Ridiculous amount of calories to eat after exercise.

girlytechphd

I do the same thing. I have a 1200 calorie goal and I usually exercise and burn 1000 to 2000 extra calories most days. I eat if I am hungry but I don't just eat because there are calories left for me to consume. If I am hungry, and some days I am from those extreme calorie burn days, I will eat. This has worked for me as I am losing about a pound or two a week. I am heavy (210 lbs 5'8'') so this weight loss for me is good. I think listening to how you are feeling is the best thing to do. If you are hungry then eat a healthy snack but don't feel pressured to stuff your self.

cwolfman13

There's absolutely no problem with running a negative net...that is 100% fine. That is how you do weight loss, guys. More calories burned than consumed. All these weight loss myths are making everyone struggle - "don't eat below bmr!" "eat back all your exercise calories!" "don't net negative!" those are just ways of saying "I want to eat more but I'll feel bad if I don't actually have a reason to". Just admit that you personally don't have the correct diet/habits to eat at a lower deficit than you are. That's fine. But don't tell people who *can* eat lower that it's bad. It absolutely is not, as long as you have fat stores on your body.

Ummmm....yeah, no...you don't negative net. Do you even know how this tool works?

This is 5th grade math...the reason people are having problems is becomes they are apparently mathematically illiterate.

3dogsrunning

There's absolutely no problem with running a negative net...that is 100% fine. That is how you do weight loss, guys. More calories burned than consumed. All these weight loss myths are making everyone struggle - "don't eat below bmr!" "eat back all your exercise calories!" "don't net negative!" those are just ways of saying "I want to eat more but I'll feel bad if I don't actually have a reason to". Just admit that you personally don't have the correct diet/habits to eat at a lower deficit than you are. That's fine. But don't tell people who *can* eat lower that it's bad. It absolutely is not, as long as you have fat stores on your body.

Ummmm....yeah, no...you don't negative net. Do you even know how this tool works?

This is 5th grade math...the reason people are having problems is becomes they are apparently mathematically illiterate.

Thank you. I hit reply, started typing but couldn't even be bothered.
Gotta love when someone who has no clue insults people who actually understand how the math works.

diannethegeek

I do the same thing. I have a 1200 calorie goal and I usually exercise and burn 1000 to 2000 extra calories most days. I eat if I am hungry but I don't just eat because there are calories left for me to consume. If I am hungry, and some days I am from those extreme calorie burn days, I will eat. This has worked for me as I am losing about a pound or two a week. I am heavy (210 lbs 5'8'') so this weight loss for me is good. I think listening to how you are feeling is the best thing to do. If you are hungry then eat a healthy snack but don't feel pressured to stuff your self.

We already did why hunger is not the best indicator that you're getting enough to eat way back on page 2.

This thread is eating it's own tail, now.

JoRocka

1000 is a lot of burn- I concur with Waldo on burn estimates- I find myself regularly in the 6-800 range for what is tantamount to about 4 hours of on/off work in a day. I've been running 15+ hours of exercise a week for over a year- my burns are consistent and I've had 1 cycle of work for me to know I'm roughly where I need to be as far as food.

If you are using that much energy- and not fueling it you WILL break- your body doesn't repair- you get tired- you get cranky- you are more likely to injure yourself.

Ask me how I know.

(dance rehearsal's I sometimes lose my balance and almost fall over for quick turns when I'm on a heavy deficit- the impact is significant when you are on any sort of heavy cut for a duration)

Also- that being said- if you are doing heavy cuts and NOT seeing some sort of negative impact over time- I would be seriously questioning your burns because if your intensity isn't suffering after 1 month of intense deficit- then you probably aren't doing the work you think you are.

If I eat 3200 calories of nutrient dense food which gives me what my body needs then, YES, IT IS PERFECTLY ALRIGHT TO REPEATEDLY RUN A DEFICIT. It would be different if I ate 800 calories of pre-packaged low fat meals and then sat in a car all day.

please don't. You just. sigh- you don't understand how this works- so stop giving advice.

swaggityswagbag

There's absolutely no problem with running a negative net...that is 100% fine. That is how you do weight loss, guys. More calories burned than consumed. All these weight loss myths are making everyone struggle - "don't eat below bmr!" "eat back all your exercise calories!" "don't net negative!" those are just ways of saying "I want to eat more but I'll feel bad if I don't actually have a reason to". Just admit that you personally don't have the correct diet/habits to eat at a lower deficit than you are. That's fine. But don't tell people who *can* eat lower that it's bad. It absolutely is not, as long as you have fat stores on your body.

Ummmm....yeah, no...you don't negative net. Do you even know how this tool works?

This is 5th grade math...the reason people are having problems is becomes they are apparently mathematically illiterate.

Thank you. I hit reply, started typing but couldn't even be bothered.
Gotta love when someone who has no clue insults people who actually understand how the math works.

Read closer, and read what I was replying to above. "Net negative" is what people are calling "eating less than you burn with your BMR + exercise". Everyone above me was saying "You can't eat less than the calories you burn in exercise or you'll die" or something like that. That's what I was saying was ridiculous. Like, that's the point of weight loss, is to eat less than you use.

tigersword

That is NOT what net negative means. Net negative means you eat (for example) 1200 calories, but you burn 1300 calories through exercise, leaving a total net intake of -100 calories. That doesn't include the deficit from BMR+NEAT which is already built in, which using an (example) BMR+NEAT of 2000 calories per day, gives this person a deficit of 2100 calories.

Vigilance88

Read closer, and read what I was replying to above. "Net negative" is what people are calling "eating less than you burn with your BMR + exercise". Everyone above me was saying "You can't eat less than the calories you burn in exercise or you'll die" or something like that. That's what I was saying was ridiculous. Like, that's the point of weight loss, is to eat less than you use.

MelodyandBarbells

There's a lot of good advice in this thread (and some very bad advice, too) but I just want to address this: 2200 calories is not a lot of food. That's around what I'd eat for maintenance right now. If you can't figure out how to eat that much now, then what are you planning to do when you reach your goals and transition to maintaining your weight.

That's one of the great perks of the MFP style of dieting. Learning how to eat now is going to build a lot of knowledge and healthy habits that are going to help you keep the weight off long term.

A bunch of people who are working on losing weight somehow won't be able to figure out how to eat 2000 calories per day if that's what they want and need for their body? It seems we're forgetting that this is a flexible tool and that any given two people may not use it the same way, or even get the best results if they do.