Going under my goal

Mherrm

I frequently finish under my "suggested goal". Is this bad?

I do not "starve" or anything; I just eat my 3 meals, no snacks, and only water...I am full throughout the day. I am just wondering if there are any negatives to finishing under my suggested number every day.

psuLemon

yes, you slow your results and make it harder to hit your goals. Eating enough is critical to success.

Mherrm

So consuming less calories than suggested actually goes against weight loss? So I should overeat or what? Because I am already full with what I eat and finish under the suggested calories.

rileysowner

It really depends on how far under. I am often under by less than 50 calories, I would figure unless you are on 1200 calories a day, a range of 50 above or below is ok, even within 100 above and below would be fine for most. Consistently being way under more that 50 if you are at 1200 or more than 100 if your calories are higher is not a good thing.

Lack of hunger is not a good indication since more people who struggle with overweight, also have a messed up sense of hunger. Here is a helpful post that is related to this. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/231636-the-eating-when-you-re-not-hungry-dilemma

spgipson

My suggestion is to include some low calorie snacks...watermelon, celery with Laughing Cow cheese, apple, pretzels...etc. Just a little something between your three meals to keep your body burning. Nothing in big quantites...just a snack.

WifeMomDVM

As long as you are consuming at least 1200 calories, you should be able to avoid dreaded starvation mode. Listen to your body. If you are under each day, you may get results a little faster, but if it's too extreme, then yes you can run into trouble.

If you have 100-200 cals left over, probably no biggie. If you have 700 calories left over every day, THEN maybe you have a problem...

Schwiggity

Being under by maybe 10% of your target caloric intake isn't horrible. It's not really an exact science though. Just eat healthy and keep your portions in control, and as long as you're not drastically below your caloric goal, you shouldn't worry.

HMonsterX

I am living proof of the dreaded "starvation mode". Last week, i lost 0 pounds, after three weeks of good loss. The reason? I was just over 1200 every day, including days when i did hard cardio and weights. The dietician i saw yesterday confirmed this.

I know, i know...it still hurts my head too... "Eat MORE to LOSE weight"...does not compute. After years of being told eating more makes you fat...now im told to eat more to lose weight?

But, the scale doesnt lie, and when i ate that little i didnt lose weight. Ive been back up to 17-1800 this week, and have lost 2 pounds already.

Being far under your goal is worse than being slightly over imo.

psuLemon

I am living proof of the dreaded "starvation mode". Last week, i lost 0 pounds, after three weeks of good loss. The reason? I was just over 1200 every day, including days when i did hard cardio and weights. The dietician i saw yesterday confirmed this.

I know, i know...it still hurts my head too... "Eat MORE to LOSE weight"...does not compute. After years of being told eating more makes you fat...now im told to eat more to lose weight?

But, the scale doesnt lie, and when i ate that little i didnt lose weight. Ive been back up to 17-1800 this week, and have lost 2 pounds already.

Being far under your goal is worse than being slightly over imo.

Great to hear. it comes down to one simple fact..... "food is fuel" and if you don' t have fuel, your body can work to burn fat and calories.