Simple math ")

Nana_Booboo

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Could eventually cause you to go into starvation mode and you'll not lose as well.

1800 in - 600 exercise = 1200 is still (at the end of the week) from a normal 2000 cal diet is a deficit of 5600 cal which is over 1.5 lbs a week.

I think I'm understanding this "eat your exercise calories" finally!!

I need to feed my body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

Keeps my hunger at bay.

Kal_n_130

Thanks for explaining it! i get it now!

LaurenAOK

Your math is a bit off... 1800 in - 400 exercise = 1400, not 1200. But I get what you were going for, and thanks for posting. A lot of people get confused about this, but it's really quite simple.

Nana_Booboo

Youre welcome!!

For year's I tried the deprivation, but I'm older and wiser now and I'm learning everyday!!

eat, sweetie.

Just keep logging and and exercising.

It all works out in the end

Nana_Booboo

Thanks!! I'll fix that. +)

Trail_Addict

Nana_Booboo

Thanks!! I was in a hurry trying to explain it!! I really do know how to add and subtract!! LOL :noway:

Nana_Booboo

:blushing:

ElizabethRoad

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

ilookthetype

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose.

That is not at all how starvation mode works.

Sublog

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose. You're body will keep everything you give it. It's not your fault, it's the way the body is made. Feast or famine.



Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

Typical diet for someone that maintains is 2000 cal. exercises 20 mins a day bring it down to about 1800 maintaining. or losing but extremely slowly.

make sense?

There is SO much wrong with this post it's funny. There is no instant starvation mode. The greater the body fat mass, the higher the abundance of fatty acids readily available for lipolysis - simply put, the fatter you are, the greater % fat used whenever some calorie deficit is created. Thus, those who are extremely overweight can very easily tolerate very high caloric deficits without any down-regulation of the metabolism and without much muscle loss.

There is zero need to feed your body frequent meals. It offers zero metabolic benefits.

swilk627

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

LennieSmall

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

ElizabethRoad

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

Nope.

LaurenAOK

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

True, I think it is incorrect to say that you will not lose weight eating at a huge deficit... because plenty of people have lost weight that way. However, it's not the healthiest way to lose weight because your body is not getting the fuel it needs, and it will also be harder to keep the weight off.

martalaurazayas

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose.

That is not at all how starvation mode works.

I agree, I was on a very restricted diet that resulted in 800-900 calories a day. I lost approximately 2 lbs a week. I decided to up my calories to 1200 after about 2 months, then I started by meeting a range between 900 and 1200. The 3rd step was to reach 1200 consistently. After a month on that I wanted to slow down my weight loss and went to 1280.

None of my caloric goals were always met consistently. They were a few calories short or over.

I never stopped loosing weight, nor did I start gaining weight. However, since I was approaching my goal weight I wanted to start a "re-feeding" program in increments. I now only have about 10 lbs to go to reach my desired goal weight. I have lost 62 lbs.

I have actually read research stating that calorie restricted diets are good for you when managed with sound nutrition. The trick is to use nutritionally dense low calorie foods that are clean, which is what I mostly did.

DenverKos

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

No, it doesn't. This is a myth.

Nana_Booboo

I was asked how eating your exercise calories work, and it is simple math.


this is how it works best for me.

Small meals keeps me from being hungry and overeating

I lose faster, steady with no plateaus

You have to find what works for you but you do need to eat.

Nana_Booboo

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

True, I think it is incorrect to say that you will not lose weight eating at a huge deficit... because plenty of people have lost weight that way. However, it's not the healthiest way to lose weight because your body is not getting the fuel it needs, and it will also be harder to keep the weight off.

This being why this works for me. I've lost the same 80 lbs 3 times. I'm finding this is the reason. Although I lost, it wasn't the healthiest way.

biologic

starvation mode actually takes a while to actually affect you (like months). your body won't go into "instant starvation mode" from severely restricting calories even for weeks.

Nana_Booboo

.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

Several small meals work for me, keeps me from getting over hungry