Seriously ... 1200 calories or less
Options
Replies
-
Hypothetically speaking and mathematically speaking
You need to consume about 3500 calories to gain about 1 pound of fat, if you ate 500 calories less from your typical daily diet,
you'll lose approximately 1 pound a week.
500 calories x 7 days = 3500 calories. That means in that whole week, you ate enough food for 6 days and not 7, which means you will most likely lose the weight. It is true that some people can survive off 1200 calories, still be 'healthy' and lose weight, but you guys and girls are the minority, every body has a different body type, everyone has a different resting metabolic rate, basal metabolic rate. Physiologically, depending on your culture, your body might store carbohydrates as fat more efficiently then someone else, hence making fat loss more difficult, physiologically, your body might be more efficient at using your fat stores for energy, hence making fat loss easier.
EVERY BODY IS DIFFERENT. and the point of this post is that, the majority of people on 1200 calories, usually fail. All you have to do is do a trial and error, see what range of calories is best for YOU.
My maintenance is around 3300 calories, yet i can't lose weight at 2600-2900 calories, so i have to decrease it even more, to about 1800-2200 calories. Because my body is extremely efficient at storing energy as fat for later use. And this completely sucks! But anyway, if 1200 calories isn't working for you, increase it to 1600 or 1800. If 1200 calories works for you and you feel fine, hell, stick with it. Because that's just the way your body functions
Anyway, don't get all butt hurt and offended because you feel like people here are picking on you, because nobody is picking on anyone, If you have your diary open for the public, then you're inviting everyone to see and to constructively criticize and support you, but in the end, DO WHATEVER THE F YOU WANNA DO!0 -
bump0
-
Well I did somehow. Either way, I changed it up and got negative results, so I'm going back to my normal that gave me positive results.
you need to give it more than a week, everybody is warned that when they initially raise their calories from such a low level they may experience a small gain but it is only water weight.
You topped off your glucose stores finally by upping the calories.
You can see a 3lb gain easy from just glucose and water weight, but that will come off.
It is not FAT.0 -
Well I did somehow. Either way, I changed it up and got negative results, so I'm going back to my normal that gave me positive results.
you need to give it more than a week, everybody is warned that when they initially raise their calories from such a low level they may experience a small gain but it is only water weight.
You topped off your glucose stores finally by upping the calories.
You can see a 3lb gain easy from just glucose and water weight, but that will come off.
It is not FAT.
FAT, WATER, doesn't matter. I'm sticking to what worked for me. That's all that counts right? What works for ME, MYSELF, and the girl staring back at me in the mirror.0 -
I've upped mine from 1200 to 1450 this week. Fingers crossed I see results. I was miserable only eating that many and I started to loose interest.0
-
I'm sick of people putting up posts that maintain the myth of starvation mode. This is my number one pet peeve.
STARVATION MODE IS A MYTH. THERE IS A REASON WHY INTERMITTENT FASTING WORKS SO WELL. STOP SPREADING THIS CRAP!0 -
This has probably been posted many many times, but I'm sick of people posting
topics saying they can't lose any weight, and you ask how many calories they consume.
And they'll tell you less than 1200. Are you serious? are you joking? A 10 year old eats more than that.
First of all, go find out what your calorie maintenance is.
Second of all, decrease the amount of calories by 10-20%. For example, if maintenance is 2000 calories
then to lose weight, consume 1600-1800. That's it, it's that easy. Why are people under eating?
Every single athlete which competes in a sport with specific weight divisions, whether it be an MMA fighter
or a wrestler or a boxer etc, and especially body builders (when it comes to cutting weight)
will tell you exactly the same thing, if you want to cut weight, eat 10-20% under your maintenance.
If you eat under at 1200 calories:
1) metabolism will slow down
2) body will try to retain what little that you eat as fat for energy
3) when you eat high calories again, you bet that you will gain all that weight you lost back
Anyway, that's just me venting. Not picking on anyone, it's more out of me wanting to help people.
Because I've been there and I've done that, and 1200 calories or less is not the way to go. You got to
eat to lose weight, SOUNDS RIDICULOUS RIGHT? well it ain't, not even the slightest. =]
Excellent post!!! I'm 5'2" and did not lose weight at 1200, when I upped those calories the weight came off!
And for those of you that says Starvation Mode is a myth, do the research. Google is your friend. I find it very odd that Weight Watchers claims it is a myth. I didn't lose weight on WW, they had me eating too little!0 -
Troll detected... 56lbs lost on the 1200 calories a day bro.... true story.0
-
Everyone is different, no one should feel like they HAVE to stay under 1200 and no one should feel like they won't loose weight if they don't up their calories. You have to figure out what works for YOUR body - I think we've all probably been on this ride long enough to know our bodies and if eating a certain way makes us feel good or not. There is no blanket rule either way and we should all be happy to find what works for us and be happy for others when they do as well instead of judging them because you don't think what theyre doing is "right" or because it didn't work for you.
I am a shorty as well and get ready to shudder - I am consistently under 1200 calories and I feel fantastic and am still loosing inches and weight as I build muscle - my diet is rich in natural good foods.
Very well said!!!0 -
I hate the posts with "I can't eat 1200 calories" Seriously?!0
-
i agree with you, a woman needs at least 1500 and if she's overweight (medically) she didn't get that way eating 1500 calories a day. More like 2,300 over a long period of time. So cutting back to 1500 should be sufficient. And if your weight stalls, it's usually cos you're within the parametres of normal. I can't lose weight but tbh I'm not moaning that much because i@m not medically overweight.0
-
I hate the phrase starvation mode. I prefer to call it "sure, you'll still lose pounds, but a disproportionate amount will be from muscle mass so you'll look a lot worse when you get to your goal weight than you would have if you ate a little bit more and weren't so focused on the damn scale, not to mention that you're training your body to survive on a small amount of food, so you're gong to be stuck 'dieting' just to maintain a healthy weight" mode.
But it's a bit wordy.0 -
I tried 1200 cals and I was STARVING!
Me too!0 -
I really have a hard time understanding...
1.. why people care so much about someone else's business.. do what works for you
2.. why is it so hard to understand that there just maybe some people that are short/small that don't need 4k/day to survive... everyone is different. someone that is 5;0 that doesn't powerlift or run marathons can get by just fine on 1k and still be healthy so long as that 1k is healthy food and not 4 snickers..0 -
I regree with you. thanks for sharing!0
-
Also, I think the problem with eating such few calories is that it is not a long term solution or a "lifestyle change". If you eat more to weigh less, while not losing muscle mass....that is the healthy, sustainable way to go. That's why you see some people lose a lot of weight at these low calories counts...but they gain the weight back and forth...etc. I'd rather lose the weight slowly while making *sustainable* changes. When I lose all this weight, I don't ever want it to come back! :-))
Agreed. Living off of 1200 cals or less per day would make me miserable. Yes, this is something that could be done for a short period of time, but it would be too hard for me to keep it up in the long run. This is why so many low cal diets have failed me in the past. I would do it for a couple of months, lose some weight, feel miserable and then binge until I gained all of the weight back and then some. Eating a balanced diet that consists of sizeable portions of the good stuff is what my body craves. I have lost about 20 pounds so far. I have lost 20 pounds in the past, but I never looked or felt so good. Even at 160 lbs on my 5'2" frame, I'm starting to see muscle tone. I was never able to say that when I was starving myself at 160 lbs.
Agreed it doesnt matter what you do to lose weight if its not sustainable the weight will come right back.0 -
Yup, no one should ever feel judged or pressured into going about their diet differently. If it is working, it is working.
I'm short as hell. I have hypothyroidism (genetic). I have a desk job. I'm studying for a certification. My hobbies include reading, writing, and playing video games. I make an effort to hit the gym a few times a week to get some movement in, but it's just not interesting to me to go get ripped or to do large amounts of strength training. Why be something I'm not? I just don't want to be overweight is all.
So if my method is to eat 900-1100 calories a day (this is okayed by my physician, by the way, thank you) and do cardio and light strength training, and it's working and I feel good, who are you to judge that I should be doing something different? Are you an MD? No? Okay then. You do your thing, and I'll do mine.
Agreed, live and let live. This thread didnt start out because someone needed advice and advice was offered up. Instead it was started just to state someones opinion. There are so many threads on this topic already and no one will ever agree.0 -
I hate the phrase starvation mode. I prefer to call it "sure, you'll still lose pounds, but a disproportionate amount will be from muscle mass so you'll look a lot worse when you get to your goal weight than you would have if you ate a little bit more and weren't so focused on the damn scale, not to mention that you're training your body to survive on a small amount of food, so you're gong to be stuck 'dieting' just to maintain a healthy weight" mode.
But it's a bit wordy.
:flowerforyou:0 -
I really have a hard time understanding...
1.. why people care so much about someone else's business.. do what works for you
2.. why is it so hard to understand that there just maybe some people that are short/small that don't need 4k/day to survive... everyone is different. someone that is 5;0 that doesn't powerlift or run marathons can get by just fine on 1k and still be healthy so long as that 1k is healthy food and not 4 snickers..
I agree and dont get this either!!! I tried explaining it but of course it didnt get through to anyone. Maybe it's called being a busybody? If someone asks for advice then ok but this is not how this thread was started.0 -
I hate the phrase starvation mode. I prefer to call it "sure, you'll still lose pounds, but a disproportionate amount will be from muscle mass so you'll look a lot worse when you get to your goal weight than you would have if you ate a little bit more and weren't so focused on the damn scale, not to mention that you're training your body to survive on a small amount of food, so you're gong to be stuck 'dieting' just to maintain a healthy weight" mode.
But it's a bit wordy.
Nope not true. Again you are generalizing the population.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions