Below 1200 cal diet : success! (Loads of water +plus fiber drink)
gladysbtg
Posts: 12 Member
Lost 7 pounds in 3 weeks just by keeping my caloric intake below 1000-1200. I also drink dietary fiber at bed time! thanks fitness pal!
Need to work on macronutrients though.
Not hitting required daily vitamin levels
Need to work on macronutrients though.
Not hitting required daily vitamin levels
2
Replies
-
Don't know why you are thanking MFP since this is not recommended. And the weight you lost is water weight. It will return when you return to a reasonable, normal diet.25
-
Cathipa. Calorie counting? Im not a big fan of vegetables. I eat a little so i thought it will be great to take fiber to help my bowel movement and cleanse my intstines.
I also measure my belly and arms+legs. Lost few cm. I drink 20 glasses of water evry day.2 -
MfP helped a lot in counting calories4
-
How much weight are you trying to lose total? What is your height and current weight?
Are you exercising?
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »How much weight are you trying to lose total? What is your height and current weight?
Are you exercising?
Trying to lose 20 lbs more - to reach my ideal BMI. 1200 cal die is for those with sedentay lifestyle.
btw . I stopped doing crossfit 2 months ago.i decided to try calorie counting instead.
had 1 on 1 crossfit training for 6 full months (3-4x a week) before. Sadly,i did not lose a lot of weight. Maybe gained strenght but in terms of physical change .. not much..Maybe it wasnt for me.0 -
Cathipa. Calorie counting? Im not a big fan of vegetables. I eat a little so i thought it will be great to take fiber to help my bowel movement and cleanse my intstines.
I also measure my belly and arms+legs. Lost few cm. I drink 20 glasses of water evry day.
Right, but like I said this is water loss not fat loss. You can eat more and lose without sacrificing macro/micro nutrition.5 -
With 20 lbs to lose you should be aiming to lose no more than 1 lb/week, maybe even 0.5 lb. have you tried setting up MFP with accurate stats and reasonable goal rate of loss, letting it calculate a calorie goal for you (would be at a minimum 1200 Net) and then logging everything you eat accurately and honestly?
It shouldn't be an either or between cross fit (or any exercise) and counting calories. It can be both, and when you exercise and log that, you would also be eating back a portion of those calories so you are always Netting 1200 cals/day.
You mentioned not getting adequate nutrition on the low cals you were aiming for. That's one of the primary risks of a low cal diet, but also loss of lean body mass (skinny fat), fatigue, hair loss, sallow skin, brittle nails...
You should be eating at least 1200 cals, but if you use MFP the way it was designed, you can still achieve your goals.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »With 20 lbs to lose you should be aiming to lose no more than 1 lb/week, maybe even 0.5 lb. have you tried setting up MFP with accurate stats and reasonable goal rate of loss, letting it calculate a calorie goal for you (would be at a minimum 1200 Net) and then logging everything you eat accurately and honestly?
It shouldn't be an either or between cross fit (or any exercise) and counting calories. It can be both, and when you exercise and log that, you would also be eating back a portion of those calories so you are always Netting 1200 cals/day.
You mentioned not getting adequate nutrition on the low cals you were aiming for. That's one of the primary risks of a low cal diet, but also loss of lean body mass (skinny fat), fatigue, hair loss, sallow skin, brittle nails...
You should be eating at least 1200 cals, but if you use MFP the way it was designed, you can still achieve your goals.
I changed the caloric goal.
I upgraded to premium and saw the option to custom caloric goal and % of carb , fat and protein.
I did try doing both at the same time. Eating less and exercise. Haha. I endured all the training but after that i just couldnt stop eating. I know it was frustrating.
So far. My skin is clear and both nails + hair are ok.
Pants not as tight as before.
0 -
I lost 7lbs in 3 weeks eating MORE than 1200 calories a day. Who's the real winner here?43
-
If it works for you, then thats great. I do think it's a tad extreme for only 20lbs, you can lose that and still do crossfit and eat more...more than just veggies
I have lost 6lbs in 3 weeks and I eat around 1400cal plus I do cardio and a HIIT Program.
Like I said though, good on you if it works for you and you still have energy to function3 -
Nice water weight loss.12
-
WinoGelato wrote: »How much weight are you trying to lose total? What is your height and current weight?
Are you exercising?
Trying to lose 20 lbs more - to reach my ideal BMI. 1200 cal diet is for those with sedentary lifestyle.
btw . I stopped doing crossfit 2 months ago.i decided to try calorie counting instead.
had 1 on 1 crossfit training for 6 full months (3-4x a week) before. Sadly,i did not lose a lot of weight. Maybe gained strenght but in terms of physical change .. not much..Maybe it wasnt for me.
1200 is a DEFAULT minimum based on "I want to lose xx pounds per week." So 1200, 1350, 1500 ....it's your choice.
1200 does not include any exercise, so when you did crossfit you were supposed to log that and eat more. That's how this app works.
Crossfit is not for weight loss. Sadly exercise does not burn a massive number of calories. Eating less is still the key to weight loss. You should exercise because you want to be healthier......you said yourself you might have gained strength.
Maybe crossfit was not the exercise that you enjoyed enough to continue doing. Keep trying new things. Exercise is so good for you.5 -
jeese, why is everyone picking on this woman? Get off her back.
I didn't read she was asking for suggestions or criticism.
She lost 7 lbs in 3 weeks not 70.27 -
jeese, why is everyone picking on this woman? Get off her back.
I didn't read she was asking for suggestions or criticism.
She lost 7 lbs in 3 weeks not 70.
No one is picking on her.
Eating under 1200 cals (especially under 1000 cals) is not recommended and is in fact, against MFP guidelines. It can be dangerous, unhealthy, and unsustainable.
You'd rather us cheer irresponsible, unsafe behavior?21 -
Everyone: it is not against mfp guidelines to eat under 1200. The minimum is 1,000, updated to reflect revised NIH guidelines. If you close your log with less than 1000, you get that warning. NOT 1200. It could be that those with earlier versions of the app still show 1200, but that is not the newest guideline. Not saying 1000 or 1100 is ideal, but it's not "against the rules".
Nor is it a rule that you have to lose slower with less to lose. It may be easier, but it's not a "rule". There is actually research about the speed of weight loss and long term results (not gaining) are about the same whether you've lost fast or slow. I know this site (and most of the members) wants to encourage health and of course discourage eating disorders, but 1000 for women is the new minimum from the NIH (National Institutes of Health (US))
@gladysbtg- if you are feeling great keep it up- if not- eat more!15 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »Everyone: it is not against mfp guidelines to eat under 1200. The minimum is 1,000, updated to reflect revised NIH guidelines. If you close your log with less than 1000, you get that warning. NOT 1200. It could be that those with earlier versions of the app still show 1200, but that is not the newest guideline. Not saying 1000 or 1100 is ideal, but it's not "against the rules".
Nor is it a rule that you have to lose slower with less to lose. It may be easier, but it's not a "rule". There is actually research about the speed of weight loss and long term results (not gaining) are about the same whether you've lost fast or slow. I know this site (and most of the members) wants to encourage health and of course discourage eating disorders, but 1000 for women is the new minimum from the NIH (National Institutes of Health (US))
@gladysbtg- if you are feeling great keep it up- if not- eat more!
Thanks! Works for me.6 -
Adults can be very mean, but hunny what works for YOU works for YOU. congrats on your wl:)19
-
-
I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]1 -
I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
Im 5'2 too!0 -
A0
-
Don't know why you are thanking MFP since this is not recommended. And the weight you lost is water weight. It will return when you return to a reasonable, normal diet.
what a Debbie Downer you are!!! I don't care what kind of weight was lost she is still down 7 pounds. Be happy for her! You are right she should not be thanking MFP she should thank herself for losing the weight!! What works for her may not be what you would do!!!6 -
I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
2 -
Don't know why you are thanking MFP since this is not recommended. And the weight you lost is water weight. It will return when you return to a reasonable, normal diet.
what a Debbie Downer you are!!! I don't care what kind of weight was lost she is still down 7 pounds. Be happy for her! You are right she should not be thanking MFP she should thank herself for losing the weight!! What works for her may not be what you would do!!!
So you think we should applaud and cheer any weight loss, even if attained through unhealthy and unsustainable practices?6 -
OP, I kinda agree with both sides.
When I just started my weight loss journey, I used to eat about that amount too. And I lost the weight. But when I got to my goal weight I didn't look the way I thought I would look. Turns out I lost muscle too and ended up looking a bit flabby. But if you don't care about that, then I say continue doing what you're doing (no sarcasm).
When I learned about gaining muscle etc I started strength training seriously and eating more. Which definitely improved my physique. Now consider this, I haven't worked out in months because of being pregnant and having some complications. Now I've had the baby and I'm pretty sedentary (home all day with baby, no exercise as yet, waiting on clearance from Dr.) BUT I'm burning 1600-1800 calories a day according to my fitbit (which does not include breastfeeding) so I eat 2100-2200 calories daily and I'm maintaining/slowly losing.
I say all that to say, eating between 1000-1200 is not necessarily a bad thing if you have just a few pounds to lose and want to do it quickly (I could never eat that small amount again though, I feel hungry just thinking about it LOL). But to lose the 20 lbs you want to, I say eat up and return to strength training. If you don't like Crossfit, find something else. You'll look so much better when you get to your goal weight.
P.S. I'm a shorty too (5'1).5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
If a woman is sedentary, 5'2", and not very heavy, their TDEE will be fairly low. 117lbs with her stats is a TDEE of about 1450, for example. Losing the 7lbs would put her at 110lbs, a TDEE of 1400 [and still healthy for our height]. Just under 1200 isn't far off [and you can eat a shocking amount of food in volume, still]. But again, this is why I asked for her stats. When I started out at 200lbs, 1200 would be soooo unhealthy for me. I was sedentary af then, but my TDEE was still over 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is balls-to-the-wall active. I'll sometimes get up there in activity depending on what areas I'm switching to at work, and I do adjust for it, but I'm nowhere near your TDEE. xD; Ever. But I never said it was healthy for OP, just that we need her stats.
OP, I'll ask again for your stats, you only gave height. We kinda need your weight to see if this is even healthy for you.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
If a woman is sedentary, 5'2", and not very heavy, their TDEE will be fairly low. 117lbs with her stats is a TDEE of about 1450, for example. Losing the 7lbs would put her at 110lbs, a TDEE of 1400 [and still healthy for our height]. Just under 1200 isn't far off [and you can eat a shocking amount of food in volume, still]. But again, this is why I asked for her stats. When I started out at 200lbs, 1200 would be soooo unhealthy for me. I was sedentary af then, but my TDEE was still over 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is balls-to-the-wall active. I'll sometimes get up there in activity depending on what areas I'm switching to at work, and I do adjust for it, but I'm nowhere near your TDEE. xD; Ever. But I never said it was healthy for OP, just that we need her stats.
OP, I'll ask again for your stats, you only gave height. We kinda need your weight to see if this is even healthy for you.
How are you calculating a sedentary TDEE of 1450? A 5'2" woman in her 20s will have closer to a 1700 calorie TDEE at 117 lbs, according to most calculators I've used. Just bumping up the activity level a bit will put it close to 1,800-2,000 calories.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
If a woman is sedentary, 5'2", and not very heavy, their TDEE will be fairly low. 117lbs with her stats is a TDEE of about 1450, for example. Losing the 7lbs would put her at 110lbs, a TDEE of 1400 [and still healthy for our height]. Just under 1200 isn't far off [and you can eat a shocking amount of food in volume, still]. But again, this is why I asked for her stats. When I started out at 200lbs, 1200 would be soooo unhealthy for me. I was sedentary af then, but my TDEE was still over 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is balls-to-the-wall active. I'll sometimes get up there in activity depending on what areas I'm switching to at work, and I do adjust for it, but I'm nowhere near your TDEE. xD; Ever. But I never said it was healthy for OP, just that we need her stats.
OP, I'll ask again for your stats, you only gave height. We kinda need your weight to see if this is even healthy for you.
How are you calculating a sedentary TDEE of 1450? A 5'2" woman in her 20s will have closer to a 1700 calorie TDEE at 117 lbs, according to most calculators I've used. Just bumping up the activity level a bit will put it close to 1,800-2,000 calories.
OP is 30 [checked profile]. Also, what calculator are YOU using...? o___O And what activity level did you set it to?
I use https://tdeecalculator.net/ and occasionally a few others just to verify the ballparks given.
Another site I checked gave me a ballpark of about 1550 @ 117, 1500 @ 110..
A 3rd gives about 1450 @ 117, 1400 @ 110..
I'm literally going down the list on google right now.. xD1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
If a woman is sedentary, 5'2", and not very heavy, their TDEE will be fairly low. 117lbs with her stats is a TDEE of about 1450, for example. Losing the 7lbs would put her at 110lbs, a TDEE of 1400 [and still healthy for our height]. Just under 1200 isn't far off [and you can eat a shocking amount of food in volume, still]. But again, this is why I asked for her stats. When I started out at 200lbs, 1200 would be soooo unhealthy for me. I was sedentary af then, but my TDEE was still over 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is balls-to-the-wall active. I'll sometimes get up there in activity depending on what areas I'm switching to at work, and I do adjust for it, but I'm nowhere near your TDEE. xD; Ever. But I never said it was healthy for OP, just that we need her stats.
OP, I'll ask again for your stats, you only gave height. We kinda need your weight to see if this is even healthy for you.
I'm sorry, but just how are you calculating this? I'm 5'1", 54 years old, 117 pounds, and my sedentary TDEE using the most stringent calculator I could find is almost 1500.
As for winogelato, plugging her stats into the same calculator gets me an almost 2,000 TDEE, and that's only calling her moderately active. Hardly "balls-to-the-wall".0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I never did see her respond with her stats. OP, what is your height/weight? Height is especially good to know in this scenario.
I'm 5'2". I could go under 1200 for weight loss just because I'm so short, it wouldn't be unhealthy for me. My TDEE is around 1500 when lightly active [note; I'm not trying to lose weight right now, though]
I'm 5'2 as well and going under 1200 would be unhealthy for me, as my TDEE is 2200. Not to mention it is often difficult to get adequate nutrition on lower calories.
The minimums are there for a reason. 5'2 isn't THAT petite and anyone who isn't extremely sedentary should be able to eat more and lose.
That TDEE of 1500 at lightly active seems kind of low. How did you arrive at that number?
If a woman is sedentary, 5'2", and not very heavy, their TDEE will be fairly low. 117lbs with her stats is a TDEE of about 1450, for example. Losing the 7lbs would put her at 110lbs, a TDEE of 1400 [and still healthy for our height]. Just under 1200 isn't far off [and you can eat a shocking amount of food in volume, still]. But again, this is why I asked for her stats. When I started out at 200lbs, 1200 would be soooo unhealthy for me. I was sedentary af then, but my TDEE was still over 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is balls-to-the-wall active. I'll sometimes get up there in activity depending on what areas I'm switching to at work, and I do adjust for it, but I'm nowhere near your TDEE. xD; Ever. But I never said it was healthy for OP, just that we need her stats.
OP, I'll ask again for your stats, you only gave height. We kinda need your weight to see if this is even healthy for you.
How are you calculating a sedentary TDEE of 1450? A 5'2" woman in her 20s will have closer to a 1700 calorie TDEE at 117 lbs, according to most calculators I've used. Just bumping up the activity level a bit will put it close to 1,800-2,000 calories.
OP is 30 [checked profile]. Also, what calculator are YOU using...? o___O And what activity level did you set it to?
I use https://tdeecalculator.net/ and occasionally a few others just to verify the ballparks given.
Another site I checked gave me a ballpark of about 1550 @ 117, 1500 @ 110..
A 3rd gives about 1450 @ 117, 1400 @ 110..
I'm literally going down the list on google right now.. xD
You're right, my mistake - sedentary TDEE for those stats is closer to 1500. However, not very many people are truly sedentary. For the general, healthy public, lightly active is much more representative. Lightly active bumps it up considerably to closer to 1,800, which is much a much more accurate estimate, IMO, barring a health condition.
And this is not "balls to the wall" active we're talking about. This is normal every day activity - walking your dog, cleaning your house, walking around the office, grocery shopping. Making a concerted effort to exercise can bump that number up even more.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
- 427 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
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!