Anonymous wrote:Am I the only short person reading this thread? I'm 5'1", and 1200 is totally doable and fine for me in the long-term. I totally get how it's not enough to sustain people of average height, or even petite people over 5'3".

But can we please end this idea that no human anywhere can subsist on a 1200 calorie/day lifestyle? Short people exist, dagnabbit.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this thread.

Of course we can all come up with more filling/healthful/whatever 1200 calorie menus than in the OP but

1) 1200 calories is almost always a bad idea and it's no wonder it's hard to design in a sustainable way (even short-term sustainable!), because it's... not. Or so rarely that it's effectively not.

2) It's a bit scary and an indictment of diet culture-- ironically the thing most responsible for making us fat-- that so many of us can come up with a more "ideal" 1200 calorie day involving like a pound of cabbage and a fat-free, egg-free, sugar-free, taste-free piece of vegan cheese or whatever.

(Nobody tell me that there are slightly more attractive and tenable 1200-calorie menus here-- trust me, I could come up with another dozen of them without blinking. Which is problematic in itself.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this thread.

Of course we can all come up with more filling/healthful/whatever 1200 calorie menus than in the OP but

1) 1200 calories is almost always a bad idea and it's no wonder it's hard to design in a sustainable way (even short-term sustainable!), because it's... not. Or so rarely that it's effectively not.

2) It's a bit scary and an indictment of diet culture-- ironically the thing most responsible for making us fat-- that so many of us can come up with a more "ideal" 1200 calorie day involving like a pound of cabbage and a fat-free, egg-free, sugar-free, taste-free piece of vegan cheese or whatever.

(Nobody tell me that there are slightly more attractive and tenable 1200-calorie menus here-- trust me, I could come up with another dozen of them without blinking. Which is problematic in itself.)

Who cares. OP is using the 1200 benchmark as an excuse to not reform her diet. She’s setting herself up to fail by deciding a low calorie diet is “insane” instead of triangulating in on a workable low calorie diet.

No. You don't get it.

It is* insane.

There is no such thing* as a workable 1200-calorie diet.

She will* fail.

It may be an excuse, but it's more supportable reasoning than the idea that a 1200-calorie diet can be "workable" or successful!


*FFS, of course there are exceptions! But they are rare, and what is much more common is failing and actually making things worse than before you started. If a plan were very unlikely to succeed, but if it didn't, there would be no serious negative consequences, okay, great! Why not try? But there are so many downstream negative consequences to a plan like this, both psychologically and physically, that OP needs a different plan. Not to be blamed and offered a modification that has a 5% chance of success instead of a mere 4% chance. The science is unambiguous on this. IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED AND IF IT FAILS, HIGHLY LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gone in and out of 1200 calories for about 8 months now and it's not too bad. Sometimes I go over and sometimes I even go under but it's averaging out fine.

This is my menu today, so far:
breakfast - 10 almonds and 1/4 cup blueberries, coffee and almond milk (I eat light before I go to the gym)
protein shake with almond milk, post gym

lunch - 1 cup chili with diced sweet onions. One orange

snack - 1 oz goat cheese with ryvita crackers

dinner - 4 oz pork chop, a ton of broccoli

snack - light and fit greek yogurt

I'll still have 300 calories left over and haven't decided what do with them yet. Note: I use my walking calories (but not my weightlifting calories for convenience reasons) and I walk about 10k steps a day.

I weigh 117 lbs so I'm sure this is harder if you are bigger.

You have an eating disorder and need to get help. If you know the number of almonds you ate today and are measuring blueberries, your eating is really disordered.

Eh, that’s how accurate calorie counting works. PP’s menu sounds fairly nutritious, and it’s apparently working for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this thread.

Of course we can all come up with more filling/healthful/whatever 1200 calorie menus than in the OP but

1) 1200 calories is almost always a bad idea and it's no wonder it's hard to design in a sustainable way (even short-term sustainable!), because it's... not. Or so rarely that it's effectively not.

2) It's a bit scary and an indictment of diet culture-- ironically the thing most responsible for making us fat-- that so many of us can come up with a more "ideal" 1200 calorie day involving like a pound of cabbage and a fat-free, egg-free, sugar-free, taste-free piece of vegan cheese or whatever.

(Nobody tell me that there are slightly more attractive and tenable 1200-calorie menus here-- trust me, I could come up with another dozen of them without blinking. Which is problematic in itself.)

Who cares. OP is using the 1200 benchmark as an excuse to not reform her diet. She’s setting herself up to fail by deciding a low calorie diet is “insane” instead of triangulating in on a workable low calorie diet.

No. You don't get it.

It is* insane.

There is no such thing* as a workable 1200-calorie diet.

She will* fail.

It may be an excuse, but it's more supportable reasoning than the idea that a 1200-calorie diet can be "workable" or successful!


*FFS, of course there are exceptions! But they are rare, and what is much more common is failing and actually making things worse than before you started. If a plan were very unlikely to succeed, but if it didn't, there would be no serious negative consequences, okay, great! Why not try? But there are so many downstream negative consequences to a plan like this, both psychologically and physically, that OP needs a different plan. Not to be blamed and offered a modification that has a 5% chance of success instead of a mere 4% chance. The science is unambiguous on this. IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED AND IF IT FAILS, HIGHLY LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this thread.

Of course we can all come up with more filling/healthful/whatever 1200 calorie menus than in the OP but

1) 1200 calories is almost always a bad idea and it's no wonder it's hard to design in a sustainable way (even short-term sustainable!), because it's... not. Or so rarely that it's effectively not.

2) It's a bit scary and an indictment of diet culture-- ironically the thing most responsible for making us fat-- that so many of us can come up with a more "ideal" 1200 calorie day involving like a pound of cabbage and a fat-free, egg-free, sugar-free, taste-free piece of vegan cheese or whatever.

(Nobody tell me that there are slightly more attractive and tenable 1200-calorie menus here-- trust me, I could come up with another dozen of them without blinking. Which is problematic in itself.)

Who cares. OP is using the 1200 benchmark as an excuse to not reform her diet. She’s setting herself up to fail by deciding a low calorie diet is “insane” instead of triangulating in on a workable low calorie diet.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this thread.

Of course we can all come up with more filling/healthful/whatever 1200 calorie menus than in the OP but

1) 1200 calories is almost always a bad idea and it's no wonder it's hard to design in a sustainable way (even short-term sustainable!), because it's... not. Or so rarely that it's effectively not.

2) It's a bit scary and an indictment of diet culture-- ironically the thing most responsible for making us fat-- that so many of us can come up with a more "ideal" 1200 calorie day involving like a pound of cabbage and a fat-free, egg-free, sugar-free, taste-free piece of vegan cheese or whatever.

(Nobody tell me that there are slightly more attractive and tenable 1200-calorie menus here-- trust me, I could come up with another dozen of them without blinking. Which is problematic in itself.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching what I eat and exercising but not losing weight. I started to more precisely measure today and put in a calculator which suggested I limit my food to 1200 calories. That is so little food! I've had breakfast and lunch so far and I only have 350 calories left in the day. This isn't going to work!

FTR here is what I ate:

Breakfast -- 2 cups of coffee with a little half & half, a whole wheat English Muffin with a fried egg and a thin slice of cheddar
Lunch -- 2 slices of provolone, about 2.5 ounces of turkey (rollup style with everything but the bagel seasoning -- no bread), 2 clementines, water

How is that 850 calories already (according to my fitness pal).

There's no way I'll be able to maintain 1200 calories....

Oh my! I posted this same thing a few weeks ago! I went to my doctor who said 1200 was too little and not enough.

Many people said they condo stick to this diet. I just couldn’t - especially when working out..

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching what I eat and exercising but not losing weight. I started to more precisely measure today and put in a calculator which suggested I limit my food to 1200 calories. That is so little food! I've had breakfast and lunch so far and I only have 350 calories left in the day. This isn't going to work!

FTR here is what I ate:

Breakfast -- 2 cups of coffee with a little half & half, a whole wheat English Muffin with a fried egg and a thin slice of cheddar
Lunch -- 2 slices of provolone, about 2.5 ounces of turkey (rollup style with everything but the bagel seasoning -- no bread), 2 clementines, water

How is that 850 calories already (according to my fitness pal).

There's no way I'll be able to maintain 1200 calories....