Why is it bad to net low calories?

JAT74 · February 2015

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.

celticlass69 · February 2015

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.

JAT74 · February 2015

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).

999tigger · February 2015

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.

_Terrapin_ · February 2015

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?

JAT74 · February 2015

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.

AFitJamie · February 2015

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

JAT74 · February 2015

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!

Why is it bad to net low calories?

Replies

Categories