To few calories?

Options
Ok so you eat your 1500-1600 calories but do exercise that burns 500+ calories. Is that bad then since your net is only 1000 calories. I am a 220 lb 30 year old man. Should your net be 1500+?

Replies

  • jennylynn84
    Options
    The minimum recommended net for women is 1200. Men's was substantially higher, I believe closer to 1800. I would definitely eat back some of those exercise calories. I start at 1400 base and try to eat back half (I don't have an HRM so all my burn is estimated).
  • neenaleigh
    neenaleigh Posts: 584 Member
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:

    Bad advice.
  • calorie712
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:

    but what about the whole starvation mode thing?
  • TheKitsune6
    TheKitsune6 Posts: 5,798 Member
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:

    Bad advice.

    How is that bad advice? If you're going to make a statement it's your job to offer support :/

    Stuffing yourself when you aren't hungry is bad because it stretches your stomach and can literally make you sick if not kill you (rare, but it's happened).
  • ashlee954
    ashlee954 Posts: 1,112 Member
    Options
    I would eat the recommended NET calories. So that means eating back all (or at least some) of your exercise calories. Your weight loss goal is calculated on net cals. You do not want to get into starvation mode. Also, if this is to be a life style change you don't want to eat so few calories forever, right??? Good luck to you!!!
  • jennylynn84
    Options
    Not being hungry is a mode of measurement that I don't put any stock in.

    The less you eat the more your metabolism slows and eventually no, you're not hungry even when you've eaten very little. At my absolute worst stage of eating disorder I would consume MAYBE 150 calories all day before dinner. And I was not hungry. Your body adjusts to what you give it. I didn't used to be hungry for snacks, but now that I have been eating them as a part of my diet plan, I am hungry for them.

    Lack of hunger does not mean you're satisfying your nutritional needs for the day.
  • lordrahvin
    lordrahvin Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    Generally when you burn calories you want to replenish your body by eating to make up for it. If you're trying to lose weight, then you want to be careful to eat only slightly less than what you burned.

    The proper medically-approved method of dieting is to figure out how many calories you need to maintain your weight, including ALL of your physical activity, and cut that calorie intake by a small amount (either by eating less or burning it off, but generally be a combination of both) of about 1000 calories or so.

    The "goal" system on this website takes these adjustments into account. You should consider talking to your doctor about these things if you still have doubts. Some people have personal experiences that don't follow this advice, but I doubt your doctor would approve.

    Being safe and reducing your "total calories lost" slowly is the only safe and medically-approved way to go, and its basic teaching in any nutrition course.
  • TheKitsune6
    TheKitsune6 Posts: 5,798 Member
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:

    but what about the whole starvation mode thing?

    You won't lose weight if there isn't a deficit - basically a diet is like controlled starvation. Calculate your RMR, add the amount of calories you burn per day with exercise and then you can base your deficit on that when eating :)
  • TheKitsune6
    TheKitsune6 Posts: 5,798 Member
    Options
    Not being hungry is a mode of measurement that I don't put any stock in.

    The less you eat the more your metabolism slows and eventually no, you're not hungry even when you've eaten very little. At my absolute worst stage of eating disorder I would consume MAYBE 150 calories all day before dinner. And I was not hungry. Your body adjusts to what you give it. I didn't used to be hungry for snacks, but now that I have been eating them as a part of my diet plan, I am hungry for them.

    Lack of hunger does not mean you're satisfying your nutritional needs for the day.

    You bring up a good point, but meeting your base net goals prevents you from eating only 150 calories per day. An eating disorder is a whole other situation than consuming exercise calories :(
  • irchrismm
    irchrismm Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    Yeah starvation mode will set in and you will begin to lose muscle as your body needs the energy, and your metabolism drops fast. Once in a while won't do much, but if you are consistently doing it it could hurt you. Even as far as messing up your kidney's and liver. Starving yourself skinny will hurt you in the long run. MFP already has a weight loss plan based off your info. Workouts help up your metabolism and improves overall health. So workouts are an addition to your diet, and need to be fueled. You will get better results and will be able to keep it off a lot better this way.
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    Options
    MFP says to eat them...but if you are not hungry DONT DO IT! :smokin:

    Bad advice.

    How is that bad advice? If you're going to make a statement it's your job to offer support :/

    Stuffing yourself when you aren't hungry is bad because it stretches your stomach and can literally make you sick if not kill you (rare, but it's happened).
    It's bad advice because you can't trust whether or not you're hungry when you're dieting or overweight. That "hunger" feature of your body is all out of whack at that point.

    ***MFP AUTOMATICALLY BUILDS IN YOUR DEFICIT*** based on what you input as the amount you wanted to lose per week. If you said you want to lose 1 pound per week, it builds in a 500 calorie deficit daily. When you exercise and don't eat those calories back, you're increasing that deficit. Sounds like a good thing right? Wrong. Because many peoples' bodies don't respond well to very large deficits. Their metabolisms slow down to compensate and they end up losing the same amount of weight (or less) than they would have lost had they eaten more. I'm someone who has struggled with a slowed metabolism for about 6 months. I have to eat more to lose weight. I can't consistently create calorie deficits of more than 800-900 each day or my weight loss slows significantly.

    If you want to create your deficit through exercise, then set your calories to maintainence & then don't log your exercise.
    I use a combination. I set myself to lose 1# per week and then I sometimes leave a couple hundred exercise cals uneaten. This is similar to just setting myself to lose 1.5 pounds/week. :wink:

    Eating isn't just about calories, it's also about nutrients. You have to fuel your body to thrive. :wink:
  • jennylynn84
    Options
    Not being hungry is a mode of measurement that I don't put any stock in.

    The less you eat the more your metabolism slows and eventually no, you're not hungry even when you've eaten very little. At my absolute worst stage of eating disorder I would consume MAYBE 150 calories all day before dinner. And I was not hungry. Your body adjusts to what you give it. I didn't used to be hungry for snacks, but now that I have been eating them as a part of my diet plan, I am hungry for them.

    Lack of hunger does not mean you're satisfying your nutritional needs for the day.

    You bring up a good point, but meeting your base net goals prevents you from eating only 150 calories per day. An eating disorder is a whole other situation than consuming exercise calories :(

    The point is still that no matter how little you eat, your body's hunger adjusts to it.

    Your base net calories is based on your BMR and your activity level. Keeping that in mind, saying I'm sedentary and getting 1400 calories, then working out and eating back the calories is NO different than simply upping my activity level every day, which is really all the exercise calories are doing.

    To the OP - a good explanation as to the eating back of exercise calories is available on this thread by Banks:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/108362-eating-to-fuel-your-body-very-long?
  • calorie712
    Options
    Thanks for your input people! So the remaining cals that MFP says I have after I exercise I will consume, then I should have a deficit overall of about 800 cals per day. Thanks!
  • Life_is_Good
    Life_is_Good Posts: 361 Member
    Options
    I think these are great guidelines & information on calories/calculations. Hope it helps.


    This information from www.bmi-calculator.net

    Harris Benedict Formula
    To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:


    If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
    If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
    If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
    If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
    If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9


    Calorie Needs to lose weight
    There are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of stored body fat. So, if you create a 3500-calorie deficit through diet, exercise or a combination of both, you will lose one pound of body weight. (On average 75% of this is fat, 25% lean tissue) If you create a 7000 calorie deficit you will lose two pounds and so on. The calorie deficit can be achieved either by calorie-restriction alone, or by a combination of fewer calories in (diet) and more calories out (exercise). This combination of diet and exercise is best for lasting weight loss. Indeed, sustained weight loss is difficult or impossible without increased regular exercise.

    If you want to lose fat, a useful guideline for lowering your calorie intake is to reduce your calories by at least 500, but not more than 1000 below your maintenance level. For people with only a small amount of weight to lose, 1000 calories will be too much of a deficit. As a guide to minimum calorie intake, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommends that calorie levels never drop below 1200 calories per day for women or 1800 calories per day for men. Even these calorie levels are quite low.

    An alternative way of calculating a safe minimum calorie-intake level is by reference to your body weight or current body weight. Reducing calories by 15-20% below your daily calorie maintenance needs is a useful start. You may increase this depending on your weight loss goals.
  • Edestiny7
    Edestiny7 Posts: 730 Member
    Options
    At a bare minimum your net calories, as a man, should be 1500. The easy way to make sure you are getting enough is to eat all of your calories that MFP gives you after exercising.
  • TheKitsune6
    TheKitsune6 Posts: 5,798 Member
    Options
    Well then let me at least point out this - calories are estimates. The calories you eat are generally underestimated and the calories you burn are generally overestimated. It's next to impossible to be right on cue - so if you notice you aren't losing any weight or are gaining weight try to adjust accordingly.
  • Edestiny7
    Edestiny7 Posts: 730 Member
    Options
    Well then let me at least point out this - calories are estimates. The calories you eat are generally underestimated and the calories you burn are generally overestimated. It's next to impossible to be right on cue - so if you notice you aren't losing any weight or are gaining weight try to adjust accordingly.

    The use of a heart rate monitor means calorie burns are not estimated, and food calories are also not estimated, but based on their being tested. While your statement above may be true for some people, it is not for all, especially myself.