is eating 1900 cal a day and burning 1000 in the gym healthy
Options
Replies
-
I recently got a heart rate monitor. What I learned: MFP numbers are not as off for most activity as people say IF you select the appropriate intensity level. The machines at the gym are way off.0
-
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?0 -
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
It will catch up to you, it just takes time. For me, it was like a steamroll effect. I didn't experience anything in the immediate. But 2-3 months later, I noticed my hair falling out more than normal, my nails were breaking left and right, I was getting more tired, etc. It took time, but it did happen.0 -
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
I guess that's the question. I did it. Feel dandy. Doctor loves the lowered weight. Not sure what the problem is except that some folks think "net calories" are relevant while others, myself included, don't.0 -
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
You're basically putting yourself at a caloric intake normally reserved for those under medical supervision. It's only an issue if you care about taking in enough to meet basic nutritional needs. If you don't .. no issue.0 -
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
I guess that's the question. I did it. Feel dandy. Doctor loves the lowered weight. Not sure what the problem is except that some folks think "net calories" are relevant while others, myself included, don't.
The medical community does think it matters. It leads to lost lean body mass ... damage to organs ... loss of periods in women ... hair loss ... brittle nails ... loss of bone density ...0 -
Well *kitten*, that's concerning. I'm not going hungry...I thought I could rely on hunger signals to indicate if my body needs more fuel.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
I guess that's the question. I did it. Feel dandy. Doctor loves the lowered weight. Not sure what the problem is except that some folks think "net calories" are relevant while others, myself included, don't.
The medical community does think it matters. It leads to lost lean body mass ... damage to organs ... loss of periods in women ... hair loss ... brittle nails ... loss of bone density ...
So honestly, can you find a SINGLE peer reviewed study that suggests any of that will happen when eating 2000 healthy calories a day?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
I guess that's the question. I did it. Feel dandy. Doctor loves the lowered weight. Not sure what the problem is except that some folks think "net calories" are relevant while others, myself included, don't.
The medical community does think it matters. It leads to lost lean body mass ... damage to organs ... loss of periods in women ... hair loss ... brittle nails ... loss of bone density ...
So honestly, can you find a SINGLE peer reviewed study that suggests any of that will happen when eating 2000 healthy calories a day?
NET matters ... gross is secondary at best ... which is why the recommendation from every major western health organization is for net, not gross, calories. But, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to your body as long as you don't recommend unhealthy actions for others.
I know you can't find a single study stating negative net caloric intake is healthy.0 -
-
Well *kitten*, that's concerning. I'm not going hungry...I thought I could rely on hunger signals to indicate if my body needs more fuel.
Relying on your body's cues is very important. But when it comes to losing weight healthfully, and making long-term changes, you need to eat enough per day. You may not feel hungry in the beginning (new changes, motivated to lose weight, ect), but it will catch up to you. It's also very hard to hit your macro goals with a lower calorie goal.
Think of it this way. You want to make a 100 mile drive for a trip, but you only put in half the gas needed to get there. You're going to be fine in the beginning, but as you get closer to the middle of your trip, your car is going to start to sputter. It's going to slow down, and suddenly it's going to stop and leave you stranded on the side of the road.
Our bodies need fuel to function. They will feel fine, and may even tell you that you don't need more, but we still need that base number of calories per day to fuel our bodies. We still burn calories breathing, pumping blood, and just sitting behind our desks at work, alongside what we burn in our workouts. It's important to hit the goal that MFP tells you to hit every day; that is your daily goal WITH your deficit already built into it.
0 -
I recently got a heart rate monitor. What I learned: MFP numbers are not as off for most activity as people say IF you select the appropriate intensity level. The machines at the gym are way off.
I vaguely remember some posts a few months back where we were bouncing around the possibility that MFP adjusted their calories. We thought it was a gross vs. net burn thing from what I recall...
0 -
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
Don't mess up people's soapboxes with facts.
0 -
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
Don't mess up people's soapboxes with facts.
Since when is 1,000 negative net calories per day considered safe? Or are we now advocating 2,000 calorie deficits?
0 -
Not really sure that's true. I did it for ~7 months and was fine except I lost a bunch of weight.
segovm: Your situation is not exactly the same as that of a person with much less fat to lose. VLCD are sometimes recommended to and followed by Obese III people. Obese III, and II people are also able to tolerate a faster (both absolute and as a percentage of body weight) rate of loss than say people with just an extra 10lbs of fat available to lose.
Not sure how the fact that one person in a million has managed to do something without the world blowing up makes it a good idea for everyone else to try and do.
Chances are that the OP is doing something unhealthy.
Having said that, I am a bit perplexed as to why everyone finds it far fetched that a 200lb male in his 30's would have THAT much trouble burning through 1000Cal worth of exercise in a day.
At 200lbs, 132 minutes of MET 6 activities would NET 1000 Cal. MET 6 is the very beginning of vigorous exercise. Jog/walking with the jogging component being about 10 minutes per hour is MET 6.
If the OP is actually doing 12 minute miles? You are looking at MET 8. And it would take about 95 minutes, or 7.5miles for the OP to NET 1000 Cal.
I have decided that the OP is 200lbs because they are male and have a goal of losing 50lbs. The possible flaws of that reasoning are numerous... but no more than this general disbelief that a person can possibly burn 1000 Cal a day through exercise--even lowly exercise like walking!0 -
None of us know exactly what the OP is doing for sure. Hopefully they'll come back and clarify...0
-
Anything is possible i burn 535 on the treadmill that's the treadmill reading then i spend 1 1/2 hours doing weights i do a lot of volume to failure. If the gym is full i only spend 1 hour with weights I'll burn about 200 or more on the stair climber. I only record the tread mill reading. I don't want to eat back calories it's just extra weight lost to me. I feel great and am losing about 3 lbs a week the only thing i take is protein and do my best to get it from food.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If the calorie burn charts are anywhere close to right (presumably, they are or researchers would be trying to correct them) burning 1000 calories isn't that difficult. However, whatever a person burns, they should try to keep their calorie deficit between 500 to 1000.
You have a most optimistic view of the "researchers" (and the "calorie burn charts").
Short of me hooking myself up to an expensive machine, I'm kind of stuck with what other researchers have found. Since scientists are using these numbers to make predictions and to determine how much to feed participants in their studies, that have a greater need for accuracy than even those of us who feel the need to weigh food before logging it. If the numbers are very far off, it causes errors in their research. If my numbers are off, I gain a little extra weight. If their numbers are off, their life's work is put in question.
1. Every time a study is done, the results are known in advance. The study is designed to produce the desired results.
2. Have you seen those Jillian Michaels commercials for her special treadmill that "burns twice as many calories"? If one machine tells you you are burning more, it is human nature to prefer that one.
Even if it is well known that the average calorie burn on a machine should be half what it displays, a company would be shooting itself in the foot to correct it. Marketing suicide.0 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If the calorie burn charts are anywhere close to right (presumably, they are or researchers would be trying to correct them) burning 1000 calories isn't that difficult. However, whatever a person burns, they should try to keep their calorie deficit between 500 to 1000.
You have a most optimistic view of the "researchers" (and the "calorie burn charts").
Short of me hooking myself up to an expensive machine, I'm kind of stuck with what other researchers have found. Since scientists are using these numbers to make predictions and to determine how much to feed participants in their studies, that have a greater need for accuracy than even those of us who feel the need to weigh food before logging it. If the numbers are very far off, it causes errors in their research. If my numbers are off, I gain a little extra weight. If their numbers are off, their life's work is put in question.
1. Every time a study is done, the results are known in advance. The study is designed to produce the desired results.
2. Have you seen those Jillian Michaels commercials for her special treadmill that "burns twice as many calories"? If one machine tells you you are burning more, it is human nature to prefer that one.
Even if it is well known that the average calorie burn on a machine should be half what it displays, a company would be shooting itself in the foot to correct it. Marketing suicide.
You care to give some evidence for your claim?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions