Weight Loss Support Give and get support here!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-19-2010, 06:57 PM   #31  
3 + years maintaining
 
rockinrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,070

S/C/G: 287/120's

Height: 5 foot nuthin'

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmead View Post

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.
Painful??? Ouch. How would painful be helping??

But I DO agree with you 1000% - experiment. Experiment and than experiment some more. Don't be afraid to tweak things, don't be afraid to do your own things, don't be afraid to think outside the box, don't be afraid to go against what the *experts* say, because they'll always be another *expert* who will say something else...
rockinrobin is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 07:12 PM   #32  
Senior Member
 
Shmead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,294

S/C/G: HW:300 Pregnancy: 160/167/185

Height: 5'5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockinrobin View Post
Painful??? Ouch. How would painful be helping??
Surely you've seen this behavior? I think society teaches us that we are fat because we are bad and lazy and indulgent, and it's pretty normal for people to extrapolate to the idea that the secret to losing weight is punishment.
Shmead is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 07:24 PM   #33  
Senior Member
 
Petite Powerhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 570

S/C/G: 129/108/108

Height: 5' 3 1/2"

Default

I honesty cannot conceive of subsisting on 1,200 calories. I probably haven't eaten 1,200 calories a day in my life. I feel like I'm dying of hunger if I've only had 2,000 calories, and often enough if I've only had 2,500, and that is all nutritious, large-serving food. But that's because my muscle, and much more to the point my activity level, requires I eat more than that. So, sure, I can see why fewer calories would be satisfying to others.

That said, though, I do admit I still wonder if there are people out there who have perhaps gotten their bodies to function on just 1,200 calories because that is what they have given their bodies as fuel for so long. I still wonder if it wouldn't be possible to train one's body to use more fuel if you gave it more fuel.

Do I believe this is the case for everyone? No. But I wonder if it might be the case for some, and maybe for many. And I know this happened to me. I went through a period where I ate far less than I realized that I could. I was a kid in college who didn't know the first thing about how much I could eat and still lose weight. Over time I corrected that situation. At first, I gained weight, because my body had adjusted to the amount I normally fed it. But, once it adjusted to the new fuel levels, I lost that weight and more.

But, all that said, I am no expert. I'm not remotely an expert. This is all purely hypothetical, something I wonder about sometimes because fitness and healthy eating are big aspects of my life, and because the weight crisis in America is also of interest to me as a result. I do tend to believe that the drastic measures some people take in order to lose weight can have an effect on the body—that it can begin to function less efficiently than it would have otherwise because it is operating conservatively on restricted fuel—and that this is often a contributor to gaining the weight back. What is drastic, however, varies from person to person, and is up for debate.

I find the viewpoints on this forum to be eye opening and intriguing, as it is in my experience more typical in weight loss forums for posters to encourage eating more than 1,200 calories as a general rule.

Last edited by Petite Powerhouse; 05-19-2010 at 08:23 PM.
Petite Powerhouse is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 08:15 PM   #34  
Senior Member
 
PeanutsMom704's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,020

S/C/G: 263/ticker/156

Height: 5'7"

Default

I'm a lot taller than Robin and I could definitely survive and more on 1200 calories, and if I planned carefully enough, I could do it without being hungry. However, I am more like Shmead in that I've found a couple of hundred extra calories does not seem to derail my loss yet adds a lot more pleasure to my eating - not that I use it for treats, but it just makes it easier to fit in all the healthy foods I like to eat.

And that is an average - my actual daily intake runs from 1200ish, even slightly under from time to time, to 1500, and even more than that occasionally, if that is the difference between being hungry or not. That was a decision that I made when I started, because I think that is a big part of what makes my plan sustainable.

But to be honest, I don't think I could consistently eat another 200 calories on top of what I eat unless I started adding in less nutritious foods. I am full with what I eat and generally, don't have a physical desire to eat more. However, like many of us, if I let myself, I could manage to find room for all sorts of treats. While some people like to build those treats into their day on a fairly routine basis, I have personally done better keeping my calorie limit to a point where I accept I don't have room for them in my diet other than as a special treat on a limited basis.

So once again, the proof that everyone is different!
PeanutsMom704 is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 08:19 PM   #35  
I like ponies... and you?
 
Serbrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 732

S/C/G: 220/ticker/140

Height: 5'9"

Default

In the past (and occasionally recently) there have been those rare days (like, once or twice a month) when I'd accidentally eat less than 1000 calories. I just wouldn't be hungry all day... and just eat a little bit here and there... my parents didn't have set mealtimes on those days, so I didn't feel as though I HAD to eat... so I didn't. There were actually a couple days where I had around a maximum of 400 calories... completely on accident. I don't ever STRIVE to eat only that much though...
Serbrider is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 08:47 PM   #36  
3 + years maintaining
 
rockinrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,070

S/C/G: 287/120's

Height: 5 foot nuthin'

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmead View Post
Surely you've seen this behavior? I think society teaches us that we are fat because we are bad and lazy and indulgent, and it's pretty normal for people to extrapolate to the idea that the secret to losing weight is punishment.
Well I indeed WAS fat because I was lazy (sedentary) and I was over indulgent. The reason (as if there are any good ones) that I was over indulgent and sedentary are another issue all together.

I DO get what you are saying about the punishment part of weight loss. It is a myth (and what a SHAME that is) that weight loss/maintenance has to be unpleasant and one must starve. Turns out adhering to a healthy lifestyle, sticking to a calorie allotment (the one that I've found works for ME) is no punishment, no hardship, no burden, no pain, no discomfort, no displeasure, no deprivation like I've always feared it would be. It turns out that adhering to this healthy lifestyle is a joy and a blessing and just pretty darn flippin' AMAZING.
rockinrobin is offline  
Old 05-19-2010, 10:25 PM   #37  
Senior Member
 
Karen925's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,114

S/C/G: 192/maintaining upper 120's

Height: 5"8.5" 51 yrs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeanutsMom704 View Post
I'm a lot taller than Robin and I could definitely survive and more on 1200 calories, and if I planned carefully enough, I could do it without being hungry.
So once again, the proof that everyone is different!
I do all the time. My energy level has never been higher, my nails and hair are glossy and growing. I am so glad I did not listen to the lower than 1200 calorie crowd and found what was right for me.
Karen925 is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 02:46 AM   #38  
Really maintaining now!
 
catherinef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 479

S/C/G: 375.6/low 160s maintaining

Height: 6'

Default

I would like to add that I have not been in the 1200-ish range for the entirety of this project, not at ALL. I started out at about 2000-2500 calories, and I've been whittling them down over the time span it's taken to lose the weight I have so far. Starting at 1200 (or even lower) would've been absolutely crazy for me when I started, because with as big as I was, it just wouldn't have been enough to keep me from flipping out and binging out of legitimate hunger. It took a LOT of calories to fuel my body at its highest.

Now that I'm down in the high-normal range, I just don't get as hungry as I did way up at the top, not even close. Some of this is, no doubt, just me adjusting to eating less and less as I've gone along, but some of it is surely my body just not needing as much fuel to keep me happy and comfortable. And on those days when I'm eating considerably more than 1200 -- absent too much sodium, or my digestive tract, er, slowing down a bit -- I don't immediately start gaining weight or anything. As I said, I am sure I could be eating more and still losing, and I hope to add at least a few more hundred calories in for maintenance, but where and when I add them will be key. I am pretty comfortable where I am for day-to-day living, but being able to carry on all week sort of where I am now, or a bit higher, will leave me with some room to eat a bit more when it counts. I don't mean 'cheat days,' I mean having the freedom to go out to dinner on the weekend (something my husband misses quite a bit, since we seldom do it now) or not worry too much at parties and family gatherings. Nope, not face-planting into the buffet, or anything, but those days do come along, and having a routine I can go back to, and I'm pretty comfortable living within, will make all the difference, I think.
catherinef is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 10:04 AM   #39  
Calorie counter
 
Eliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,679

Height: 5'4.5"

Default

You know how we all fear failure and we all know the key to successful weight loss and more importantly MAINTENANCE is about sustainable diet and exercise? Here I am on a 1200 calorie diet and you know what I fear is unsustainable? MY EXERCISE! I truly am not hungry on 1200 calories, and I know that's hard for some of you to believe, because 1200 calories is not right for you. I was starving those first few weeks, but I am so on auto-pilot now.

And more ridiculous....my exercise routines are crazy. There are days I burn 1000 calories just in exercise. And I still am only eating 1200 calories. Sometimes I think I'm crazy, but if I was hungry, I'd eat.

As for a "calorie is a calorie is a calorie"...I believe that's true for some. It's not true for me. I've had to tweak WHAT I eat as much as the quantity I eat. My cousin who got me started on this lost 100 lbs on 1200 calories of "a calorie is a calorie" diet. Most of her meals are carbs. That would not work for me as I was/am insulin resistant.

Love this discussion!!
Eliana is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 02:56 PM   #40  
Wastin' Away Again!
 
Beach Patrol's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: on the beach
Posts: 2,313

S/C/G: 192/170/130

Height: 5'3" 50 years old

Default

Michael Dansinger, MD (from The Biggest Loser) has this to say:

Losing weight is a simple mathematical formula: You need to burn more calories than you eat. Experts generally recommend creating a deficit of 500 calories per day through a combination of eating fewer calories and increasing physical activity. Over the course of a week, this should yield a loss of about 1-2 pounds of fat.

If you want to lose weight faster, you'll need to eat less and exercise more. Bottom line: 1,050 to 1,200 calories and one hour of exercise a day (but be sure not to dip below this calorie level for safety's sake). On this type of plan, you can expect to lose 3-5 pounds the first week, or more if you weigh over 250 pounds.

"Dieters who follow the plan can lose 2 pounds from diet and 1 pound from exercise each week, and even more if they have more to lose, because the more fat you have to lose, the faster it comes off," says Dansinger.

You may lose even more weight initially if you limit salt and starches.

"When you reduce sodium and cut starches, you reduce fluids and fluid retention, which can result in up to 5 pounds of fluid loss when you get started," explains Dansinger.

* * * * * * * * * *
there's more if you care to read it - click here http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/lose...o-do-it-safely
Beach Patrol is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 03:41 PM   #41  
Senior Member
 
SouthLake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 497

S/C/G: 239/200/130-140

Height: 5'8.5"

Default

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!
SouthLake is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 05:10 PM   #42  
Junior Member
 
Alexandra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 27

S/C/G: 240/172.4/160

Height: 5'10

Default

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.
Alexandra is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 05:48 PM   #43  
Senior Member
 
Gold32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 265

S/C/G: 201/ticker/125

Height: 5'

Default

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.
Gold32 is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 06:16 PM   #44  
Junior Member
 
Alexandra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 27

S/C/G: 240/172.4/160

Height: 5'10

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold32 View Post
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.
Those of us who are defending our calorie level know that . 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.
Alexandra is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 08:23 PM   #45  
Moderator
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,704

S/C/G: 295/225/back to Onederland

Height: 5'5"

Default

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.
Heather is offline  
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Show me that bikini body!!! RoseTears 20-Somethings 195 06-15-2008 06:32 AM
TBL "Just Beachy" - Blue Team Chat chellez Biggest Loser Challenges 1016 05-04-2008 12:20 AM
Doin' it the Old Fashioned Way #15!! aphil General Diet Plans and Questions 366 04-01-2003 09:04 AM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.