Calories eaten vs calories burned
Options
darthdad1970
Posts: 12 Member
I am getting worried with this issue. I have for the last two weeks have increased my exercise amount from 700 calories burned to 1000 and I have not lost any weight for that time frame. I am sure that there is muscle growth involved, but my question is, at what point does the body shut down and go into starvation mode? I don't know if it is possible to overdo the exercise and I jeopardize the weight loss process. Does anyone have any input on this?
Thanks!
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
These numbers should help, I am to consume 2150 calories a day. I usually eat around 2000 calories a day, and burn off 1000. When you look at the chart on the my home tab, you see that I gain an extra 1000 calories to eat. Does this shut down the metabolism?0
-
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!0 -
No, you'll continue to lose fat. I recommend keeping track of your body fat percentage. Because you're probably shedding fat and not noticing because you're gaining muscle. You can get a body fat caliper pretty cheap. It will include instructions on how to use it. You should increase your caloric intake, though. Just remember to keep your calories rich in whole grains, lean meats, fruits, and vegetables. Try not let yourself get too hungry, either. That's when we're likely to go on a bad-calorie binge.0
-
Are you eating the 1000 calories that you are burning?0
-
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.0 -
If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
Big Ditto on that one. If I go below 1500 ever- I lose nothing.
I like the idea of 'eating like an athlete'. It's important for us to remember that food is not the enemy- it's fuel for our weight loss.0 -
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
it's actually 1800 for men0 -
So to answer your original question, if I understand correctly, your net calories eaten is 2000 in a day, and your net calories needed to lose weight is 3150, right? I.E. 2150 is what MFP gives you, then you burn 1000 more, so 3150 total is what you SHOULD be eating just to lose weight. That means you are really hurting your metabolism. When your body is this far below where it should be with calorie consumption, fat burning goes WAAAAAY down, to almost zero, protein burn goes way up, that means muscles, and organs are being canabalized to burn your system. Probably not a very good idea. IMHO either up your calories consumed or lower your exercise.0
-
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
0 -
Are you eating the 1000 calories that you are burning?
No I am not, that is what I am worried about.0 -
That is what I was afraid of. Like I posted earlier, I would consume ~2150 calories as recomended (actually its more like 2000) then I would run on the eliptical machine for 40 minutes. For a guy of my size that equates to 1000 calories (both the machine and MFP agree on this) so now I am down to 1000 calories +/- 200 calories. I was getting frustrated the last three and a half weeks where there is no weight loss and in fact there was a yo-yo effect going on. I would lose a little, gain a little. I attributed that to water, but I was landlocked at my weight for a long time. These post just confirm my fears.So to answer your original question, if I understand correctly, your net calories eaten is 2000 in a day, and your net calories needed to lose weight is 3150, right? I.E. 2150 is what MFP gives you, then you burn 1000 more, so 3150 total is what you SHOULD be eating just to lose weight. That means you are really hurting your metabolism. When your body is this far below where it should be with calorie consumption, fat burning goes WAAAAAY down, to almost zero, protein burn goes way up, that means muscles, and organs are being canabalized to burn your system. Probably not a very good idea. IMHO either up your calories consumed or lower your exercise.0 -
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
Tell me about it, after my thryratic cancer ('06) I only operate on synthroid and my metabolism is way out of wack.0 -
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
Tell me about it, after my thryratic cancer ('06) I only operate on synthroid and my metabolism is way out of wack.0 -
Yes. You can't eat less then 1200 calories a day and not go into starvation mode. That is a bare miniumum. If you are needing 2150 a day (which still puts you on track to lose) then you should get pretty close to this number.
Good Luck!
And 1200 is the bare minimum for a woman. I've heard that a man shouldn't go under 1500. If you're working out like an athlete, you've got to eat like one. Your deficit may be too large to keep your metabolism running. I eat at least 1900 calories on my workout days (I burn between 400-600 calories), and if I dip under this, I don't lose anything.
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
Tell me about it, after my thryratic cancer ('06) I only operate on synthroid and my metabolism is way out of wack.0 -
Okay, via WW, I'm supposed to eat 22 points a day. Then, of course, there are the 35 other points. THEN I have my exercise points, which, lately, go up to about 10 a day (I'm training hard right now).
On MFP, for today, at least, I earned 1200 calories (12 points, according to someone in the know on the WW board - and, yes, I use my own Polar F6 HRM, so it's as accurate as possible). I am entitled to 1300 a day without exercise. So that gives me 2500 I can eat. I ate all but about 480 cals.
On WW, however, I frequently go over. I'm really at a loss as to which one to believe in terms of eating and losing weight. I'm at the home stretch - last 10 or so pounds to go and they're not shifting all that much!! I'm afraid to reduce the eating because of the possibility of starvation mode for the body. My metabolism already is very sensitive and slows or shuts at the slightest opportunity.
Any ideas??? I also eat VERY healthy, for the most part, due to being celiac and lactose intolerant.0 -
Okay, via WW, I'm supposed to eat 22 points a day. Then, of course, there are the 35 other points. THEN I have my exercise points, which, lately, go up to about 10 a day (I'm training hard right now).
On MFP, for today, at least, I earned 1200 calories (12 points, according to someone in the know on the WW board - and, yes, I use my own Polar F6 HRM, so it's as accurate as possible). I am entitled to 1300 a day without exercise. So that gives me 2500 I can eat. I ate all but about 480 cals.
On WW, however, I frequently go over. I'm really at a loss as to which one to believe in terms of eating and losing weight. I'm at the home stretch - last 10 or so pounds to go and they're not shifting all that much!! I'm afraid to reduce the eating because of the possibility of starvation mode for the body. My metabolism already is very sensitive and slows or shuts at the slightest opportunity.
Any ideas??? I also eat VERY healthy, for the most part, due to being celiac and lactose intolerant.
Try exercising less, lower intensity. Do you burn that much every day? You might be putting a huge strain on your body by working out so much, especially if you haven't before. I don't know how the WW system works, but I would go with the actual calorie count system. If you exercise less (you don't need to exercise that much to lose weight. Working out too much is actually detrimental to health), you'll eat less and won't end up with any extra calories (or fewer extra). Not eating those 480 calories makes a big different. Maybe mix up your diet. Variety provides balance.
. 0 -
I can't go less at this point as I'm training. I've been doing about 13 hours a week over the year, and this is just a step up from that.
I woke up this morning and checked my weight on my scale (which is about a half a pound off from the WW one I use at the center) and have lost about half a pound.
As I'm using BOTH systems, I'm going to see how they correlate by the end of the week. I will have earned 1400 cals by the end of today (at least 300 in my class in a short while, plus the 1100 I earned from today's morning classes).
Technically, then, I should probably eat about 2600 cals (plus or minus) to sort of "match" the 1300 I'm supposed to eat if I weren't exercising. Is that correct?
In points, I have eaten my 22 already for today, earned 11 and have used 8 of those so far. I'll earn about 3 more points (1 point is about 100 cals for exercise). I likely will eat some more when I finish class later this evening - needing probably some more fruit. I'm just trying to balance it so that I'm not on MAINTENANCE, if you get my meaning. I want to lose, not maintain.
Thanks for any confirmation of the "technically" statement. I'm just trying to make sure I don't overeat or undereat.0 -
I can't go less at this point as I'm training. I've been doing about 13 hours a week over the year, and this is just a step up from that.
I woke up this morning and checked my weight on my scale (which is about a half a pound off from the WW one I use at the center) and have lost about half a pound.
As I'm using BOTH systems, I'm going to see how they correlate by the end of the week. I will have earned 1400 cals by the end of today (at least 300 in my class in a short while, plus the 1100 I earned from today's morning classes).
Technically, then, I should probably eat about 2600 cals (plus or minus) to sort of "match" the 1300 I'm supposed to eat if I weren't exercising. Is that correct?
In points, I have eaten my 22 already for today, earned 11 and have used 8 of those so far. I'll earn about 3 more points (1 point is about 100 cals for exercise). I likely will eat some more when I finish class later this evening - needing probably some more fruit. I'm just trying to balance it so that I'm not on MAINTENANCE, if you get my meaning. I want to lose, not maintain.
Thanks for any confirmation of the "technically" statement. I'm just trying to make sure I don't overeat or undereat.
Wait, 1300 calories is your base? How tall are you? and how much do you weigh? That seems pretty low for someone who has under 15 lbs to lose, unless you are around 5 feet tall or so.0 -
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
Men tend to have more muscle mass then women do giving them a higher metabolism than we do. So while it's normal for us to lose like 1 pound a week.....they'll lose two pounds a week. I know.....it's such bullsh*t!!0 -
it's actually 1800 for men
Dang it, where's the justice. . .
Is this a size issue (men are bigger) or a metabolism issue (men have faster metabolisms). I know some men who are actually smaller than me (like the same height but more delicately framed). . .so would that still apply to little guys?
Just curious, and I bet you have the answer.
Men tend to have more muscle mass then women do giving them a higher metabolism than we do. So while it's normal for us to lose like 1 pound a week.....they'll lose two pounds a week. I know.....it's such bullsh*t!!
Hehe, I don't know about 2 lbs a week, but yeah, that's pretty accurate. It's mostly that on average, men have larger body's then women, and yes, more muscle mass per lb of body weight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions