Anonymous wrote:And that’s why I’m overweight.

Also, switch a hard-boiled egg out for a fried one and get rid of breads, rolls, and wraps.

Dave’s thin bread is almost half the calories of normal bread. Oatmeal with fruit will cut it 1/3 or the bread calories.

Anonymous wrote:Agreed..take the cheese out add veggies. Your lunch could have been much more filling if the turkey was atop a large green salad with a controlled amount of dressing.

+1 less cheese more veggies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree, been living on approximately 1200 diet my whole life, no health issues what's so ever.

Why must you always be in a calorie deficit? Even at 5’1 you should constantly be loosing weight at 1200cal. At the same height 1200 cal a day, I’m loosing 2Ib a week…

Not sure what you're talking about, been a 100 lbs for the longest time and 115 after turning 40. Never lost weight, just gained throughout the years.

DP. I just did a basal metabolism calculator for you and it looks like you're probably averaging around 1550 calories per day. Almost no one eats exactly the same amount every single day. So possibly you're eating 1200 calories on the weekend and then getting 2000+ calories per day on the weekends and that would account for the weight gain.

I've been eating less than you my whole life and that's what counts. You can't possibly do any meaningful calculation without knowing my height.
Pretty sure I hardly ever hit 2000 calories a day or rather not often enough for it to make a difference in my weight.

It also wasn’t sustainable for me. Try 1500 a day

3 slices of cheese, plus an egg is about 24g fat (216 calories) and 24g protein (96 calories). Add in the fat you’re frying that egg in, and you’re probably eating 300 calories from fat alone before dinner.

I used to cut weight for a sport several times a year. There’s a few things you can do:

-Limit fat (9 calories per gram)
-Increase protein (4 calories per gram - there’s also the thermogenic effect of breaking down protein)
-Carbs should come from fibrous vegetables
-Egg white scrambles with ground turkey and tons of vegetables for breakfast. You can prep meat and veg once a week and it’ll take a couple minutes to cook
-Laughing cow cheeses in place of regular cheese slices. Makes a huge difference in fat content
-Dinner is meat and vegetables
-Put all of this in your food tracker the night before. I usually left one meal as an unknown so I wasn’t eating exactly the same thing everyday, but that meant that I was highly controlling the 2 meals I was planning.

The only way I can eat 1200 is to fast and maybe eat all the calories in one meal (or one 200 cal snack and a big dinner). I find it easier not to eat, than to eat 3 puny meals a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh, I lost 18 lbs on a 1200 calorie diet. It wasn't long-term, and I spread it out, with a short break in the middle when I ate more (and didn't lose any weight). It kept me going because I was losing steadily over the weeks I did it, which encouraged me. Now I maintain at 1500. Yes, that is what my body uses at my weight /height/age. I am short and wear a size 6. Unless you are under 5'3 and are menopausal, you probably wouldn't understand. Not everyone can eat 1800-2000 calories a day and maintain a healthy BMI.

Wow, the point sailed right over your head.

From my post: "FFS, of course there are exceptions!"

And where TF did I say everyone could eat 1800-2000 calories a day and maintain a healthy BMI? BMI is BS anyway.

Oh, and PS, I am under 5'3" and I am perimenopausal but not of that makes a bit of difference because you misunderstand me. You don't seem to conceive of a person who would say the American obsession with weight loss is harmful and illogical and counterproductive even to the goal of weight loss, so somehow you have fashioned my response into something like, "Eating 1200 calories never, ever, ever leads weight loss, to really lose weight or maintain a healthy BMI, which I am in full support of!!!! because how could anyone not be?!?!?!, you should eat 1800-2000 calories. This is my weight loss prescription because I think weight loss is good."

FFS.

DP, and hopefully this doesn't upset you further, but I'd like to gently suggest reading forums may be too stressful for you, especially as you attempt to lose weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh learn to read. I never said 1200 will work. I said OP needs to triangulate on a low calorie diet that will work instead of gnashing teeth about one that doesn’t.

Okay, fine, and *I* said that a "low-calorie diet" won't work. I don't care if it's 1400 calories or 1600 calories. Statistically, no, it won't work. In part because of the obsession with calories and weight loss itself.

DP.

What are you talking about? 1600 calories is NOT a low calorie diet for a significant number of women.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh learn to read. I never said 1200 will work. I said OP needs to triangulate on a low calorie diet that will work instead of gnashing teeth about one that doesn’t.

Okay, fine, and *I* said that a "low-calorie diet" won't work. I don't care if it's 1400 calories or 1600 calories. Statistically, no, it won't work. In part because of the obsession with calories and weight loss itself.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh, I lost 18 lbs on a 1200 calorie diet. It wasn't long-term, and I spread it out, with a short break in the middle when I ate more (and didn't lose any weight). It kept me going because I was losing steadily over the weeks I did it, which encouraged me. Now I maintain at 1500. Yes, that is what my body uses at my weight /height/age. I am short and wear a size 6. Unless you are under 5'3 and are menopausal, you probably wouldn't understand. Not everyone can eat 1800-2000 calories a day and maintain a healthy BMI.

Wow, the point sailed right over your head.

From my post: "FFS, of course there are exceptions!"

And where TF did I say everyone could eat 1800-2000 calories a day and maintain a healthy BMI? BMI is BS anyway.

Oh, and PS, I am under 5'3" and I am perimenopausal but not of that makes a bit of difference because you misunderstand me. You don't seem to conceive of a person who would say the American obsession with weight loss is harmful and illogical and counterproductive even to the goal of weight loss, so somehow you have fashioned my response into something like, "Eating 1200 calories never, ever, ever leads weight loss, to really lose weight or maintain a healthy BMI, which I am in full support of!!!! because how could anyone not be?!?!?!, you should eat 1800-2000 calories. This is my weight loss prescription because I think weight loss is good."

FFS.

To OP

Try Noom.

I told my spouse (who lost 40 lbs) about this post and Noom is their suggestion. It'll get your foods on track to help you do what you want to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree, been living on approximately 1200 diet my whole life, no health issues what's so ever.

Why must you always be in a calorie deficit? Even at 5’1 you should constantly be loosing weight at 1200cal. At the same height 1200 cal a day, I’m loosing 2Ib a week…

Not sure what you're talking about, been a 100 lbs for the longest time and 115 after turning 40. Never lost weight, just gained throughout the years.

DP. I just did a basal metabolism calculator for you and it looks like you're probably averaging around 1550 calories per day. Almost no one eats exactly the same amount every single day. So possibly you're eating 1200 calories on the weekend and then getting 2000+ calories per day on the weekends and that would account for the weight gain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree, been living on approximately 1200 diet my whole life, no health issues what's so ever.

Why must you always be in a calorie deficit? Even at 5’1 you should constantly be loosing weight at 1200cal. At the same height 1200 cal a day, I’m loosing 2Ib a week…

Not sure what you're talking about, been a 100 lbs for the longest time and 115 after turning 40. Never lost weight, just gained throughout the years.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree, been living on approximately 1200 diet my whole life, no health issues what's so ever.

Why must you always be in a calorie deficit? Even at 5’1 you should constantly be loosing weight at 1200cal. At the same height 1200 cal a day, I’m loosing 2Ib a week…

Eat 175/day and workout more.