This 1200 calorie thing is driving me up a wall

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.

Thanks for shedding some light on this subject. You are right, it's just a number.

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?

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! hehe

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.

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.

Well, you can call B*llSh1t if you want but about 6 years ago I cut my calories to 1200 and was exercising 6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I did this for about 3 months. I lost 40 pounds and had more muscle definition than I'd had in many, many years. I lost a LOT of fat and I felt great! It took me 6 years to gain back 20 of those pounds. I ete whatever I wanted and exercised a LOT less in those 6 yrs. So call B*llSh1t if you want but it worked for me. I won't say that it was the healthiest thing to do...I would get a strong ammonia smell in my workout clothes. But it did work and I suffered no ill effects...other than a third eye growing on the side of my head.

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.

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--

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.

Well, you can call B*llSh1t if you want but about 6 years ago I cut my calories to 1200 and was exercising 6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I did this for about 3 months. I lost 40 pounds and had more muscle definition than I'd had in many, many years. I lost a LOT of fat and I felt great! It took me 6 years to gain back 20 of those pounds. I ete whatever I wanted and exercised a LOT less in those 6 yrs. So call B*llSh1t if you want but it worked for me. I won't say that it was the healthiest thing to do...I would get a strong ammonia smell in my workout clothes. But it did work and I suffered no ill effects...other than a third eye growing on the side of my head.

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)

With all due respect I was responding to what you posted recently. Surely you don't expect me to know what you posted months or years ago. I have tried to read a lot of previous posts but really...

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:

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.

Well, you can call B*llSh1t if you want but about 6 years ago I cut my calories to 1200 and was exercising 6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I did this for about 3 months. I lost 40 pounds and had more muscle definition than I'd had in many, many years. I lost a LOT of fat and I felt great! It took me 6 years to gain back 20 of those pounds. I ete whatever I wanted and exercised a LOT less in those 6 yrs. So call B*llSh1t if you want but it worked for me. I won't say that it was the healthiest thing to do...I would get a strong ammonia smell in my workout clothes. But it did work and I suffered no ill effects...other than a third eye growing on the side of my head.

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:

if it makes you feel any better Banksy, I'VE heard you say it dozens of times :flowerforyou:

:drinker: :drinker:

If I had a nickel...............:laugh:

My fitness pal put me at 1300 but that seems very little and I haven't lost a thing. I went to a bmr site and it said over 2000. I don't know what to do at all.

In my opinion follow 1400-1600 calories and workout- You don't even need to focus on eating your exercise calories because you have enough fat/fuel your body can use-- Jillian Michaels reccomends this as well-

but thats just my opinion I just may get stoned for going against the grain.

Also do you have it set to lose 1lb a week or 2lbs a week?

It seems like our week to ressurect old Banks posts! :laugh: Its rough being a legand, buddy!

Ok, so I want to ask a slightly different question, and I am hoping Banks, and all of you who have been at this longer than I have will be able to help me out. Here is my situation. Because of my excessive weight, when I set up my goals, (and I used the defaults for losing 2 lbs a week) the program defaulted to me eating in excess of 2400 calories a day. Well, eating the way I used to eat, that was of course easy. A piece of cake, as it were. However, eating the new healthy diet I am eating, with plenty of healthy protein, lots of vegies and some fruit, I usually find myself eating around 1500 calories a day. Thats with three meals and at least one snack. So, every day, I have a calorie deficit of almost 1000 calories. It worries me because I hear everyone talking about the dangers of goijng below the recommended calories. I feel good. Most days, I feel great compared to prior to this new eating style. My fear is that perhaps my metabolism will slow down, and I will lose momentum, or start to have those old cravings, or I don't know what all else. Any thoughts?

Hey Kristi,
Banks had shared on this very thing up above on either this older bumped post or the other older Banks bumped one from today.

What he shared was larger ppl with much more amounts to lose don't tend to fall into the same category as we have much more fat to use as a resource say than someone with 20 lbs or so to lose.

Hopefully he'll pop back onto this thread and correct me if I've mis-explained it. But I think I understood him to say that.:happy:

Are you able to add in a couple more snack times with your scedule? I do 5-6 mini meals...so breakfast 2 hours or so later perhaps an apple with 1 T. cashew nut butter, lunch, then a couple hours later anothe healthy snack of prehaps nuts and raisins measureed out then comes dinner a couple hours later then a later snack if one needs that.

Forgive me if you already know this part but perhaps others not familair with it and hitting this thread , my be finding this helpful.

So anywhooooo going the 5-6 mini meal route keeps our blood sugars in balance, which in turn keeps our appetites from getting out of wack it also continues to boost our metabolsim through out the day.

Hope something here helped...oh my....please forgive me on my tired typing at the moment. :blushing:

My eyes are closing on me and I need to get to bed.:yawn: ...I don't think I have the energy or brain power left to go correct the typo's ....wow, this sleepiness sorta just hit me big time!:yawn: :yawn: :noway:

Thank you Banks, for your passion and drive!! You always have great info and great encouragement!! I appreciate your passion for health and helping us understand what that really is I always enjoy your posts and find them informative - even when you rant!! We get so twisted in our society about food that it is hard to overcome the myths. Keep up the good work, man!!

:blushing:

I have the patience of a Jack Russle terrier sometimes. thank you for the kind words!

My Jack Russell Terrier has no patience! Of course, he is just a puppy!:laugh:

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.

Well, you can call B*llSh1t if you want but about 6 years ago I cut my calories to 1200 and was exercising 6 days a week for 45 minutes to an hour. I did this for about 3 months. I lost 40 pounds and had more muscle definition than I'd had in many, many years. I lost a LOT of fat and I felt great! It took me 6 years to gain back 20 of those pounds. I ete whatever I wanted and exercised a LOT less in those 6 yrs. So call B*llSh1t if you want but it worked for me. I won't say that it was the healthiest thing to do...I would get a strong ammonia smell in my workout clothes. But it did work and I suffered no ill effects...other than a third eye growing on the side of my head.

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)

With all due respect I was responding to what you posted recently. Surely you don't expect me to know what you posted months or years ago. I have tried to read a lot of previous posts but really...

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's true, I don't know if I stated it in this one. So my appologies for that. I guess I'll say that I've stated it in many of the posts I write. To me it's common sense because I read so much about this stuff, but I realize that it may not be general knowledge. Which is why I try to say it a lot.

I take a practical approach to this stuff. I look at all the facts, studies, articles I can. I give them weight in my own head based on the person writing it, what they are using for their data points, and what peer reviewers say about it.
I'll give my reasoning for the 1200 calorie thing with obese people.
When you are obese and/or higher BMI than 30 (I generally use a BMI of 35 as a better indicator though), your body's metabolic functions are pretty messed up. the body doesn't give you the right times to feel hungry, it doesn't speed up your metabolism to work off excess fat, and it will continue to store fat the same way it would if you were at a normal Body weight.

Fat burning is (partially) a function of fat location in relation to blood supply (think of it like a trucking company). So take a trucking company example. Fat being the product, blood being the transportation medium, and muscles being the consumer. When you are obese, even if there isn't much product being produced (food being eaten), because there is so much supply readily usable, the body doesn't need to cut back on trucks (slowing the metabolism would slow the blood flow) nor does the consumer need to limit its desire for the product.
BUT when product dries up (fat stores shrink and you get closer to a healthy bmi), the trucks need to go further and further from the main roads to get more (the older fat stores further from the main blood flow), and thus the body recognizes this as a supply shortage, automatically regulates demand, and starts pulling supply from other emergency stores that are closer to the blood supply but not used frequency (muscle amino acids).

So really, the fat metabolism is very analogous to macro economics and transportation.

maybe this will help people