A possibly stupid question

shrinkingweez

This might be a bit of a silly question, but if I ate 1800 calories a day and did 200 calories of exercise, is that the same as eating 1600 calories a day?

I’m asking because I’d like to eat close to maintenance level for my goal weight in order to lose weight, with the idea that this will make transition into maintenance easier when the time comes; however, I struggle at 1600 calories and find myself super hungry and prone to binge eating. I’m generally okay eating at 1800ish at the moment, so I wondered if I could get to my 1600 goal by adding in 200 calories worth of exercise? Thank you.

Dogmom1978

I mean you can do that, BUT you may find yourself just as hungry because in the end, you are still only getting the 1600 calories that you are very hungry with in the first place.

I’m usually ravenous after a workout, but I don’t eat back all of my calories because I need the exercise to keep me in a deficit.

You will have to try and see how hungry you feel. If you burn the 200 calories and don’t feel hungry, then your plan will work for you.

netitheyeti

Some people (including me) can feel hungrier after working out - I will say tho that having 200kcal more can make a huge difference if you use them to add food that's lean protein or high in volume (and fibre) and low in kcal... I'll sometimes have huge salads for lunch and feel absolutely stuffed.. but they're only about 500kcal (and my main meal of the day)

cmriverside

shrinkingweez wrote: »

This might be a bit of a silly question, but if I ate 1800 calories a day and did 200 calories of exercise, is that the same as eating 1600 calories a day?

I’m asking because I’d like to eat close to maintenance level for my goal weight in order to lose weight, with the idea that this will make transition into maintenance easier when the time comes; however, I struggle at 1600 calories and find myself super hungry and prone to binge eating. I’m generally okay eating at 1800ish at the moment, so I wondered if I could get to my 1600 goal by adding in 200 calories worth of exercise? Thank you.

shrinkingweez, what you are proposing is exactly how Myfitnesspal works.

They take a calorie subtraction (a calorie deficit) off your maintenance calories. When you exercise, you are supposed to use the Exercise section to add in your exercise. So if Myfitnesspal (for instance) gave you 1600 calories to lose weight, then you exercise, it would give you more calories. What you propose is the same thing...you could just use this site the way it's designed.

How do you know your actual maintenance calories? That's another factor. Did MFP give you 1600 calories to lose? How much weight did you tell it you wanted to lose per week?

Theoldguy1

Dogmom1978 wrote: »

I mean you can do that, BUT you may find yourself just as hungry because in the end, you are still only getting the 1600 calories that you are very hungry with in the first place.

I’m usually ravenous after a workout, but I don’t eat back all of my calories because I need the exercise to keep me in a deficit.

You will have to try and see how hungry you feel. If you burn the 200 calories and don’t feel hungry, then your plan will work for you.

A workout that burns an additional 200 calories will not make one "ravenous".

shrinkingweez

Dogmom1978 wrote: »

I mean you can do that, BUT you may find yourself just as hungry because in the end, you are still only getting the 1600 calories that you are very hungry with in the first place.

I’m usually ravenous after a workout, but I don’t eat back all of my calories because I need the exercise to keep me in a deficit.

You will have to try and see how hungry you feel. If you burn the 200 calories and don’t feel hungry, then your plan will work for you.

netitheyeti wrote: »

Some people (including me) can feel hungrier after working out - I will say tho that having 200kcal more can make a huge difference if you use them to add food that's lean protein or high in volume (and fibre) and low in kcal... I'll sometimes have huge salads for lunch and feel absolutely stuffed.. but they're only about 500kcal (and my main meal of the day)

In answer to both of you, I don’t seem to get hungrier after a small amount of exercise (like 200-300 calories worth), so it seems like that might work for me.

cmriverside wrote: »

shrinkingweez, what you are proposing is exactly how Myfitnesspal works.

They take a calorie subtraction (a calorie deficit) off your maintenance calories. When you exercise, you are supposed to use the Exercise section to add in your exercise. So if Myfitnesspal (for instance) gave you 1600 calories to lose weight, then you exercise, it would give you more calories. What you propose is the same thing...you could just use this site the way it's designed.

How do you know your actual maintenance calories? That's another factor. Did MFP give you 1600 calories to lose? How much weight did you tell it you wanted to lose per week?

Those are the maintenance calories for my goal weight, which I found by plugging my goal stats into MFP and setting it to maintain. My actual maintenance level at the moment is about 2500 because I’m so overweight. At the moment I’m set at 1750 to lose 1.5lbs a week as per MFP calculations. I just wanted to get closer to 1600 if possible. I have a LOT of weight to lose (about 150lbs).

sijomial

What you are proposing is slightly unusual but also effective at learning new habits for maintenance, very much a good long term view with a declining calorie deficit / rate of weight loss as you get closer to goal.
There's a book by Alan Aragon & Lou Schuler that suggests exactly what you are doing, despite its cringe-making title it's an interesting read (The Lean Muscle Diet).

Your question about is 1600 the same as 1800 -200 isn't just the way MyFitnessPal works, it's also how your body works in that when you move more you get to eat more and when you move less you need to eat less. A good life lesson.

There's a bonus making the 1800 -200 superior to 1600 in that although the net calories are the same you get more nutrition with the bigger food intake making it easier to hit nutritional goals.

Best of luck, with a lot to lose you do need to make the process as easy to sustain as possible.

springlering62

Exactly correct. Just make sure you’re (or your device) not over crediting for your calorie burn.

Most suggest that you “eat back” about half of the calories shown.

You could try eating the 1800 for a month, and if you don’t feel like you’re keeping traction, go to that half figure.

shrinkingweez

sijomial wrote: »

What you are proposing is slightly unusual but also effective at learning new habits for maintenance, very much a good long term view with a declining calorie deficit / rate of weight loss as you get closer to goal.
There's a book by Alan Aragon & Lou Schuler that suggests exactly what you are doing, despite its cringe-making title it's an interesting read (The Lean Muscle Diet).

Your question about is 1600 the same as 1800 -200 isn't just the way MyFitnessPal works, it's also how your body works in that when you move more you get to eat more and when you move less you need to eat less. A good life lesson.

There's a bonus making the 1800 -200 superior to 1600 in that although the net calories are the same you get more nutrition with the bigger food intake making it easier to hit nutritional goals.

Best of luck, with a lot to lose you do need to make the process as easy to sustain as possible.

Thank you, that’s super helpful and it was nice of you to wish me luck.

shrinkingweez

springlering62 wrote: »

Exactly correct. Just make sure you’re (or your device) not over crediting for your calorie burn.

Most suggest that you “eat back” about half of the calories shown.

You could try eating the 1800 for a month, and if you don’t feel like you’re keeping traction, go to that half figure.

That’s a good suggestion! I have a Fitbit which is use for calorie burn amounts. I usually estimate for 1/2 to 2/3 what it tells me, as I know wearables can overestimate burn amounts.

springlering62

And btw, I burn about 800 calories per day running, walking, yoga’ing and pilates’ing. I also weight train four times a week, but don’t record that.

Speaking personally, as long as I eat well and steadily, I seldom find myself ravenous. When I do, I’m usually under-hydrated and failed to eat enough protein.

Dogmom1978

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

Dogmom1978 wrote: »

I mean you can do that, BUT you may find yourself just as hungry because in the end, you are still only getting the 1600 calories that you are very hungry with in the first place.

I’m usually ravenous after a workout, but I don’t eat back all of my calories because I need the exercise to keep me in a deficit.

You will have to try and see how hungry you feel. If you burn the 200 calories and don’t feel hungry, then your plan will work for you.

A workout that burns an additional 200 calories will not make one "ravenous".

The OP is already hungry at 1600 a day, so eating 1800 and burning 200 will net 1600 at which point they were already hungry sans exercise. So no, 200 calories burnt during exercise won’t make someone very hungry on its own, but when it puts you back into the territory where you are hungry WITHOUT exercise, it could result in a greater feeling of hunger.

Typically I burn upwards of 500 calories in an average workout, sometimes up to 1000 depending on intensity and length of time (1000 calorie burns are more of an all day hike for example). I’m usually pretty hungry after a workout. Everyone’s different, I was just pointing out that it might not have the desired effect.

AnnPT77

shrinkingweez wrote: »

springlering62 wrote: »

Exactly correct. Just make sure you’re (or your device) not over crediting for your calorie burn.

Most suggest that you “eat back” about half of the calories shown.

You could try eating the 1800 for a month, and if you don’t feel like you’re keeping traction, go to that half figure.

That’s a good suggestion! I have a Fitbit which is use for calorie burn amounts. I usually estimate for 1/2 to 2/3 what it tells me, as I know wearables can overestimate burn amounts.

You will want to watch your weight loss rate, and use that to evaluate your calculator or Fitbit's estimates.

Both the calculators and the Fitbit are doing statistical estimates of calorie needs. (The Fitbit's is more personalized, not *necessarily* more accurate.) Both are spitting out the calorie value that would be the average of people similar to you, with respect to the data and measurements available to them.

In the realm of calorie needs, most people are close to average, so these methods are likely to be close to accurate.

But, for a few people, they'll be noticeably further off, either high or low. For an extremely rare few, they'll be *quite* far off. That's the nature of statistical estimates. There's no way to know in advance, how average you are in this realm, but your results will tell you, over a period of multiple weeks when you can average things out and see.

One note: Yes, wearables can overestimate calorie burn. (People often focus on that possibility.) Wearables can also underestimate calorie burn. (People often ignore that possibility.)

My wearable - good brand/model that's accurate for many people here - underestimates my all-day calorie expenditure quite dramatically, by 25-30%, as compared with over 5 years of careful calorie & weight logging experience. Coincidentally, MFP underestimates my needs by about the same extent. It's quite unusual, but it can happen.

Believe your estimates to start, but watch results and adjust if/as needed.

Best wishes!

deepsea117

I would suggest finding out your RMR estimate (Resting Metabolic Rate) and then go from there. Why arbitrarily choose 2000 calories?

Turns out with my RMR now, I'd need about 2375 calories to maintain my weight. Going straight to 1800 for me would be an instant ~600 caloric deficit at the start of a diet?

My stomach won't have shrunk enough by then, and no amount of fiber will stop me from feeling hungry. I would go with maybe -350 caloric deficit, and -150 from exercise a day. That goal gives you -500 calories a day.

×7 days? 1 pound lost.
×4 weeks? 4 pounds lost.

And you didn't go all drastic/set yourself up for failure.

Proof? I went from when my RMR = 2150 (less active) and ate at 1850 (300 caloric deficit.) In 6 weeks, I went to 1650 (500) while being more actlve. I was underestimating my weight loss, but at least reached the pound-a-week by diet.

That way, I set myself up for a pleasant surprise, instead of being disappointed at the scales. 😁

Seriously, it's sounds like hard work, especially because we naturally want instant gratification. But you're worth the investment, and that investment is for a lifetime.

Btw, my RMR being 2375, I eat ~1200 a day--the bare minimum MFP will track. That's -1100 a day...no hunger pangs, energy is fine if not higher. I got here by using the method I just explained. I'm getting all my nutrients needed, and my lab numbers are stellar.

And then after I add light exercise...1000 net calories consumed a day. It's all in my diary.

Good luck, and start with your RMR!

cmriverside

Do not listen to this man "deepsea" who is eating 1000 calories per day..

That's the amount a three year old would eat.


No.

Deepsea, do some reasearch. Or wait till your hair falls out and you have a heart attack. Your choice, always.

cmriverside

Oh, excuse me, 1000 calories a day and then exercise.

So around 700 a day? Excellent. I guess you don't care about your health.

deepsea117

Hahaha! 😂

To the very quick disagree, come at my results. This is about health and I'm doing well. Or...remain safe and unchallenged in your anonymity. 😊

janejellyroll

deepsea117 wrote: »

Hahaha! 😂

To the very quick disagree, come at my results. This is about health and I'm doing well. Or...remain safe and unchallenged in your anonymity. 😊

Your results from a sample size of one don't justify recommending a net 1,000 to another user. Even IF she didn't experience negative consequences from eating well below the recommended level of calories (and that's a big IF), we know that diet adherence is easier when people aren't excessively hungry and OP is already struggling with hunger. Your advice is to go LOWER?

This is ridiculous.

Also, you're anonymous. We're almost all anonymous here. That's not really a valid critique.

cmriverside

My results: lost 80 pounds in 2007. Have kept them off, eating around 2200 a day now. 1800 when I was losing.



Are you under 5 feet tall, Deepsea?

The other problem with your "plan" is that she's already struggling on 1600 - how on God's blue planet is 700-1000 going to be better.

AnnPT77

deepsea117 wrote: »

I would suggest finding out your RMR estimate (Resting Metabolic Rate) and then go from there. Why arbitrarily choose 2000 calories?

Turns out with my RMR now, I'd need about 2375 calories to maintain my weight. Going straight to 1800 for me would be an instant ~600 caloric deficit at the start of a diet?

My stomach won't have shrunk enough by then, and no amount of fiber will stop me from feeling hungry. I would go with maybe -350 caloric deficit, and -150 from exercise a day. That goal gives you -500 calories a day.

×7 days? 1 pound lost.
×4 weeks? 4 pounds lost.

And you didn't go all drastic/set yourself up for failure.

Proof? I went from when my RMR = 2150 (less active) and ate at 1850 (300 caloric deficit.) In 6 weeks, I went to 1650 (500) while being more actlve. I was underestimating my weight loss, but at least reached the pound-a-week by diet.

That way, I set myself up for a pleasant surprise, instead of being disappointed at the scales. 😁

Seriously, it's sounds like hard work, especially because we naturally want instant gratification. But you're worth the investment, and that investment is for a lifetime.

Btw, my RMR being 2375, I eat ~1200 a day--the bare minimum MFP will track. That's -1100 a day...no hunger pangs, energy is fine if not higher. I got here by using the method I just explained. I'm getting all my nutrients needed, and my lab numbers are stellar.

And then after I add light exercise...1000 net calories consumed a day. It's all in my diary.

Good luck, and start with your RMR!

Do you really mean RMR, basically the amount you'd burn in a coma? An RMR of 2375 would be a reasonable estimate for a male in the 275 pound or so range. Any chance you meant TDEE (all day, all source calorie burn) or NEAT (TDEE minus exercise)?

You can't actually determine either RMR or BMR outside of a metabolic lab, though you can estimate them. But they're not really directly useful, in a weight loss context. NEAT or TDEE can be, and they can be estimated also (MFP estimates NEAT and takes off a deficit for you; there are lots of TDEE calculators (so called).) The way you're doing your math, it sound like you mean TDEE, but it's confusing.

As an aside, I don't see how your method is so dramatically different from what OP is suggesting (start from a TDEE or NEAT number, which is lower than current TDEE/NEAT, which creates a deficit) . . . except that you're suggesting she lose weight faster by gradually creating an extreme deficit, something she didn't mention wanting to do. Kind of wanted the reverse, even, it seemed like.

Bottom line, I disagree with your advice, for reasons others have mentioned, and because - as a 5'5" woman, in the 150s pounds at the time, 1200 *plus* all exercise calories was way too little for me to eat, eventually made me weak and fatigued, and it took weeks to get back to normal. That, when I was fit and healthy going into it, and 1200 was a rational estimate for weight loss for my demographic profile (it just turned out to be an incorrect rational estimate 😆).

I'm happy its working for you, but advocating VLCD is outside TOS here, besides. (In case someone flags your post over that, it wasn't me.)

deepsea117 wrote: »

Hahaha! 😂

To the very quick disagree, come at my results. This is about health and I'm doing well. Or...remain safe and unchallenged in your anonymity. 😊

I like remaining safe, so that's one good thing, I guess.

But you can feel free to come at my results, too: I'm in year 4+ of maintaining a healthy weight (after decades previously of obesity), healthy by all normal health markers and how I feel, strong, active, well-nourished. 🤷‍♀️

P.S. to OP: Sorry for the slight digression. I started weight loss striving to eat at goal weight's maintenance, before I came to MFP, and that worked OK for a while. Unfortunately, I'm an impatient person, so the lighter I got, the slower the loss using that strategy, and I got frustrated. I joined MFP then (and stumbled briefly over that 1200 calorie nonsense), then ended up losing around another 30 pounds, for a total of 50-some, at 1400-1600 calories plus all exercise calories, so actually eating something like 1600-2000 calroies most days. In total, it took me a little less than a year to lose 50ish. I've known others here who did what you're suggesting, the whole way - eating at goal weight maintenance - and were happy with that approach. (They're more mature than I am. 😉) And your idea of being a little more active, to allow you higher gross calories but the same net, is perfectly fine.

age_is_just_a_number

My thoughts:
Eat a well balanced healthy diet with whole foods, a variety of fruit and vegetables and whole grains
Do your exercise
Track what you eat and your exercise
Calories burned in exercise can be difficult to determine
Then monitor your weight and measurements
After a few weeks if you are trending:
- downward, but not too fast ( generally guidance is nor more than 2 pounds per week), then you are on the right track.
- Upward, then you either need more exercise or less food

Simple, not always easy.

Take care

deepsea117

janejellyroll wrote: »

Your results from a sample size of one don't justify recommending a net 1,000 to another user. Even IF she didn't experience negative consequences from eating well below the recommended level of calories (and that's a big IF), we know that diet adherence is easier when people aren't excessively hungry and OP is already struggling with hunger. Your advice is to go LOWER?

This is ridiculous.

This isn't statistics. This isn't a sample size trying to prove probabilities. This is something I just did.

If you don't like striving to push your limits as to what you CAN'T or WON'T try, fine. That sounds like a personal problem.

But don't doom a user asking a question to what YOUR limits or capabilities are. You're short-changing that user.

THAT is ridiculous.

janejellyroll wrote: »

Also, you're anonymous. We're almost all anonymous here. That's not really a valid critique.

Oh it isn't...? Hmm. Somehow, you can come at my argument, and somehow I'm able to respond to anyone like I just did to you. I'm not exactly ducking your comment like someone who is TRULY anonymous would, am I? 😏

Those who can't, are always busy telling the ones that just DID--that it can't be done. 😐

Talk is cheap though, so here's an 1100 NET calorie day (just today.) I'll send a screen shot of the macros/nutrients/meals/my progress... whatever. Just don't hang your limits on others who may not know theirs, and get all snarky about it.

janejellyroll

deepsea117 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Your results from a sample size of one don't justify recommending a net 1,000 to another user. Even IF she didn't experience negative consequences from eating well below the recommended level of calories (and that's a big IF), we know that diet adherence is easier when people aren't excessively hungry and OP is already struggling with hunger. Your advice is to go LOWER?

This is ridiculous.

This isn't statistics. This isn't a sample size trying to prove probabilities. This is something I just did.

If you don't like striving to push your limits as to what you CAN'T or WON'T try, fine. That sounds like a personal problem.

But don't doom a user asking a question to what YOUR limits or capabilities are. You're short-changing that user.

THAT is ridiculous.

janejellyroll wrote: »

Also, you're anonymous. We're almost all anonymous here. That's not really a valid critique.

Oh it isn't...? Hmm. Somehow, you can come at my argument, and somehow I'm able to respond to anyone like I just did to you. I'm not exactly ducking your comment like someone who is TRULY anonymous would, am I? 😏

Those who can't, are always busy telling the ones that just DID--that it can't be done. 😐

Talk is cheap though, so here's an 1100 NET calorie day (just today.) I'll send a screen shot of the macros/nutrients/meals/my progress... whatever. Just don't hang your limits on others who may not know theirs, and get all snarky about it.

You were the one saying that your "results" established that this was a safe plan. I'm simply pointing out that one individual not noticing harm -- at this moment -- from undereating does not establish that this is generally a safe idea for others.

Refusing to underfeed myself isn't the same thing as refusing to "push my limits."

It's not "dooming" anyone to point out that restricting calories below 1,200 net isn't going to be a great solution for someone who is consuming more than that and is already struggling with hunger.

"Ducking a comment" has nothing to do with being anonymous. The person you previously critiqued for being "anonymous" was interacting with you, so clearly you're now moving the goalposts on what you mean by "anonymous."

What are you trying to establish with the screenshot of a single 1,110 net day? If you share what you think this shows, I'll be happy to address it.

We're talking about your statements and your recommendations. I'm not sure why you're so concerned with other stuff, but let's keep this on your recommendations, okay?

paperpudding

. If you don't like striving to push your limits as to what you CAN'T or WON'T try, fine. That sounds like a personal problem.

But don't doom a user asking a question to what YOUR limits or capabilities are. You're short-changing that user.

Let's stick to answering OP's question.

Her question wasn't about striving to push your limits

If you want to do that - fine.

But it isn't relevant to the question.

ahoy_m8

OP, I think you have a very smart approach. Over time, I have seen other MFP users who have lost significant weight & had success with a strategy of eating at GW maintenance for at least part of the time. It's slow at the end, but actually, that's a really good thing.

You're thinking smart.

Dogmom1978

Also, ANYONE who ever suggests you should eat BELOW 1200 a day: ignore everything they say so that you don’t make yourself ill.

AnnPT77

OP, a very wise person here (so not me! 😉) once said: She who loses weight on the most calories wins.

As long as a satisfactory loss rate (in one's own view) can be achieved, there are various benefits from that:

* It reduces the chance of adaptive thermogenesis (basically, the body training itself to be more fuel-efficient and run on slightly fewer calories, even beyond what's expected from just being lighter - happens for some, possibly temporarily, possibly long-term).
* It - as you've noted - provides great practice for maintenance. I think everyone would be well-served to experiment and find good weight-maintenance habits, *during* weight loss, whether from the beginning or for a few months near the end. That little cushion of the deficit helps adjust for any experimental mis-steps along the way, as well as making maintenance itself more straightforward. If you read in the "Maintaining Weight" part of the forums, you'll find that many people find weight maintenance more difficult than weight loss, so it's a plus to plan and prepare for that.
* It keeps energy level up, encouraging us to be more active, which is good for a body in lots of ways, beyond calorie burn.
* It allows room for more and better nutrition, and possibly even room for small day-to-day treats that keep the process a happier one.

. . . and more.

It can be a point of pride for some to lose fast, and "push their limits". That's one approach. Personally, from being here for a few years now (maintaining healthy weight), it appears to me that that strategy can have a high burnout factor along the way (people disappear, some reappear later with "I'm back after fast loss and regain" messages). There are the (fortunately rare) stories of people experiencing really bad effects from ultra-fast loss (hair loss, gallbladder problems, even very rarely heart problems), and fatigue/weakness (like I had) are somewhat commonly reported. A few people (I could name some) have ridden the fast loss to goal, then had a difficult, extreme snap-back of appetite/cravings in the early stages of maintenance. Those problems aren't necessarily universal among those pursuing fast loss, but they're not super uncommon, either.

You have a good plan. Though I've only seen a few people use "future maintenance calories from day 1" as a strategy, there are many here who've lost large amounts of weight, and even kept it off for quite some time, with a "slow/moderate loss" strategy of learning and practicing new habits. I'm not going to try to tell you that that way is the *only* way to long-term success, but it's definitely one way that does work.

Wishing you all the best!

shrinkingweez

Thank you so much everyone who has responded with advice and kind words of encouragement.

I’m definitely not looking to push myself to my limits, I know this is going to have to be a lifelong battle and I’ll already have lost if I’m constantly hungry and miserable. Maybe it’ll take me several years to lose it slowly, but I’m hoping at least it’ll become habit and sustainable that way.

I think I am going to try and carry on with my way of eating at goal maintenance calories for now, experimenting in ways to make it sustainable and enjoyable. I’ll also make sure to keep an eye on my trends as was suggested and tweak my calories as needed that way.

I’m not even really thinking about exercise at the moment beyond the little I want to do to burn 200ish a day. I’ve tried going all in on both before and I burn out fast. I’m just going to focus on the food side of things and maybe when I get a bit lighter, moving more will become something I want to do more of naturally.

Thank you again for your insights and kindness.

FrecklePatch

Hi there! I had to play around with what I was actually eating. Tons of veggies helps me. A lot. I know it's not for everyone, but I just cant beat the caloric values of a boatload of veggies. And its Zuchinni season!!

Just my 2 cents.