When or do you change your 1200 calorie diet as you lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
1 -
Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.0
-
PS: i would have responded to some individual posts but can't figure out how?0
-
My husband went from 377lbs to 230lbs in 9 months eating a high protein low carbs diet from 1,000-1,200 calories a day on doctors orders! Keep going just make sure you eat ALOT of protein!1
-
StephWants2BeSkinny wrote: »My husband went from 377lbs to 230lbs in 9 months eating a high protein low carbs diet from 1,000-1,200 calories a day on doctors orders! Keep going just make sure you eat ALOT of protein!
The OP was never anywhere near 377, and he never said the doctor ordered 1200. I think people's general guidance is appropriate.0 -
OP I'm the same height and at my lowest (185) I was eating 1400-1500 a day to lose. 1200 makes me pretty hangry. As others have said, you can and should be eating more to lose.0
-
VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.0 -
1200 for a male is incredibly low and probably not hitting minimum nutritional requirements. And with so little to lose relatively speaking, all you're doing is losing a bunch of muscle because the body can only metabolise so much stored fat in a day which is never ever a good thing.1
-
VintageFeline wrote: »1200 for a male is incredibly low and probably not hitting minimum nutritional requirements. And with so little to lose relatively speaking, all you're doing is losing a bunch of muscle because the body can only metabolise so much stored fat in a day which is never ever a good thing.
This^
Op you are not obese.....muscle loss is a real issue. I understand that you are not tall, but 1500 calories would give you a much better chance at supporting existing lean muscle mass.
This is why MFP has default minimums (men & women). In your case, fast weight loss isn't healthy weight loss.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »males should not drop below 1500 net. the 1200 is for women. if you go to low you will lose a lot of lean muscle mass because thats too low for men. 1200 for some women is even too low. even for a short period of time 1200 is too little for males.1500 is the least that a man should intake unless under the care of a doctor(not meaning the dr says its ok,I mean in a controlled environment where a dr monitors you closely and makes sure there are no issues)
He is under care from a doctor.
where does he say that?
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.0 -
ummijaaz560 wrote: »I wonder why MFP won't just automatically adjust a males lowest goal to 1500? Or can you manually override the amount?
The 1500 is a bit baseless, not actually implemented and overridden by Custom Goals anyway.0 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.0 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.2 -
Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
Being in a rush to lose weight is foolish and dangerous.
You didn't gain weight overnight; losing it will take a while, too.
I set my calorie goal lower because I have a LOT to lose - I can afford to be a bit more aggressive. For someone who only has 30 lbs to lose, there's no reason to set such a low calorie goal.
If you're hungry ALL THE TIME, maybe it means you should be eating more. I have a 1200/cal day goal and I'm not hungry all the time (and trust me, this is coming from someone who used to manage to eat a whole pizza by herself). And some days, I allow myself to go a bit higher - as long as I'm below maintenance, I'm good. AND GUESS WHAT. I DON'T GO HUNGRY.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.1 -
OP has not been back since he gave a "thank you shout out" ealrier in the thread. He is convinced at this 1200 calorie goal is spot on and wants to keep pushing weight loss beyond what he needs to do in order to meet goal in a fast fashion.
Should he get ill, or start having metabolic issues (esp at his age) he will either start eating more or need to get to the doctor.
It is a sad day when a man of his age really does think 1200 is a great goal and thinks he should decrease it more. Where did the process go wrong in his case?
edited to add: in this case I hope he not weighing or logging food accurately.. meaning he is eating a bit more.. could be the case scenario!
1 -
OP has not been back since he gave a "thank you shout out" ealrier in the thread. He is convinced at this 1200 calorie goal is spot on and wants to keep pushing weight loss beyond what he needs to do in order to meet goal in a fast fashion.
Should he get ill, or start having metabolic issues (esp at his age) he will either start eating more or need to get to the doctor.
It is a sad day when a man of his age really does think 1200 is a great goal and thinks he should decrease it more. Where did the process go wrong in his case?
can't teach an old dog new tricks maybe?
the 1200 calorie thing has been around as long as I have and that's 40 odd years so....I suspect it has been around a lot longer.....0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And I'm not talking about OP, I'm addressing a sweeping generalization that is wrong.
It's a pretty accurate generalisation. You'd have to be very short (5" and under) and sedentary for less to not be a nutritional problem. That's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population.
Agreed..to hit minimum macro requirements 1200 is tricky but doable.
But you have to be care on what you are eating and most aren't.
I have yet to me a person irl or on here where less than 1200 is required for weight loss....unless damaged metabolism due to chronic starvation yah no. Even Children typically eat more than that.
Dr Now from My 600 Lb Life puts his patients on 800 calorie diets. Bear in mind these people are near death and 600-800 lbs. In that case, I think it's acceptable as it's short term, typically the patients lose enough to do bariatric surgery and then they probably have different nutritional/caloric needs afterward. I know they take vitamins, do protein shakes/supplements, etc.
under doctors care yes..and he monitors them.Colorscheme wrote: »Doogemccleod wrote: »Thank you all for the timely and helpful advice! I really appreciate it. 1200 seems pretty filling to me - not generally hungry. I have lost 20 lbs and now weight 180. I am 5'6" inches short. My goal is to get to 150. I walk an hour 5x per week and play golf (in cart) 3 - 4 times per week. "I am always in a hurry and don't know why!" Just want to get to goal quickly - thanks again! Butch.
A quick weight loss at the risk of your health?? Is it worth it and the fact you damage your metabolism and your health.
There's no such thing as a damaged metabolism for the most part.
Actually yes there is....chronic starvation or VLCD done repeatedly can cause it.
Not true. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment kinda proves that it's not true.
actually it proves it is true in a way. Metabolic damage occurs in people with chronic eating disorders and starvation. I don't mean a 6 month experiment either...but the experiment you referenced did indicate a lower RMR in those in the study and it only returned to "normal" when all fat stores had been recovered.
I mean people who have starved themselves purposefully or due to famine have been starved for years.
There is a protocol to help them recover and it is very specific...if you give someone who is so starved too much food too fast it kills them....proof of that is when food was given to concentration camp survivors by well meaning liberators...didn't go well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-followup-qa.html/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
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions