Over eat then under eat?
Options
Replies
-
I do this pretty often. I will have 2000 calorie days and then 1300 calorie days. So far it hasn't hindered my progress. Mostly it happens on days I've worked really late, don't eat much at work to begin with and then have a lot of food to cook/consume when I get home. Sometimes I'm just tired, so I'll try to pack in as much calorie and usually protein dense food as I can and then don't sweat it. I know it will balance out in the long run and it has.
Right, see you said "1300" there's people in this topic talking about going under a bunch of days...so under 1,200. When you're going under you're at say...1300. I don't think there's anything healthy about say: 3,000 (Monday), 2,000 (Tuesday), 800 (Wed-Thurs since you're banking a bunch of calories), 1100 (Friday--gotta BANK UP for the weekend) and 2,500 both Sat-Sun. WTF is that. Your body is not a bank and you can't bank up anything.
Are you ever going to post anything meaningful to actually support your point? I don't have a problem with you challenging conventional thought, but at least be able to support/back up your argument. Otherwise you just sound stubborn and stupid.0 -
The Circadian rhythym has nothing at all to do with nutrition or digestion. It refers to sleeping cycles.
Broscience is a term used to describe information that mixes a little of this science with a little of that science. Usually, because the person sharing the information doesn't really know that much about science in the first place.
I know all of the science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude! I think you are in the wrong thread! LOL! :laugh:0 -
Monday - Thursday I usually aim for ~250 calories less than my goal (goal: 1600). This is so on Friday and Saturday when I know we're going out to eat and there's a good chance I'll be over it will average out at the end of week. Sunday I play by ear depending on how the week worked out. I've lost 77lbs and have been doing this most of the time (over a year now) and it is very easily sustainable for me. Yes our sleep cycles and such may go on a 24 hour clock but weight loss/gain is about over time.
Yes, and that makes sense. I have a feeling though others on here actually mean "under goal" as "under 1200 calories"0 -
I do this pretty frequently. It's working fine for me. Some people will tell you that it's an eating disorder to do it that way. IDK about that...it's working and I'm getting all the nutrients I need so i don't see a problem with it.0
-
The Circadian rhythym has nothing at all to do with nutrition or digestion. It refers to sleeping cycles.
Broscience is a term used to describe information that mixes a little of this science with a little of that science. Usually, because the person sharing the information doesn't really know that much about science in the first place.
I know all of the science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude! I think you are in the wrong thread! LOL! :laugh:
1. I'm not a dude
2. I actually think I'm pretty smart.
I have an MBA and work with college students.
3. I posted about the 24 hour clock because there were people in this forum that said there's no such thing as a 24 hour clock when it comes to weight loss. If that were true...why is MFP set up for 24 hours of logging? Just a good honest question.0 -
I do this pretty frequently. It's working fine for me. Some people will tell you that it's an eating disorder to do it that way. IDK about that...it's working and I'm getting all the nutrients I need so i don't see a problem with it.
That's great but are you doing "under 1200" a "bunch of days"? If you're not...don't worry about it. Folks on this post are bragging about being "under goal" to make up for past days they went over. As if by starving themselves a few days/week re-sets something overall.0 -
So, I am considering going over my daily cals for the day, and then making up for it my being under by the amount I am over today, tomorrow. do any of you do this? eat over your intake one day and then compensate by eating less the next?
How about trying zigzag calories for example instead of having 1510 calories per day, have the following:
Mon:1510
Tue:1208
We'd:1812
Thu:1510
Fri:1359
Sat:1661
Sun:15100 -
I do this pretty often. I will have 2000 calorie days and then 1300 calorie days. So far it hasn't hindered my progress. Mostly it happens on days I've worked really late, don't eat much at work to begin with and then have a lot of food to cook/consume when I get home. Sometimes I'm just tired, so I'll try to pack in as much calorie and usually protein dense food as I can and then don't sweat it. I know it will balance out in the long run and it has.
Right, see you said "1300" there's people in this topic talking about going under a bunch of days...so under 1,200. When you're going under you're at say...1300. I don't think there's anything healthy about say: 3,000 (Monday), 2,000 (Tuesday), 800 (Wed-Thurs since you're banking a bunch of calories), 1100 (Friday--gotta BANK UP for the weekend) and 2,500 both Sat-Sun. WTF is that. Your body is not a bank and you can't bank up anything.
No one is claiming that using your body as a fuel bank is a healthy way to go, but folks do it. (See IF diets.) The OP asked if going over once in a while can be countered by being slightly under the next day. The answer to that is: Yes, it is perfectly fine to correct your calorie intake. If the OP does it drastically (over 1000 cals on Mon and then under by 1000 cals Tues) then ya, that's not HEALTHY but it does exactly what the OP asked. It balances out the net calories for the week, for the 48 hour period, for the month, for whatever you are considering as a overall deficit. Going over "some" days and under "some" days is entirely sustainable. "Normal" folks do it all the time. It happens, doing it frequently, deliberately, and dramatically is where the trouble starts. But that isn't OP's concern.
ETA: If I have a day out on the town once in a while, I will definitely curb my weekly calories for the following week to make up for the overage that occurred on my outing. If I go over by 1000 cals (happened once) I spread out the 1000 cal deficit over the next 5 days. Life happens, learning how to manage that for the rest of your life and being successful is more important than being perfectly on target every day of your weight loss journey.0 -
And when you say "under your goal" that means you are eating a deficit to a deficit and not fueling your body with enough fuel.
Good for you for eating "under goal" a "bunch of days" That sounds to me like some sort of disorder.
You do realize that a calorie deficit over time, is a requirement for weight loss?
No, on MFP "under goal" means NET under 1,200 after a workout and not eating your exercise calories back. We're not talking the 500 deficit set by MFP to lose 1 lb per week.
LOLWUT?0 -
So, I am considering going over my daily cals for the day, and then making up for it my being under by the amount I am over today, tomorrow. do any of you do this? eat over your intake one day and then compensate by eating less the next?
How about trying zigzag calories:
Mon:1510
Tue:1208
We'd:1812
Thu:1510
Fri:1359
Sat:1661
Sun:1510
Zig zag there is fine because you're not "under goal" a "bunch of days"
I don't see you under 1,200 once that whole week. 0 -
I think it's one and the same. Show me proof that the body operates on a 24 hour clock EXCEPT when it comes to weight loss.
Well I guess I'm living proof, since I go over my goal some days, stay under my goal on other days, and I have lost weight right on track or even faster than I expected.
Same. This is how I lost 133 pounds; this is how I'm maintaining weight. This is also how I stay sane and committed; I don't track calories on vacation of while camping or out on my birthday dinner. I've never plateaued, probably in part because of varied daily intake. I do not starve myself to have a major binge day, but I do rely on a small weekly deficit and a moderate weekend surplus to maintain. The long-term, overall intake is what matters. If I know that tomorrow I have a big event and will be eating more than normal, you bet that I might eat a few hundred fewer calories today. I believe that this is how "normal" people live their lives, only with less thought going into it likely 0 -
Your body is on a 24 hour clock. Sorry. You can't make stuff up. You can of course log a bad day and do better tomorrow and the next day.
^^^Did you just make this up?
Your calorie deficit should be based on your weekly calorie intake, not your daily intake. What the OP is describing is a form of calorie cycling. It works for some people and doesn't for others. It helped me break through my plateau. Just make sure you don't go too low on the lower calorie days, and try not to eat too much over your TDEE on your higher calorie days (you can eat at your TDEE on those days, though).
What is the lowest you go on calorie cycling? I usually eat 1700-2000 a day. It is funny this question came up because I have been wondering the same, if I go over one day, can I eat less another to make up for it?
So one day I would eat 1800 and the next 1200? I have a very hard time eating less then 1700 calories a day.0 -
And when you say "under your goal" that means you are eating a deficit to a deficit and not fueling your body with enough fuel.
Good for you for eating "under goal" a "bunch of days" That sounds to me like some sort of disorder.
You do realize that a calorie deficit over time, is a requirement for weight loss?
No, on MFP "under goal" means NET under 1,200 after a workout and not eating your exercise calories back. We're not talking the 500 deficit set by MFP to lose 1 lb per week.
LOLWUT?
That means if you eat 1,200, workout and burn 500 you are UNDER GOAL. Sorry if I was confusing.0 -
I'm going to make one more attempt at this.
Lets say that you have an energy requirement of 2000 calories per day to maintain bodyweight. Lets suppose that this maintenance requirement is the same on a daily basis (incorrect in real life but for purposes of example):
This person eats as follows:
Monday: 1500 calories (-500 or 500 under energy requirement)
Tuesday: 2500 calories (+500)
Wednesday: 1500 calories (-500)
Thursday: 1500 calories (-500)
Friday: 1200 calories (-800)
Saturday : 2200 calories (+200)
Sunday 1850 calories (-150)
Sum: -1750.
Now lets suppose they eat at -250 per day the following week.
M 1750 (-250)
T 1750 (-250)
W 1750 (-250)
Th 1750 (-250)
F 1750 (-250)
Sa 1750 (-250)
Su 1750 (-250)
In both cases we have a total energy deficit of 1750 cals at the end of the week.
Both of these methods will produce weight loss and I would claim that they would be roughly equivalent given this example. You could build a case for one method being superior for adherence reasons or some type of cyclical method being potentially beneficial in lean athletes for partitioning effects depending on when training occurs but now we're splitting hairs and discussing things that aren't relevant for the majority of the population of this site.0 -
Monday - Thursday I usually aim for ~250 calories less than my goal (goal: 1600). This is so on Friday and Saturday when I know we're going out to eat and there's a good chance I'll be over it will average out at the end of week. Sunday I play by ear depending on how the week worked out. I've lost 77lbs and have been doing this most of the time (over a year now) and it is very easily sustainable for me. Yes our sleep cycles and such may go on a 24 hour clock but weight loss/gain is about over time.
Yes, and that makes sense. I have a feeling though others on here actually mean "under goal" as "under 1200 calories"
Sorry, I know I said my previous post was my last. But I just wanted to let you know that I don't think I've ever eaten under 1200 calories. Ever. I NETTED under 1200 yesterday because I did a triathlon and burned a ton of cals, but most of the time I net closer to 1400-1500. I eat about 1700-1900 total. Please don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.
ETA: You also posted earlier saying "under goal" means under 1200 and not eating exercise cals back. This is not true. 1200 is not the ONLY goal people on MFP have. Yes some people have that goal, but not all of us. For me "under goal" means NETTING under 1450 cals, and yes I do eat back exercise cals. Most of us do.0 -
It happens to everyone, not just you. We need to focus....hurting ourselves one day & starving the next day to get back on track only hurts our body and self esteem goes right out the window. Moderation, Will-Power, Self Control & Discipline are all things we need on a day to day basis. Good Luck to All of Us! 0
-
I prefer to listen to the people who have reached the same body type that I would like to have, done so in a reasonable manner to maintain lean body mass, some who have even been able to handle bulking and cutting to further improve physique, still manage to enjoy the food they eat, and have been maintaining this for 6+months *cough* LaurenAOK and Sidesteel plus thousands of others on here*cough* call me crazy!0
-
Monday - Thursday I usually aim for ~250 calories less than my goal (goal: 1600). This is so on Friday and Saturday when I know we're going out to eat and there's a good chance I'll be over it will average out at the end of week. Sunday I play by ear depending on how the week worked out. I've lost 77lbs and have been doing this most of the time (over a year now) and it is very easily sustainable for me. Yes our sleep cycles and such may go on a 24 hour clock but weight loss/gain is about over time.
Yes, and that makes sense. I have a feeling though others on here actually mean "under goal" as "under 1200 calories"
Sorry, I know I said my previous post was my last. But I just wanted to let you know that I don't think I've ever eaten under 1200 calories. Ever. I NETTED under 1200 yesterday because I did a triathlon and burned a ton of cals, but most of the time I net closer to 1400-1500. I eat about 1700-1900 total. Please don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.
Same goes for you.
Congrats on your triathlon.0 -
don't worry. it shall be eaten. I have been convinced by all you wise people!If you don't eat that chocolate, I'm coming over to your house and take it!! You are only going over by 50 calories... that's nothing! 0 -
I do this pretty frequently. It's working fine for me. Some people will tell you that it's an eating disorder to do it that way. IDK about that...it's working and I'm getting all the nutrients I need so i don't see a problem with it.
That's great but are you doing "under 1200" a "bunch of days"? If you're not...don't worry about it. Folks on this post are bragging about being "under goal" to make up for past days they went over. As if by starving themselves a few days/week re-sets something overall.
You have no idea what individual people's goals are. And even if they are eating under 1200 some days, who cares? I've netted negative calories before and I'm not on the verge of shriveling up and dying.
The body is constantly shuttling calories based on energy needs. If it needs more than you give it, it's going to find them from fat (and possibly muscle) stores. If you give it more than it needs, it's going to store them. This is happening CONSTANTLY. Your body doesn't just flip a switch at midnight... it's still burning cals from the day before while you sleep to recover and repair (and possibly store).
As Sidesteel said earlier... if you over eat 1 day, you will see a short term gain from it. If you under eat 1 day, you'll see a short term loss from it. Long term results come from long term deficits/surpluses.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions