What's wrong with eating under 1200?
Replies
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »Since starvation mode doesn't exist, what's wrong with eating less than 1200 calories a day? The only downside I can see is that a person would be hungry, but it will only help with weight loss so why are so many adamant about not eating less than that number?
Nutrition, feuling your body properly, less weight regain, less possibility of health problems
Starvation mode keeping someone from losing weight is a myth. Starvation and malnutrition are very real if you eat too little calories and nutrients over time. It is difficult to meet all your body's needs below 1200 calories.
Very Low Calorie diets should be done only under a doctor's supervision and short term. http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/very-low-calorie-diets/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx
2 -
Right?! I don't think we should give people a hard time for asking a valid question, it's not that ridiculous. She's learning.10 -
-
Metabolism! Your body will automatically slow down your metabolism as it thinks it is STARVING and this in the long run sets your body up for all kinds of screwy physical sxs as everyone is talking about above. Better to stick the 1200 calories and ensure you are staying active and creating a deficit between what take you in and what you burn off.0
-
It depends on what you're eating to compose those calories AND who is the person eating it.
For some people, eating below 1200 calories COULD be fine, depending on their size, activity, goals, and diet composition.2 -
In addition to my previous reply, the lower you bring calories, the less opportunity you have to cover nutrient needs. So you introduce a greater possibility of nutrient deficiencies.
The larger your caloric deficit, you COULD also increase the likelihood that you will not preserve skeletal muscle during the diet, although this is obviously heavily influenced by training stimulus as well.
Lower calorie diets have a tendency to be harder to stick to for most people, and so you increase the likelihood that the individual can't stick to the diet and so you may essentially lose the benefit of the low calorie diet to begin with (weight loss).0 -
Malnutrition. That's what's wrong... Also, why torture yourself with hunger. Hunger SUCKS!!! Also, do you want to be the hangry one at parties?
If you don't mind decreasing the quality of your hair skin and nails, and having out-of-whack hormones, less than 1200 will do the job.0 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?
That's part of the consensus. The other part is purely that if you eat too few calories - create a calorie deficit larger than the fairly modest amount of stored fat your body can metabolize in a day - your body will fill the energy gap by- making you lethargic/fatigued so you won't feel like moving around as much (and will feel generally crappy),
- slowing down or stopping normal growth/maintenance functions, so your hair will weaken & start falling out, your nails will weaken and become brittle/break (though it will take some time to see the latter, since it starts at the base of the nail),
- *starting to burn other kinds of tissue, like lean muscle (note: your heart is a muscle), and weaken your bones,
- you may get sick because of impaired immune function and other nasty effects. cv
It just isn't healthy. Lose weight at a reasonable rate. If you're eager to lose quickly for the sake of your appearance, note that your appearance will suffer if you lose too fast.5 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
8 -
Undereating can also trigger binges, and chucking your weight loss goals out the window, and gaining back all the weight you lost.3
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
I think you know dam well I was referring not to people who are thinner as opposed to people who are overweight. I'm talking about the horrible and YES nasty dangerous health effects of eating a VLCD for a significant period of time. Turn down your offense-o-meter. You have it set to invalid inferences.9 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
I think you know dam well I was referring not to people who are thinner as opposed to people who are overweight. I'm talking about the horrible and YES nasty dangerous health effects of eating a VLCD for a significant period of time. Turn down your offense-o-meter. You have it set to invalid inferences.
I do know what you were referring to-i would still not call them totally nasty, just as I wouldn't call anyone here that was morbidly obese totally nasty. Somehow I think that wouldn't go over as well here.4 -
frugalshrimp wrote: »Noting is wrong with eating under 1200 --except that most people will tend to overeat when they do eat. The notion that it is dangerous to eat fewer than 1200 (or 1000) kcals is just ignorance/myth.
It is if it goes on continuously. If it's occasionally, okay. If you're shorter, you can get away with lower numbers. But you would have to be pretty inactive for such a low number to not have serious affects on you. You really shouldn't be telling people things like this if you can't expand upon it. Some people will take any approval for a VLCD and run with it.
4 -
1200 isn't a magical number. You have to run the individuals numbers BMR and TDEE ., And go from there. 1200 could be dangerously low for some and just maintenance for others,5
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »Since starvation mode doesn't exist, what's wrong with eating less than 1200 calories a day? The only downside I can see is that a person would be hungry, but it will only help with weight loss so why are so many adamant about not eating less than that number?
1) Almost impossible to get the nutrients you need leading to malnutrition over time. BTW malnutrition does not show up externally right away. It can be going on for quite a while before external signs of it start showing up.
2) Lost of lean mass. This is not simply a matter of muscle loss, this also will take from other lean sources like organs if the deficit is large enough.
3) Hormonal changes that make putting on the weight far more likely. There is some of this with smaller deficits, but with an excessively large one it is a pronounced change and these changes take a long time (more than a year) to correct.
In short, stop trying to rush weight loss. It will not work long term.2 -
Depending on your height and energy expenditure, 1200 or below is perfectly adequate long term. This is not a forum to lecture on ideal long-term caloric intake (not to mention macronutrient balance, within that caloric intake). The question was "what's wrong with eating under 1200?" And the answer remains "nothing." I have had several patients who come to me having been told this idiotic 'under 1200' rule, and it is plain wrong. It has to do with your height, your current and goal weight, your level of activity, your age. And your ability to control your intake if 1200 is much less than you are used to eating. By the way, VLCD are usually defined as under 800 calories/day. *That* I would not recommend unless people are being monitored for fluid and adequate macronutrient intake.2
-
For those interested in actual data-driven information (hey, shout out the agency that funds me!):
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/very-low-calorie-diets/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx#f0 -
frugalshrimp wrote: »Depending on your height and energy expenditure, 1200 or below is perfectly adequate long term. This is not a forum to lecture on ideal long-term caloric intake (not to mention macronutrient balance, within that caloric intake). The question was "what's wrong with eating under 1200?" And the answer remains "nothing." I have had several patients who come to me having been told this idiotic 'under 1200' rule, and it is plain wrong. It has to do with your height, your current and goal weight, your level of activity, your age. And your ability to control your intake if 1200 is much less than you are used to eating. By the way, VLCD are usually defined as under 800 calories/day. *That* I would not recommend unless people are being monitored for fluid and adequate macronutrient intake.
Certainly there are exceptions. However, the exceptions are just that exceptions. They are outliers either because they are really short or have some genetic/medical condition that takes them out of the norm. For the vast majority of women 1200 calories is the reasonable cut off to meet nutritional needs without having to be very careful about what it eaten or supplement to meet those needs.5 -
Eating 1200 or under for me would = misery, and there is no way I'd be able to get the nutrients I need in that small amount of calories...
And it would almost guarantee a binge and restrict cycle... For me.0 -
what about supplimets? wouldnt these make up for what you are lacking on a low calorie diet?0
-
Nutrients.
Unless you like being a smaller hairless sack of fat with bad skin and poor teeth in a tinier size of jean. If that's the case, sky's the limit!4 -
I just don't know why anyone WANTS to eat under 1200, personally I need all the 2100 cals to maintain, wish I could eat much more tbh
When I was cutting I needed 1600 minimum...
People eat so little as they want fast lost, but that shouldn't be the be all, end all. And that's why they keep (mostly) failing! as noone can eat that way for long... (imo!)0 -
frugalshrimp wrote: »Depending on your height and energy expenditure, 1200 or below is perfectly adequate long term. This is not a forum to lecture on ideal long-term caloric intake (not to mention macronutrient balance, within that caloric intake). The question was "what's wrong with eating under 1200?" And the answer remains "nothing." I have had several patients who come to me having been told this idiotic 'under 1200' rule, and it is plain wrong. It has to do with your height, your current and goal weight, your level of activity, your age. And your ability to control your intake if 1200 is much less than you are used to eating. By the way, VLCD are usually defined as under 800 calories/day. *That* I would not recommend unless people are being monitored for fluid and adequate macronutrient intake.
it has been proven that it is possible to get in proper nutrition on 1200 calories....but the average person is not
1. Under a doctors supervision
2. watching nutrition
3. short/small in stature.
The average person here is average height and over weight and wanting to lose "weight" as fast as possible and will do what they want regardless of the consequences. Those consequences of actually eating 1200 and below for a long period of time is well known...and since you have access to lots of data driven science go check it out.
But let's start with loss of muscle mass which can lead to bone density issues later in life and never mind our heart is a muscle.
Thinning hair and nails
fatigue and listlessness
grumpy
hungry
I watch time and time again people log 1200 calories or lower and for those actually only eating 1200 or lower the results are dreadful....
But thank goodness most don't log correctly and are probably eating 1500 or higher.
from your linkA standard amount is about 2,000 calories. VLCDs provide far fewer calories than most people need to maintain a healthy weight. This type of diet is used to promote quick weight loss, often as a way to jump-start an obesity treatment program.
VLCD formulas are designed to provide all of the nutrients you need while helping you lose weight quickly. However, this type of diet should only be used for a short time—usually about 12 weeks.Most people who need to lose weight should not use a VLCD. For many of them, a low-calorie diet (LCD) may work better (see The Low-calorie Diet (LCD)).What are the health risks of a VLCD?
Doctors must monitor all VLCD patients regularly—ideally every 2 weeks in the initial period of rapid weight loss—to be sure patients are not experiencing serious side effects.
Many patients on a VLCD for 4 to 16 weeks report minor side effects such as fatigue, constipation, nausea, or diarrhea. These conditions usually improve within a few weeks and rarely prevent patients from completing the program.
The most common serious side effect is gallstones. Gallstones, which often develop in people who are obese, especially women, may be even more commonly developed during rapid weight loss. Some medicines can prevent gallstones from forming during rapid weight loss. Your health care provider can determine if these medicines are appropriate for you. For more information, see the WIN fact sheet on dieting and gallstones, listed under Resources.2 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?
a poster here once showed me how it is possible to just meet these needs on 1200...just meet them....and that was very very careful planning.
and that was just the RDA minimum amounts...
Yeah, it's possible, if you know about nutrition and really watch it, but as we've seen just on this message board, people in general know jack s%^t about proper nutrition/being healthy/exercise. So for the average person 1200 isn't going to give them what they need nutritionally. The Registered Dietician I spoke to on occasion said she recommends 1400 calories and most will still lose on it, since 1200 is based on BMR and doesn't include extra activity.2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
I think you know dam well I was referring not to people who are thinner as opposed to people who are overweight. I'm talking about the horrible and YES nasty dangerous health effects of eating a VLCD for a significant period of time. Turn down your offense-o-meter. You have it set to invalid inferences.
I do know what you were referring to-i would still not call them totally nasty, just as I wouldn't call anyone here that was morbidly obese totally nasty. Somehow I think that wouldn't go over as well here.
We're not talking "body types" here.
Look at pictures of concentration camp survivors. That's not a "body type". That's just, well, horrible is a mild word. Nobody with a functional mind does this to themselves voluntarily.0 -
what about supplimets? wouldnt these make up for what you are lacking on a low calorie diet?
Well . . . here's my perspective as an old person (60).
Over the course of my life, modern science has discovered a boatload of essential or helpful nutrients - vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, sub-types of fats, and who knows what-all.
Maybe supplements can help with nutrients we now know we need. I'll bet there are still more we don't yet know about. People have been getting those mystery ones from healthy foods for centuries and millennia.
Also, there are some research studies that hint that getting nutrients in an extracted, standalone way may not (in some cases) have the same beneficial effects as getting the same levels of the same nutrients from foods, and in specific cases can even be destructive or dangerous.
Two casual friends were a couple who were nutritional researchers at our local (major) university. They told me that they might take a basic, good-quality multi-vitamin (nothing mega-dose-ish) as a bit of insurance, but that their well-researched, knowledgeable professional belief was that eating healthfully was a much more effective, safer way to go.
Given all of this, I personally put a huge priority on eating varied foods that will give me well-rounded, high-quality level of nutrition. Other folks can make other decisions, but that's mine, and the reasons for it.2 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »Thanks for all the replies! Is the general consensus that it's pretty much impossible to meet your nutritional needs on less than that amount?
Unless you are under 5 feet tall and dead idle, you probably need the 1,200 a day on average. There also just isn't any benefit to losing weight too fast, and there is a big downside, it's better for your body to go slow. There's a limit to how much fat a body can burn through in a day, beyond that limit it will use other parts of you to fund its activities - muscles, brain, bone, heart.
No I don't think you can permanently damage your metabolism by too restrictive eating though - I had disordered eating when young (would not gain, was stressed and used my body to control it, stayed under 100lb until 20 years, got to 125 by 23 years, am 5'9") and, while it did lead to some lasting health effects, my metabolism never suffered, has always been sort of fast, I do eat well and stay thin.
1 -
frugalshrimp wrote: »Noting is wrong with eating under 1200 --except that most people will tend to overeat when they do eat. The notion that it is dangerous to eat fewer than 1200 (or 1000) kcals is just ignorance/myth.
so it's perfectly healthy to be anorexic?
I will refer you to the numerous posts on this site of women losing their hair, hair turning brittle, nails turning brittle, losing menstrual cycles, etc...and then you can tell me how it's no biggie to consistently eat a VLCD.
6 -
Ok, low calorie diets not under a doc's supervision will not provide the right viatmins and nutrients you need, nor will you preserve muscle mass. Muscle mass is lost in a deficit but you can compensate for that by eating the proper amount of protein. However the more cals you cut, the more dangerous it is. Your body will start eating muscle. Keep in mind I'm taking about a diet that's 800-900 calories.
Now everyone needs different amounts of calories in relation to their gender, height, weight and age, but you should be eating at least 1200 calories net.0 -
ThunderZtorm wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
And to elaborate on that, what it means is that you'll have lost the weight but still look totally nasty when you get to goal because you've lost a lot of the lovely muscle that makes your body flat and tight and nice-looking.
Really? Is it necessary to call a certain body type "totally nasty?" There are so many other adjectives you could have used. I doubt people would be okay with someone calling the opposite body type totally nasty...
I think you know dam well I was referring not to people who are thinner as opposed to people who are overweight. I'm talking about the horrible and YES nasty dangerous health effects of eating a VLCD for a significant period of time. Turn down your offense-o-meter. You have it set to invalid inferences.
I do know what you were referring to-i would still not call them totally nasty, just as I wouldn't call anyone here that was morbidly obese totally nasty. Somehow I think that wouldn't go over as well here.
We're not talking "body types" here.
Look at pictures of concentration camp survivors. That's not a "body type". That's just, well, horrible is a mild word. Nobody with a functional mind does this to themselves voluntarily.
To be fair, Holocaust victims weren't just being starved. Often they were being starved, forced to do hard labor AND sufferent from rampant disease. More people died of disease than straight up starvation. And a lot of people were gassed to death.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions