Is it OK to have a net calorie goal of 1000 cals or less?

TaylorsGranddad

Do what you want. Most people will tell you not to. Some advocate it. You know which answer you want to hear, now you have both to choose from. Congratulations.

Totally agree.... I currently am on 1000 a day and not eating back any exercised calories, I am continually loosing 3-4lbs a week, I have been on 1500 a day and ate back almost 1500 again too, I still lost 3-4lbs a week.... so for me both worked,

iuew

i did it for several months in '05. i wouldn't recommend it; i lost muscle, and it took a long time to get my metabolism back to normal. when i dieted again a couple years later, i did it the right way, and the results were more permanent.

ironanimal

Do what you want. Most people will tell you not to. Some advocate it. You know which answer you want to hear, now you have both to choose from. Congratulations.

Totally agree.... I currently am on 1000 a day and not eating back any exercised calories, I am continually loosing 3-4lbs a week, I have been on 1500 a day and ate back almost 1500 again too, I still lost 3-4lbs a week.... so for me both worked,

Then why would you stick with the 1000 rather than the 1500?

i did it for several months in '05. i wouldn't recommend it; i lost muscle, and it took a long time to get my metabolism back to normal. when i dieted again a couple years later, i did it the right way, and the results were more permanent.

See above.

eatandexercise1

Thanks for the answer!
I've been doing about 800 net calories a day because I have 30 more pounds to lose, but based on everyone's responses it sounds like I need to up it somewhat.

ironanimal

Thanks for the answer!
I've been doing about 800 net calories a day because I have 30 more pounds to lose, but based on everyone's responses it sounds like I need to up it somewhat.

Oh christ yes - you will want to work on that sooner rather than later, because your metabolism will be so suppressed at goal that any semblance of normal eating will put the weight straight back on you. At 24, that is very, very low.

nightsrainfall

1200 net. You can probably get away with less if you are under 5ft tall.

Agreed!

1200 net depending on height. If you are taller, broader, althetic (more muscle mass), you may even need more than 1200 net... my brother for example does over 2,000 net because he's altheletic, high muscle %, and taller, while I'm at 1500 net for with my activity level a 1200 net would be a bit too little...

But yes, 1,000 net would be for someone who was very petite and maybe not an althelete...

NanaDino4

so basically what yall are saying is that if it says I earned say 252 calories from exercising then I should up my 1200 to 1452 to accommodate for my exercising and so that I won't net below 1200??

lastchance2010

Food is fuel for your body. If you put in trash you get trash, but if you put in premium, it will treat itself in a good manner and you will get premium results. Eschew the mindset that eating less is automatically better for you. There is a ying and yang. You can be on both sides of the spectrum (too many calories or too few calories). Eat well and exercise and NET at least 1200 calories. Good luck.

That is awesome!! I love it!

stephvaile

yes or save some til end of week and have a nice treat x

tlamarch

My friend at the gym had a resting metolic rate done and her was 1200, so to lose weight she would have to eat less then 1200,right? she also 5'8'' so she's not even short. So really can we go by dont eat less then 1200?

kathyms13

my intake varies from 600 something to 1000 but averages at around 800. i have had the odd day when its gone over, my diary is open, i actually do eat well.

stephvaile

i,v looked at your diary and you are not eating well you are not getting enough protein especially for your age and you are over your sugar intake your calories are far too low but its up to you what you do what are your ironlevels like .

mcarter99

Thanks for the answer!
I've been doing about 800 net calories a day because I have 30 more pounds to lose, but based on everyone's responses it sounds like I need to up it somewhat.

Oh christ yes - you will want to work on that sooner rather than later, because your metabolism will be so suppressed at goal that any semblance of normal eating will put the weight straight back on you. At 24, that is very, very low.

I think this is alarmist. I think you need to listen to your body. If what you're doing isn't working then try something else. Just don't try something new every week based on varying advice here.

NanaDino4

bump

rusialeelee

I'm having the same concern/confusion... my net intake is always under 1000 because I eat 1300 and go exercise. I don't understand why I have to exercise to burn calories only to have to eat more..... I really wish an expert/nutritionist could answer this question ...

additional information
I'm 21 and 5'7
1300 is enough to satisfy me -- i actually get pretty full throughout most of my day.

rusialeelee

ooh I actually found a site that is pretty helpful..
http://www.everydayhealth.com/forums/healthy-eating/topic/will-eating-less-than-your-target-calories-stop-metabolism

kariberi84

I'm trying to figure out how I'm supposed to eat around 2500 net per day when I can hardly eat 1500 total. Its rare that I reach my 2030 goal not counting my burned calories.

Natihilator

Net. And even then, it's quite low. You have to make sure you're eating back most of your excercise calories too.

It depends on the person, if I ate back most of mine I'd gain weight. I'm usually burning 600 calories a day.

If eating back your exercise calories makes you gain, it just means you've miscalculated. It's physically impossible to gain weight while eating less than you burn.

No it's not. I think you mean physically impossible to gain fat while consuming less calories than you burn. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to know exactly what you burn, or exactly what you consume. Every morsel that passes your lips is not necessarily absorbed by your body and can vary from person to person. Likewise, the amount of calories burned will vary from person to person. Even a HRM will only give you an estimate and depending on many variable can be off by quite a bit.

This. I think a lot of people forget this. I use an HRM and I've always had a feeling the calorie burns it gives me is a little too high to be accurate. I treat anything that has to do with numbers and fitness/nutritions/weightloss as a guideline and allow room for error/miscalculation (BMI, the scale, calories burned, calories consumed, etc.) as these numbers will never be 100% accurate for most.

mcarter99

Net. And even then, it's quite low. You have to make sure you're eating back most of your excercise calories too.

It depends on the person, if I ate back most of mine I'd gain weight. I'm usually burning 600 calories a day.

If eating back your exercise calories makes you gain, it just means you've miscalculated. It's physically impossible to gain weight while eating less than you burn.

Maybe the poster calced everything fine and the averages/estimates don't apply to her particularly well. I would lose extremely slowly on 1800/day. I think the 1200 floor makes it possible to actually not have a deficit for some.

XXXMinnieXXX

I lost 50lbs eating 1500 a day, netting 700 calories a day or there about. I then got seriously ill with liver tumors for 6 months and even though it was very stressful I didn't gain 1lb back, once I was starting to feel better I've gone back to the same plan and I'm losing well again. This being said I am under supervision of a dietitian and I am still considered obese. I've been told this is fine (by 3 dietitians) until I'm getting quite close to goal, then I will increase x

Di3012

I am so confused by this, too. I have friends who eat less than 1500 calories a day but also burn over 1200 calories doing hours of aerobics. Net calorie wise, they're not eating much, but they're dropping the weight. Is this healthy?

No it is not healthy. Sure they are dropping the weight. But they are keeping the fat. You want to lose fat not muscle and water. NET over 1200 a day.

You DO lose the fat, that is the body's stored energy, it will burn the fat if the calories are all gone.

ChrisRN75495

No

mcarter99

I'm trying to figure out how I'm supposed to eat around 2500 net per day when I can hardly eat 1500 total. Its rare that I reach my 2030 goal not counting my burned calories.

You don't have to eat 2500/day unless you believe in the mythical starvation mode. It is great to lose weight at a snail's pace but many people give up because they don't see results for weeks on end or at all because they're aiming for such a tiny window of deficit that they overshoot it and have no actual deficit at all. The numbers aren't facts, they're estimates based on the whole population. Each of us is different.

I would say listen to your body and eat at the deficit you prefer, as long as you get sufficient nutrition. You can do so at 1200 calories/day.

kariberi84

I'm trying to figure out how I'm supposed to eat around 2500 net per day when I can hardly eat 1500 total. Its rare that I reach my 2030 goal not counting my burned calories.

You don't have to eat 2500/day unless you believe in the mythical starvation mode. It is great to lose weight at a snail's pace but many people give up because they don't see results for weeks on end or at all because they're aiming for such a tiny window of deficit that they overshoot it and have no actual deficit at all. The numbers aren't facts, they're estimates based on the whole population. Each of us is different.

I would say listen to your body and eat at the deficit you prefer, as long as you get sufficient nutrition. You can do so at 1200 calories/day.

I have been losing 1-3 pounds a week depending on my week. I am not worried or trying to lose more the 1 pound per week. I am happy with what ever I get. The only thing I am struggling with is getting enough potassium, but I'm working on that. Everything else is great.

I feel like if I've eaten healthy and am full then I am good. I am not starving my self by any means.