Under calorie goal a good thing? Im confused

SueSee
SueSee Posts: 65
edited September 25 in Health and Weight Loss
Ok, all. I read a great link on here that explains why you need to "eat" your exercise calories. I'm a convert, and believe I've been eating too few calories. So, if you should eat the calories that MFP sets as your NET calories, why when someone posts their diary for the day, and the message says that "JDOE" was under his/her calorie goal, does that person get congratulated like they did something good?

Everytime I finished under my calorie goal, I also got a personal message that said I was eating too few calories, and may be in Starvation mode, and slowing my metabolism down into starvation mode.

Help!

Replies

  • josavage
    josavage Posts: 472 Member
    Are you under 1200 calories for the day when you get that message?
  • bunnysone
    bunnysone Posts: 486 Member
    heya, its hard to give advice without seeing what calories you are eating and what you are burning. Feel free to friend me if you want and I can see if I can help by looking at your diary for you xx
  • 1raven1
    1raven1 Posts: 2
    It's not good to be too drastically under your calorie goals. Honestly if you are wanting to lose some weight, you should be a little under. Make sure you eat protein after workouts for sure though. Otherwise your body takes the protein from your muscles.
  • Kat120285
    Kat120285 Posts: 1,599 Member
    Whether or not to eat your exercise calories is for some reason a huge mystery/debate. Some people just don't understand it while others simply don't care whether or not their bodies are getting enough nutrients, calories (fuel). I'm usually under but not by much and my goal is set 1250 because my BMR is 1248 so it's at least above 1200. I shoot for my NET 1250 though.
  • gsather
    gsather Posts: 6
    Yeah - if you're 500 under your goal - that's a bad thing. If you're 8 calories under your goal, then you're just fine! I wouldn't go more than 50 to 75 under goal, though. It really is important to get all of that iron, calcium, fiber, etc.... in your diet!
  • elvb
    elvb Posts: 423 Member
    The only time I ever got that message was when my calories were set at 1200 and I ate under that. I hated being in the red all the time because in the beginning I never exercised. So I fixed it.
    I adjusted my calories manually to 1250 to give myself those extra few calories so I was still eating over the minimum of 1200 and not going in the red. I am now set at 1300 so I never get "yelled at" anymore about eating too few calories. Plus with exercise my net calories are always at least 1000 if not 1200.
  • jlsAhava
    jlsAhava Posts: 411 Member
    You get the starvation warning if you're under 1200 calories for the day (NOT NET). If you've got a daily goal over 1200 or have added to your daily goal through exercise, then you can still be under your goal and not get the starvation warning.

    I'm a shorty (4'11) and my daily goal of 1200 calories puts me at a weight loss of .7 lbs / wk. I try to eat SOME of my exercise calories back, but not all. I would have to eat every single one of my exercise calories to get 1200 net calories though, so i don't concern myself with the net calories too much. I'm just happy when I've eaten at least 1200 at total. I'm banking on this increasing my weight loss, however slightly. :happy:

    I believe that even people who eat most of their exercise calories try to eat a little bit less than their goal so that they keep on track with projected weight loss. If I had more leeway, this is how I would do it.
  • TripleJ3
    TripleJ3 Posts: 945 Member
    I think I understand what OP is saying. I think a lot of people give a congrats w/o even looking at the diaries when able. Sure if they are 11 calories under and made great choices all day i'm going to give you a WTG! If you went over your goal but made healthy choices and was only a little over, I'd give you a pat on the back.

    Its the ones who are eating way below, or even slightly below but their food is all junk or worse, skipped meals. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound judgmental and to each their own. I just don't feel that they deserve a congrats. My goal lately is planning out my day to eat all calories and my choices are always* healthy*. Its a rare occasion for me to eat poorly. I want my MFP friends to succeed and be healthy at the same time. But I don't get a congrats because I followed the plan as written to reach my goal at the pace I chose.

    While I don't have to have any comments made to my efforts, I do what I do for me, it is conflicting to see all these WTGs when everyday theres posts about how people need to eat more to be healthy and lose weight. :heart:
  • elvb
    elvb Posts: 423 Member
    You get the starvation warning if you're under 1200 calories for the day (NOT NET). If you've got a daily goal over 1200 or have added to your daily goal through exercise, then you can still be under your goal and not get the starvation warning.

    I'm a shorty (4'11) and my daily goal of 1200 calories puts me at a weight loss of .7 lbs / wk. I try to eat SOME of my exercise calories back, but not all. I would have to eat every single one of my exercise calories to get 1200 net calories though, so i don't concern myself with the net calories too much. I'm just happy when I've eaten at least 1200 at total. I'm banking on this increasing my weight loss, however slightly. :happy:

    I believe that even people who eat most of their exercise calories try to eat a little bit less than their goal so that they keep on track with projected weight loss. If I had more leeway, this is how I would do it.

    I'm 5' even so I feel you on the exercise calories. It's really hard to eat them back sometimes, too. Even half of them. When I exercise I try to make sure I get over 1000 net but otherwise I don't worry about it.
    I did notice that those weeks where my net calories were under 1000 more than once that week, I would only lose ounces if that. I make more of an effort now to eat more on those days I work out.
  • SueSee
    SueSee Posts: 65
    Yes, my red warnings were because I was under 1200 calories. When I began this, I used to eat just one meal a day, dinner. Then I began MFP and started eating 3 meals with 3 snacks. All healthy, good choices. And it is really hard for me to eat 1200 calories, plus my exercise calories, even though I'm beginning slowly and not adding THAT many exercise calories yet. But by reading more and more, I am coming to understand that just eating 6 times a day isn't getting my metabolism boosted enough, I have to eat enough calories in those meals.

    So that's my new plan os attack. I'll give it a go and see how it works. But I think MFP is setting a goal of 1.2 pounds a week. Guess I can be satisfied with that, but 2 pounds a week would sure be better.
  • Kat120285
    Kat120285 Posts: 1,599 Member
    There's a whole thread about being under, as in, they're happy they're under, and it's by hundreds.

    Here's the thing, this is how I've made some people understand. My goal is set at 1250 because my BMR is 1248, once I exercise that number goes up. If I don't eat back my exercise calories then that leaves only 600-650 calories for my body to absorb and use for functioning. If I eat them back, which you should because there is already a deficit built in, then that leaves 1250 for my body to absorb and use for functioning. I'm 5 2 and a half, when I signed up for this about 11 days ago I weighed in at 120-121. The beginning of this week I weighed in at 117.8. I always eat back the calories because as I said, there is already a built in deficit. Today because of my work outs, I had to take in 2,095 cals but my NET is only 1250. A lot of people just don't realize how important it is to feed your body and when you do so, it will perform better and let go of the weight at a healthy rate and in a safe way.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories