Caloric deficiency?
Options
Replies
-
Please explain the concept of too high a deficit. She's eating 1,200, exercising 900, and netting 300.
As long as she not consumed with hunger pangs all day and all night and feels like she's starving herself, why is this a problem? Also, the weight is coming off slowly, unlike the Biggest Loser fiasco.
Thanks in advance.
Three pounds a week is fast, not slow. 1% maximum body weight loss per week is a good rule of thumb at least until goal weight gets close, at which point 1% could be too fast.
Why? Because your body can only metabolize 30-some calories from fat per day per pound of fat on your body. If your deficit is bigger than that, your body will burn more lean tissue in addition to fat, and slow down your less-survival-essential body functions (adaptive thermogenesis).
Lean tissue (muscles, bones, etc.) is important (!), and difficult/slow to rebuild. You don't want to lose it.
Slowed body functions mean your energy level can drop, your NEAT can decline so that you lose more slowly at the same calorie level (not "starvation mode", which is mythical), your hair/fingernails may thin and get brittle, and more. You don't want that, either. Plus adaptive thermogenesis can be difficult to reverse - simply eating more someday may not do it.
YMMV, but that's how I'd explain the concept of "too high deficit".
300 net calories is too high a deficit. Even if you assume the exercise calories are overestimated, and the true value is only half, 800 net calories is too high a deficit for someone who is not super petite, quite (um) mature, or an extreme outlier on the BMR/NEAT/TDEE bell curves.
ETA +1 to the basic thrust of @kshama2001's leptin/cortisol comments, too.7 -
She's already said she just wanted someone else tell her it's ok if she eats more.2
-
CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Eventually you will bonk on such few calories.
Have you noticed any other symptoms of under-eating such as fatigue, irritability, confusion, inability to complete a workout? Next up: hair loss, brittle fingernails, depression.
Eat, lovely! It will be good for you.
I feel satisfied and if I'm hungry, I eat. I haven't had any negative side effects either.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Eventually you will bonk on such few calories.
Have you noticed any other symptoms of under-eating such as fatigue, irritability, confusion, inability to complete a workout? Next up: hair loss, brittle fingernails, depression.
Eat, lovely! It will be good for you.
I feel satisfied and if I'm hungry, I eat. I haven't had any negative side effects either.
Well, the thing about hair loss from stress or malnutrition is that it doesn't kick in until up to 6 months after the event that caused it. And then it takes a while to get back on track due to the way hair growth works.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Eventually you will bonk on such few calories.
Have you noticed any other symptoms of under-eating such as fatigue, irritability, confusion, inability to complete a workout? Next up: hair loss, brittle fingernails, depression.
Eat, lovely! It will be good for you.
I feel satisfied and if I'm hungry, I eat. I haven't had any negative side effects either.
Yet.3 -
1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
2 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
So, how do you know how many calories you're actually eating?
It's very common to underestimate calories eaten if you don't weigh everything. And, easy to over estimate calories burned.
That said you're losing weight at a good clip so maybe just some patience.2 -
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
What she's saying makes far more sense (and is a far better idea) than your advise that it's perfectly okay to net 300 calories per day. Now that's terrible advice, for a number of reasons.2 -
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
What she's saying makes far more sense (and is a far better idea) than your advise that it's perfectly okay to net 300 calories per day. Now that's terrible advice, for a number of reasons.
I NEVER said it was OK. I asked about specifics regarding its drawbacks. PS - I would never do it because using a non-scientific phrase - it makes no sense.
But neither does stuffing yourself with 2,100 calories to net to 1,200 calories.
Before we say @suarez73 is would be "stuffing herself" with 2100 (although I doubt if OP is actually burning almost 900 cals, 2100 cals of fuel would be "stuffing") calories to net 1200, let's find out a few things.
1) OP, what are your stats (ht/wt)
2) Are you sedentary
3) How often do you work out and for how long.
Odds are, to get the proper nutrition and fuel 2100 isn't close to "stuffing"1 -
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
No, good advice, if she's actually burning 865 calories (she's probably not). Eating at least some calories above 1200 if exercising is a very good and smart thing to do. Why do you want her not to? She's losing on average about 3 lb/week, so bumping calories to, say, 1600-1800 (assuming that there was some water weight at first), for example, would make it a lot more sustainable and still likely result in a good rate of loss.
For me, burning that much would be the equivalent of running 10 miles. I hardly see why it would be problematic to eat 2000 calories on a day one ran 10 miles. (How one divides up the calories has nothing to do with it.)
ksharma's post is worth reading, too.1 -
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
What she's saying makes far more sense (and is a far better idea) than your advise that it's perfectly okay to net 300 calories per day. Now that's terrible advice, for a number of reasons.
I NEVER said it was OK. I asked about specifics regarding its drawbacks. PS - I would never do it because using a non-scientific phrase - it makes no sense.
But neither does stuffing yourself with 2,100 calories to net to 1,200 calories.
Yeah, if you think the 865 is accurate (I have doubts), then "stuffing oneself" with 2065 is very sensible, as a starting point.
It's exactly analogous to what I did while losing 60+ pounds to achieve a goal weight I hadn't seen on the scale for 35 years. I set my MFP profile as accurately as possible, with a reasonable weight loss rate target, and ate back all my exercise calories. I lost 63 pounds in 10-11 months (2 pounds a week at first, and more slowly as I got lighter).
My actual advice to OP would be a bit more nuanced: Set up MFP carefully. Eat back perhaps half the exercise calories. Get adequate nutrition. Stick with that 4-6 weeks, as long as you feel OK.
Then discard the first week or two's numbers (because we often see a big water weight drop at first), and average the weight loss of the latter weeks. If the average is no more than 1% of your bodyweight (approximately), and it feels sustainable, keep doing that.
If you're losing too fast, or it feels unsustainable, eat back more exercise calories or increase your calorie goal. If you're losing too slowly, gradually decrease your calorie goal (or increase exercise), as long as you feel good, until you lose at your target rate. If you can't achieve a reasonable weight loss rate while feeling good, see your doctor to rule out medical problems.
Rinse & repeat until 20(ish) pounds from goal, at which point reducing loss rate to 1lb/week max makes sense. At 10 pounds to goal, reduce loss rate to half a pound a week.
Lose weight, stay strong, stay healthy. It works.3 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.1 -
The issue here is that you are WAY overstimating your burn calories. Where did you get those numbers from?
Do you weigh your solids and measure your liquids and log every single thing you ingest?0 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.
And how are you estimating that exactly?
It may be in the ballpark if far longer than an hour workout of course.
But I do echo that your calorie goal on here is plus exercise calories.
If you want to eat the same every day then please set your goal using a TDEE calculator and not this site.0 -
OP what is your height, current weight, goal weight, and what rate of loss did you select?
While it sounds good to lose as much weight as fast as possible, that actually has quite a few drawbacks. Aiming for a moderate rate of loss at a calorie goal that is appropriate for the amount you have to lose helps avoid some of those things.
1. You need to fuel your activity, and you need to take in adequate nutrition (macro and micronutrients). Adhering to a net calorie goal can help keep you on the right track for both of those.
2. Losing weight rapidly can result in fatigue, loss of lean body mass (ie becoming skinny fat), hair loss, brittle nails, sallow skin, etc. None of these are desirable, right?
Bottom line weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit, represented by CI < CO. Being as accurate as possible with both your CI (using a food scale, logging everything you eat) as well as the estimates of your CO (not trusting gym equipment or MFP estimates implicitly) can help optimize your rate of loss and make sure you avoid unnecessary plateaus.
Lastly, weight loss is not linear, so it is not uncommon to see a faster rate of loss initially that then tapers off.
Good luck.3 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.
I have done kickboxing before (Muay Thai to be exact), and while I do know that it does burn off a lot of calories, I doubt you'll actually burn more than 400 calories in an hour. Yes it's intense, but I doubt any exercise will burn off 865 calories so easily in 1 hour. Unless you're a professional who kickboxes 3 hours a day, you may want to try getting an accurate form of measure like a heart rate monitor.4 -
From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.0
-
OP. I've done kickboxing on a regular basis for years and can tell you your burns are exaggerated. 400-500 is a better burn per hour.
Before upping your calories, you MUST start using a food scale. Due to your losses, I am quite certain that you're under eating, too.kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
Oh good lord.
You've got to be kidding, right? How in the world is netting ~300 calories daily a good thing? She should be netting at least 1200 to prevent malnutrition and a host of other illnesses and disorders. How is her body supposed to survive on so little nutrition? She's netting far less than a toddler would. Crazy. You do realize that the body needs fuel to function, right?2 -
Thanks for your feedback, comments and suggestions!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions