1200 cal is NOT enough
Options
Replies
-
Coming from personal experience, 1200 calories is not enough.People who eat that little and workout are putting their body in starvation mode and through incredible stress. You are loosing the weight because you are not eating enough, and It's not healthy, 1200 is the bare minimum most people need at least 1500 calories for their bodies to function.
It's an unrealistic number, you can't vouch on wanting a healthy lifestyle but starve your body from a diet myth. Even if you eat "enough" it does not mean your body is getting enough. Thank you for making this thread, at least it starts a conversation.
Please Google the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Healthy men were made to eat 1500 calories,and exercise. They lost weight, but continuing the diet became medically anorexic. When you eat 1200 calories your body is also eating MUSCLE, which is bad. If you exercise on 1200 calories a day, you burn 500. You only gave your body 700 calories to function on, that is bad. Unless you eat your calories back, 1200 calories is beyond unhealthy.0 -
You may find it interesting to put some facts in to an online calculator. For a shorter woman in her fifties, 1200 is more than a recommended intake.
Your first post is pretty black-and-white, what do you base it on and what was your motive for posting it?
HA HA I resemble this !!...:noway: .... 5 ft 1 & 50 !!
1200 calories a day for me is sometimes too many !!...... if you eat the right things , you can munch through the day, i eat............. well lets just say, .....I now consider Hummus my junk food !!
EDITED : to say......when i do cardio or weights, then i eat a little more, only a little though, otherwise i would just be maintaining !!....when you get to be menopause age ,then lets see what you say then, they don't call it "middle age spread" for nothing !!:noway: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.
And you are...? Not sure I understand your point in posting this. For me 1200 is not enough, but that doesn't mean it isn't for a short, less active person. You're a teenager who is 5'8" tall, 1200 is definitely not enough for you. And I think for most people, it isn't enough, but to make a blanket statement like you're making comes off as judgmental and condescending. You have a lot of years of life experience and knowledge to gain before you've gained the privilege to post like you know it all...just my two cents.0 -
Coming from personal experience, 1200 calories is not enough.People who eat that little and workout are putting their body in starvation mode. It's not healthy, 1200 is the bare minimum most people need at least 1500 calories for their bodies to function.
It's an unrealistic number, you can't vouch on wanting a healthy lifestyle but starve your body from a diet myth. Even if you eat "enough" it does not mean your body is getting enough. Thank you for making this thread, at least it starts a conversation.
YOUR personal experience not everyone elses to be fair.
I am not short, nor am i petite (5'6). I MYSELF was prescribed a 1200 calorie diet by my endocrinologist and she partnered with the nutritionist at the local hospital to formulate an eating plan sensible to my lifestyle (ACTIVE), reduced carbs and sugars for pcos/hypothyroid/insulin resistance ( i do 45m to an hr cardio daily with light weight days twice a week in conjunction to). I followed that diet for nearly a year losing a large portion of weight i needed to lose ( don't go by my ticker as thats my NEW goal). I have labs run ( complete cbc, metabolic, hemoglobin and lipid panels ) run every 3 months and its all with in average or good range. Not a remote sign of this " starvation mode" or malnourished, losing nutrients . I didnt even start eating back my calories until after i lost my first 50.
You can find just as many supporting blogs/articles as you can debunking it. Nearly everything is possible to prove statistically with how the study is formulated. This was the first thing i learned in uni studying what? Theory and principle statistics. But this lab work coming back every quarter being spot on is irrefutable FACT
And are people taking into account how these calories are consumed? As in eating an ACTUAL healthy balanced diet and not just loading up on empty calories? This doesn't ever seem to come into the equations with these debates. It is not just down to calories. How healthy is someone going to be eating 1200 calories of chips, coffee, a shake, ect keeping to a bare minimum with out the knowledge of how to basically eat healthy. One could justify eating a 2000 calorie diet and by default many would deem it healthy as it reaches the criteria. Now if this 2k calories is chicken fingers, fries, no leafy greens, no beans, but they have that " diet" soda. How is this differentiated when discussing the dreaded 1200 calorie rule? I fair to see an argument that even touches the topic of the content of the diet
(Edited to add)
With the frequency and depth of arguing associated everytime with these 1200 calories posts and how FREQUENTLY to the point of nauseum they are done on these boards with no one side proving anything other than someone will get upset, another will complain someone is too sensitive, or insensitive or an idiot or just plain wrong. You begin to wonder if one just makes them to stir the pot or drum up attention0 -
Ok, I know nothing about OP and do not usually white knight on the internet, but there is something I saw that made me wonder.
Yes, her point could have been stated in a more diplomatic way. I don't think anyone argues with that and she did apologize for her tone.
However, this young woman did land herself in the hospital for eating 1200 calories. THAT sounds to me like she was only eating 1200 and working out and not eating back the calories, or was eating in an unbalanced fashion and ended up with an electrolyte or vitamin deficiency. Perhaps her doctors told her some things at that time about nutritional needs and her assumptions took over. Maybe her hospital stay was at 14 years old. I don't know, I don't know her and don't know what happened but it seems like whatever happened to her scared her enough to form her opinions.
I read her point like she was trying to say that the 1200 "magic number" isn't enough if you don't eat back your expenditure, which I think the vast majority of us can agree with. If you don't have much of an expenditure (those that may be inactive, older, etc) can get by on 1200 but those that do have a larger expenditure may NET 1200 but actually eat significantly more. Others need to net higher than that, of course.
My personal BMR is in the 1500s so I personally wouldn't be able to sustain a 1200 calorie diet, BUT I definitely see how others can.0 -
i've read what wikipedia has to say about starvation response and after having read it i fail to understand how anyone could still be considered in "starvation mode" with a belly full of fat and adipose tissue?
PERIOD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response0 -
I agree that it isn't enough for most people, but to each their own. 1200 calories is better than 600 calorie a day starvation diet. And for some people 1200 calories is a starvation diet ( for those who are very active, or very tall, etc etc ). For most people I'd say 1200 calories isn't enough but it also isn't scarily low where it could harm you. But then again everyone is different.
Usually 1200 calories is recommended ( and sometimes 1400 ) for those people whom are usually female, short/petite, and sedentary. And of course age matters too.
1200 calories was and would be too low for me. I am a petite female, but I am still young ( 25 ) and I am very active. I have a job that gives me at least 5000 to 7000 steps, and then I do long walks during the week. I run 50+ miles a week, in training for a marathon in November.
Also, 1200 calorie isn't a lifestyle. It's more of a temporary thing. I did the 1200-1400 calorie diet thing back in January and Feb. I was doing 60 to 90 minute sessions at the gym ( cardio ) 4-6 days a week, so I definitely could have ate more and still lost. But it gave me what I needed. I never went below 1200 and was mainly around 1350 to 1400 most days. I only really ate in the 1200's on my rest days.0 -
So could I at 19. . . wait how old are you again?I said "1200 calories isnt like a universal number that is meant for everyone"
You also said:
(or anyone really)
True, and I don't think it is. My BMR is only 1420. If I still wanted to lose weight I would not be eating a measly 1200-1400 calories a day. Its ridiculous.
You believe that THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which someone should eat 1200 calories/day?
Is this what you are saying?
I said for ME. I know I can eat more than my BMR + not be active and still lose weight. JC0 -
The mentality of "I eat enough" " I eat all the time" isn't healthy. Yes you're eating, yes you're fulfilled but no you are not fueling your body. This is why fat is important, you get a lot of calories for a small amount of it. If eating 1200 calories it too much, you're not eating enough fat which you need. (We all know low fat diets high processed sugar diets are what's making people obese/overweight nowadays.)
I strain this because i have a lot of underweight friends, they say things like that all the time. I've had 3 friends who ate 1200 calories to become underweight, one was hospitalized. They ate this way for 2-3 years, they ate "enough" but were underweight 17-18 in the BMI range.
I also have a male friend 6'2 135lbs and the idea of him being unhealthy is unfathomable.Till we did a calorie count on how much he ate, and it was surprisingly(sarcasm) 1500-1600 calories a day. Plus he plays basketball. His BMI was 17.3, which is underweight his spine shows extremely clearly because he barely has essential fat on his body. Most of my friendsand classmates don't weigh over 140lbs though except for 2 and me,so it was no where a big deal.
I did a project on this a couple years back(that's why i'm so biased). 1200 calories isn't enough for the average 10 year old. Someone at 5'0 95lbs, would still need more calories, i.e has a higher BMR. So it's healthy for grown adults to eat less than elementary kids? I'm not saying you can't and shouldn't, if i can support people being underweight and overweight, I can do the same for calories. Do what makes you happy, it doesn't affect me either way.
What I can not support, and will argue is people who say 1200 calories is healthy. Most people who loose weight on 1200 calories, never do it long enough for it to starve the essential fat and muscle in their body. 1200 calories is great for weight loss, but also great for muscle loss and making yourself underweight because it's not enough food to maintain a healthy BMI, to fuel your body and to maintain long term. Why would you want to live on the BARE MINIMUM your body needs to survive? Isn't moderation the key to a healthy life.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.
But OP didn't say 1200 is too much for the average person - she said it is too much for anyone. Yes, I know she then back tracked on that but even after the backtrack, in fact the last thing she posted, she was still calling it a fad diet.
I guess the fact that all these older people showed up suggests many people on MFP are not the statistical average of 29.7. Many are shorter than the average height too.
If OP had said 1200 is not right for the average age and height person, nobody would object. Since nobody else has said that either.
However 1200 is right as a net amount for some people for losing weight.
And these 'some people' are not extreme outliers of the population but are many people within normal ranges and are many of them users of MFP.
Perhaps one thing threads like this show is that MFP has many more older users than perhaps some people think.0 -
However 1200 is right as a net amount for some people for losing weight.
And these 'some people' are not extreme outliers of the population but are many people within normal ranges and are many of them users of MFP.
Perhaps one thing threads like this show is that MFP has many more older users than perhaps some people think.
^^^^^^ That !,
Yes there are lot's of "older" women here,!
oh and psssst she didn't say "too much ".....she said "NOT enough " error probably due to the fact you were so focused ,to get your very good point across !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.
Some find 1,200 calories enough others don't. Furthermore, 1,200 calories is the value set by MFP. To each their own and if it is working for them, more power to them. I had no problem with 1,200 calories and I'm sure other smaller women have not problem with it either. I did calculate my BMR and TDEE too.
Please stop perpetuating this myth that all small women have to eat like birds. I fell for that too often. I'm just shy of 5'2 and 1200 was NOT enough for me based on the amount/kind of exercise I was doing.
If you're over 50, under 5'4 and sedentary or lightly active it's probably fine. Otherwise, it's not. I notice all the people who are defending it are in the beginning of their diets or what looks to be based on the amount they lost.
I have never met a person who was athletic or super fit (not talking about skinny fat, I'm mean fit like OP) who only ate 1200 calories a day. Have you?
Perpetuating what myth? - Nobody is saying ALL small women have to 'eat like birds'. They are saying 1200 is often right for shorter older less active women.
If you are shorter but NOT older and NOT less active, then this isn't you.
Also to clarify, as I have been one of the defenders - no, I am not in the beginning of my diet, I started losing weight in January 2013, got to goal weight November 2013 and maintained since then.
I agree, people who are athletic or super fit probably wouldn't be eating 1200 calories - but then they wouldn't fit into category of less active, would they?
You never specified an activity level at all, I did. You said for "small women" it's a good number, I happen to qualify and 1200 was not enough. It was a gross over-generalization on your part.0 -
I'm not a heavy eater and 1.2k calories is actually a good amount for me.0
-
i've read what wikipedia has to say about starvation response and after having read it i fail to understand how anyone could still be considered in "starvation mode" with a belly full of fat and adipose tissue?
PERIOD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response
Starvation mode is a myth. You aren't actually going to starve unless you literally do not eat. Your body will eventually call on those fat reserves. That's why we have anorexics.
However, your metabolism will slow down after a period of time. The body realizes its not getting enough fuel and so slowly processes what it does have because it doesn't know when it's going to have enough again. We evolved this way. What ends up happening is the dreaded plateau. It's not like you will stay that weight forever but the losses will slow down dramatically. I don't know about you but that seems counterproductive.
I do not think 1200 is so low as to trigger a slowed metabolism in some people. I was actually fairly full on 1200-1400. The reason I changed was because it was actually affecting my ability to workout effectively and thus, caused a 3 week plateau. I don't understand why people get so defensive and want to tear OP down. I think she has a valid argument for like 98% of the cases.0 -
I'm not a heavy eater and 1.2k calories is actually a good amount for me.
No.0 -
Kind of weird that MFP is 'wrong' or even dangerous for 98% of users yet still manages this: "MyFitnessPal received an overall satisfaction score of 83 and top marks for maintenance, calorie awareness, and food variety."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consumer-reports-rates-diet-plans-myfitnesspal-a-free-app-and-website-more-satisfying-than-weight-watchers-185440082.html0 -
However 1200 is right as a net amount for some people for losing weight.
And these 'some people' are not extreme outliers of the population but are many people within normal ranges and are many of them users of MFP.
Perhaps one thing threads like this show is that MFP has many more older users than perhaps some people think.
^^^^^^ That !,
Yes there are lot's of "older" women here,!
oh and psssst she didn't say "too much ".....she said "NOT enough " error probably due to the fact you were so focused ,to get your very good point across !
Oops, yes I mean she said it is n ot enough :blushing:0 -
I'm sorry to contradict you, but one size does not fit all.
^^This.
1200 may not be enough for YOU, but that may be the perfect number for someone else. It certainly isn't enough for me, but I don't care one bit how many calories anyone else eats. You should focus on yourself and your own numbers and not worry about how many calories anyone else is eating in a given day.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.
Some find 1,200 calories enough others don't. Furthermore, 1,200 calories is the value set by MFP. To each their own and if it is working for them, more power to them. I had no problem with 1,200 calories and I'm sure other smaller women have not problem with it either. I did calculate my BMR and TDEE too.
Please stop perpetuating this myth that all small women have to eat like birds. I fell for that too often. I'm just shy of 5'2 and 1200 was NOT enough for me based on the amount/kind of exercise I was doing.
If you're over 50, under 5'4 and sedentary or lightly active it's probably fine. Otherwise, it's not. I notice all the people who are defending it are in the beginning of their diets or what looks to be based on the amount they lost.
I have never met a person who was athletic or super fit (not talking about skinny fat, I'm mean fit like OP) who only ate 1200 calories a day. Have you?
Perpetuating what myth? - Nobody is saying ALL small women have to 'eat like birds'. They are saying 1200 is often right for shorter older less active women.
If you are shorter but NOT older and NOT less active, then this isn't you.
Also to clarify, as I have been one of the defenders - no, I am not in the beginning of my diet, I started losing weight in January 2013, got to goal weight November 2013 and maintained since then.
I agree, people who are athletic or super fit probably wouldn't be eating 1200 calories - but then they wouldn't fit into category of less active, would they?
You never specified an activity level at all, I did. You said for "small women" it's a good number, I happen to qualify and 1200 was not enough. It was a gross over-generalization on your part.
You are quoting different people here - I did not say the first part at all.
But that poster said "other smaller women" - not all smaller women.
Was just querying this "myth" - nobody said all small women should eat 1200 calories. Of course activity level (and age) would boost number up. Nobody said otherwise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions