Daily Calorie Averages

smand2000

So, I know that meal timing doesn't matter. It is the total calories consumed over the course of the day counts. However, if I splurge one day (say 3000 calores), and then eat only 500 calories the next day, is that equivalent to eating each day at 1750 calories? Or is there a qualitative difference when splurging/fasting over the course of two days? How about three (4100 calories, then 500, then 500, as opposed to 1700 daily)?

If excess calories are stored as fat the first day, an equivalent amount of fat would not necessarily be lost on day 2 or 3 (lean tissue could be burned instead, for example), so even though for weight purposes it might be the same, for body comp purposes it might not. But I'd love to hear more knowledgeable folks chime in.


I thought about this after going a little nuts over new years!

1princesswarrior

One or two days will not derail you. You have to eat 3500 calories over maintenance to gain a pound.

That being said some folks do use a weekly calorie budget so I will be interested in other responses. Remember eating at 500 calories over an extended period of time is not healthy.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

Eh, I keep track by week. but no day am I under 1,200 (roughly) unless sick. If that means I am over for the week, it means I am over for the week.

MassMuscle30

I would just try to hit my goal everyday, because you don't won't to confuse your body by eating like that, or eating the wrong foods, so lets just say you have some cheat day's, where you go out and eat the good oh Popeyes Chicken Meal, thats 800 calories & some cake thats about 500 Calories and what ever els you can think of that high In Calories. Now If you do that for 3 days on and then eat clean for 4 days on but only 500 Calories a day all that fat that you put on would be harder to lose vs eating clean for all of those days. So If you eat clean for all those day's you would still lose weight and you'll pack on some good lean muscle mass & tone. So I wouldn't eat like that.

jweindruch

Preface: I'm not a doctor or scientist. This is just what makes sense to me and from my own experience rings true:

I'm going to simply the possible stages of you metabolism:
1. Gaining weight
2. Maintaining weight
3. Losing weight
4. Starving

In order to be successful at any of the above stages you need to maintain that phase for longer than 48 hours. If you jump back and forth from the stages your body will get confused and your human biology will sabotage your goals.

Starving happens when you eat less than say 1300 calories (based on me), but it can also happen when you're eating 1500 calories too. How??? When you don't eat a nutritious diet. For example, If I eat 1500 calories a day in McDonalds Hamburgers I will be "Starving"- so while you're "Losing weight" you MUST eat lots of vegetables because they have the highest nutritional value. Same thing with fats. What has more nutrition a fatty avocado or olive oil? A fatty raw cashew or vegetable oil? Hopefully you know the answers were avocado and raw cashew.

1500 calories a day is very close to the bottom (for me) and I don't want do jump between the stages of the metabolism listed above. The ONLY way to be successful in a TIMELY FASHION is to maintain #3 "Losing weight" until you reach your goal and then switch to "Maintaining weight" which is where you want to stay. Your metabolism is like a ship. If you overeat on Thursday and then try to eat great on Friday it will go in circles. On Thursday you told the ship to make a U-turn and turn around. It says "yes sir" but you know how long it takes a giant ship to turn around. Then on Friday you said make another U-turn and it does it all over again. Basically, those two days were a complete waste of time and you pretty much sabotaged 72 hours where you could have lost a pound because you wanted to eat 3000 calories one day and 1000 calories the next. The biology is the human body wants to protect you. And if you're in a "Losing weight" zone it will wait until you finally eat an excess and turn all of it into stored fat to "help" you, but you and I both know that's the last thing we want. But the science doesn't lie, and that's how the body reacts to drastic changes. And a 1000+ calorie difference over two days is a drastic change to the body. Thus, once you reach your goal I/you will ever so slightly raise the calories up 100-200 at time to reach "Maintaining weight" - moral of the story: COUNT YOUR CALORIES AND HIT YOUR NUMBER EVERY DAY.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

In order to be successful at any of the above stages you need to maintain that phase for longer than 48 hours. If you jump back and forth from the stages your body will get confused and your human biology will sabotage your goals.

Eh, no.

You are actually oxidizing and storing fat constantly throughout the day as well as producing and breaking down muscle tissue, so all that matters is a net deficit over time. A weekly average is fine. There's even a new approach called 5:2 fasting where you eat at maintenance 5 days a week and basically "fast" 2 days, eating around 500 calories.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I'm not a doctor or scientist.

I am just going to quote this for emphasis.

twixlepennie

I did alternate day IF for most of my weight loss (ie JUDDD) and that's pretty much the format I followed all the time-I alternated 'up' days (maintenance range calories), with 'down' days/fasting days of under 500 calories. Worked well for me and there's lots of people who've had success with this method. Another, more laid back version, is the 5:2 method which is getting a lot of buzz right now. Both plans have groups here on MFP if you're interested in more info

twixlepennie

Preface: I'm not a doctor or scientist. This is just what makes sense to me and from my own experience rings true:

I'm going to simply the possible stages of you metabolism:
1. Gaining weight
2. Maintaining weight
3. Losing weight
4. Starving

In order to be successful at any of the above stages you need to maintain that phase for longer than 48 hours. If you jump back and forth from the stages your body will get confused and your human biology will sabotage your goals.

Starving happens when you eat less than say 1300 calories (based on me), but it can also happen when you're eating 1500 calories too. How??? When you don't eat a nutritious diet. For example, If I eat 1500 calories a day in McDonalds Hamburgers I will be "Starving"- so while you're "Losing weight" you MUST eat lots of vegetables because they have the highest nutritional value. Same thing with fats. What has more nutrition a fatty avocado or olive oil? A fatty raw cashew or vegetable oil? Hopefully you know the answers were avocado and raw cashew.

1500 calories a day is very close to the bottom (for me) and I don't want do jump between the stages of the metabolism listed above. The ONLY way to be successful in a TIMELY FASHION is to maintain #3 "Losing weight" until you reach your goal and then switch to "Maintaining weight" which is where you want to stay. Your metabolism is like a ship. If you overeat on Thursday and then try to eat great on Friday it will go in circles. On Thursday you told the ship to make a U-turn and turn around. It says "yes sir" but you know how long it takes a giant ship to turn around. Then on Friday you said make another U-turn and it does it all over again. Basically, those two days were a complete waste of time and you pretty much sabotaged 72 hours where you could have lost a pound because you wanted to eat 3000 calories one day and 1000 calories the next. The biology is the human body wants to protect you. And if you're in a "Losing weight" zone it will wait until you finally eat an excess and turn all of it into stored fat to "help" you, but you and I both know that's the last thing we want. But the science doesn't lie, and that's how the body reacts to drastic changes. And a 1000+ calorie difference over two days is a drastic change to the body. Thus, once you reach your goal I/you will ever so slightly raise the calories up 100-200 at time to reach "Maintaining weight" - moral of the story: COUNT YOUR CALORIES AND HIT YOUR NUMBER EVERY DAY.

:huh:

Mother_Superior

I'm not a doctor or scientist.

I am just going to quote for this for emphasis.

*nods* I liked the shouty part at the end.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I'm not a doctor or scientist.

I am just going to quote for this for emphasis.

*nods* I liked the shouty part at the end.

CAPS MEANS IT'S SRS, OKAY?!

geebusuk

As above, people seem to be having success with a 5:2 ratio, as well as the 'lean gains' approach I mention below, where you eat below one day and over the next.

That I can see, there are two main reasons people think eating low calories is a bad thing:
1: You won't get enough micronutrients.
2: You'll lose muscle.as well as fat.

As far micronutrients goes, it's quite likely you'll have had plenty. For the majority of things the body doesn't, whatever people that believe the vitamin bottles might think, need everything every day. The body evolved to cope with much more challenging conditions than that! And, further; if you're careful you can easily get a hell of a lot of them in to not many calories.

Losing muscle I'm guessing you'll need a bit of time for, especially if the 5:2 stuff is well researched (I haven't looked in to it myself).
I would keep protein high and make sure I did some resistance work to try and keep muscle.
If I was going for extended periods on low calories, I'd look to have a higher calorie day occasionally.

In order to be successful at any of the above stages you need to maintain that phase for longer than 48 hours. If you jump back and forth from the stages your body will get confused and your human biology will sabotage your goals.

These people will have got their results using the 'leangains' method where one day they eat under their countenance calories on rest days and over on workout days
http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/
I've been doing similar, though for me it's more been a case of eating a fair bit under on rest days and maintenance or a little under on workout days. Doing me well so far with weight loss and strength gains - noticeable tight clothing around muscles that I haven't had at this weight before, while at this weight in the past the same clothes were definitely tighter on the waist..

I'd also take issue that you need 'nutrition' to not be hungry. I can assure you that if I have a load of Fast Food Hamburgers I'll be full. I may not be as full as if I at the same calories of Strawberries (1200 calories would be about 4kg, as an example), but that's just nutrient density.

Mother_Superior

I'm not a doctor or scientist.

I am just going to quote for this for emphasis.

*nods* I liked the shouty part at the end.

CAPS MEANS IT'S SRS, OKAY?!

It's a sure fire way to command respect. *nods* true story

jweindruch

The 5:2 is a fad diet.


The UK National Health Service posted a detailed article on the diet on its website citing limited evidence for weight loss in humans, and a lack of good evidence for increasing lifespan, improving cognitive decline, and prolonging life in humans in real life (as opposed to animal and laboratory results). The conclusion was: "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you."

I apologize if I offended anyone using caps. Myfitnesspal is the first place online i've posted comments so I guess I'm not familiar with the protocools. Anyway, I respect some of the argumentative replies, but I was simply just sharing my own experience and what rings true for me.

Happy New Year! All the best with your particular health goals!

jweindruch

Just read this response from a Dr. in S. Cali. - I'm a bit of a freethinker so I don't just believe everything any doctor says, but I think what is said here rings true from my experiences:

Dear Doctor,
I decided this is the year I will lose that 25 pounds I gained after college. I am dieting and counting calories. I heard that you shouldn’t eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day, and I am wondering why? Can you please explain, because I thought I should eat as little as possible.
— Dieting For Real This Time

This is a great question, and I'm sure that there are other readers who have decided on a similar weight-loss resolution as you have! I commend you on your weight-loss resolution.

The principle behind weight loss is simple: you either have to burn more or eat fewer calories. To lose weight, you need to create an energy (or calorie) deficit by eating fewer calories, increasing the number of calories you burn through physical activity, or both. Typically, what is recommended as the safest method is a combination of eating fewer calories and burning calories through physical activity. While you do report that you are dieting and counting calories, you do not mention that you are doing physical activity and exercise, which, as mentioned above, is so important in the safe weight-loss equation.

Keep reading to learn how many calories you should eat on a diet.

Determining a safe daily calorie deficit can be difficult because every person is different when it comes to baseline metabolism, body size and composition, sex, age, and level of physical activity. What is easy to determine, however, is the fact that 3,500 calories equals about one pound of fat. Therefore, you have to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose one pound. For example, if you cut 500 calories from your diet every day, you would lose about one pound a week. Or, if you are physically active, you can eat 250 calories less every day and burn 250 calories per day with your workout. Ideally, you do not want to lose more than one to two pounds per week, which means a safe calorie deficit would be to burn 500 to 1,000 calories per day through a reduced-calorie diet AND exercise.

Determining a safe minimum amount of daily calories can be difficult as well for the same reasons listed above. However, extreme restriction of consumed calories can significantly slow the metabolic rate, and hinder your weight-loss goals. The American College of Sports Medicine states that you shouldn't send signals to your body to conserve calories by detoxing or fasting. They recommend that women should eat at least 1,200 calories per day, and men should eat at least 1,800.

The reason that the metabolic rate slows with prolonged dieting of less than 1,200 calories per day is a chain reaction of physiologic responses to the stress associated with such a restricted diet. Your body initially adapts to the stress of low caloric intake by engaging the "fight or flight" stress response, which has several negative consequences, despite you seeing lower numbers on the scale. The "fight or flight" response stimulates the breakdown of muscle in order to supply the body with enough fuel (glucose) to maintain the blood sugar levels in the absence of sufficient dietary calories. This "fight or flight" stress response will eventually wear out, thus slowing the metabolic rate to compensate for what the body perceives as starvation.

In summary, there are three guidelines to safe and effective weight loss: aerobic physical activity, gradual changes in eating habits to encourage a lifestyle change, and a slow weight loss of one to two pounds per week.

Hopefully, your weight loss questions have been answered with the above information. As always, you should consult with your physician before starting any weight-loss or exercise program. Also, if concerned with dietary or nutritional aspects of weight loss, consulting with a licensed nutritionist or dietitian may be of benefit. Good luck with your continued weight loss!

geebusuk

I'd forgotten all sorts of extravagant claims were made in relation to 5:2. - I've been supping Martin Berkhan's cool aid and he's very level headed in his guide about what has been proven and not - why it should work and so on.
That doesn't mean the core of 5:2 for weight loss is bad, however.

As for the Dr in S Cali's response - it's a generic response to a question which doesn't offer enough information.
A 220lb 6'2" 18 year old male with 15% BF probably shouldn't be anywhere near 1200 calories.
For a 140lb 4'11" 55 year old female with 30% BF, it might be they have to go below that because their metabolism will be burning a lot less. Reasonably, their body probably needs a lot less micro-nutrients too.

MeanderingMammal

So, I know that meal timing doesn't matter. It is the total calories consumed over the course of the day counts. However, if I splurge one day (say 3000 calores), and then eat only 500 calories the next day, is that equivalent to eating each day at 1750 calories? Or is there a qualitative difference when splurging/fasting over the course of two days? How about three (4100 calories, then 500, then 500, as opposed to 1700 daily)?

Personally I look at trends more than individual days, in part because none of my days ever look the same so it's more meaningful to me to consider how things are stacking up over a period, generally a week at a time.

What I have found is that if I don't eat enough in a day I have a really serious mood crash, so that's the main reason that intermittent fasting as an intentional tactic couldn't work for me. I have work colleagues who've said similar things. We need the fuel to function.

Jinxy10236

That's a great explanation! Thanks!