1200 calorie meal plan for road trip?
Replies
-
snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200?
well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
It's not POW level, either.
OP is trying to lose 5lbs. That's not a lot of excessWalkingAlong wrote: »
If you could find a source from the medical or weight loss or any authoritative field that agrees with you, I will gladly gift you the internet.AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Lap band surgery is a bariatric procedure.
You are altered. You have a medical device that was surgically placed inside you, that is restricting what you can intake. Due to this device, you have different nutritional rules than the rest of us. What work for you may not work others who are not altered.
With all due respect, unless you're a bariatric surgeon, I think I know the difference between my nutritional and caloric needs as a lap band patient versus those of a gastric bypass patient or gastric sleeve patient, etc. better than you do. I researched the different procedures for a year before I made my decision. The only restriction I have is physical - my physiology is no different than before the surgery. I'm not going to discuss this further.
Back to my point: regardless of whether someone has had lap band surgery or not, 1200 calories is not too low for many many people.
You are right. There are "many many people" who are under 5 feet tall and have very low calorie needs. But not most. A resounding MOST people need significantly more than that.
People with excess body fat do not need significantly more than that, which is why MFP uses it as a floor value.
Look at it this way... if she's only eating 1200, she's going to lose her 5 lbs. in a month or so and go back to maintenance level eating.
At which point she'll end up putting a few pounds back on in water weight or just normal upward fluctuation due to maintenance, freak out, crash diet again, lather, rinse, repeat. The last 5 lbs are largely vanity and usually pretty pointless to try to lose. Most people are better served focusing on body composition once they are close to goal, because the goal weight rarely reflects the goal body.0 -
It's not. So, she eats her 1200 for a while, loses her five pounds and that's that.WalkingAlong wrote: »
If you could find a source from the medical or weight loss or any authoritative field that agrees with you, I will gladly gift you the internet.AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Lap band surgery is a bariatric procedure.
You are altered. You have a medical device that was surgically placed inside you, that is restricting what you can intake. Due to this device, you have different nutritional rules than the rest of us. What work for you may not work others who are not altered.
With all due respect, unless you're a bariatric surgeon, I think I know the difference between my nutritional and caloric needs as a lap band patient versus those of a gastric bypass patient or gastric sleeve patient, etc. better than you do. I researched the different procedures for a year before I made my decision. The only restriction I have is physical - my physiology is no different than before the surgery. I'm not going to discuss this further.
Back to my point: regardless of whether someone has had lap band surgery or not, 1200 calories is not too low for many many people.
You are right. There are "many many people" who are under 5 feet tall and have very low calorie needs. But not most. A resounding MOST people need significantly more than that.
People with excess body fat do not need significantly more than that, which is why MFP uses it as a floor value.
OP is trying to lose 5lbs. That's not a lot of excess
A healthy woman who eats a 1200 calorie diet in order to lose weight is not likely to end up making a 911 call. I'm not sure why people wig out about it like it's highly dangerous (not that you're wigging, but sometimes people do.)
OP has been informed that maybe she could eat more. So, she can make her decision - stick with the 1200 or raise it. Either way, no big deal.
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200? well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
yowsas! ! That's around 56kgs. I'm 5"8 too, I got down to 58kgs once and I looked anorexic!! And you want to lose more??
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200? well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
yowsas! ! That's around 56kgs. I'm 5"8 too, I got down to 58kgs once and I looked anorexic!! And you want to lose more??
And that's fully clothed...
...and she wants to get there by eating the lowest recommended amount of calories.
It is very likely a less-than-ideal approach and many of us have tried to make a case for taking a different approach. Of course, some here vehemently wish we'd never speak of this possible alternative to the One True (1200 calorie) Way™.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200? well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
yowsas! ! That's around 56kgs. I'm 5"8 too, I got down to 58kgs once and I looked anorexic!! And you want to lose more??
Oh no I don't look anorexic and I doubt those scales are accurate... but I had a quarter on me and was curious. Do clothes make a difference in weight?
0 -
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200? well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
yowsas! ! That's around 56kgs. I'm 5"8 too, I got down to 58kgs once and I looked anorexic!! And you want to lose more??
Oh no I don't look anorexic and I doubt those scales are accurate... but I had a quarter on me and was curious. Do clothes make a difference in weight?
Depends on what you're wearing, but yeah, could easily be 2-4ish pounds. (Personally, I'm about 5 pounds heavier in the middle of the day in jeans and shoes.)
(Ultimately, the actual number isn't that important anyhow...as body composition can make it totally meaningless. If you're dissatisfied with your body, perhaps a focus on gaining strength/increasing muscle would be more productive than trying to lose five more pounds. Your goals are your goals...but it's something to consider.)0 -
snowbunny711 wrote: »snowbunny711 wrote: »Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Wait what!?? So if I want to maintain it'll have to be at 1200? well this sucks.
Op, can you please provide your height, weight, goal weight, and activity level.
Because it's very highly unlikely, unless you have some medical condition, that you would maintain at 1200 calories. Your profile says you have 5lbs to go so 1200 cals is probably too low anyway.
5'8 and just weighed myself in the public restroom scale and it said 124 lbs don't know if they're accurate...
If you're 5'8" and 124 lbs, and your body doesn't look the way you want it to, losing 5 more lbs isn't going to make a difference. I think a recomp would probably be a better approach to get you where you want to be.
0 -
Nobody was discussing the What Ifs.Turning_Hopes_to_Habits wrote: »I can't get on board with someone deciding that her priorities and objectives and choices are the best ones for everyone, end of story.
Some people prefer to lose faster; they'd rather have fewer daily calories and see faster results.
Not everyone is miserable on fewer calories per day.
And some people prefer to do less exercise and eat less. So many people act like getting more food is worth any exercise sacrifice. Some people don't have the goal to be in optimum health, they just want to fit into a certain size clothing.
Just for fair disclosure, I personally could not sustain 1200 calories a day over time (I'm find going under during the few days a month I lose my appetite), and I enjoy my exercise and getting stronger. So I'm not defending myself so much as people's right to choose what works for them without being told they are WRONG, all WRONG, you know?
So let's say someone is doing 1200 calories, they stop losing, so they dropped their calories even more, let's say 1000 calories, then it happens again, so drop it again to 700 calories, do you see the problem. If they were eating more calories they would have some wiggle room when they need to drop their calories down, especially down near their goal weight. Just to add, how about hair loss, muscle, you know that your heart is a muscle right? Just saying...
Making up What Ifs can work in everyone's favor, though. What if she eats more, goes of the diet, gains 100 pounds and gets hit by a truck on the way to McDonald's, which causes her to suffer a great deal of pain?
Discussing What Ifs...it would never end.
But, if you think that the OP's 1200 calorie will cause her to die of cardiac problems, then it is right for you to tell her so and advise against it. It would be wrong to see someone heading down a path of destruction and not say, "Hey, this sounds dangerous to me!"
Telling a bunch of people who have to eat 1200 how you can eat more doesn't really get that "I think this is a dangerous plan" message across, though. It comes off more like food bragging.
It seems your motives are good, but the message gets lost.
bahha….so bullies, food bragging, and meanies…sounds like we got bingo folks..!0 -
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
0 -
Yeah, at 124 pounds (fully clothed, in the afternoon, evening) and 5'8", losing weight isn't going to make you prettier or healthier.
If you don't feel pretty or healthy now, start looking for other solutions, because losing weight isn't going to do it. And you deserve to feel good about yourself.0 -
Outside of forums, I will have to do some research. However, to me it seems to make complete sense that a person would not eat below their BMR (most people's is above 1200), especially when exercising, because BMR is how much it takes to sustain your body while at its most sedentary state.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
0 -
-
I've been asking for years and no one's ever offered any support for either claim (1200 or 'under BMR' being unhealthy). I've read dozens of books on it and never seen that claimed or suggested anywhere.
Outside of forums, I will have to do some research. However, to me it seems to make complete sense that a person would not eat below their BMR (most people's is above 1200), especially when exercising, because BMR is how much it takes to sustain your body while at its most sedentary state.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
Clearly, eating below your BMR (or TDEE really) without fat stores to burn to fund the deficit would be a problem. But we're talking about weight loss, people with fat to burn. Even a woman aiming for 5 vanity pounds usually has plenty of fat, probably well over 25 lbs.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've been asking for years and no one's ever offered any support for either claim (1200 or 'under BMR' being unhealthy). I've read dozens of books on it and never seen that claimed or suggested anywhere.
Outside of forums, I will have to do some research. However, to me it seems to make complete sense that a person would not eat below their BMR (most people's is above 1200), especially when exercising, because BMR is how much it takes to sustain your body while at its most sedentary state.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
Clearly, eating below your BMR (or TDEE really) without fat stores to burn to fund the deficit would be a problem. But we're talking about weight loss, people with fat to burn. Even a woman aiming for 5 vanity pounds usually has plenty of fat, probably well over 25 lbs.
Just for giggles, I put the OP's stats into Scooby's calculator. I got a message saying "It appears that you are already underweight, it is strongly advised that you consult a physician before considering reducing your weight further."
That was based on her current stats and "Desk job with little exercise." I also played around with the deficit percentages, and even a 25% reduction (over 2 lbs per week) gave me a calorie goal higher than 1200 - and a note that a deficit that high could be dangerous.
So do we still want to roll the dice that 1200 is a-ok for everyone and that OP is going to be just fine, even when she is already underweight and calculators are warning her that she could be endangering her health on calories counts higher than her intake now?
Because given the OP's stats, telling her to keep on keepin' on is essentially promoting unhealthy weight loss practices.
OP, please speak with a physician for the sake of your health.0 -
Road trips rock! I love driving America, and gas prices are cheaper than ever!!
On road trips, I'm only stoppin' at the big boys, typically TA and Love's. Since I don't control what restaurant is attached to the gas station, I try to eat some sort of protein ("real food") like a cheeseburger at McD's (290 cals.), Subway sandwich, chicken strips, etc. and then fill in with healthy nutty trail mix, V8 juice, coffee, and Vitamin Water Zero. It's a good idea to eat light while road tripping since you won't be stopping often! (I'm the driver, so I know the only time we stop is when I have <90 miles left of gas.) You can plan your stops w/ these tools if you want!
EDIT AFTER READING EVERYTHING: OP, if you are underweight, then please eat your TDEE in full (1,600+, not accounting for exercise). Use a good calculator like Scooby's: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
http://www.findfuelstops.com/truck-stop-interstate
http://www.loves.com/LocateUs/LocationSearch.aspx
http://www.ta-petro.com/locationsearch/
http://www.pilotflyingj.com/locations0 -
pincushion14 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I went on a road trip, most gas stations have vegetable and fruit snacks and almost all fast food restaurants have salad.
I eat 1200 calories a day but I just dont eat bread so I can eat a lot more for that 1200 calories.
Your profile pic makes me twitchy. Please to never actually fire a gun in that position. You could break a wrist/break a shoulder/lose an eye/drop the gun.
However, if you ever do decide to ignore my advice, please have someone record it on video.
As a 3-Gun and IDPA shooter, I facepalmed. LOL
Bonus points for those who know proper form.
0 -
babymadison3 wrote: »It's actually a blob of fat...BUT.. if testicles is what your brain forms then...oh well..funny
Actually, I thought it was a brain exercising... which is also good!0 -
road trip ideas:
Laughing Cow Dip & Crunch Lighter - 78 calories
Grapes 50g + Blueberries 50g - 62 calories
Prepare a Weight Watcher's taco with flaked salmon + salad - c.250-300 calories
Quest Protein bar - c.200 calories
Celery + pb2 in a jar - 100 calories
Metcalfe's Skinny Topcorn Sweet 'n Salt Flavour Popcorn - 115 calories
A few others....
Apple/Turkey wraps, carrot sticks, raisins, apple, dried mango, a small amount of granola (for fibre)...
0 -
She posted her weight pretty late in the discussion. But yeah, if your BMI is underweight, that's a whole different ballgame. I was referring to people with actual excess weight to lose.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've been asking for years and no one's ever offered any support for either claim (1200 or 'under BMR' being unhealthy). I've read dozens of books on it and never seen that claimed or suggested anywhere.
Outside of forums, I will have to do some research. However, to me it seems to make complete sense that a person would not eat below their BMR (most people's is above 1200), especially when exercising, because BMR is how much it takes to sustain your body while at its most sedentary state.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
Clearly, eating below your BMR (or TDEE really) without fat stores to burn to fund the deficit would be a problem. But we're talking about weight loss, people with fat to burn. Even a woman aiming for 5 vanity pounds usually has plenty of fat, probably well over 25 lbs.
Just for giggles, I put the OP's stats into Scooby's calculator. I got a message saying "It appears that you are already underweight, it is strongly advised that you consult a physician before considering reducing your weight further."0 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10030513/discouraged-by-trace-calories/p5
Her recent photo is on page 5 of this old thread.0 -
misskittyninja wrote: »Way to derail the thread mfp.
Oh noes OP MENTIONED 1200 she's going to go into starvation mode and die!!!!!!
Pretty sure she'll be fine. In another page or 2 people will start talking about how eating gluten will make my head fly off.
Stay classy mfp.
Complains about thread derailing, spends entire post following a derailing tangent. Never actually offers OP asked for advice.
Hell, at least I told her she could eat a big mac meal once a day.
That's 1200 right there. Boom. USDA even claims potatoes are vegetables, so it's even a diet heavy in vegetable matter.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've been asking for years and no one's ever offered any support for either claim (1200 or 'under BMR' being unhealthy). I've read dozens of books on it and never seen that claimed or suggested anywhere.
Outside of forums, I will have to do some research. However, to me it seems to make complete sense that a person would not eat below their BMR (most people's is above 1200), especially when exercising, because BMR is how much it takes to sustain your body while at its most sedentary state.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I've never read anything anywhere that even suggests it's unhealthy, with or without exercise. Have you? (Outside of forums, I mean.)
But, it can be unhealthy to say the least, especially if you are exercising and not eating your calories back because then you NET less than 1200 calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »But 1200 isn't dangerous. No one considers that 'knowledge' besides some forumites.
Clearly, eating below your BMR (or TDEE really) without fat stores to burn to fund the deficit would be a problem. But we're talking about weight loss, people with fat to burn. Even a woman aiming for 5 vanity pounds usually has plenty of fat, probably well over 25 lbs.
Just for giggles, I put the OP's stats into Scooby's calculator. I got a message saying "It appears that you are already underweight, it is strongly advised that you consult a physician before considering reducing your weight further."
That was based on her current stats and "Desk job with little exercise." I also played around with the deficit percentages, and even a 25% reduction (over 2 lbs per week) gave me a calorie goal higher than 1200 - and a note that a deficit that high could be dangerous.
So do we still want to roll the dice that 1200 is a-ok for everyone and that OP is going to be just fine, even when she is already underweight and calculators are warning her that she could be endangering her health on calories counts higher than her intake now?
Because given the OP's stats, telling her to keep on keepin' on is essentially promoting unhealthy weight loss practices.
OP, please speak with a physician for the sake of your health.
Just validate and move on. OP isn't interested in doing it right, just maybe doing it this time. Then again next time. Again a little while later. etc.0 -
I will make it short! Every person should have a Bento Box so you can prepare meals and take it with them. Bento is a single-portion takeout or home-packed meal common in Asian cuisine. A traditional bento holds rice, fish or meat, with pickled or cooked vegetables, usually in a box-shaped container.0
-
ooo, or one of those portable coolers for a car that you can plug in and it will keep everything cold.0
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10030513/discouraged-by-trace-calories/p5
Her recent photo is on page 5 of this old thread.
Now I'm confused. I thought the OP wasn't the same OP of that thread.0 -
Oh god, this is that girl with a different account?
I literally cannot look at that picture.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10030513/discouraged-by-trace-calories/p5
Her recent photo is on page 5 of this old thread.
Now I'm confused. I thought the OP wasn't the same OP of that thread.
No, it's her. She's way too transparent to disguise any of her postings.
Go back and read some of her postings on the old thread; they are identical to the ones on this one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions