Lowest Healthy NET Calories?

smuckers722

I know there are so many different opinions and theories out there, but I feel like I haven't been able to get or find a satisfactory answer to this question. What is the lowest healthy NET calories (Food intake - exercise = NET) I should end my day with?

I try to be healthy, but I still want to lose. In the past, I would say my lowest NET calorie would be 500-600, but more often my NET calories would be 800-1200. I always ate at least 1,200, sometimes as much as 1,600, but because I would work out and burn calories, my net calories could be lower. (People always think I'm saying I only eat 600 calories when I talk about net, so I just wanted to be clear.)

I saw my doctor this week due to the difficulty I seem to have losing weight (over 185+ days carefully dieting, portioning, clean eating, exercising, logging, weighing, HRM-ing, etc.). I basically just seem to yo-yo in a five lb or so range. He suggested increasing my calories and not having a NET lower than 1,200 a day. However, if I do this, MFP estimates I will only lose .7 lb a week.

It's a difficult pill for me to swallow that I might get a good burn from my exercise, but then be expected to eat all those calories back up in order to still be netting 1,200.

So, as a woman, (stats: 5'2" ranging between 125-130 lbs), what's the lowest NET calories I should shoot for in order to both be healthy and lose weight? And if I stick to 1,200 NET, is .7 lbs really the best I can do as far as the weight-loss goal per week?

megsmom2

Your doctor is right...and seems to understand the MFP method too...rare! Listen to him. Eat more.

Mokey41

Listen to your doctor and with next to nothing to lose you shouldn't be aiming for more than a half pound a week loss. Be very happy if you can even achieve that.

deksgrl

That is a healthy projected loss per week. Because you do not have a lot of weight to lose, you can't expect to lose more quickly than that.

trogalicious

That is a healthy projected loss per week. Because you do not have a lot of weight to lose, you can't expect to lose more quickly than that.

yup.

BarbieAS

"Net calories" is such a meaningless term to me. It's what you eat less what you burn in exercise, but it doesn't take BMR or NEAT into account at all. I never understood why people get so worked up over "net" calories.

You're already in a healthy weight range based on BMI. Based on that alone, I think you shouldn't try or expect to lose more than about 1/2 lb per week. At your weight, it's going to be very hard to lose faster than that.

Here's what I'd do - figure out your average TDEE, based on a week's worth of typical activity. Eat about 10-15% less calories than that every day. Don't worry about "net" calories.

kdiamond

I found the most success changing it up - never eating the same amount of calories per day. 1500 one day, 800 one day, 2000 the next day, etc.. As the other poster said, just average it out over the week.

adorable_aly

Yes, essentially your doctor is giving you appropriate information. losing 0.7lb a week might not sound like much, but slow and steady wins the race. I'm only losing 0.5 a week, but thats ok, I would rather get there slowly and maintain LBM, than lose quickly and look more skinny fat.

erickirb

I would say depends on the person, amount of LBM, total fat reserve, weight, gender, height. That said on average I would say min could range from 900-2000, depending on the above.

OP: Netting 600 cals is the same as eating 600 cals on a day you don't workout. I would also suggest with only 15 lbs to lose that you set your goal to lose 0.5lbs/week. When you don't have a lot to lose the larger your deficit is the large % of your loss will come from lean mass vs. fat. So ask yourself, are you looking at losing scale weight, or fat?

PapaverSomniferum

I am also 5'2" and in the 125-130 range (also a tiny, tiny bone structure). On a body this petite, it is hard as hell to eat low enough calories to lose weight but still get enough nutrients.

it's also easy as hell to gain weight, at least for me, because if i slip up and eat like the "normal" sized people around me, I'm overeating by double or triple what my body needs.

I'm eating at 1200-1500 net depending on my appetite and maintaining. If I eat over 1500 more often than under, I gain. If I eat 1200 and lower I lose, but at a much slower rate than I gain with just a few hundred calories more. .5lb a week is about maximum loss, and since I've got the ability to gain 2 lb a week on just a few hundred calories more, it's frustrating, to say the least. But if I eat less than 900 net, I start losing energy.

I guess what this rambling is saying is, I'm a person who is the same size as you, who gains weight by eating more (surprise, MFP!), and gets sleepy by eating less. There's a fine line between healthy and overweight for little people.

.
.
.
My physical therapist has suggested I go on a Very Low Calorie Diet (she suggested 900 TOTAL not net :noway: ) to get this weight off my midsection once and for all (it drags on my spinal deformity, causing pain and interrupting healing), , then return to my 1200-1500 net for maintenance. I'd like to take her advice, but I also really like eating...

MinnieInMaine

Wow, this the 1st post I've ever seen with a doctor advising an actual healthy approach to weight loss instead of VLCD, pills, etc! Applause to the OP's doc!!

With the amount of weight you have to lose, 1/2 pound per week is a very healthy rate.

Here is a great guideline for setting weekly weight loss goals:
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.

smuckers722

Thanks all! I would be happy if I could lose .5 a week, but that just doesn't normally happen. I know for most people, 1,200 net seems like nothing, but the last time I ate 1,200 NET a day, I only gained weight, so I am nervous about starting to do that. It seems like I have to be incredibly careful with what I eat and work hard just to stay at the upper limit of my healthy BMI. I know it's important to give your body calories to take care of itself, but I am not sure exactly how you "decide" that a particular amount is what's necessary. Like, why 1,200, not 1,000?

smuckers722

I can totally relate to all of that! I gain weight incredibly easily, even if the amount of calories I took in doesn't suggest it should be possible, and losing weight is very difficult.

I am also 5'2" and in the 125-130 range (also a tiny, tiny bone structure). On a body this petite, it is hard as hell to eat low enough calories to lose weight but still get enough nutrients.

it's also easy as hell to gain weight, at least for me, because if i slip up and eat like the "normal" sized people around me, I'm overeating by double or triple what my body needs.

I'm eating at 1200-1500 net depending on my appetite and maintaining. If I eat over 1500 more often than under, I gain. If I eat 1200 and lower I lose, but at a much slower rate than I gain with just a few hundred calories more. .5lb a week is about maximum loss, and since I've got the ability to gain 2 lb a week on just a few hundred calories more, it's frustrating, to say the least. But if I eat less than 900 net, I start losing energy.

I guess what this rambling is saying is, I'm a person who is the same size as you, who gains weight by eating more (surprise, MFP!), and gets sleepy by eating less. There's a fine line between healthy and overweight for little people.

.

deksgrl

Thanks all! I would be happy if I could lose .5 a week, but that just doesn't normally happen. I know for most people, 1,200 net seems like nothing, but the last time I ate 1,200 NET a day, I only gained weight, so I am nervous about starting to do that. It seems like I have to be incredibly careful with what I eat and work hard just to stay at the upper limit of my healthy BMI. I know it's important to give your body calories to take care of itself, but I am not sure exactly how you "decide" that a particular amount is what's necessary. Like, why 1,200, not 1,000?

1200 is a minimum set by health professionals in order to get the amount of nutrients your body needs. You have to eat carefully at 1200 to get all the nutrition.

Megs081211

Thanks all! I would be happy if I could lose .5 a week, but that just doesn't normally happen. I know for most people, 1,200 net seems like nothing, but the last time I ate 1,200 NET a day, I only gained weight, so I am nervous about starting to do that. It seems like I have to be incredibly careful with what I eat and work hard just to stay at the upper limit of my healthy BMI. I know it's important to give your body calories to take care of itself, but I am not sure exactly how you "decide" that a particular amount is what's necessary. Like, why 1,200, not 1,000?

Maybe slowly up your intake to 1200 NET and see when it is you start gaining weight.

Cp731

I found the most success changing it up - never eating the same amount of calories per day. 1500 one day, 800 one day, 2000 the next day, etc.. As the other poster said, just average it out over the week.

yes, good idea, ive been known to do this as well, but not for weight loss, but because this is how it goes for me.

do something different if what you have always done doesn't work. many ppl including your DR. are right in saying increase those cals.

your not going to see weight gain from adding a few hundred or more cals to 1200 cals..infact I always lose more when I have increased my cals.

pechepanda

mfp isnt always accurate with how much it tells you youll lose, it also depends on your body type/metabolism/ eating habits in general, etc... mfp only calculates how much youll lose based on calories, your doctor is right, having a net of 1200 calories and having less sugar and carbs and processed food and more food with nutritional value and eating smaller portions more frequently through the day should help, but thats easier said then done,

1longroad

I am 5' 1" and have a horrible time losing weight, but can gain if I eat even one meal that is higher carbs, even if my total calories are still in range. This is SO frustrating as I love food. ;-) I would love to find the happy medium, as I have been on 800 calories a day since March, to lose what I have.

I am going to try to go to 900 or 1000, to see if I can not gain weight and still lose slowly. So, guess I will find out. I would try the 1200 for two weeks, being careful to still get plenty of meat and vegies in those extra calories.

Smuckers, your dog is SO cute!! We have a golden doodle, who could be your dogs twin!!

Ready2Rock206

Your doctor is right...and seems to understand the MFP method too...rare! Listen to him. Eat more.

This!

mebepiglet123

it so annoys me when people are complaining that they are eating 1200 calories only, as well as exercising there arses off.. and then wonder why they dont lose weight....

well darlings you are starving yourselves and your body is holding on to every ounce of fat.. also long term it affects your metabolism... believe me thats why im overweight at 45...

susannamarie

Thanks all! I would be happy if I could lose .5 a week, but that just doesn't normally happen. I know for most people, 1,200 net seems like nothing, but the last time I ate 1,200 NET a day, I only gained weight, so I am nervous about starting to do that. It seems like I have to be incredibly careful with what I eat and work hard just to stay at the upper limit of my healthy BMI. I know it's important to give your body calories to take care of itself, but I am not sure exactly how you "decide" that a particular amount is what's necessary. Like, why 1,200, not 1,000?

If you were gaining on 1200 net, is it possible that you were overestimating your exercise calories?

herblackwings39

How long did you go netting 500 or 600 calories? It may take your body some time to realize that you're going to continue to feed it before it stops trying to hold on to everything it can.

_blizzard_

I personally don't like going off of net calories because the amount of calories burned is very negotiable. It is much easier to be sure of how much you are eating than actually burning since all our bodies are completely different, with different metabolisms.

smuckers722

I'm very strict with how I count my calories and how I estimate my burned calories. I wear a HRM, so I get as close to an accurate burn count as I can (I know HRMs aren't perfect), and I am very careful about portions, weighing my food, etc. I measure out tablespoons of peanut butter or cups of oatmeal, etc. So when I was netting 1,200, I think I was pretty accurate, and I was gaining weight.

Also, for the poster who asked about netting 600 calories, that would not be every day by any means. Some days I would net 1,200, some 1,000, maybe one or two days of the week I would net 600-800-- those would be on the days I did more cardio and didn't eat back all the calories. I was always putting in at least 1,200 calories, sometimes as much as 1,600, but then burning some so that my net would end up anywhere between 600-1,200 by the end of the day. Now I am trying what the dr. suggested and not having fewer than 1,200 calories NET, and I guess I'll see what the results will be.

I just don't understand how we arrive at the 1,200 number as the "good" number. To lose weight they say to reduce your calorie intake by 500-1000, right? Well, 1,200 is only 300 calories less than the 1,500ish calories I could supposedly eat to maintain my weight. I thought I could eat 1,200 and burn at least 200 and then if I netted 1,000, that would be cutting out 500 cals a day.

smuckers722

Thanks, SunnieRN3! My dog is a whoodle (wheaten-poodle) and he does look similar to some of the golden doodles we've met!

Smuckers, your dog is SO cute!! We have a golden doodle, who could be your dogs twin!!

deksgrl

I just don't understand how we arrive at the 1,200 number as the "good" number. To lose weight they say to reduce your calorie intake by 500-1000, right? Well, 1,200 is only 300 calories less than the 1,500ish calories I could supposedly eat to maintain my weight. I thought I could eat 1,200 and burn at least 200 and then if I netted 1,000, that would be cutting out 500 cals a day.

1200 is the minimum amount set by professionals whereby you can get all of the nutrients you need. And you have to choose your foods carefully at 1200 to get them.

A better way to figure out your calorie reduction is a % off your TDEE. 20% is healthy for most people. You are right when your TDEE is low, subtracting 500 or 1000 is too much of a defecit. So, if your TDEE is truly 1500 (this includes all of your exercise), your 20% cut would be 300 calories.

As you get closer to goal weight, the 20% deficit should drop to 15% and then 10% cut.

MeganLindsay24

I'm a little late with this response but I found it through a google search. I was wondering how you're doing with upping your calories to NET 1200?
I think when you were netting in very low ranges, that is the exact reason why you were not losing weight. Your body thinks it's starving (as someone else mentioned). I, too, am struggling with this. I've been lifting and doing HIIT thinking I can lose on eating 1200-1400 calories (not sure what I was netting, but I am probably burning at least 400 a day)....all it does is leave me tired with no results! At the beginning of the year, I was doing a lifting program and eating 1800-1900 and saw changes, why in the world did I fall back into this "low cal mode"?
The problem with working your butt off AND eating low cal is you'll eventually plateau and you can't do much more to fix it cause...well, you're already working out a lot AND already eating low calories, there's nothing more to change! But trust me, I am in the same exact boat but I'm changing my thinking...finally!!!
This week I'm upping my calories to 1800-2000....I know there is a chance that I will gain while my body adjusts, but I don't care...I know I'm working out and eating right, so I'm not going to beat myself up over some possible water weight gain. What I was doing (and what you are/were doing) isn't working, so why continue doing it?
I decided to set my target calories to the maintenance level of my GOAL weight....so once I get there, I won't have to adjust much. Logically thinking, it should work, but we'll see. I'm just tired of being tired! Good Luck!

imagine977

Wow your story and stats are almost identical to mine! I actually made an appointment with my doctor because I don't understand why I can't lose these pounds! Unfortunately it's not till Dec...but please keep me posted on your results with netting at least 1200 a day. For the life of me I can't figure out what "the answer" is... I hear a lot about tdee minus 20% and while I did try that for a few weeks, the few pounds I gained scared me too much for me to continue with it. I work out 5-6 days a week to mostly Jillian michaels workouts, and while I understand that muscle is developing, I just really can't take these thighs getting much bigger lol... It's funny, I started MFP last year when I weighed 120, trying to get to 115. I'm now hovering around 126-130. What happened?!? Sorry for the long post it's just comforting to see that at least I'm not alone in this...

sourgrape_

It seems that 1200 is just a set number on mfp.
It's the same with me - my tdee would be only just above 1500 without exercise. Therefore there is no way mfp could "let" me lose more than 0,3kg per week as it still tells me to eat my exercise cals back when I up my calorie burn.

imagine977

Have you ever tried weight watchers? I did it once in college and honestly it was the only thing I can ever say "worked" for me. I lost 7 pounds over 7 weeks. Albeit I was very hungry all the time and obsessed over my next meal, but it did take the weight off. I downloaded a points app and am actually giving it a go this week to see what will happen. But yeah, it's not a lot of calories. Between 1200 and 1300 round about. Thoughts?