I have no problem with people eating 1200 calorie a day diets. It's not sustainable for me, but I'm not everybody.

What bothers me is that so many people see 1200 as the minimum and think "ooh if that's the minimum, that's where I should start and I'll lose weight the fastest!" Which just isn't true. Not to mention, the average person starting a diet is coming down from a daily diet high in fat, sodium, sugar, etc., most likely in the 2500 ish calories a day range. Dropping down that low that quickly is likely to lead to failure and extensive hunger. I think every person should start with higher calories and work their way down to 1200 calories if need be. Everyone has a weight loss "sweet spot" and in my experience, it tends to be over 1200 calories for the average person. Some people have 1200 as their magic number... but I think everyone should try several different ranges to see what gives them the best results and leaves them feeling the most satisfied.

Case in point: when I was calorie counting and eating 1200 calories a day- I lost a pound a week, at best. At my MD's urging, I bumped it to 1500 calories a day and lost a pound a week. (this was with an hour of exercise a day) At her urging (again) I bumped it up to 1750 a day and started losing 3 pounds a week. Voila!

I will say that I aim to eat 1000 calories a day. Half of the time I do eat 1000 calories a day. The other half of the time varies between 800 (though that's rare) and 1300 calories a day. So I also end up zigzagging my calories.

I have tried everything in-between. My maintenance used to be about 2000-2200 calories (when I was at 210 lbs.; obviously it would be different at my current weight). I have tried calorie counting at 1800, 1600, 1500, 1300, and 1200 calories. The more I restricted the more I lost, but even that was negligible (one pound a week if I was lucky; two pounds was a miracle). I also did a lot of exercising, with quite a bit of experimenting in variation of weight and cardio and time spent exercising, and exercised long past the time when any muscle weight gain would have been an issue.

Aiming for / eating 1000 calories a day has several benefits for me. The weight comes off (two-three pounds a week on average), the weight comes off without exercise, and I am much more aware of what I am putting in my mouth. I eat more nutritiously, I eat things that keep me fuller (protein, fiber), and I am much more energized than I ever was at 2000 calories.

It's been noted (with good reason) that it would be hard to eat a balanced diet on less than ~1200 calories. I fully agree. But what on earth was I consuming that put me at 240 lbs in the first place?! It certainly wasn't a proper diet. I am sure I am still not eating a balanced meal, but I know I am consuming many more fruits, veggies, vitamins, oils, the things I should be consuming, on this amount of calories than I ever did at my maintenance weight.

I've tried just about everything else, and this is what works for me.

So while there's something to be said about not doing VLCDs (800 calories or less) without professional supervision, and new / crash dieters going to extremes in calorie restrictions, it is not helpful to paint various calorie amounts (1200 calories, 1000 calories, VLCDs) with the same brush.

First, let me say that I'm kinda of shocked at the number of people jumping to defending their own calorie level. I think you may be missing the point- that there are plenty of women (and men!) who cut way too many calories (for them!) and become border-line anorexic. They are obsessed with skinny and not so much with health.

Let me tell a little story- My aunt lost 30+ pounds going through cancer. At one point, she was not sick from the chemo, needed to start radiation, but her blood cell counts were too low. She needed to rebuild her strength and health, and yet she ate, on average, one cheeseburger a day. Now, she's completely done, and she's "maintaining" her weight loss by eating one meal a day. And not necessarily a healthy one.

Apparently, the short term results are more important than maintaining a healthy life style. You would think that someone who has been through cancer would want to do anything possible to be healthy and avoid it again. But nooo, being "skinny" is more important than healthy foods and exercising.

She looks like a mal-nutritioned skeleton. She thinks she looks great.

Some women who go way too low in calories don't do it on purpose, they're ignorant of the health consequences, or whatever. But there's still that mentality, to get skinny quick and stay that way, no matter the consequences or path to get there. That's when cutting calories too low is dangerous. It's not the amount. It's the mentality. And, as you can tell, it's kind of close to my heart, and it makes me very, very sad.

Those of us who are defending our calorie level know that :hug:. But the point is that there is no one way to lose weight, and any method can be abused, so it is useless to say that one specific way is or is not healthy.

This thread has been very enlightening, and it seems that many people have had the chance to air opinions. The original poster asked if there was a sticky to discourage people from eating less than 1000 calories a day. There isn't and there isn't likely to be. 3fc encourages healthy weight loss. But it's very difficult to tie this concept to a specific number of calories alone. After all, as was discussed, there are some medically supervised plans that involve eating much less than 1200 calories/day. I think healthy eating encompasses a number of practices and perhaps a particular mindset, not simply a number of calories.

3fc moderators will continue to monitor the forum for discussions of unhealthy eating.

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread, as it seems to have run its course.