Negative net calories

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'