Just to clarify - I understand that I probably wouldn't gain on 1500 calories at goal weight, but I could potentially if I was sedentary for any reason for any space of time. I guess all I mean is that everyone is different and some do need to drop their calories more to produce a loss, but it doesn't mean that it's unhealthy or wrong. I make very healthy meals which DH also eats - I just eat less of each dish than he does. He's 6' tall and weighs 199. He eats many more calories than I do, and he's still losing Where I need to be more careful especially is with eating out. I've never finished a restaurant meal - even at my highest weight, but I would still gain because I need fewer calories than the average height person - so every restaurant meal, I try to pack up 2/3 to take home when I'm in weight loss mode. Luckily, I haven't been eating out much lately.

I know it's all individual. I know that some people can feel incredibly satisfied on small amounts of calories.

I just don't believe some teenage girl who is 10 pounds overweight, can feel satisfied on 800 or less calories a day, expecting to lose 10 pounds in two weeks. And I don't think anything healthy can come of this type of diet.

I also don't think any amount of reading, research, true stories, or even horror stories will make that girl up her calories before she "diets" long enough to see that the results aren't worth it.

Like others have said, the information is out there, and you can lead a horse to water, but you can't MAKE them drink.

JUST AN OBSERVATION...
(I agree! for me anyway!)

but, as I bolded part of your response - does that not suggest that "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect information? Because I've conversed about that very thing before, and everyone seemed dead-set that calorie counting is THE way to go, and that your total calories are what matters most. And yet, like you, I can eat 1800 calories of low-carb and LOSE weight, while 1800 calories of high carb makes me GAIN weight.

And really - we're all very different, different goals, height, activity levels, etc - so it stands to reason that what works for one may not work for someone else.

Like I said, just an observation.

I'm sure, barring any sort of eating disorder, that people will figure out on their own that eating vlcd's is not sustainable for the long run. But that's for them to figure out.

Personally I have lost on 1200 calories average. I don't feel hungry. I am completely satisfied. The only time I had to slightly increase was toward the end of my half marathon training to sustain my long runs, but when you are burning 1200 calories during exercise, you have a little more calorie room. I also had already reached my goal weight so it was not concerning to me. I never plateaued during my weight loss journey. Sure weight loss slowed down once I had less to lose, but I still averaged .5-1 lb lost per week, and like kuchick or rockinrobin, certainly had days that were under 1000 cals. Why force myself to eat more if 1) I don't want to and 2) just because it's taboo to go under?

I honestly haven't seen too many people promoting this idea. You don't need to be following a low carb diet to think that the source of the calories is important. Most people who are successful with calorie counting are pretty particular about the source of those calories and I think the majority seem to focus on a minimum amount of processed foods, esp. refined carbs in order to get the best caloric bang for the buck in terms of both nutrition and satisfaction.

Again, it's all very personal and some people do great with low carb, others do great including whole grains in their plan. The only plan that has any chance of working is the one each person can stuck with for the long term.

Some of has to do with how active you are though. I also eat around 1200 calories a day regularly. Somedays I am higher, but its about that consistently. But besides one workout, and some cleaning sometimes, I am very inactive...so I would think I need less calories then someone who does a lot of exercise...
I'm the same as some posters above. I am doing South Beach which isn't necessarily low carb, but focuses on healthy carbs. I'm losing slowly and consistently, but I don't eat potatos, rice, or anything like that. I have PCOS AND Hypothyroidism, so I have a lot working against me. When I even bump it up to over 1500 cals, I don't lose that week....its all just subjective. I'm not saying people should eat under 1000 consistently, but I do think that 1200 just works for some and is sustainable.

I do sometimes drop below 1200, down as low as 800-900. Currently, I'm getting very near the end of the weight loss project, and planning my transition into maintenance. I'm very tall, I'm very active, I am pretty sure I could still be losing at a much higher calorie intake than I currently eat, which is about 1200-1300 average. However. That occasional 800-900 calorie day is being done for a very specific reason: I am no longer allowing myself to eat when I am not hungry, just because I can. If I get near the end of the day, and I've still got a few hundred calories' worth of eating in my plan, but I am not hungry? I don't eat them. I can either catch them up later in the week, on a day when I am hungrier, or, well, bonus, maybe I'll lose these last pounds just a little bit more quickly. I believe it is very, very important to my long-term success to break the habit of eating when I am simply not hungry enough to warrant it. I eat very, very well. I am getting plenty of nutrients. I am very careful about it, which isn't hard, because I'm kind of a geek that way, and greatly enjoy planning how to get the most filling, satisfying, nutritionally beneficial food I can within my calorie budget.

Now, yes, somebody just racing off and going on a crash diet, or a medically-unsupervised very low calorie diet is probably looking for trouble. But somebody who has been at this a while, and has educated him- or herself on how to safely & healthfully lose weight is something else entirely, and this is why I reject so many hard-and-fast rules when it comes to losing weight, because almost every situation is different.

So admittedly I wrote my post quickly without much thought, I apologize for being judgemental or offensive. Oddly enough, I calorie cycle and am often more satisfied on lower cal days because I'm eating better foods. I guess what I'm trying to acomplish is just to get some info out there, but I really just don't know the right way to do it...Or what the appropriate information is.

Interesting thread. I really can understand all of the various viewpoints. I just read today that it is "inadvisable" to ingest fewer calories than your BMR. My BMR is supposedly somewhere in the 1300s, so perhaps for me even 1200 would be too low? Not a concern, however. I could never be satisfied on so few calories and am amazed by those of you who are!

Interesting also about "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie." I, too, do not believe this. For starters, every body is different and every body is going to have small differences in efficiency, etc. Some bodies will be better at processing carbs. Some may not be able to tolerate as much protein as another. Also, I think that crappy foods -- processed foods, HFCS, transfats, artificial sweeteners -- can mess with our bodies and make them not work quite right and affect our weight (as well as our overall health). I do not mean that I follow a diet completely free of these things, but I do try to limit them.

What a nice community here on 3FC -- differing opinions, respectful discussion.

To some it is, to some it isn't.

We have all got to figure this out for ourselves as individuals. There is no once correct way to lose weight, if only.

As far as the information that's *out there*, there's TONS of information out there and LOTS of it is conflicting. Because what works for one doesn't work for others for whatever reasons - though the basic principle is, is to create a calorie deficit.

So though I do count calories, where they come from matter - HOW I create that calorie deficit is VERY important - but again for different reasons. Would I have lost weight the same way eating my calorie allotment from McDonald's and Haagen Daz as opposed to the calories I did consume - mostly whole, HIGHLY nutritious, practically ZERO grains, no sugar, flour, etc... maybe, maybe not. The thing is, I wouldn't have been able to STICK to that kind of calorie allotment - I'd be STARVING & CRAVING CONSTANTLY - and not so healthy.

Really? I strongly disagree. I am sure I would NOT die of starvation if I lived on 1200 calories a day, but what kind of a life would it be to go through life with constantly grumbling stomach? (and mind you, I eat nothing but highly nutritious foods [lots of lean meats and veggies]). Also, you are very short, do you think 1200 calories is a number that would apply to much taller people?

First off, all calories are not equal. Different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest and/or store as fat. Fat has the lowest thermic effect (about 4%); protein has the highest (about 30%). The difference is very significant.

Many other things affect how many calories (and other nutrients) you actually get out of your food, including fiber and intestinal fauna. Here, the difference can be very large between different people. I do not know how selective these mechanisms are for the "type" of calorie, but I'd be surprised if they had a completely consistent effect.

That's before you begin to factor in individual metabolisms, body fat ratios, tolerances, diet histories, etc.

So, like others, I say it is important for everyone to find what works for them, and many people *can* maintain their weight on surprisingly low calorie counts.

That said, the original poster seems to be talking primarily about younger inexperienced dieters who probably need to focus more on eating healthier foods and less on starvation diets, possibly abetted by appetite suppressants.

Yes! Yes! This is what I was getting at. I didn't want to start a debate about calorie types or the low cal diet for well educated dieters who have done their homework and realized for their body this is what works, although the discussion has been good.

What I would like to tell people is: Don't be afraid to experiment.

I was raised on the idea that 1200 was the "best" number: you went to 1300 or 1400 if you were weak and that was the best you could do. But the goal was 1200. 1200 was always best.

I started this time on like 2000 because I weighed 300 lbs and I was just starving all the time. But I cut down to 1200-1300 as quickly as I could. I was starving, but I felt virtuous, and losing 2 lbs a week like clockwork.

Then I started reading. And there were all these people who were "dieting" on 1400, 1500, 1600, 1800 calories a day. And claimed to be losing weight! I scoffed. It seemed insane. 1200 is THE magic number. But I kept reading all these accounts of people losing, and finally I decided, what the ****? So I tried it. One of the most difficult leaps of faith ever. I had this totally irrational fear that I would gain back 60 or whatever lbs after 2 weeks on 1500 calories.

Instead, I kept losing 2 lbs a week. My weight loss rate changed not a whit. And OH MY GOD that extra 200 calories a day has improved my life. That's a McDs ice cream cone once a week. That's a huge bowl full of broccoli. That's 2 mini-bags of popcorn. That's three sticks of string cheese. It shifted my life from "bearable" to "pleasant".

Everybody is different, yes, but I think everybody owes it to themselves to try different things. Just because something is painful doesn't mean it's actually helping.

Didn't I say that it is enough nutrition for many, many people? I most certainly did not mean to intimate that it was the *correct* number for each and every individual on the planet. Absolutely not.

And why in the world would you live on 1200 calories if you need/require/function properly on more than that? Why? Like I said, I would certainly not mind being able to eat more calories, not that I'm ever hungry, but just that I, ummm, like to eat!!

And the truth is, if 1200 calories was the number that I needed to remain a healthy weight, but was always hungry - I'd rather be an unhealthy weight. Without a doubt. But that's NOT the case, which I think just goes to show you, that the number that keeps us at that healthy weight IS the number that will also satiate us. I think that's an interesting observation.

I have never, ever pushed 1200 calories on anyone. I was just saying that people should not be AFRAID of it and it's a possibility and there's nothing wrong with it and it can be perfectly healthy, in fact health-ier than more calories This is what I have found that *I* require and I'm pretty certain many others do as well, just as some others DON'T.

As far as height, again, we're all different. I can't possibly predict what I would require if I were taller. How could I possibly know that? I believe cathierineF is 6 feet tall and she's stated that she does just fine on 1200 calories or less.

Once again, and again and again and yet again - we are all different. We are all different. We are all different.

And on a closing note - we are all different.