1200 calorie meal plan for road trip?
Options
Replies
-
snowbunny711 wrote: »I'm about to go on a 20 hour road trip and was wondering what I can eat during that 20 hours. Fast food or gas stations are the only stops we will be making my husband made that very clear lol any suggestions? Meal plans?
What we do for those long road trips? We get out the good old fashioned ice chest, plan what meals and snacks we will take, and we take them. We also go out for about one meal a day, which is generally lunch or dinner.
Why will you eat only 1200 calories on a 20 hour road trip? It's less than a day.0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for losing, thats what is recommended I thought?
It is recommended by MFP far more often than it is necessary...and I believe it is counterproductive to effective long-term weight loss. It's just an established lower limit, but that doesn't mean it's optimal.
Personally, I believe it makes more sense to find the *most* calories you can consume while still making satisfactory progress towards your goal. By starting at the absolute minimum, there's no wiggle room for an eventual plateau...and compliance can't be helped with such little eating.0 -
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.0 -
Thats what I said. Very helpful. We can all work hard and maybe one day, we can achieve that.PikaKnight wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
Ummm...it provides perspective, especially seeing as the OP is a 22 year old with not much to lose so yes, it is pretty helpful. Hopefully people won't get oversensitive about it.
Until then, though, we have to stick with what works for us.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »
Aren't you a bariatric patient?0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Lap band
And you don't think (aside from the age difference) that THAT was a vital piece of info to include or at least one that should have made you realize the difference in your nutritional needs?
You missed my point.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
I contend that there are far more people here for whom 1200 is *not* appropriate being encouraged to do it than there are people for whom it *is* appropriate being discouraged from doing it. I have never claimed that *no one* should eat 1200 calories...only that far fewer should than have been led to believe.0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
ETA: Not sure if you missed my questions earlier - but what do you have your rate loss per week set at? And do you eat back exercise calories?
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
(Not to derail, but a better question is, if you're trying to get healthier/lose weight, why are you sedentary?)0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
i consider myself sedentary though, does age play into any of that?
Do you workout at all? If so, what type of workouts and for how long?
i walk on the treadmill daily for 1.5 hours walking at 10% incline and 3.1 mph and i eat back the calories burned0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
First - I said you don't even know the OP's workout schedule either.
Second - I think you need to take a step back. This is a discussion. That's what a public forum is for. If you think that this is some sort of personal attack on you, then that's you projecting and imagining a tone that isn't there.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
How nice for you.angelamb1970 wrote: »1200 isn't too low for me! In fact, it's right about maintenance. 5'2" 260 pounds, 44yrs old woman. Log, weigh everything, wear a FitBit and keep track of it all. Some people are just slower burners than others.
I am 5'2, 45 yrs old and 115 pounds, I lose weight eating between 1600-1900 calories depending on exercises. Now maintaining eating 2300-2600 calories.
Thank you for sharing that with all of us who have to eat less. It is so helpful.
It's a nice balance to those who would have you believe that so many *need* 1200 to make progress...because that simply isn't true. She wasn't bragging about her maintenance level, she was (presumably) trying to provide another point of view...one that I believe is more the norm than the exception.
She works out two hours a day. I would too if I had that kind of time!
:indifferent:
Right.
:indifferent:
?
Pointing out her workout had no point to the convo seeing as you don't even know what the OP's workout schedule is either. Also, the level of fitness reached by Serah can be obtained by an hour workout 3x a week. Trying to act as if 2 hours a day is the only way to get to where Serah is or to have a higher metabolism (as that's what this is going towards) is misleading.
A great example - Sarauk2sf. She has a desk job and is sedentary minus her strength workouts 3x a week (no cardio at all).
*shrug* I was just going by what's in her profile. Her workout schedule is clearly outlined there.
What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? I don't recall ever having seen you or had any kind of exchange with you before. Have I offended you in some way?
I would assume she is taking issue with what you're saying/advising, not you personally. I don't recall seeing any personal attacks in this thread.0 -
I think the general point is that the demonizing of 1200 calorie diets isn't necessary.PikaKnight wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Just out of curiosity, why do people keep recommending McDonald's?
I mean, sure, eat it occasionally if you like it. But if you don't like fast food, why not just pack food in the car?
Because a big mac meal is like 1150 calories, nails the 1200 calories per day requirement super simple.
Yeah but she'd be hungry for most of the day if one Big Mac meal is all she could have. Better to space out the 1200 calories over the course of the day. IMO
It's too few calories for almost everyone - especially a 22yo female. Unless she's like 4'9" or in a wheelchair.
Actually not really. I don't know who this person is or what her circumstances are, but I'm 5'3" and 175 lbs and 49 years old and to lose just 1 lb a week I have to net around 1300. And that's at a high weight. If (when!) I get down to say, 150, still 20 lbs from my goal weight, I'll have to net 1200.
Thanks 0somuchbetter0!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking. I get soooo tired of everyone making blanket statements about 1200 calories being too low. At 47 years old and 130 lbs, in order to lose I have to net UNDER 1200. Actually about 1160. The math supports those numbers, people. And no I'm not trying to lose 2 lbs a week. Net 1160 will give me 1/2 lb loss.
All the anti 1200 posts do smaller (and often older) women a disservice by demonizing NET 1200 calorie diets, and set them up for failure.
Again, do the math.
Yes OP is younger, but if she doesn't weigh a lot, then 1200 may be reasonable.
And the shorter you are, the lower your weight has to be for you to be slim, so trying to reach a goal near 110-115 is not unreasonable for someone my size. Don't know what op's height is.
And although I strength train for my health, (and also for vanity), at my age I likely will never add enough muscle mass to significantly increase my resting metabolic rate. An increase of 3-4% in muscle mass will only give me a slight increase (less than 100 cals per day) in my TDEE.
Sorry everyone, rant over. This just hits a nerve.
How is 1200 reasonable? With her being younger, it's actually NOT reasonable. If she were 70 years old I could see that as a possibility but not 22. You are griping about blanket statements yet you just bypass her age (despite mentioning it).
Some people can eat more and yay for them. Some can't, but that's life. We play the cards we are dealt.
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions