This 1200 calorie thing is driving me up a wall
Options
Replies
-
Ha! I'm an angry person in general. :explode:
Why do you keep bumping your old threads???? I thought you left??? :noway:
j/k :bigsmile:
Shannon, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
0 -
Ha! I'm an angry person in general. :explode:
Why do you keep bumping your old threads???? I thought you left??? :noway:
j/k :bigsmile:
Shannon, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
Don't be too sure about that.0 -
Yea Shannon has a thing for the Lou Ferrigno types. :laugh:0
-
Thanks for shedding some light on this subject. You are right, it's just a number.0
-
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:0
-
I have to admit, I only read the first few posts here, so I don't know what everyone has posted. But I have to tell you that I have had a horrible time trying to figure out how many calories to have. The best option I know is to see a nutritionist, but right now I don't have insurance. It just doesn't seem like it should be so difficult to figure out, but I'm seeing differently.
Here's my story: When I first joined this site I was very ambitious and set my goal to lose 2 lbs per week. So this site told me my daily goal for calories was 1200 + exercise calories (at the time I was 183 lbs and 5'5"). I lost 5 lbs. my first week and nothing else for 3 more weeks. Then I kept reading all these posts that 1200 was not enough and I don't want to be unhealthy, so I changed my settings to losing 1 lb a week, which put me at 1440 a day + exercise calories. Still another month went past with no loss. Yes I am drinking all my water and exercising 4-6 times a week. So on Sunday I changed my settings again to 1200, and so far this week have lost a couple pounds. I know that it is very unhealthy to go below 1200. And it is vital to eat your exercise calories. But wouldn't you agree that every person's body is different, and for those that have a very difficult time losing, maybe 1200 calories work? I'm not arguing a point, I'm just asking. To me this whole thing of trying to find the correct calorie amount is extremely difficult and confusing. Or maybe I need to look into some health reason that losing is so difficult. Here's another thing, on this site my BMR is 1549. How do you know what to eat? I wasn't losing at first at 1200, nor at 1440, are both of these amounts too low and what I really need to eat is the 1549. And if that's the case, why does the system choose 1200 as your goal?0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
there ya go, that's what I'm talkin' bout! Let's see the :explode: face again! hehe0 -
I have to rant. I have seen this so much lately. It drives me nuts.
1200 calories is a number, that's it. Why do so many people think this should
be their cut off? Are there that many people that are 5 foot 1 inch and 125 lbs
out there? Because that's really where you need to be to be eating 1200 calories.
This is your body people! Talk to a nutritionist or a certified trainer. I did, and he laughed when I mentioned the 1200 calorie thing. He mentioned "myth" more then once in his explaination.
Am I the only one who sees this? If I am I'm sorry for being so obtuse (and please, let me know, I can take it, I'm not that fragile about critisizm, as a matter of fact, I welcome it).
But I don't want to see people hurting their bodies, and I don't want this place to turn into "Crash Diet Central"
If I am I'm sorry for being so obtuse
are you sure that you aren't being acute? (sorry... couldn't resist)0 -
Ahh... the spirit of debate is alive!
I like the whole idea of net calories. And I suppose that it works if you really know how many calories you burn when you exercise. But I don't. So, I prefer to just set a target calorie range for everyday. Somewhere between 1700 and 1900 calories - the upper end if I exercise, the lower end if I don't. If I stick to it, I lose weight.
I've fallen into that trap before... Where I eat too much and work out too much and get in that vicious cycle of overexercising to burn off overeating. I'd much rather be moderate about both my eating and my exercise.
In the end, my method just equates to low-balling the exercise calories and setting conservative goals for loss/week.
Not picking an argument. Just thought for food / food for thought.0 -
Ahh... the spirit of debate is alive!
I like the whole idea of net calories. And I suppose that it works if you really know how many calories you burn when you exercise. But I don't. So, I prefer to just set a target calorie range for everyday. Somewhere between 1700 and 1900 calories - the upper end if I exercise, the lower end if I don't. If I stick to it, I lose weight.
I've fallen into that trap before... Where I eat too much and work out too much and get in that vicious cycle of overexercising to burn off overeating. I'd much rather be moderate about both my eating and my exercise.
In the end, my method just equates to low-balling the exercise calories and setting conservative goals for loss/week.
Not picking an argument. Just thought for food / food for thought.
I see nothing wrong with this. It's essentially what I do (except, I'm trying to gain and my calories in general are way higher). There's no reason to be exactly perfect on calories, and if you give yourself enough of a buffer, I don't see a reason why you can't make some educated guesses based on reason and knowledge of your body.0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
Yes, but if you lost 40 lbs, you were well into the overweight and maybe even obese range. The 1200 rule doesn't apply to that (I have posted that so many times I can't even count). Obese people have a different set of rules. Because there is so much extra fat hanging around, the body doesn't see a lack of fuel for quite a while. And while I said you can go into starvation, I didn't say you won't lose weight, in fact I said you probably would lose weight. That doesn't mean you were healthy, and that amonia smell was your kidneys working overtime. This is a PH imbalance which was probably causing a leeching affect in your bones (pulling calcium out to balance out the PH level)0 -
Ahh... the spirit of debate is alive!
I like the whole idea of net calories. And I suppose that it works if you really know how many calories you burn when you exercise. But I don't. So, I prefer to just set a target calorie range for everyday. Somewhere between 1700 and 1900 calories - the upper end if I exercise, the lower end if I don't. If I stick to it, I lose weight.
I've fallen into that trap before... Where I eat too much and work out too much and get in that vicious cycle of overexercising to burn off overeating. I'd much rather be moderate about both my eating and my exercise.
In the end, my method just equates to low-balling the exercise calories and setting conservative goals for loss/week.
Not picking an argument. Just thought for food / food for thought.
I see nothing wrong with this. It's essentially what I do (except, I'm trying to gain and my calories in general are way higher). There's no reason to be exactly perfect on calories, and if you give yourself enough of a buffer, I don't see a reason why you can't make some educated guesses based on reason and knowledge of your body.
Thanks for this--it answered a question that I've been wondering but was sure had been asked a zillion times. I was wondering how close to our actual calories (per the site) we could get away with eating/not eating in a day and still stay healthy. I realize that it's just a "number"... but I'd like to know how much in the range of that number I can/should be eating so that I continue to lose weight properly. This was very helpful.0 -
Kudos to you! People don't understand that when you cut away so much, you are starving your body and then it will hord those calories 1200 or not! Starving is not the way to health. You might lose weight for awhile, but then you'll gain it all back.:explode: It is frustrating.:mad:
Also it depends what the calories are! 200 calories of tuna is far healthier than 200 calories of potato chips! If people are really trying to maintain a better lifestyle, they will make good calorie choices. A quick fix/starving is not going to be a lifestyle.
I read so many posts where people are obsessed about what they look like. There are so many skinny fat unhealthy people out there! I am more proud that I am stronger, then the weight I've lost. I FEEL so much better and have more energy. I know people will continue to judge me by what I look like, but they can take a flying leap cuz I'm not doing it to impress people anyway! Be happy with who you are and embrace the body that you have!!! And eat to nourish your body...not into excess, but nourish.....You can't run your car on fumes and expect a good race. Don't do it to your body!!
Love yourself and what you have! :flowerforyou:
That's my two cents! LOL
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Easy Calorie Counting0 -
I don't think anyone should eat 1200 calories a day-- I think 1400-1600 are plenty
I look at it like 2000-2200 calories a day thats for females (thats what everything is based off on labels) if your trying to lose weight deduct 500 from that--
Most people are eating well more than 2000-2200 calories a day and then decide to lose weight and make a drastic change to their diet and drop down to 1200 calories a day--0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
Yes, but if you lost 40 lbs, you were well into the overweight and maybe even obese range. The 1200 rule doesn't apply to that (I have posted that so many times I can't even count). Obese people have a different set of rules. Because there is so much extra fat hanging around, the body doesn't see a lack of fuel for quite a while. And while I said you can go into starvation, I didn't say you won't lose weight, in fact I said you probably would lose weight. That doesn't mean you were healthy, and that amonia smell was your kidneys working overtime. This is a PH imbalance which was probably causing a leeching affect in your bones (pulling calcium out to balance out the PH level)
You never specified you were ONLY speaking about slightly overweight people. So there are times when 1200 calories would be appropriate for SOME people....which was MY point.0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
Yes, but if you lost 40 lbs, you were well into the overweight and maybe even obese range. The 1200 rule doesn't apply to that (I have posted that so many times I can't even count). Obese people have a different set of rules. Because there is so much extra fat hanging around, the body doesn't see a lack of fuel for quite a while. And while I said you can go into starvation, I didn't say you won't lose weight, in fact I said you probably would lose weight. That doesn't mean you were healthy, and that amonia smell was your kidneys working overtime. This is a PH imbalance which was probably causing a leeching affect in your bones (pulling calcium out to balance out the PH level)
You never specified you were ONLY speaking about slightly overweight people. So there are times when 1200 calories would be appropriate for SOME people....which was MY point.
That third eye? It isn't for reading two year old posts?? OH. :laugh:0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
Yes, but if you lost 40 lbs, you were well into the overweight and maybe even obese range. The 1200 rule doesn't apply to that (I have posted that so many times I can't even count). Obese people have a different set of rules. Because there is so much extra fat hanging around, the body doesn't see a lack of fuel for quite a while. And while I said you can go into starvation, I didn't say you won't lose weight, in fact I said you probably would lose weight. That doesn't mean you were healthy, and that amonia smell was your kidneys working overtime. This is a PH imbalance which was probably causing a leeching affect in your bones (pulling calcium out to balance out the PH level)
Please don't leave again Steve!:laugh:
You try your best to make it crystal clear.:flowerforyou:0 -
Well, to play devil's advocate, I don't think the avg. woman (or man) is going to stick to a 1200 calorie diet for more than a couple of months. If it was easy to do people would do it all year. It is the number that they can use short term to help them lose weight. I don't think short term 1200 cals. is going to cause any ill effects. :flowerforyou:
OK, well I completely disagree with this.
I guess it depends on what you mean by short term. From the studies that I have read, it takes the human body between 4 days and two weeks to complete the transition from normal metabolic rate to a full blown starvation mode.
So if by short term you mean a couple of days then, ok I'll buy it.
but if by short term you mean weeks, or a month, then I call B*llSh1t (pardon the language, it's an expression from an adult drinking game). The ill effects it will cause will be your body not losing fat. Will you lose weight? Maybe, but a lot of that will be the stored glucose and protein broken down to use as fuel. And that's not the kind of weight I want to lose.
Side note, this is why you gain weight when you eat a normal deficit right after eating waaaaay less, because all that muscle and glucose that was gone, has come back into the body.
Yes, but if you lost 40 lbs, you were well into the overweight and maybe even obese range. The 1200 rule doesn't apply to that (I have posted that so many times I can't even count). Obese people have a different set of rules. Because there is so much extra fat hanging around, the body doesn't see a lack of fuel for quite a while. And while I said you can go into starvation, I didn't say you won't lose weight, in fact I said you probably would lose weight. That doesn't mean you were healthy, and that amonia smell was your kidneys working overtime. This is a PH imbalance which was probably causing a leeching affect in your bones (pulling calcium out to balance out the PH level)
Please don't leave again Steve!:laugh:
You try your best to make it crystal clear.:flowerforyou:
if it makes you feel any better Banksy, I'VE heard you say it dozens of times :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions