What's wrong with 1200 calories?

I think it's highly dependent on height. At 5'0 right now 1200 is less than one pound per week loss for me. If you are much taller 1200 wouldn't be ideal as it would leave you super hungry and that could lead to binge eating.

malibu927 wrote: »

Since you're older, 1200 is fine. You won't burn as much as someone a third of your age who wants to quickly lose ten pounds for bikini season, so your caloric needs are going to be less than them as well.

Agree

It depends on your stats/calorie needs. A 5'9" 250 lb 20 year old woman shouldn't be eating 1200 calories to lose.

alizesmom wrote: »

Thanks. That all makes sense. I'm 60 1/2 inches and 62.

That would explain it then. It all comes down to math.

I agree with those who mentioned that shorter individuals need less than taller ones. I would also put out there that I firmly believe that the vast majority of people who think they are eating 1200 calories are eating much more than that. Most of them are just making mistakes in their counting or doing too much estimating (not weighing food on a scale). I know I was terrible when I first started counting yet still lost weight due to the fact that I has so much to lose, the margin of error I had was large. This margin diminishes as time goes on and weight comes off. Those claiming 1200 calories may infact still be in a deficit, but they are likely eating more than they think. Especially if they are "easily" sticking to 1200 calories. While I'm sure they're are people out there who need to eat an accurately counted 1200 in order to lose weight, as was pointed out above, it's a minority of folks who are shorter and have smaller frames to begin with.

Kalikel wrote: »

It's possible. I've been averaging 1200 for a long, long time.

I have no idea why people like to believe that it's not possible and gave up trying to figure it out. They like believing it, they're happier with that thought, so whatever.

Just because it's right for you doesn't make it right for everyone. I thought we'd already established that though.

What is right for a 300 lb 30 year old male wouldn't be right for a 50 year old 5'0 female. What is right for a 300 lb 5'0 female wouldn't be right for a 100 lb 5'0 female. Etc. Etc.

Kalikel wrote: »

blankiefinder wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

It's possible. I've been averaging 1200 for a long, long time.

I have no idea why people like to believe that it's not possible and gave up trying to figure it out. They like believing it, they're happier with that thought, so whatever.

Just because it's right for you doesn't make it right for everyone. I thought we'd already established that though.

What is right for a 300 lb 30 year old male wouldn't be right for a 50 year old 5'0 female. What is right for a 300 lb 5'0 female wouldn't be right for a 100 lb 5'0 female. Etc. Etc.

You are arguing against something I did not say. I did not say, suggest, imply or even think that what is right for one person will be right for another.

In fact, I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite. Over and over again.

I don't remember discussing it with you. I don't remember discussing anything with you.

I was replying to what you said here not what you may have said elsewhere.

Not sure why you took it so personally. And you may very well have said it elsewhere, but I wouldn't know; you didn't say it here. Perhaps you're reading 'tone'. That never goes well.

I'm 5'7' and have a 1200 daily limit.... Am I to tall for this to be doing me any good?

It's dependent on a lot of factors.

I was on 1200 calories for quite a few months to lose the majority of my weight and I found it really testing. I was actually eating quite a substantial amount less than was necessary so I personally felt pretty deprived on this. Having said that, I work-out a lot so I did need the extra energy. For small and less active people, 1200 may be a little more manageable (stats also play a part). 1200 is the lowest recommended amount so it can be quite extreme for a lot of people.

If you're shorter and lighter and/or older and you need to go as low as 1200 calories to lose weight, it is what it is. If you are able to lose weight eating substantially more than that, I do not understand dipping down to 1200 just to be able to lose faster.

I personally could not live on 1200 calories for any prolonged period of time. I didn't gain 100+ pounds because I don't enjoy food. I get 1600 calories a day and have no problem eating that and more. But I'm also 5'11 and even being close to goal weight, 1200 calories is not going to do it for me. I'd rather be a few pounds heavier than eating 1200 calories a day.