Are negative net calories bad

I would say yeah! Your body needs calories.

The only time I have negative net calories is when I work out first thing and log my exercise before I've had anything to eat for the day! But you shouldn't go whole days on negetive net calories...

I dont think negative calories are sustainable long term as your body will demand calories, fats, proteins etc etc for the brain to function so it can keep the rest of your body functioning

I've been conflicted with this too...Some people say eat back the calories you burned,while others say why work out if your gonna eat it back....I really would like to test it out with maybe two weeks of the two options but i'm terrified of gaining any weight back.Does this apply to people who have 80 pounds or more to lose?

I've been conflicted with this too...Some people say eat back the calories you burned,while others say why work out if your gonna eat it back....I really would like to test it out with maybe two weeks of the two options but i'm terrified of gaining any weight back.Does this apply to people who have 80 pounds or more to lose?

i've pretty much exercised my entire life, and eating back my calories never helped me lose weight or fat. what has been working is eating at about 20-30% below my maintenance on a daily basis regardless of my workouts. i almost never eat my exercise calories back except on days when i'm really really hungry.

and no i'm not burning out, going into starvation mode, hindering my workout performance or anything else like that. i'm getting healthier (blood pressure decreased, heart rate decreased), i'm getting stronger and i'm losing fat, which is is exactly what i want so i'll stick to doing it my way

i think eating back your exercise calories is more a necessity as you get closer to your goal weight because at that point your body has less extra stuff stored away to pull energy from.

What about you doing to burn 1800 calories in a day? Just walking? You'll have to walk a whole lot to get that kind of burn?

What are you using as an estimation of your calorie burn?

I've actually been doing a sort of calorie cycling, where I'll go maybe two to three days of the week, keeping my net less than 900 (I have Fibromyalgia, making my metabolism naturally slower and spend most of my time after working out on the couch) and then the rest of the week I'll have a net of well over 1200 or 1500 after exercise (I'll eat up to 1800 or so). It's worked pretty interestingly for me because I find that the day after the periods where I eat more and definitely burn more calories through exercise, I feel like I lost like 5 pounds as well as seeing actual results on those days.

I don't think anyone would suggest you strive for negative net calories at all because it can CAN CAN CAN lead to metabolic disorders that are far worse than just having a plateau (of course these are bad enough). If you're really trying to see results fast, I would maybe start with a very low net calorie on 1-3 days out of the week, followed with the next days with high enough nets to keep your metabolism up and keep your body from being used to a certain amount of calories (usually the trick with this is still maintaining an overall deficit for the week put together).

I've been there and done that with long periods of very restricted calories, and trust me when I say you will not be rewarded with the results you want - even if your body does happen to be able to maintain its metabolism until you reach your goal weight (not likely at all), your body would have synthesized and metabolized the energy in your muscle fibers, using that for energy because it's quicker than fat with lack of carbs; you might have a lighter body, but you're likely to have a higher body fat percentage because you have literally eaten your muscles, and now you're almost guaranteed to gain weight back ten fold.

If I'm not hungry at all and my net is only like 700, should I force myself to eat?

No need if you have 50 lb to lose.

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. My calorie intake should be 1200 calories a day. When I complete my workouts, I've burnt off about 600 calories, so does that I mean I should eat 600 more calories or should I not eat anymore?

How many?

If you eat 1800 and you had a kick butt workout and burned 2000, that's one thing.

If you eat 500 and work off 2000, then, yeah...problem.

You're talking 2000 exercise calories, right? Then both situations are bad.

I started paying more attention my Total Daily Energy Expenditure which calculates the amount of calories you need in a day. It is similar to BMR which measures calories you need to survive. TDEE includes the amount of calories you burn in exercise. There are a few mathematical formulas you can use to calculate both numbers or hundreds of online calculators. This link is one.

http://www.quickbmr.com/what-is-tdee.html#

Your TDEE is the total calories after including exercise so there are no "net" calories or questions about eating back calories. My TDEE is 2,600 calories a day.

If you are looking to lose weight you should reduce TDEE by 20%. For me that would mean cutting 520 calories (1 pound per week).

Remember, All of the information available on the Internet is generic so try eating TDEE for a few weeks and see the results.

bump

If you don't stay below your net, you're not going to lose any weight. That's the general idea as long as you told MFP that you don't want to lose weight. When you tell MFP that you want to do that and at which rate, it will automatically lower the net it shows you below your actual net.

Just keep in mind that you should eat back most of the cal you burn during an exercise, at least most of the time. It's okay to drop even lower below the net from time to time, but especially if you want to build up muscles and shape up, you have to give your body nutrients to do that. (Building up muscles gains weight, though, so check your measurements once a week.)

Important: Get enough protein. Protein helps losing weight as well, because your body gains energy from breaking it down, but has to put even more energy into building things from protein afterwards. (Which your body will do if you exercise.) Again, no / less weight loss because you transform "light" fat into "heavy" muscles.

Zombie thread.

Focusing just on a new post and ignoring those from 2012...

aufstieg90 wrote: »

I argued that if I wanna shred, real quick, get my results the fastest possible way, net cals are the way to go. When you notice a plateu or the results slowing down... Naturally you wanna kick it up a gear, if you feel like you have the discipline you target the cal intake. If you feel like you have the drive you target the cals through exercises.

He said, your body isnt that simple. There are medical risks attached to what you want to do: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Metabolic_diseases.aspx

After seeing all the potential risks that could happen to me or anyone else attempting the net cal diet... I thought to myself, whats worth doing? Riding out the plateu and holding the cal intake at 1,500 - 300 of exercise? Or taking those fast results? (long term or short term)

I'll leave that to you.

What is the net cal diet? You mean going negative net?

Bigger issue that avoids the confusing in how people use net is what the total deficit is -- how many calories are you burning (including but not limited to exercise) and how many are you eating? And also how common it is -- doing something for a day doesn't matter (well, within reason, of course).