MFP 1200 cal goal

There's no solid reason why any particular calorie number should be a limit, so I wouldn't get excited about it.

Set a lower target weight loss rate if it bothers you and the target will move away from the 1200 "minimum".

First, two pounds a week is an awful lot. It may sound like it isn't, but it really is fast long term unless you start out very obese. Often if you follow a one pound a week goal you'll start out losing more than that and then slow as you get closer to your goal.

Second, as the previous poster said, this isn't hard and fast. You want to average 1200 calories a day (if that's your target) to lose your target weight loss (two pounds a week). If you average a little more, you'll lose a little slower.

If you average a little less than that your body may (according to the theory) hold onto calories more tightly, making it harder to lose weight. This is a SLIDING SCALE. It doesn't kick in suddenly.

In addition, and this is important, it really is controlled by insulin levels. So if you keep your blood sugar stable - always food when you're hungry, no easy to digest carbs like straight sugar, white flour, or other things that rapidly peak blood sugar - calorie deficits are less likely to have problematic effects.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Read this for clarification.

Record the workouts.

You arent going to try to drive your car 400miles on an empty tank.

She's trying to lose 60 lbs. She has 210,000 calories in her tank.

You're nearly 200 lbs? I think 2 lbs/week is fine. Mayo Clinic says it's reasonable for anyone.

"Why do doctors recommend a slow rate of weight loss? What's wrong with fast weight loss?
Answer
from Donald Hensrud, M.D.

The concern with fast weight loss is that it usually takes extraordinary efforts in diet and exercise — efforts that could be unhealthy and that you probably can't maintain as permanent lifestyle changes.

A weight loss of 1 to 2 pounds a week is the typical recommendation. Although that may seem like a slow pace for weight loss, it's more likely to help you maintain your weight loss for the long term. "

Really. The Mayo Clinic thinks losing 2 pounds a week is reasonable for anyone? I'm at 129 pounds. My BMR is 1120. I'd have to eat a 1,000 deficit daily to lose 2 pounds a week. Certainly not possible or advisable.

Record the workouts.

You arent going to try to drive your car 400miles on an empty tank.

She's trying to lose 60 lbs. She has 210,000 calories in her tank.

Just trying to make her diet easier.
We all know well that you dont have an issue eating 1200 but if she doesnt and can lose just as much weight eating closer to 2k....
I'm not interested in having this debate again.

My successful clients can speak for themselves.

Record the workouts.

You arent going to try to drive your car 400miles on an empty tank.

She's trying to lose 60 lbs. She has 210,000 calories in her tank.

Just trying to make her diet easier.
We all know well that you dont have an issue eating 1200 but if she doesnt and can lose just as much weight eating closer to 2k....
I'm not interested in having this debate again.

My successful clients can speak for themselves.

I don't know if misinformation makes anyone's diet easier.

For the record, Dan's 'clients' are forumites who follow his tip to use the Fit2FatRadio plan (or is it Scoobys?) rather than MFP's.

In my Mail just yesterday from an MFPer.


"So I have been stuck at a plateau for a long time... a very long time... in fact I couldn't remember when the scales even last moved. I originally stuck with the 1200 set my MFP, I was tired, hungry, moody and getting nowhere. I was searching around the forums for some forums for any useful scrap of information I could find, when I came cross your road map (I added you after that).

I'm not gonna lie, I seriously doubted it at first, to me it did originally sound more logical to say eat less to weigh less, but nothing else was working so other than my sanity I had pretty much nothing less to lose and thought I would give it a shot.... my first shot was a half assed shot, I only upped to 1500 and again 0 weight loss, but I was enjoying the eat more part. I eventually decided to follow what you said and the links given properly. Once again I upped to between 1700-1900 calories (depending on how much I worked out) I think I hit over 2000 the other day as well.

I weighed myself this morning after trying this for 5 days (I should have waited longer I know but again I was nervous of increasing so much) and... my weight has moved for the first time in about 2 months! I am down 0.5lb in 5 days. I'm not expecting to lose an excessive amount in one week, so I am very happy to see the scaled move by 0.5lb.

So thank you. If I hadn't seen your post I would probably still be torturing myself with my 1200 calorie diet and getting no where, but your post has helped me a lot! I'll let you know the results in about a months time and you can rub it in the faces of those who ***** and say upping will make you gain Have a great day."


How many PMs do you get like that Mcarter?
This is the reason I keep doing what I do.

Watboy

"Hey bud ive lost 12 lbs total since I took your advise. I dont have any new photos but will have my brother take some next week. Life is good. Bodyfat is 17% still work in progress."

He used to be like Mcarter and the 1200 crew.
He wasnt losing anything.


"Hi Dan. Just wanted to thank you. If it wasn't for your road map thread I would never have switched to eating more about 3 months ago. I am a few pounds from target weight now and am losing weight and it all seems to be fat loss not muscle loss. It was hard at first but glad I stuck to it. Take care Mandy."


Thats all for now.
I'm here if anyone needs any help!

Found Dan's thread about 3 weeks ago after eating around 1200 calories for a month. I did lose 20 lbs, but I did not feel like my body was at its best. I switched a few weeks ago to between 1700 and 2000 calories/day after researching what Dan posted and consulting a fitness expert. I have lost over 5 lbs since then and I feel better and know that in the long run I wont be causing muscle damage.

So my fitness pal says for me to eat 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lb. a week. If I eat anything less than that it tells me that I am not eating enough calories and to eat more, but if I eat anything more than that I am over my calorie goal. That doesn't make any sense to me since it is almost impossible to eat exactly 1200 calories. I feel like mfp shouldn't make 1200 calories a goal if anything less than that is not enough. Does anyone else have this problem?

Just on more thing - your calorie numbers are targets, not limits, sometimes you can be 100 over, sometimes 100 under, but it will all work out in the end.

If you are only eating 1200, it would be better to be 50 over, than 200 under. Just try to stay within 100 either way and it will be fine.

More chocolatey goodness:

"My first week of increased calories, I dropped the 3.4lb gain I had from last week (water weight I'm sure, I ate horribly the 2 days before my previous WI), plus an additional pound - putting me at my lowest weight since joining MFP. I'm at 20% cut, and eat SO much more than I ever thought I could and still lose. I'm excited to see if I can continue losing in the coming weeks! My energy levels are awesome, I can think clearly, it's just all around been a great experience so far. Just starting week 2 now, but I promised I'd give it a full month either way, so we'll see how it goes!"


"Thank you so much for all this great information!

Since I am technically still obese by BMI standards, I went with 30% below TDEE, rounded to 1500. (I was doing 1200 for several weeks before.) I fully expected to just maintain or even gain a little for a couple weeks but, instead, I lost 2.6 lbs the first week upping my calories. I was willing to try this because I was having such a hard time at 1200. I am thrilled to be able to eat more AND still see good weight loss.

For anyone struggling at their current calorie goal, please run the numbers and give this a shot. Like some have said, it may take a few weeks before you start seeing the scale go down but it is worth it on a daily basis to have a more reasonable goal and to still have energy and not be grumpy all the time.

Best wishes!"

Cringe, this is like those people on Twitter who retweet praise they've received.... *rolls eyes*

I think the original poster needs to edit the top post with a spoiler alert that this thread was highjacked.

I find it harder to record the exercise, because I don't know exactly how many calories I am burning. I don't want to put more than I am. Well, Ill try to eat a but more on the days I go to the gym, and stay at my regular calories on other days.

HRM- Heart rate monitor- 20 bucks for the cheap ones- maybe less- The expensive ones will tell you how many cals you burn for everything.

She's trying to lose 60 lbs. She has 210,000 calories in her tank.

Then it should be possible to forgo eating altogether for a little while and use up that gas tank then it sounds like.

Sounds like if 1500 is avg TDEE, just don't eat for 140 days and it should use up that gas tank.

Obviously if she quit eating she would use it up but that's not what I'm advocating. Nor am I advocating 1200 or any particular level. I'm just correcting misinfo. Burning more than you eat is NOT like driving on an empty gas tank.

I guess for some people they're afraid of burning yesterday's calories and they psychologically or perhaps even physically feel like they're on empty but they have plenty of calories to fuel their activity. Maybe their blood sugar gets too low, I don't know. But their 'tank' is not empty and deficit eating is not dangerous, as long as one eats over recommended minimums.

It's very much like minimum code in building standards.

That is the bare minimum for safety reasons.

Not for longevity, not for performance, not for aesthetics.

Building above minimum code is an improvement for one of the other reasons, or all of them.

If 1200 is minimum, who is it for? What size? Really minimum for all body sizes and daily activity levels? The 4'8" woman at 130 lbs and the 6'1" woman at 330 lbs both have same minimum?
Or just a fail-safe number given because it's easier to deal with?

And if you are interested in longevity, performance, and aesthetics for your body, don't you want to be above minimum "code"?