1250 calories?

I hate it when people say 1200 is not sustainable, yes it is, we eat wayyyyy too much food, that's why we're fat!

I completely agree! I was given 1200 for a 2 lbs a week loss and I've lost 27 lbs since Jan 2nd. 1200 is common if you want to lose 2 lbs a week. If you exercise you can eat back your calories.

i dont follow calorie counting i eat when im hungry between 500-1000 calories a day then i have a re feed day when my body is screaming for energy listen too you body good luck

How has that been working for you? Any issues?

i dont follow calorie counting i eat when im hungry between 500-1000 calories a day then i have a re feed day when my body is screaming for energy listen too you body good luck

This argument kills me. What do you think I'm eating 1800 cal of? It's not fast food or crap like Shakeology. I eat close to 2000cal of clean food everyday, which includes lots of vegetables, lean meat, complex carbs, healthy fats, dairy, and fruit. You have trained your metabolism to run slower, which is why you feel "satisfied". Just remember this thread when you start to plateau or when you realize you have very little or no strength at all.
[/quote]


GOD BLESS YOU!! Totally my point. Although you know what that means-

Ughh...... here comes the Negative Nancy's again.

I think the main problem in this debate is that people on one side rely on numbers, studies and science, and the other side relies on perceptions and visible results. Which are both right depending on the context.

Your body is not completely dumb. If you decide to eat at 1200, your body won't kill you, it'll adapt. You WILL lose weight, definitely. For a while at least, and maybe you'll even reach your goal. If your goal is a number on the scale.

But that's not the point that people advocating to eat above BMR are arguing about. They are assuming you want to reach your goal weight AND be fit.

Of course given enough time your perception is fine, your body adapted. It's called starvation mode (Not necessarily related to the feeling of starvation itself). There are tons of studies on that subject.

A nice example of this is the metabolic increase linked to working out. There are many studies that explained there is actually an increase in metabolic rate related to training that lasts for far longer than the period you are training for (Workout for an hour, enjoy an increase in metabolic rate for 4-5 hours). That's free calorie burning, really! It's one of the best things about HIIT cardio compared to ET cardio, for example (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594902593). It's all about making your body work for you. Work smart.

Eating below BMR for extended periods of time does the exact opposite. Your metabolic rate slows, and now you spend less doing everything else, all the time.

Anorexic people have that exact problem... They slow their body so much. They lose weight, but the minute they eat slightly more, their body stores fat really fast. Which leads to another period of even lower calories, leading to even more lean body mass loss. Of course it's a pathology, and a very complex one usually, but the studies on their metabolism (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=metabolism+anorexia) show really interesting results that do apply to controlled weight loss.

Anyway, I think the point people like helloitsdan and others were trying to make, is that if your goal is one of FITNESS (like reaching the heart health of someone at your goal weight, not just his weight), then fighting with your body every step of the way is not the proper way to go.

Here's the most accurate stat ever : 100% of people die. Fat or skinny. It's all about improving quality of life, and you improve on that by being FIT. Being light is a side effect.

Good luck everyone!