1200 Calorie Diet???? Seriously???
Replies
-
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 -
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!
There's quite a difference between 1200 and "more than 1800" though. If I ate 1800 net a day I'd gain too and my metabolism is normal, it's just too many calories for my height and weight. I bet your metabolism is just fine and that you can find the right goal.8 -
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:
One of the best things about being tall! Losing weight on 2000 calories!7 -
paperpudding wrote: »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.
Excellent point! When I was working a desk job with a 4 hour commute, I lost a little under half a pound a week on 1200 calories. As soon as I retired and got even minimally more active, my calorie requirement increased, to the point where I'm now in maintenance toward the bottom of a healthy BMI and average about 1800 calories to maintain, with generally moderate activity.4 -
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?
This always gets me on this forum. It's like 1200 is the magical line that somehow applies to all women. Why is it clear that a guy, who is bigger and heavier, should be eating more but a woman, whether she's 350lbs or 150lbs, has a cut off of 1200? How does that make sense? According to this logic a 150lbs guy needs to eat a minimum of 1500 but a 350lbs woman can eat a minimum of 1200o with no ill effects?
And just to state the obvious I'm not saying someone should or should not eat 1200 calories, just that it can't be a hard cut off for any weight just based on gender.
I'm confused. Are you saying it's wrong to tell a healthy adult man that 1200 cals is too low? Or are you saying it's wrong to say that 1200 cals is too low for most women?
I believe the poster is saying that without knowing the height of a person, and maybe also their age, it's inaccurate to say that all men or all women require a the same specific calorie intake.
5'1 and 5'8 carry 150 pounds very differently, and their individual calorie requirements are not going to be the same. period.
1 -
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?
This always gets me on this forum. It's like 1200 is the magical line that somehow applies to all women. Why is it clear that a guy, who is bigger and heavier, should be eating more but a woman, whether she's 350lbs or 150lbs, has a cut off of 1200? How does that make sense? According to this logic a 150lbs guy needs to eat a minimum of 1500 but a 350lbs woman can eat a minimum of 1200o with no ill effects?
And just to state the obvious I'm not saying someone should or should not eat 1200 calories, just that it can't be a hard cut off for any weight just based on gender.
I'm confused. Are you saying it's wrong to tell a healthy adult man that 1200 cals is too low? Or are you saying it's wrong to say that 1200 cals is too low for most women?
I believe the poster is saying that without knowing the height of a person, and maybe also their age, it's inaccurate to say that all men or all women require a the same specific calorie intake.
5'1 and 5'8 carry 150 pounds very differently, and their individual calorie requirements are not going to be the same. period.
The TDEE difference between the two, if they're sedentary, is only 134 calories. There are many situations where these two theoretical people could have the same calorie needs, it would only require a slight difference in activity level.5 -
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?
This always gets me on this forum. It's like 1200 is the magical line that somehow applies to all women. Why is it clear that a guy, who is bigger and heavier, should be eating more but a woman, whether she's 350lbs or 150lbs, has a cut off of 1200? How does that make sense? According to this logic a 150lbs guy needs to eat a minimum of 1500 but a 350lbs woman can eat a minimum of 1200o with no ill effects?
And just to state the obvious I'm not saying someone should or should not eat 1200 calories, just that it can't be a hard cut off for any weight just based on gender.
I'm confused. Are you saying it's wrong to tell a healthy adult man that 1200 cals is too low? Or are you saying it's wrong to say that 1200 cals is too low for most women?
I believe the poster is saying that without knowing the height of a person, and maybe also their age, it's inaccurate to say that all men or all women require a the same specific calorie intake.
5'1 and 5'8 carry 150 pounds very differently, and their individual calorie requirements are not going to be the same. period.
And no one said they do have the same calorie needs, which is why I'm confused.
As has been said many many times just in this thread, a shorter than avg sedentary person may need to flirt with those minimum numbers or increase their activity level to lose at a reasonable pace.
A 5'1 150lb woman (who would have an estimated 1605 TDEE) trying to lose weight would be recommended to eat @ 95-100g of protein to guard against muscle loss while eating at a deficit. That's like 35% protein on a 1200 cal diet, which would be difficult for most people.
This fictional woman would most likely have an easier time of it if she either lost a slower pace so she could eat more like 1350-1400 cals, or increased her activity level instead. But if she wants to eat 1200, no one is judging her. We just want her to know it isn't a requirement and might not be the best choice.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »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:
One of the best things about being tall! Losing weight on 2000 calories!
Or active :drinker: I am average height (5’4.5”), a healthy weight, and will lose weight on 2000 calories. That’s actually what I averaged most of my weight loss. Based on my current calculations my maintenance is about 2300 at my current weight/activity level.
5 -
My own real life example n =1 - was then 50 years old, 5ft 3 in and lightly active - I lost weight to my goal in 10 months on NET of 1460.
Sure, there are women who are older, shorter , less active than me and maybe need couple of hundred calories less than that - but I was toward lower end of all 3 criteria and that was the target MFP gave me which I found did work.1 -
etherealanwar wrote: »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.
I have to say that fatigue may take awhile to show up for some people. I know that Im 5'6 1/2 and my bmr is 1272(yes you read that correctly) and I cannot eat 1200 calories, even if Im sedentary its too little for me. so just because a woman is taller doesnt mean her BMR is going to be higher. it will depend on the person of course but most BMRs that I have noted other people stated they have are at least 1400 calories or more. not many say their BMR is lower than that even many of the very short women.
as for 1200 calories if your BMR is more than 1200 calories then you would be eating less than your BMR,which if you dont have a lot of weight to lose or a lot of fat then its not adviseable. if you are obese and you eat under your BMR for a short time it may be safe to do since they have excess fat stores to do it with(not saying people should do that anyway) to lose weight you eat less than your TDEE not BMR. so for many to eat under their BMR is not a good idea. so no for many 1200 will be too little. especially if they have an active job/lifestyle.The 1200 minimum is set for sedentary,elderly or very short women or a combo on many sites and not just this one.most health sites will recommend that most women not eat under 1200 calories.2 -
Ugh. Seriously. I am losing weight just fine and am happy. I literally can’t drink water constantly (work). I know that I love ice cream and pizza and refuse to give those up. (In fact I’m pescatarian, yet I don’t preach it to others—to each their own). Just recently I updated my goals and current weight. MFP set me at at little more than 1200.0
-
Katy what are your current stats and how long have you been doing this and what lb per week did you set MFP to?2
-
Plus 2 serves of dark chocolate.. just over 1000 calories.. that’s what I ate yesterday. I am often between 850 and 1200 I blow out when I add wine... have lost 7kgs over the last 9 weeks . Still have 15 to go but this is working and I’m not starving...
12 -
That is a woefully small amount of food with very little protein content. You should not be eating less than 1200 calories.17
-
Plus 2 serves of dark chocolate.. just over 1000 calories.. that’s what I ate yesterday. I am often between 850 and 1200 I blow out when I add wine... have lost 7kgs over the last 9 weeks . Still have 15 to go but this is working and I’m not starving...
Well, yes, it is working in terms of you losing weight - I dont think anyone disputes that a low calorie diet over time will result in weight loss.
But it isnt healthy over the long term and i dont think the loss rate of nearly a kg (2lb) per week is healthy for someone with only 15 kg to lose.
FYI - MFP T+C's also prevent the promotion of VLCD's1 -
not sure what happened to my reply to above, posting it again.........
Well, yes, it is working in terms of you losing weight - I dont think anyone disputes that a low calorie diet over time will result in weight loss.
But it isnt healthy over the long term and i dont think the loss rate of nearly a kg (2lb) per week is healthy for someone with only 15 kg to lose.
FYI - MFP T+C's also prevent the promotion of VLCD's12 -
paperpudding wrote: »Katy what are your current stats and how long have you been doing this and what lb per week did you set MFP to?
Started in May at 167. Wasn’t really sure what I was doing at first but eventually set 1lb/week. In September I purposely went into maintenance (for my wedding). Started back in October again 1lb/week.
Just the other day reset at current weight of 140 (138 today) and changed my goal to 135. MFP set me to 1340. (Sorry guess it’s not down to 1200 but fairly close).0 -
Paulamaxgrace wrote: »
Plus 2 serves of dark chocolate.. just over 1000 calories.. that’s what I ate yesterday. I am often between 850 and 1200 I blow out when I add wine... have lost 7kgs over the last 9 weeks . Still have 15 to go but this is working and I’m not starving...
I'd be gnawing my arm off. That is not adequate nutrition, and looks to be seriously low in protein.11 -
KatyCSTinPNW wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Katy what are your current stats and how long have you been doing this and what lb per week did you set MFP to?
Started in May at 167. Wasn’t really sure what I was doing at first but eventually set 1lb/week. In September I purposely went into maintenance (for my wedding). Started back in October again 1lb/week.
Just the other day reset at current weight of 140 (138 today) and changed my goal to 135. MFP set me to 1340. (Sorry guess it’s not down to 1200 but fairly close).
Ok, so without knowing your height, is still bit hard to comment.
But presuming you are of average-ish height, then you are not far off an ideal BMI, if not already in the range.
You probably should be setting a rate of 1/2 lb per week now - if you are shortish then 1340 may be right.
That is NET - ie before eating back any excercise calories.
For comparison, I am 5 ft 3 in and I was on 1460 to lose at 1/2 lb per week although I am older than you ( presuming your avatar is you.)
2 -
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...
Even at my shorter 5'5", I can also confirm that 1200 is not my friend.4 -
I'm fairly new to this forum and am really surprised at how many people on here are starving themselves to lose weight. Weight loss is not a sprint its a marathon. Its something that should happen over time, not within a few weeks. Weight loss is more than just limiting your caloric intake. Its a combination of eating clean and healthy ( I hate the word diet) and exercising on a daily basis. Starving yourself is not a healthy way to lose weight and by limiting your caloric intake to 1200 or so calories is doing just that. Not only is it unhealthy, but its a process that you will never stick to because its not natural and uncomfortable to do. So lets be serious and talk about how to lose weight realistically.
I would first ask yourself, "why do I want to lose weight?' Is it for appearance? Is it to be more healthy? Is it to be able to make it up that flight of steps without getting tired? Once you understand your own reasoning you can then move forward and begin your weight loss journey, because after all that's what it should be, a journey not a short trip. Once you've realized your goal and the reason for it you need to make the biggest decision of all, and that's to commit to yourself and commit to achieving your goal of losing weight and living a healthier lifestyle.
So now you've made the decision to put your health first; now what? Lets start with your eating habits. What do you eat? When do you eat it? and how often are you eating? Your body is a very complex machine but by following some simple rules about eating, you can have it running very efficiently. Follow these few simple rules and you'll see and feel the difference in your energy level.
-Start every day with an 8oz. glass of lemon water
-Monitor your portions- you should be eating small portion meals throughout the day rather than one, two or three large portioned meals a day
-Drink water, all day long
-Focus on lean proteins like chicken, turkey, salmon etc. and I don't mean processed cold-cuts...
-Focus on eating fresh vegetables, steamed when possible
-Limit unnecessary condiments i.e. mayonnaise, oils, salt etc.
-Limit, but don't restrict carbohydrates. Complex carbs are needed by your body
-Dairy is ok but in limited portions and should be kept to low fat dairy. Greek yogurt is a good choice.
-Fresh fruit should be kept to 1 or 2 pieces a day. Its high in sugar and you should be limiting your sugar
This si just a guide to go by. Your food intake should be directly related to your physical activity. Exercise is key but that's a whole other topic....
erm, ok
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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