Is 1200 the lowest?

about a pound a week

I dont need one because I barely eat meat unless its tuna or portioned chicken. I measure everything and count things out for serving though.

I highly doubt it I'm extremely careful. I don't really even eat nuts I don't eat chips or hardly anything carb based that you can just grab from a bag. I really don't have anything in my entire apartment that isn't portioned out. Ill give you a sample of what I eat almost everyday. Banana for breakfast, one cup of green beans steamed with vinegar and a little bit of salt and a can of tuna with one tsp of low fat mayo for lunch. Dinner is usually 2 portioned trimmed chicken breast fillets over a bed of lettuce on tsp of oil vinegar and salt. For snacks Ill have a cup of grapes or a couple pieces of watermelon or steamed spinach or a cup of cottage cheese. Ill have about 3 snacks a day. The only thing I have that's processed for the most part would be a fiber bar that's anywhere from 90 calories to 140 calories and the only variation with breakfast would be 2 eggs one egg white and 2 pieces of bacon with all the fat drained out.

timtakel wrote: »

I eat 800kcal and walk at least 15.000 Steps a day that's ~12km. I'm happy, not hangry or hungry. I pay attention to my nutrients, which is not always easy.

Please eat more. Unless you're under the direct care of a trained medical professional, what you're doing might cause you long term harm that will take years to recover from. (#LFMF: 4 surgeries, anemia, brittle bones, 3 plates, 40+ screws, gall stones, etc)

I think its a matter of opinion its more what you eat if your having 900 calories of crap than yes your going to be very unhealthy but you can eat 900 calories of veggies and lean protein and not only be full but feel great

BeckaFrieri wrote: »

I think its a matter of opinion its more what you eat if your having 900 calories of crap than yes your going to be very unhealthy but you can eat 900 calories of veggies and lean protein and not only be full but feel great

Not quite, no way to get adequate protein, fat, and vitamins and minerals on 900 cals. It is very hard to do with 1200 cals, as all your food would have to be nutrient dense (no room for empty calories), so doing it on less would be nearly impossible without supplementation

Merkavar wrote: »

szeeesz wrote: »

I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.

Sounds like your getting confused between different things?

Your angry at the mention of starvation mode because you eat less than 1200 and manage to work your macros.

But starvation mode isn't about macros, it's about eating too little and some how maintaining or even gaining weight. Some sort of magic, cause we're all aware of those starving morbidly obese people from around the world, right?

I am angry at the fact that too many people throw around the term mindlessly and therefore some people genuinely fear that if they eat 1195 kcals they will enter starvation mode but if they eat 1205, it is magically all okay! Let's keep 1200 kcals as a recommendation or a guideline not as an absolute number which cannot be questioned by any means.

erickirb wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

I am just telling you how the studies have suggested. And I can also tell you there are tons of threads on here of people realizing how far they were off when they bought a $20 scale. Whether this applies to you, we wont know unless you did a comparison

I concur. Using measuring cups or eyeballing can be 10-50% off what you are really eating.

This is totally correct. reseach has shown people are crap at judging volume and weight by just looking at it.

psulemon wrote: »

szeeesz wrote: »

I get irrationally angry when someone mentions starvation mode - guess what, I've been doing 1000kcals per day on average for more than 2 months and I am nowhere near the verge of death... I finally found the eating pattern that works for me and I feel satiated (I could feel satiated on even less calories if I paid more attention and ate better, I just don't want to yet but I'm not saying I don't plan to) and I don't eliminate any food completely! Yes with the macros it can be quite hard but not impossible at all.
If I felt that my health was damaged I would up my intake, but that is not the case.
I think everyone should experience with what works for them and not just stick to a general number.

I guess I would have to ask how are you measuing your health? Are you getting frequent blood work? Have you had a body composition analysis?

The whole starvation mode is overblown but the majority of people will not be able to meet macro and micro requirements at that level which will generally cause long term issues. Now those issues coule be increase muscle loss or increased adaptive thermogenesis. The big issue with these is it makes it harder to maintain your weight as you will have a coresponding decrease in BMR/RMR and more importantly TDEE. Its one of many factors of why so many people gain more weight than lost on "diets".

Yes I've been getting quite a lot of blood work done recently and they are absolutely perfect.
And I wanted to convey the same as what I highlighted in your message in bold.