Are negative net calories bad

LeggyKettleBabe

I am hearing conflicting things. Is it bad or good to have negative net calories??

chachadiva150

How many?

If you eat 1800 and you had a kick butt workout and burned 2000, that's one thing.

If you eat 500 and work off 2000, then, yeah...problem.

TheWinman

I would say yeah! Your body needs calories.

shovav91

You should NEVER have a negative net. Calories are a unit of energy, the energy your body needs to survive. I would say a net of anything under 1200 on a regular basis does the body a lot of harm in the long run.

iamlottiebee

The only time I have negative net calories is when I work out first thing and log my exercise before I've had anything to eat for the day! But you shouldn't go whole days on negetive net calories...

CaseRat

Never ever EVER have negative 'net' calories.
You want at LEAST 1200 net as a complete minimum, but most likely more depending on the person.

daisyverma

I dont think negative calories are sustainable long term as your body will demand calories, fats, proteins etc etc for the brain to function so it can keep the rest of your body functioning

riskiestlavonn

Never ever EVER have negative 'net' calories.
You want at LEAST 1200 net as a complete minimum, but most likely more depending on the person.

What he said. You'll burn out if you keep going like that... at least I would. Also, you should look into the forums about eating back exercise calories (blew my mind). :-)

zuzuanne88

I've been conflicted with this too...Some people say eat back the calories you burned,while others say why work out if your gonna eat it back....I really would like to test it out with maybe two weeks of the two options but i'm terrified of gaining any weight back.Does this apply to people who have 80 pounds or more to lose?

TheWinman

I'm on a calorie goal that loses me 2 pounds a week and I've been doing this since November. I have found I lose the most weight when I eat back the calories or at least get close to what I lost when working out. I tried for a while eating much less on days I worked out and I was maybe 800 or so calories under the net calorie recommendation and I did not lose the weight as quickly. IMO

meshashesha2012

I've been conflicted with this too...Some people say eat back the calories you burned,while others say why work out if your gonna eat it back....I really would like to test it out with maybe two weeks of the two options but i'm terrified of gaining any weight back.Does this apply to people who have 80 pounds or more to lose?

i've pretty much exercised my entire life, and eating back my calories never helped me lose weight or fat. what has been working is eating at about 20-30% below my maintenance on a daily basis regardless of my workouts. i almost never eat my exercise calories back except on days when i'm really really hungry.

and no i'm not burning out, going into starvation mode, hindering my workout performance or anything else like that. i'm getting healthier (blood pressure decreased, heart rate decreased), i'm getting stronger and i'm losing fat, which is is exactly what i want so i'll stick to doing it my way

i think eating back your exercise calories is more a necessity as you get closer to your goal weight because at that point your body has less extra stuff stored away to pull energy from.

LeggyKettleBabe

I work out several times during the day. Usually walking. My average calorie burn is 1800 daily yesterday was nearly 2400. I recently gained 3 lbs in like 2 days so im wondering if its the net calories. I can eat bout 1500 calories if i eat more i feel sick like i could throw up. I dont want to give up my weights or my walking.

hottottie11

What about you doing to burn 1800 calories in a day? Just walking? You'll have to walk a whole lot to get that kind of burn?

What are you using as an estimation of your calorie burn?

SPNLuver83

bad bad bad. That's the same as starvation.

LeggyKettleBabe

What about you doing to burn 1800 calories in a day? Just walking? You'll have to walk a whole lot to get that kind of burn?

What are you using as an estimation of your calorie burn?

I walk bout 8.5 miles a day. I walk bout 5.4mph. I have a gps cardio trainer on my phone. I walk 2 - 15 minute breaks and usually 2-1hr intervals. Then I either weight train or do kettlebell for at least 45 minutes. I am a heavy weight so i burn alot of calories.

im not starving if im hungry I eat, im not worn out either. The only way i get even 1500 calories is to eat fast food.

My diet is mainly fruits veggies and lean poultry. its really hard to get up to 1500 calories eating like that.

Helloitsdan

I've been conflicted with this too...Some people say eat back the calories you burned,while others say why work out if your gonna eat it back....I really would like to test it out with maybe two weeks of the two options but i'm terrified of gaining any weight back.Does this apply to people who have 80 pounds or more to lose?

Looked at your diary.....



Up your calories to lose weight.
Right now you are traveling at a high rate of speed in a vehicle that has nooooooo gasssssssss.
Eventually youll be breaking down!

i've pretty much exercised my entire life, and eating back my calories never helped me lose weight or fat. what has been working is eating at about 20-30% below my maintenance on a daily basis regardless of my workouts. i almost never eat my exercise calories back except on days when i'm really really hungry.

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

Check my profile for a link to help you get the right calories for your weight loss.
And never let NET fall below BMR.
Its stupid!

caseypoot

I've actually been doing a sort of calorie cycling, where I'll go maybe two to three days of the week, keeping my net less than 900 (I have Fibromyalgia, making my metabolism naturally slower and spend most of my time after working out on the couch) and then the rest of the week I'll have a net of well over 1200 or 1500 after exercise (I'll eat up to 1800 or so). It's worked pretty interestingly for me because I find that the day after the periods where I eat more and definitely burn more calories through exercise, I feel like I lost like 5 pounds as well as seeing actual results on those days.

I don't think anyone would suggest you strive for negative net calories at all because it can CAN CAN CAN lead to metabolic disorders that are far worse than just having a plateau (of course these are bad enough). If you're really trying to see results fast, I would maybe start with a very low net calorie on 1-3 days out of the week, followed with the next days with high enough nets to keep your metabolism up and keep your body from being used to a certain amount of calories (usually the trick with this is still maintaining an overall deficit for the week put together).

I've been there and done that with long periods of very restricted calories, and trust me when I say you will not be rewarded with the results you want - even if your body does happen to be able to maintain its metabolism until you reach your goal weight (not likely at all), your body would have synthesized and metabolized the energy in your muscle fibers, using that for energy because it's quicker than fat with lack of carbs; you might have a lighter body, but you're likely to have a higher body fat percentage because you have literally eaten your muscles, and now you're almost guaranteed to gain weight back ten fold.

PunkyRachel

If I'm not hungry at all and my net is only like 700, should I force myself to eat?

yarwell

If I'm not hungry at all and my net is only like 700, should I force myself to eat?

No need if you have 50 lb to lose.

PunkyRachel

If I'm not hungry at all and my net is only like 700, should I force myself to eat?

No need if you have 50 lb to lose.

Close guess, 56.4 pounds til I hit my goal weight. Not always but sometimes at the end on the day my net is less than 1000, specifically on my zumba nights. I eat but I will just feel so unbelievably stuffed, so I stop and just let my net be low.

txteacher2

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. My calorie intake should be 1200 calories a day. When I complete my workouts, I've burnt off about 600 calories, so does that I mean I should eat 600 more calories or should I not eat anymore?

yarwell

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. My calorie intake should be 1200 calories a day. When I complete my workouts, I've burnt off about 600 calories, so does that I mean I should eat 600 more calories or should I not eat anymore?

If you eat the 600 extra you will maintain the original deficit built into the 1200 goal.

Worth asking yourself how accurate the 600 is. It's one hour at 100% flat out for me (which I can't do, obviously).

llkilgore

How many?

If you eat 1800 and you had a kick butt workout and burned 2000, that's one thing.

If you eat 500 and work off 2000, then, yeah...problem.

You're talking 2000 exercise calories, right? Then both situations are bad.

txteacher2

The six hundred is based on the calories burned equation (from the livestrong website) and my avg heart rate throughout the exercise. I check my heart rate through out the exercise to try and get an average of how hard I'm working.

pkfrankel

I started paying more attention my Total Daily Energy Expenditure which calculates the amount of calories you need in a day. It is similar to BMR which measures calories you need to survive. TDEE includes the amount of calories you burn in exercise. There are a few mathematical formulas you can use to calculate both numbers or hundreds of online calculators. This link is one.

http://www.quickbmr.com/what-is-tdee.html#

Your TDEE is the total calories after including exercise so there are no "net" calories or questions about eating back calories. My TDEE is 2,600 calories a day.

If you are looking to lose weight you should reduce TDEE by 20%. For me that would mean cutting 520 calories (1 pound per week).

Remember, All of the information available on the Internet is generic so try eating TDEE for a few weeks and see the results.

moham_kas90

Okay. This one is a sensitive one... Especially when you're all set to shred, and you feel like you wanna be in the best shape of your life... And you have that 'I'm on a roll' feeling.

I spoke to a friend of mine who just qualified as a doctor and we thrashed this out. Here is what happened.

I argued that if I wanna shred, real quick, get my results the fastest possible way, net cals are the way to go. When you notice a plateu or the results slowing down... Naturally you wanna kick it up a gear, if you feel like you have the discipline you target the cal intake. If you feel like you have the drive you target the cals through exercises.

He said, your body isnt that simple. There are medical risks attached to what you want to do: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Metabolic_diseases.aspx

After seeing all the potential risks that could happen to me or anyone else attempting the net cal diet... I thought to myself, whats worth doing? Riding out the plateu and holding the cal intake at 1,500 - 300 of exercise? Or taking those fast results? (long term or short term)

I'll leave that to you.

runningforthetrain

bump

erickirb

chachadiva150 wrote: »

How many?

If you eat 1800 and you had a kick butt workout and burned 2000, that's one thing.

If you eat 500 and work off 2000, then, yeah...problem.

Both are bad but second is worse. eating 1800 and burning 2000 would be like eating 500 and burning 700, neither is good. if your goal is 1400 cals an you burn 2000 than that day you should eat 3400, if you only burn 500 you should eat 1900, if you don't exercise you should eat 1400.

Keep in mind the 1400 cals is your daily goal to lose your goal amount of weight per week, with no exercise.

Nicole_Trippler

If you don't stay below your net, you're not going to lose any weight. That's the general idea as long as you told MFP that you don't want to lose weight. When you tell MFP that you want to do that and at which rate, it will automatically lower the net it shows you below your actual net.

Just keep in mind that you should eat back most of the cal you burn during an exercise, at least most of the time. It's okay to drop even lower below the net from time to time, but especially if you want to build up muscles and shape up, you have to give your body nutrients to do that. (Building up muscles gains weight, though, so check your measurements once a week.)

Important: Get enough protein. Protein helps losing weight as well, because your body gains energy from breaking it down, but has to put even more energy into building things from protein afterwards. (Which your body will do if you exercise.) Again, no / less weight loss because you transform "light" fat into "heavy" muscles.

snmitch1965

in my view, you shouldn't eat if you don't feel hungry. You will soon enough. Keep any eye on a rolling 24 hour period. You can be negative net for today, but NOT negative net in the last 24hours.

And if you do feel hungry but want to eat something special/specific and not something you should eat then recognize that's a food fad and you are not actually hungry. But generally I aim for zero net calories, and sometimes I am over and sometimes I am under by a few %.

Have to keep in mind that the calories burned in an effort is an estimate with error margins, and the calories you need in a day is similarly packed with assumptions and varies by person.

If you are trying to close a gap on any given day to get to zero net calories, close the gap with raw veggies and some natural low fat protein (tofu, fish in no sauce, lean chicken breast) and not with cereals, sugars, snacks, white bread, or other processed or junk food fad foods. Eating just to to close the calorie gap is a time to eat really good choices, or not at all!

If you have sustained days over days when you seem to be at negative net calories then there is math flaw - either the target value is wrong (for your activity level) or the estimates of calories based on food or exercise are wrong.

This is what worked for me: Your experience may vary.

lemurcat12

Zombie thread.

Focusing just on a new post and ignoring those from 2012...

aufstieg90 wrote: »

I argued that if I wanna shred, real quick, get my results the fastest possible way, net cals are the way to go. When you notice a plateu or the results slowing down... Naturally you wanna kick it up a gear, if you feel like you have the discipline you target the cal intake. If you feel like you have the drive you target the cals through exercises.

He said, your body isnt that simple. There are medical risks attached to what you want to do: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Metabolic_diseases.aspx

After seeing all the potential risks that could happen to me or anyone else attempting the net cal diet... I thought to myself, whats worth doing? Riding out the plateu and holding the cal intake at 1,500 - 300 of exercise? Or taking those fast results? (long term or short term)

I'll leave that to you.

What is the net cal diet? You mean going negative net?

Bigger issue that avoids the confusing in how people use net is what the total deficit is -- how many calories are you burning (including but not limited to exercise) and how many are you eating? And also how common it is -- doing something for a day doesn't matter (well, within reason, of course).