Who has been able to lose with 1200 calorie diet?
Options
Replies
-
I have lost 29kg (64lb) on 1200 calories a day.0
-
Twice in 2013, trying to maintain at 112 pounds, I consumed 1680 calories per day, and my weight dropped to 109 once, and to 108 once. But it was not a quick weight loss. A pound or two per week? idk. I was trying to maintain, not go below 112.0
-
I tried to do the 1200 for the first four weeks and in the first two weeks I dropped 8 pounds. In the third week I dropped 1. In the fourth week I actually gained back two. And I was cranky and miserable and hungry. I know it works for some people but for me personally 1200 was too low. I calculated my BMR and my TDEE and using those two numbers I set myself at 1650. I usually don't get that high, though. I tend to stick around 1500. I've been doing that for about five days and I am hoping it helps (haven't weighed in yet). I definitely feel less cranky though, haha
This ^^^
Same for me. I started at 1200 or even lower, lost a lot in the first month, then stuck for the whole of February. I felt tired, weak and miserable. I put my calories up to 1500 and the following week I dropped 8lb!!! I now use the TDEE method and could have 1850 per day (to lose 1.5lb per week and working out 3-5 times per week) but I choose to have 1650 most days so that I can have a few treats at the weekend. I consistently lose 1-2lb per week doing this, and have been doing this method for over 4 months now. I have lost 53.5lb and have a 34.5 to go. At least I know I have room to cut as I get closer to my goal. I can only tell you what's working for me.0 -
THIS IS all really new to me ... been eating healthy and using herbalife as well as working out for about 2 1/2 months now and last week i hit my plateau... i am having a mass confusion about the "eating back calories" what exactly does that mean ... if i have a goal of eating 1700 calories a day and then burn 500 thru daily exercise am i supposed to eat those 500 back?? I dont know why i just find this really confusing0
-
THIS IS all really new to me ... been eating healthy and using herbalife as well as working out for about 2 1/2 months now and last week i hit my plateau... i am having a mass confusion about the "eating back calories" what exactly does that mean ... if i have a goal of eating 1700 calories a day and then burn 500 thru daily exercise am i supposed to eat those 500 back?? I dont know why i just find this really confusing
On non-exercise day say you burn estimated 2200 calories in total. Deficit 500 for 1 lb weekly loss. Eat 1700.
On exercise day with your 500 cal workout and daily burn 2200 you now have 2700 in total. Deficit 500 for 1lb loss. Eat 2200.
You are eating less than you burn on both days. That's how you lose weight, right?
Both days has the same deficit.
In essence, you can view it as eating back exercise calories so that your deficit remains the same daily.
In fact, you burn different amounts each day, and this method recognizes that fact.
It's an attempt to stop the foolishness that many have of thinking bigger is better for a deficit, and shooting their body in the metabolism.
Sadly many are convinced they have it all figured out already, because it worked the last 7 times for them that way when they lost weight, and they are sure it'll work again.
I'd wager the majority have no idea how the 1200 came as recommendation - but they are willing to blindly follow it.
But not sure why they also don't blindly follow the eating goal when it goes up after exercise.0 -
I am reverse dieting from slightly less than that (adding 100 calories a week until weight stabilises). While retaining a fair bit of water today (high carb weekend!), hit 29lbs weight loss in exactly 10 weeks (2 of which were at maintenance calories) averaging about 2 refeed days a week.
Nutrition has to be very careful to ensure sufficient micronutrients, fiber and fats.
I am not advocating anything, however the metabolic damage issue is overblown (see link below, the adaptive component HAS reached as high as 15% drop for people who were starved to the limits of human leanness), but low calorie diets can have disadvantages in other ways (insufficient nutrition, hormonal issues, drops in activity levels, risk of overtraining, and psychological issues especially where it concerns raising the calories back into healthy long term eating habits) that have to be accounted for. These problems are often conflated with metabolic damage, when the real issue is elsewhere.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html0 -
I am not advocating anything, however the metabolic damage issue is overblown (see link below, the adaptive component HAS reached as high as 15% drop for people who were starved to the limits of human leanness), but low calorie diets can have disadvantages in other ways (insufficient nutrition, hormonal issues, drops in activity levels, risk of overtraining, and psychological issues especially where it concerns raising the calories back into healthy long term eating habits) that have to be accounted for. These problems are often conflated with metabolic damage, when the real issue is elsewhere.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html
In in many others studies, it reached 20-25% suppression.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
And in this study for merely overweight category, it was only a 25% deficit that caused it. No where near human leanness extreme.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-6162510 -
In in many others studies, it reached 20-25% suppression.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
From what I saw in the link, this number was the TOTAL reduction of metabolic rate, not what I was talking about. The study I referred to was a 40% drop in this (25% of which was accounted for by reduced bodyweight, the other 15% being defined as the adaptive component).
In this link, the estimated adaptive component I referred to does not exceed 15%.
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass."
This is, so far, in line with what I posted:
"Specifically the men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories, subject to forced daily activity (walking, NO weight training) and basically had their lives controlled and managed for 6 months. And in various sub-analyses, it was found that, by the end of the study the total drop in metabolic rate was nearly 40%. That is, of the original 50% deficit in calories, 80% of it had been offset. Of that 40%, a full 25% was simply due to the reduced bodyweight. Again, lighter bodies burn less calories and there’s no getting around it. But that also means that the adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction was only 15%. Which is about the largest drop ever measured (most studies measure less)."0 -
In in many others studies, it reached 20-25% suppression.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
From what I saw in the link, this number was the TOTAL reduction of metabolic rate, not what I was talking about. The study I referred to was a 40% drop in this (25% of which was accounted for by reduced bodyweight, the other 15% being defined as the adaptive component).
In this link, the estimated adaptive component I referred to does not exceed 15%.
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass."
This is, so far, in line with what I posted:
"Specifically the men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories, subject to forced daily activity (walking, NO weight training) and basically had their lives controlled and managed for 6 months. And in various sub-analyses, it was found that, by the end of the study the total drop in metabolic rate was nearly 40%. That is, of the original 50% deficit in calories, 80% of it had been offset. Of that 40%, a full 25% was simply due to the reduced bodyweight. Again, lighter bodies burn less calories and there’s no getting around it. But that also means that the adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction was only 15%. Which is about the largest drop ever measured (most studies measure less)."
Yes, I knew what you were referring to exactly, and even guessed it was the MN study you were thinking of. Men have much better chance of not feeling the full impact compared to women.
Whereas the study I referenced showed they only took a 25% deficit off TDEE, lab measured TDEE. Yes, the total reduction in TDEE from original weight TDEE was upwards of same figure too, this was looking at mainly that not related to the normal expected lowering of TDEE.
And they accounted for the totally expected reduction in RMR/TDEE because of less weight, eating less food, losing some muscle mass, and still saw a reduction in sedentary TDEE of 20-25% below what was expected for remaining LBM. And some of that was the other studied area of the body just slowing down spontaneous daily activity when underfed by big enough margin.
The other link was a topic with a bunch more studies in it much more recent and controlled than the MN study, showing the same impact to metabolic efficiency does NOT need a 50% reduction in eating level, nor some extreme of BMI.
This isn't about the fact you could just keep eating less and less and eventually you will lose, as you point out too, but rather the state the body is in then, and the adherence, or lack of, when needing to eat that low.
And the fact many of these studies show - it doesn't have to happen either.
Unless eating say 500 calories more daily is just a financial hardship, and lower would be better for the budget, it still means you get less out of workouts than you could receive. Longer recovery, ect.0 -
I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out.0
-
I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out.
So when you burn less because of moving less mass around, where exactly are you going to lower your eating goal to in order to continue to lose weight?
Or will you just increase exercise to accomplish that?
And what happens when you get sick, or go on vacation and eat more/move less, prepared to just gain fat weight?
Your total daily burn goes down about 75 calories for every 10 lbs lost.
So that means your daily burn would drop about 525 calories at goal weight.
So looking at last few weeks to reach goal weight, can you drop 525 calories from your current diet, or leave that alone and exercise about 525 more calories worth on average daily? Or a combo to obtain that same amount?
That's scary low, or a whole lot of exercise.
And that means maintenance will be 525 lower too. Ready for maintenance that low, that can be adhered to for rest of life?0 -
I crash & burn every time I try 1200 calories. I've done it before, but that was when I did shift work & was able to be away from the snacks due to being at work.....Struggling big time to stick to it. I think my BMR is 1744, so technically I should only be having 1244, just can't do it!!
Good luck if it works for you :flowerforyou:0 -
my bmr is about 1750 not sure what i should be eating BUT I USUALLY end up with about 1500 and try not to go more than that ... i just get confused as to how much i should be eating in order to lose about 1 1/2 to 2 lbs a week with working out ... i under stand that the muscle gained weighs more than fat etc but i am trying to lose weight as well not just inches,,, the 45 inches lost in the last 2 1/2 months has been GREAT!! but i am starting to get frustrated cause im not seeing it on the scales0
-
my bmr is about 1750 not sure what i should be eating BUT I USUALLY end up with about 1500 and try not to go more than that ... i just get confused as to how much i should be eating in order to lose about 1 1/2 to 2 lbs a week with working out ... i under stand that the muscle gained weighs more than fat etc but i am trying to lose weight as well not just inches,,, the 45 inches lost in the last 2 1/2 months has been GREAT!! but i am starting to get frustrated cause im not seeing it on the scales
1.5 - 2 lbs weekly with no exercise is probably very unreasonable for you - unless you want to lose muscle weight and repeat this attempt year after year.
Because especially with no working out, strength training specifically - you are losing muscle mass right now when you lose weight - no way around it.
That will bite you later big time - and it's very difficult to put on muscle, especially for women without the hormonal benefit men get, without including fat with the gain.
Think very clearly if you enjoy this experience so much you just want to repeat it every few years, getting easier and easier to gain, and harder and harder to lose.
Read the forums of those in their 50-60's that wish they had not yo-yo dieted their lives away, having a terrible relationship with their body and food.
And you have no chance of gaining muscle unless lifting or actually putting a load on your body, along with eating at maintenance or more.
So don't be fooled by those encouraging words you hear the uninformed spouting off.
All kinds of valid reasons to gain water weight too.0 -
I don't follow your math. It sounds like you're assuming that near goal weight she'll be near her TDEE at 1200 calories. More likely, her starting TDEE was maybe 2500 and her ending (525 less) is 1975. So at 1200, she'll still be losing fine. Or even if her starting to ending was 2200 to 1675, still plenty of deficit at 1200.I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out.
So when you burn less because of moving less mass around, where exactly are you going to lower your eating goal to in order to continue to lose weight?
Or will you just increase exercise to accomplish that?
And what happens when you get sick, or go on vacation and eat more/move less, prepared to just gain fat weight?
Your total daily burn goes down about 75 calories for every 10 lbs lost.
So that means your daily burn would drop about 525 calories at goal weight.
So looking at last few weeks to reach goal weight, can you drop 525 calories from your current diet, or leave that alone and exercise about 525 more calories worth on average daily? Or a combo to obtain that same amount?
That's scary low, or a whole lot of exercise.
And that means maintenance will be 525 lower too. Ready for maintenance that low, that can be adhered to for rest of life?
Her TDEE is going to go down based on lower weight whether she loses it fast or slowly. Her LBM will change in either scenario. There is plenty of evidence that there is no metabolic damage or LBM hyper-reduction from 1200 calorie diets. I know you choose to believe the few studies that found that there is but you should at least recognize that their dieting choice is a valid choice, not 'uninformed' and not dangerous.0 -
i lost 70lbs in 7 months eating a strict 1200 calorie diet under the guise of "a calorie is a calorie" and I felt like utter ****, I damaged by body doing it. I really recommend you go closer to your TDEE and eat "good" food.0
-
Hi!!
So, MFP has me on 1200 calories a day plus obviously the exercise calories I spend. It still seems a bit low. I was wondering who has stayed on the 1200 calories diet and stuck with it and lost a significant amount of weight? Any advice? Did you find it worked for you or you needed to add more calories! Just curious! I know everyone is different but I was just hoping for some feed back! And to see that it's worked for people! Thanks!!
Just as reference, I am 20 years old, 5'6'' tall, and weigh 146 lbs (was 149 lbs. 2 weeks ago). I've lost these 3 pounds so far with eating 1,200 calories a day. However, I walk 4-5 miles a day (burning 350-450 calories) and sometimes eat back some of those calories but rarely all of them.0 -
I don't follow your math. It sounds like you're assuming that near goal weight she'll be near her TDEE at 1200 calories. More likely, her starting TDEE was maybe 2500 and her ending (525 less) is 1975. So at 1200, she'll still be losing fine. Or even if her starting to ending was 2200 to 1675, still plenty of deficit at 1200.I've lost 37lbs over the past three months following a 1200 calorie diet. I very rarely eat back my calories and I burn anywhere from 350-1100 calories per day working out.
So when you burn less because of moving less mass around, where exactly are you going to lower your eating goal to in order to continue to lose weight?
Or will you just increase exercise to accomplish that?
And what happens when you get sick, or go on vacation and eat more/move less, prepared to just gain fat weight?
Your total daily burn goes down about 75 calories for every 10 lbs lost.
So that means your daily burn would drop about 525 calories at goal weight.
So looking at last few weeks to reach goal weight, can you drop 525 calories from your current diet, or leave that alone and exercise about 525 more calories worth on average daily? Or a combo to obtain that same amount?
That's scary low, or a whole lot of exercise.
And that means maintenance will be 525 lower too. Ready for maintenance that low, that can be adhered to for rest of life?
Her TDEE is going to go down based on lower weight whether she loses it fast or slowly. Her LBM will change in either scenario. There is plenty of evidence that there is no metabolic damage or LBM hyper-reduction from 1200 calorie diets. I know you choose to believe the few studies that found that there is but you should at least recognize that their dieting choice is a valid choice, not 'uninformed' and not dangerous.
I'm not following either, and I'd like to.
Based on the Mifflin-St Jeor calculation, assuming the same level of exercise I'm doing now (which I was not doing then), my TDEE when I started would have been about 2700, and my TDEE at goal will be more like 2000. Now it's supposed to be 2300, which is generally consistent with my own calculations, possibly even low.
Obviously it will get harder to lose at a 1.5-2 lb rate as I get closer to goal (I'm resigned to that), but isn't that consistent with the recommendation that you lose more slowly? So far I've maintained the same rate while actually increasing my calories--when I started I couldn't work out that hard and ate about 1200-1300 calories on average, now I work out more and eat more. I'm assuming as this goes on I'll maintain my current workout rate and see my loss slow somewhat. The one time before that I lost significant weight (and maintained it for about 5 years before starting to regain, so I'm skeptical about an argument that I regained due to lowered metabolism due to the weight loss rather than the other factors I am aware of), I lost at about 1.5-2 lbs per week until I was about 20-25 from goal and then slower/stalled a bit which I got over by upping exercise. I did not strength train but mostly ran a lot, and that's something I'm trying to correct this time.
I would like to avoid lowering my metabolism to the extent possible, of course, so am interested in whether losing at a lower rate for a longer period of time actually accomplishes that. So far I haven't seen sources that indicate there's a lot of difference depending on rate of loss, but I would like to read those that exist, as I haven't been doing all the research. Currently I'm aware that (a) of course one's BMR and TDEE go down, all else equal, as one loses weight and more if one loses more LBM, and (b) that studies indicate that there's a negative effect beyond this from losing substantial weight in general, presumably from extended time on a deficit, but that it's counteracted somewhat by exercise.0 -
There was a recent discussion on something similar. These were some studies posted that showed higher deficits usually lead to better weight loss maintenance.
Sidesteel posted this one-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
This is one that is pretty convincing to me-
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract0 -
I have had a serious reality check recently, and have started back on 1300 a day as of yesterday, as my activity levels are significantly reduced due to recent surgery. I am focusing only on calories in for now, trying to keep protein up to prevent too much muscle mass loss. I'm starving hungry, which only reinforces how much mindless eating I've been doing recently. I am a total denial 'dieter', I don't practice what I preach, but will weigh myself every sunday whatever the number, will log at weekends and try and see what I can lose in the next 6 weeks, when I can return to my usual exercise classes. Then I will probably slightly increase my daily calories but not eat back the exercise calories.
I am convinced that 2000 a day makes me gain weight, and maintenance for me is around 1700. Unfortunately, I fooled myself into thinking I can eat what I want when I exercise. I have bumped back to earth, finally realising this is not true...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions