Eat less Net more

ebony__

This isn't a question I just like to know people thought.
I don't abide to strictly by the number, I prefer to just do what feels good and works for me.
But ...
What do you think about net values..
Say someone had a pretty bad day and only managed 400 calories . Did no exercise, so they net 400.
Do you think this is better or worse than say eating 1200 for the day but doing a massive 1200 cal work out and netting zero?
And those types of scenarios.
Thoughts?

mccbabe1

both are equally unhealthy.... unles your goal is to shut your organs down.. and or completely ruin your metabolism.. and want your hair to fall out n such... i eat 400 cals in a MEAL....400 is not a days worth.... not healthy for anybody in any situation.

wolfchild59

I'd say that they were both pretty equally bad. Though, how someone could workout hard enough to burn 1200 calories with only eating 1200 calories that day, without passing out, is beyond me. I usually have to eat close to 800 calories before I even head out the door for a workout that intense, and then I eat something as soon as I get back and tend to eat back about 80-90% of those calories on those days. (I usually eat about 75% of my exercise calories on lower burn days)

And my feelings are pretty similar about a 400 calorie net. Really, almost all of us ended up at this site because we ate above our TDEE on a consistent enough basis to make us get up to a weight that we were unhappy with. So I can never comprehend someone here saying that they "can't" eat more than 1200 total calories in a day, o respecially less.

adietron

I think it's about sustainability. What can you realistically do over the long term? Personally, I like to net 50-100 cals *above* my resting BMR. Whether that comes from a light day of eating, or a crazy workout with a crazy feast of a reward, it's really about balance for me. I've found that long-term balance by using the "just over resting BMR" rule of thumb.

edithejaime

i do 300 or less for breakfast 300-400 for lunch 250-300 for dinner 3 snacks always under 100 each !! so about 1100-1200 cal a day 5 days of moderate exercise works for me and never hungry plus i sleep happy and proud i have lost over 130 pounds 50 to go yayi

ebony__

Was just using the day of 400 cals as a rough example.

Sarauk2sf

It is really all about the size of the deficit (i.e. calories burned less calories eaten). Now, eating more means that you have a better chance of getting appropriate micronutrients but, that aside, it is the size of the deficit and the length of time at that deficit that can me detrimental to health and to fat loss.

The impact will depend on someones current body fat but basically, the leaner you are and the larger the deficit, the more likely you are to lose a greater proportion of your weight due to muscle loss as opposed to fat loss. There is no hard and fast line as it depends on the individual's TDEE, BF%, whether they resistance train, how much protein they are eating and a host of other things.

Getting enough fats and micro nutrients as well as protein is also an important factor for health. On very low calories, that is nigh on impossible.

EvgeniZyntx

It is certainly possible and even reasonable to have a day or two with zero or negative net and you will not die or have your hair fall out. About once a month, I regularly have a long bike ride (6 to 7 hrs) and there is simply not enough time or desire to eat back 3000+ calories. So my net for that day is negative. One day. One.
While trekking I might net close to 600 a day for a week or two. But these are also 3000+ days. I come back skinny and gain it back over the next month or so (and ten some).
This can be done for short periods of time, but not necessarily healthy in terms of the impact on unused muscle.
It's more about what you want to have as a lifestyle, long term goals and effects.

Not only is it difficult to get balanced nutrients at these nets but you also create an environment where yo-yo ing on a diet is likelier and driving your metabolism to be more efficient level is likely - rendering weight loss later more difficult.

Slow and steady wins the race.