Why is it bad to net low calories?
Options
Replies
-
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!).0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
That's a pretty good loss, esp. since you say you only want to lose what, 20 lb?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
A reasonable & healthy rate of loss would be no more than 0.5 lb per week.
.
Irrelevant. Net calories don't matter.it looks like I've been netting very low calories
You're eating right around 1200 calories, and you say you're pretty short, so that may be reasonable & healthy for you.
.
That's a problem. You're outside the healthy macro ranges.I've set my protein and carbs to 35% and fat to 30%.
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)
.
No, eating too little can lead to nutritional deficiencies.Netting too low can lead to nutritional deficiencies over time
Exercise calories only affect weight loss.
.
No, it's not harmful to _net_ below 1200 (for women) or 1500 (for men).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.
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.
.
Yes. But this is actual calories, not the "net" that MFP came up with.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
(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.
Obviously just being famous doesn't mean she knows right from wrong, or what's healthy.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
Heck, look at what she did (helped do) to the people on the TV show she got famous from.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
daniellekunkel2 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.0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
Well, here's one reason.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007773/ahhh-my-hair-is-falling-out#latest
0 -
I've seen that post already and that is unlikely to happen. I am not going to be losing 50lbs in 3 months or anything stupid like that, more like 30lbs in 6 months and I'm only slightly reducing my calorie intake from what it was before. I was eating between 1300-1600 before January 5th, and now I'm eating 1250-1350 so not a massive amount less. I am also now paying closer attention to my macros so I'm making sure to eat enough protein and fat and lowering my carbs slightly, also taking vitamins too. Yes I've added a lot more exercise but 'netting' low is not the same as eating low.0
-
I've had a couple of times where my intake was way too low and when I close that day no mention is made on MFP. I agree you have to take in enough calories to be healthy. Otherwise, your body suffers and it goes into starvation mode. I was anorexic when I was younger and that is not the way to go. I think MFP should post when your intake is way too low so that we can encourage each other to eat healthy amounts.0
-
Yes but 1200-1300 is not 'way too low', with or without a moderate amount of exercise. We are not talking about eating 700 calories in a day here (which many who do intermittent fasting do more than once a week anyway).0
-
Why are you talking about TDEE and net calories? Tbh your post was hard work in the points you were trying to make and its a bit early for me, although I can hazard a guess and am sure lots who come after will give you a better idea. Others will find some basic information useful and will give them a better chance of answering your question.
- Are you weighing all your food using scales?
- Which method are you using TDEE or the default net calorie MFP method?
- What are your stats- I can see F 40, 147.5. How tall are you?
- How are you recording your burns, based on what source? HRM, gym machine, MFP or other.
- Are you eating any of these back?
The normal answers are as follows. Excluding the uncommon event that you have a medical condition, then the following come up.- You are eating more than you think.
- You are burning less than you think.
- Weight loss is not linear, this is especially if it reflects what can be inaccurate recording.
- Some people have different metabolic rates.
- You are most likely already a healthy weight for your height. I took 5'5" as a guess, but taller would put you down as an even lower BMI. The less you have to lose the more it slows down.
Other points
You have only been on your plan for 1 month, so you need to see whats happening over time. Thats too short a period.
I have read your posts a few times and it seems more streams of consciousness and difficult to follow. You might make it easier fpr people who will spend the time if you narrow it down to specific questions you want answered and they can get to the bottom of it.
My estimation is that a female of your age and weight would be on c 1700 net calories for maintenance. So that would be c1200 calories for a loss of 1lb a week. You have lost 5.5lbs in a month.
I dont think thats as wildly out as you suggest and theres plenty of scope for the above factors coming into play.0 -
What are you doing and how are you measuring your caloric burns? IE-- I run 3 1/2 miles and my HRM(heart rate monitor) indicates I've burned 400 calories.
Also, at 32% BF what do you use or how do you measure your BF(body fat)?
Last, how do you know your metabolism is fine? What steps have you taken to know your is slow or fast?
0 -
999tigger, as I said initially the point I was trying to make and question I was asking at the beginning of this thread was basically about 'netting too low' as this is something I see repeated on here many times over. Basically I have been 'netting' around 732 calories per day based on my calories eaten and calories burned last month. I came to this figure by calculating my TDEE based on sedentary which was around 1500, subtracting the amount of deficit needed to lose 1.5lbs per week which was 750, bringing me to 800 base calories and then eating back some of the calories burned to around 1250.
Yes I already know I may have been burning less than estimated, though I have already lowered some of the calorie burns for regular activities I do. I did initially use a HRM to calculate the burns however, but as so many people have told me they are probably overestimated I've now lowered them.
I am also truely sedentary in general, and through use of a complex spreadsheet posted on here yesterday I have now been able to establish a truer TDEE figure, including my normal daily activity and my calorie burns through exercise and this comes to 1750 in total. This is much lower than previous calculators put me at, as most of them estimated that with exercise my TDEE was more like 1950 to 2050. The new amount of 1750 minus1250 which is what I am eating is giving me a much more accurate idea of my real deficit which is about 500 calories per day, or enough to lose 1lb per week which is much closer to what is really happening in terms of my weight loss, though I initially did want to lose 1.5lbs per week which would mean I would have to increase the deficit.
I am 40, 5 foot 4 and now weigh 141.5lbs.
To the last poster, my body fat % of 32 was arrived at through taking an average of the online calculators which put me at 28%, body fat scales which put me at anything from 36-69% and another set of scales which put me at 31% as well as calipers which say I'm 33%.
The reason I think my metabolism isn't fine and is slow is due to the fact that I am not able to eat at TDEE without putting on weight. Having said this, before I started logging again on MFP I was also a lot less active so my TDEE may have been much lower, (possibly as low as 1450-1500) and over time I may have been eating at this level regularly causing the weight gain, it's hard to know.0 -
So at the risk of fanning flames
The idea of "netting too low" isn't something MFP "made up". But it is poor language in my opinion. However it isn't that complicated. And, as I suspect you understand - you are *not* doing it.
Let's take a fairly extreme example to make the point and why this isn't just a make believe idea and then maybe we can discuss why some people, with good intentions, give bad advice here on MFP:
If I was**extremely** active every day and ate 1500 calories every day and aside from my extreme activity I was a generally average male who would usually burn 2000 calories a day....
My high rate of activity would burn a lot of calories... let's pretend in our extreme example that I am burning 1500 calories JUST through the EXTRA activity (That's a fairly insane amount - this is just for example).
So, I would be keeping myself alive with breathing and blood circulation and maintaining body temperature, moving myself around and being semi active etc etc and burning 2000 calories plus I would burn the added 1500 of the extra over-the-top activity. This would be 3500 burned... if only 1500 were taken in as food, I would have a deficit of 2000 calories for the day!
I would lose weight - no matter what physical condition I was in - overweight or not - I would lose weight... if I kept at this I would lose weight quite quickly... (2000 calories per day * 7 Days - 14000 calories /3500 cals in a Lb of fat = approximately 4 Lbs a week).
That is losing 4 Lbs a week while eating 1500 calories a day... I would be losing weight too quickly while still eating what *might* look like an ok, if lighter, amount of food... but it wouldn't be enough to be losing weight in a healthy manner.
A few of your posts imply that a person could be active (waitress?) and run around all day and not be losing weight if they were still are taking in only a typical light day of calories... that isn't right. If someone is burning a lot of calories through exercise or daily activity and they are not losing weight, it is because they are eating that much in their calorie intake.
As you understand, you are losing at a reasonable pace - and you are NOT netting too low.
Some people on MFP do freak out on just a calorie number as if it is gospel... as if it can be trusted as a precise determination.... the problem is (IMO - I've learned this after a long time here) that most people, including myself, *suck* at creating precise measures of actual calories consumed. Other, helpful MFP readers see a calorie number for a day in a diary and *JUMP* on an individual saying OMG! YOU ARE EATING TOO LOW!!! you will go into starvation mode!!!!! (and somehow defy the laws of physics and magically create energy from nowhere and not lose weight even though you are eating at 1200 calories!) Good intentions, but not really helpful. The truth is eat less, do more, and hopefully some day everyone will stop believing that they actually know their TDEE, and precise calorie intake, or burn... We all need to recognize that the precision we are using is good and helpful and can give guidance that we are creating a reasonable gap as demonstrated by reasonable weight loss.... but the numbers themselves IMO shouldn't be mistaken as actually being precise enough to be reality.
As a side note: I have had, over the past three years, a number of shorter, petite, women as friends here on MFP and I can say that typically they struggle given that their smaller frame holds less muscle mass - they simply have a smaller frame to put the muscle on - and their TDEE/BMR measurements are often challenged - not because they have a damaged metabolism, but because these estimate tools don't seem to help them much in generating good targets for them. Add to that MFP's unwillingness to take anyone below 1200 calories (a reasonable restriction for *most* people, but not everyone depending on size) and sometime they have to do active work outs simply to create a deficit that is meaningful and they do not eat back calories because there is simply so little gap to work with. (BMR is so close to their sedentary TDEE that they can't create a reasonable gap to lose anything at any pace and one alcoholic drink sends them over their targets - Meanwhile a 6' 4" guy is asking them what the challenge is to create a deficit!)
Every person needs to find what is helpful to them and you are on a good track so far - it is working. "Netting too low" isn't a nonsense idea, but if often assumed from people reading numbers as gospel instead of seeing the reality represented by the pace of someone's weight loss.
Hopefully helpful... not intending to flame, or create any
0 -
I hear what you're saying. In the example I gave, someone who is very active for their job should be losing weight if they aren't eating enough to compensate for their very high rate of activity but possibly they don't. I was basing this on someone I know, and in her case she does lose weight without really trying but they she will go on a cruise twice a year, eat huge amounts for a week, put on 7lbs in a week, or she'll have a night off and drink a load of calories in alcohol so her losses aren't so noticeable - though she does regularly tell me that her weight goes up and down by at least 7lbs both ways on a regular basis.
The other point you make is certainly very true. In my case my BMR is approximately 1300 and my TDEE approximately 1500 so if I was to create a deficit large enough to lose the 2lbs a week I'd really like to lose, I would have to drop down to eating 500 calories per day without exercise or probably around 900 per day with exercise. That is just too low, and I wouldn't even attempt it.
Therefore for someone like me, 1200 calories or thereabouts is really the highest number I'd like to work with, and I would only eat that amount on days I exercise, as you said, in order to create a large enough deficit. I generally don't want to eat back my exercise calories as that will mean less of a deficit and on days when I can't/don't work out, I'll just have to eat less, if that means 1 or 2 days here and there of 1000 calories so be it, I'm sure it won't do me any major damage.
As you've said about posters giving bad advice or jumping on the whole idea of netting too low, I think that because their case is probably a bit different they are not able to empathise with those wh oare not in the same position as them. This doesn't only apply to 6'4" guys, but to girls with a low body fat % who spent time lifting weights in the gym and people who are active in their daily life.
I do realise that if I had an active life outside of workouts and then I spent time in the gym on top of that I'd be able to eat more than I can now, but this just isn't my current situation unfortunately for me!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions