[wannabesomebody]

who decided 1200 calories was the end all be all for EVERYONE? One calorie under and you were starving yourself and a few hundred over and you might gain weight if on a diet (I know many will challenge that but just for the sake of argument).

How can 1199 calories be starvation for an 80 pound 80 year old woman be the same for a 200 pound 25 year old man? I'm using extremes I realize.. but everyone uses the "1200". Where did that mysterious magical, end all be all number come from and why does everyone follow it if they're different?

Would you really be starving to death at 1100 and go into the mystical starvation mode and gain 600 pounds?

Just curious.

off topic..anyone DYING from the heat?? omg.. I started to make myself a meal and I just wanted to puke at the thought and forced some grapes instead. EVERYONE in my house is napping at 1pm but me... and boooy do I want to pass out. We are going to have to move our walks to 7am!! went at 10 and oh my goodness... sooo hot.

[motivated chickie]

Haha, you make a really good point about the 1,200 calorie thing. Somehow that number became the scientifically proven minimum people need to eat to get all of their nutrients through food without supplements.

But I've never seen an actual research paper. I have no idea where the number came from. Weight loss web site site "clinical studies," but don't have links to the studies.

I've done a lot of Googling on the starvation mode thing & I think there is more research about that out there. But I think the starvation mode thing is exaggerated. I don't think people gain weight when they starve themselves, instead the plateau or lose weight more slowly.

It is natural for the body metabolism to go down as one loses weight. And contrary to popular opinion, heavier people have faster metabolisms.

And yes, the heat is ridiculous. It's the beginning of June and we've had a ton of 90 degree days already in Philadelphia. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

[Onederchic]

I don't know if anyone decided that. When I see someone on here stating they are eating 1000, 900 or even less calories a day, I may say that they should up their calories because to me, eating that few calories a day is not healthy or sustainable and in the end, could be a detriment to weight loss, as it was for me. I started out on my journey eating under 1000 calories a day. I stayed hungry a lot and even though I lost quite a bit in a couple months, it all came to a stop and that is when I found 3FC and learned that my body was probably in starvation mode and I needed to eat more so I did and now I am down almost 160 pounds. There are quite a few people here who lose and even maintain at or around 1200 calories a day and I feel if it works for them and they aren't going around hungry then kudos to them and I wish them all the best

[bargoo]

Less than 1200 calories a day and you are robbing yourself of needed nutrients. In the past 1000 calorie a day diets ane even 900 calorie a day diets were in fashion but it was found that these are not healthy diets. I am sure if you only eat 1199 calories a day you will not keel over. Just as sure if you eat 1201 calries you will not baloon up to 300 pounds. These are general guidlines. Remember this, too a person who is short and small boned will require less calories than a tall , large boned person. I only need 1400 calries a day to maintain my weight, if I started eating 1800 calories a day I would gain like crazy.

[StephanieM]

I actually read somewhere once that 1200 calories should be for a child on a diet, but for an adult it should be closer to 1500.

I personally used a calculator to see how many calories I burn as a 23 year old, 5"2 170 pound woman based on my activity. That gave me a good idea of what I needed to eat to sustain my weight, and what I needed to eat to lose it.

But yeah, 1200 seems to have become the magic number! I naturally started eating around 1000 a day without realizing it, I was eating a lot still, but my calories were coming from fruits and veggies and lean meats instead of chips. I had to get myself to eat a bit more because I felt it wasn't safe to go that low.

VLC (very low calorie) diets are dangerous, like HCG. I don't think getting shots and injections daily makes up for the fact you can only eat 500 calories a day, and you are not supposed to work out! I hope no one here is doing something like that, we can all do it in a healthy way based on what works for us. Excercise and eat right. It's slow going but it works over time.

I think this rant drew me into my own rant *phew* sorry guys

[Shmead]

Originally Posted by StephanieM

I actually read somewhere once that 1200 calories should be for a child on a diet, but for an adult it should be closer to 1500.

I know you don't agree with this and are just relating the story, but that sounds completely backwards to me : kids are much more active than adults, and they are growing, which is basically like working out all the time. I see teenage boys eat thousands of calories a day and not gain fat: putting them on 1200 would be like putting a normal adult on 500. And even a kid that isn't in a growth spurt is still pretty mobile: they randomly run around the house screaming, and run up and down the stairs about 100 times a day!

[rockinrobin]

Originally Posted by bargoo

Less than 1200 calories a day and you are robbing yourself of needed nutrients. .

Not necessarily. I respectfully disagree.

I basically stick to 1200 calories, but have on occasion gone lower and I could bet you that my lower than 1200 calories is waaaaay more nutrient rich than many others 2000, 3000 or more calories. I pack a heckuva lot of nutrients into my 1200 calories!

Just ask my doctor who tells me she wishes all her patients blood work looked like mine. My physician tells me that there is no need for me to take vitamins, that's just how I hit the mark and then some on every single vitamin, with the exception of D, the sunshine vitamin. I have never been more energetic, wide awake, full of vim and vigor and stamina and vitality. So, I'm not sure why every body freaks out and gives advice as to how 1200 calories is too little. Is it the right number for everyone? Of course not. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT. THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT CALORIE ALLOTMENT FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON. We all must find out what works for each of us and what doesn't. There are SO many different variables, how in the world could there possibly be one correct number for everyone and how could anyone possibly say that someone should *never* go below somewhere? I cringe when I hear people TELL people things, not suggest, but TELL them this is how is should be as if it is FACT.

As far as starvation mode - waaaay over used term. Starvation mode? Holding on to the fat because the body thinks it's being starved... Ummm, I don't think so.

[maryea]

I haven't heard that. I've usually heard it figured by what you weigh when you begin the diet.

Another diet program I was in (that worked) said for women they should stick to 1000-1200 unless over 200 lbs. Over 200 lbs you could have up to 1500. I think men (unless over 200 lbs) could have 1200-1500. Don't remember what it was for men over 200 lbs.

Personally I go by what my diabetic nutritionist set for me: 1400 calories but if my carbs are low I sometimes allow myself 1500 even. I realize though that as I lose weight I will have to lower that number.

[FreeSpirit]

I think that the 1200 calories minimum was set so that people just starting out wouldn't go too low and potentially hurt themselves.

Each person needs to find a balance with their own bodies through trial and error to figure optimum calories for losing. It's my opinion that starting high and cutting down calories if you're not losing is the best idea, instead of what I see alot of people doing, which is starting really low, getting a woosh of weight loss, and then wondering why their weight loss has stalled, or why they end up binging, KWIM?

[Petite Powerhouse]

I confess that I still really struggle to accept that people who maintain on 1,200 calories are eating as much as they should be able to, but I am coming at it from the perspective of someone who has never eaten 1,200 calories even to lose weight. If I tried to eat that little, I would feel like I was starving every minute of every day. And I eat all the right things, everything you are supposed to to feel full. So, when someone says, "Just because I could eat more, why should I?"... well... again, I can't wrap my head around the idea that one can be satisfied on 1,200 calories and wouldn't eat more if they could do so without gaining weight. It seems like a case of a metabolism out of whack, but then that's probably because my metabolism is out of whack in its own way. I don't have a naturally fast metabolism, but I think 20 years of weight lifting and eating a ton as a result of exercise and muscle just makes it impossible for me to even begin to imagine what other short women of the world live on happily. I eat low-calorie, healthy food in bulk, but I eat between about 2,800 and 3,500 calories of it a day. I am completely out of touch with the norm. So who am I to say what someone should or should not be eating? I started lifting weights when I was still young enough to eat this much naturally without gaining weight. So I have never been a "normal" adult woman when it comes to metabolism.

As for heat, I had 8 inches of snow fall on my lawn on May 24, and it's very cool and rainy here, and has been all June. Send the heat this way.

[rockinrobin]

just thinking about this some more...

who decided 1200 calories was the end all be all for EVERYONE?

I think it may have been the same people who decided that the only way to lose lots of weight and keep it off is through weight loss surgery.

Or perhaps it's the ones who say that if you lose your weight quickly, you'll gain it back and than some.

Or maybe it's the ones that say "everything is fine in moderation". Ummm, what about sugar addicts? is that the same advice they'd give to an alcoholic?

Or the ones who say avoid snacking or eating late at night.

Or could it be the ones who say that using artificial sweeteners will increase your cravings for sugar and stall your weight loss?

No, it must be the ones who say you should not weigh yourself daily.

Or it could be the ones who say you must drink 64oz of water a day?

Or is it the one who decided that having a cheat day is a good thing?

[Petite Powerhouse]

Originally Posted by FreeSpirit

I think that the 1200 calories minimum was set so that people just starting out wouldn't go too low and potentially hurt themselves.

Each person needs to find a balance with their own bodies through trial and error to figure optimum calories for losing. It's my opinion that starting high and cutting down calories if you're not losing is the best idea, instead of what I see alot of people doing, which is starting really low, getting a woosh of weight loss, and then wondering why their weight loss has stalled, or why they end up binging, KWIM?

The other problem with starting low and adding is that people freak out when they gain weight initially when upping calories. It's likely water weight that's either due to the food or to something completely unrelated. That's all. And, yes, occasionally, it's real weight as the body adjusts to more food. But, if your metabolism can handle the added food, you will lose that weight very quickly if you stick with eating more.

For so many, though, the shock of seeing the scale go up is too much. So I can see it being a better idea to start high and go lower bit by bit until you find the sweet spot.

[maryea]

Originally Posted by rockinrobin

just thinking about this some more...



I think it may have been the same people who decided that the only way to lose lots of weight and keep it off is through weight loss surgery.

Or perhaps it's the ones who say that if you lose your weight quickly, you'll gain it back and than some.

Or maybe it's the ones that say "everything is fine in moderation".

Or the ones who say avoid snacking or eating late at night.

Or could it be the ones who say that using artificial sweeteners will increase your cravings for sugar and stall your weight loss?

No, it must be the ones who say you should not weigh yourself daily.

Or it could be the ones who say you must drink 64oz of water a day?

Or is it the one who decided that having a cheat day is a good thing?

LOL I think you have something here!

[Natalia]

Originally Posted by Shmead

I know you don't agree with this and are just relating the story, but that sounds completely backwards to me : kids are much more active than adults, and they are growing, which is basically like working out all the time. I see teenage boys eat thousands of calories a day and not gain fat: putting them on 1200 would be like putting a normal adult on 500. And even a kid that isn't in a growth spurt is still pretty mobile: they randomly run around the house screaming, and run up and down the stairs about 100 times a day!

Yeah, except those kids arent the ones who need to lose weight! Not all kids are like you descibe; some barely move at all, sadly.

[Petite Powerhouse]

Originally Posted by Natalia

Yeah, except those kids arent the ones who need to lose weight! Not all kids are like you descibe; some barely move at all, sadly.

But sedentary kids still have a higher metabolic requirement than sedentary adults. They are still growing, for one thing: even when they have their full height their brains and bodies are still growing and changing. The number that typically gets thrown around for a sedentary adult woman who is slim and short is 1,200 calories. That is the least "they" say that she should eat. For a sedentary teen girl, that number is 1,500.