Yes, 1200 calorie diets work!

I have to agree. I'm glad he's losing the weight, but in the end, it's dangerous and the negative effects can and probably will pile up on him.

I like how proponents of the 1200 calorie diet usually say, "Shuddup! Everyone is different!" Yes, everyone is different yet 1200 calories is somehow as good for a 200+ pound man as it is for a 120 pound woman. O....k.

It's all about what works for you and being reasonable about your goals.

For myself, I've lost 15 lb in 4 months at 1200-1500 per day. At an average of 0.75/week, it's been relatively steady so I feel as though my calories are working for me.

Don't hate, appreciate!

No one's hating. You're welcome to eat 1200 calories a day if you like.

My doctor told me that anything under 1,800 was basically starving your body. BUT I have several friends that keep their caloric intake around 1,200 calories and they aren't starving themselves but actually eating all natural and real foods which tend to be high in nutrients and low in calories. I try to eat about 1,800-2,000 calories to follow my doctors directions but its hard some days because I won't starve myself or force myself to eat if I'm full. It's all about choices. I try to avoid process foods and eating out which leaves lean meats, fruits, veggies, and whole grains and it is absolutely amazing how much you can eat without feeling guilty.... I have learned it is more about the quality of food than quantity. Sure you can eat high calorie foods, but if its full of processed junk that gives you little to no nutrients whats the point?? You can be overeating and starving at a nutrient level. This was my problem for years.

It probably just shocks people when they hear you only eat 1,200 which is almost the calories in a Big Mac & Fries. 1200 calories can be plenty if you pick the right foods.

Being "full" is not an indicator of what is "plenty for you". You could fill yourself up on celery to the point where you couldn't eat another bite but you aren't being healthy. I would recommend you stick to your doctor's advice.

5'4", 170 lbs., female, totally sedentary. I treat 1200 as my yellow light - I don't treat it as a hard and fast limit. So I'm over it often, but not by much. I eat my exercise calories, so this is net to be clear. Even so, my fitbit shows that my daily deficit is arround 500 a day.

I'm never "starving", I don't get "hangry", and my hair isn't falling out. I had a burger and a beer last night because I wanted them, so I'm not depriving myself of anything. At worst, I have a little trouble meeting my protein counts on days that I didn't plan perfectly ahead of time. I'm losing just at that pound a week (after the water weight drop the first couple days), sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. I log everything I eat and all of my activity.

If I ate at 1600, I'd never lose the 50 pounds I need to without drastically increasing my physical activity. Which is a goal of mine, and one I'm slowly working towards, but is it really so awful that I'm in the 1200-1300 range in the meantime?

I am 5'3 162 lbs and I have a sedentary office job. MFP told me 1270 to lose 1 lb a week. Too little calories for me. I workout 4 - 5 days a week. I switched my goal to my BMR around 1400-1500 and still eat back some or most of my exercise calories. It is possible to eat more than 1200 even when sedentary and not working out.

I workout 4 - 5 days a week. I switched my goal to my BMR around 1400-1500 and still eat back some or most of my exercise calories. It is possible to eat more than 1200 even when sedentary and not working out.

These two things contradict each other (working out 4-5 days a week and being sedentary/not working out). Can you clarify? I have worked out three times in the past three weeks for under 30 minutes, personally, and my steps are under 2000 / day. That's what I'm defining sedentary is when it comes to me.

To anyone who is losing weight eating very little calories (1200-ish) do ANY of you actually track your body composition to determine if you are losing muscle?

I do. Since I started at over 40% body fat as it is, I haven't seen anything but a decrease of body fat. Mind you that I'm using an impedence scale, so it's just a trend I'm following and not the actual numbers, but the calipers put me over 40% as well before I started using the scale.

I wonder if there's just kind of a minimum LBM that a person can't really dip below without actually outright starving themselves though. What do you think?

Well there certainly is a minimum LBM that if you drop below would result in death but if you were truly starving I don't think you would stop losing LBM until you actually died.

The reason you lose muscle is either you are protein malnourished and your body cannibalizes your muscle to get the needed nutrients or you are exercising and causing microtears and damage to your muscles that you simply aren't supplying your body with enough energy in the form of calories to conduct repairs so rather than fix the damage your body just ingests the damage tissue for fuel.

The concern with very high deficit diets is that you will lose weight quickly to be sure, but you will lose muscle also which will be very difficult to regain.

That's what I was thinking. There's sort of a bottom. I don't know that I have any muscle mass to lose at this level. Not that that translates to a bigger point of any kind. It's just something I wonder about.

I keep hearing "it's unsustainable for a long period of time" and "after a while your metabolism slows and you'll gain it all back when you start eating 'real food' again". What is that time frame? I've been at or about 1200 calories but currently don't work out and have a pretty sedentary job. I've been dropping about a pound a week and am only hungry sometimes (but it's nothing that a big glass of water won't fix).

I'm surprised a man who works out can sustain this. I'm 5'2", but don't work out - maybe that's the difference?

Am I "doomed" now because I've been eating "too few" calories? I keep hearing both sides of the argument to eat more and just don't know

I workout 4 - 5 days a week. I switched my goal to my BMR around 1400-1500 and still eat back some or most of my exercise calories. It is possible to eat more than 1200 even when sedentary and not working out.

These two things contradict each other (working out 4-5 days a week and being sedentary/not working out). Can you clarify? I have worked out three times in the past three weeks for under 30 minutes, personally, and my steps are under 2000 / day. That's what I'm defining sedentary is when it comes to me.

I have a sedentary job (office job), so I would normally select sedentary for my MFP setting, however that is just too little for me to eat and be happy. I changed my goal to stay closer to my BMR and I have my goal set to 1480 to eat daily. I workout 4-5 days a week and when I do I eat those exercise calories back netting usually around 1400.

Edit: When I started it this way, I finally lost my 1st lb! I was eating more than I though before. So I am just saying this because I am an inch smaller than you and not far by weight and I lose 1 lb a week at around 1400 to 1500 net.

First off congratulations with your success and for having the steadfastness of being CONSISTENT which is the key regardless of whether you're "right or wrong." Now...with that being said....ahem...

Welcome to the fitness and health industry and the internet. Not just for this thread but in general. This is long. But try reading research. People are too lazy to read nowadays whether it be joe blow fitnesstutor or an award winning phd researching these very matters! People don't want to read more than a paragraph or two. But you know what if it's too long then now we know why we know little about these things and result to opinions of emotional conjecture on a forum instead of data from research from years ago...that should be ready place knowledge. The earth is round by the way.

Lets get some disclaimers out of the way first. Everything is not hate or anything associated with it. Criticism is not always hate. Just in case anyone is confused. Sometimes people get frustrated and take away from their points by calling names. But the cult like/mob like tendencies in this industry tend to be frustrating.

A main point of criticism is that people start putting weight loss BEFORE health. Combine with personal anecdote(what "I" did/do), confusing causation with correlation, and the term "it works" and we're in a cluster bang of an industry. Well those "it works" body wraps also "work." So does HCG, so does cambogia,green tea extract, raspberry ketones and P90X.

The problem with eating 1200 calories is how much overall nutrition can you get from 1200 calories and what does this tell your body? How broad is one's intake to get in micronutrients?

People are treating their bodies and fat cells as an enemy. Sure "it works" but so does eating 500. How do you define what is too low? Do you decide that? Personally I feel just dandy eating 1000 calories a day at 245lbs! So what's too low for me? Well many phd's and doctors and research scientists have made a bunch of data available that helps suggest these numbers and it's based on lean body mass and body weight and a few other factors. We know that IF we get x amount of protein, THEN a, b, and c happen with X,Y,Z hormone levels, metabolic hormones,etc, same thing with fat, same thing with carbs. And vice versa with the IF/THEN function of course. This stuff is not based on opinion people. Yet if you want to get your information from opinions on a forum then go ahead but when people criticize you for it then don't get butthurt and call it all hate or any other term to devalue the criticism. The work was done years ago. I'll cite some either on video,on my site, or in a book. Go read some university's research, any of the health journals, etc., or anything besides a typical forum.

Fat cells are alive they aren't dead! If it's alive it needs to be fed and it needs afull range of nutrients. Yes fat cells need energy to stay alive and they will the rest of your life regardless of your size since they don't go away. Your fat is stored fuel, not stored nutrition. Sure it stores some fat soluble vitamins and minerals but not all. So why not eat 400 calories a day? Again, what's too low? Because I guarantee it works!

choices for breakfast, high or low protein doesn't matter, and that's not a justification. Food type doesn't matter much for weight loss but for overall health,yes. What does matter is proper amounts of P,F,C and Micronutrients and caloric intake.

Those who read research,as opposed to average forums, wouldn't criticize one for eating a special K bar. And on the other end, those that read research, as opposed to forums, won't criticize one for eating a snickers, yes both in relation to any goal besides 100% perfect health which noone should try for. Only a fool would eat alot of any one thing alot of the time. From banana to snickers.

Breakfast is high protein egg sandwich OR oatmeal and high fiber toast. Either one is about 300 calories. Lunch is a special K protein bar at 170 calories. Dinner is either chicken breast with rice (370 calories), Large Baked potato with veggies (about 500 calories) or an extra large salad (350 calories). You see, at the end of the day, I have ample protein and fiber, good source of fuel (Carbs) and come in under 1000 calories. This leaves me some wiggle room if I want a small (and smart) dessert, some fruit with my lunch, or anything else. You see, I picked HEALTHY, LOW CALORIE foods to fill me up.

None of the above really matters but you're using it to justify your point. low calorie meals or high calorie, chicken breast or a burger, baked potato or chips, ample protein(whatever that means. Are you nitrogen scavaging or not? Do you know?Apparently not)
And size of lunch, or this meal or that, or when you eat and don't eat is for an individual and what they need to do in order to be constant. The body could care less in regards to weight loss...barring a disease or malfunction.

Again one could make the same points for a 500 calorie diet. Would that be too low for you? Why? What about 870 calories? What are you using to set your standard? An arbitrary number that represents a forum debate? 1200 calories for a female that weighs 160 lbs might be ok DEPENDING on her distribution of lean mass and her lifestyle,workout if applicable, or work.

Lets not talk about loss of thermic effect of food and down regulation of digestive and related hormones and enzymes. To make a long story short, if you want to eat low calories, then your metabolism will be happy to ablige! When you lose more mass from weight loss and your metabolism lowers even more below baselline as it will do because it has less mass to keep alive, it will be that much more easier to hit a surplus and gain weight in the future. Plus Grehlin and other hunger inducing hormones will tend to spike to make up for the fact that the environment seems to be devoid of nutrition and that one should eat whenever possible. Sound familiar? Yoyo dieting and weight loss/weight gain for much of the population on low calorie diets. The more severe, the more severe.

So my main issue is with people using anecdotes, not basic understandings, without using some conditional statements, to give general advice to a populace. This leads to confusion and marginal sustainability for many. Thus why we still have these points of contention on forums. This stuff isn't theory or religion.