1000-1200 calories, anyone?

1246

Replies

  • aephillips1
    aephillips1 Posts: 17 Member
    While it is by far most common for people to cut their calories more aggressively than necessary and/or be less than meticulous about their logging, sometimes 1200 or less is actually appropriate. I am 5'3" and 125 pounds. I track my metabolism using indirect calorimetry, according to which I actually have a low metabolism. According the common Mifflin St Jeor formula, my BMR should be 1271. My BMR actually hovers at 1000. That means if I don't exercise, I MAINTAIN at about 1200 calories. TDEE = BMR x 1.2 (sedentary activity factor). Even with an activity factor of 1.75 (hard exercise or sports 6-7 days/wk), that's only 1500 calories to lose half a pound a week.

    To answer the OP, I am strict. I log everything, down to how many grams of mustard I use.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
    "The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".

    I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?

    Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.

    That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.

    Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.

    There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.

    I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.

    I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...

    No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.

    None of that means that every person's approach should be to eat as much as possible while still losing. Some of us don't feel deprived or find it unsustainable to eat 1200 calories a day, and we still exercise and have energy and aren't lying, failing to log properly or starving. The blanket pronouncement that no woman should ever eat at 1200 calories unless she's extremely short and very inactive is you and others projecting onto others.

    Maybe try being a bit less quick to insist that everyone adhere to your strategy of eating every calorie they possibly can lest they be doing it wrong. The limit at which I lose at my chosen rate is the most I can eat, if hungry. It's not an obligation, nor is it a failure to get to the end of the day and have some calories left in the green.

    Serious question: How long have you been doing this?
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
    "The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".

    I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?

    Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.

    That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.

    Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.

    There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.

    I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.

    I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...

    No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.

    None of that means that every person's approach should be to eat as much as possible while still losing. Some of us don't feel deprived or find it unsustainable to eat 1200 calories a day, and we still exercise and have energy and aren't lying, failing to log properly or starving. The blanket pronouncement that no woman should ever eat at 1200 calories unless she's extremely short and very inactive is you and others projecting onto others.

    Maybe try being a bit less quick to insist that everyone adhere to your strategy of eating every calorie they possibly can lest they be doing it wrong. The limit at which I lose at my chosen rate is the most I can eat, if hungry. It's not an obligation, nor is it a failure to get to the end of the day and have some calories left in the green.

    Serious question: How long have you been doing this?

    Two years.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Once again, just want to quote one of my favorite former MFP members, a wise rabbit who used to say,
    "The winner is the one who eats the most, and still reaches their goal".

    I don't understand why the vehement defense of lower calorie targets. If you CAN eat more and still lose, why would you not want to?

    Because I'm not hungry and I'm not going to shove food into my cake hole just because an app tells me to.

    That "clean your plate" mentality is part of how I got fat in the first place.

    Excess calories causes weight gain. Yes.

    There's no reason to force myself to eat more than 1200 calories every single day if, for whatever reason, I am not actually hungry.

    I log so that I don't gain weight, but I also do not force food upon myself when I'm not hungry. It's not for me about "I can eat more, therefore I have to." It's I can if I'm hungry, eat up to this line and still be within my targets for losing weight. There's no reason, in my mind, to deliberately slow my progress by eating past the point of being satiated.

    I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...

    No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.

    None of that means that every person's approach should be to eat as much as possible while still losing. Some of us don't feel deprived or find it unsustainable to eat 1200 calories a day, and we still exercise and have energy and aren't lying, failing to log properly or starving. The blanket pronouncement that no woman should ever eat at 1200 calories unless she's extremely short and very inactive is you and others projecting onto others.

    Maybe try being a bit less quick to insist that everyone adhere to your strategy of eating every calorie they possibly can lest they be doing it wrong. The limit at which I lose at my chosen rate is the most I can eat, if hungry. It's not an obligation, nor is it a failure to get to the end of the day and have some calories left in the green.

    Serious question: How long have you been doing this?

    Two years.

    You've been eating at 1200 for two years?

    Further questions:

    You say you exercise and have energy - how much exercise do you get?

    Have you ever taken a diet break?

    What are your current stats?

    There are reasons I'm asking these questions, I do have a point. I'll get to it once I know more information.
  • buglesalmoncatgirl
    buglesalmoncatgirl Posts: 43 Member

    Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".
  • CafeRacer808
    CafeRacer808 Posts: 2,396 Member
    edited March 2017
    buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »
    Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".

    With only 30-45lbs to lose, I suspect you'll find that trying to lose 2lb/week will be unsustainable either now, or in the near future.

    The general recommendation is to aim to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. And that percentage should, in most all cases, decrease as you get closer to your goal weight.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »
    Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".

    I will add my voice to those urging you to be in no rush to lose weight.

    It's really unrealistic to expect to lose more than a pound a week with that amount to lose. People have unrealistic expectations of weight loss and make the process of losing weight harder and more punishing than it has to be in order to rush through it.

    Weight management is a life long endeavor. Loss is only the first phase of it. Once the excess weight is gone, your weight will need to be maintained. Take the time while losing weight slowly and sensibly to establish habits that will see you through to maintenance of your goal weight.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    edited March 2017
    youdoyou2016 wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    youdoyou2016 wrote: »
    I know people suggest that you will die or your head pop off or something if you go lower than 1200. But, c'mon.

    LOL.
    youdoyou2016 wrote: »
    I stay at a # for a while (weeks), then drop 3-4 lbs and stay there for a day or two. Then I bounce back up so that I average @ 1 lbs a wk.

    Actually I think that is the norm for a lot of people. Frustrating maybe, but pretty normal.

    Yeah, I know the bouncing is normal. Just maddening sometimes.

    As for the 1200 ... Who made this up? I am completely serious. How'd 98.6 get to be a normal temp? (Really!) I can't be the only one who has felt half dead, gone to a doctor, had a temp of 98.8 or, worse, 98.4 and, suddenly, no one seems to care I feel beyond terrible. If your cholesterol is 195 you're OK but 205 you're in trouble? My bp is always 100/60. I once had a doctor want to give me meds to make it go up to a normal 120/80. Weirdos. :smile:

    I have no idea. My bp is also usually 100/60 even less sometimes. My resting heart rate is high 40's low 50's. Any time I have had a medical procedure done, where I am coming out of anesthesia, they have to turn off the heart monitor alarm because it just keeps going off. :p I think the 1200 simply came about as a good *general* baseline, for the majority of the population. It works for most, but not all.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    This doesnt apply to everyone on this thread, but it is one of the most informative posts i have read on here.
    Written by @Faithful_Chosen
    Thanks, everyone, for the answers already :smile: I am just going to add that MyFitnessPal calculates your projected loss (so, the amount you have set to lose a week) into the net goal you recieve. It assumes that if you want to eat more, you have to move more to stay in that deficit. Makes sense, right?

    Now, especially newbies have a tendency to up the cardio and decrease the food to make a bigger deficit, assuming they will lose faster--and they might! I am not gonna sit here and say that you won't lose more. It's probably not going to show up on the scale due to water weight, but they will lose more. The question is: at what price? And what are they losing?

    The MyFitnessPal method (built in deficit based on your numbers, especially plus purposeful exercise) is designed to steadily lose fat and preserving as much muscle as possible. You see, there is a (science proven) limit to how much fat a body can convert into usable energy during any period of time. If you go over that limit, it turns to muscle for fuel instead. You will always get a little bit of muscle tissue loss when eating at a deficit, but if you undereat and up the cardio (or even strength training!) like I see a lot of people on here do, you are forcing your body to canibalize its muscle tissue on top of the max level of fat it can burn. Not to mention that meeting your macro and micro nutrient goals with this method is virtually impossible, creating massive hormone imbalances (leptine, for example) and vitamins and mineral deficits.

    The long term effects of crash dieting and deprivation dieting (which is basically what happens when you become one of the people who net in the low hundreds to negatives day after day for an extended period of time) can be really severe. Basically, you are systematically starving yourself, after all. The results tend to be this (one example, hypothetical you):

    - your body burns fat, then muscle tissue to sustain itself. You become weaker and sore. You also start having cravings because your brain is sending out warning signs: 'I am starving! Feed me!'. So, you either binge and up your overall net a little, or you persevere and pat yourself on the back for a job well done! You wanted lots of fatty food, but you fed it a celery stick instead. Sadly, your whole timeline congratulates you on your willpower. You start to wonder, though, why your willpower is not being rewarded! The scale doesn't budge! You fail to realize it's because of water weight due to too much exercise and the body's inability to recover due to a lack of nurishment. The solution is often to eat even less and work out even more to get the scale to move.

    - the body is further unable to sustain. It changed the body's chemistry to preserve all it can--after all, it needs to protect vital organs from becoming affected and keep you going so you can hunt and gather for food! At this stage, the body becomes its own worst enemy: it no longer tells you you are starving so you can make a last ditch effort to get food. You think you are fine on 1000 calories a day, burning 1200, because your body shows no signs of hunger anymore, but basically, the little neutrients you are providing your body with get sucked towards your vital organs, leaving nothing for the rest. You become more tired, and cranky, and your muscles no longer recover from all the stress you put them through working out. As a result, they break down even faster and hold on to even more water to prevent that breakdown from affecting your ability to throw a spear at a prey animal (hey, I can't help it your body still thinks we are living in caves!). The scale drops oh so slowly--if at all--but meanwhile you do see you are slimming down! Your measurements are less! MyFitnessPal celebrates! 'Hurray! The weight must come off in a 'woosh' soon now! Keep doing what you are doing!'. Note that (thankfully) many people drop out at this stage. The psychological burden becomes too great, they feel *kitten*, and life isn't fun anymore. They stop dieting, start binging, and gain even more weight. The jojo'ing has begun.

    - you keep doing what you were doing. We are a few months in now. You develop headaches, fatigue, and you start finding more and more hair on your pillow in the morning. In fact, you start finding hair everywhere. You also get hungry again, not in a way that makes you binge but a sort of steady nagging: a gentle reminder that time is running out. Fail to meet it (MyFitnessPal people pat your back when you tell them you went to bed early instead of having more food) and slowly, your body gives up its protective hold on more systems. You can survive without full function to certain organs, so your body throws them to the wolves: nutrients go towards your brain, heart, and lungs. Pretty much all other organs start running at half capacity. You hold on to more toxins, which start chipping away at your system, and your ability to process food (get nutrients out of them) suffers greatly, so you are truly starving now. This is the point where the weight starts coming off, and pretty quickly, too, usually. A big whoosh! (MyFitnessPal people cheer in the distance). What you are really seeing is your body giving up on protecting muscle tissue completely: the water weight falls away, showing you that you actually did lose a lot of fat and muscle tissue. More cheering! It must be working! Keep at it! Work harder! Eat less!

    - now you are in serious *kitten*! Your organs are not keeping up, your muscles are breaking down, and the body has to start looking elsewhere for fuel: your organs and the more vital muscles, including your heart. At this point, your nails will become brittle and start falling out. Your hair falls out. Your period stops. You experience bouts of nausea and muscle weakness. You might find yourself pulling into a run and suddenly blacking out. You still function, but on the inside you are shutting down.

    From here on out, it all depends on if you start eating again and stop exercising or not. If you don't, you can end up killing yourself. If you do, it is a long road to recovery, sometimes lasting years and it sometimes includes permanent damage to the function of certain organs, especially the liver and kidneys. Worst of all, this entire crash diet hasn't taught you how to sustain weight loss, so as soon as you crash and burn, the weight flies back on! And trust me, it takes a fraction of the time it took to lose it to gain it back.

    I am not saying this to frighten you (well, I am a little), but as a nurse, you should be aware of the ramifications of crash dieting. Those of us that do realize the effects therefor recommend you lose weight slowly, at a sustainable rate that gives you the best ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss. Stick to your MyFitnessPal calculated net, take the time, eat back your true exercise calories (which is probably 50 to 75 percent of your machine or database given calories), and learn how to eat (and what to eat) for weight loss you can maintain for years to come. It might not go as fast, but you will be able to see it on the scale, and best of all, it will be safe. That is my very long winded answer to 'why' you should eat back exercise calories.

    No one in this thread (at least that I have seen) is talking about "deprivation" or "crash dieting". So this article, while it may be useful, does not really apply to this thread.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    [

    I can think of a few... preservation of lean body mass, staying on track, enjoyment, easier transition to maintenance... losing quickly is not always desirable and can have negative impacts...

    No one is saying force yourself to eat to the point of discomfort. No one is saying to shove food in your cake hole as you so eloquently put it. We are saying that by choosing a reasonable calorie goal and a modest deficit, it can help many people find a sustainable way to lose weight, and find success that they've struggled with before when restricting too severely, cutting out foods they love because they think they can't eat them when "dieting", etc.

    Well, I actually have some pretty decent muscle mass. So no worries on that front at all. :)
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yep. This thread went about the way I thought it would. I think I will continue reading it from afar, while I sip my wine and eat my Girl Scout cookies enjoying maintenance. Best of luck to all of you, it seems like everyone has it all figured out!

    Well as for myself, I am doing just fine. I did not ask for advice here - simply commented on the OP as she was asking about those of us in that situation. Best of luck to you too. Enjoy your calories - I know I do! :)
  • 3rdof7sisters
    3rdof7sisters Posts: 486 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yep. This thread went about the way I thought it would. I think I will continue reading it from afar, while I sip my wine and eat my Girl Scout cookies enjoying maintenance. Best of luck to all of you, it seems like everyone has it all figured out!

    It's wonderful that you have it all figured out for yourself & that you seem to know what is best & will work for others! What are your qualifications to assume that you can know what will work for all? JW. I don't understand how someone can know that because they do it, anyone doing it different is doing something wrong. Seriously, how can you know?
    Enjoy your wine & GS cookies. I am enjoying mine, Not on maintenance, down -23 pounds since 1/1/17. I'll stick with my dr's advice, as it is working for me.
  • onward1
    onward1 Posts: 386 Member
    OP- I come in at barely 5 feet tall. I can do 1200 a day, and it will jump start things quickly, but, for me, it's not sustainable. Nothing I'd want to do for the rest of my life. 2-3 weeks max, and even then, not with my full level of "normal" activity. Interesting to note, there have been other calorie calculating web sites that gave me a number of LESS than 1200. What? For whatever it's worth, both Runrutheerun and Winegelato have been around a long time and their advice is always solid. (I've been around MFP a while, just rejoined this Jan.) No sense depriving yourself. Good luck to you.
  • 3rdof7sisters
    3rdof7sisters Posts: 486 Member
    edited March 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    3rdof7sisters wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yep. This thread went about the way I thought it would. I think I will continue reading it from afar, while I sip my wine and eat my Girl Scout cookies enjoying maintenance. Best of luck to all of you, it seems like everyone has it all figured out!

    It's wonderful that you have it all figured out for yourself & that you seem to know what is best & will work for others! What are your qualifications to assume that you can know what will work for all? JW. I don't understand how someone can know that because they do it, anyone doing it different is doing something wrong. Seriously, how can you know?
    Enjoy your wine & GS cookies. I am enjoying mine, Not on maintenance, down -23 pounds since 1/1/17. I'll stick with my dr's advice, as it is working for me.

    Perhaps reread the entire thread and you will see that I never told the OP that she must do things the way that I did it. I patiently asked questions trying to understand if OP had a medical condition, was working under doctors guidance, or had other reasons for specifically aiming under the minimum recommended calorie allotment for women. It seems that like so many others, this OP is aiming for a more aggressive rate of loss than is appropriate for the total weight she has to lose.

    My qualifications? None really. I've been here for four years, successfully losing weight and now successfully maintaining and I stick around these boards to answer questions and try to help people. There are thousands of people who come to these boards who have had it drilled into them that weight loss is hard, that it has to be miserable, that they will constantly be hungry, if they want to be successful. They go for the most aggressive target, cut out all the foods hey love, and when they can't stick with it, they give up all together. This is the yo yo cycle that so many people fall into, and my attempts to explain to people that you may not have to go that low in order to lose, that it's possible to lose weight, even a lot of weight, while not feeling miserable. While enjoying the process. While learning what an appropriate portion size is. While learning about nutrition and health, and becoming motivated to be more active.

    You seem to think that my words are telling people they must do it a certain way, my way. That's certainly not my intent and never once have I said those words. But if I'm but one voice trying to drown out the vast amount of bad information in the media, and on social media, and that has been engrained in people for years.... and if one or two people finally realize that maybe they don't have to go quite that low, that losing a pound or even half a pound per week is still losing, is still success and not failure... then I will continue to offer my own experience and what worked for me. I'm confident that there will be plenty of people like yourself and others who will vehemently advocate for that low calorie threshold simply because you feel it's where you need to be and you think I'm challenging that. I'm not.

    You have a plan and are working with your doctor. I'm glad your doctor is happy with your progress. ~ 3 lbs/week is quite a lot! I wish you continued success toward improving your health.

    I apologize for my comments. My mistake totally. Why is my weight loss a lot? Many people lose a lot to start out with, I know it will slow down. I lost zip, in fact gained eating, at 1600 calories I never commented on my doctors view of my progress. How did you come to that conclusion? I am not advocating for low calories. I am just trying to put it out there that not everyone is the same. There are people out there that lose weight eating twice as much as I eat. I realize this. Some people really do need to eat less to lose.

    What I am advocating, is that people get their advice from their health care professionals.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    here is the thing: even if you are a special unicorn that MUST eat 1200 calories to lose half a pound a week, or to maintain, it is irresponsible to tell someone that is just beginning a weight loss journey that they are, too.

    When we go off on you in this threads, it's not because we care what you do. You do what you want, you don't want advice and you don't take it. It's when you offer your experience as relevant to some poor new person who now has validation to continue a very extreme level of deprivation that is very likely to lead to failure.

    It's bad advice. So it gets hit with criticism. If you said "I tried 1500 calories first, and after a month that didn't work for me, so then I backed it down," you wouldn't get the criticism. That story isn't how it gets put on the newbies.

    Wow! Nicely said!
  • HUNIBUN2022
    HUNIBUN2022 Posts: 40 Member
    I'm on 1200 and I don't good lower not healthy to go lower than 1200
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    HealthierMeforlife2016 wrote: »
    I'm on 1200 and I don't good lower not healthy to go lower than 1200

    A sweeping statement made with no proof. People can, and do, eat below 1200 calories and are healthy.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    buglesalmoncatgirl wrote: »
    Oh sorry for stating this so late, but I'd like to lose 30-45lbs overall. I weigh 171lbs at 5'4".

    Three years ago I was where you are at now. I started out by setting my goals to lose at 2 lbs a week, which was 1200 calories a day. At first I did not lose much because I was not weighing and logging food and eating way more than I realized.

    Once I started weighing and logging food, I started losing weight too fast. I have always run and weight lifted, so I was actually netting in the 700's and 800's because I was adamant to stick to the 1200 calories. I began to feel drained and losing too quickly. People here told me my goal was way too aggressive, to go down to a pound a week. I did, and my energy began to pick up because I was fueling my body better.

    Because I was still losing weight quicker than I wanted to, when I had about 25 pounds left to lose, I upped my calorie goal to lose .5 pounds a week and continued weighing food and logging everything I ate. I began to feel even better.

    After a lifetime of crash diets, and with a long ago eating-disordered past (went through treatment), I finally learned how to slow down the weight loss expectations. I changed my relationship with myself with regards to the purpose of food, which helped me reshape my entire relationship with food.

    Please don't be in a hurry to lose weight, just look for an eating plan that is sustainable for you, set your goals to lose about a pound a week until you only have 25 lbs left, then set your goals to lose .5 pounds a week. Weigh your food and log every single thing you eat. Take it slow, there is no reason to be in a hurry.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited March 2017
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    HealthierMeforlife2016 wrote: »
    I'm on 1200 and I don't good lower not healthy to go lower than 1200

    A sweeping statement made with no proof. People can, and do, eat below 1200 calories and are healthy.

    Wait a minute. Why would you say going below 1200 calories is healthy, when that is below most people's BMR, the amount that sustains a person who is sedentary?

    Please give examples.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    HealthierMeforlife2016 wrote: »
    I'm on 1200 and I don't good lower not healthy to go lower than 1200

    A sweeping statement made with no proof. People can, and do, eat below 1200 calories and are healthy.

    Wait a minute. Why would you say going below 1200 calories is healthy, when that is below most people's BMR, the amount that sustains a person who is sedentary?

    Please give examples.

    I agree that for MOST people it is not enough. However those that are short, light, sedentary or have medical conditions, less than 1200 may be required.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories