1,200 Calories a Day Is a Starvation Diet
lifehacker.comIt depends: yes for a 6-foot active male but no for a 5-foot old sedentary woman. Plenty of people feel full on 1200 and lose weight at a reasonable pace, but they are pretty much all short women. “1200 calories is a myth” is the wrong message.
The real issue IMO is that dieting should never leave you perpetually hungry, genuinely fatigued, or exerting tons of willpower. There is this perception that losing weight is hard. And it can be “hard” like setting a routine or taking a class. But it shouldn’t be hard physically. Because 99.9% of humans simply can’t exert that much willpower over a long period of time.
If you’ve tried a diet for a few weeks (because your body might have to adjust) and you don’t think it’s sustainable, it’s not sustainable and you need to try something different. If you’ve tried cutting calories via whole foods, volume eating, high-protein, intermittent fasting, and keto, and nothing feels sustainable, you should get lab work / a thyroid panel and see your doctor for medication. Constant fatigue and apathy, 24/7 hunger (not just before meals), loss of sex drive, and significant decrease in mood stability are all signs of genuine hunger.
> The real issue IMO is that dieting should never leave you perpetually hungry, genuinely fatigued, or exerting tons of willpower. There is this perception that losing weight is hard. And it can be “hard” like setting a routine or taking a class. But it shouldn’t be hard physically. Because 99.9% of humans simply can’t exert that much willpower over a long period of time.
The success of dieting strategies are extremely specific to the individual. I've personally only had success with low-calorie diets that always leave me hungry. I hit it head on and try to accept the state of hunger instead of avoiding it.
I'm not arguing that this sort of strategy isn't statistically worse than others in general, but that there are many people for which such a strategy is the most effective anyway.
An average women don't need's (normally) 2400 Calories as written.
>>Generally, the recommended daily calorie intake is 2,000 calories a day for women and 2,500 for men.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/wha...
>>women are likely to need between 1,600 and 2,400 calories a day, and men from 2,000 to 3,000. However, this depends on their age, size, height, lifestyle, overall health, and activity level.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245588#_noHeaderPr...
This is mostly wrong. It's sort of funny that the HN title leaves off the sarcastic ", actually" part of the title, because like many articles with that suffix it's pure Dunning-Kruger.
Calling something a "starvation diet" is pure emotional language, just for starters. A diet is not a "starvation" diet unless you are literally starving on it - which means causing physical harm to your body through energy or nutrient deprivation. It's definitely possible to miss out on sufficient nutrition at 1200 calories, if you're getting them from McDonalds. (Probably possible to do it at 2000, too. Lots of poor people have terrible diets like this.)
Then there's "can't be done":
> In real life, what usually happens is a person will go on a 1,200 calorie a day diet, survive on this amount of food for a few days, maybe even a few weeks if they are extremely motivated, at which point they will usually fall off the bandwagon, eating more to make up for the deprivation.
I mean, I've lost over 40 pounds at a rate of just over 2 pounds per week (2 lbs/week = a 1000 calorie daily cut). But do go off.
I'm not saying it's easy, but it can be done if you make it easier by eating nutrient dense bulky foods, to fill you up, along with plenty of fiber, and clean protein to provide the essential amino acids.
Then there's the appeal to un-naturalness, and listening to your body:
> Nadeau suggests a similar approach to the clients she works with, encouraging them to develop habits that add richness to their life, rather than taking something away. “You really have to take an active stance, to say that ‘I’m not going to diet anymore, I’m not going to starve myself or restrict myself for the purposes of weight loss anymore,’” Nadeau said. Instead, she recommends focusing on developing good habits, ones that make our lives better, whether it’s trying to eat more vegetables or fiber-rich protein, or finding a physical activity we enjoy.
> I ended up bumping my food intake up again, based on the feedback from my body.
In other words, give up on dieting. This is bullshit. It's great to get yourself in better shape, I'm not denying that. But eating fewer calories than you burn ("starving yourself") is the only way you will ever lose weight. And losing weight can be important; overweight and obesity are important risk factors for a whole host of diseases, as well as making it more difficult (though not impossible) to stay in shape and enjoy physical activities.
If this article had avoided the nonsense and fear-mongering, I wouldn't have felt the need to respond. If the article had just said that most people will find it easier to diet at 1800 calories / day, that would be fine. If it had just said that most diets fail, and it's important to make sure your diet is not merely deprivation, but constitutes a change in the way you eat that is sustainable, that would be fine. If it had just said that some women with healthy body weights are promoted images of thinness and crash dieting that result in body image issues and becoming unhealthily underweight, that would be fine.
Instead it promoted intuitive eating, throwing diets in the bin, and said that a diet that corresponds closely to a 2 pound a week rate of weight loss (on the upper end of the frequently recommended 1-2 pounds a week) amounts to starvation. The author might have their heart in the right place, but they went too far here.