famine (i.e., a diet), those fat stores get used. The drastic slowdown of the metabolism doesn't happen until those fat stores are largely gone -- which takes a lot longer for the obese than for those who only have to lose 10-25 pounds.

So yes, I do see your point. I feel the study was flawed, but there is indeed much to take away from this study in part. Sorry, neurology is my forte. However, the starvation mode theory is, for some reason, was still taught in med school in the 80s and 90s.

I do agree. 1200 calories is more than enough for me when I am making wise food choices. In fact, I am more satisfied on a 1200 calorie intake when eating fruits, vegetables, and lean meats.

I have a quick question. This has been asked a couple of times, but not addressed. I'm 5'3" and weigh 190. I've lost 14 pounds (8 pounds before starting MFP) but have a long way to go. MFP also suggested the 1200 cal for me to meet my goals, but these are net calories. When I exercise, and depending on the exercise, I eat anywhere from 1400 to 1600 calories, because I eat my exercise calories, so my net calories stay right at 1200 calories. So, my question is, when you all discuss the calories and whether 1200 is a good, sustainable goal, are you talking about net calories?

Really? Craziest thing, but I've been netting between 1,000 and 1,200 calories a day and exercising, and I'm losing an average of 3.2 lbs. a week.

I've also read many posts from girls who lost on 1200 calories..then could never eat at maintenance without gaining. So it ruins your metabolism..and you have to starve forever to stay at your goal weight.

Eat more…and lose slower ..think of the end game… to be able to eat normal again!!!!

I've also read many posts from girls who lost on 1200 calories..then could never eat at maintenance without gaining. So it ruins your metabolism..and you have to starve forever to stay at your goal weight.

Eat more…and lose slower ..think of the end game… to be able to eat normal again!!!!

Any person losing on any calorie limit is going to have
1. Initial weight gain of 3-5 pounds
2. Reduced metabolism due to the loss of mass / increase of efficiency

I have lost on 1200 for a long period, then was able to maintain at a level very close (even slightly higher) than what the website suggested for maintenance. It really is a highly individual thing. For some it works for some it doesn't.