Eat a deficit of little as 50 cal/day lose weight?
annabuchholz
Posts: 2
If I ate 50 calorie deficit would I eventually lose weight slowly? I guess I'm asking if there's a threshold where you need a deficit large enohgh to do something. Thanks!
0
Replies
-
With so small a deficit, it would be incredibly easy to wipe out a whole week or two's deficit with any sort of slip.
Shoot for 1/2lb per week, that's only a 250cal per day deficit.0 -
Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.0
-
MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
NO- absolutely not!
In my case this would have me eating way below 1200 and my body would lack vital nutrients.0 -
You'll lose, very slowly, but a deficit is a deficit. But, as was mentioned, going over even one day, will likely wipe out your weekly deficit, depending on how much. But, if it's what works for you, and you stick with it, do it.0
-
Over 20/30 years, sure.0
-
I guess technically speaking, If you NEVER went over on any other days, you would lose about a lb in 70 days and since your tdee is not an exact science, You wouldn't really know if you were in a deficit of exactly 50 cals per day.0
-
In theory, yes. But with the inprecision inherent in calorie counting, I would aim a little higher.0
-
MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
Sweet! This is awesome. I weight 67272 grams, so I get to eat 806772 calories per day!
Or wait, maybe I shouldn't accept useless advice that has no basis in reality.
0 -
MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
Where did you get this formula from? It's ridiculous. I'd be netting 1,168 calories per day.
0 -
annabuchholz wrote: »If I ate 50 calorie deficit would I eventually lose weight slowly? I guess I'm asking if there's a threshold where you need a deficit large enohgh to do something. Thanks!
0 -
If those numbers were accurate, you'd lose weight super slowly.
But those numbers are all estimates. People do all kinds of different math, but in the end it's just a guess. These numbers aren't exact at all.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lawl. with that formula I'd be eating 2800 calories a day. Where do I sign up for losing weight eating that much? Do I have to update my body's firmware?0
-
Sure, same as you'll gradually gain with a surplus of 50 a day. Five pounds a year is better than nothing, and you don't need to hit the 50 exactly every day - you just need to average 50. It's hard to get there intentionally, though, because the way to know you got there is to see it long-term on the scale, and water fluctuation will camouflage a year of loss at that rate.0
-
In theory, a deficit of 100 calories a day would result in a net loss of 10 lbs/year. But, with small margins you have to be exceptionally careful about accurate measurements and records.0
-
If eating a deficit is putting you way under 1200 calories a day, then it's better to up your activity level if you can. You can add more calories and still lose weight if you're adding exercise.0
-
MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
That is laughable, for me I would be eating 2,836 calories a day, and right now I'm losing 1.5 lbs a week eating more than 1000 less than that......
0 -
MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
That is nonsense. Where on EARTH did you come up with this?
So I should eat 800 cal a day? No. Just no. That is over 500 calories under my BMR.0 -
you would need to know exactly what you were burning every day. TDEE and BMI are not exact when you use calculators, they are estimates. so you may think you are eating at a defecit of 50, but if for any reason your metabolism is even slightly off, you could still be breaking even, or even overeating.... maybe even undereating but less likely.
not to mention whatever you are burning when you move, either exersize or not, fluctuates all the time... and is hard to accurately gauge... so even if your metabolism is fine... again...estimate.
its not a very big window with no room for error. people arent machines with settings... so... you can try but it would be a long shot in my opinion.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoochieRama wrote: »Take your weight x 12 -500= calories to eat to lose.
NO- absolutely not!
In my case this would have me eating way below 1200 and my body would lack vital nutrients.
I second the NO. If I did that I would need to eat 2000 to lose weight (which is higher than my maintenance)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions