Negative net calories

taso42_DELETED

I happen to think that 2500 - 300 - 500 = 2000. But hey, every body is different. For some people, as we know, 2 + 2 = 90

erickirb

Loads of info here for you in a better way than I could ever explain http://www.shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

Imagine you've eaten 1000 calories but you've burned 500 at the gym, this means your body is running on just 500 calories to perform all of it's functions. This is not enough and as a result your body will start to burn muscle before fat as energy is more readily available from your muscle. Burning away lean muscle means that although your weight will decrease, so will your metabolism (as muscle is an active tissue actively burning calories through the day) If you continue with this pattern your metabolism will eventually slow down so much to reserve energy and you will stop losing weight. The amount of calories you net per day must be no lower than 1200 to allow your body to carry out all of its functions properly. I probably haven't explained this very well, I'm sure others will do a better job.

Good luck!

great response

erickirb

I'm not sure why people would sign up and commit to using a website, such as MFP, then just completely ignore the super simplistic tenants of said program.

Go ahead and continue to have negative calories. And let us know how it works out for you in a couple months.

As noted, I NEVER eat back my calories. I have been at it for over 6 months now, and I am still going strong. Even with having lost this amount of weight, I still continue to lose 2 lbs a week. Booyah!

Much of which now is probably muscle as you don't have much more fat to lose. Is your goal to lose weight or lose fat? If it is to lose fat stick with MFP's calc, having a large deficit when you don't have much to lose causes your body to use muscle not fat as fuel.

Twasney

MFP sets you up to lose weight without exercise by limiting calories, Thats why your calorie limit is ridiculously lower than your proper BMR!!

if you do not eat back those exercise calories you will be putting your self into starvation mode. This may be a good way to drop weight in the short run but will only harm you in the long run!

http://www.livestrong.com/article/497388-is-eating-too-little-bad-for-women/

Hirundo

I agree with all the posts that say eat more...


Being Healthy is a lot more than juste loosing weight ...
You might loose weight right now... but you are certainly not on a healthy way to do it ...
If you do it healthy, its may take a bit longer, but it will become your natural and you have more chances to never regain the weight you have lost....

Please take care of you
Good luck !

sgrinavi

I was thinking about that - the BMR that MFP assigns to each individal is only based on height, weight, age and gender. It doesn't take into account body composition. So, even if you have two people who weigh the same, are the same height, age, and gender, the one with the lower body fat percentage is going to have a higher BMR. But MFP doesn't take that into account.

Same thing with your HRM , body fat tables, etc..... I have a friend that is fairly lean who just had a v02 max test - he was 500 cals a day below what "the tables" were telling him to eat. When he added a meal he instantly started reaching his goals. I guess it's trial and error or some real tests

rachmaree

Loads of info here for you in a better way than I could ever explain http://www.shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

Imagine you've eaten 1000 calories but you've burned 500 at the gym, this means your body is running on just 500 calories to perform all of it's functions. This is not enough and as a result your body will start to burn muscle before fat as energy is more readily available from your muscle. Burning away lean muscle means that although your weight will decrease, so will your metabolism (as muscle is an active tissue actively burning calories through the day) If you continue with this pattern your metabolism will eventually slow down so much to reserve energy and you will stop losing weight. The amount of calories you net per day must be no lower than 1200 to allow your body to carry out all of its functions properly. I probably haven't explained this very well, I'm sure others will do a better job.
Good luck!

great response

Agree!

tigersword

I'm on 1650 caleries per day as suggested by MFP. I never eat my exercise calories and I've done fine losing weight.
The way I see this whole thing... we don't exercise so we can eat more calories every day. We exercise to build muscle and burn calories to lose more weight, or at least maintain our current weight. It doesn't make any sense to eat your exercise calories. It's counter productive.
I can do 45 minutes on the ellptical machine and burn over 1000 calories at my current weight and with the resistance at 100%. I'm certainly not going to eat an extra 1000 calories that day, but I will burn off approximately a 1/4 pound.

Exercise has nothing to do with losing weight. Losing weight is 100% diet. Exercise is to keep your body in healthy physical shape. You need to properly fuel your workouts. If you're exercising to create a deficit to lose weight, than you should be eating your maintenance calories instead of the calories MFP gives you. Otherwise, you are creating too large of a calorie deficit and your body burns off muscle instead of fat to compensate, Since muscle is dense, you lose weight rather quickly according to the scale, but you also lose muscle tone and not fat.

Fat is more important to the body than muscle, as fat insulates and protects organs, as well as creates hormones. If you severely restrict calories like that, then your body will choose to burn muscle instead of fat, every time.

Twasney

Ya? So a 305 lb college linebacker has the same caloric requirement as a 98 lb office worker?

No.... Your minimum caloric requirement is based on your weight, activity level, age and lean mass.

I wish people would stop the mis-information

I was thinking about that - the BMR that MFP assigns to each individal is only based on height, weight, age and gender. It doesn't take into account body composition. So, even if you have two people who weigh the same, are the same height, age, and gender, the one with the lower body fat percentage is going to have a higher BMR. But MFP doesn't take that into account.

Yes but you can easily figure out your personal BMR, then subtract your deficit needed to drop the weight your looking to see each week and then go into settings and change your caloric goal from 1500 to say 1680 or 1800 to say 1540.

This is how my nutritionist did it for me

figure out your BMR - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Then use the Harris Benedict Formulat BMR X activity level - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

This will give you a daily calorie limit, now create the deficit by taking the HBF X7 - weekly deficit / by 7 = daily limit to stay at your current activity level (IE TOTALLY SEDENTARY) and lose the amount of weight you want. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/calorie-intake-to-lose-weight.php

Mine is actually 1160 which is unhealthy so it is rounded up to 1200 if I do absolutley nothing all day but work my job etc. Now when I add exercise I have to eat those calories to keep giving my body fuel to build muscle and continue to lose 2 pounds per week!

I hit a nasty plateau and she told me to eat more!! I didn't want to...so I didn't!! I did not break the plateau until I gave in and did what she said and I lost 4 pounds and some inches in a week!

Hope that helps!!

killagb

TavistockToad

With all due respect, Tavistocktoad, many people on this board, including Gennawest and myself have been quite successful not eating their exercise calories. I have lost 28 lbs, my body fat % has decreased by 12% and my muscle weight has increased. I feel 10 years younger, have plenty of energy, eat healthy food and do not feel as though I am starving myself. I eat approximately 1,400 calories per day, whether or not I exercise, and rarely eat my exercise calories. So I say, chacun ses goûts..

i didnt mention exercise calories...

servilia

Ok, so I will probably get hammered for this, but I will say it anyways. I NEVER eat back my calories for a variety of reasons:

1) I dont have money for an HRM so I never know exactly what I burned, so I never know exactly what to eat back.
2) This to me, defies a simple concept of calories in vs. calories out.
3) Away from this site, I have NEVER heard about eating back what you have lost.
4) On a personal note, I have lost 93 lbs (i think thats where I am at, I stopped counting) in a little more than 6 and a half months, by doing it the good 'ole fashion way.
5) Starvation mode to someone that is at 200 lbs seems a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, they are not starving- they are probably (and at least) 30 lbs over weight.

Thats it, and thats all. I am no expert, but I do have common sense. If it works for you, then work it.

Congrats and I want to say I agree with you, especially on the last point!!

meggers123

With all due respect, Tavistocktoad, many people on this board, including Gennawest and myself have been quite successful not eating their exercise calories. I have lost 28 lbs, my body fat % has decreased by 12% and my muscle weight has increased. I feel 10 years younger, have plenty of energy, eat healthy food and do not feel as though I am starving myself. I eat approximately 1,400 calories per day, whether or not I exercise, and rarely eat my exercise calories. So I say, chacun ses goûts..

D'accord, à chacun ses goûts, but she did ask for opinions by posting this topic.

killagb

Ok, so I will probably get hammered for this, but I will say it anyways. I NEVER eat back my calories for a variety of reasons:

1) I dont have money for an HRM so I never know exactly what I burned, so I never know exactly what to eat back.
2) This to me, defies a simple concept of calories in vs. calories out.
3) Away from this site, I have NEVER heard about eating back what you have lost.
4) On a personal note, I have lost 93 lbs (i think thats where I am at, I stopped counting) in a little more than 6 and a half months, by doing it the good 'ole fashion way.
5) Starvation mode to someone that is at 200 lbs seems a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, they are not starving- they are probably (and at least) 30 lbs over weight.

Thats it, and thats all. I am no expert, but I do have common sense. If it works for you, then work it.

Congrats and I want to say I agree with you, especially on the last point!!

That just shows that you and the OP haven't got a clue what the term starvation mode really means then. It's a reduction in metabolism....it doesn't mean you are starving to death. Thanks...this has been a public service announcement.

servilia

Ok, so I will probably get hammered for this, but I will say it anyways. I NEVER eat back my calories for a variety of reasons:

1) I dont have money for an HRM so I never know exactly what I burned, so I never know exactly what to eat back.
2) This to me, defies a simple concept of calories in vs. calories out.
3) Away from this site, I have NEVER heard about eating back what you have lost.
4) On a personal note, I have lost 93 lbs (i think thats where I am at, I stopped counting) in a little more than 6 and a half months, by doing it the good 'ole fashion way.
5) Starvation mode to someone that is at 200 lbs seems a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, they are not starving- they are probably (and at least) 30 lbs over weight.

Thats it, and thats all. I am no expert, but I do have common sense. If it works for you, then work it.

Congrats and I want to say I agree with you, especially on the last point!!

That just shows that you and the OP haven't got a clue what the term starvation mode really means then. It's a reduction in metabolism....it doesn't mean you are starving to death. Thanks...this has been a public service announcement.

Wow congrats. I know what it means. If you actually do any research you will see that the so-called starvation mode does not hinder weight loss in obese individuals. In fact, even in fit individuals, metabolism reduction doesn't kick in until after SEVERAL days of fasting, and even then it's a reduction of less than 10%. In the short term, fasting actually increases metabolism. You're welcome.

agthorn

Absolutely - only worried for your own wellbeing here but how are you managing on 680 calories a day before you even factor in any exercise calories?

I always wonder this too. I couldn't subsist on 680 calories a day even if I did nothing but lie in bed. HOW are these people doing it without passing out left and right???

erickirb

Ok, so I will probably get hammered for this, but I will say it anyways. I NEVER eat back my calories for a variety of reasons:

1) I dont have money for an HRM so I never know exactly what I burned, so I never know exactly what to eat back.
2) This to me, defies a simple concept of calories in vs. calories out.
3) Away from this site, I have NEVER heard about eating back what you have lost.
4) On a personal note, I have lost 93 lbs (i think thats where I am at, I stopped counting) in a little more than 6 and a half months, by doing it the good 'ole fashion way.
5) Starvation mode to someone that is at 200 lbs seems a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, they are not starving- they are probably (and at least) 30 lbs over weight.

Thats it, and thats all. I am no expert, but I do have common sense. If it works for you, then work it.

Congrats and I want to say I agree with you, especially on the last point!!

not eating back exercise calories and negative net calories are not the same. If i eat 1900 cals and burn 300 from exercise my net is 1600, I will lose weight even though I am trying to maintain but 1600 Net is noting like a - net calorie situation. In fact if you don't have a lot to lose your net calories should be at or above your BMR.

The OP has a lot to lose so may be able to get away with a lower than 1200 Net calorie diet (although I would not recommend this) but not a negative net calorie diet.

Maggie_Pie1

You should have read the terms and conditions of using the site; because that is precisely what you did.

*massive eye roll*

Sue me then.

killagb

Ok, so I will probably get hammered for this, but I will say it anyways. I NEVER eat back my calories for a variety of reasons:

1) I dont have money for an HRM so I never know exactly what I burned, so I never know exactly what to eat back.
2) This to me, defies a simple concept of calories in vs. calories out.
3) Away from this site, I have NEVER heard about eating back what you have lost.
4) On a personal note, I have lost 93 lbs (i think thats where I am at, I stopped counting) in a little more than 6 and a half months, by doing it the good 'ole fashion way.
5) Starvation mode to someone that is at 200 lbs seems a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, they are not starving- they are probably (and at least) 30 lbs over weight.

Thats it, and thats all. I am no expert, but I do have common sense. If it works for you, then work it.

Congrats and I want to say I agree with you, especially on the last point!!

That just shows that you and the OP haven't got a clue what the term starvation mode really means then. It's a reduction in metabolism....it doesn't mean you are starving to death. Thanks...this has been a public service announcement.

Wow congrats. I know what it means. If you actually do any research you will see that the so-called starvation mode does not hinder weight loss in obese individuals. In fact, even in fit individuals, metabolism reduction doesn't kick in until after SEVERAL days of fasting, and even then it's a reduction of less than 10%. In the short term, fasting actually increases metabolism. You're welcome.

That's not the statement that was said....I know what it is and what it does, thanks for assuming otherwise. You agreed to her saying a 200lb person could not be starving....need I explain more? I think not.

Maggie_Pie1

QUOTE:

For some people, as we know, 2 + 2 = 90



Isn't that actually true if you are operating in base/45?

Actually no. In base 45, 2+2 is equal to 4.

In base 45, 10+10=20 (or 90, in base 10).

Although - in reality, base 45 would be impractical because you would run out of 'symbols'. (10 numbers and 26 letters).

You're welcome.

Maggie_Pie1

I don't have a cause of action; but you'd probably invalidate any claim you could have ever raised against MFP. It's like opening a piece of eletronic equipment; "you break the seal, you break the deal." (Void all warranties, I mean.)

*even bigger eyeroll*

SHBoss1673

For some people, as we know, 2 + 2 = 90

Isn't that actually true if you are operating in base/45?

not even close. it would still be 45 plus 45. if you were talking 92 with base 45 math then it would be 451 + 451 (or 45 + 452 or 44 + 453 ... etc) and would read 'forty five one plus forty five one' instead of 'four fifty one ...' course we would probably have made a new name up for the "tens" of the base forty five in that case, the same way base ten calls 10 'ten' instead of 'one zero' and 11 'eleven' instead of 'one one'