It's Time We Abolish Our Obsession with 1,200 Calorie Diets
Let's examine why 1,200 is the "magic number" for weight loss
In a recent Tiktok, the internet’s favorite socialite and It Girl, Lori Harvey, shared a recent diet plan: 1,200 calories and twice-daily Pilates sessions. In full transparency, the SKN by LH founder said her diet “worked” for her body, and this was not a recommendation for others.
However, this wasn’t the first time I had heard that number—1,200 is just one of those pervasive numbers in [diet] culture; one is the loneliest number, where two or more are gathered in his name God is there, and three is the magic number (and company, and a crowd). But what is 1,200? And why are dieters so obsessed with it? Let’s explore that.
Where did 1,200 Calories Even Come From?
According to some experts, the number 1,200 is the absolute lowest number an adult can consume without negatively impacting their health. That number doesn’t come from the World Health Organization or some other reputable medical organization but rather from a 1920s-era diet book. According to an October 2021 story in LifeHacker, a 1918 book Diet and Health: With a Key to the Calories written by Lulu Hunt Peters, A.B., M.D. is where we first see the 1,200-calorie diet.
Now, where did Dr. Hunt-Peters get this number? Despite her affiliation as the Ex-Chairman of the Public Health Committee of the California Federation of Women’s Clubs, Los Angeles District, I am unsure where it came from.
The number is doubly perplexing when you remember that in the 1920s, many women still did manual labor. Even in their domestic duties, early washing machines still required a hand crank, and most historians agree that 1920s domestic work was “hard labor.” So why was Dr. Hunt-Peters recommending a starvation diet for women on their feet all day? Diet culture. Duh.
And even though 100+ years of research shows that 1,200 calories is neither sustainable nor healthy, even reputable sources like the National Institute of Health have deemed a 1,200-calorie diet acceptable. They have even published a sample menu for the diet. It’s important to note that even on this diet, the final calorie count is actually 1,247—47 calories OVER 1,200. I guess even the NIH couldn’t make this ridiculous number work.
But let’s be clear: this is semi-starvation if not outright starvation.
We Already Know Semi-Starvation is Bad For You: The Minnesota Experiment
Severely restricting calories to promote weight loss was first studied (in a controlled environment) in the infamous “Minnesota Starvation Experiment.” In case you haven’t heard of it, between November 1944 and December 1945, a group of healthy white men was put on a semi-starvation diet of 1,600 calories for 24 weeks. They were then allowed to eat 2,000 and 3,000 calories during the rehabilitative phase. The results are a depressing study of why calorie restriction is so unhelpful:
The prolonged semi-starvation for many of the subjects led to depression, hysteria, and severe emotional distress
It was even WORSE during the rehabilitative phase—one of the research subjects even cut off his own fingers, and he couldn’t tell the investigators whether it was done intentionally or not
As the subjects underwent the rehabilitative phase, they reported diminished concentration, comprehension, and judgment abilities, despite there being NO demonstrable change in their cognitive abilities
One of the scariest, lasting effects of the experiment was the psychological change the men underwent in their relationship with food. The men, who previously had healthy relationships with food, became obsessed, fantasizing about food and talking incessantly. Even more disturbing, their basal metabolic rate (BMR) declined.
A Starvation Diet Has Long-Term Effects
The declination of the BMR (which is “the number of calories you burn as your body performs basic (basal) life-sustaining function”) in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment has been seen in other observed instances of extreme dieting.
Remember “The Biggest Loser?” The early 2000s extreme dieting reality show (which tried to make a comeback…why?) rewarded overweight people for behaving in very unhealthy ways to lose as much weight as possible in a compressed time period.
Remember what happened AFTER the show ended? No, because they didn’t air any sort of “Life After the Biggest Loser” special. Spoiler: most of the contestants gained the weight back. In 2016, results from 14 prior contestants showed that, save for one contestant, all of them were back at their starting weight from the show (around 290-328 lbs). Additionally, where their BMR had been around 2,000 calories at the end of the show (when they had each lost 100 or more pounds), at the six-year check-in, it had slowed even further to 1,900 calories, despite the fact that they had gained all of the weight back.
Our bodies do not respond well to starvation. And although weight loss gurus bemoan the “myth of the starvation mode,” scientific research shows us how our bodies react to diets. And it’s not good; physically, emotionally, or psychologically.
We’re All Victims of Diet Culture
So why would someone with Lori Harvey’s money (theoretically, she has access to the most knowledgeable experts on this topic) take part in a semi-starvation diet? DIET CULTURE. It’s always diet culture. When you think it’s something else, it’s not. It’s diet culture. She’s under the same pressure as many other women to be as thin as possible; our values lie in how small we can make ourselves.
So next time you think, should I try a 1,200-calorie diet? Remember this: experts recommend that low of a caloric intake for an 80lb toddler…are you an 80lb toddler? No? Then please reconsider, and let’s end our obsession with the 1,200-calorie diet once and for all.