Question about Suggested Calories

khallock78

So my suggested calories is 1200. Which is doable for me. But if I go the the gym and burn like 800 calories one day, am I really supposed to make up those calories by eating? My suggested calories bump up to 2000. And I'm just wondering if I really have to eat more that day, or will I see weight loss if I stick to the 1200 calories that is suggested when I dont exercise?

arewethereyet

I eat 1/2

MTGirl

Please read the sticky notes. Please. Yes, you should eat some or most of those calories. If your body thinks it isn't getting enough fuel, it will hang on to the fat and use your muscle for fuel. You need to properly fuel your body if you expect it to work for you. You may need to play around with what works best, but at least give the system a shot the way it is set up!

clairelyndsey

yes try to eat half also and it has been working for me

jillybeanruns

No one can answer this question for you. It's trial and error and is really dependent on your body and your metabolism, etc... If you decide to stick to 1200 calories and then you burn 800 off at the gym, you must absolutely consume those 800 calories. Because if you don't eat back any, your net calories will only be 400.

Read the sticky threads and search "starvation mode". I would recommend 1600 net calories at first, but that's just my personal take on it.

stormieweather

If you don't eat them, you are only giving your body net calories of 400 to operate your organs (brain, heart, liver, stomach, muscles, etc.). That isn't nearly enough so your body will slow things down, particularly it's fat stores, in order to conserve.

As people like to say around here, no gas in the car, the car won't go far.

Inadequate nutrition will cause you to feel bad: tired, irritable, and foggy. If done long enough, you could seriously damage your metabolism and organs.

So yes, eat no less than 1200 NET calories (recommended minimum for most women). Try to eat part or most of your exercise calories. If that doesn't work after a month or two, then reavaluate what you're doing.

Good luck :flowerforyou:

MacMadame

No, you don't HAVE to eat them. It's a choice and you should chose what works for you based on your issues, personality and goals.

As to all of the horibble tings some people say will happen to you, most of it isn't really true. For example, every time you go on a diet, your metabolism slows down. Yes, even if you eat exercise calories.

Secondly, when you go on a diet, you lose some lean muscle mass, yes, even if you eat your exercise calories. There are ways to combat this and one way is to eat some or all of your exercise calories, but there are other ways as well, such as doing strength training and eating more protein.

Third, your body isn't going to cannibalize your muscles if you have fat stores. The fat stores are there to be used in times of "famine" (your body thinks there is a famine whenever you go on a diet). Your body isn't so stupid that it will ignore your fat stores in favor of muscles that it needs. In studies of starvation, subject's bodies didn't start to cannibalize themselves (i.e., use muscle and organ tissue for fuel) until the subject's body fat percentage got down to essential levels. (5-6% for men, 10-12% for women)

So eat them (or part of them) if:
-not eating them makes you feel too deprived or you want to treat yourself more than your base calories allows for
-you are lacking energy to get through your day
-you aren't doing strength training and/or getting more protein than average to combat muscle loss
-you are happy with your rate of loss when you eat them
-you are sure they are accurate and you aren't overestimating how many you've burned

Don't eat them if:
-Eating them slows (or stops) your weight loss below acceptable levels
-You aren't sure how many you are really burning (i.e, you aren't using a good HRM to judge calorie expenditure) and want a cushion

You can also decide to just eat part of them or eat them some of the time and not others or whatever works for you.

Personally, I didn't eat mine when I was losing. I had lots of energy and was training for a triathlon and did just fine. My metabolism didn't slow down (in fact, from all my training, it revved up), my organs weren't destroyed and I didn't lose muscle mass. I did raise my protein goals as I increased my training and I did slowly increase my calories as I got closer to my goal but I stuck to the calorie level my doctor gave me and that didn't include adding back in exercise calories.

Here is some more information on "starvation mode" and how it's largely a myth:

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

stormieweather

Well 400 calories a day isn't enough for an infant, so it most certainly isn't enough for someone burning 800 calories at the gym.

MacMadame

That's why your body burns the rest from your fat stores.

cds2327

Eat em back!

cmriverside

No, you don't HAVE to eat them. It's a choice and you should chose what works for you based on your issues, personality and goals.

As to all of the horibble tings some people say will happen to you, most of it isn't really true. For example, every time you go on a diet, your metabolism slows down. Yes, even if you eat exercise calories.

Secondly, when you go on a diet, you lose some lean muscle mass, yes, even if you eat your exercise calories. There are ways to combat this and one way is to eat some or all of your exercise calories, but there are other ways as well, such as doing strength training and eating more protein.

Third, your body isn't going to cannibalize your muscles if you have fat stores. The fat stores are there to be used in times of "famine" (your body thinks there is a famine whenever you go on a diet). Your body isn't so stupid that it will ignore your fat stores in favor of muscles that it needs. In studies of starvation, subject's bodies didn't start to cannibalize themselves (i.e., use muscle and organ tissue for fuel) until the subject's body fat percentage got down to essential levels. (5-6% for men, 10-12% for women)

So eat them (or part of them) if:
-not eating them makes you feel too deprived or you want to treat yourself more than your base calories allows for
-you are lacking energy to get through your day
-you aren't doing strength training and/or getting more protein than average to combat muscle loss
-you are happy with your rate of loss when you eat them
-you are sure they are accurate and you aren't overestimating how many you've burned

Don't eat them if:
-Eating them slows (or stops) your weight loss below acceptable levels
-You aren't sure how many you are really burning (i.e, you aren't using a good HRM to judge calorie expenditure) and want a cushion

You can also decide to just eat part of them or eat them some of the time and not others or whatever works for you.

Personally, I didn't eat mine when I was losing. I had lots of energy and was training for a triathlon and did just fine. My metabolism didn't slow down (in fact, from all my training, it revved up), my organs weren't destroyed and I didn't lose muscle mass. I did raise my protein goals as I increased my training and I did slowly increase my calories as I got closer to my goal but I stuck to the calorie level my doctor gave me and that didn't include adding back in exercise calories.

Here is some more information on "starvation mode" and how it's largely a myth:

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

Starvation mode is NOT a myth!!!! And this person posting had well over one hundred pounds to lose, so unless that is the case for you, you cannot afford to put yourself in a large calorie deficit like mcmadame did. I would ask her "qualifications" for giving you that advice. Is she a registered Nutritionist or Dietician or Weight-Loss Doctor? Be careful. Eat those exercise calories. Just because you write a blog, and lost weight, does not make you an expert.

_______________________________________________________________________

cmriverside

macmadame, the OP only has 25 pounds listed as their weight-loss goal.

Please don't advise someone with virtually very little body fat to go into a 800-1000 calorie deficit!

kwardklinck

I would eat some of them. If you start out at 1200 cals a day then there's no place to go when it stops working. You're not supposed to ever go below 1200. Try between 1500-1600 on the days you work out and see what happens. If you're losing 1-2 pounds a week than you're on the right track. If you lose a whole bunch all at once, you may need to eat more. If you're not losing consistently try eating fewer cals. This is just a baseline. Everyone's body handles diet and exercise differently.

stormieweather

That's why your body burns the rest from your fat stores.

Are you SERIOUS?? You think 400 NET calories is enough for someone NOT under a doctor's supervision? For REAL?

MacMadame

Are you serious? :laugh: You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the laws of physics. If a person has fat stores, they have a source of energy. If they have a source of energy. they aren't eating their organs. Think of it like being a hybrid car. If there isn't gas in the tank, the car runs off the battery. Our fat stores are like a big calorie battery.

Jenny Craig, Nutri/system, and many other mainstream diet programs do not have you eat your exercise calories and people lose weight on them just fine. They don't suffer from malnutrition, go into so-called starvation mode, or any of the other dire things that people who subscribe to the "you must eat your exercise calories" school of thought predict.

The standard recommendation is that you shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories if not under a doctor's supervision, it's not that you shouldn't go under 1200 *net* calories.

SHBoss1673

Are you serious? :laugh: You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the laws of physics. If a person has fat stores, they have a source of energy. If they have a source of energy. they aren't eating their organs. Think of it like being a hybrid car. If there isn't gas in the tank, the car runs off the battery. Our fat stores are like a big calorie battery.

the above is wrong. The human body uses the FASTEST available stored energy, if it's faster to convert muscle to energy, it will do so, this is the case many times, but ONLY if the body feels like it has muscle that isn't being used and needs to be removed (as in the case of starvation mode).

Jenny Craig, Nutri/system, and many other mainstream diet programs do not have you eat your exercise calories and people lose weight on them just fine. They don't suffer from malnutrition, go into so-called starvation mode, or any of the other dire things that people who subscribe to the "you must eat your exercise calories" school of thought predict.

the above statement neglects to state that all of these places put you on an average caloric deficit that has taken into account a moderate amount of exercise and is adjusted for such. I've spoken with WW representatives about this, they actually assume that you will exercise for about 300 to 500 calories 3 to 5 days a week.
[/quote]

The standard recommendation is that you shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories if not under a doctor's supervision, it's not that you shouldn't go under 1200 *net* calories.

did you refer someone to your own blog as a source of alternate information on a topic? I find that to be a little bit.... ahh, interesting.

Your ideas about how the body burns fat, muscle, and the human metabolic system... you and I need to do some private chatting before you make those kind of statements, I feel that they are completely inappropriate and you are doing a disservice. Normally I bite my tongue on these things, but these are far to serious to just let slide by.

People, starvation mode is not a myth, it's a fact proven out by NUMEROUS studies and clinical data. Some people's concept of starvation mode may be off, but that doesn't make it a myth.

I find it interesting that you state in your first post that (and I quote here) "Secondly, when you go on a diet, you lose some lean muscle mass, yes, even if you eat your exercise calories"

and then in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH you write (again I quote): "Third, your body isn't going to cannibalize your muscles if you have fat stores. The fat stores are there to be used in times of "famine" (your body thinks there is a famine whenever you go on a diet)"

these two statements are complete contradictions.

Look, you can follow what ever plan you want, I can tell it works for you, that's fine I have no beef with it, but when you come out and say things things that just don't jibe, I'm not going to stand around and stay silent.

also, I want to see that study that says that muscle isn't canabalized until you reach 5 or 6% for men. Catabolism begins when the body recognizes that a muscle is no longer needed for regular work, it has nothing to do with how much body fat you have. If your biceps are only utilizing 20% of their mass on a regular basis, they will shrink, regardless of whether you eat your maintenance calories, this process is intensified by the body's need for energy (in a caloric deficit), but it's there all the time anyway, your body is constantly evaluating whether a muscle is needed, and will act accordingly.

I'm no doctor, and I don't agree 100% with what other people on here are saying, but there's enough info on this site for someone to easily work out their situations, when you go off on the human metabolism and make some of the statements you make, I say back them up with data, (no anecdotes please), show me a clinical study that says that starvation mode has been found to be a myth, and that there are no consequences to eating a VLCD, by an accredited university, or a respected research firm, and I'll rethink my opinions.

These studies prove that the human body does indeed catabolize lean tissue mass when in starvation (even for those who are obese). You can read all of these studies on the www.ajcn.org website (the american journal of clinical nutrition).

-Protein, fat, and carbohydrate requirements during starvation: anaplerosis and cataplerosis1–3
By: Oliver E Owen, Karl J Smalley, David A D’Alessio, Maria A Mozzoli, and Elizabeth K Dawson

-Metabolic aspects of acute starvation in normal humans (10 days)
By: CONSOLAZIO et al. 20 (7)
(please also note alternate sections of this with regards to Performance and Cardiovascular Evaluation

-Effects of starvation on body composition
By: Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, Jul 1980; 33: 1562 - 1566.

WrenLynn

Thank you for clearing that up SHBOSS. This is the first time in my life and I have dieted many times that I have heard that you should be eating your exercise calories. At first I was like, why would anyone do that? they might as well not work out and just eat 1200 calories. I have been eating my exercise calories for a week now and I lost 2 lbs instead of the 1 lb. I lost last week and the few weeks before that when I didn't know anything about this site. Incredible! It seems to go against logic but now is making perfect sense. The times I have lost weight before it has been very quickly and as soon as I try to maintain the loss my weight would start climbing up. I think it was because during the "diet" I felt deprived because I didn't feel like I could eat anything that wasn't low in calories. When you reach your goal you start to feel you deserve to have some of the things you didn't let yourself have while losing and all of a sudden you weigh more than what you did when you started the diet and indeed look bigger because of muscle loss. With being able to eat my exercise calories I am able to eat some of my most loved foods and thus do not feel like I'm on a diet at all. I feel for the first time in my life I may very well beat this demon of mine and be able to stay at goal weight when I get there.

cmriverside

So, macmadame, your signature says"Vertical Gastrectomy - 9/24/08"-thast is a form of weight-loss surgery, right?

I think if you are on this site now, you must be still having some kind of "issues" related to weight loss, right?

Why would you come on a site that has worked for thousands of people WITHOUT having surgery, and start telling people that, "This is wrong!!"

I think if you will try it this healthy way, and see all the many many peope here for whom healthy weight loss, fitness, and maintenance is a lifestyle, maybe you will be a believer. In the meantime, we will continue to try to make sense of your ramblings so others don't end up under the knife.

Good luck to you all.

Thanks, Steve - I wasn't going to try.

taz1978

I have found this very interesting. I was under the illusion before joing this site that the only way to lose weight was to eat less and exercise more. But it's logical that our body needs more fuel if it is exerting more effort - but that fuel needs to be the right kind. Fair enough if you eat your cals used with a mars bar you will prob gain weight becaue of the amount of Fat a mars contains. This week i lost 1lb by eating my 1200 cals and doing no exercise as i was unwell - some days i was a little over and i still lost.

I started back exercising today and i cant wait to see if eating more, of the right kind of food, will result in a bigger loss next week. I agree we need to do it the way the site advises this has obviously worked for a lot of people so it cant be wrong.

I'm here as i want to lose weight in a healthy way and keep it off, i'm fed up of going on a diet, where i really restrict my cals and up my exercise (yes it works short-term), only to gain it all back again becuase i cannot sustain that sort of lifestyle. This way is healthy and do-able.

BamaRose0107

Starvation mode is not a myth! It may be blown a little out of proportion here sometimes, but that does nt make it a myth. I have experiences this first hand. After a year of eating less than 1000 calories a day and burning at least 500 6 days a week working out my body started to fight back. I ended up in the hospital with an IV in my arm for three days. The thing is even if a person can't see the effects of it on the scale that does not mean it is not doing a number on that persons body on the inside.


I would suggest not using some random persons blog as a means of research information! Self proclaimed experts can cause more harm than good in some cases. Like Boss said try studies by accredited universities or at least medical sites to form an educated opinion. We have to take care of our bodies bottom line.

MacMadame

I think if you are on this site now, you must be still having some kind of "issues" related to weight loss, right?

Ah, so we are going for the ad hominem attack, are we? Sorry to disappoint, but I am only on this site because I want to log food and exercise as I believe that's the best way to both lose weight and to maintain it. I'm on MFP, in particular, because its the easiest of the online food diaries to use and because it allows me to set my own goals as to sodium, carbs, protein, etc.

Why would you come on a site that has worked for thousands of people WITHOUT having surgery, and start telling people that, "This is wrong!!"

I think if you will try it this healthy way, and see all the many many peope here for whom healthy weight loss, fitness, and maintenance is a lifestyle, maybe you will be a believer.

First of all, many people on this site have had WLS. They are just quiet about it because they know they'll get attacked for it as I have been attacked. The argument seems to be "if you had WLS than nothing you say could possibly be true" and I find that bigoted and sad. It definitely says more about the people who follow that line of reasoning than it does about me.

Second, what I see on this site is not thousands of people being successful. I see the same thing I see on any diet site. Some are successful, some struggle and never get to goal, some get to goal but then start gaining it back.

Third, many people on this site do not eat their exercise calories or at least don't eat all of them. There are as many programs and approaches being followed on this site as there are on any diet site.

I also find it amusing that you are acting as if healthy weight loss, an active lifestyle and maintenance are not part of my life. First, I lost my weight under a doctor's care. I had (and continue to have) regular lab work. My weight loss was probably healthier than most people's here who just blindly follow the MFP guidelines, particularly as their protein recommendations and sodium recommendations aren't what I consider optimal, and are not involving their doctor(s) in their weight loss efforts.

As for a healthy lifestyle, um, I'm a triathlete. I workout 5-10 hours a week. My diet is predominately lean meats, eggs and dairy, vegetables, nuts, fruit and whole grains. I don't drink alcohol during the season either.

As far as maintenance, my weight has been stable for over 6 months now and that includes making it through the holidays and an injury where my workouts were greatly reduced.

I am the epitome of a healthy weight loss, lifestyle and maintenance, in fact.

At this point in time, WLS is the only effective and durable treatment for morbid obesity. It is the "healthy way" because it works and therefore co-morbidities are cured and lifespan is extended. It also stops the cycle of yo-yo dieting, which, according to many obesity experts, is actually more unhealthy than just being overweight.

I find all the attacks on me for daring to put a link to an article I wrote on my blog to be amusing as well. I assume few actually *read* what I wrote there because there are links to several articles and those articles quote many studies. There is even a link to a Tom Venuto article where he argues that Starvation Mode is not a myth to provide an apposing point of view. Yet, you act like I expect people to believe me just because I said so... which is clearly not the case if you actually had read what I wrote.

I wrote it so I wouldn't have to repeat myself over and over. That's it. It's no different than the people who say "here, read this thread on MFP" as if a thread of random people declaring that, if you don't eat your exercise calories, you will go into starvation mode and stop losing weight proves anything, either. It's not the link, it's the information you find there. Read it and make up your own mind, that's all I ask.

SHBoss - you are right, I did contradict myself. I guess I should have posted more fully... I got lazy and short-circuited my arguments.

The thing is, any time you go on a diet, your metabolism slows down. You know this, as you've said so yourself and have posted cites of studies that show this was well. You also lose *some* muscle mass; at least most people do.

But a lot of people on this site seem to think that all you have to do is eat your exercise calories and that won't happen. They treat eating your exercise calories as some kind of magic talisman that protects you from all evil. :laugh: But it isn't true... having a calorie deficit is what causes these things and, you have to have a calorie deficit to lose weight. So then it's a matter of degree.

As you said, unneeded muscle is cannibalized and ready energy is used first. So, you can limit your muscle mass loss by using your muscles (i.e., exercise, particularly strength training) and by proper fueling before, during and after exercise. Note, this does not mean that you have to eat your exercise calories. It means you eat what calories you do eat in the proper proportions at the right time. So, don't work out when you are riding on fumes. Have a "recovery" snack, 30-60 min. after exercising. Etc. Etc. If you do those things, your lean tissue will be preserved as much as possible whether you eat your exercise calories or not.

In the famous Minnesota study from the 40s where they had men live on a compound, put them on a starvation diet and exercised them like crazy (hmm, sounds like The Biggest Loser without the $$ prize and humiliating challenges), the men lost weight all through the study. The longer they were in this state, the the slower their metabolism got. But they continued to lose weight and it was primarily fat that was lost. In particular, they didn't start to cannibalize their organs until they had 5-6% body fat. Until that point, they continued to lose fat and they even had minimal loss of muscles, as well.

Yet, people on MFP declare all the time that you have to eat your exercise calories or your body will cannibalize its organs. This is not supported by studies. I have not seen a single study that says that, if your calorie deficit is greater than 500-1000 calories a day, your organs get cannibalized, but, if it's less than that, they don't. That just isn't how it works.

And, speaking of WW, one of the links in my blog article is to an article on the WW site in their Science Center section called "The Starvation Myth". It quotes four different studies/clinical articles to support it's contention that the idea that you need to eat more calories to lose weight and not eating enough calories causes your weight loss to plateau is a myth:

1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.

2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.

3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.

4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.

And, if people want more studies, here's a study about the difference in starvation among obese vs. lean individuals (the men most of the starvation studies started at a normal weight, not overweight or obese) that shows that the effects of a "starvation" diet are much less pronounced in obese individuals:

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e11.htm

Btw, to make it clear, I am not ADVOCATING that people starve themselves in order to lose weight. In fact, I think that's dumb.

However, that doesn't mean you *have* to eat your exercise calories. Not eating your exercise calories isn't the same thing as starving yourself.

There are good reasons to eat them, but there are just as many, if not more, good reasons not to eat them.

In particular, I think most people are playing with fire if they eat them all. Studies have shown that we tend to underestimate our food intake and over-estimate our energy expenditure. Logging helps with that, but only up to a point. Plus, the formulas on MFP and the numbers on the exercise machines in the gym -- which are what a lot of people use to determine how much they've burned in exercise, not the more accurate HRM -- overestimate energy expenditure for many. Not eating your exercise calories or at least not eating them all gives you a cushion that makes up for that.

But whenever you say that here... you get pounded on for advocating losing weight in a "dangerous" manner. Oh no, you MUST eat your exercise calories or DIRE THINGS WILL HAPPEN we are told.

But exercising 30-60 min a day doing moderate aerobic exercise and some strength training for 3-6 days a week is not taking it to extremes. That's what most people do on most programs while eating 1200-1400 calories a day. (Just as the WW person told SHBoss.) They don't eat extra on days they exercise and they don't destroy their bodies and they lose weight just fine. There are even people on doctor supervised programs that eat 800 calories a day and do moderate exercise and lose weight just fine. (Optifast and Medifast are two programs that work like that.)

And, speaking of The Biggest Loser, the people on that program are actually on starvation diets. A starvation diet is defined by most researchers as eating 50% or less of the calories your body needs to maintain. People who weigh over 300 lb. and workout 6-8 hours a day but only eat 1400-1600 calories are definitely eating less than 50% of their maintenance calories since it takes about 3000 calories a day to maintain 300 lb. of body weight.

BamaRose - I'm really sorry you ended up in the hospital. I'm sure that was scary. However, your anecdote does not support the Starvation Mode myth. It does support the idea that you shouldn't be eating less than 1200 calories a day unless you are under a doctor's supervision.

In fact, I would take that further... there is no reason not to involve your doctor in any diet you do even if you are eating well over 1200 calories a day. Regular lab work and someone with medical training watching out for the signs of possible malnutrition is good insurance if you are restricting calories.