Does this have the same effect in your body? PLEASE HELP
NeverGiveUp321xo
Posts: 7 Member
Mfp gave me daily goal of 1380 cals to lose weight. I burn roughly 100 cals from my daily workout. I plan to eat this back so 1380+100 is 1480. However I can also do this. Eat 1590 cals and I will burn 100 cals from my workout but I will not eat this back and now this will be 1480 cals. Which is more better? Eat 1380 cals and eat back 100 cals or eat 1580 cals and burn 100 but not eat this back? Wat do u think? My goal is to lose 15 pounds and my activity level is set to sedentary. I kinda wanna lose this weight in 2-4 months.
0
Replies
-
I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!8 -
This ^^^^^1
-
The second option is 100 calories more.
1380 consumed - 100 burned + 100 eaten = 1380.
1580 - 100 burned = 1480.4 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
They're not essentially identical, and the net result is not the same.
In the first scenario, OP consumes 1480 gross calories and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1380 net cals.
In the second scenario, OP consumes 1580 (assuming first mention of 1590 is a type) gross cals and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1480 net cals.
Not the same. OP is comparing 1480 gross calories to 1480 net cals.
OP, there's no way for us to know which is "better" without knowing your stats (height and current weight at a minimum, so we could figure out whether your goal is reasonable and whether the calorie level you propose would be likely to let you reach your goal.
In the end, it's a difference of 100 cals in your net daily calories, or about a fifth of a pound a week, or about three pounds over the course of the maximum time you mention (four months). It's possible that the extra 100 cals in deficits in the first scenario would make it unsustainable for you, but that's something we could only guess at, as different people have different tolerances for what is sustainable.
4 -
Pick one. Do it for 4-6 weeks. Tell us how it goes.1
-
Redordeadhead wrote: »The second option is 100 calories more.
1380 consumed - 100 burned + 100 eaten = 1380.
1580 - 100 burned = 1480.
😳🙄 Maths! Apologies, it was never my strong point!1 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
Hey thanks! I think I might eat 1380 and add 1000 -
-
Redordeadhead wrote: »The second option is 100 calories more.
1380 consumed - 100 burned + 100 eaten = 1380.
1580 - 100 burned = 1480.
OMG I thought its the same0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
They're not essentially identical, and the net result is not the same.
In the first scenario, OP consumes 1480 gross calories and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1380 net cals.
In the second scenario, OP consumes 1580 (assuming first mention of 1590 is a type) gross cals and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1480 net cals.
Not the same. OP is comparing 1480 gross calories to 1480 net cals.
OP, there's no way for us to know which is "better" without knowing your stats (height and current weight at a minimum, so we could figure out whether your goal is reasonable and whether the calorie level you propose would be likely to let you reach your goal.
In the end, it's a difference of 100 cals in your net daily calories, or about a fifth of a pound a week, or about three pounds over the course of the maximum time you mention (four months). It's possible that the extra 100 cals in deficits in the first scenario would make it unsustainable for you, but that's something we could only guess at, as different people have different tolerances for what is sustainable.
Thanks! My current weight is 59kg and my height is 5.2ft. I’m 19 years old and a female. My goal weight is 52kg. I want to lose fat obvs. I’m skinny fat at this point. I’m not sure how many cals I should I eat. I think I roughly burn 100 cals from gym. Which scenario is the best?0 -
0
-
IBarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »Redordeadhead wrote: »The second option is 100 calories more.
1380 consumed - 100 burned + 100 eaten = 1380.
1580 - 100 burned = 1480.
😳🙄 Maths! Apologies, it was never my strong point!
😎 same!0 -
NeverGiveUp321xo wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
They're not essentially identical, and the net result is not the same.
In the first scenario, OP consumes 1480 gross calories and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1380 net cals.
In the second scenario, OP consumes 1580 (assuming first mention of 1590 is a type) gross cals and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1480 net cals.
Not the same. OP is comparing 1480 gross calories to 1480 net cals.
OP, there's no way for us to know which is "better" without knowing your stats (height and current weight at a minimum, so we could figure out whether your goal is reasonable and whether the calorie level you propose would be likely to let you reach your goal.
In the end, it's a difference of 100 cals in your net daily calories, or about a fifth of a pound a week, or about three pounds over the course of the maximum time you mention (four months). It's possible that the extra 100 cals in deficits in the first scenario would make it unsustainable for you, but that's something we could only guess at, as different people have different tolerances for what is sustainable.
Thanks! My current weight is 59kg and my height is 5.2ft. My goal weight is 52kg. I want to lose fat obvs. I’m skinny fat at this point. I’m not sure how many cals I should I eat. I think I roughly burn 100 cals from gym. Which scenario is the best?
No one can answer that for you. 100 calories per day one way or the other isn't going to make a lot of difference. You'll make more mistakes than that amount anyway on food logging.
Seriously, I wasn't joking when I said pick one and try it for 4-6 weeks. That's what all of us had to do. All of these numbers are a guess. We can't guess for you, If it was me, I'd pick the one where I ate the 1380 + Exercise calories, because you won't be working out every single day at the same intensity or the same number of minutes, and that one will give you the 100 calories lower amount, so theoretically would be the better choice.1 -
NeverGiveUp321xo wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
They're not essentially identical, and the net result is not the same.
In the first scenario, OP consumes 1480 gross calories and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1380 net cals.
In the second scenario, OP consumes 1580 (assuming first mention of 1590 is a type) gross cals and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1480 net cals.
Not the same. OP is comparing 1480 gross calories to 1480 net cals.
OP, there's no way for us to know which is "better" without knowing your stats (height and current weight at a minimum, so we could figure out whether your goal is reasonable and whether the calorie level you propose would be likely to let you reach your goal.
In the end, it's a difference of 100 cals in your net daily calories, or about a fifth of a pound a week, or about three pounds over the course of the maximum time you mention (four months). It's possible that the extra 100 cals in deficits in the first scenario would make it unsustainable for you, but that's something we could only guess at, as different people have different tolerances for what is sustainable.
Thanks! My current weight is 59kg and my height is 5.2ft. I’m 19 years old and a female. My goal weight is 52kg. I want to lose fat obvs. I’m skinny fat at this point. I’m not sure how many cals I should I eat. I think I roughly burn 100 cals from gym. Which scenario is the best?
You're already at a healthy weight for your height, and you are quite possibly still growing into your adult body, so I think even 1580 gross without adjustments could be lower than advisable. I certainly wouldn't advise 1380 net.2 -
NeverGiveUp321xo wrote: »Thanks! My current weight is 59kg and my height is 5.2ft. I’m 19 years old and a female. My goal weight is 52kg. I want to lose fat obvs. I’m skinny fat at this point. I’m not sure how many cals I should I eat. I think I roughly burn 100 cals from gym. Which scenario is the best?
Skinny fat means having obese levels of fat at a normal weight. It does not mean: "I am not showing a six pack of abs".
You are at a healthy weight, at a young age, and planning to drastically cut calories to reduce weight closer to the minimum considered ideal for non Asian females of reproductive age.
Not knowing you I am not going to say that you have NO fat that you can lose; but, to me it sounds that what you want to do is be stronger and look more "toned"
I would argue that the best way to achieve this is not through a large deficit aiming at rapid fat loss.
Your best bet to achieving this is by using strength training and eating at a small deficit to the order of 250 to 500 Calories at most.
In other words set MFP to 0.25 kilo a week and eat back most exercise calories worrying less about weight loss and more about strength training.
Not saying that this will be easy or easier than just weight loss mind you... just discussing what is more likely to bring about the results you probably want to achieve.2 -
NeverGiveUp321xo wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »I think you’re over complicating this in your mind. The two scenarios you describe are essentially identical. The net result is the same so neither one is better than the other.
However, on a purely practical level, and I’m speaking personally, I’d go for the lower calorie goal and eat back the exercise calories if that’s what you choose to do. The reasoning is that if life gets in the way (illness, injury, time pressures etc) and you can’t workout for a few days you’re not going to have to cut back food, which is slightly psychologically better! For me, at least!
They're not essentially identical, and the net result is not the same.
In the first scenario, OP consumes 1480 gross calories and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1380 net cals.
In the second scenario, OP consumes 1580 (assuming first mention of 1590 is a type) gross cals and burns 100 cals through exercise, so has consumed 1480 net cals.
Not the same. OP is comparing 1480 gross calories to 1480 net cals.
OP, there's no way for us to know which is "better" without knowing your stats (height and current weight at a minimum, so we could figure out whether your goal is reasonable and whether the calorie level you propose would be likely to let you reach your goal.
In the end, it's a difference of 100 cals in your net daily calories, or about a fifth of a pound a week, or about three pounds over the course of the maximum time you mention (four months). It's possible that the extra 100 cals in deficits in the first scenario would make it unsustainable for you, but that's something we could only guess at, as different people have different tolerances for what is sustainable.
Thanks! My current weight is 59kg and my height is 5.2ft. I’m 19 years old and a female. My goal weight is 52kg. I want to lose fat obvs. I’m skinny fat at this point. I’m not sure how many cals I should I eat. I think I roughly burn 100 cals from gym. Which scenario is the best?
If you're skinny fat at the moment, then you shouldn't be eating less to lose more fat. You should be looking into body recomposition instead.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions