1,200 calories a day - is it too little?

Someone posted an extremely similar thread just the other day which eventually got shut down. My apologies if it was not you

Anyway like I told her. If living is important that’s why eating 1200 is critical

jdog022 wrote: »

Someone posted an extremely similar thread just the other day which eventually got shut down. My apologies if it was not you

Anyway like I told her. If living is important that’s why eating 1200 is critical

It wasn’t her. There was no need to be snide.

collectingblues wrote: »

jdog022 wrote: »

Someone posted an extremely similar thread just the other day which eventually got shut down. My apologies if it was not you

Anyway like I told her. If living is important that’s why eating 1200 is critical

It wasn’t her. There was no need to be snide.

Fair. My bad

stonemm wrote: »

Here is some info on calories. Basic take is if it is working keep at it as long as it feels good. With a 1200 calories diet sometimes the calories are not enough to sustain daily activities. You can go into a "starvation mode" where the body will not allow you to lose weight. This is done by slowing the BMR. Each person can react differeny to a low calorie. Try it as long as seems to work maybe play around when you plateau. You can create a diet free day or weekend. Some say this can fool the body and restsrt the metabolism. Then go back to the 1200 calories. Also women with Thyroid issues (25g of population) will lose weight ar different rates.

The problem with undereating (too few calories) is that it can feel fine . . . until it suddenly - and possibly severely - doesn't.

I started at 1200, the estimate MFP gave me for a reasonable loss rate at my size/age/etc. Compliance was easy, and I felt great . . . until, quite suddenly, I didn't.

I turned out to be one of the somewhat unusual people for whom MFP's estimates are very wrong - way too low a calorie goal. I lost weight too fast, and corrected as soon as I realized, but still got weak and fatigued; it took weeks to recover normal energy level and strength.

"Starvation mode" as the quoted post describes it is pure myth, no matter what the silly side of the blogosphere says. If it were a possibility, no one would ever die from starvation; sadly, people worldwide do so in vast numbers every day. It's true that under-eating will depress energy level (sometimes including basic physiological processes) and slow weight loss, as a natural-selection-constructed strategy to preserve life and (relative) health. So, when under-eating, weight loss can be slower than expected; but, if still eating fewer calories than one is burning, a person will still lose weight.

Under-eating is a bad plan: A health risk. Bodies are clever. They are not fooled. Understand them; don't try to trick them.

And guess what? I'm a woman with a thyroid issue: I'm severely hypothyroid, and have been for nearly 20 years. (Gosh, I'm an aging, postmenopausal, hypothyroid woman, which should be a trifecta for slow weight loss, according to the silly-side blogosphere!)

Remember when I said earlier that MFP underestimates my calorie needs, even when I input correct profile values? That suggests to me that hypothyroidism isn't necessarily a constraint on weight loss. (And there are many others I've talked with here who are hypothyroid, and lost weight fine at MFP-estimated calories.) People with treated hypothyroidism have no reason to expect their experience to be any different than anyone else's.

And sometimes even small-ish, old, sedentary, hypothyroid women with tens of pounds to lose are poorly served by eating 1200 calories, let alone younger ones.

OP: That idea proposed above, of targeting no more than 1% of body weight loss per week, is a good one, and it can make sense to go slower than that for many when within around 50 pounds of goal weight. For anyone, it's good to set the MFP goal weight-loss rate accordingly, eat all the calories it estimates for them, eat back at least a significant fraction of exercise calories on top of that (all of them, if they're estimated accurately), then stick with it for 4-6 weeks (at least a full menstrual cycle plus a bit for premenopausal women). Then re-evaluate the calorie goal based on average weekly weight loss rate, and adjust intake accordingly.

If the routine proposed in the previous paragraph results in what appears to be very fast weight loss, especially after the first couple of weeks (which can have water weight weirdness), and the person starts feeling weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, they should eat more before the 4-6 weeks are over. If they seem to be losing too slowly, they should stick with it for the whole time. (Losing weight at inconsistent rates week to week is common. Losing too slowly, overall, is frustrating. Losing too fast can be a health risk, i.e., dangerous. It's good to tolerate potential frustration, in the interests of avoiding health risk.)

OP, this is a good read, from a sound source:

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

For you, 1200 could be right or wrong. Be careful. Also, remember that it's always fine to choose slower weight loss for any reason, and it's very useful to do so if a slower loss rate makes it sustainable, so easier to be compliant thus consistent over the long term, which is needed for true weight loss and weight management success.

You CHOOSE how many lbs a week you TELL MFP you want to lose.

2lbs a week, or even 1lb a week is NOT the BEST / RIGHT choice for everyone.

YOUR best option may be a different rate of loss.

After you do all that MFP spits out a number with 1200 being the lowest it will suggest.

ON TOP of the 1200 you're expected to eat ALL of your ACTUAL Calories that are expended to support an activity factor higher than the one you selected.

For reference only a few people meet the definition of sedentary that MFP uses. Most people with an outside job, young children, outside classes, or a busy household do meet the lightly active level. And on MFP speak deliberate exercise is added on top of the activity levelm

Accurate food logging has a lot to do with out perception as to how correct of an activity level we have picked out for ourselves.

The goal, ihmo, is not fast weight loss. The goal is long term weight loss.

Is what you're doing adding to your maintenance tool-set?

hannahbolm wrote: »

Thank you all for the helpful feedback. I’ll admit that there are days where I feel sluggish with no energy (which I thought was somewhat normal for people just starting out?) But most days I feel just fine eating 1,200 calories. I’m paying CLOSE attention to my body, therefore I plan on sticking with my current calorie goal for the time being. The moment I start feeling weak or fatigued I will shoot for 1,300-1,400. Thanks again everyone.

Unfortunately, by the time you feel it, you will have done some damage and it will take you weeks to get back to a better place. Losing 2+ lbs per week is only appropriate for those who are obese and/or well over 200 lbs. Losing too fast most likely means you are burning through far more muscle than you'd want, along with all the other processes your body neglects while it's working overtime trying to keep up the pace.

Also keep in mind that the MFP calorie goal does not include exercise. It is expected that you will log your exercise and eat back those calories. If you aren't doing that, you are compounding the overly aggressive goal by under-eating even more so.

But it's human nature to need to learn the hard lessons ourselves rather than listen to others who have already succeeded. We get posts here all the time from people who lost fast and felt fine until they either hit the wall, felt like crap, and gained all the weight back, or they managed to white knuckle it to goal and are unhappy with how they look and how little food they can eat. Best of luck however you proceed.