IS IT BAD? IF i intake less then my goal Calories?
Mas_Anwar
Posts: 8 Member
My taget goal Cals are 1650 to loose my target weight, if i intake say 1200 and at the end of the day I feel perfectly fine even after a gym session which may include 60min cardio (body pump or Body Combat) is this a bad thing? i mean is it harmfull to me? i make sure i keep hydrated though out. thanks
0
Replies
-
net or gross?0
-
My taget goal Cals are 1650 to loose my target weight, if i intake say 1200 and at the end of the day I feel perfectly fine even after a gym session which may include 60min cardio (body pump or Body Combat) is this a bad thing? i mean is it harmfull to me? i make sure i keep hydrated though out. thanks
OP, being male, yes this is bad and has potential to be harmful.
You may feel just fine in the short term only. Do you and your body a favor, eat the proper amount of calories you setup your account for to lose weight.
And pay no never mind to any one eating VLCD in this thread.7 -
VLCD is very dangerous..sighhh I've seen so many MFP friends do this, not heeding those of us who've been at maintenance for years and know a thing or two. Hair loss, lack of energy and worst of all metabolism shot to bits.
My mantra has and always will be, eat as much as you possibly can and STILL lose (if that's the aim).
6 -
Imo, the lower you go with calories, the more of a premium you should place on nutrition. Also, there is a correlation between what a reasonable calorie deficit is and how much body fat you have. I wouldn't worry too much about a few calories one day but I wouldn't recommend rushing things either.0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »VLCD is very dangerous..sighhh I've seen so many MFP friends do this, not heeding those of us who've been at maintenance for years and know a thing or two. Hair loss, lack of energy and worst of all metabolism shot to bits.
My mantra has and always will be, eat as much as you possibly can and STILL lose (if that's the aim).
I don't want to be seen as supporting them but for completeness, VLCD can be a useful tool and the best course of action for SOME people. They should be insturcted and supervised by a medical professional and not taken lightly.5 -
The "I feel fine" thing is not a great guide, IMO. If you're on here needing to lose weight, your own hunger and fulness signals have already proved unreliable, and that cuts both ways.
If I eat too little, my appetite reduces, just the same way as if iI eat too much, I feel hungrier. If I undereat all day, I have no interest in dinner - it doesn't mean I don't need it. "Intuitive eating" is all very well but it doesn't work for me. I'm on here to learn how to eat an appropriate amount of food - neither too much nor too little.
Starving yourself is just as unhealthy as overeating, and if your body isn't giving you the right signals to feed yourself in a healthy way, the signals are not working correctly and it's time for a manual override.5 -
I lost 90lbs while lifting, doing cardio and eating healthy. I had many days that my net calories were in the negative. It's fine. You're overweight, you clearly have fat reserves to burn those calories. Don't worry about going low on a given day.1
-
-
Well, we know where the energy comes from, don't we? The fat reserves, sure, which is nutritionally equivalent to spending a day eating lard out of a bowl with a spoon ( vitamins? Fibre? Who needs em!) and would be bad enough, but your body can't sustain a negative calorie intake on fat alone and will go for the muscles. After all, they're too expensive to maintain, and we're in genuine, actual, no-kidding starvation here (that's what negative intake is, don't kid yourself) so what do we need muscles for? They've got to go, like the supplies from a sinking ship and you know what your heart is, don't you? It's a muscle. This isn't a game, people.
I genuinely don't know what it is about OP''s innocent and all-too-common query that has brought all the "eating is for wimps" people out of the woodwork, but I'm genuinely concerned and I feel I need to start flagging the VLCD posts. Sorry, OP. Please eat more.8 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Well, we know where the energy comes from, don't we? The fat reserves, sure, which is nutritionally equivalent to spending a day eating lard out of a bowl with a spoon ( vitamins? Fibre? Who needs em!) and would be bad enough, but your body can't sustain a negative calorie intake on fat alone and will go for the muscles. After all, they're too expensive to maintain, and we're in genuine, actual, no-kidding starvation here (that's what negative intake is, don't kid yourself) so what do we need muscles for? They've got to go, like the supplies from a sinking ship and you know what your heart is, don't you? It's a muscle. This isn't a game, people.
I genuinely don't know what it is about OP''s innocent and all-too-common query that has brought all the "eating is for wimps" people out of the woodwork, but I'm genuinely concerned and I feel I need to start flagging the VLCD posts. Sorry, OP. Please eat more.
There's been a lot lately, not just this thread. Even the threads where people are suffering from the adverse effects, there are still people jumping in to defend it. It's like suddenly everyone went "screw healthy."5 -
1200 a day for a man is NOT a VLCD. It is the minimum according to NIH (National Institutes for Health in US) as well as for MFP. For a woman it is 1,000 (this is an update from previous recommendation). Not saying it is right in his case but 1200 it is not considered a VLCD.3
-
NewGemini130 wrote: »1200 a day for a man is NOT a VLCD. It is the minimum according to NIH (National Institutes for Health in US) as well as for MFP. For a woman it is 1,000 (this is an update from previous recommendation). Not saying it is right in his case but 1200 it is not considered a VLCD.
Not appropriate for someone who is working out.7 -
Agree2
-
Well, what do you know, they have changed it. So as a NET intake for OP it would no longer be actually against the recommendations. That means he would have to eat back those workout calories - 1200 total while working out would be far too low.
To clarify, iI didn't flag OP - I flagged one user who recommended going as low as 900 calories, and proudly showed a Fitbit output reading NEGATIVE 2000cal with only one meal left to eat (was that meal 3000cal?) and another user who actually recommended negative net calories as a valid weight loss strategy. I'm not quibbling over 200cal here.0 -
OP as others have said, eating such low calories, especially for an active male, can have negative effects. I mentioned above: fatigue, loss of lean body mass, hair loss, libido loss, etc. I read in your profile that you are caring for a special needs son - that must be very challenging, and I commend you for your efforts to be the healthiest you possible for your son. That includes making sure you have enough energy to take care of him, which is why eating enough is very important, even when not always hungry. An occasional day under goal isn't a big deal, but your goal seems pretty low to begin with, so I'd be careful about doing that too often.
Here's a link to a great thread with some suggestions on ways to get those calories up, even if you aren't too hungry.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142490/a-list-of-calorie-dense-foods/p1
Good luck!4 -
Re OP's question - no I dont think it matters if you SOMETIMES eat 450 below your allowance - ie eat 1200 when your allowance is 1650.
as long as this evens out with other days when you eat more and your average allowance is round about where it should be for the week - say, a couple of hundred calories either side as a weekly count.4 -
My taget goal Cals are 1650 to loose my target weight, if i intake say 1200 and at the end of the day I feel perfectly fine even after a gym session which may include 60min cardio (body pump or Body Combat) is this a bad thing? i mean is it harmfull to me? i make sure i keep hydrated though out. thanks
If it happens once or twice and is counteracted by a few days on which you eat more than your target, it's no problem at all. What matters is your *average* calorie intake over the course of the week.
If you do this every day, it's a bad idea. Your body can only extract a certain amount of energy from each pound of fat. After that, it starts cannibalizing other body tissues (like muscle) that you don't want to lose. Also, you would likely find it difficult to get adequate nutrition eating 1200 cals every day (remembering that larger people need more protein, fat and micronutrients than smaller people).0 -
-
^ It is great to look at it this way. When I first started counting calories I stressed out when I went over a certain number and tried to stay "under" a certain amount of calories per day. But actually averaging out calories by the week helps one to budget and compensate by cutting back on some days previous to or immediately after to make up for a meal that was or is expected to be a little too high.SusanMFindlay wrote: »My taget goal Cals are 1650 to loose my target weight, if i intake say 1200 and at the end of the day I feel perfectly fine even after a gym session which may include 60min cardio (body pump or Body Combat) is this a bad thing? i mean is it harmfull to me? i make sure i keep hydrated though out. thanks
If it happens once or twice and is counteracted by a few days on which you eat more than your target, it's no problem at all. What matters is your *average* calorie intake over the course of the week.
If you do this every day, it's a bad idea. Your body can only extract a certain amount of energy from each pound of fat. After that, it starts cannibalizing other body tissues (like muscle) that you don't want to lose. Also, you would likely find it difficult to get adequate nutrition eating 1200 cals every day (remembering that larger people need more protein, fat and micronutrients than smaller people).
0 -
Yes, true, average over a few days is what matters - being under goal on a specific day is no big deal as long as you over goal on other days.
PERSISTENT undereating is a problem, though.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Yes, true, average over a few days is what matters - being under goal on a specific day is no big deal as long as you over goal on other days.
PERSISTENT undereating is a problem, though.
Average over more than a few days
Over a week for calorie intake
Over 6-8 weeks for monitoring scale weight0 -
I personally average my calorie intake over a week. My feeling is that eating under goal for more than four or five days in a row is unwise. Personally I never eat under 1200 total on any given day and I do not eat under 1500 net (my actual goal) for more than 6 days in a row. Usually it's more like 4.0
-
Hey guys - this thread was cleaned up to remove some discussion that was a violation of community guidelines. Please be aware that using MyFitnessPal to achieve dangerously low levels of caloric intake is a violation of guidelines.
If your post was removed but you did NOT violate guidelines, please be aware that I really hate the quote feature, and to save myself the headache (and occasional embarrassment) of dealing with those, they were removed too (or they may not have made sense in context of the OP's post, so were removed to alleviate confusion).
Thanks,
JustSomeEm0 -
What is considered a VLCD? Is it 800 intake calories? I eat roughly 1400 but net only 600 or so per day recently. The past 5 days Im 5k under my 1950 per day goal.0
-
barracudamuscle wrote: »What is considered a VLCD? Is it 800 intake calories? I eat roughly 1400 but net only 600 or so per day recently. The past 5 days Im 5k under my 1950 per day goal.
Technical standards, yes, that is VLCD. However, I'm not always so quick to jump on the "up your calorie" bandwagon because people are often inaccurate in their counting without a food scale or overestimate calorie goals. Pay attention to your losses. If you're losing quicker than projected, you need to up the calories. Do not wait for negative side effects because they often come secondary down the road (which is the dangerous part). But if you're losing at the rate projected, chances are, you are eating more than you think and don't necessarily need to up the calories.
1 -
barracudamuscle wrote: »What is considered a VLCD? Is it 800 intake calories? I eat roughly 1400 but net only 600 or so per day recently. The past 5 days Im 5k under my 1950 per day goal.
600 net is VLCD. You are supposed to eat back exercise calories on MFP NEAT.
If you are going by TDEE minus a deficit like subtracting 500 calories off daily, for instance, to lose a pound a week then you do not eat back exercise calories.0 -
barracudamuscle wrote: »What is considered a VLCD? Is it 800 intake calories? I eat roughly 1400 but net only 600 or so per day recently. The past 5 days Im 5k under my 1950 per day goal.
600 net is VLCD. You are supposed to eat back exercise calories on MFP NEAT.
If you are going by TDEE minus a deficit like subtracting 500 calories off daily, for instance, to lose a pound a week then you do not eat back exercise calories.
Thanks vespiquenn and Debsozo. Im not real savvy on all the acronyms TDEE but used my googlefu to figure out what your talking about.
I'm not going to thread jack, I'm back on MFP after failing once again this is my first week. Basically I had MFP setup the 1950 calories of food but I've been trying to hit 800+ calories a day and if I can keep my eating down below 1950 or well below, not eat the calories back I hope to drop it like its hot...once again. I lost 40 pounds in 3 months a couple years ago, Im looking to lose that same 40 I regained in the same 3 months time period.
I'll continue lurking and reading....thanks for explaining that for me!
0 -
Mas_Anwar - Looking through this thread I don't know that anyone has actually answered your question. A lot of responses seemed veer into VLDC flame wars of some sort.
You asked if simply consuming less than your daily caloric goal of 1650 is harmful? First, assuming you were not medically advised by a doctor that you require 1650 cals for health reasons then I have to assume this is a personally set goal yes? If so how did you arrive at 1650?
You likely know already 1650 cals is roughly the amount necessary maintain a weight of 165lbs without consideration to additional exercise. If that is the estimated guide you are using then no a 400 cal difference in consuming 1200 vs. 1650 in a single day is not harmful to you.
It truly depends on your daily nutritional intake. You could get all 1650 calories from fatty cheese burgers ( or fish n chips mate ;-) or 1200 calories from a balanced intake of complex/simple carbs, clean protein and foods with nutrients your body actually needs and be far healthier.
Overall, your choices in diet, workout, lifestyle, etc. should be made based on your goals. If general health and fitness are your goals then 45-60 minutes of cardio with a quality nutritional diet will serve you well. Beyond that I would need to know more about what you're trying to achieve and where you're starting from to be more specific. Please, feel free to message anytime.
Btw - I've read your profile and God bless you man. I too raised a special needs child and can relate.
Cheers
0 -
barracudamuscle wrote: »barracudamuscle wrote: »What is considered a VLCD? Is it 800 intake calories? I eat roughly 1400 but net only 600 or so per day recently. The past 5 days Im 5k under my 1950 per day goal.
600 net is VLCD. You are supposed to eat back exercise calories on MFP NEAT.
If you are going by TDEE minus a deficit like subtracting 500 calories off daily, for instance, to lose a pound a week then you do not eat back exercise calories.
Thanks vespiquenn and Debsozo. Im not real savvy on all the acronyms TDEE but used my googlefu to figure out what your talking about.
I'm not going to thread jack, I'm back on MFP after failing once again this is my first week. Basically I had MFP setup the 1950 calories of food but I've been trying to hit 800+ calories a day and if I can keep my eating down below 1950 or well below, not eat the calories back I hope to drop it like its hot...once again. I lost 40 pounds in 3 months a couple years ago, Im looking to lose that same 40 I regained in the same 3 months time period.
I'll continue lurking and reading....thanks for explaining that for me!
40 in three months is too fast. That tells me you are eating too little to fuel the workouts you are doing. Plus, you didn't maintain it, which suggests whatever you did worked temporarily. Why not slow it down, be healthy, and learn new habits that will make it a lasting change?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions