cutting more than 1000 calories a day

i was thinking of dropping 3 pounds in a week by extra exercise.

So my maintenance is 2400, and i exercise 2000 calories off a day, and eat 2800 calories, is this a good route to take? Has anyone ever tried this approach to quick weight loss before and how did it go?

i have no problem burning 2000 calories a day, i have the time and energy.
«1

Replies

  • nexangelus
    nexangelus Posts: 2,081 Member
    Read Rapid Fat Loss by Lyle McDonald, two weeks of 800 calorie or so mostly protein based meals...less workouts, preserving muscle/lean mass...works for many and you will lose more than 3lb of fat per week...I have not tried this as it is a crash diet...but I am sure it is possible and feasible, etc...
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    Read Rapid Fat Loss by Lyle McDonald, two weeks of 800 calorie or so mostly protein based meals...less workouts, preserving muscle/lean mass...works for many and you will lose more than 3lb of fat per week...I have not tried this as it is a crash diet...but I am sure it is possible and feasible, etc...

    no im not going to eat 800 calories a day and sit around. thank you though.
  • nexangelus
    nexangelus Posts: 2,081 Member
    Er I never said sit around...I guess your way would would just as well, but burning 2000 plus cals per day...pffffffft okay!
  • Read Rapid Fat Loss by Lyle McDonald, two weeks of 800 calorie or so mostly protein based meals...less workouts, preserving muscle/lean mass...works for many and you will lose more than 3lb of fat per week...I have not tried this as it is a crash diet...but I am sure it is possible and feasible, etc...

    no im not going to eat 800 calories a day and sit around. thank you though.

    It'll get you the same results though!

    In all honesty, it probably won't go well however you decide to do it. I would probably just go for the healthy amount. If you try to do too much, you are going to be losing more than fat.

    You don't even have much to lose (28 pounds by your profile). Why are you trying to rush things?
  • Chief_Rocka
    Chief_Rocka Posts: 4,710 Member
    *If* you're truly burning off 2,000 calories a day, I doubt your plan will be sustainable for very long. You'll run yourself into the ground.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    (Too) rapid weight loss results in a high percentage of muscle loss. If you want to lose (mostly) fat .... you should try for a more modest number.

    Very low calorie diets are really hard on your organs (heart, kidneys, etc)
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    Read Rapid Fat Loss by Lyle McDonald, two weeks of 800 calorie or so mostly protein based meals...less workouts, preserving muscle/lean mass...works for many and you will lose more than 3lb of fat per week...I have not tried this as it is a crash diet...but I am sure it is possible and feasible, etc...

    no im not going to eat 800 calories a day and sit around. thank you though.

    It'll get you the same results though!

    In all honesty, it probably won't go well however you decide to do it. I would probably just go for the healthy amount. If you try to do too much, you are going to be losing more than fat.

    You don't even have much to lose (28 pounds by your profile). Why are you trying to rush things?

    well its not something i have to do, it is something i am just capable of doing. i could just loose 2 pounds a week, but why not 3 for a few weeks. I do kind of have to get down to a lower weight by next month, but im not necessarily trying to loose that 28 pounds your talking about.
  • PattyC64
    PattyC64 Posts: 56 Member
    It's called Anorexia Athletica. Even though you're eating the calories, you're burning them off before you get the benefits of the nutrients.
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    (Too) rapid weight loss results in a high percentage of muscle loss. If you want to lose (mostly) fat .... you should try for a more modest number.

    Very low calorie diets are really hard on your organs (heart, kidneys, etc)

    ive heard its not a muscle loss if your deficit is all exercise calories.
  • BruteSquad
    BruteSquad Posts: 373 Member
    I have to agree with Fire. If you are actually burning 2000 calories more than you would just doing what you would otherwise do in a normal day, it won't be sustainable.

    I would also point out that many of the MFP estimates on exercise are on the high side. For an Olympian, the high end of caloric burn in 20 calories a minute.

    Check the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/burn-6000-calories-olympics_n_1748989.html#slide=1338521
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    ive burned 2000 calories a few days in row one time and it was hard but not real hard.
  • Losing weight that fast isn't good on your body, nor is it realistic and likely to stay off. Unless you're very overweight, the best approach is 1, maybe 2 pounds overweight.
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    I have to agree with Fire. If you are actually burning 2000 calories more than you would just doing what you would otherwise do in a normal day, it won't be sustainable.

    I would also point out that many of the MFP estimates on exercise are on the high side. For an Olympian, the high end of caloric burn in 20 calories a minute.

    Check the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/burn-6000-calories-olympics_n_1748989.html#slide=1338521

    and a fat person burns the same amount. The only difference is the olympians continue to burn calories throughout the day because of their efficient bodies and the speed of their training.
  • angelalf1979
    angelalf1979 Posts: 244 Member
    I smell a troll here. Been here since June 2011 and lost 0 pounds? Hmmmm....
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    (Too) rapid weight loss results in a high percentage of muscle loss. If you want to lose (mostly) fat .... you should try for a more modest number.

    Very low calorie diets are really hard on your organs (heart, kidneys, etc)

    ive heard its not a muscle loss if your deficit is all exercise calories.

    That is not correct.
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    I smell a troll here. Been here since June 2011 and lost 0 pounds? Hmmmm....

    i don't update that
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    (Too) rapid weight loss results in a high percentage of muscle loss. If you want to lose (mostly) fat .... you should try for a more modest number.

    Very low calorie diets are really hard on your organs (heart, kidneys, etc)

    ive heard its not a muscle loss if your deficit is all exercise calories.

    That is not correct.

    says who
  • sam308lbs
    sam308lbs Posts: 1,939 Member
    this is what you need to read..
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/exercise-and-weightfat-loss-part-1.html

    And by the way,once i did manage to burn around 6000 calories in a week..(once in the morning and then again in the evening so it would be more effective!) but nah...lost the same amount i had been losing the previous weeks
  • EatClenTrenHard
    EatClenTrenHard Posts: 339 Member
    how long have you been doing this for?

    anyways, keep doing what you are doing now with your 2000 cal/day excercise.
    soon eventually you will give up, and then you can use lyle's crash diet.

    However i suggest you to only lose 2lbs/week, and eat around 1700 per day.

    You dont even look fat. wth
  • nphect
    nphect Posts: 474
    this is what you need to read..
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/exercise-and-weightfat-loss-part-1.html

    And by the way,once i did manage to burn around 6000 calories in a week..(once in the morning and then again in the evening so it would be more effective!) but nah...lost the same amount i had been losing the previous weeks

    "I’d note before moving on that some studies using fairly large amounts of activity (one that comes to mind had subjects cycle 2 hours/day 6 days/week) have shown a greater impact on weight and fat losses. But these amounts of activities are usually considered to be fairly unrealistic for most people."

    it wasn't the same because of water flux