Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Negative Net
JollyHodgers87
Posts: 165 Member
In your opinion, is it ok to have a negative net if you are reaching the negative net but still eating your suggested calorie and nutrition goal? Ie... the negative net is from burning more calories exercising than you do from eating for the day?
This will be a rare occurance in the busy day to day hustle and bustle. But I think this is going to happen today since it's getting to be almost 5 and I'm at -111 and have guitar playing to do later and still a good amount of food to eat for dinner.
Wondering if a person needs to eat a ton of food to make up for it when this happens or is this a good accomplishment?
Thanks and happy weekend!!!
This will be a rare occurance in the busy day to day hustle and bustle. But I think this is going to happen today since it's getting to be almost 5 and I'm at -111 and have guitar playing to do later and still a good amount of food to eat for dinner.
Wondering if a person needs to eat a ton of food to make up for it when this happens or is this a good accomplishment?
Thanks and happy weekend!!!
0
Replies
-
I think this would be super duper difficult assuming you are truly meeting calorie goals.
Most calculators over-estimate calorie burn for exercise.
I think whether it has a lot of negative consequences would depend on how much excess fat your body has to begin with. If you are getting sufficient protein, and have fat to burn, I think it's fine. But I would be keen to listen to your body tomorrow and not freak if it wants you to make up some of the calories it missed from the day prior.0 -
Great question, OP. I was thinking about creating a similar debate. The community in general comes down pretty hard on anybody eating less than 1200 calories. I'm questioning if a person that burns more to make up for the 1200 calorie requirement is any better off. All things being equal, their deficit would be the same.
Concerning you and your negative net. What is your total deficit for the day? I doubt it will do much lasting harm. There are people on here who do intermittent fasting for a day here or there and I doubt they have experienced any long term negative affects. Since you still have dinner, do you think you will finish the day in the negative?0 -
I doubt that anyone would have enough energy to burn enough to be in negative calories....?
I don't know why anyone would want to even try?
Sounds like torture. *shrugs shoulders*
0 -
No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.0
-
Great question, OP. I was thinking about creating a similar debate. The community in general comes down pretty hard on anybody eating less than 1200 calories. I'm questioning if a person that burns more to make up for the 1200 calorie requirement is any better off. All things being equal, their deficit would be the same.
Concerning you and your negative net. What is your total deficit for the day? I doubt it will do much lasting harm. There are people on here who do intermittent fasting for a day here or there and I doubt they have experienced any long term negative affects. Since you still have dinner, do you think you will finish the day in the negative?
I went ahead and prelogged my dinner for tonight since a friend is cooking and I know what I'll be having (the maximum amount of it I will be eating) and the minimum amount of time I'll be burning calories playing guitar and singing and litterally drinking two beers to meet my calorie goal, I'll be at -53!!! I have really pushed myself today working out before work and on my lunch break!0 -
April fools?
Taking a quick peek at your exercise diary, you are vastly overestimating the net calories burned for those activities. And you are logging things like guitar playing and singing, which aren't really exercises and are already included in your normal daily activity, even if you are "sedentary".
Realistically, you aren't netting anywhere below zero calories. And that's assuming your food diary is accurate, which it is likely not given many things look estimated.
0 -
Definitely not good as in something you should be aiming for or something inherently beneficial. If it's just a one day thing, or fits into your overall week (like with someone doing TDEE method with a extra long workout day or someone doing 5:2), not a big deal, though. I've done it, and was far from net negative for the week as a whole. Anyone who has fasted for a day has done it, of course.
On the whole, however, I think the 1200 calorie goal is considered a net goal by most around here.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.
Wow The title was "Negative net" not Negative Nancy! Lort. Anyway, are you sure? Because if I'm eating the right amount of protein and unsaturated fat and fiber, vitamins etc.... I'm not sure how my body would not have enough energy. But that is why I started this forum. Just to be sure. And also if this only happens occasionally is it ok? Geeze! Your comment is terrifying!
0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »April fools?
Taking a quick peek at your exercise diary, you are vastly overestimating the net calories burned for those activities. And you are logging things like guitar playing and singing, which aren't really exercises and are already included in your normal daily activity, even if you are "sedentary".
Realistically, you aren't netting anywhere below zero calories. And that's assuming your food diary is accurate, which it is likely not given many things look estimated.
I've read articles and used a calorie calculator that say the opposite. Also I am not sedentary when I play. We get pretty active.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Definitely not good as in something you should be aiming for or something inherently beneficial. If it's just a one day thing, or fits into your overall week (like with someone doing TDEE method with a extra long workout day or someone doing 5:2), not a big deal, though. I've done it, and was far from net negative for the week as a whole. Anyone who has fasted for a day has done it, of course.
On the whole, however, I think the 1200 calorie goal is considered a net goal by most around here.
Sweet! Glad to hear your hair didn't fall out or you lost your period! I am barely over 1200 on exercise so I don't see anything to be afraid of but do want to take precautions.
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I doubt that anyone would have enough energy to burn enough to be in negative calories....?
I don't know why anyone would want to even try?
Sounds like torture. *shrugs shoulders*
I could do so with a 2.5 to 3 hour bike ride, and go much further negative if I go longer. Seeing as I have done a 3 hour ride fasted, it is possible. However, I don't think I would be a happy camper only eating my calorie goal excluding exercise calories. Would it be horrible once in a while, not really, but even then it would likely hinder recovery.0 -
I agree that 1200 total can be plenty depending on your size and how you are coming to that (protein!!).
If you don't intend to eat back your calories, maybe don't log those items that aren't intentional exercise.
If you do find yourself eating back the calories, maybe make some observations on weight loss/gain over a period of time to determine whether you should eat them back or continue to log lifestyle activities.0 -
wstephens87 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.
Wow The title was "Negative net" not Negative Nancy! Lort. Anyway, are you sure? Because if I'm eating the right amount of protein and unsaturated fat and fiber, vitamins etc.... I'm not sure how my body would not have enough energy. But that is why I started this forum. Just to be sure. And also if this only happens occasionally is it ok? Geeze! Your comment is terrifying!
Yeah, I'm sure...
If you're just fasting once in awhile, not a big deal...netting negative calories (as per the way MFP is designed) on a regular basis will destroy your body from the inside out.
You already "burn" more than 1200 calories per day simply existing...probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 calories or so...do you even BMR bro? So even eating 1200 calories without any exercise at all, you are not quite giving your body what it needs just for basal functions...on top of that you're burning calories doing all of your other stuff you do in a day...so, ya know you have to provide energy for that...then exercise on top of that.
With MFP you're supposed to net to your GOAL...1200 is a fine calorie goal to net to...meaning if you eat 1200 and then exercise off 500, you should eat an additional 500 to net to your GOAL.
I will never understand why this basic concept is so lost on so many people...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »wstephens87 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.
Wow The title was "Negative net" not Negative Nancy! Lort. Anyway, are you sure? Because if I'm eating the right amount of protein and unsaturated fat and fiber, vitamins etc.... I'm not sure how my body would not have enough energy. But that is why I started this forum. Just to be sure. And also if this only happens occasionally is it ok? Geeze! Your comment is terrifying!
Yeah, I'm sure...
If you're just fasting once in awhile, not a big deal...netting negative calories (as per the way MFP is designed) on a regular basis will destroy your body from the inside out.
You already "burn" more than 1200 calories per day simply existing...probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 calories or so...do you even BMR bro? So even eating 1200 calories without any exercise at all, you are not quite giving your body what it needs just for basal functions...on top of that you're burning calories doing all of your other stuff you do in a day...so, ya know you have to provide energy for that...then exercise on top of that.
With MFP you're supposed to net to your GOAL...1200 is a fine calorie goal to net to...meaning if you eat 1200 and then exercise off 500, you should eat an additional 500 to net to your GOAL.
I will never understand why this basic concept is so lost on so many people...
Because people don't understand the long term effect of that sort of energy deficit. They don't realize that just because they are feeling fine right now, that malnutrition is a cumulative thing, and when it shows up in visible effects difficulty sleeping, weakness, fatigue, brittle nails, losing hair, etc. the effect internally are already far progressed. For that matter, the whole concept of that weigh loss they see on the scale being mainly lean mass made up of muscles and organs seems difficult for them to believe because the scale is going down.0 -
I've done it, on rare occasions. It hasn't hurt me, but it is only a few times a year anyway, so not like I'm doing it all the time.0
-
I hit negative net sometimes when I was doing alternate day fasting, never saw any deleterious consequences . But I only did IF for 4mths, and I didn't get a negative regularly.
ETA: This is assuming my fitbit is accurate, which I still have reservations about.. I think it over estimates slightly. Like yesterday i did 21,000 steps (walking, not running), 16kms, and I got an extra 909 calories.0 -
Thank you guys so much! I'm glad I asked! Otherwise I would have made it my goal each day to be close to negative not knowing the consequences! But I might fast occasionally for like a day or two if at all. Thanks again! Clocking out for the weekend!0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I doubt that anyone would have enough energy to burn enough to be in negative calories....?
I don't know why anyone would want to even try?
Sounds like torture. *shrugs shoulders*
When I go backpacking, the American kind not the European kind, meaning a hike that lasts several days, carrying your tent, sleeping bag, clothing, food, a stove, a water purifier, and everything else you need in your backpack while you hike ... the food is usually freeze dried slop. It's hard enough to hike up a mountain pass when you're not carrying a 50 pound backpack; you try to reduce weight as much as you can when you are. Including food. So, I do this sometimes for 4 or 5 days at a time in the summer. That slop, it's nasty. You lose your appetite real quick. I don't know how many calories I burn hiking 10 mountainous miles with a heavy pack, but I know by the third day I just can't stomach more than one meal.
I had plans to hike from Easy Pass to Stehekin, but changed them on day four because I couldn't eat any more of that stuff. Decided to bail via the Thunder Creek trail which required me to hitch hike back to my car.
So yes, it can be done. And yes, it's unpleasant. I wouldn't recommend it, but I'll do it again several times this summer. You asked "why would you even try," and my answer to that is there's a lot of beauty and not all of it is right near the road.
Humor: Lose Weight Now With The 10,000-Foot Diet (Semi-Rad)0 -
wstephens87 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.
Wow The title was "Negative net" not Negative Nancy! Lort. Anyway, are you sure? Because if I'm eating the right amount of protein and unsaturated fat and fiber, vitamins etc.... I'm not sure how my body would not have enough energy. But that is why I started this forum. Just to be sure. And also if this only happens occasionally is it ok? Geeze! Your comment is terrifying!
you won't have any energy because you are at negative calories...
0 -
what did you do today to burn 1400 calories?0
-
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »
Jeebers, way over estimating... OP I don't think you have to worry about minus net calories if you're using those numbers.
Are you losing more or less weight then planned?
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I doubt that anyone would have enough energy to burn enough to be in negative calories....?
I don't know why anyone would want to even try?
Sounds like torture. *shrugs shoulders*
When I go backpacking, the American kind not the European kind, meaning a hike that lasts several days, carrying your tent, sleeping bag, clothing, food, a stove, a water purifier, and everything else you need in your backpack while you hike ... the food is usually freeze dried slop. It's hard enough to hike up a mountain pass when you're not carrying a 50 pound backpack; you try to reduce weight as much as you can when you are. Including food. So, I do this sometimes for 4 or 5 days at a time in the summer. That slop, it's nasty. You lose your appetite real quick. I don't know how many calories I burn hiking 10 mountainous miles with a heavy pack, but I know by the third day I just can't stomach more than one meal.
I had plans to hike from Easy Pass to Stehekin, but changed them on day four because I couldn't eat any more of that stuff. Decided to bail via the Thunder Creek trail which required me to hitch hike back to my car.
So yes, it can be done. And yes, it's unpleasant. I wouldn't recommend it, but I'll do it again several times this summer. You asked "why would you even try," and my answer to that is there's a lot of beauty and not all of it is right near the road.
Humor: Lose Weight Now With The 10,000-Foot Diet (Semi-Rad)
This (hiking/backpacking) is when I get to negative net calories. I have the MSR Dragonfly, and I cook pretty good food when I can (good for backpacking anyway because I have the stove for gourmet cooking on the trail). However, the weight and volume are a big limitation.
Having said that, I will also go way over on calories right afterwards (used to binge before hiking, but found my own extra few lbs. just wasn't worth it).0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.
Generally people with the aerobic capacity to continuously maintain the intensity that burns 300 calories in 10 minutes aren't at 350 pounds.1 -
So you're telling me there's a chance.3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.
Generally people with the aerobic capacity to continuously maintain the intensity that burns 300 calories in 10 minutes aren't at 350 pounds.
0 -
So you're telling me there's a chance.3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.
Generally people with the aerobic capacity to continuously maintain the intensity that burns 300 calories in 10 minutes aren't at 350 pounds.
Well, OP is female and they were workout videos. One was an ab/dance video. So that's probably not the case here.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
So you're telling me there's a chance.3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.
Generally people with the aerobic capacity to continuously maintain the intensity that burns 300 calories in 10 minutes aren't at 350 pounds.
Well, OP is female and they were workout videos. One was an ab/dance video. So that's probably not the case here.
That brings up a good point. I don't think gender is a factor in the equation I use. I wonder why that is.
I think some of the sarcasm of my original suggestion of a 350lbs person swimming might have ben lost. Of course, she might be 624 pounds.
@wstephens87 here's a formula I've seen used before: Weight (in lbs) X Time (in minutes) X MET value (for "video exercise workouts, TV conditioning programs (e.g., cardio-resistance), vigorous effort" is 6) X .008 = Calories burned.
So in this case,
if you weigh 180, it would be
180 X 10 X 6 X .008 = 86.4 calories
I made a calculator on google if you're interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit#gid=0
0 -
wstephens87 wrote: »Thank you guys so much! I'm glad I asked! Otherwise I would have made it my goal each day to be close to negative not knowing the consequences! But I might fast occasionally for like a day or two if at all. Thanks again! Clocking out for the weekend!
It doesn't sound like you have a good understanding of how this site works and how to achieve the best possible results. You should read the stickied "most helpful posts" at the top of the getting started forum section.
When you set up MFP and entered your stats and
A goal weight and a rate of loss it calculated a calorie goal for you that means you would lose weight even if you did no exercise. When you do exercise, you are increasing that deficit and if it increases too significantly or takes you below certain levels then that can have negative effects: you risk loss of lean body mass, fatigue, hair loss, brittle nails, not to mention not being able to get adequate nutrition if you aren't eating enough. So you should be eating more if you exercise, so that your net calories stay at or near the goal provided by MFP.
That being said, people often underestimate the calories they take in, and overestimate the calories they burn. It is unlikely that you are exercising with enough intensity to burn 1200 cals/day through exercise alone. You should probably reconsider the accuracy of those estimates, or only eat back a portion of those calories.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
So you're telling me there's a chance.3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe he's 350 pounds and swimming really hard.
Generally people with the aerobic capacity to continuously maintain the intensity that burns 300 calories in 10 minutes aren't at 350 pounds.
Well, OP is female and they were workout videos. One was an ab/dance video. So that's probably not the case here.
That brings up a good point. I don't think gender is a factor in the equation I use. I wonder why that is.
I think some of the sarcasm of my original suggestion of a 350lbs person swimming might have ben lost. Of course, she might be 624 pounds.
@wstephens87 here's a formula I've seen used before: Weight (in lbs) X Time (in minutes) X MET value (for "video exercise workouts, TV conditioning programs (e.g., cardio-resistance), vigorous effort" is 6) X .008 = Calories burned.
So in this case,
if you weigh 180, it would be
180 X 10 X 6 X .008 = 86.4 calories
I made a calculator on google if you're interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit#gid=0
My understanding is that when it comes to calories burns, the gender factor is a very small factor. Men do tend to carry more muscle than women which would burn a few extra calories but not a signficant amount. The overall driving factors are weight and intensity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions