Minimum calories that are enough regardless of exercise

Options
Doberdawn
Doberdawn Posts: 732 Member
in Food and Nutrition
MFP usually gives me a warning when my net calories are too low after exercise and I close out my diary for the day. This happens even if I'm just short 100 calories. But, I've noticed something lately. On days when I've had big calorie burns, I can be short net 500+ calories. No warning that I am burning too little is given. Is there a minimum number of calories that once consumed are considered to be sufficient no matter how low your net drops? I'm going to try and figure out what the value is and see if there is a trend for me. Has anyone else noticed this & figured out what that magic breakpoint is and why?

Replies

  • dogladytwo
    dogladytwo Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    1200 is the only minimum that I am aware of.
  • daggoneit
    daggoneit Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    You accidently made two threads so I'm replying here again:
    You only get the warning if you EAT less than 1200 cals. If you eat more than 1200 but burn a lot so your Net is under 1200 you won't get the warning because you ate more than 1200.

    Also, on the other thread someone said MFP has 1200 set as minimum for legal reasons. The cals you should eat minimum are probably different.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    Yeah I'm pretty sure the number to beat as far as the software goes is 1200.

    However this number is meaningless in its relation to your body function. There is no such thing as a universal minimum before you risk consequences associated with too few calories. Most of the major consequences- hormonal disruption, metabolic slowdown, muscle catabolism, decreased energy, inhibited immune system- are all from too large a calorie deficit from your TDEE. To me, its a dangerous game to test the limits to find exactly where that breakpoint is. Its not my body though.
  • Capt_Apollo
    Capt_Apollo Posts: 9,026 Member
    Options
    if you enter that you want to exercise 7 days a week and burn a total of 3000 calories a week, that means nothing in your weekly calorie goals.

    you can enter 0 and 0 for those and MFP won't change.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Yeah I'm pretty sure the number to beat as far as the software goes is 1200.

    However this number is meaningless in its relation to your body function. There is no such thing as a universal minimum before you risk consequences associated with too few calories. Most of the major consequences- hormonal disruption, metabolic slowdown, muscle catabolism, decreased energy, inhibited immune system- are all from too large a calorie deficit from your TDEE. To me, its a dangerous game to test the limits to find exactly where that breakpoint is. Its not my body though.
    ^This. And after doing some math, according to the basil metabolic rate equations, a 4'11 sedentary teenager would have to be about 36lbs to be able to gain weight/maintain on a diet netting 1200 calories. 1200 is a magic number because yep, everyone will definitely eventually lose on it unless you have some odd health issues.

    If your not a severely under weight really short teenager, chances are you can eat significantly more and still lose. Unless you're eating that now, then you'll likely have temporary weight gain because your body will get excited and start making fuel again.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Even though I'm nowhere near 1200 (double that, actually), that's why I prefer the "Roadmap" method as opposed to MFP's eating back exercise calories. Take a straight -20% from TDEE and leave it there regardless of exercise. I agree with MoreBean that it's a dangerous game to push the lower limits...although I think "starvation mode" is the most overused and misunderstood phrase on MFP, there are undeniably other negative consequences from eating too little.
  • Doberdawn
    Doberdawn Posts: 732 Member
    Options
    I'm never really sure what to use as my TDEE. I work a desk job so my life is really sedentary that way. But, I do workout a few days a week every week, some weeks I workout every day. So...? That's why I do the lower setting & then try to eat back calories. Suggestions?
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    Use your BMR roughly as a caloric floor.
  • rfsatar
    rfsatar Posts: 599 Member
    Options
    I'm never really sure what to use as my TDEE. I work a desk job so my life is really sedentary that way. But, I do workout a few days a week every week, some weeks I workout every day. So...? That's why I do the lower setting & then try to eat back calories. Suggestions?
    I set my TDEE (and BMR) to Lightly Active and on MFP I set it to Sedentary because of the way MFP works in terms of allowing for your calorie deficit (hence the eating back of calories ethos)...

    This has been working for me ...
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    Even though I'm nowhere near 1200 (double that, actually), that's why I prefer the "Roadmap" method as opposed to MFP's eating back exercise calories. Take a straight -20% from TDEE and leave it there regardless of exercise. I agree with MoreBean that it's a dangerous game to push the lower limits...although I think "starvation mode" is the most overused and misunderstood phrase on MFP, there are undeniably other negative consequences from eating too little.

    Agree. Try this:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682138-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Categories