Calorie Counting on My Fitness Pal

OElleBelleO
OElleBelleO Posts: 54 Member
edited September 28 in Health and Weight Loss
I know the calorie goal is what we all try to aim for but is it worse to be under or over?

Replies

  • blacrasberri
    blacrasberri Posts: 102
    Try to be under or just on target for your calorie goal. Every now and then we may fall off the wagon but saddle up & prepare to ride that bad boy out :happy:
  • MaruManic
    MaruManic Posts: 27 Member
    Neither. Its bad to be an extreme, but being a little over or under is hardly a bad thing. You can't expect to hit it perfect all the time. The main thing is to being in the weightloss range, even if your going over, or if your going under not to go too far so your body doesn't start cluching and storing everything you put in it as fat.

    or atleast that's what I believe. :]
  • geri25
    geri25 Posts: 43 Member
    i would at least get 1200 calories in
  • ImperfektAngel
    ImperfektAngel Posts: 811 Member
    I would say its worse to be over
  • Lyadeia
    Lyadeia Posts: 4,603 Member
    I think people get too freaked out when they are over. If you think about it, MFP builds in a deficit of around 500 calories...sometimes even more. So if you are 200 calories over, instead of crying because you went over 200, think about the fact that you are still at a 300 calorie deficit and that will still help you lose weight.

    It is the extremes you must be wary of as another poster already mentioned. Extremely low and you could go into a plateau cause you're not eating enough...extremely high and you gain weight...but slightly above or below won't make or break your diet.
  • CARNAT22
    CARNAT22 Posts: 764 Member
    I aim to be within about 50 / 75 cals either way! Normally under though...
  • OElleBelleO
    OElleBelleO Posts: 54 Member
    Thanks everyone for the advice!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories