Simple math ")

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Could eventually cause you to go into starvation mode and you'll not lose as well.

1800 in - 600 exercise = 1200 is still (at the end of the week) from a normal 2000 cal diet is a deficit of 5600 cal which is over 1.5 lbs a week.

I think I'm understanding this "eat your exercise calories" finally!!

I need to feed my body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

Keeps my hunger at bay.

Kal_n_130 · January 2012

Thanks for explaining it! i get it now!

LaurenAOK · January 2012

Your math is a bit off... 1800 in - 400 exercise = 1400, not 1200. But I get what you were going for, and thanks for posting. A lot of people get confused about this, but it's really quite simple.

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

Youre welcome!!

For year's I tried the deprivation, but I'm older and wiser now and I'm learning everyday!!

eat, sweetie.

Just keep logging and and exercising.

It all works out in the end

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

Thanks!! I'll fix that. +)

Trail_Addict · January 2012

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

Thanks!! I was in a hurry trying to explain it!! I really do know how to add and subtract!! LOL :noway:

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

:blushing:

ElizabethRoad · January 2012

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

ilookthetype · January 2012

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose.

That is not at all how starvation mode works.

Sublog · January 2012

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose. You're body will keep everything you give it. It's not your fault, it's the way the body is made. Feast or famine.

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

Typical diet for someone that maintains is 2000 cal. exercises 20 mins a day bring it down to about 1800 maintaining. or losing but extremely slowly.

make sense?

There is SO much wrong with this post it's funny. There is no instant starvation mode. The greater the body fat mass, the higher the abundance of fatty acids readily available for lipolysis - simply put, the fatter you are, the greater % fat used whenever some calorie deficit is created. Thus, those who are extremely overweight can very easily tolerate very high caloric deficits without any down-regulation of the metabolism and without much muscle loss.

There is zero need to feed your body frequent meals. It offers zero metabolic benefits.

swilk627 · January 2012

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

LennieSmall · January 2012

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

ElizabethRoad · January 2012

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

Nope.

LaurenAOK · January 2012

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

True, I think it is incorrect to say that you will not lose weight eating at a huge deficit... because plenty of people have lost weight that way. However, it's not the healthiest way to lose weight because your body is not getting the fuel it needs, and it will also be harder to keep the weight off.

martalaurazayas · January 2012

If you eat 1200 and exercise off 400 you're body only gets 800 cal. Instant starvation mode and you'll not lose.

That is not at all how starvation mode works.

I agree, I was on a very restricted diet that resulted in 800-900 calories a day. I lost approximately 2 lbs a week. I decided to up my calories to 1200 after about 2 months, then I started by meeting a range between 900 and 1200. The 3rd step was to reach 1200 consistently. After a month on that I wanted to slow down my weight loss and went to 1280.

None of my caloric goals were always met consistently. They were a few calories short or over.

I never stopped loosing weight, nor did I start gaining weight. However, since I was approaching my goal weight I wanted to start a "re-feeding" program in increments. I now only have about 10 lbs to go to reach my desired goal weight. I have lost 62 lbs.

I have actually read research stating that calorie restricted diets are good for you when managed with sound nutrition. The trick is to use nutritionally dense low calorie foods that are clean, which is what I mostly did.

DenverKos · January 2012

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

No, it doesn't. This is a myth.

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

I was asked how eating your exercise calories work, and it is simple math.

this is how it works best for me.

Small meals keeps me from being hungry and overeating

I lose faster, steady with no plateaus

You have to find what works for you but you do need to eat.

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

Not eating back exercise calories doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose weight. Even when my average net calories were under 1200 per day (over several days or weeks) I still lost weight. I won't claim that this is the best or most reliable method, but it can work.

True, I think it is incorrect to say that you will not lose weight eating at a huge deficit... because plenty of people have lost weight that way. However, it's not the healthiest way to lose weight because your body is not getting the fuel it needs, and it will also be harder to keep the weight off.

This being why this works for me. I've lost the same 80 lbs 3 times. I'm finding this is the reason. Although I lost, it wasn't the healthiest way.

biologic · January 2012

starvation mode actually takes a while to actually affect you (like months). your body won't go into "instant starvation mode" from severely restricting calories even for weeks.

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

Several small meals work for me, keeps me from getting over hungry

ElizabethRoad · January 2012

.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.

Several small meals work for me, keeps me from getting over hungry

Well, that's just super for you then. Don't put it out there like it's the answer for everyone. As I said, there's nothing wrong with eating several small meals, but there's no metabolic advantage either. Just because something works for you doesn't mean it's true for everyone, so please stop spreading misinformation.

cmriverside · January 2012

When you have 80 pounds to lose - like the original poster - sure, you can use a "somewhere around 1200" goal, eat or don't eat the exercise calories.

As you near your healthy weight range, this becomes a big problem.

There is no such thing as a one-advice-for-all approach. I hope people take your advice (OP) with a grain of salt.

This type of fast "Here's the answer" type posts just make it more confusing for people. There is some good advice on the forums.

This is not an example of that.

ElizabethRoad · January 2012

I don't know if you noticed, but your original post has been quoted a couple of times, no matter how much you edit it.

mfreeby · January 2012

Um in her original post she was speaking about herself "I need to..." "keeps my hunger...." she's not telling anyone what to do. Play nice kitty cats.

jenslife82 · January 2012

Key is to keep feeding your body, small constant meals. I mean, very small.
Tangerine & 10 almonds and some lean chicken
Cup of Cottage cheese and an apple.
Oatmeal with raisins, cup of almond milk.

This is incorrect. Several small meals is fine, but you can eat 2 or 3 regular meals, or even 1 big meal, and have the same effect. Total calories is what matters, not small constant meals. It's simple math.
[/quote
But won't the several smaller meals boost your metabolism?

No, it doesn't. This is a myth.

my whole weight loss story is related to this. I've been trying to lose weight for about 12 years now. It has taken a lot of research and my (previous) doctor calling me a liar to get to this point. I was roughly 282 lbs maintaining that at 700-900 calories per day. Agreed most people who are overweight lead sedentary lifestyles and take in far too many calories. But "starvation mode" is real and happens when you don't eat enough for your body to burn calories. Also things like cortisol and some other hormones I can't pronounce hold onto fat so it seems like there is nothing you can do. I INCREASED my calories to 1200 and Ina week lost 2 lbs. I have lost 22 lbs since November eating small meals all day keeping between 1200 and 1500 calories a day. The two separate weeks I did not lose was when I maintained less than 1200 a day (ie 1800 one day and feeling like I needed to make up for it with 3 900 calorie days) it really can happen that fast. There is no simple trick to losing weight. You have to figure out what your body needs and stick with it. I just want to say thank you for this post and hopefully it will help more ppl than it offends

ElizabethRoad · January 2012

Um in her original post she was speaking about herself "I need to..." "keeps my hunger...." she's not telling anyone what to do. Play nice kitty cats.

Um in her original post she was speaking about others. She went back and changed it, which you could see if you read the replies where her post was quoted, kitty cat. She absolutely was saying this is what everyone should do.

DenverKos · January 2012

She changed the original post - that's not what it said before...

Nana_Booboo · January 2012

I've noticed. I simply didn't word it correctly. Didn't know there was a witch hunt here.

Still is simple math.

Doesn't matter how much you all tear it apart.

Sorry, I was only trying to help someone in the beginning to see the importance of eating and not feeling totally deprived.

mfreeby · January 2012

Um in her original post she was speaking about herself "I need to..." "keeps my hunger...." she's not telling anyone what to do. Play nice kitty cats.

Um in her original post she was speaking about others. She went back and changed it, which you could see if you read the replies where her post was quoted, kitty cat. She absolutely was saying this is what everyone should do.

Meow.

cmriverside · January 2012

I've noticed. I simply didn't word it correctly. Didn't know there was a witch hunt here.

Still is simple math.

Doesn't matter how much you all tear it apart.

Sorry, I was only trying to help someone in the beginning to see the importance of eating and not feeling totally deprived.

Problem is, you worded it as "Here. This is how you do it." SIMPLE MATH. It is simple math, but if you are putting something out on the internet, and it is either wrong or misinformed, you'd better believe you will get challenged. Not a witch hunt, at all. But, this post is going to be here forever. It is the chance you take when you type and hit "Post Thread."

Simple math ")

Replies

Categories