Someone explain to me how calories really matter?

Kellee

New member
I think this is a myth.
An old friend of mine went from being over weight, to under weight in 6 months just from not having any food in his house because his family is too poor.
His metabolism never slowed down, nor did anyone else's in that house.
None of them were exercising, either or trying to lose weight.
Same thing with another friend of mine. She ate 500-1,000 and lost 20 pounds in 2 months.
(She was exercising and trying to lose weight)
It doesn't make since to me at all how 1,200 calories should be a bare minimum of calorie???
From what I experience, that's too much for me.
I gain eating 1,500.
I stay the same eating 1,200
But lose eating less
It's hard for me to get even 1,000 calories a day because I don't have that much money.
 
It does depend on the person's size and such..but the main thing I will tell you is that most people vastly underestimate their calorie intake. You might think those are the calories they consumed and burned but you are likely off.
 
Like I said, the guy was overweight and he had barely any food in his house for a while so he couldn't have gotten that many.
The girl was obese and is now slightly overweight, but she said that's how many calories she counted a day. 1,000 max.
Her mom is a nurse and said that she doesn't see any problem with that 1,000 calories as a diet. It's all a myth.
 
yeah...considering that a vast majority of medical officials around the world disagree..think I'll go with the professionals on this. 1000 is ok if you are medically supervised.
 
People are different, medical experts aren't going to say the absolute minimum you should be eating. They are going to put it a bit higher because if they say 1200 is the minimum and someone dies of starvation from eating 1200 calories per day they are going to look terrible.
 
From my perspective, I know there are exceptions on the 1200 calorie rule, but my feeling is that without medical advice it's best to be cautious about things like depriving yourself of food (which is what a calorie deficit is). Very very few of the people on this board are doctors (and even those who are don't have enough information and haven't seen you- doctors aren't supposed to give medical advice without seeing you) and so we're far better off giving advice conservatively.

That being said, my experience with talking to my doctor serves to confirm the 1200 rule. I told my GP I was calorie counting, and she had an absolute fit until I could break in to her rant to tell her how I was going about it- BMR times activity minus 500-1000 and never under 1200 calories under any circumstance. She said that that was ok as long as I was absolutely certain never, ever to eat under 1200 calories. I've never seen her get angry before, or be so insistent on the dangers of something (and she's put me on some unconventional/ potentially dangerous drugs that have led to lectures from the pharmacist when I go to pick up my script). It's very much my impression that general practitioners in the UK- not just mine- are strongly against a diet under 1200 calories in almost all circumstances.

There's also the danger on a forum like this that there are people who are at risk of an eating disorder and it's something I've found myself quite worried about in specific instances. Advising calorie amounts comparable to what people were fed in concentration camps (which I believe was 700 calories a day) is not conducive to getting people with a disordered relationship to food the help they need.

I'm sure the 1200 rule is an oversimplification (and may even be wrong in some respects or for some people) but it's safer than lower amounts and thus we're less likely to advise something that will cause someone harm. I think you would be incredibly foolish to follow a diet under 1200 calories without direct guidance from a doctor (ideally a dietician) that it's an acceptable path to take, but at the end of the day I can't stop you. Ultimately it's your body and your decision.
 
Back
Top