Probably a dumb question, but I'm confused

sharonbrandt0317

Hi all,

I've been reading that the minimum calorie intake for women should be 1000-1200 calories (though my friend's Dr said it's more like 1400 for us fortysomethings). My question is, is that calculated including exercise calories? In other words, if I consume 1200 calories but burn 600 doing a 6-mile walk in my favorite park, should I aim to ultimately consume 1800? I'm trying to avoid my body being counterproductive.

Thanks in advance.

sollyn23l2

Most people will say that yes, that includes exercise. And really, there's no reason to go below that. That being said, the 1200 calorie limit is primarily about getting your nutrient requirements. Your body can get all the energy it needs from your stored fat (assuming you are overweight). But it still needs a certain amount of daily protein, fat, and carbs (hence 1200 calories).

yirara

Yes, women should not eat less than 1200 calories to get all nutrition. However, that is still far too low for most people other than very petite, older women. You don't say what your stats are but 1200 calories might be too low for you and you might feel unhappy and miserable (I know I'd chew off my arms!). And yes, eat back at least a part of your exercise calories. Now realistic 600 calories are for a 6 mile walk depends on your weight and terrain. Maybe have a look here and chose net calories: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

You want to eat back net calories because gross calories include your exercise plus the energy your body needs just to keep you alive. The second part is already included in your MFP calorie deficit, thus eating back gross calories means you'd be double dipping.

PAV8888

Whether 1200 1400 or 1800 calories is a small, large or no deficit depends fully on your individual makeup, primarily your size and activity level as well as your underlying muscle mass. I spent a year losing on average one and a half pounds a week while consuming slightly more than 2500 calories a day. My intuition says that >50% of the people using this site/app would gain weight eating that much.

In general, activity should be fueled and overly large deficits are not (debatably) beneficial.

I would caution to account for and differentiate between net additional caloric burn and total burn of an activity, especially if the activity is long duration and relatively moderate in intensity

AnnPT77

Another vote for "it's individual".

Some women here of my age (and similar daily non-exercise activity) say they need to eat 1200 (sometimes even less) to lose weight at all, and that's gross intake. I started out here with MFP's estimate, eating 1200 plus all carefully-estimated exercise calories, and lost way too fast for my own good (got weak and fatigued, took multiple weeks to recover even though I corrected as soon as I realized).

I lost most of 50+ pounds at 1400-1600 plus all exercise calories, so 1600-2000 gross calorie intake most days. Sometimes it was still a little faster than ideal. That was not in my 40s, but at 59-60.

Use a calorie calculator (like MFP) to get a research-based starting estimate. Essentially it will give you the average for a group of people similar to you in the values you tell it (age, size, activity, etc.). Follow that goal for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles if that applies). Then, compare your average weekly weight change to your goal. Adjust, if necessary, the assumption that 500 calories daily is a pound a week, multiplying as needed to figure fractional pounds.

Obviously, if you lose too fast and have negative symptoms like I did, eat more. Otherwise, stick with it long enough to get solid experiential data about how your body responds. People who change goals at the slightest quiver of the scale are going to have more difficulty dialing in predictable weight loss, I think.

The idea that all women need to eat really low calories to lose weight is incorrect. I figure losing at a reasonable rate, while eating the most I can for energy and nutrition, is a path of thriving.