Is it really calories in/calories out?

Options
2»

Replies

  • jelleigh
    jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    Ya I've read a lot about how many people are accidentally eating more because of not weighing their food. I was thinking that even if it was the case it wouldn't make too much difference for me because I think I've underestimated my activity level. If I look at my net calories for the last two weeks I'm often quite low. Like 500 calories? I know that The exercise calories could easily be overstated - especially since I'm just doing a lot of brisk walking- so I haven't been eating my exercise calories back. But I thought that deficit might make up for any small inaccuracies that I'd see from not weighing food. I'll find myself a digital scale and see what I learn. :). Thanks for all the advice everyone !
  • jelleigh
    jelleigh Posts: 743 Member
    Options
    shell1005 wrote: »
    jelleigh wrote: »
    Ya I've read a lot about how many people are accidentally eating more because of not weighing their food. I was thinking that even if it was the case it wouldn't make too much difference for me because I think I've underestimated my activity level. If I look at my net calories for the last two weeks I'm often quite low. Like 500 calories? I know that The exercise calories could easily be overstated - especially since I'm just doing a lot of brisk walking- so I haven't been eating my exercise calories back. But I thought that deficit might make up for any small inaccuracies that I'd see from not weighing food. I'll find myself a digital scale and see what I learn. :). Thanks for all the advice everyone !

    If your net calories are really 500...and things are accurate (and it sounds like there is a lot of guestimating going on in there) then that is really not good.

    Really? I do see frequently how no one should eat below the 1200 calories but almost everyone says not to eat back your exercise calories. So for example, I ate 1300 calories and then throughout the day burned 600 according to various devices (ie: mapmyrun). That would leave me well below the 1000 calories but if I'm not hungry and I'm eating nutritious food then is it dangerous? I am not weighing my food but I am still measuring fairly closely and if I'm in doubt I always round up (ie: if two options come up in MFP food log I will always choose the one with the highest calorie count) so i wouldn't say there is THAT much guesstimating?
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    jelleigh wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    jelleigh wrote: »
    Ya I've read a lot about how many people are accidentally eating more because of not weighing their food. I was thinking that even if it was the case it wouldn't make too much difference for me because I think I've underestimated my activity level. If I look at my net calories for the last two weeks I'm often quite low. Like 500 calories? I know that The exercise calories could easily be overstated - especially since I'm just doing a lot of brisk walking- so I haven't been eating my exercise calories back. But I thought that deficit might make up for any small inaccuracies that I'd see from not weighing food. I'll find myself a digital scale and see what I learn. :). Thanks for all the advice everyone !

    If your net calories are really 500...and things are accurate (and it sounds like there is a lot of guestimating going on in there) then that is really not good.

    Really? I do see frequently how no one should eat below the 1200 calories but almost everyone says not to eat back your exercise calories. So for example, I ate 1300 calories and then throughout the day burned 600 according to various devices (ie: mapmyrun). That would leave me well below the 1000 calories but if I'm not hungry and I'm eating nutritious food then is it dangerous? I am not weighing my food but I am still measuring fairly closely and if I'm in doubt I always round up (ie: if two options come up in MFP food log I will always choose the one with the highest calorie count) so i wouldn't say there is THAT much guesstimating?

    Other sites take into account your exercise level when giving you a calorie goal. MFP does not. MFP gives you a calorie goal so that you lose weight without exercise. When exercising you burn more calories than you normally would and to keep the same deficit you should eat more.
    Example:

    Say it's estimated someone burns 2200 calories without exercise.
    MFP would give them a calorie goal of 1200 to lose 2 lbs per week.
    1-2 lbs per week is what is considered a safe/healthy rate of loss.

    Say said person works out and burns 300 calories.
    They have now added 300 calories to the previous 2200, making their total calorie burn for the day 2500.
    To lose 2 lbs per week, said person should eat 1500 calories.

    Your body can only burn so much fat in a day. Once your past that point, your body will start turning to it's lean body mass (muscles, etc) for fuel. This is why it's recommended to try and keep your deficit reasonable (1-2 lb range) and to do that eat a portion of your exercise calories back (start with 50% and adjust up or down based on rate of loss over a period of like 4 weeks).
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    ^^ good post.

    Speaking very generally... I would say that 1lb per week is most ideal for most people under most circumstances. Emphasis on "most". 2lbs per week is the max that is considered healthy, but even that can be too much/fast for some people

Categories