Why 1200 calories isn’t for me

SisterSueGetsFit wrote: »

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

Why 1200 wasn't for me...

I first started MFP at 256lbs and wanting/needing to lose +/-100 lbs. I signed up for a 2lb per week lost, and MFP spit out a little more than 1200 calories. I stuck to it for about 7 months, and rarely ate exercise calories back. To be fair, I didn't exercise much--mostly walking the dog and a lunchtime walk.

When I hit the 5 month mark and had lost around 50-60lbs, I should have felt amazing. Instead, my skin was a mess, I had a weird rash, my hair was falling out, and I was so tired I couldn't even see straight. This is definitely not what I imagined losing weight to feel like.

I went to the doctor (which I almost never do), and learned I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. I was given a 50,000 unit per week supplement and told to eat more. At that point, I adjusted my calories to 1500 and I continued to lose between 1.5-2lbs for a week for a few more months. With the supplements I did start to feel better, and my took a few months to clear up (we're talking super, super dry psoriasis-type skin), and my energy levels returned to normal.

At that point, I began exercising more seriously and heeded advice to at least some of my earned exercise calories back. While I'm still chiseling away at the last few pounds I want to lose, if I could do it all over again, I would have started with a MUCH more conservative weight loss goal, like 1lb per week. I think I would have saved myself some discomfort and been more equipped to figure out my true maintenance calories.

This. Thank you for saying what I was trying to, but clearly not doing a good job at it.

I was just coming in for reinforcement. Your post echoed everything about my 1200 calorie experience. I'm also 5'6" tall, but I totally get how shorter people might genuinely have lower maintenance needs. Now that I've lost *most* of the weight and am extremely active, I can't imagine sticking to 1200 calories unless I'm sick. Sometimes I eat that much before lunch!

Semele0 wrote: »

I don't understand something: many are replying saying that they tried 1200 but they couldn't do it because for them was too high a deficit. Why did you try? And why are you saying that the problem were the calories? I agree that you should lose slowly, and even more so if you have little to lose, but for somebody 1200 is a big deficit, for others it's a small deficit. So why everybody tries to eat just 1200 when it's too litlle for them? And why then they say that it is too little for everybody?

I can't speak for other people, but I think when it's offered by MFP as the fastest healthy/safe way to lose weight it sounds like an awesome deal. It's also not always even at the 2lb/week loss rate for everyone, sometimes if you're a shortie it's at 1.5lb/week (moi), 1lb/week, etc.

I technically tried below 1200cal. I have a few days at like 1100-ish. I personally tried it because I wanted to know where my hunger was, what affected it, etc. I didn't go out and say "hey I'm going to try eating 1200/1100 cal today! And stick with it!" I went out saying "I am going to wait until I absolutely NEED to eat". Especially after eating so much for so long, I was used to never being hungry. I wanted that information, and I didn't expect it to be sustainable.

I learned that if I changed my macros (maybe low or slow carb, more fibrous veggies and lean protein), and was more careful with what I was eating, and allowed my hunger signals to be the only arbiter of eating I could probably do 1200 (or 1280, as my 1.5 lb loss per week says) comfortably as a short and fairly sedentary woman.

I'd need to learn a lot more about nutrition, get a food scale, and plan meticulously. It would probably be beneficial in the long run because I'd gain that awareness. But the energy (mental energy, not calories, sadly lol) it would take for me to learn how to do that, I can spend on other things. Like enjoying a date night out with my SO, and eating dinner with my friends and family. And y'know enjoying food

And I think it's better for me to spend more thought and attention on increasing my activity and ability, rather than just focusing on diet and weight loss. I want to make a total lifestyle change. The 1280cal with precise nutrition and timing would be one too, but I really want my body to function more than I want to be smaller. Being smaller is part of what will help me achieve my goal - less stress on my joints, etc. But it's not the whole thing. Becoming more active is a real challenge for me, and it's more important than significant/fast weight loss.

It was a cost/reward analysis, where I made a choice that works better for me. My goals could totally change in the future, and I'm really happy I have that information about how I react to a lower calorie goal. But for these reasons I don't really want to stay there right now

kiela64 wrote: »

Semele0 wrote: »

I don't understand something: many are replying saying that they tried 1200 but they couldn't do it because for them was too high a deficit. Why did you try? And why are you saying that the problem were the calories? I agree that you should lose slowly, and even more so if you have little to lose, but for somebody 1200 is a big deficit, for others it's a small deficit. So why everybody tries to eat just 1200 when it's too litlle for them? And why then they say that it is too little for everybody?

I can't speak for other people, but I think when it's offered by MFP as the fastest healthy/safe way to lose weight it sounds like an awesome deal. It's also not always even at the 2lb/week loss rate for everyone, sometimes if you're a shortie it's at 1.5lb/week (moi), 1lb/week, etc.

I technically tried below 1200cal. I have a few days at like 1100-ish. I personally tried it because I wanted to know where my hunger was, what affected it, etc. I didn't go out and say "hey I'm going to try eating 1200/1100 cal today! And stick with it!" I went out saying "I am going to wait until I absolutely NEED to eat". Especially after eating so much for so long, I was used to never being hungry. I wanted that information, and I didn't expect it to be sustainable.

I learned that if I changed my macros (maybe low or slow carb, more fibrous veggies and lean protein), and was more careful with what I was eating, and allowed my hunger signals to be the only arbiter of eating I could probably do 1200 (or 1280, as my 1.5 lb loss per week says) comfortably as a short and fairly sedentary woman.

I'd need to learn a lot more about nutrition, get a food scale, and plan meticulously. It would probably be beneficial in the long run because I'd gain that awareness. But the energy (mental energy, not calories, sadly lol) it would take for me to learn how to do that, I can spend on other things. Like enjoying a date night out with my SO, and eating dinner with my friends and family. And y'know enjoying food

And I think it's better for me to spend more thought and attention on increasing my activity and ability, rather than just focusing on diet and weight loss. I want to make a total lifestyle change. The 1280cal with precise nutrition and timing would be one too, but I really want my body to function more than I want to be smaller. Being smaller is part of what will help me achieve my goal - less stress on my joints, etc. But it's not the whole thing. Becoming more active is a real challenge for me, and it's more important than significant/fast weight loss.

It was a cost/reward analysis, where I made a choice that works better for me. My goals could totally change in the future, and I'm really happy I have that information about how I react to a lower calorie goal. But for these reasons I don't really want to stay there right now

just because its offered by MFP doesn't mean its safe and/or healthy...they just do the number crunching for you

I'm only 5'3... MFP says I'm allowed only 1200 Calories to lose a pound a week, so I just increased my activity levels . I always eat over 1200, because 1200 just isn't enough, I'd starve to death. But I make sure to burn anything over 1200. And this has been working for me.

MFP and similar sites give me just over 1200 a day without activity.

I cannot manage it unless I am completely sedentary, and even then it's a struggle.

So, I exercise. I spend a good 10 hours a week doing focused physical activities, some weeks are higher. This lets me eat a reasonable amount of food, and I can avoid the hangries (most of the time) on what this lets me eat. Plus, I feel better overall, and there's muscle under the fat, so it's not all flabby.

Yes, I still have weight to lose. It's slowly coming off, but too much deficit just leaves me starving or my workouts start to suffer, and I'd rather have my physical abilities than have the bikini body I want (priorities n all that).