Don't worry, I'm not considering this or anything I'm just very curious.

I've always thought that a woman trying to lose weight was supposed to aim to eat 1000 calories a day. It's something I've always 'known', but having come to this site I've now learned that it's actually considered dangerous to eat so few and that people should actually be aiming to eat considerably more.

What I was wondering is whether it was at one time thought that women should be eating that amount long term to lose weight? As I've believed this for a long time I guess I'd have first heard it as a child in the 70s or early 80s - was 1000 calories thought safe then and things have changed, or have I just always been wrong?

Many thanks to anyone who can solve this puzzle for me!

I think it wouldn't be dangerous for someone of a shorter height. My nutritionist said I should eat around 1400 for dieting and I'm 5'7 so for some one shorter they obviously should eat less... but I'm not medically positive.. just seems right.

I remember the old 1000 calorie diet as well from childhood. I was an overweight child and i remember the doc telling my mom to put me on a 1000 calorie diet. I think we have learned a lot since those days and i still doctors are WAY behind the times when it comes to nutrition. They know medicine, not food in my experience.

The first time I lost a lot of weight, before I knew about 3fatchicks or knew about all the good info on the web, I did the 1000 calories thing. I lost 50 pounds that way, but I was in my early 20s too so my metabolism was better, I guess. I sure didn't sustain it though. I started to gain weight as soon as I started eating more than 1000 calories.
Boy, did 3fatchicks and other sites teach me how to eat and sustain weight loss!

I was lucky enough to not have been overweight as a child, but my mother was obese since I was born (in the early 70s) so I assume I got this idea from her or someone talking about her. She's an inch or two shorter than me so you may well be right, Jillnicole, about height being a factor. My mother joined a slimming club in the mid-late 80s after various other half-hearted dieting attempts and was allowed something like 1400 calories plus 500 cals treats and I remember being really surprised that she was allowed so much, though having read around this site for a bit it seems reasonable.

The idea of counting calories for a child seems awful, that just seems to set up a lot of problems. I think you're right, Get n healthy, about doctors being behind the times, though I suppose given the huge range of ailments they have to deal with would make it impossible to keep up in all areas.

Thanks, punchthekeys, more evidence that I wasn't imagining it is very welcome! Do you know where you heard it from?

I've also got to say, I totally admire you: your goal is the same as mine, we're almost the same height, and you started at the weight I'm at now. I *really* want to do exactly what you've done, and seeing someone who's done it is really encouraging.

I think the history of dieting and dieting advice and "common wisdom," would be very interesting. I was put on my first diet at age 5 (in 1971) and I've been on countless diets, and read countless diet books, written by private citizens and physicians, so I've witnessed much of it, but whether the advice was typical for the times or what the general consensus among physicians has been during any given year, don't know. Sure would be interesting though.

I remember dieting in junior high and highschool (late 70's/early 80's) my doctor told me and my parents that I should eat 1000 calories, it could be in candy bars if I wanted, and prescribed me amphetemine diet pills when I was around 13 (ironically, the only method that ever allowed me to get close to an ideal weight).

My grandmother had been prescribed an 600 to 800 calorie diet by her doctor not too many years prior by her doctor (actually the brother of my doctor).

These weren't callous medical professionals that didn't care about patients. They were well known for making house calls even when other doctors already weren't doing so (and they never charged for housecalls, that I was aware of). When my grandmother's doctor passed away, my doctor (his brother) took on all of his brother's patients even though the deceased brother was a general practioner and my doctor was a ob/gybn. After a car accident in my early 20's, my doctor drove me home from the hospital after I had been in a car accident when I couldn't reach anyone at home.

I still don't think we know enough about what works the best and has the least adverse impact on the body, short or long term. I think partially what interferes with the obtaining of this knowledge is the cultural views and stereotypes of obesity. We do view obesity as a fate worse than death, and value weight loss far above just it's health consequences. Thus risking your life to lose weight, often isn't perceived as an unnecessary or unwise risk (even if there is evidence to the contrary). We're also a culture that values speed and efficiency. The fastest way is the best way, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

I don't know that we will ever have objective data, because I don't think researchers, nor doctors and patients, are asking the right questions.

(Sorry, my little soapbox).

That's such a good post, Kaplods. I completely agree that a 'cultural history' of dieting and diet advice would be utterly fascinating. I also totally agree that there's a real lack of knowledge, and such a market for 'quick fixes' that awful harm can be done.

I think another reason lower calorie diets were often used back then was because we weren't as obese as a whole as we are today. Most people on diets didn't have a lot to lose, so they didn't have to diet as long.

From what I've read and heard, 1200 is the minimum calories that is ever recommended these days (1200 calories has been recommended to me through a variety of sources).

I think the 1000 calorie diet was fairly well accepted wisdom in the 70s and into the 80s but the concept of 'healthy eating for life' was not. The convention then was you restricted you intake fairly drastically short-term to lose the excess weight and hey presto your weight problem was solved. Of course many of us now know (through bitter experience), that once you double your calories to 2000 a day the weight goes right back on. Hence the yo-yo weight loss/gain.

I think the first time I'd ever heard, or perhaps appreciated, the concept of finding an eating plan that you can follow for life, or that maintenance was required in order to keep the weight off was only about 12 or so years ago and I really couldn't get my head around that concept then and still thought short-term.

Kitty

I remember the 70's and early 80's well...and all of the fad diets that were popular, and all of the plans that were in the 700-1000 calories a day range.

Women were losing weight, but they weren't healthy. I remember my mom calorie counting, and eating complete CRAP for her calories. She would have a Watchamacalit candy bar for breakfast, and a Slim-Fast shake for lunch at times.

Women also weren't workout out like they do today. They were going to the gym with their turquoise leg warmers (it was a big fasion show at my mom's gym! ) and use the tiny pink 1 pound hand weights...the kind I let my kids play with...

Now that I look back, the women got skinny quick...but it was nothing like the healthy women that you see now-kickboxing, lifting weights, etc. and looking fabulous. They were all just skinny skeletons in turquoise tights.

Also...my mother had her gallbladder removed surgically, and we know now, that the fad dieting played a part.

I must say, I've NEVER heard of that!! LOL
I'm rather short (5'2") and actually eat more calories than you (1500, on average- sometimes more, sometimes less).. last week I did mostly 1450 on average, and lost 2 pounds.

I think it has more do with what weight you are, not how short/tall

I agree as well, that it depends more on your current weight, than if you are short or tall.

This is a very interesting thread. My mom is currently on a weight loss program after having been on and off of diets all her life. She's in her upper 70's and has a lot of obstacles to overcome -- limited mobility due to age/arthritis/inactivity and medications that slow her down. Still, she's been able to lose 25 pounds (205 to 180) since January and is still going.

She's definitely a product of her times. She was raised in an era where sports weren't an option for girls so she's always believed she couldn't do those things. She's been on every "diet" around -- low carb, fasting, meal replacement, etc. I remember her going on some very low calorie diets when I was much younger, days of having just a little protein and some vegetables, probably 800 calories or so. These were supposedly doctor-sanctioned too. The weight would come off, but over time, go right back on and more. Those diets didn't teach her how to eat, only how to *not* eat. Those were also the days when a pregnant women wasn't supposed to gain more than 20 pounds total during her pregnancy!

We've learned over time that the only way to lose the weight and keep it off is to view this process as a permanent lifestyle change, not a temporary thing. That's what she's focusing on now, and so far is doing well. Goes to show that you CAN strive to improve your health at any age ....