Is it OK to have a net calorie goal of 1000 cals or less?

Options
2

Replies

  • DefyGravity1977
    DefyGravity1977 Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    Thank you for posing this question. I recently got somewhat into this discussion on Facebook with my Niece's husband. Doing it the way fitnesspal has it set and eating back my calories has absolutely worked for me. Not doing that would throw the body into starvation mode and I am not up for that. I have lost 50 pounds in the last six months doing it this way.
  • invisibubble
    invisibubble Posts: 662 Member
    Options
    Do what you want. Most people will tell you not to. Some advocate it. You know which answer you want to hear, now you have both to choose from. Congratulations.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    Net. And even then, it's quite low. You have to make sure you're eating back most of your excercise calories too.
    It depends on the person, if I ate back most of mine I'd gain weight. I'm usually burning 600 calories a day.
    If eating back your exercise calories makes you gain, it just means you've miscalculated. It's physically impossible to gain weight while eating less than you burn.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Thank you for your responses. I am 4 11" and excersice regularly, however, I am having a hard time keeping up with a 1200 calorie consumption. Just started tracking my food intake and am learning about food, servings and nutrition information. Any suggestions for this beginner will be appreciated

    If you are eating healthy food, are not often hungry and don't lack energy, it's possible that 1000 net is enough for you. 4'11" is petite and you may not need the same calories as a taller person. 1200 is a population based number, and 4'11" is smaller than the average person. Just listen to your body.

    The link below is to a good source for nutrition information. It is not a diet site, just information on eating right.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Net. And even then, it's quite low. You have to make sure you're eating back most of your excercise calories too.
    It depends on the person, if I ate back most of mine I'd gain weight. I'm usually burning 600 calories a day.
    If eating back your exercise calories makes you gain, it just means you've miscalculated. It's physically impossible to gain weight while eating less than you burn.

    No it's not. I think you mean physically impossible to gain fat while consuming less calories than you burn. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to know exactly what you burn, or exactly what you consume. Every morsel that passes your lips is not necessarily absorbed by your body and can vary from person to person. Likewise, the amount of calories burned will vary from person to person. Even a HRM will only give you an estimate and depending on many variable can be off by quite a bit.
  • Exquizyt
    Exquizyt Posts: 33
    Options
    That's a great question....

    I'm really confused, and maybe I'm over thinking this...

    I'm 5' 8" and weigh 147lbs. I consumed 1,527 calories yesterday (my goal is 1,500) I biked in the morning and burned 522 calories, and I went rollerblading last night with my boyfriend and burned 378 calories. So, in total, I burned 900 calories (no I didn't plan an even number, but I'll take it.)

    1,527 consumed - 900 burned = 627 calories net.

    Essentially, you guys are saying that I should have consumed 573 more calories to have a net amount of at least 1,200?
  • Shweedog
    Shweedog Posts: 883 Member
    Options
    That's a great question....

    I'm really confused, and maybe I'm over thinking this...

    I'm 5' 8" and weigh 147lbs. I consumed 1,527 calories yesterday (my goal is 1,500) I biked in the morning and burned 522 calories, and I went rollerblading last night with my boyfriend and burned 378 calories. So, in total, I burned 900 calories (no I didn't plan an even number, but I'll take it.)

    1,527 consumed - 900 burned = 627 calories net.

    Essentially, you guys are saying that I should have consumed 573 more calories to have a net amount of at least 1,200?

    Yep
  • mzkezh
    mzkezh Posts: 74
    Options
    I'm 4'11 and eat (on most days) 1200 calories and others its hard to consume that many, and when I exercise I dont eat back my calories (most of time) so my net on some days is low. I currently weight 186 and my goal weight is 130.

    my diary is open, and I log everything I put in mouth

    open for ideas and suggestions
  • Exquizyt
    Exquizyt Posts: 33
    Options
    Thanks Shweedog! I was definitely over thinking it

    Here is my opinion then:

    I have always been concerned about eating between 1,200 - 1,500 calories, I assumed the calories I burned were bonus calories that I didn't necessarily have to use. Kind of like finding a $10 bill on the ground. I can use it if I want to, but if I don't need anything, I won't use it. So, if I'm not hungry, my net would be under 1,000. If I am hungry, I don't have to feel guilty if I treat myself :).

    Essentially, I wouldn't make my goal net amount to be under 1,000 calories. But if it happens, it happens.
  • stephvaile
    stephvaile Posts: 298
    Options
    what we are saying is that when mfp calculate your daily cals to eat it gives you a goal cal this reduces as you eat .
    this amount as already taken off the amount of cals daily for you to lose weight SAFELY. SO THEN WHEN YOU EXERCISE YOU CAN AND SHOULD EAT AS MUCH OF THEM YOU CAN this is so you do not become tired and under nourished . when you mix diet and exercise to lose weight your metabolism works more effeciantly enabling you to eat more and still lose without starving it isn,t complicated .
  • TaylorsGranddad
    TaylorsGranddad Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Do what you want. Most people will tell you not to. Some advocate it. You know which answer you want to hear, now you have both to choose from. Congratulations.

    Totally agree.... I currently am on 1000 a day and not eating back any exercised calories, I am continually loosing 3-4lbs a week, I have been on 1500 a day and ate back almost 1500 again too, I still lost 3-4lbs a week.... so for me both worked,
  • iuew
    iuew Posts: 624 Member
    Options
    i did it for several months in '05. i wouldn't recommend it; i lost muscle, and it took a long time to get my metabolism back to normal. when i dieted again a couple years later, i did it the right way, and the results were more permanent.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    Do what you want. Most people will tell you not to. Some advocate it. You know which answer you want to hear, now you have both to choose from. Congratulations.

    Totally agree.... I currently am on 1000 a day and not eating back any exercised calories, I am continually loosing 3-4lbs a week, I have been on 1500 a day and ate back almost 1500 again too, I still lost 3-4lbs a week.... so for me both worked,
    Then why would you stick with the 1000 rather than the 1500?
    i did it for several months in '05. i wouldn't recommend it; i lost muscle, and it took a long time to get my metabolism back to normal. when i dieted again a couple years later, i did it the right way, and the results were more permanent.
    See above.
  • eatandexercise1
    eatandexercise1 Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the answer!
    I've been doing about 800 net calories a day because I have 30 more pounds to lose, but based on everyone's responses it sounds like I need to up it somewhat.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the answer!
    I've been doing about 800 net calories a day because I have 30 more pounds to lose, but based on everyone's responses it sounds like I need to up it somewhat.
    Oh christ yes - you will want to work on that sooner rather than later, because your metabolism will be so suppressed at goal that any semblance of normal eating will put the weight straight back on you. At 24, that is very, very low.
  • nightsrainfall
    nightsrainfall Posts: 244 Member
    Options
    1200 net. You can probably get away with less if you are under 5ft tall.

    Agreed!

    1200 net depending on height. If you are taller, broader, althetic (more muscle mass), you may even need more than 1200 net... my brother for example does over 2,000 net because he's altheletic, high muscle %, and taller, while I'm at 1500 net for with my activity level a 1200 net would be a bit too little...

    But yes, 1,000 net would be for someone who was very petite and maybe not an althelete...
  • NanaDino4
    NanaDino4 Posts: 63
    Options
    so basically what yall are saying is that if it says I earned say 252 calories from exercising then I should up my 1200 to 1452 to accommodate for my exercising and so that I won't net below 1200??
  • lastchance2010
    lastchance2010 Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    Food is fuel for your body. If you put in trash you get trash, but if you put in premium, it will treat itself in a good manner and you will get premium results. Eschew the mindset that eating less is automatically better for you. There is a ying and yang. You can be on both sides of the spectrum (too many calories or too few calories). Eat well and exercise and NET at least 1200 calories. Good luck.

    That is awesome!! I love it! :love:
  • stephvaile
    stephvaile Posts: 298
    Options
    yes or save some til end of week and have a nice treat x
  • tlamarch
    tlamarch Posts: 105
    Options
    My friend at the gym had a resting metolic rate done and her was 1200, so to lose weight she would have to eat less then 1200,right? she also 5'8'' so she's not even short. So really can we go by dont eat less then 1200?

Categories