Why is 1200 the floor?
 

I've struggled with this FOREVER. It makes no sense to me that 1200 should be the floor, when the most effective weight loss strategy--weight loss surgery--makes it physically impossible for a patient to eat more than between 700 and 1000 calories per day.

I've been tracking (oh - how I hate tracking! It plays with my mind), and I aim for a combination of filling, high-protein foods that are low or moderate in calories (think tuna, salmon, egg whites), and fruits and veggies, which tend to be low (and sometimes very low) in calories. Most days, I end up between 800 and 1000 calories.

I know me. I know my body. I can function well on that calorie intake. In fact, I function much better than when I am eating excessively. I hear "moderation," but I have never been able to maintain the effort when I'm attempting moderation, and very low calorie is preferable to very high calorie, I think.

I would REALLY like to hear why vitamin-supplemented very-low-calorie is dangerous. And PLEASE - don't just rehash what everyone who has ever read about nutrition for 10 minutes has heard/read about the starvation-metabolism connection. I would love to know if this is true, but I have yet to see hard science backing it. I do try to calorie cycle a little bit, but just because I think it's more sustainable. I'd like to hear if this is scientifically proven to be effective as well.

Who said it was dangerous?

The teory that I have heard is that under 1200 calories you MAY be robbing yourself of needed nutrients.

I'm eagerly awaiting replies to this too.

I don't calorie count strictly, I've just checked what the staples of my diet come in at and can make a rough estimate. I tend to be on under 200 for breakfast and up to 300 for lunch, and the chicken and broccoli I so often have for tea is pretty low too (though I forget how low precisely). Even adding in the milk in my tea, many days I'm clocking up under 1000. Days when I eat treats, they're pretty small treats - a single biscuit, three small bites of cake - and it's nowhere near every day.

Yet so far as I can tell, my body's coping fine with this. I'm dropping weight at a decent speed, I'm not tired, weak, or hungry, and I'm gaining a little muscle too. But then I keep reading here that we should never ever ever go below 1200 a day, so I'm worried I'm doing myself all sorts of dreadful damage, yet I daren't eat more, because the only way I could up my calories (given that I'm not suffering from bouts of hunger) is by upping my carbs, and it was carbs that got me to 255lbs in the first place.

Here are a couple of places that recommend 1200 calories a day
Medicine Plus
American College Of Sports Medicine

Most "experts" on the subject don't advise that you eat below your BMR, and if you factor in the daily activities of a very petite woman eating at a 500 calorie deficit for a slow and steady weight loss... you come up with about 1200 calories.

Yes, it's just an average, but it is based on the theory that eating too far under your BMR could be damaging because you aren't providing your body with enough nutrients to maintain essential functions and hormone balances.

If you factor in people who have a lot of excess fat stored up you can get away with larger deficits because your body does, in fact, have more to "pull from" to get those nutrients it needs.

It's all individual of course, but for someone WITHOUT a lot of excess weight who is very petite and is moderately active it makes sense.

I have been told that on less than 1200 cals a day a person may not get the needed nutrition. People always assume it's vitamins and minerals but the larger worry is protein so muscle isn't compromised. By this they don't mean, biceps and abs it's more about vital organs like the heart. When you don't get enough protein, carbs, and fats, you can heap some serious problems on your body. Studies have placed the number for a well balanced diet to be approximately 1200. Eating more and building up some muscle might take longer for the initial weight loss but it increases your metabolism so you can naturally consume a bit more calories without gaining weight in the long term. If muscle is compromised, so is your metabolism, and in time that may lead to a slower metabolism. So I guess it's really about if you're playing the long game or the short game.

Thanks for the sites, Bargoo. I couldn't find Medicine Plus (I only found a pharmacy with that name), and the American College of Sports Medicine had some articles I skimmed, but couldn't find anything definitive to suggest this is a research-supported recommendation, though you're right it is a recommendation that some article authors make.

Jossfit, your explanation makes more sense than any I've seen before, but suggests to me that my current calorie intake is probably okay?

Seagirl, it seems to be automatic whenever people post about calorie intake for at least one poster to say anything below 1200 is dangerous, and nobody seems to disagree.

Brid - so glad I'm not alone!

I really want to know if anyone has any reason to believe, beyond simply hearing it repeated (ad nauseum, like the whole "the world is flat" thing) that low calories = slower metabolism, with potential permanent damage to my ability to lose weight at all. I'm all about people choosing higher calorie levels if that makes their healthy lifestyle more sustainable, or if they have personally found it to be more conducive to faster weight loss. I just want to feel like my choice is okay too.

So, 4star, does that mean if I'm eating 60 g of protein a day (I see that often as the minimum amount) and doing lots of strength training and taking a multivitamin, I should be good, even if I'm only consuming 800 - 1000 calories per day? I get minimum levels of fat, but I don't avoid carbs at all, since I get most of them in "natural" form, like fruits and veggies.

My opinion on the matter of VLC diets is, if you feel good, you aren't losing hair, you aren't lethargic, you aren't cranky, and you make sure to eat nutrient rich food and possibly take vitamins is: go for it.

IMO it's not maintainable long term, but I see nothing wrong with doing it for a time. As long as it isn't so low that you are going to get so starving a few days or weeks in that you then overeat.

Basically this is from my own experience, not based on research or doctors.

I typically don't eat below 1300 because, well, it's hard for me! But I go through times where I eat at or below 1000 (few days maybe), then I will go back up. It's always short term and usually on days I'm super busy and just not hungry. It's not something I can do long term because it makes me extremely mean, and that's just no good.

I tend to go by what works for my body long term, and I would keel over if I ate 1200 calories a day. But, I also train hard for races so my goal is not just "skinny" but "strong, fast, enduring and fit."

I also tend to emulate the actions of people who have met the goals I want to meet. Valrocks and the other "lifting" girls tend to be what I want to be like, so I'll look at their meal plans and exercise plans. There are a lot of folks who are on very low calorie diets who have lost a lot of weight and are skinny, but don't have the same fitness levels that I want so I would never follow their plan.

I also see that the people who are on very low calorie plans tend to struggle the most, post about cheat days, falling off the wagon, etc. There are also people in the WLS forum who have found a way to eat around their surgery or who are having nutritional deficits and absorbtion issues.

In the end, we all have to decide what works for us on a long term, sustainable basis, not what a scientific study said. (Again, most of those studies are done on 25 year old men...)

Here is abother way of looking at it. Suppose you go no a very low calorie a day diet, less than 1200 calories a day, You will lose weight, and maybe your health will not suffer. What do you do when you reach goal ? Are you going to add back calories ? I cannot speak for anybody else but when I start adding calories my body loves it and starts packing on pounds.

Yes, I agree with seagirl that too few calories does lead to more falling off the wagon and also sometimes an unhealthy psychology where food becomes attached to guilt or naughtiness. If you have a decent calorie limit you can incorporate any food within your weekly limit, but too few means there's no leeway at all, leading to negative feelings when you do (inevitably) eat something that is "off plan". The latter, to me, is not a realistic way of changing your eating habits long-term.

This is all so interesting to me. I am learning so much from all of you. Thanks for all of your posts!

I was always under the impression that the "1200 floor" was just the average amount, but that some individuals may take in more or less without any ill effects. It would depend on things like height, genetics, activity level, etc anyway, wouldn't it?