Question about calorie consumption

StaceySaysRelax

I know I have to consume at least 1200 calories per day. If I go to the gym and burn an additional 300 calories, do I have to eat those additional 300 calories as well?

Phrick

Yes. You need to NET 1200 (at the absolute least) per day. So if you burn an additional 300, your net at that point is only 900 - you need to "eat back" the 300 to bring your net total up to 1200 again.

magnum26

I would advise not going below the 1200 calories so upping your intake by 300 calories would be better.

Short answer: Yes.

strick1982

I would advise not going below the 1200 calories so upping your intake by 300 calories would be better.

Short answer: Yes.

Calories in, calories out. I'm not quite grasping the concept of eating the calories you exercised off.

ProjectJepo

Hi there!

Answer to your question is : Yes

Might I suggest using the TDEE Formula thing if you're not already using it?

If you are Ignore this :P

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

Enter your stats into this


Hope this helps

CoderGal

I would advise not going below the 1200 calories so upping your intake by 300 calories would be better.

Short answer: Yes.

Calories in, calories out. I'm not quite grasping the concept of eating the calories you exercised off.

Your calories are not set to your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). They are set to a number much much lower then that. And when you exercise that makes the deficit larger. Exactly calories in vs calories out. Take off the same number off the top of your TDEE via eating your calories back will result in weight loss. I don't see the point on making the deficit larger and larger to the point of malnourishment and injury. The extra fuel can help you repair your muscles from your workout, give you extra nutrients, and resulting in more fat loss, and less injuries.

ritchiedrama

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

Use this to calculate some good macros, once you've done that,, you don't need to eat your exercise calories back, that is really not a good thing to do seeing as you can never be sure how many calories are actually burnt through exercise.

have fun!

vjsanvil

Agree with the poster who said you don't have to eat back exercise calories --- depending on OP's circumstances.

I am on a 1200 calorie plan and I don't eat my exercise calories back unless I exceed my goal calories burned through exercise each week. However, I want to stress I am very short (4'11") so this was a specific plan made for me (1200 cals/day, burn 1500 cals through exercise/week to achieve 1.3lb loss/week). Just make sure you are eating enough healthy food that provides you energy (protein, carbs for working out, and healthy fats). No junk. Good luck!

PunkinSpice79

I only eat back half of my exercise calories, just in case MFP over estimated the burn.

magnum26

I would advise not going below the 1200 calories so upping your intake by 300 calories would be better.

Short answer: Yes.

Calories in, calories out. I'm not quite grasping the concept of eating the calories you exercised off.

Your calories are not set to your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). They are set to a number much much lower then that. And when you exercise that makes the deficit larger. Exactly calories in vs calories out. Take off the same number off the top of your TDEE via eating your calories back will result in weight loss. I don't see the point on making the deficit larger and larger to the point of malnourishment and injury. The extra fuel can help you repair your muscles from your workout, give you extra nutrients, and resulting in more fat loss, and less injuries.

Spot on +1

j6o4

I would advise not going below the 1200 calories so upping your intake by 300 calories would be better.

Short answer: Yes.

Calories in, calories out. I'm not quite grasping the concept of eating the calories you exercised off.

Your calories are not set to your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). They are set to a number much much lower then that. And when you exercise that makes the deficit larger. Exactly calories in vs calories out. Take off the same number off the top of your TDEE via eating your calories back will result in weight loss. I don't see the point on making the deficit larger and larger to the point of malnourishment and injury. The extra fuel can help you repair your muscles from your workout, give you extra nutrients, and resulting in more fat loss, and less injuries.

^ What she said. Eat those exercise calories back and get an HRM to more accurately see how much you actually burn.

55in13

1200 is not a magic number. It is a number at which it is pretty easy to get the vital nutrients your body needs in a day.

Figuring out where the energy you burn in a day comes from is more complicated than just the calories you eat. You need to know what your fat mass is, which is your BF% times your weight. Each pound of fat can release 31.4 calories per day when you eat less than you burn. So you need to know how much you burn in a day and make sure the difference between that and what you consume in a day does not exceed what the fat stores can deliver.

Getting an accurate burn is vital if you are close using the calculations. If the numbers aren't too close (most people eat at a deficit well below what their fat stores can supply) it could still help to make things more consistent. Most estimates for calories burned seem to be on the high side, often by quite a bit.

CoderGal

1200 is not a magic number. It is a number at which it is pretty easy to get the vital nutrients your body needs in a day.

Figuring out where the energy you burn in a day comes from is more complicated than just the calories you eat. You need to know what your fat mass is, which is your BF% times your weight. Each pound of fat can release 31.4 calories per day when you eat less than you burn. So you need to know how much you burn in a day and make sure the difference between that and what you consume in a day does not exceed what the fat stores can deliver.

Getting an accurate burn is vital if you are close using the calculations. If the numbers aren't too close (most people eat at a deficit well below what their fat stores can supply) it could still help to make things more consistent. Most estimates for calories burned seem to be on the high side, often by quite a bit.

um....sources?

55in13

1200 is not a magic number. It is a number at which it is pretty easy to get the vital nutrients your body needs in a day.

Figuring out where the energy you burn in a day comes from is more complicated than just the calories you eat. You need to know what your fat mass is, which is your BF% times your weight. Each pound of fat can release 31.4 calories per day when you eat less than you burn. So you need to know how much you burn in a day and make sure the difference between that and what you consume in a day does not exceed what the fat stores can deliver.

Getting an accurate burn is vital if you are close using the calculations. If the numbers aren't too close (most people eat at a deficit well below what their fat stores can supply) it could still help to make things more consistent. Most estimates for calories burned seem to be on the high side, often by quite a bit.

um....sources?

They don't have Google where you live? :bigsmile:

OK, here is one that popped up when I searched:

Registered dietician Kerri-Ann Jennings, whose also an editor for Eating Well magazine, says if you want to get serious about healthy weight loss, 1,200 calories could be your magic number. "[M]ost people will lose weight on a 1,200-calorie diet, which is also the lowest you really can go calorie-wise each day while still getting all the nutrients you need," she writes.

Although the author quoting her does disagree with me and say that it might be a magic number, but I still think it is science. :laugh:

EDIT - there are plenty of other sources, BTW. I just took one off the very first page of hits that stated it pretty succinctly. I did not see any arguing against it.

flitabout

First things first you want to lose weight right? You don't want to gain it right back? You will spend the rest of your life fighting with this, If you don't eat enough you will get hungry, which can be dealt with, but when those cravings hit well that is a whole other story. eating 1200 calories a day with a 300 calorie deficit leaves your body with only 900 calories a day to run off of. It usually results in said person face first in a pint of Ben and Jerry's. Sure you are going to lose fat but you are also going to lose muscle. I know that in the short term fast weightloss is really tempting, if it wasn't would there be such a market for weightloss products and programs? These are as a general rule not healthy or sustainable.
Let's put it this way if your are like me I am currently 36yrs old, 5'3" I weigh 170lbs I am fairly active as I have 4 small kids and a business to run. My BMR(base metablic rate) the base bottom my body needs to keep my heartbeating and breathing is 1529 so if I was to eat only 1200 a day then top it with a 300 calorie deficit from working out added to it. That would be a deficit of 629 under my BMR the base bottom my body needs to keep me alive.
Do I think that is a good idea? No. That and I didn't lose a pound when I had my goals set like that. On the other hand I set my calories to almost 1700 and I finally started losing.

helenrosemay

I remember when everyone was saying you had to eat at least 1000 calories, now it's gone up to 1200 calories.
My BMR is 1600 cals with exercise that can go up to 1900cals, so that wouldn't make much of a deficit, in fact I wasn't eating much more than that before I started my diet and I was maintaining.

There is so much conflicting information and yes it's good to be informed, but sometimes you can be too informed.

All I know is eating around 1200-1300 cals gives me a deficit and has worked for me.

kklann

So your saying that my 1200 calorie consumption and burning anywhere between approx 300-500 calories thru exercise is actually NOT good for me??? I'm a little confused, yet starting to get it and i want to make sure!! Because I WANT THIS FAT GONE! I want to be able to work out, i am now finally liking working out LOL. and i need to change my calories on MFP.

55in13

So your saying that my 1200 calorie consumption and burning anywhere between approx 300-500 calories thru exercise is actually NOT good for me??? I'm a little confused, yet starting to get it and i want to make sure!! Because I WANT THIS FAT GONE! I want to be able to work out, i am now finally liking working out LOL. and i need to change my calories on MFP.

I am not saying that. I quoted a registered dietitian who says that 1200 is a fine number. This idea of "net" and "eating back" is not widely accepted outside MFP. If your body can't supply the energy you need from what you eat, it will metabolize fat stores. Those fat stores can provide 31.4 calories per pound per day toward the deficit. If that isn't adequate, then it will start to burn lean body mass. Also, consider this - fat supplies 3500 calories per pound; lean body mass only 600. If you started burning muscle as easily as some people seem to think, you would lose a lot of weight.

SideSteel

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

c_tap77

I would suggest maybe talking to a nutritionist or your doctor if a nutritionist isn't an option.

Personally, I try to stay around 1200 calories (give or take 50) and don't eat back my exercise calories. But I have talked to a nutritionist about it and was advised that given what I need to lose and my goals this is fine--as long as I'm getting the right nutrients. I'm keeping a written log for her as well, and she also advised me that I should not spend the rest of my life eating 1200 calories. As I build more muscle, workout harder, and my metabolism changes, I will start eating more calories.

Everyone's body is different and it's hard to get a gauge of what's going on internally by entering some numbers on a computer.

taso42

where'd you get 1200 from? are you sure it's not 1600?