Does anyone else get irked a little bit when people say, "Whatever you do, don't go below 1200 calories or you'll starve" in response to requests for diet help? No offense to those here who have said it, or say it regularly, but I keep thinking that nutrition and a healthy diet are SO much more than just a single number of calories.

The 1200 limit is a guideline, but it's also a movable guideline depending on a lot of of factors, not the least which is size (bigger people tend to need more calories to keep things running), metabolism rate (some people's metabolism runs "faster" or "slower" and consequently need more or less than recommended calories), other health factors (there are times when it's more important to get the weight off quickly, and the risk of a low-cal diet is a smaller risk than what is posed by the additional weight), variability of diet (i.e. you're likely not going to starve or slow your metabolism down permanently by eating at 1150 or 1000 for a few days and more other days), mental factors (are you eating low-cal because you have an eating disorder, or because you're on a doctor-supervised very-low-cal-diet), and so on.

I understand that people want to help, and it's an easy ruler to pull out and measure against a person's diet, but I'm wondering if we do more harm than good by adhering to the "1200 calorie or starve" mentality as THE basis for a good diet. Perhaps if we concentrated more on "make sure you're getting all the vitamins, minerals, and macro-nutrients your body needs to keep running," the 1200 calorie advice would be moot, since it's quite likely that a person is going to be eating more than 1200 calories in order to make sure their nutritional requirements are met rather than just their energy requirements.

I may be the odd one out here, so if I am, please feel free to ignore this posting!

I've thought about this some.

My doctor has told me not to go below 1000 calories to lose weight (due to my height and small frame size). She said this is because it is close to impossible for me to get all the nutrients and vitamins my body needs to function properly at a caloric level lower than that.

For those who are new to dieting and healthy eating, I think 1200 is a good number to use as a "benchmark" and not to go below. But, no, I don't think it's a one-size-fits-all number. How could 1200 be the low point for a 5' person and also a 6' person?

So, I know some people here would say I'm "starving" myself by using 1000 calories as my low limit but as long as I feel good, it's supported by my doctor, and I still have energy to exercise... I sure don't see that as starving.


ETA: And, no, I don't eat 1000 calories a day every day. It's usually over 1200 when I exercise and hopefully I'll be able to maintain at an amount higher than that.

Betony,

You are right. going below for a few days isn't going to cause any damage. However, I have been one to push that rule and here's why:

It's a simple number to concentrate on. A lot of people just starting out with changing their eating habits may get overwhelmed with too much information. Throwing out an easy number gives them something easy to digest.

Another reason I use that number is because too many people have gotten the impression that the less you eat, the more you will lose... this kind of mentality can lead to eating disorders. I can't tell you how many posts from people say things like "I have been eating 500 calories a day. why am I not losing weight??" By giving them an "absolute" number like 1200 is an easy way to protect these people from a damaging "less calories= better" mentality.

You are right, there is so much more to losing weight and to getting proper nutrition than "you have to eat at least 1200 calories"... but many times it's too complicated to try to explain, especially to newcomers.

however, that being said, most doctors adhere to the same rule of "don't go below 1200 calories"... and as an average, it's still a good number to go by.

I am not sure why this is a topic one would be "irked" by.

Because it seems to be a very common answer that doesn't address health at all. Yes, you can lose weight at 1200, or 1500 or even 1800 calories, but it doesn't mean you're doing it healthy just because you're making sure you hit a certain number. I can eat 1500 calories per day worth of rice cakes and water, and lose weight but make myself sick in the process. I can eat 1000 nutrient rich calories and be healthier. I just think it oversimplifies things.

And because it's not necessarily true. Depending on a lot of physiological factors, a person could be just fine on 1200 or 1000 calories -- doesn't meant they'll necessarily starve or do themselves harm. It depends on the person.

In response to this point specifically, there is something scientific to the 1200 calorie rule. People get so hung up on "less is best" and I think this helps guide people from the dangerous territory of undereating.

It really is an important componant (consuming sufficient calories).

Is it important to consume food with high nutritional value? Yes.

Is it important to have a balance of macros that suits your needs? Yes.

And it is also important to make sure your body is getting the calories necessary in order to properly function and for whatever (scientific) reason, 1200 is that number. It's not set in stone, but it is a guide.

I understand that you need enough calories to run the body, but if you're paying attention to the nutritional needs of you're body, you're very likely going to get enough calories to run things. I'm talking specifically about people who treat 1200 calories as absolute minimum limit. For some people, their minimum needs to be higher than that as well.

I guess I'm either a minority in thinking it's not the greatest idea to use one number to fit everyone, or I just shouldn't have brought it up. Sorry guys.

I think (at least on this board) when you see the 1200 argument come up it's usually suggesting to someone that they should probably be consuming more calories.

I've actually never seen it referred to as a "one size fits all" number until now. I don't think you will find anyone who thinks it's a one size fits all number... just the minimum of what most people need to function- and no, it doesn't take into account other things like macros. As I said before, consuming an adequate amount of calories is incredibly important to losing and maintaining a weightloss.

I don't know why you are apologizing and saying you shouldn't have brought it up. Just because people are trying to learn where you are coming from doesn't mean it won't make for a good discussion

I do find that people here are very frightened, almost aghast by the fact that people would choose to consume 1200 calories. And I always here the term starvation mode in connection with it. Not sure why. I consume 1200 calories and have been for many, many months. I never, ever, not once went into starvation mode where my body would hold on to my fat in order to protect me. And there is not one correct number for each and every person out there. I am not your "average" person. I'm a former morbidly obese person. I'm a mere 5 feet. Post menopausal. 45 years old. This old body just doesn't require any more to run efficiently.

I am getting more minerals, vitamins, protein, fiber, etc. on those 1200 calories then *most* people get eating twice that. I for sure am getting more good nutrition now on those 1200 calories then I was when I was eating triple and quadruple that. My hair has never been thicker or shinier, my nails never stronger, my skin never smoother, my blood work never better. I am rarely, if ever hungry. I am full of energy.

I must say, I too am irked, not sure if that's the correct term, when I hear people say to not consume 1200 calories as if it is LAW. As if they can guarantee that something dreadful will happen to anyone that does. Because I can assure you that nothing dreadful has happened to me. Just the opposite, in fact. Just the opposite.

well the 1200 rule is so your stored body fat does not kick in because the body will respond by storing new fat making it seem like you are not get off the ground the trick is to find a balance so the body does not get shocked in to defending its self

As the OP mentioned, advice to eat 1200 calories/day (or more) provides no sort of guidance on eating healthy.

My calorie target is 1500 calories. And it's a balancing act for me to pack the all the nutrients I feel are appropriate into that limit (with 80 calories left over for may daily Reece's, lol). I need to have good nutrition within my calorie limit because I am in this for the long run.

When someone posts that they are trying to restrict calories to a worrisome level (say 800 calories), it raises lots of red flags. Folks who focus on a low calorie level are almost certainly thinking of the diet as a short-term measure that they want to get over as soon as possible. And it really isn't possible, even if you are eating all healthy calories, to pack the nutrition that I am convinced your body needs into that few calories.

When faced with someone who posts a potentially unhealthy plan, I think a simple (and consensus) message is best if you want to have any chance of convincing the poster to rethink their plan.

Advice to eat at least 1200 calories is necessary (in most cases) but not sufficient to steer someone towards a healthier lifestyle. If the person can be convinced to take a slower path to weight loss, then maybe they can realize that they should also focus on eating healthy foods. It's easy to think you can skip nutrition if you think your diet will only last a few weeks or months.

But once someone buys into a "slower may be better" approach, then they are probably more receptive to looking at the nutrition content. Discussions about healthy eating are a lot more complex and nuanced, but there is no doubt that good nutrition requires enough calories.

There are health experts that are advocating that lower calorie intake is not unhealthy and that means below the "generic" amounts. That it depends on the individual, their diet, and their activity levels. The generic numbers are a good guidelines to shoot for. I myself am shooting for 1200 a day, raw food vegan. That is a lot of food lol. That is where I struggle. When I eat cooked vegan foods, I tend to reach my calorie intake quickly and actually feel hunger because I'm not getting enough food. When I eat raw, I actually struggle getting food in my mouth! A lot of the time I find myself not hungry and struggling to get the calories in lol.

I think there are people who think that they KNOW what everyone should be doing in terms of calories. In fact I've been lectured by another poster on here who, I swear, had a cut and paste response as to why my 1200 - 1500 calorie target was bad for me.

I think often times people assume a calorie is a calorie, but that simply is not true. If you look at a person who is eating 1200 calories or even as low as 900 calories a day, but it is empty calorie foods with little nutritional value well that person is not only going to be hungry, but I don't think they will be getting much from their food. However, someone who is eating healthier foods, vegetables, whole grains, etc, is getting nutrition from their food.

I believe it is really up to the individual. It isn't just about calories as people have to stick to a diet plan and make it a lifestyle change. If lowering the calories make someone hungry, moody, and unhappy then the chances of them sticking with it probably isn't high. So, I think it all is a balancing act, as another poster mentioned.

Okay, so now I am TOTALLY confused. I am using an iPod app called Lose it. I put in my starting weight, put in what I weigh each day and what my goal weight is. It tells me that I can lose 1.5 lbs a week (I would like to lose 2 lbs a week) and tells me that I should get about 1150 calories in a day all based on that information.

So throughout the day, I put in what I eat and it deducts the calories. If I exercise, which I do 6 out of 7 days, I put those in. I am averaging a burn of about 400-600 calories on those workout days.

If your still with me, is that okay? Or am I supposed to eat MORE calories since I am burning so many? Now I am worried that even though the weight loss is consistent that I am doing it all wrong. Help!!!

A lot of times those calorie calculators are based on your current weight and what they think the rate of loss should be. I find that often they over calculate for most people and base the loss on a slow rate, but that is not to say that your iPod app is doing that.

So, for my weight, height, gender, and age, I've seen calculators or apps say I should be eating around 2500+ calories a day! One even said like 3,000 and I can't possibly eat that much lol.

If you feel good and your weight is coming off, then I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you're concerned though, why not run it by your doctor or nutritionist?

My doctor was totally on board with my calorie intake and diet choice. She told me I needed to make changes, which I am, like getting enough nutrients and good fat. So, they'll tell you what's what if they feel they need to. My issue was that I'm lacking in a few things, but that is common with my choice of diet.

I eat what I eat and I burn what I burn. I keep the two totally and completely SEPARATE. Those calories burned calculators are HIGHLY inaccurate. There's no way on earth for them to accurately predict what any one individual is burning. So, I keep the two separate. Any calories that I burn through exercise - intentional or unintentional is an added bonus in the calorie deficit department. I track and monitor my calories consumed. That's where my issue is. That's what I need to count. Keeping those in check is what is most essential to me.

As an added side note, I do believe the larger a person is, the higher amount of calories they need to consume in order to get the required nutrients - as a general rule. Again, there is no one across the board LAW. If only there was. But there isn't. Luckily, good old fashioned trial and error CAN take care of that.