1200 cal is NOT enough
Options
Replies
-
I see a lot of people on here do not know how much to eat. 1200 is practically the amount for a small child. 1200 calories was my lunch yesterday, not a days worth of intake! I don't want to hear any excuses like "I'm never hungry" or that you cant find any high calorie foods that are healthy.
My diet is heavily plant based. Even if my foods are not high calorie, I eat frequently and that adds up!
Furthermore, if you can't meet a simple calorie goal you shouldn't even be exercising and causing further damage to you body.
1200 calories isnt like a universal number that is meant for everyone (or anyone really) if you want to know how much you should really be eating calculate your BMR and then add calories based on your activity level OR calculate your TDEE which I highly recommend.
It seems most of you want quick and instant results but under eating isnt the way to do it. Permanent and HEALTHY results that you can sustain are going to take time, effort, and certainly a hell of a lot more food.
Of course at your height and age, you can eat more. However, making general assumptions as you are is wrong.
You have no idea what a 50 year old woman who is 4'11" need.
You are young, and will learn eventually that people function very differently, hopefully you will learn that you really do not know it all at age 19. Don't judge people because they are not doing the same as you.
1200 calories IS ENOUGH for me.
0 -
Did you read the link I posted about maintenance and low calorie diets? It is not true that if you lose using lower calories you are less likely to maintain. The opposite is true.As a person loses weight their metabolism also drops. They hit this equilibrium point at that low calorie limit, lets say 1,200. Results just stop.
You’re right I have no idea what will happen when you hit maintenance. Based off what I have seen, the general trend. I already said what would happen. You might be different, but more than likely not.
No one just stops losing at 1200 unless their TDEE goes that low, which it doesn't. Everyone who loses weight reduces their BMR as they go, regardless of deficit level.
The idea that at 1200+X calories you spare more lean tissue than at 1200 is grossly over-exaggerated here.0 -
What’s wrong with all these people? What the OP said is true for most people. Most people shouldn’t be eating around 1,200 calories a day. Yet all these people show up thinking what she said applies to them.
2 Of the biggest contributors to BMR are weight and age. So let’s look at the facts.
Global average age:
total: 29.7 years
male: 28.9 years
female: 30.4 years (2014 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2177.html
Average age is 29.7, yet all these older people show up, who don’t fit well in to the distribution curve show up, saying “hey you’re wrong.” She’s not wrong. You’re just not part of the statically average.
Also I noticed some younger people here standing by the 1,200 calories. The trend I noticed is they haven’t lost that much weight and they haven’t been on this site very long. They will learn in time the truth.
Fit me into your equation, master. Since you seem to know it all. Granted, I eat 1270, not exactly 1200, but close enough. I've lost about 40 pounds over the period of 5 months.
ETA: I started at about 1400 and gradually decreased as I lost weight.
You fit in to the equation nicely. This is what will happen, assuming you hit maintenance. If you’re not close to your goal weight you’ll probably stall out before you hit maintenance. Lets just assume you do hit your goal weight. You have 2 options, maintain at 1,200 calories, or increase them to a more realistic caloric intake. Increasing calories with a slowed metabolic rate just leads to weight gain. Seen this pattern many many times before. Is it possible to increase calories and not gain weight? Yes, but it’s like a tight rope walk back up to maintenance. Really have to know what you’re doing, how to monitor your progress, and results.
Let me add that during my journey I've not once "stalled out" or had a plateau. I've passed two goal weights and continued to keep going to become even fitter. I will start lifting heavy again in the fall and will increase my calories then. Do I think I have a damaged metabolism? From a few months of eating not even that little? Not at all. It's silly. Don't act like you know what will happen when I switch to maintenance. The only person you can speak for is yourself.
What do you mean you passed 2 goal weights? Most people set markers, for example someone wants to weigh 150lbs and they’re 200. They might say “my goal is to get down to 180” they meet it(hit one goal weight) now my goal is to hit 160(another goal weight). They hit 2 goal weights.
On a low calorie diet a person’s metabolism drops from 10-35%. Usually it’s about 15-20%. As a person loses weight their metabolism also drops. They hit this equilibrium point at that low calorie limit, lets say 1,200. Results just stop. What are they going to do? Drop down to 1000 calories? Exercise more?(exercise is an not the best option for weight loss, burns to little calories).
Also you mentioned nothing of your height. That is also a contributing factor to metabolic rate. If you’re short, you might be able to get away with 1,200 calories.
You’re right I have no idea what will happen when you hit maintenance. Based off what I have seen, the general trend. I already said what would happen. You might be different, but more than likely not.
Met, passed, whatever. I'm 5'1.0 -
I've been generally sceptical about many of the claims for 'metabolic damage' from a lack of evidence to the severity many claim from relatively short term weight loss and not TOO Ridiculous deficits.You fit in to the equation nicely. This is what will happen, assuming you hit maintenance. If you’re not close to your goal weight you’ll probably stall out before you hit maintenance. Lets just assume you do hit your goal weight. You have 2 options, maintain at 1,200 calories, or increase them to a more realistic caloric intake. Increasing calories with a slowed metabolic rate just leads to weight gain. Seen this pattern many many times before. Is it possible to increase calories and not gain weight? Yes, but it’s like a tight rope walk back up to maintenance. Really have to know what you’re doing, how to monitor your progress, and results.
At the start of the year I spent approximately 20 weeks losing 2lb a week average.
I would estimate I finished in the low teens for body fat - 6 pack visible, at least with light at the right angles, after a workout (I've put a bit of weight on since then as can be seen in my current profile pic).
I did have a sudden 'stall' - I went from a steady 2lb/week to pretty much stationary as far as weight goes. At the same time my weightlifting actually improved - presumably the body reduced calorie consumption in some areas, giving more calories free in total.
As I was about 2lb away from my intended goal and happy with my body consumption I transitioned to a bulk by increasing calories by 250 every 7 days until I was gaining weight. I found that for the first 4 weeks each week I lost about .5lb, so presumably my body was adapting to the higher calories at a similar rate to my change in them.
I didn't feel like I was "walking a tight rope". I used the Libra app to monitor weight with daily weigh ins (it averages them to provide an estimated deficit/surplus figure). I do have a fair bit more sophisticated tool to monitor various such things (new leaf metabolic tester), but did not use it. I did not do any particular research on this area.
Sure, it may be complicated/hard for some. It wasn't for me.0 -
My TDEE based on my BMR is 1765 based on the calculator I used. From what I've read, and it may be wrong, I should subtract between 500 and 1000 calories per day from that number to effectively lose weight. That puts me at 765-1265. For weight loss based on my BMR.
Given that I'm more active than that, I do need more calories, but on a non-exercise and non-physical week, I'm burning around 2118 calories. Again, doing the 500-1000 subtraction method that leaves me with a range of 1118-1618 calories.
The biggest issue about going that low calories is proper nutrition, I suspect. You can cause cravings and eventually succumb, which may in turn cause binging. And as a result you may end up gaining back everything you lost. (I've gone through this cycle a few times, which is why I started bringing in cheat meals about every 3rd-4th day.)
I understand your point, but ANYONE just establishing an arbitrary number and then universalizing that number for everyone doesn't seem to understand the basics. So, depending on who you're talking to, you may be right or may be wrong.
I do have to admit, though, I do see a lot of people going for the 1200 number. And I can't help but wonder if that number fits them properly or if they just saw that number and thought it looked good.0 -
So--- what's the consensus ? Should I eat more than 1,200 calories?
(I average 1,250 calories over a period of time... Some days I eat like a pig, and other days I forget to eat.)
Should I eat more than 1200 calorie and exercise it off? (Hard to do because fat and lazy and sometimes too lazy to feed myself.
)
Should I eat 1200 calories and exercise ? Should I eat 1200 calories and exercise so I am above net 1200 calories?
I'm confuzzled. Not sure what to do, haven't lost much weight
0 -
Do you get a decent range of different types of food?
What is your average weekly weight loss?0 -
To the OP, you're 19 years old..
When I was in my 20's and lifting and working I couldn't eat enough to gain.
At 37 it's definitely gone the other way. To be young again!..0 -
Not 1,200, but I was tested for BMR in December because I wasn't losing weight or increase fitness no matter what I did. Estimation tools told me to shoot for 1500-1800 (depending on device). The actual test showed that my BMR was 2150 and that I was in fact using muscle as my primary source of energy, this is what damage could occur. After I started consuming more than 2150 a day, I started to lose weight.0
-
i'm just over 5' 3", i eat 1200 net calories per day and it is enough. i lose about a pound a week, and i get enough protein and carbs. i feel physically better than i have in years, and on heavy exercise days i eat more (although never over 1200 net) in the form of non-fat yogurt or egg beaters or protein powder.0
-
I see a lot of people on here do not know how much to eat. 1200 is practically the amount for a small child. 1200 calories was my lunch yesterday, not a days worth of intake! I don't want to hear any excuses like "I'm never hungry" or that you cant find any high calorie foods that are healthy.
My diet is heavily plant based. Even if my foods are not high calorie, I eat frequently and that adds up!
Furthermore, if you can't meet a simple calorie goal you shouldn't even be exercising and causing further damage to you body.
1200 calories isnt like a universal number that is meant for everyone (or anyone really) if you want to know how much you should really be eating calculate your BMR and then add calories based on your activity level OR calculate your TDEE which I highly recommend.
It seems most of you want quick and instant results but under eating isnt the way to do it. Permanent and HEALTHY results that you can sustain are going to take time, effort, and certainly a hell of a lot more food.
Hope you reach all your goals while you're still young enough to know everything :laugh:0 -
I see a lot of people on here do not know how much to eat. 1200 is practically the amount for a small child. 1200 calories was my lunch yesterday, not a days worth of intake! I don't want to hear any excuses like "I'm never hungry" or that you cant find any high calorie foods that are healthy.
My diet is heavily plant based. Even if my foods are not high calorie, I eat frequently and that adds up!
Furthermore, if you can't meet a simple calorie goal you shouldn't even be exercising and causing further damage to you body.
1200 calories isnt like a universal number that is meant for everyone (or anyone really) if you want to know how much you should really be eating calculate your BMR and then add calories based on your activity level OR calculate your TDEE which I highly recommend.
It seems most of you want quick and instant results but under eating isnt the way to do it. Permanent and HEALTHY results that you can sustain are going to take time, effort, and certainly a hell of a lot more food.
Could not have said it better myself0 -
More nutritional advice from the internet experts.
0 -
I understand the point of OP's comment, but since this is the first time in my adult life that I have found a comfortable and demonstrably healthy way to lose weight and live with the way I'm doing it, I'm going to have to very respectfully disagree.0
-
can someone direct me on how to get this scale on my profile?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions