400 Net Calories for the Day: Scary Behavior
Replies
-
Im under 2 NHS dietitians and i am told to eat 1500 calories and to only eat back extra IF im hungry, im fitter than i have ever been, got more energy than ive ever had, im not losing muscle mass and my blood work is perfect... my dietitians say i only have to eat more when i get close to goal. Not everyone is the same. Im still 230lbs so for some people this is perfectly safe. Its not a one size fits all.
Zara0 -
Can you explain the net calories to me? I honestly have been lost as to what it means. Thanks0
-
ill admit i do this a lot. and this site has helped me tremendously on starting to see what i should be eating. its a mental problem. ive been battling with eating disorders since i was 16-17. and from where some people hit their lows and begin to take charge in making their health a priority, 400 calories is a huge stepping stone to them. i fret when i get to 800-900. ill have nightmares and stress far too much over it and i know that its not healthy behavior to worry. but from 100 calories + 12 mile walking and jogging to this is something. not much but its huge in our eyes.
i cant thank the people ive met enough over how much support they give me.0 -
Can you explain the net calories to me? I honestly have been lost as to what it means. Thanks
Calories you eat - minus calories burned off in exercise = equals net calories0 -
The MFP plan is very conservative. I wouldn't worry too much about other peoples' diets. Most of us at 1200 are at shallow deficits of 500 or so, so I don't believe there's anything wrong with using exercise to up your deficit to 1000-ish, when you feel like.
How do you guys even know what other people are doing? Monitoring friends or something? I waste a lot of time here but I can't imagine perusing diaries counting up 'net' calories and vegetable 'servings' and all the other things I see threads here about.
This.0 -
What can you do though? Some people are set on doing it this way. All we can do is provide support, advice, and information. The rest is up to them.
exactly!0 -
Its pretty shameful to say someone eating that low is "trying to be anorexic". You have no idea what these people are doing or what their Drs are telling them to eat. My calories for the day are set at 800 and guess what? Thats Dr ordered. Something else you people should keep in mind is that in my case I had WLS. You cant eat anything close to 1200 after that. I have met a TON of WLS people on here. You need to worry about yourself and thats it.0
-
For all of the "none of your business" replies....I really thought the OP posted in such a kind, concerned way!? I don't think he was being nasty, just trying to be helpful and promote good habits/health.
Totally agree. 100%. The OP wasn't sitting slagging people off and calling them idiots. he posted in a calm, caring manner.
And he is right.
If people want to become ill through lack of food leading to malnutrion then that is up to them but at least there are some of us on here who are concerned about the potential problems.
As for the "what is it to do with you" crappy comments, i always look at what my friends have eaten to see if there are any food ideas that I can use myself.
The answer, if you don't want to be commented on by your friends, is NOT to make your diary public and not to have any friends on here.... Starve away and become ill, stop having periods if you have them, get covered in downy hair on your body, find the hair on your head goes thin and with no shine at all, get bad breath, become ill and bloated through lack of food and then get osteoporosis....0 -
My usual 2 cents on topics of this sort. A link to the Group Eat More To Weigh Less, if nothing else someone may read and take some good information for themselves from it. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less :flowerforyou:0
-
And it's ABSURD!IM on 1200 a day, and I do eat that but I choose not to eat back my exercise calories...I know that will upset some but Im almost always right around 1200
I hear alot of people say this.
Why engage in some miserable diet of deprivation?
I eat around 3000 calories daily and get great results.
Who is having more fun?
Who gets to eat well and enjoy life?
People act like these starvation diet are some way of being a rebel...:laugh:
No, if you want to go against the grain, eat MORE to weigh less.
Starvation diets are miserable, the results short term and they're usually unhealthy.
Go ahead and make yourself miserable - your choice.
As for me?
I just made my weekly weight and am headed to enjoy a Big Breakfast at McDonald's - 1200 + calories...ONE MEAL!
Read it and weep!
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:
While the chest thumping is certainly entertaining, what you don't seem to understand is that if you're losing at 3000 calories/day, you're burning more than that. So of course 1200 would feel overly restrictive to you.
Some of us burn half or less what you burn. We can't eat 3000 or 2000 and lose and that's ok because if we ate that much we would be stuffed beyond comfort because our smaller bodies and appetites don't require that much. 1200 is fine for many of us. It's not a Sausage McMuffin with cheese and hash browns and then 23 hours of starvation. It's a nice spread of healthy, filling food.
I agree that the White Knighting of the poor little starvin', stupid ladies is offensive.
Yeah, I work out 5 times a week for 30 minutes each time and I have a super active job. Really anywhere between 1,300-1,600 is all the calories I need to have pretty much anything I want/need to eat in a day. I lose .5 pounds a week. And really at this point, I look how I want to look and feel good (and am in good health), so losing those last 8 pounds isn't a super high priority. I would absolutely NEVER advocate a starvation diet -- but honestly smaller people (I'm 5'3, 148 pounds) really do need far, far less, especially if they aren't working out 2-3 hours a day. I always feel satisfied, never feel denied and magically still eat McDonald's if I want and it still fit in my daily goals. To me, eating 3,000 calories a day doesn't sound like fun -- I'd have to kill myself working out to get there. No thanks. :noway:0 -
Hey everyone I've got an idea why don't we just talk around and around in circles saying the same thing over and over again in a new thread every... single...day. That would be so much fun....Oh no, wait... it's like being water-boarded.0
-
This. Thank you, those threads really bothered me every time I saw them, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Sneaky misogyny is sneaky. You've articulated it really well for me.
You might ask yourself which of the following positions is misogynistic:
1. Keep starving yourself little girl so long as you stay pretty and thin--we don't want you too fat.
2. It's really none of my business--go ahead and harm yourself if you wish--I don't care.
3. Don't try to lose too much weight too fast--make sure you stay healthy and get the nutrients your body needs.
Go ahead and pick.
By the way, this problem is not exclusively confined to women--there are plenty of guys with extremely low caloric balances and guys who mess up their metabolism eating well below what they should be for a reasonable 1-2 lb. per week weight loss.0 -
There was a point in my weightloss (when I was first starting off) that I ate 1200 calories total, but with exercise ended up with a net of around 600-800. I wasn't very well-educated about nutrition and calorie goals so I thought I was doing well. When I finally realized what I was doing I quickly upped my net calories. I wouldn't ever want to intentionally put my body through that. I can't even imagine the damage that could be caused by 400 net calories or lower!0
-
Just to throw my 2 cents worth in. I have been having a low net calorie eating issue this week due to a lot of exercise at work where I work evenings and get home at around 9 or 10 pm. I eat healthy generally and try to eat after work, but cannot find the time or food to eat enough later. I could eat more during the day I suppose but don't seem to find food I want to eat. Eventually I am sure this will all be straightened out. (It is not really helping me in losing weight yet, either.)0
-
I think it's important to remember that food diaries are a flash in time, not necessarily the big picture. Unless you are going back through months of entries, it would be hard to make a judgement on overall health. For one, not everyone remembers to login everything. Second, sometimes people are just having a bad week. For example, I'm having a terrible week. I can't eat when I'm so emotional. It doesn't mean I'm trying to starve myself, it just means I'm stressed. Next week I can focus on doing better.
It's important to remember that the online world and the real world present drastically different pictures on any given day.0 -
I see far too many people pushing the reasonable bounds of weight loss--they are eating like 700 or 1,000 calories and then burning off 500 through exercise, and they come out some days with 400 or 800 net. I've seen as low as 200 or 300 net.
In my view, this is simply dangerous. I don't think a lot of folks understand that "net calories" already have the acceptable range of weight loss figured in, and that you need to eat back to get yourself close to your net. Now I know this is somewhat of an art--if you're full, no need to eat, maybe you overestimated exercise and underestimated food calories--but really: 400 net?
Unfortunately, because they are losing a lot of weight, they keep up with this ultra-low calorie regime. In the short term all is great--they lose weight. In the long term, they lose muscle mass, thus decreasing their overall metabolic rate; perhaps bone strength as well; and I wonder what kind of health problems they will develop later on because they deprived their body of the necessary energy and nutrients for so long. Bad teeth, brittle hair, organ complications; general weakness; lack of strength and energy to carry out basic tasks---the list could go on.
Worried about a lot of scary short-term thinking.
Here's where I think it's offensive. You define going below 1200 net as "unreasonable", "dangerous", "unacceptable", "depriving their body of health", "short-sighted" and "ultra-low calorie", and surmise people who do it don't understand the math and are not even smart enough to provide themselves enough "energy to carry out basic tasks".
Like you are so much smarter and so kind to bless us idiots with your concern.
The truth is the people ignoring 'net' are probably all doing so because we've read the books and and the articles and done the managed plans and we know that how MFP (and especially MFP forums) frame things isn't at all how it works. It's a bunch of misplaced fear about starvation and metabolic damage and misunderstandings about how energy/calories work.0 -
I see far too many people pushing the reasonable bounds of weight loss--they are eating like 700 or 1,000 calories and then burning off 500 through exercise, and they come out some days with 400 or 800 net. I've seen as low as 200 or 300 net.
In my view, this is simply dangerous. I don't think a lot of folks understand that "net calories" already have the acceptable range of weight loss figured in, and that you need to eat back to get yourself close to your net. Now I know this is somewhat of an art--if you're full, no need to eat, maybe you overestimated exercise and underestimated food calories--but really: 400 net?
Unfortunately, because they are losing a lot of weight, they keep up with this ultra-low calorie regime. In the short term all is great--they lose weight. In the long term, they lose muscle mass, thus decreasing their overall metabolic rate; perhaps bone strength as well; and I wonder what kind of health problems they will develop later on because they deprived their body of the necessary energy and nutrients for so long. Bad teeth, brittle hair, organ complications; general weakness; lack of strength and energy to carry out basic tasks---the list could go on.
Worried about a lot of scary short-term thinking.
Here's where I think it's offensive. You define going below 1200 net as "unreasonable", "dangerous", "unacceptable", "depriving their body of health", "short-sighted" and "ultra-low calorie", and surmise people who do it don't understand the math and are not even smart enough to provide themselves enough "energy to carry out basic tasks".
Like you are so much smarter and so kind to bless us idiots with your concern.
The truth is the people ignoring 'net' are probably all doing so because we've read the books and and the articles and done the managed plans and we know that how MFP (and especially MFP forums) frame things isn't at all how it works. It's a bunch of misplaced fear about starvation and metabolic damage and misunderstandings about how energy/calories work.
I wonder how much of this is just people unwilling to admit their own limitations. here's an example - I know nothing of the law, but I've friends who've managed to get themselves offices overlooking the harbour and amazing salary packages because they're extremely clever and talented. So if, for instance, I had an issue with my landlord I would say to a very sweet girl I've known since uni whose speciality is real estate (although, to be fair, commercial rather than residential) "honey bun bun buns*, how about looking over my rental agreement and telling me if this *kitten* can really do what he says he can?" Similarly, if she was going to invest in a certain mining company's stock she might say to me "princess, doll**, tell me what the heck they're digging up and why it should result in such an expensive investment for me; is it worth it?" Know your limitations. Some people can't accept that their abilities are not everything in every field and so cannot understand that their advice would be unwelcome and inaccurate.
Or they're just idiots.
*Yes, we so talk like that.
**No, really.0 -
i did it for a long period of time.
now, i dont...a trip to the ER with kidney stones helped with this.
(just throwing that out there)0 -
The MFP plan is very conservative. I wouldn't worry too much about other peoples' diets. Most of us at 1200 are at shallow deficits of 500 or so, so I don't believe there's anything wrong with using exercise to up your deficit to 1000-ish, when you feel like.
How do you guys even know what other people are doing? Monitoring friends or something? I waste a lot of time here but I can't imagine perusing diaries counting up 'net' calories and vegetable 'servings' and all the other things I see threads here about.
^^^^^Because so many of these people eating in such a severe deficit turn to the forums for help when they are not seeing the results they want. They ask people to look at their diaries and there it is in black and white - NOT EATING ENOUGH. It' so frustrating for those of us who have discovered through trial and error that this is not a healthy or safe way to go about weight loss. I believe the OP is just trying to provide help and support.....not being nosy.0 -
Question, What if the person is like me, and we do our work out at the end of the day, I'm talking 7-8pm, the food cut off for me is no later than 7pm. What to do?
Didn't read through all the pages as there are many so I don't know if this was addressed. But having a 'food cut off' is silly. I work out every night at 7 so I don't get to eat dinner until at least 8:30, sometimes 9pm. If your body is hungry and needs those calories it doesn't matter that its' 'after 7 pm'..it has never had any bearing on my fitness goals.0 -
^^^^^Because so many of these people eating in such a severe deficit turn to the forums for help when they are not seeing the results they want. They ask people to look at their diaries and there it is in black and white - NOT EATING ENOUGH.
You see NOT EATING ENOUGH in black & white. Others see TOO MUCH SODIUM. Others see NOT ENOUGH VEGGIES. Others see TOO MUCH PROCESSED FOODS. Everyone sees something different.
What I see in black & white is them screaming PLATEAU because they're over-exercising and they're just too impatient to realize they are not plateaued at all. Which is very human
Science doesn't ever see NOT EATING ENOUGH as the answer to a plateau. Even if you did manage to slow your metabolism, all you can do is slow your losses, not stop or reverse them. Assuming your food reporting is accurate. Which it virtually never is.0 -
I will admit that I'm one of those people who ends up with a net under 1000 cals, but this is because I'm not looking at calories. I'm paying more attention to the carbs, fat, and protein. If I reach/exceed goals in other non-calorie categories is it ok to fall way below in my caloric intake? Also I take a lot of vitamins so that should make up for it right? (I'm so confused)0
-
It becomes tiresome hearing people crow about their starvation diets like it's some sort of virtue.While the chest thumping is certainly entertaining, what you don't seem to understand is that if you're losing at 3000 calories/day, you're burning more than that. So of course 1200 would feel overly restrictive to you.
Some of us burn half or less what you burn. We can't eat 3000 or 2000 and lose and that's ok because if we ate that much we would be stuffed beyond comfort because our smaller bodies and appetites don't require that much. 1200 is fine for many of us. It's not a Sausage McMuffin with cheese and hash browns and then 23 hours of starvation. It's a nice spread of healthy, filling food.
I agree that the White Knighting of the poor little starvin', stupid ladies is offensive.
And in the same breath, they chest thumb about how they don't eat exercise calories back.
I am just saying there is a better way.
MORE FUN - BETTER RESULTS
Just follow MFP recommendations.0 -
Here's where I think it's offensive. You define going below 1200 net as "unreasonable", "dangerous", "unacceptable", "depriving their body of health", "short-sighted" and "ultra-low calorie", and surmise people who do it don't understand the math and are not even smart enough to provide themselves enough "energy to carry out basic tasks".
Where in that post did he mention the magic 1200 number? Or even a net of 1200?
Oh, that's right... he didn't.0 -
WOW. You know what - I haven't paid attention to NET cals but that makes total sense! TY for this enlightenment!! I don't want to slow my metabolism and since I'm trying to be realistic here I'm going to eat if my body is telling me I'm starving. Some deficit wont be the end of the world but I guess eating more can help losing weight faster if you body doesn't think its starving. TY for this.0
-
If you are under the care of a physician I can understand. However, I agree that it is not a good idea to under eat. Your metabloism slows and your body will store the fat....0
-
Its pretty shameful to say someone eating that low is "trying to be anorexic". You have no idea what these people are doing or what their Drs are telling them to eat. My calories for the day are set at 800 and guess what? Thats Dr ordered. Something else you people should keep in mind is that in my case I had WLS. You cant eat anything close to 1200 after that. I have met a TON of WLS people on here. You need to worry about yourself and thats it.
I'm not judging or paying attention to anyone's diary, but I've got to say thank you for that! I never thought about WLS people having to really keep track of what they're eating. And you're right, I knew someone who had WLS and had so little food, that while she was satisfied and couldn't eat another bite, I was hungry just looking at her plate! lol. It's so good to know that there are all types of wonderful people on here taking charge of their health one plate at a time. Thanks!0 -
I am following Lighter Life Lite, all has been agreed by my Doctor the first two weeks I was on 4 packets a day, and now have 3 packets a day along with a good generous portion protein 150g- 250g and lots of veg, 1/2 pt skim milk, oil per day. Approx. cals: - 800-1000. I t works for me, plus I have loads of engery. I have to visit the Doctor again text week, with out this being confirmed by Doctor, Light Life won't let you do it or carry on.0
-
Thank you for this. I just started the Power 90 and MFP and using the tools here I was ending up about 400-500 calories under what MFP said should be my "target."
Four days into this, I was just tired all the time, and my mindset took a turn for the worse as well, where I had been so enthused and energetic about this change before I started.
Yesterday and today I decided to get as close to that target as I could, so I added a shake in the morning, and a few more calories in my recovery drink at night.
So far so good. Feeling a bit better today. Have decided that I can live even with 1lb a week, as long as I am eating so much more healthy than I was and exercising consistently (six days a week for me).
I want to do this right for my body. I have read other comments like yours that convinced me to stick closer to the target, and hope that will do the trick for me.0 -
What's MFP?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions