Probably obvious...buuut...

tishka11

With the whole 'you should never go under 1200 calories a day' thing....is that your net calories or just pure intake of calories for the day?

Ie - if your exercising should you always be having more than the 1200 minimum?

Sorry if this seems like a really obvious question

melaniecheeks

Its one of many questions that arise around the whole 1200 calories and starvation mode debate!

And there's no hard and fast answer. It'll depend on a number of factors, including your current weight, and previous metabolism issues.

My own belief - and I'm not a qualified nutritionist - is that it's important to eat 1200 calories. Less than that and you're not giving your body enough nutrition.

If you exercise, you need to find the fuel for that. This can come from food, or from your body's stored reserves. But if you are going to fuel workouts from additional food you need to be really really careful about measuring both the food and the calorie burn. And everything you eat and burn is an estimate.

KazzaLee13

With the whole 'you should never go under 1200 calories a day' thing....is that your net calories or just pure intake of calories for the day?

Ie - if your exercising should you always be having more than the 1200 minimum?

Sorry if this seems like a really obvious question

It's net. But I would rather say "you should never go under your BMR net a day"

chervil6

i always go under my bmr , we'll see how that works when i get on the scales on tuesday lol plus i had a fast day yesterday

Sarauk2sf

Based on the way that MFP is set up, it is net. Eat to the calories MFP tells you - and that includes exercise (although I would recommend only eating about 75% back to leave yourself some wiggle room for inaccuracies).

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

fraser112

With the whole 'you should never go under 1200 calories a day' thing....is that your net calories or just pure intake of calories for the day?

Ie - if your exercising should you always be having more than the 1200 minimum?

Sorry if this seems like a really obvious question

It is very much like weight loss pills like dnp. Can it be used safely? yes it can. Are 90% of people to stupid to use it without dying is the main thing.
You could double your bmr with it but you could also die if you bugger it up.

Eating low is the same you can do it with no side effects but it requires refeeds and such and it is best in the long run to keep the idiots from doing it to say never go below 1200. It means anyone who wants to push it and get the quick results will have to research the matter. Same for most drugs.

NordicAlien

I'm often under my BMR, but then I'm a recovering anorexic* and consider it a good day if I'm 2/3 of the way there. It's not at all healthy to be under it. I've certainly noticed that days when I eat more (although I have trouble getting the calories, what with food allergies and whatnot) I'm more alert, less crabby, and actually have the energy to do things. Well, sometimes. (I also have fibromyalgia so it's not a given.)

But yeah, I'd use BMR as a better indicator than 1200. The health implications of eating under 1200 are going to be vastly different for someone who's 5'10" and 185 than for someone 4'10" and 90, for example.

*[EDIT: dagnabbit, someone needs to come up with a noun for people with non-specified EDs; according to DSM-IV you can't be anorexic unless you're underweight.]

Oishii

Based on the way that MFP is set up, it is net. Eat to the calories MFP tells you - and that includes exercise (although I would recommend only eating about 75% back to leave yourself some wiggle room for inaccuracies).

With all due respect, I would add to this: and then see what happens.

I was logging all my exercise, even washing up, and even then I was still losing over 2lb a week when I only had 10lb to lose. Clearly, I was losing too fast.

Treat everything as an experiment, tweak as you go along, and, if I were you, aim to eat as much as possible to lose weight, not as little as possible. Good luck! :flowerforyou:

Sarauk2sf

Based on the way that MFP is set up, it is net. Eat to the calories MFP tells you - and that includes exercise (although I would recommend only eating about 75% back to leave yourself some wiggle room for inaccuracies).

With all due respect, I would add to this: and then see what happens.

I was logging all my exercise, even washing up, and even then I was still losing over 2lb a week when I only had 10lb to lose. Clearly, I was losing too fast.

Treat everything as an experiment, tweak as you go along, and, if I were you, aim to eat as much as possible to lose weight, not as little as possible. Good luck! :flowerforyou:

Absolutely. Everything is an estimate - getting a bit more accuracy on how those estimates apply to the individual takes time and some tweaking.

beskimoosh

*[EDIT: dagnabbit, someone needs to come up with a noun for people with non-specified EDs; according to DSM-IV you can't be anorexic unless you're underweight.]

I'm not getting involved in the 1200 calorie debate here, but I was snooping on the post and they call it ED-NOS (eating disorders not otherwise specified). I'm a nurse in a hospital for people with mental health problem, hope that helps you!

janeite1990

I'm in the "aim for 1200 net" camp; but I will add that you'll never hit that exactly. If it makes you happy to be 20-50 under each day, so be it. If you go 20-50 over here and there, oh well.