How and why you shouldn't eat TOO LITTLE CALORIES

e11xoxo
e11xoxo Posts: 86
edited September 19 in Food and Nutrition
So I've seen a few posts about eating below your daily calories. This site tells you that your body goes into starvation mode if you don't eat enough calories. Which in turn makes your work-outs less efficient.

I also had a free trial with a personal trainer at the gym I go to. She was asking me questions about my diet and she said I was doing something that was really holding me back in the gym.

I was eating 1 big meal a day. She said I needed to spread my food out throughout the day in order for my body to know that it can use those calories because more are on the way soon.

So, eat your calories and spread them out.

If you want to figure out how many caloires you need on your own use this equation:

YOUR WEIGHT x 15

THAT # - 500

That will be the calories to lose 1 lb a week. Subtract another 500 to lose 2 lbs. a week.

Replies

  • e11xoxo
    e11xoxo Posts: 86
    So I've seen a few posts about eating below your daily calories. This site tells you that your body goes into starvation mode if you don't eat enough calories. Which in turn makes your work-outs less efficient.

    I also had a free trial with a personal trainer at the gym I go to. She was asking me questions about my diet and she said I was doing something that was really holding me back in the gym.

    I was eating 1 big meal a day. She said I needed to spread my food out throughout the day in order for my body to know that it can use those calories because more are on the way soon.

    So, eat your calories and spread them out.

    If you want to figure out how many caloires you need on your own use this equation:

    YOUR WEIGHT x 15

    THAT # - 500

    That will be the calories to lose 1 lb a week. Subtract another 500 to lose 2 lbs. a week.
  • Phoenix_Rising
    Phoenix_Rising Posts: 11,417 Member
    160 x 15= 2400 - 500 = 1900

    That seems a bit high to expect to lose any weight.



    My goal weight is 138.
    138 x 15= 2070 - 500 = 1570

    I know I've eaten that before and I'm not losing weight.

    I'm not sure about that calculation.
  • e11xoxo
    e11xoxo Posts: 86
    I've lost weight and have gained some back that I'm trying to get rid of now.

    In the past that equation has worked for me. If you think that the calories are high enough for you to feel full, subtract another 500 calories and go for 2lbs. a week.

    Are you not losing weight now? How many calories do you eat?
  • iTim__
    iTim__ Posts: 6,823 Member
    I'm using the site's calculator and it has been working well for me.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    What training in Nutrition (and/or physiology) does this "trainer" have? If it is someone the gym set you up with, they often don't need any formal training, and do not answer to any regulatory board.

    Be careful who advises you, check their references, and educate yourself from many sources.

    Knowledge is power.
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    It works okay for me. I actually eat a bit more than this:

    130x15= 1950-500= 1450

    I have never used those generalized numbers though. I eat about 1700-1900 calories a day, but I'm very active and have a good amount of muscle mass. I use my tested BMR of 1265 as my baseline and eat all my exercise calories.
  • ivykivy
    ivykivy Posts: 2,970 Member
    I was reading bob greene uses the eat 7 cals per pound. I've also seen 12 cals per pound of your goal weight. This site uses the harris benedict equation which is deemed to be more accurate b/c it takes your height into consideration.
  • muimuimui
    muimuimui Posts: 113
    104 * 15 = 1560 - 500 = 1060

    Something tells me that your equation is a little inaccurate. :3
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    It works okay for me. I actually eat a bit more than this:

    130x15= 1950-500= 1450

    I have never used those generalized numbers though. I eat about 1700-1900 calories a day, but I'm very active and have a good amount of muscle mass. I use my tested BMR of 1265 as my baseline and eat all my exercise calories.

    You are about the fittest person on this site, as far as lifting and muscle mass. I always ate all my exercise calories too, and lost 47 pounds in 7-8 months. But the original poster said "Subtract 500 more cals and go fot 2-lbs-loss a week." That advice is risky on this site which will let you eat below your BMR.
    I'll bet your BMR is higher now, don't you think? Or did you have it done recently?

    p.s. how's the ankle?
  • amyalwaysonline6
    amyalwaysonline6 Posts: 101
    if you only weigh 104, i don't think you need to lose any weight.
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    It works okay for me. I actually eat a bit more than this:

    130x15= 1950-500= 1450

    I have never used those generalized numbers though. I eat about 1700-1900 calories a day, but I'm very active and have a good amount of muscle mass. I use my tested BMR of 1265 as my baseline and eat all my exercise calories.

    You are about the fittest person on this site, as far as lifting and muscle mass. I always ate all my exercise calories too, and lost 47 pounds in 7-8 months. But the original poster said "Subtract 500 more cals and go fot 2-lbs-loss a week." That advice is risky on this site which will let you eat below your BMR.
    I'll bet your BMR is higher now, don't you think? Or did you have it done recently?

    p.s. how's the ankle?

    Awwwwe thanks! :blushing: :blushing:

    I agree that isn't not the best idea to use such a general number. I have seen anywhere from 10-13xbodyweight, and the estimations are worse than rough. But I agree with her statement that there's no need to eat drastically below what MFP recommends. I think too many people start at the bottom and then have nowhere to go when they stall.
    I haven't had my BMR tested recently, but I can tell that my muscle mass has increased through circumference measurements, weight, and clothing size. Plus I am eating quite a lot now and still losing.

    The ankle is all better! :happy: I did spinning yesterday and pilates today just to rest it well. The pilates was TOUGH. I can deadlift 225, but I suck at flutter-kicking my arms and legs. :laugh:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    The ankle is all better! I did spinning yesterday and pilates today just to rest it well. The pilates was TOUGH. I can deadlift 225, but I suck at flutter-kicking my arms and legs.

    Great news! The flutter kick - is that Core stuff??
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    The ankle is all better! I did spinning yesterday and pilates today just to rest it well. The pilates was TOUGH. I can deadlift 225, but I suck at flutter-kicking my arms and legs.

    Great news! The flutter kick - is that Core stuff??


    It's pure evil! :mad:

    She did all this stuff in a row..something called 100's, some things that were like Supermans, and lots of stuff that required legs and torso to be in the air simultaneously with lots of limb movement. I did a lot of pikes and planks yesterday so my core was already a bit sore. I didn't think pilates was so core focused, so I wasn't quite expecting that. I had a headache afterward either from the tension in my traps or the hyperventilation I was doing. :laugh:
  • plussized
    plussized Posts: 72 Member
    I'd have to say that I, too, don't think that equation is right.

    267*15=4005

    4005-500=3505 and even 4005-1000 (2lbs/week)=3005

    I agree with whomever suggested to double check the experience and education your "trainer" has. This is no disrespect to you or he/she, however, sometimes people find things that work for them that may not work for everyone else and preach that on as actual fact.
  • muimuimui
    muimuimui Posts: 113
    if you only weigh 104, i don't think you need to lose any weight.
    If you're only 4'11 you can afford to lose a bit.
  • e11xoxo
    e11xoxo Posts: 86
    I'd have to say that I, too, don't think that equation is right.

    267*15=4005

    4005-500=3505 and even 4005-1000 (2lbs/week)=3005

    I agree with whomever suggested to double check the experience and education your "trainer" has. This is no disrespect to you or he/she, however, sometimes people find things that work for them that may not work for everyone else and preach that on as actual fact.

    That's true. I didn't ask (since it was free) :tongue: I also always have a hard time figuring out exactly how I should go about eating my calories and what weight I should be when it comes to my height/skeletal frame (large)/muscle.

    I went to a health fair yesterday and they measured my body fat % at 28%. But I can still look in the mirror and see my pop belly.

    So confusing.......
  • Kimono
    Kimono Posts: 367
    That equation would be ok for me, but then I would have to add exercise calories. Now the 7 calories a pound would not work so well for a 130 lb person. (910)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories