Why is it bad to net low calories?

JAT74 · February 2015

I've been looking at my weight loss so far in the first month of calorie counting and exercising daily and have been crunching the numbers.

Basically I lost 5.5lbs in January (from 5th month onwards) at a rate of 3lbs the first week, 1lb the second week, 1.5lbs the third week and nothing the last week. I know that some of that could be water weight, though I have definitely noticed that some of my clothes are a little looser and my waist and hip measurements have both got smaller by 1/2 an inch each.

Anyway I've worked really hard to lose the weight in the last month, religiously counting calories and exercising daily. My calorie burns have been quite high, and even taking into account that I may have been recording slightly higher burns than I actually had, it looks like I've been netting very low calories due to this.

For example, the average number of calories I've eaten each week has been 1224 (1113 the first week, 1170 the second week, 1278 the third week and 1337 the last week) which means that my net calories have been 732 when I subtract my weekly calorie burns.

I have been satisfied each day after eating and have rarely wanted to eat any more. In addition, I have had plenty of energy during workouts etc.

Looking at my rate of weight loss, I don't think it's excessive as the first 3lbs was probably water weight and therefore if you discount this and only look at the last two and a half pounds I lost during the month, my rate of weight loss has only been just over 0.5lb per week.

Based on the my net calories and taking into account a sedentary TDEE of 1550 and the deficit created (818 cals) I should be losing a lot more than this, but I'm not, unless the first 3lbs wasn't water weight but actual fat loss.

My point is that on paper the net cals look very low at 732 but the results have shown a slower rate of loss so this means that I either have a much slower metabolism or response to the drop in calories or the numbers I started with ie. 1550 were overestimated by the online calculators and my true sedentary TDEE is much lower.

I was hoping to lose more weight last month, though I accept that I shouldn't be looking to lose too quickly, and if I can lose another 5lbs in February I will be happy with that. I could increase my daily calorie intake so I am not netting so low, or I could increase my exercise and eat more but I would like to know if/why this is necessary.

I don't really understand why it's bad to net low calories if you are losing weight at a rate which isn't very fast. This question also applies as there are many people who don't count calories or even try to lose weight who probably net very low calories.

An example of this is someone who does several hours of exercise daily (like I did on holiday last summer when I spent 6 hours a day walking), or someone like a friend of mine who works on her feet rushing around for anything from 6-10 hours most days, in addition to doing a 1 hour walk or workout most days too. In this case the calorie burns are very high, though the calorie intake is still fairly low/normal. My friend for example usualy eats around 1500-2000 calories per day, though she burns off massive amounts each day.

yarwell · February 2015

First question would be are you meeting your nutritional needs (micro and macro) at the food intake. Second would be are you fat enough to supply the deficit calories from reserves - let's say at 30 cals/day per lb of excess fat.

Did your analysis show any correlation between weekly weight loss and weekly deficit ?

JAT74 · February 2015

Hi, my maths isn't brilliant I have to admit, beyond what I've already worked out above, so not sure how to calculate all that. Basically I've set my own micro and macro goals. I've set my protein and carbs to 35% and fat to 30%. I am only tracking saturated fat though, not total fat as a lot of people on MFP have said that total fat intake isn't important, though I don't want to eat too much of the bad fat.

Most days I'm able to meet my carb goals and am generally not exceeding them by a lot. Taking into account my average of 1224 calories per day, I generally eat around 100g of carbs most days. My protein goals are harder to meet, but I am generally eating around 90g of carbs per day, sometimes more and sometimes a little less.

In terms of excess fat stores, I don't know how many excess pounds of fat I'm carrying, but I have looked at calculators which tell me at my ideal body fat level of around 20%-22% I will weight my goal weight which is 117lbs.

I now weigh 141.5 lbs and my body fat % is approximately 32% more or less so I have over 10% fat to lose. I would assume this would be more than enough fat reserve to supply the deficit in calories, and as fat loss is my goal, surely that will help me burn the fat?

It would be useful if someone could help more with working this out.

Thanks.

JAT74 · February 2015

Sorry, looking at correlation between weekly weight loss and weekly deficit, the first week when I lost 3lbs my deficit was around 800 cals per day, the second week when I lost 1 lb it was more at 950 cals per day and the third week when I lost 1.5lbs it was also 800 cals per day so no, not really is the answer!

I had no weight loss in the last week of January and my deficit was 750 per day on average that week.

yarwell · February 2015

does seem a bit random - weight loss not a strong function of calorie deficit.

JAT74 · February 2015

Yes, but that's not really my concern. I am losing at a rate of what I consider to be the slowest I am happy with, though I know others are happy to lose at a MUCH slower rate ie. around 1lb per month.

I feel pretty good in myself, though as I'm logging every day I am very conscious of the fact I'm netting low calories and know that a lot of people would say it's a bad thing to do that.

In my case, it seems that the only way I can lose is to eat around 1250 per day, exercise daily and burn off a reasonably large number of calories (and therefore net low), otherwise I gain.

I also have to watch my macros as if I eat carbs at a level higher than 100-120g I find that the scale goes up too, which is why I had no weight loss in the last week of January because my weight went down to 142, then gradually up to 148 (though maybe due to water and sodium retention) and finally back down to 142.5 by the end of the month.

As I would like to lose 24 more pounds of weight, though I will continue to track trends I may need to continue eating and exercising in the same way to get it off and therefore net low calories.

Back to my original question, I would like to know if/why this is bad and if I have a high body fat % does this mean that netting low is ok for me as my body will eat into my fat reserves to get the extra calories?

JAT74 · February 2015

Anyone?

SwankyTomato · February 2015

I think this is what you are looking for.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/471359-which-burns-first-fat-or-muscle/

JAT74 · February 2015

Very interesting, thank you. So from reading this, depending on how accurate it is I am unlikely to lose muscle if I have excess fat reserves (which I definitely have plenty of!). My body will first look for carbohydrates to burn and then fat from food sources and fat stores???

So if I'm eating a low-ish amount of carbohydrates does that mean I should be able to lose fat fairly easily?

The article also talks about adequate protein and I've read that the body needs approx 1lb of protein per lb of lean body weight. In my case this would be just over 100g per day. I am eating fairly close to that, so hopefully this would preven muscle loss/damage.

One of the comments at the end of the article says it has holes in it because it doesn't talk about using body fat for energy. I'd be really interested to read or learn more about this.

When and how does the body use stored excess body fat as fuel and how can you maximize fat loss?

astrose00 · February 2015

I have a spreadsheet that I use to project my weightloss. I've been at this since September 22 and it's been pretty accurate but not perfect. In fact, the scale has been a little sticky lately but I think I know why (too much sodium). As many mention in this forum, weightloss isn't linear. Many variables like sodium intake, TOM (for women), sleep (or lack thereof), inaccurate logging, starting new exercise program, etc. can impact how the scale moves. I think the best way to look at it is over time. 3 weeks is probably not a long enough time to see a trend. For example, in your first week you lost a lot of weight, most of which was probably water weight. In your second week you lost only 1lb. But in reality you may have lost more/less and that change is being masked by water retention due to other variables (mentioned above). So maybe you lost more than a pound but it's being masked. I would look month to month and determine if, in total, my weight loss was what I expected based on my TDEE and calories in. But keep in mind that the TDEE you mentioned is an estimate and might be higher/lower for you in reality. I think the analysis you are doing right now can tell you what your true TDEE is (on average). But it will change as your body changes (lower for less weight offset by higher for higher lean body mass percentage).

What I'm saying is if you are lose x pounds over the course of a month and your calories eaten are accurate, you can back into your "true TDEE". I did something like this for myself. I looked at how many calories I ate and how much weight I lost over 2-3 months and that told me that I was burning about 690 calories more than I was eating per week. I eat 1200 calories daily. This burn was excluding exercise which was responsible for about another pound per week... Oh, and I am a math person! My spreadsheet also adjusts for a lower TDEE as my weight loss continues.

There are so many moving parts! I say you just keep at it and don't get discouraged. You will get to where you want to be with persistence.

I'm not sure what your original question is, btw. But I hope I gave some food for thought. This is something that has worked for me. Can't speak for anyone else...

Liftng4Lis · February 2015

With so little to lose, you should be at about 1/2 pound a week. Also, I agree, those burns are very high. Great job on the 5+ pounds!

JAT74 · February 2015

Thank you Astrose00

Basically I am not great at maths though I can manage to figure out what I have so far. I also can only use spreadsheets to a basic level, although I did learn how to do forumlas on Excel a long time ago I have long since forgotten so I can't put in a formula which will adjust my TDEE over time etc.

I kind of see what you're saying though, and will continue to write down my results so that I can compare weight loss each week/month over time.

Regarding my original question, I was basically saying that I worked out I have been eating an average of 1250 calories per day, without eating back exercise calories. This might sound low to some, and obviously I'm netting a low amount too (750 calories per day) but given that I am not losing at a hugely fast rate and I have plenty of fat reserves as my body fat is around 32% I wanted to know if this will/will not do me any harm.

I've heard people constantly say you shouldn't net below a certain amount but in my case if I ate more, netted 1000-1200 calories I know I would gain weight, not lose.

I may have lost 5.5lbs in January but I'm not convinced it was all fat, and if it wasn't and I actually lost less fat then I am only losing at a rate of around 0.5lb per week anyway, and if this is the case then all the calculators I've been using have been inaccurate for me. I have been working to calculators which tell me my TDEE is 1550 (based on sedentary) and therefore to lose 1.5lb per week I need to eat 750 cals per day less than that (which I have been doing) but I haven't been losing 1.5lb week!

Mediocrates55 · February 2015

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/813720

Here's the spreadsheet that is referenced above. Doesn't help with your original question, but it's a fantastic tool to have.

To answer your question: Netting too low can lead to nutritional deficiencies over time. You might not notice it it three weeks time, but eventually it can lead to hair loss, skin problems, insomnia, muscle weakness and in extreme cases cardiac issues and organ dysfunction. Think anorexia here. Weight loss is a puzzle, and every puzzle is different. What works for one might not work for another. FOR ME PERSONALLY, I lose quicker and more efficiently if my protein is higher and I lift heavy, and keep cardio to a minimum.

segacs · February 2015

Look at it like a game of Blackjack (or, if you prefer, like the bids on The Price Is Right): The winner is the person who gets the closest to their goal without going over.

The more food you can eat and still lose weight, the better.

JAT74 · February 2015

Ok, point taken and I will have a look at the spreadsheet as it does sound very interesting.

Talking about netting too low though, as I said in an earlier post on this thread, what about those people who naturally net very low. What I mean by that is people who are very active in their everyday lives (the opposite of me!), who have kids to run around after, have jobs where they are on their feet all day and have to walk to and from work or those who do a lot of sport for fun but don't log calorie burns from this activity.

I know quite a few people like that and most of them eat in the region of 1500-2000 calories per day, possibly less and therefore could well be netting almost nothing, certainly much less than me.

Those people don't think about how little they're eating and don't seem to suffer from health problems due to what they are doing unconsciously.

How can you become anorexic by eating 1250 or 1300 calories per day, being extremely sedentary most of the time and burning off 500 calories per day through a couple of workouts? Seems a little exaggerated to me.

If I could eat 1600 or 1700 calories per day and do my workouts and lose instead of gaining I'd probably do it, though at the moment I don't feel hungry at all eating 1250 per day.

Is there any REAL evidence that I will do my body damage? I can understand that if I weighed 110lbs and had 10% body fat and netted 700 calories it would be harmful because I'd already be a very low weight and have a low body fat %. At my current weight of 141.5lbs and 32% body fat surely my body will use my fat reserves until there is no more fat to use, by which time I'll hopefully be near to my goal weight?

Zedeff · February 2015

You are coming up against a common dogma on this website. When push comes to shove nobody ever seems able to provide any evidence to back up their claim that it is somehow harmful to net below 1200.

One common response you'll get (you've already received it in this thread) is that netting too low leads to nutritional deficits. To that I would point out that calories and nutrients are not the same thing. In a hypothetical experiment, imagine a person eats 1200 calories of food and does 1200 calories of exercise, with a net intake of 0 calories. Does that mean that their nutrient intake was also zero? Are we "burning" minerals and vitamins on a treadmill? Of course not, that's ridiculous. And yet the MFP dogma is that this is a dangerous game of malnutrition roulette.

I'm not going to advocate a very low calorie diet (VLCD) because, in general, VLCDs should be physician supervised. I will say, however, that VLCDs are commonly prescribed by physicians, often for months on end, and nobody ever develops severe malnutrition. Further, we know that "starvation mode" is a myth and that there is no metabolic catastrophe associated with low intake.

You won't find answers on this website I suspect, but I also suspect that this is because there IS no evidence-based reason to arbitrarily choose 1200 as a magical safe number.

Zedeff · February 2015

As an aside, it is possible to calculate the amount of deficit-calories per day you can mobilize from fat reserves. This number is around 30 calories per pound of fat per day (different studies vary from 29 to 33, from what I've read).

If you are 141 lbs, 32% BF, then you have 42 lbs of fat on your body; 30 calories per pound equates to a 1260 calorie maximum daily fat consumption.

JAT74 · February 2015

I completely agree Zedeff and it's very frustrating. I am not a scientist or a doctor specialising in this area so I don't know the answers myself, but on the other hand I'm someone who is not prepared to simply accept when I'm told by others without being presented with evidence.

In addition, I refuse to believe those who seem to repeat what others have told them or what they have read on MFP without anything to back up what they are saying!

This doesn't change the fact that I'd really like to know the answers to these questions so that I can know whether what I'm doing will help me lose body fat effectively, or if there is a better way.

I have thought the same about what you've said regarding VLCDs and in my case while I might not look like I'm obese, my body fat % is unusually high for my size/weight and I do need to get it down to a more acceptable level. If this means eating less then is 'normally' recommended in order to get there then so be it.

In addition, I am currently following a fitness program by a famous fitness trainer (Jillian Michaels) who clearly states that in order to follow the DVD program you should also follow her 90 day eating plan which tells you to eat NO MORE than 1200 calories per day while working out at least 6 days per week, therefore netting 800 or 900 calories per day no matter what your starting weight, sex or size.

On top of that, she says many times that she doesn't expect you to lose 2lbs a week with her program, but 4 or 5lbs per week! Most people on here would have her locked up for saying that as she must be turning us all into anorexics.

This is just one workout program and having read many 100s of reviews of it before deciding to do it (mostly with very good results from people who were already fairly fit and not massively overweight) I am sure I am not alone.

Plus, I very much doubt this is the only DVD program on the market which tells you to do similar, and from experience of the many available commercial diets there are probably many other fitness trainers and diet clubs etc. which also tell you to eat in the region of 1200 calories (or less) while undertaking daily exercise.

I remember that a few years ago, a friend of mine was doing Weight Watchers (UK version). She told me the number of points she was allowed and gave me a few examples of what she was eating in a day and I did a calorie count and it came to around 960. I also worked out what I would be told to eat on WW and it also equated to about 900-1000 calories per day. She was not massively overweight either, and due to her smaller size that was the reason she had less points than others who were bigger.

lemurcat12 · February 2015

JAT74 wrote: »

For example, the average number of calories I've eaten each week has been 1224 (1113 the first week, 1170 the second week, 1278 the third week and 1337 the last week) which means that my net calories have been 732 when I subtract my weekly calorie burns.

I have been satisfied each day after eating and have rarely wanted to eat any more. In addition, I have had plenty of energy during workouts etc.

Looking at my rate of weight loss, I don't think it's excessive as the first 3lbs was probably water weight and therefore if you discount this and only look at the last two and a half pounds I lost during the month, my rate of weight loss has only been just over 0.5lb per week.

Based on the my net calories and taking into account a sedentary TDEE of 1550 and the deficit created (818 cals) I should be losing a lot more than this, but I'm not, unless the first 3lbs wasn't water weight but actual fat loss.

My point is that on paper the net cals look very low at 732 but the results have shown a slower rate of loss so this means that I either have a much slower metabolism or response to the drop in calories or the numbers I started with ie. 1550 were overestimated by the online calculators and my true sedentary TDEE is much lower.

Or else your numbers are off due to logging issues or overestimating exercise calories.

Given your loss rate, your net either isn't as low as you think or your metabolism is low. If the latter, it could be just a bit off or distorted because you are close to goal (I haven't run the numbers) or it could be a cause for concern.

If I was netting really low numbers but thought there was a lot of uncertainty/variability so that the real number probably could be higher, I'd go with it and use my loss rate and how I felt to determine if I was eating enough. If I was positive my numbers were close to correct, I'd want to look into it, since I wouldn't want to be doing something that would further lower my metabolism or cause a loss of muscle mass beyond that which would happen anyway, and I'd want to know if there was some physical cause that could be corrected.

JAT74 · February 2015

My numbers are not off, as I generally weigh and measure everything and are very very conscious of portion sizes when I eat out. I often leave a lot of my meal and am careful not to eat much of the sauces that come with food or things like chips or other carbohydrates when I'm out as I know this can massively increase my calorie intake. Since the beginning of January I have to say I've been pretty OCD about this.

As for over estimating calorie burns, this may have been happening, though a lot of the figures I've used from the start were based on the burns on my HRM. In addition, there were a lot of days when I ate under my calorie goal anyway, so even if the figures shown in my food diarly were over estimated due to too many exercise calories being added, I wasn't generally eating to that number anyway, usually a little less.

I do genuinely believe that my metabolism is slow and always have done. When I was not on MFP and wasn't generally calorie counting I gained and lost the same few pounds many times over. Each time I'd gain quite quickly, and not because I ate a huge amount, but because I was eating what most people would consider a 'normal' calorie intake, but my exercise was not so regular and it could be that I'd exercise anything from 1-4 days a week. I rarely ate desserts, maybe once or twice a week and always kept my carbs to around 100-150g. Looking back, I probably ate between 1200 and 1600 calories with or without exercise.

I would then consciously try and eat less for a while and exercise more and I'd be able to lose a few lbs but then it would go up again is I stopped. As my maintenance calories are supposed to be 1550 without exercise according to all the calculators I've looked at a slow metabolism is the only explanation as I have always gained when eating this amount or less in the past.

Physically/medically there is no known condition which causes the figures to be off for me and I've had blood tests fairly recently to rule out a thyroid problem and other problems.

Other than that I think I'm just unlucky. My mother is exactly the same as me, she is now fairly thin, weighing around 130lbs but she's been a couple of sizes bigger in the past and she's also been much smaller at around 115lbs. She's taller than me too, at 5 foot 5.5. Like me, the only way she can sustain a much lower weight (ie. 115lbs) is to eat very low calories, and although she is 71 now, she does walk a lot so she gets exercise at least 4 days a week for an hour or two at a time. She is now fairly careful about what she eats but she allows herself the odd treat (such as a square of chocolate or a half glass of wine) and eats small portions, though she does generally eat healthily and regularly. She told me recently she gained 7lbs not very long ago because she is now eating a little more than before, but it's doubtful she eats any more than 1300 or 1400 calories.

astrose00 · February 2015

My sister is doing nutrisystem and she was losing weight quite steadily (lost about 35lbs) and the scale has bounced up and down the last 3-4 week inexplicably. She doesn't measure because she's eating the prepared food and, if anything, has had too many days where she hasn't eaten enough. She also added exercise in the last month which might have something to do with it but it's still very strange. She's still very overweight so it's not a matter of her being close to goal or with low bodyfat. I also have experienced some stickyness with the scale and my intake is 1200 and I don't eat back exercise calories. I lift and do cardio. Assuming measuring and intake is accurate, I think it boils down to the complexity of the human body. I also believe it all evens itself out over time. I lost like crazy for the first 3.5 months (nearly 50lbs) and the last 2-3 weeks have been very slow. Scale just says the same thing every single day (I have both digital and analog scales). As I said, I know part of it has to do with sodium (i was eating a lot of seafood) and also lack of sleep (I just can't seem to get sufficient sleep because I work out at night before bed). But at the end of the day when I look at my loss for the past month, it's still about 8lbs.

I've read about this "whoosh" thingy and was expecting to see it happen but it hasn't yet. I still suspect it will but I guess that remains to be seen. I am very OCD when it come to logging, measuring, working out and not going over my calories.

Hope you figure it out.

BTW, the spreadsheet I mentioned was something I put together but the one the poster linked seems very useful.

JAT74 · February 2015

It doesn't always make a lot of sense does it! I downloaded the spreadsheet via the link and have put in my numbers so it will be a useful too along the way.

You are eating 1200 calories gross and not eating back exercise calories. I have been eating an average of 1250 and not eating back exercise calories buy you've lost more than me. Maybe I am not working out as hard as I think, but my net says 732 which is quite low.

Using the spreadsheet posted up by the other poster it tells me that if I eat 1250 calories and workout the same amount every week I'll lose 1.1lbs per week which sounds a lot more accurate than what MFP predicted. I might try and lower my intake slightly too, because although my monthly average in January was 1250, I actually ate less at the beginning of the month and then towards then end when I was working out more it crept up to around 1350 a lot of days.

I'll keep an eye on things though and keep adjusting the numbers. One interesting thing in the spreadsheet was that at my goal weight I should be 19% body fat (down from around 32-33% now) and I should be able to eat around 1750 calories in order to maintain. That sounds like a huge amount and I can't imagine eating that every day but as I lose weight maybe the figure will go down (I hope so!).

cwolfman13 · February 2015

JAT74 wrote: »

Ok, point taken and I will have a look at the spreadsheet as it does sound very interesting.

Talking about netting too low though, as I said in an earlier post on this thread, what about those people who naturally net very low. What I mean by that is people who are very active in their everyday lives (the opposite of me!), who have kids to run around after, have jobs where they are on their feet all day and have to walk to and from work or those who do a lot of sport for fun but don't log calorie burns from this activity.

I know quite a few people like that and most of them eat in the region of 1500-2000 calories per day, possibly less and therefore could well be netting almost nothing, certainly much less than me.

Those people don't think about how little they're eating and don't seem to suffer from health problems due to what they are doing unconsciously.

How can you become anorexic by eating 1250 or 1300 calories per day, being extremely sedentary most of the time and burning off 500 calories per day through a couple of workouts? Seems a little exaggerated to me.

If I could eat 1600 or 1700 calories per day and do my workouts and lose instead of gaining I'd probably do it, though at the moment I don't feel hungry at all eating 1250 per day.

Is there any REAL evidence that I will do my body damage? I can understand that if I weighed 110lbs and had 10% body fat and netted 700 calories it would be harmful because I'd already be a very low weight and have a low body fat %. At my current weight of 141.5lbs and 32% body fat surely my body will use my fat reserves until there is no more fat to use, by which time I'll hopefully be near to my goal weight?

How do you know their calorie consumption...I'm very active and I eat around 3,000 calories per day to support that activity...most people wouldn't register that though and would have no idea as I eat very healthfully....most people would assume I eat far less calories than I do.

There is plenty of evidence that eating too little can cause damage...this is why a vast majority of VLCD are done under supervision of a health care professional, including a dietitian to make sure they're actually getting nutrition.

Also, there are plenty of posts right here on MFP with people netting very low calories and losing their periods, hair turning brittle and or falling out, nails turning brittle, etc. I would think these would be pretty obvious effects of VLCDs.

astrose00 · February 2015

JAT74 wrote: »

It doesn't always make a lot of sense does it! I downloaded the spreadsheet via the link and have put in my numbers so it will be a useful too along the way.

You are eating 1200 calories gross and not eating back exercise calories. I have been eating an average of 1250 and not eating back exercise calories buy you've lost more than me. Maybe I am not working out as hard as I think, but my net says 732 which is quite low.

Using the spreadsheet posted up by the other poster it tells me that if I eat 1250 calories and workout the same amount every week I'll lose 1.1lbs per week which sounds a lot more accurate than what MFP predicted. I might try and lower my intake slightly too, because although my monthly average in January was 1250, I actually ate less at the beginning of the month and then towards then end when I was working out more it crept up to around 1350 a lot of days.

I'll keep an eye on things though and keep adjusting the numbers. One interesting thing in the spreadsheet was that at my goal weight I should be 19% body fat (down from around 32-33% now) and I should be able to eat around 1750 calories in order to maintain. That sounds like a huge amount and I can't imagine eating that every day but as I lose weight maybe the figure will go down (I hope so!).

Hard to say why our numbers are so different. I used to be very fit (just a few years ago before I broke my ankle) and maintained a lot of muscle underneath the fat. As soon as I started lifting again I could see/feel the muscle underneath the fat. So I think my metabolism is higher, all other things being equal. I'm not sure what your fitness level is/was. I also strive to workout very intensely. I use my heart rate monitor and try to keep my heart rate really high (or do intervals and alternate between high and low). I eat a lot of protein and luckily like a lot of stuff that would be considered good "diet" food (egg whites, chicken breast, fish, veggies). According to my calculations, when I reach my desired weight of 140lbs, I will be able to eat around 1900 calories a day. That includes an allowance for exercising 4x a week (weights and cardio). I'm around 188lbs now and when I get to the 160s I think I am going to increase my calories to around 1450 to add more fruit and fats to my diet. While I am rarely hungry at 1200 I have to play around with the numbers to get my fats in. I also will want to bump up the intensity of my weights so I can ensure I keep as much muscle as possible. You see, at that point (160-something pounds) I will have less fat for my body to burn and it will more likely that my lean muscle will suffer. Right now (according to my gut and booty) I still got some fat my body can readily use, lol.

MKEgal · February 2015

JAT74 wrote:

I've been looking at my weight loss so far in the first month of calorie counting and exercising daily and have been crunching the numbers... I lost 5.5lbs in January

That's a pretty good loss, esp. since you say you only want to lose what, 20 lb?
A reasonable & healthy rate of loss would be no more than 0.5 lb per week.
.

it looks like I've been netting very low calories

Irrelevant. Net calories don't matter.
You're eating right around 1200 calories, and you say you're pretty short, so that may be reasonable & healthy for you.
.

I've set my protein and carbs to 35% and fat to 30%.

That's a problem. You're outside the healthy macro ranges.
Here's a table which explains the healthy range for carbs:
http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/C5CD2DD7840544979A549EC47E56A02B.ashx
.
page 1, carbs, 45 - 65% of calories (4 cal per gram)
page 2, fat, 20 - 35% of calories (9 cal per gram)
page 4, protein, 10 - 35% of calories (4 cal per gram)
.

Netting too low can lead to nutritional deficiencies over time

No, eating too little can lead to nutritional deficiencies.
Exercise calories only affect weight loss.
.

You are coming up against a common dogma on this website. When push comes to shove nobody ever seems able to provide any evidence to back up their claim that it is somehow harmful to net below 1200.

No, it's not harmful to _net_ below 1200 (for women) or 1500 (for men).
It's harmful to _eat_ below 1200/1500, because it's very difficult to get the necessary nutrition in so little food.
According to MFP, in the last 90 days I've netted below 1000 calories 31 days, and netted at or below 1200 52 days. Only one of those I actually ate below 1200 (1140).
My doctors are all quite pleased with my overall health, and progress toward reaching a healthy weight.
.

There is plenty of evidence that eating too little can cause damage... this is why a vast majority of VLCD are done under supervision of a health care professional, including a dietitian to make sure they're actually getting nutrition

Yes. But this is actual calories, not the "net" that MFP came up with.
(Neither my doctor, who is an endocrinologist specializing in weight control, nor the dietician who works in the weight loss group, had ever heard of the concept of "net" calories.)

Page 1 here says in part that eating fewer than 800 cal/day for a long time (not specified) can lead to heart problems. That's actual calories, not actual calories minus whatever you burn that day.

I am currently following a fitness program by a famous fitness trainer (Jillian Michaels) who clearly states that in order to follow the DVD program you should also follow her 90 day eating plan which tells you to eat NO MORE than 1200 calories per day while working out at least 6 days per week, therefore netting 800 or 900 calories per day no matter what your starting weight, sex or size

Obviously just being famous doesn't mean she knows right from wrong, or what's healthy.
Heck, look at what she did (helped do) to the people on the TV show she got famous from.

Zedeff · February 2015

MKEgal wrote: »

No, it's not harmful to _net_ below 1200 (for women) or 1500 (for men).
It's harmful to _eat_ below 1200/1500, because it's very difficult to get the necessary nutrition in so little food.
According to MFP, in the last 90 days I've netted below 1000 calories 31 days, and netted at or below 1200 52 days. Only one of those I actually ate below 1200 (1140).
My doctors are all quite pleased with my overall health, and progress toward reaching a healthy weight.

Page 1 here says in part that eating fewer than 800 cal/day for a long time (not specified) can lead to heart problems. That's actual calories, not actual calories minus whatever you burn that day.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

With regards to point 1, calories and nutrients are not the same thing. What is more healthy for me, to eat 1500 calories of white sugar, or to eat 900 calories of vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains? It is absurd to make a blanket statement that "eating below X number of calories leads to inadequate nutrition" given that a calorie is NOT a measure of nutrition. If the concern is micronutrients, then let's talk micronutrients, not calories.

Regarding point 2, that paper is referring to Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy. This is a condition so rare in anorexia that when it happens, people write case reports about it; in other words, it is so unlikely to happen that physicians have to advertise to their colleagues that it's actually an entity, since most people will go their entire career without ever even hearing of it. It's not exactly a major pandemic.

daniellekunkel2 · February 2015

Zedeff wrote: »

You are coming up against a common dogma on this website. When push comes to shove nobody ever seems able to provide any evidence to back up their claim that it is somehow harmful to net below 1200.

One common response you'll get (you've already received it in this thread) is that netting too low leads to nutritional deficits. To that I would point out that calories and nutrients are not the same thing. In a hypothetical experiment, imagine a person eats 1200 calories of food and does 1200 calories of exercise, with a net intake of 0 calories. Does that mean that their nutrient intake was also zero? Are we "burning" minerals and vitamins on a treadmill? Of course not, that's ridiculous. And yet the MFP dogma is that this is a dangerous game of malnutrition roulette.

I'm not going to advocate a very low calorie diet (VLCD) because, in general, VLCDs should be physician supervised. I will say, however, that VLCDs are commonly prescribed by physicians, often for months on end, and nobody ever develops severe malnutrition. Further, we know that "starvation mode" is a myth and that there is no metabolic catastrophe associated with low intake.

You won't find answers on this website I suspect, but I also suspect that this is because there IS no evidence-based reason to arbitrarily choose 1200 as a magical safe number.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this completely. I used to be an incredible collegiate distance running athlete. I ran a lOT, and I ate a lot, but I definitely didn't eat enough to compensate for how much I was running. Although I continued to eat three meals a day, plus snacks, I became anorexic, by physical diagnostic terms. Also, my body went into "starvation mode". and I did lose a substantial amount of muscle. All of this occurred while I was still receiving the recommended amount of nutrients.

Zedeff · February 2015

daniellekunkel2 wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

You are coming up against a common dogma on this website. When push comes to shove nobody ever seems able to provide any evidence to back up their claim that it is somehow harmful to net below 1200.

One common response you'll get (you've already received it in this thread) is that netting too low leads to nutritional deficits. To that I would point out that calories and nutrients are not the same thing. In a hypothetical experiment, imagine a person eats 1200 calories of food and does 1200 calories of exercise, with a net intake of 0 calories. Does that mean that their nutrient intake was also zero? Are we "burning" minerals and vitamins on a treadmill? Of course not, that's ridiculous. And yet the MFP dogma is that this is a dangerous game of malnutrition roulette.

I'm not going to advocate a very low calorie diet (VLCD) because, in general, VLCDs should be physician supervised. I will say, however, that VLCDs are commonly prescribed by physicians, often for months on end, and nobody ever develops severe malnutrition. Further, we know that "starvation mode" is a myth and that there is no metabolic catastrophe associated with low intake.

You won't find answers on this website I suspect, but I also suspect that this is because there IS no evidence-based reason to arbitrarily choose 1200 as a magical safe number.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this completely. I used to be an incredible collegiate distance running athlete. I ran a lOT, and I ate a lot, but I definitely didn't eat enough to compensate for how much I was running. Although I continued to eat three meals a day, plus snacks, I became anorexic, by physical diagnostic terms. Also, my body went into "starvation mode". and I did lose a substantial amount of muscle. All of this occurred while I was still receiving the recommended amount of nutrients.

I'm not sure what part you are disagreeing with, nor am I clear on what symptoms of anorexia you had. I assume you are female (on mobile and can't load your profile)? If you are female, you can experience a loss of menstrual cycle from exercise alone, even with unlimited caloric intake. If male, then the only obvious physical sign in the short term is an unhealthy low weight.

Surely you can see the difference between calorie restriction in someone overweight or obese, versus someone underweight.

Your experience is basically that you maintained a calorie deficit and lost weight... which is entirely the point of this website.

AFitJamie · February 2015

Jat...

It looks like, based on your original post and progress on weight loss, you are ab-so-lute-ly fine. You don't seem to be losing way too fast... a little slower may be ok, but I suspect that your overall assessment is correct. You do understand the numbers...

Given the pace of your weight loss... I suspect that you may not be totally correct in your Calories in/out counts and thus not actually eating as low as you may perceive and are worrying about. If you have a 1000 cal gap every day you should be losing approximately 2 lbs per week.. you are not... so you are not at a 1000 cal deficit... and that is just fine.
I'd suggest you keep doing what you are doing and monitor your weight loss progress carefully - if you are losing too fast then up your calories as too quickly can cause you to lose a greater % of muscle mass along with the fat... but honestly, it sounds like you do get this and are doing well.

I understand that you may worry about not taking in enough calories - I'm not ignoring that - just suggesting that based on your progress - I'm thinking your calorie deficit isn't as large as you are thinking - that could be a result of your underestimating calories consumed, overestimating calories burned, or not having precisely the TDEE that the models are predicting for you.... your actual progress, recognizing the fickleness of a scale with water retention, waste retention, etc etc etc, is your best indicator of what gap you are actually creating...

Best of luck! You've got this - and seem to be doing GREAT!

JAT74 · February 2015

Afitjamie thank you for your input, but this has already been discussed and I don't think I'm losing way too fast, or that I'm eating a 1000 calorie deficit. As I've said several times on this thread too, I'm not underestimating my calories or massively overestimating my calorie burns, I think that the TDEE I've been given is not necessessarily that accurate (based on sedentary). Last night however I was looking at a spreadsheet where I could put in my personal numbers including actual minutes of exercise I do every week doing different activities and it seemed to come up with a more accurate number ie. around 1750 TDEE and then subtracting my actual deficit when eating 1250 left me with a deficit of 500 calories, ie. enough to lose 1lb per week, which I think is a lot more accurate than what MFP told me initially.

I think that poster who said the idea of 'net' calories is simply something MFP has come up with, but in reality it wouldn't be an issue. People on here tend to say that 'netting too low' is bad etc. but the reality is that I'm eating 1250 calories of actual food every day minimum, regardless of the exercise I'm doing and there is no doctor out there who will tell me that's not enough food.

That said, as the ex-runner pointed out, I still believe there are a lot of people out there who are very active in their work or for sports/fitness and who are not conscious of how little they're eating. I personally know several people like this and I also know what they eat in a normal day and they are probably leaving themselves with a deficit of over 1000 calories. I wouldn't think of those people being Anorexic however, though medically I suppose it depends on any problems they may have.

One of my friends who probably burns off a lot of calories during her work in a busy restaurant in addition to her workouts and walks, suffers from a lot of migraines and other problems, though this could be a coincidence. I know for a fact she doesn't eat more than about 1500 calories most days, sometimes eating up to 2000 on her days off. 7 hours rushing around to and from the kitchen in a busy restaurant without a break must amount to a huge calorie burn.

All I was trying to say by this was that the concept of netting too low is a very strange one, and if you are eating enough calories to continue to lose weight at a reasonably slow rate, ie. just over 1lb per week which I don't think is excessive than it can't be that low. Obviously it's not forever either as I don't have 100 lbs to lose, only around 25 in total. Al the predictions I've seen have told me I should reach goal in around June, and then I'll start eating a little more in order to try and maintain my new lower weight.

lynn_glenmont · February 2015

Well, here's one reason.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007773/ahhh-my-hair-is-falling-out#latest

Why is it bad to net low calories?

Replies

Categories