BEING UNDER YOUR CALORIE GOAL ISNT A GOOD THING IS IT?

SANDRA_F26

I USE TO BE PROUD OF MY SELF WHEN I WAS UNDER MY CALORIE GOAL BUT WITH ALL THE STARVATION MODE TALK MAKES ME WONDER IF THATS REALLY A GOOD THING AFTER ALL.

KenosFeoh

I think it depends.

If your goal is 1500 and you come in at 1380, probably no big deal.

If it's 1200 and you come in at 1080, big fat hairy deal.

samanthachen

Such a good question! If you are well above your BMR, I think being a little under your calories is alright. If you work out heavily and only eat slightly above your BMR for the day, and then you don't eat back your exercise calories, you will (potentially) be under you BMR with your net calories!

EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY
Your BMR is 1500
You set your calories to 1600.
Today you ate 1550 (slightly under) because it is nice to not finish them off, right?
Then you run for exercise and burn 500 calories.
Your net intake is now at 1050, and you are well under your BMR. Your body will quickly remedy that with quick weight loss in the beginning, and a plateau only a few months out.

A lot of it is listening to your body, but use the numbers to guide you. Your net calories need to be above your BMR or your body will plateau. It is something I am struggling with doing (since I have been here for just over a week). I started at the MFP setting of 1200 calories. I loved the projection of 2lb/week! That is much less than a year for my goals!!! I felt fine, and I wasn't hungry, but I also read the info people were putting out there about the BMR and TDEE, and I thought "makes sense... I think I need to take care of my body and do this right, rather than cut corners and calories to do it faster and burn out." I am not projected to lose .7lb/week. Bummer, but if I am doing it right, that is better! We are here to sustain!

I hope you get more responses, as mine is a bit pathetic of an explanation, but I hope it helps in the mean time.

deksgrl

It depends. What is your calorie goal? Did you allow MFP to set your calorie goal? Are you eating your exercise calories? How many pounds do you need to lose, and how many pounds per week did you tell MFP you want to lose? (you might or might not be eating too few calories already, in which case it would be a bad thing if you are consistently under your calorie goal)

Abi_bug04

Such a good question! If you are well above your BMR, I think being a little under your calories is alright. If you work out heavily and only eat slightly above your BMR for the day, and then you don't eat back your exercise calories, you will (potentially) be under you BMR with your net calories!

EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY
Your BMR is 1500
You set your calories to 1600.
Today you ate 1550 (slightly under) because it is nice to not finish them off, right?
Then you run for exercise and burn 500 calories.
Your net intake is now at 1050, and you are well under your BMR. Your body will quickly remedy that with quick weight loss in the beginning, and a plateau only a few months out.

A lot of it is listening to your body, but use the numbers to guide you. Your net calories need to be above your BMR or your body will plateau. It is something I am struggling with doing (since I have been here for just over a week). I started at the MFP setting of 1200 calories. I loved the projection of 2lb/week! That is much less than a year for my goals!!! I felt fine, and I wasn't hungry, but I also read the info people were putting out there about the BMR and TDEE, and I thought "makes sense... I think I need to take care of my body and do this right, rather than cut corners and calories to do it faster and burn out." I am not projected to lose .7lb/week. Bummer, but if I am doing it right, that is better! We are here to sustain!

I hope you get more responses, as mine is a bit pathetic of an explanation, but I hope it helps in the mean time.

^^This is great advice!

Here are some helpful links if you want to read up more on the topic:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

and if you want to try the TDEE method this link gives step by step of EXACTLY how to go about doing it:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

And something even easier than the previous one:
You can download it from here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/spreadsheet-ver-3-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-calcs-macro-calcs-hrm-zones-426221

I generally stick to the "simple setup" tab because it is straight forward. I may go into it a bit more and tweak it once I have lost more weight, however for now I am sticking to that! I then just manually change my MFP settings to the target indicated by the spreadsheet. Afterwards, I don't add in any exercise, unless I do something absolutely intense. I thought that this method took away the uncertainty of wondering about how many calories were right for me based on my activity level!

Good luck! :flowerforyou:

stumblinthrulife

BlueInkDot

lol @douglanglois

Yeah, it's all dependant on your BMR and TDEE.

Right now my BMR is 1500 and my TDEE is 2100

So eating 1500 is a MINIMUM and eating 2100 is a MAXIMUM.

This method also takes into account my workouts, so I'm not suppsoed to eat back my exercise calories.

You'll have to do the math to figure out your own personal BMR and TDEE.

Oh hey someone already posted all the pertinent links. There ya go.

Good luck! :flowerforyou:

SANDRA_F26

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIOME TO RESPOND!

metacognition

I think it's fine if your body is not telling you to eat more calories.
Cut back on those days (not below 1200), because you will likely be hungrier on other days and you can eat a little more without crashing your diet goals.

guygotguns

I might not be popular for saying this, but talk of needing to eat your calorie goal seems silly to me. Obviously making sure that you eat healthily and not a dangerous reduction is important, however talk of 'starvation mode' is extremely misleading.

If your body is in starvation mode, your metabolism does indeed slow, however the calorie deficit more than makes up for the small percentage reduction in metabolism. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment, considered the leading research into starvation, is where the majority of data on this topic is from.

Each of the men studied noted a drop in metabolism, however it was not until they reached a weight that the calorific intake would support. The drop in metabolism rarely counters the calorific deficit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

The damage done to your body by starving is interestingly more acute the thinner you are (as you would imagine). It you are obese, the body is much more effective at burning fat reserves.

This doesn't negate any side effects such as malnutrition, potential risk of triggering eating disorders etc. however all this talk of starvation mode stopping you lose weight is completely incorrect.

MrsSWW

Using the links that have been posted already calculate your BMR and TDEE. Then eat between those number, ideally at TDEE-15%. IMO you don't have to hit the exact number every day, but if you do it as an average over the course of the week try to get it as close as possible x

mfpcopine

If you are eating at a level appropriate to your goals, it doesn't matter if you are a little under. You're probably eating more than you think you are. If you're concerned about losing weight too rapidly the obvious advice would be to eat more.

You should not use all caps. It's considered rude.

tricksee

I laugh in the face of starvation mode.

bfbooty

to be honest this whole thing still really confuses me i can't seem to get my head around what exactly i should be eating lol

GamerLady

I might not be popular for saying this, but talk of needing to eat your calorie goal seems silly to me. Obviously making sure that you eat healthily and not a dangerous reduction is important, however talk of 'starvation mode' is extremely misleading.

If your body is in starvation mode, your metabolism does indeed slow, however the calorie deficit more than makes up for the small percentage reduction in metabolism. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment, considered the leading research into starvation, is where the majority of data on this topic is from.

Each of the men studied noted a drop in metabolism, however it was not until they reached a weight that the calorific intake would support. The drop in metabolism rarely counters the calorific deficit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

The damage done to your body by starving is interestingly more acute the thinner you are (as you would imagine). It you are obese, the body is much more effective at burning fat reserves.

This doesn't negate any side effects such as malnutrition, potential risk of triggering eating disorders etc. however all this talk of starvation mode stopping you lose weight is completely incorrect.

^^This^^
Good post.