is 600 to 800 NET cals per day too low?

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

OK I have to defend the OP. For some people (like me) it's very difficult to lose weight unless you eat about 1,200 calories per day. This is the minimum amount of calories for a healthy weight loss, and the National Institute of Health backs this up. If you're netting a little below 1,200 because of exercise that's OK in my book. Now, 600 does seem really low, and I only do moderate circuit training for about 20 minutes a day, so I usually NET at least 1,000.

For those of you with significant weight to lose, it makes sense to eat more than 1,200, but if you're on your last 10 or so pounds, good luck losing on more than 1,200!!

Unless you have a metabolic disorder or you are trying to lose weight that you don't have to lose (already a healthy weight and bodyfat) then the simple answer is you don't have your diet and exercise regime right if you need to net less than 1200. Most official guidelines assume you are doing no more than a minimal amount/ quality of exercise and only aim to get you into the healthy weight/ BMI range. They don't apply to those who are serious about clean eating and body composition, fitness professionals use different guidelines and equations in a programme for someone who is training regularly.

Circuits is generally full body, you should not be doing that daily, you aren't giving your muscles rest days so the quality and volume of your workout will be much lower than you are capable of - I hope that is twenty minutes plus ten minute warm up and five minute cool down. There is also little point in doing moderate circuits for twenty minutes once you are passed the initial adaptation period or are extremely unfit, you can't overload the muscles enough to get results, at best you will maintain.

Our muscle mass is a major factor in our resting metabolic rate, a quality strength training and nutrition programme will not only help you build more muscle increasing the metabolism longer term but also short term (up to two days!) due to repair and regeneration. Most women don't lift anywhere near heavy enough, most people do totally the wrong exercises (too many isolation not enough compound), poor technique and/ or lift too fast to get serious results and/ or don't switch up their programme often enough. There's also impressive results from high intensity cardio intervals, again most people don't work hard enough or they don't do a proper warm up.

Rawr, no need to get in a hissy fit! Sorry, once I saw your profile pic I couldn't help myself.

Anyway, why can't we just live and let live? As long as someone isn't starving themselves, which is generally defined as eating less than 1,200 cals / day (for women anyway) why can't we just do what works for us personally?

And to the other poster about not doing circuit training every day, yes there is a warm up and cool down. It's Jillian Michael's 30 day shred and it's meant to be done every day for 30 days, hence the name. It's not something to do forever.

For those of you with significant weight to lose, it makes sense to eat more than 1,200, but if you're on your last 10 or so pounds, good luck losing on more than 1,200!!

Complete and utter nonsense.

Agreed, when you only have 10 is lbs to go you should only be eating at a very small deficit, 0.5lb/week goal, or 10% below TDEE.

Anyway, why can't we just live and let live? As long as someone isn't starving themselves, which is generally defined as eating less than 1,200 cals / day (for women anyway) why can't we just do what works for us personally?

Except the OP is talking about netting 600 - 800. Not even close to 1200.

And "what works" for you personally, could potentially be doing damage that you cannot see to your organs. That is why people are so adamant on this issue.

Unless you're 3'2", yes.

For those of you with significant weight to lose, it makes sense to eat more than 1,200, but if you're on your last 10 or so pounds, good luck losing on more than 1,200!!

Complete and utter nonsense.

exactly^^ im on my last 10 lbs and i eat between 1600-2000. Im still losing, slowly but surely.

You are a 5'8", 180 pound, 25 year old female.

You have a BMR of 1640. This is Basal Metabolic Rate, the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to fuel your basic bodily functions, heart beat, brain function, breathing, organs.

Eat at least that much.

^ This.

My pre-pregnancy weight was right where you are now, and I'm 5'8" also. I lost about a lb per week on 1700-1900 NET calories per day.

It's important to get enough nutrition throughout the day or risk damaging your health and wellbeing long-term. Be patient. Lose slower. Work on attaining your fitness goals alongside your weight goals.

Anyway, why can't we just live and let live? As long as someone isn't starving themselves, which is generally defined as eating less than 1,200 cals / day (for women anyway) why can't we just do what works for us personally?

Except the OP is talking about netting 600 - 800. Not even close to 1200.

And "what works" for you personally, could potentially be doing damage that you cannot see to your organs. That is why people are so adamant on this issue.

I think you are confusing my message with the OPs. I don't advocate for this 600 - 800 she is netting. That is too low. What I'm saying is that for some people eating 1,200 calories is right for them. Personally this is the only thing that works for me because I'm already "healthy" and am just going for more slim (while still well within the healthy range). For those of you who love to work out, lift weights, etc. for hours a day, I totally understand eating more. But for my piddly 20 minutes a day, it doesn't affect my calorie needs all that much. I know you're coming from a good place, but I'm not saying I personally net 800 calories a day nor am I saying anyone else should unless they are under doctor's supervision.

If you are not trying to lose a lot, you should be eating only slightly under maintenance, so unless your maintenance is 1450 or less, you should be eating more than 1200 Net.

I think you are confusing my message with the OPs. I don't advocate for this 600 - 800 she is netting. That is too low. What I'm saying is that for some people eating 1,200 calories is right for them. Personally this is the only thing that works for me because I'm already "healthy" and am just going for more slim (while still well within the healthy range). For those of you who love to work out, lift weights, etc. for hours a day, I totally understand eating more. But for my piddly 20 minutes a day, it doesn't affect my calorie needs all that much. I know you're coming from a good place, but I'm not saying I personally net 800 calories a day nor am I saying anyone else should unless they are under doctor's supervision.

I do not work out and lift weights for hours a day. I exercise 30 minutes a day, and I eat 1700 calories. I'm 49 years old and I'm close to my goal weight.

Unless you are very short and petite, 1200 calories is probably too little for you too. When you are close to your goal weight, you should be eating very near normal, having a small calorie deficit, not a large one.

Exactly this. I do workout for hours, i eat 6500 calories when bulking and 3000-4000 when cutting BUT even then, I'm only burning around 900 cals a day.

Keep your metabolism fast by eating as much as possible to maintain as much lean tissue as you can. This keeps your BMR higher meaning its harder to put on fat.

Why catabolize lean tissue and make it easier to burn fat? Some seem here to confuse weight lost for FAT lost. Lose FAT not weight.

Anyway, why can't we just live and let live? As long as someone isn't starving themselves, which is generally defined as eating less than 1,200 cals / day (for women anyway) why can't we just do what works for us personally?

Except the OP is talking about netting 600 - 800. Not even close to 1200.

And "what works" for you personally, could potentially be doing damage that you cannot see to your organs. That is why people are so adamant on this issue.

^^^ This.

Also I like having lean body mass aka muscle. Do you think you'll support lean body mass and get that shapely look you may want? Or go skinny fat because you catabolize muscle? And then because you have less LBM lower your BMR and so require less calories and find if you eat badily you pile weight on easier because you need less calories?

I know I'd rather have more LBM and be able to eat more calories myself. I know I keep posting this pic but this is my misses:



and at around 5' 1-2" she is on 1600 calories a day. WHY eat less and look worse at the end of it and put on fat more readily? It doesn't make sense?

Ummmm, yeah, does everyone see this hottie hot hot that eats more than 1200 cals a day?

:smokin:

For reference, I am 5'8, 26% bf and eat 2000 calories EVERY day. I lift or do bodyweight exercises at home 3x per week and might throw in 15 mins of HIIT here or there.

Can you lose fat eating that much a day? I sure did! I put this photo comparison - with the caption, just for funsies. I'm not where I want to be, but why eat 1,200 when I can accomplish more by eating 2,000?



ETA: You should read this and do your own calculations -- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

You're fine I think
I lost more weight using another site that was less technical than I have on this site
I went back to MY way (calculating bmr X activity level - 500 cals = goal calories) and have started losing again.
I don't do that eating back your exercise calories crap

Note: I eat more than 1200 cals a day. Do I net 1200? No

I think you are confusing my message with the OPs. I don't advocate for this 600 - 800 she is netting. That is too low. What I'm saying is that for some people eating 1,200 calories is right for them. Personally this is the only thing that works for me because I'm already "healthy" and am just going for more slim (while still well within the healthy range). For those of you who love to work out, lift weights, etc. for hours a day, I totally understand eating more. But for my piddly 20 minutes a day, it doesn't affect my calorie needs all that much. I know you're coming from a good place, but I'm not saying I personally net 800 calories a day nor am I saying anyone else should unless they are under doctor's supervision.

I do not work out and lift weights for hours a day. I exercise 30 minutes a day, and I eat 1700 calories. I'm 49 years old and I'm close to my goal weight.

Unless you are very short and petite, 1200 calories is probably too little for you too. When you are close to your goal weight, you should be eating very near normal, having a small calorie deficit, not a large one.

Exactly this. I do workout for hours, i eat 6500 calories when bulking and 3000-4000 when cutting BUT even then, I'm only burning around 900 cals a day.

Keep your metabolism fast by eating as much as possible to maintain as much lean tissue as you can. This keeps your BMR higher meaning its harder to put on fat.

Why catabolize lean tissue and make it easier to burn fat? Some seem here to confuse weight lost for FAT lost. Lose FAT not weight.

^^^^ Im with ya about not catabolizing lean muscle.. But medical studies have shown that if you are overweight/obese your body will use fat cells as the primary source of energy conversion to keep your body moving, and it will not use lean muscle until other options have been depleted.. Now for someone who is lean, low body fat percentage like yourself.. and hopefully soon me .. Lean muscle will become a an option for the body much faster as a source of energy.. And def, that will suck...