1200 Calorie Diet???? Seriously???
Options
Replies
-
This post is a bit patronising. I am short with a petite frame and am for the most part inactive. I lost most of my weight eating around 1200 calories. It took me over a year and a half to lose 57 lbs. That's hardly fast weight loss! I'm currently on 1250 calories, losing weight VERY slowly. It's taken me over a month to lose 2.4 lbs. If I was eating more, I would not lose any weight, but likely gain it.
Just because something works for you, that doesn't mean it will work for the rest of us. It doesn't mean your way is the only right way and the rest of us are doing things wrong.
I dont understand what you find patronising - you are short and petite and presumably female - yes you may well be one of the small group for whom 1200 is appropriate - and i dont think anyone has said there are no such people
but 2 posters who appear to be young men (if their avatar is them) are not in that group of people..
4 -
Incidentally now that exercise has been mentioned in the last page of posts - it is relevant to note that even this 1200 when it is appropriate, is 1200 NET - ie those people should still be eating more by the time they eat back at least some of the excercise calories - unless they are not doing any excercise at all.5
-
New_Heavens_Earth wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »stunningalmond wrote: »Does coffee count as water?
My urologist says all fluids except soda count towards my fluid intake, including wine. I'm not going to argue.
why leave out soda when its like 95% water....
Maybe the sugar and caffeine? Hazarding a guess.
Like the sugar that is in wine? (Since it’s made out of fermented grapes)....4 -
etherealanwar wrote: »I understand that 1200 is the minimum amount for a woman but I feel as though too many people are hating against it as if it were unhealthy when it isn't. I lose 1 lb a week on 1200 calories and if I were to increase it the process would be too slow for me. I have been doing this for many months now and I feel just fine. I do also acknowledge that not all women can feel satiated on this amount of calories and that's alright because you can lose on more calories.
Don't see the need to make it seem like it is such an unhealthy way to approach weight loss. On reddit there is a subreddit 1200isplenty and many women on there are progressing just fine with this strategy.
Did you see that the primary person now being responded to is a guy? Do you think you and a larger guy should be eating the same amount of calories? Can you point out where in the 2018 portion of this thread people are saying that 1200 calories is unhealthy for everyone (as opposed to the man I see all the "unhealthy" comments being directed to)?
Do you know for sure that all the women on that reddit are using a food scale for all solids and logging everything accurately and completely? Or are they using the common estimations many people use and end up under-stating their calories?
Oh I never meant it works for a man, that would be unhealthy i mean those referring to other women in this thread saying its too low when it isnt. As long as the woman is not doing harm to herself with the rate she's chosen people should let them be. Of course I don't know if all of them are using scales but I'm sure not ALL of them dont.
1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »stunningalmond wrote: »Does coffee count as water?
My urologist says all fluids except soda count towards my fluid intake, including wine. I'm not going to argue.
why leave out soda when its like 95% water....
For me I guess it's because of my kidney disease and prediabetic status. I never really asked. I don't drink soda anyway so it truly doesn't matter to me. For the average person, I would say drink away.2 -
But it is too low for most women too etherealanwar - not all, and people generally have clarified this, saying older smaller less active women could well be at the right level on 1200 .
But not suitable for all women - so, No, we shouldn't just let them be if they post about inappropriate calorie targets.8 -
etherealanwar wrote: »etherealanwar wrote: »I understand that 1200 is the minimum amount for a woman but I feel as though too many people are hating against it as if it were unhealthy when it isn't. I lose 1 lb a week on 1200 calories and if I were to increase it the process would be too slow for me. I have been doing this for many months now and I feel just fine. I do also acknowledge that not all women can feel satiated on this amount of calories and that's alright because you can lose on more calories.
Don't see the need to make it seem like it is such an unhealthy way to approach weight loss. On reddit there is a subreddit 1200isplenty and many women on there are progressing just fine with this strategy.
Did you see that the primary person now being responded to is a guy? Do you think you and a larger guy should be eating the same amount of calories? Can you point out where in the 2018 portion of this thread people are saying that 1200 calories is unhealthy for everyone (as opposed to the man I see all the "unhealthy" comments being directed to)?
Do you know for sure that all the women on that reddit are using a food scale for all solids and logging everything accurately and completely? Or are they using the common estimations many people use and end up under-stating their calories?
Oh I never meant it works for a man, that would be unhealthy i mean those referring to other women in this thread saying its too low when it isnt. As long as the woman is not doing harm to herself with the rate she's chosen people should let them be. Of course I don't know if all of them are using scales but I'm sure not ALL of them dont.
Did you read my post on the previous page with an additional list of reasons to consider not going down to the bare minimum calorie target in order to lose weight?8 -
It's not for anyone else but the person (in this case a woman) to decide if 1200 works for them or not. If they notice they are fatigued and have difficulty sticking to this amount then it would not be appropriate but if they can get in all the nutrients they need and function fine on it then they should be left alone. Pointing this out is fine but saying only OLDER, small women should be on 1200 is over generalizing. Taller women may face more difficulty because they have a higher BMR on the other hand but ultimately its up to the person to decide.8
-
As a wise rabbit used to say, “the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight”...
Not sure why people purposely try to go to the bare minimum calories. Many people give up altogether, or never even start, because they think they will be miserable on a low calorie target. Letting people know that it is possible to eat more and still lose should be encouraging, not seen as a patronizing criticism of their approach..,19 -
6
-
WinoGelato wrote: »As a wise rabbit used to say, “the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight”...
Not sure why people purposely try to go to the bare minimum calories. Many people give up altogether, or never even start, because they think they will be miserable on a low calorie target. Letting people know that it is possible to eat more and still lose should be encouraging, not seen as a patronizing criticism of their approach..,
I do agree and if I could lose at the same rate with more calories i'd be flipping happy but I've acknowledged what my patience level is and I'll compromise with lower calories. Nothing is wrong with eating more and losing slower though!1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I'm reading @me0231's question as-
Why do men get a higher minimum, 1500, than women, 1200, even if they weigh equal or less than a woman at the same height.
The answer, as far as I know, is that men have a higher BMR, in general, due to a larger muscle mass. Bone density and testosterone probably come into play somewhere too.
Cheers, h.
Also, I don't know many (any, personally) men my height of 5'2. Smaller doesn't just mean lighter at the same height (I know you know this
just clarifying for the peanut gallery). IMO it's probably never ideal for a 5'8 woman to eat 1200 either. 7 -
God, no. I start my day with an 8oz. mug of coffee.-Start every day with an 8oz. glass of lemon water
If I don't have my 1,000 cal dinner and chocolate right before bed, my day feels barren.-Monitor your portions- you should be eating small portion meals throughout the day rather than one, two or three large portioned meals a day
This is not a bad suggestion. Curling that bottle burns extra calories!-Drink water, all day long
Nothing wrong with chicken and turkey, salmon is great, but bacon is love, bacon is life.-Focus on lean proteins like chicken, turkey, salmon etc. and I don't mean processed cold-cuts...
My to-go vegetables don't go great steamed - tomatoes and avocados. Wait, I think those are fruits. Anyway, nothing wrong with a tray of oven roasted vegetables.-Focus on eating fresh vegetables, steamed when possible
Saying oil is an unnecessary condiment would earn you the biggest eyeroll and arm flailing from an italian. I have my own olive oil, made last year. About 350 oz of it. Trust me, it's getting used.-Limit unnecessary condiments i.e. mayonnaise, oils, salt etc.
Limiting and restricting are interchangeable as words in this context. Barring the necessity to get in certain amounts of fat and protein, the rest is preference.-Limit, but don't restrict carbohydrates. Complex carbs are needed by your body
I strongly disagree with this. Also Greek yogurt typically has around 4-10% fat. And the full-fat (normal) version is lower in sugars.-Dairy is ok but in limited portions and should be kept to low fat dairy. Greek yogurt is a good choice.
If fresh fruit is high in sugar, what about the dried variety?-Fresh fruit should be kept to 1 or 2 pieces a day. Its high in sugar and you should be limiting your sugar
Anyway. Point is, there's nothing wrong with fruits, vegetables which are not steamed or raw, Roquefort cheese, Babybells, oil, salt, chocolate, cupcakes, wine, beer, whatever. They all have calories, macros, micros. They all contribute to getting your daily intake of the above. Stay in a reasonable caloric deficit, get your fats and protein in, check the micro boxes, and you're OK. The water suggestion is good. Meal timing is irrelevant.10 -
etherealanwar wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »As a wise rabbit used to say, “the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight”...
Not sure why people purposely try to go to the bare minimum calories. Many people give up altogether, or never even start, because they think they will be miserable on a low calorie target. Letting people know that it is possible to eat more and still lose should be encouraging, not seen as a patronizing criticism of their approach..,
I do agree and if I could lose at the same rate with more calories i'd be flipping happy but I've acknowledged what my patience level is and I'll compromise with lower calories. Nothing is wrong with eating more and losing slower though!
Have you lost weight before and regained it and that’s why you’re impatient and are going for faster loss?5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »etherealanwar wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »As a wise rabbit used to say, “the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight”...
Not sure why people purposely try to go to the bare minimum calories. Many people give up altogether, or never even start, because they think they will be miserable on a low calorie target. Letting people know that it is possible to eat more and still lose should be encouraging, not seen as a patronizing criticism of their approach..,
I do agree and if I could lose at the same rate with more calories i'd be flipping happy but I've acknowledged what my patience level is and I'll compromise with lower calories. Nothing is wrong with eating more and losing slower though!
Have you lost weight before and regained it and that’s why you’re impatient and are going for faster loss?
No I have not, this is my first time attempting to lose weight. I was slim for the majority of my life until I was put on on antipsychotics and my appetite skyrocketed leading to a 65 lbs gain in less than a year. It's taken me about 4 years now to finally get my butt into gear to decide to lose weight but I was not always on 1200 calories. For the first about 5-6 months I was averaging more around 1400-1500 calories and its only been the past 3-4 months that I've been more strict and sticking to 1200-1300 calories. I don't think I'm losing at a fast rate at all, down 43.4 lbs in a years span. If I were trying to lose 2 lbs a week then that would be too aggressive. I'm still considered overweight and have about 32 lbs left to my ultimate goal. I just know myself in that I will give up if I increase my calories and lose only 0.5lb a week or less
1 -
I never understand why these 1200 cal threads go this way. We are trying to encourage women to not fall for the dieting myth that you have to eat a highly restrictive diet to lose weight, and that they shouldn't feel like failures for needing to eat more. And yet posters feel the need to chime in that 1200 is "fine". OK, it's fine for you. It's not fine for most, you're in the minority. That's not a judgment or a criticism, it's just an observation of real life. Metabolism and calorie burning isn't some magical scientific mystery, it's an observable thing. It is highly unusual for an average size woman to have a TDEE low enough that she needs to eat 1200 or less to lose weight.
It's also more difficult to eat a nutritionally complete diet on 1200 or less calories. Not saying it's impossible, you certainly can, but it requires focus and dedication that another 300 calories would alleviate.
If a tall overweight woman needs to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, she has a medical condition that she really should get treated so that she can eat more food and have a better chance at consistently getting enough nutrition, protein, and fat. I'm sorry, but that isn't a judgment, it's math and science.
Of course it's up to the person to decide. But does that mean we shouldn't caution people that what they are doing is unwise? Does that mean we shouldn't suggest that they are making it harder than it needs to be? What's the point of a public forum if we aren't going to educate people and try to save them from making the same mistakes we see people make all the time?
Unfortunately the OP was a man who posted a fair amount of woo in the OP 5 years ago, and I think that might be clouding where the conversation is now in 2018. If it makes anyone feel better, he seems to have left the building shortly thereafter.24 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I'm reading @me0231's question as-
Why do men get a higher minimum, 1500, than women, 1200, even if they weigh equal or less than a woman at the same height.
The answer, as far as I know, is that men have a higher BMR, in general, due to a larger muscle mass. Bone density and testosterone probably come into play somewhere too.
Cheers, h.
Right. And thank you, maybe I should've taken it as a question rather than a criticism!
A 5'4 150lb man will generally have a higher BMR than a 5'4 150lb woman due to his naturally higher amount of muscle. He would also be an outlier at that height. 7 -
I have a really crappy metabolism, even with exercise, so if I eat >1800/day, I gain. 1200 is really hard though; that's what most post-op bariatric diets are and is the recommended minimum. I'm trying 1600/day now because I just can't do 1200 unless I sleep all day, we'll see what happens!2
-
middlehaitch wrote: »I'm reading @me0231's question as-
Why do men get a higher minimum, 1500, than women, 1200, even if they weigh equal or less than a woman at the same height.
The answer, as far as I know, is that men have a higher BMR, in general, due to a larger muscle mass. Bone density and testosterone probably come into play somewhere too.
Cheers, h.
Also, I don't know many (any, personally) men my height of 5'2. Smaller doesn't just mean lighter at the same height (I know you know this just clarifying for the peanut gallery). IMO it's probably never ideal for a 5'8 woman to eat 1200 either.
At 5'9", I can confirm that 1200 calories is never my friend...6 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »I'm reading @me0231's question as-
Why do men get a higher minimum, 1500, than women, 1200, even if they weigh equal or less than a woman at the same height.
The answer, as far as I know, is that men have a higher BMR, in general, due to a larger muscle mass. Bone density and testosterone probably come into play somewhere too.
Cheers, h.
Also, I don't know many (any, personally) men my height of 5'2. Smaller doesn't just mean lighter at the same height (I know you know this just clarifying for the peanut gallery). IMO it's probably never ideal for a 5'8 woman to eat 1200 either.
At 5'9", I can confirm that 1200 calories is never my friend...
You tall people, always bragging :laugh:4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions