Unhealthy lifestyle - trying 1200 calories again

penguinmama87 wrote: »

I'm so sorry for the loss of your mother. What a stressful few years!

Is there a reason you're picking 1200 calories? I'm also 5'6" and 1200 sounds absolutely miserable. Are you eating back your exercise calories? You can probably lose 2lb/week for a while, but I'd be wary of undereating and potentially giving up or undoing your hard work with binging. IMO it's easier to eat more and lose slowly on purpose than feel terrible and hungry, then binge to make up for how hungry you feel, and then have very inconsistent results. At least, that's what would probably happen to me.

Yes, I'm 5'6", started at about the same weight as the OP, and lasted until lunch when I realized 1200 calories wasn't going to be enough for me

Lots of good info here:

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

Reading all the comments makes since. I too am starting again.

musicandrabbitlover87 wrote: »

MsCzar wrote: »

musicandrabbitlover87 wrote: »

Yes!! I used 1200 to 1300 calories when I first started losing weight and stayed at that amount of calories for over a year. Dropped 50 lbs. Eventually I stayed around 1400 with exercise and was fine.

I recently tried to lose weight at 1600 or even 1400 calories and the scale didn't budge.

Same! 1200-1300 is my sweet spot for losing weight I and rarely feel hungry. At 1500+ the scale doesn't move. YMMV - but 1200 works great for me.

Isn't that weird how it works. BTW, today I ate a little over 1200 calories and I feel AMAZING! No brain fog, stomach feels great, and I had loads of energy all day!

Consider whether that's a sign of something useful. Try it on repeat - just a little over 1200, like this day. If it continues to be subjectively better, I'm betting that's a win.

Eating too little can trigger not only hunger, but also subtle fatigue. The fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of our day, mostly via daily life activity, but also via exercise intensity. The fatigue can be quite subtle: Would you notice if you fidgeted less? Would you attribute it to calorie/nutrition intake if you went to the mall to pick something up and didn't feel like window shopping that day (or equivalent) as you usually would? Would you notice if you decided to make a simple dinner instead of one that took more on-your-feet time and more chopping/mixing? If you started feeling less motivated to do some more effort-intensive hobby, sort of bored by it? I wouldn't notice those things.

Things like that burn calories. Not huge numbers of them, but potentially into 100-200 or so daily, maybe more. There can be a sweet spot for calorie intake, where energy level stays up, but loss still happens. If a person's lucky, hunger will play along with that and reduce at slightly higher calories, too. (I agree that food choice can matter in hunger/satiation, as others above have said.)

I have zero scientific basis for this across a spectrum, but I believe that our bodies get good at what we train them to expect, train them to do.

I know this is true on the exercise side. I suspect it's true on the eating/energy side as well. If we train our bodies to get good at famine by eating as little as we can possibly handle - because bodies don't know weight-loss diet from famine - they'll get good at being very efficient in conserving calories, burning fewer of them and influencing our habits in a less active direction, our manner in a more physically placid direction. Subtle. Slower hair growth, thinner nails, maybe feel cold, maybe down-regulated immune function, too.

This is not "starvation mode" where one's body won't lose fat no matter how low we eat. This is our body saving us from starvation as long as it can, by down-regulating calorie-burning activities that it treats as lower priority.

It's also not a path to best long-term thriving. Personally, I think thriving involves eating as many calories (as much nutrition) as possible, while still achieving weight management goals. Just my opinion, though. If one needs to lose fat, that means achieving a meaningful weight loss rate. It doesn't necessarily require a fast weight loss rate. Too fast loss - a very squishy concept, very situational - doesn't help reach long-term thriving.

If you can find an energetic (and sating) eating level that still lets you lose weight at a reasonable rate, that's a win.

Some people need to eat as little as 1200 to lose weight. They tend to be female, old-ish, relatively small, fairly inactive. Some people log rather approximately, think they're eating 1200 when they're actually not. (Studies have even show dietitians being off by something like 20%!) But it seems like really a lot of people think they need to or ought to eat 1200, when they don't. They may think fast loss is good, they may be misled by seeming slow loss in the first couple of weeks (because of hormonal water retention, new exercise causing water retention, more fiber/water in their eating style, lots of other things), they may have heard that 1200 calorie diets are just how it's done - lots of reasons.

Be thoughtful, be careful, look at long run (whole menstrual cycle or 4-6 week weight trends).

P.S. My personal experience was similar to Riverside's. When I started here, MFP correctly gave me a goal of 1200, which is statistically very reasonable for a 5'5", then 59 y/o who was sedentary outside of intentional exercise, and weighed in the mid 150s pounds (already down some 10s of pounds from my SW). I ate back my exercise, so gross intake more like 1400-1600 most days. It was too low. In my case, I wasn't particularly hungry. I felt energetic, until I suddenly hit a wall, got weak and fatigued, then it took multiple weeks to recover even though I started eating more as soon as I realized. No one needs that.

Am I saying you shouldn't go as low as 1200? No. I don't know. I'm saying be careful, attentive.

musicandrabbitlover87 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

musicandrabbitlover87 wrote: »

MsCzar wrote: »

musicandrabbitlover87 wrote: »

Yes!! I used 1200 to 1300 calories when I first started losing weight and stayed at that amount of calories for over a year. Dropped 50 lbs. Eventually I stayed around 1400 with exercise and was fine.

I recently tried to lose weight at 1600 or even 1400 calories and the scale didn't budge.

Same! 1200-1300 is my sweet spot for losing weight I and rarely feel hungry. At 1500+ the scale doesn't move. YMMV - but 1200 works great for me.

Isn't that weird how it works. BTW, today I ate a little over 1200 calories and I feel AMAZING! No brain fog, stomach feels great, and I had loads of energy all day!

Consider whether that's a sign of something useful. Try it on repeat - just a little over 1200, like this day. If it continues to be subjectively better, I'm betting that's a win.

Eating too little can trigger not only hunger, but also subtle fatigue. The fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of our day, mostly via daily life activity, but also via exercise intensity. The fatigue can be quite subtle: Would you notice if you fidgeted less? Would you attribute it to calorie/nutrition intake if you went to the mall to pick something up and didn't feel like window shopping that day (or equivalent) as you usually would? Would you notice if you decided to make a simple dinner instead of one that took more on-your-feet time and more chopping/mixing? If you started feeling less motivated to do some more effort-intensive hobby, sort of bored by it? I wouldn't notice those things.

Things like that burn calories. Not huge numbers of them, but potentially into 100-200 or so daily, maybe more. There can be a sweet spot for calorie intake, where energy level stays up, but loss still happens. If a person's lucky, hunger will play along with that and reduce at slightly higher calories, too. (I agree that food choice can matter in hunger/satiation, as others above have said.)

I have zero scientific basis for this across a spectrum, but I believe that our bodies get good at what we train them to expect, train them to do.

I know this is true on the exercise side. I suspect it's true on the eating/energy side as well. If we train our bodies to get good at famine by eating as little as we can possibly handle - because bodies don't know weight-loss diet from famine - they'll get good at being very efficient in conserving calories, burning fewer of them and influencing our habits in a less active direction, our manner in a more physically placid direction. Subtle. Slower hair growth, thinner nails, maybe feel cold, maybe down-regulated immune function, too.

This is not "starvation mode" where one's body won't lose fat no matter how low we eat. This is our body saving us from starvation as long as it can, by down-regulating calorie-burning activities that it treats as lower priority.

It's also not a path to best long-term thriving. Personally, I think thriving involves eating as many calories (as much nutrition) as possible, while still achieving weight management goals. Just my opinion, though. If one needs to lose fat, that means achieving a meaningful weight loss rate. It doesn't necessarily require a fast weight loss rate. Too fast loss - a very squishy concept, very situational - doesn't help reach long-term thriving.

If you can find an energetic (and sating) eating level that still lets you lose weight at a reasonable rate, that's a win.

Some people need to eat as little as 1200 to lose weight. They tend to be female, old-ish, relatively small, fairly inactive. Some people log rather approximately, think they're eating 1200 when they're actually not. (Studies have even show dietitians being off by something like 20%!) But it seems like really a lot of people think they need to or ought to eat 1200, when they don't. They may think fast loss is good, they may be misled by seeming slow loss in the first couple of weeks (because of hormonal water retention, new exercise causing water retention, more fiber/water in their eating style, lots of other things), they may have heard that 1200 calorie diets are just how it's done - lots of reasons.

Be thoughtful, be careful, look at long run (whole menstrual cycle or 4-6 week weight trends).

P.S. My personal experience was similar to Riverside's. When I started here, MFP correctly gave me a goal of 1200, which is statistically very reasonable for a 5'5", then 59 y/o who was sedentary outside of intentional exercise, and weighed in the mid 150s pounds (already down some 10s of pounds from my SW). I ate back my exercise, so gross intake more like 1400-1600 most days. It was too low. In my case, I wasn't particularly hungry. I felt energetic, until I suddenly hit a wall, got weak and fatigued, then it took multiple weeks to recover even though I started eating more as soon as I realized. No one needs that.

Am I saying you shouldn't go as low as 1200? No. I don't know. I'm saying be careful, attentive.

Great points. I burned 600 calories yesterday on power walks and ate 1200 calories - not good. What you stated above is how I felt. I was lightheaded, exhausted, my muscles ached, everything was blurry, and I had extreme cravings. I had to eat more and then I felt fine. I think I ate about 1400 calories yesterday.

I am listening to my body and increasing as needed. I am slowly dropping weight which makes me happy!!

100% not a good sign, the bolded. I don't know how old you are, but we'd expect your BMR (amount you'd burn flat on your back in a coma) to be maybe 1700-1800ish at your current size . . . a little higher if you're truly more muscular than the average woman your age. You have a full-time job and you go to grad school, which burns more calories on top of BMR - a few hundred more, probably, at least. So, estimated maintenance of 2000+, probably.

Then you add what you estimate to be 600 calories of exercise on top of that. Then try to stick with eating 1200, burning something possibly pushing upper 2000s if not 3000, in the context of a busy and probably already stressful life? Yikes. No wonder you felt hungry, beaten up, even sick.

You had an acute negative effect one day. That's a warning bell. Please don't let it become a systemic malaise by pushing super hard for maximum fast loss.

Based on your OP, you have 60 pounds to lose. At 2 pounds a week the whole way, which would be ill-advised as you get lighter IMO, it would take you well over 7 months. Think about what kind of routine you can keep up for 7 months and longer - compatible with good energy for your demanding life, good mood for your self/husband/family, good health - plus something you can continue somewhat on autopilot if other parts of life turn super-challenging again during loss.

Then think about the kind of habits you'll need to maintain a healthy weight permanently thereafter, definitely mostly on autopilot, because other parts of life will be demanding sooner or later. Many people say maintenance is the hard part, and your history suggests you found it to be so, too.

I'm not trying to be a downer. Even though I'm a stranger, I truly would like to see you succeed, because the results have been so very worthwhile in my own life. Please be careful. Please think about health and sustainability.

Wishing you good outcomes!