Just wondering...

PoisonIvy088

Hi everyone.

I've been wondering about something...

My friend next door wants to use calorie counting to lose weight, but she's kind of on this trail of distruction of eating like 600-800 a day. (I did complain and got ignored.)

She tells me she eats 1000 and exercises off 200.

Now basically I'm doing the same. I eat 1400-1500, but my exercise makes me net 1200-1300. Is there a difference between eating 1300 and netting 1300? In terms of the amount of nutrition you get in?

Liftng4Lis

If you're exercising, your body needs more fuel. Just like a car, if you drive farther, its going to burn more gas. YES, there is a difference.

DemoraFairy

There's a big difference between netting and eating! If you eat 1300 but burn off 1300 calories a day with a vigorous exercise regime netting 0, then you're leaving your body with nothing just to live. If you eat 1500 and burn 300 netting 1300, you're leaving your body with 1300 to live off, which is fine. And if you're eating more and burning it off you'll be getting more nutrition in, too.

PoisonIvy088

So, she can still get in a good amount of nutrition even if she's severely undereating?

SergeantSausage

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

So, she can still get in a good amount of nutrition even if she's severely undereating?

<boggle>

TavistockToad

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

So, she can still get in a good amount of nutrition even if she's severely undereating?

no

PoisonIvy088

TavistockToad wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

So, she can still get in a good amount of nutrition even if she's severely undereating?

no

Haha. Okay. Had a feeling I understood that wrong.

Liftng4Lis

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

So, she can still get in a good amount of nutrition even if she's severely undereating?

nope

TavistockToad

Are you sure it's your 'friend' who undereats?

cheshirecatastrophe

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

Now basically I'm doing the same. I eat 1400-1500, but my exercise makes me net 1200-1300. Is there a difference between eating 1300 and netting 1300? In terms of the amount of nutrition you get in?

Is this your question? Because I think it's being missed?

Yes, there is a difference between eating 1500 to net 1300 with exercise, and eating 1300. That's 200 more calories of (ideally) vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, carbs--things that are very very good for your body even apart from needing fuel to run it.

1000 calories gross is not enough for adults. She's missing valuable nutrients even before you factor in the physical and psychological ramifications of the disorderedness.

PoisonIvy088

cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

Now basically I'm doing the same. I eat 1400-1500, but my exercise makes me net 1200-1300. Is there a difference between eating 1300 and netting 1300? In terms of the amount of nutrition you get in?

Is this your question? Because I think it's being missed?

Yes, there is a difference between eating 1500 to net 1300 with exercise, and eating 1300. That's 200 more calories of (ideally) vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, carbs--things that are very very good for your body even apart from needing fuel to run it.

1000 calories gross is not enough for adults. She's missing valuable nutrients even before you factor in the physical and psychological ramifications of the disorderedness.

Yeah I know. Doesn't the body burn off the "extra" nutrients during exercise anyway though?

That's kind of what I'm asking, obviously that low is not enough calories, but how is it then that you get extra nutrients?

So for example, she could be spot on with nutrients, but still starving her body because of too little calories?

cheshirecatastrophe

You use energy (measured in calories--that's just a measurement) to fuel your workouts.

You do not use vitamins and calcium as fuel.