Exercising more calories than you eat- is it bad?
Discussion
As per every New Year I am currently dieting and trying to get fit for a few weeks until I get bored.
Its all going quite well.
It occurred to me on some of my planned bigger exercising days I might easily burn more calories in exercise than I am eating, effectively having a negative calorie day. Is there actually anything wrong with that or is it a good thing?
Its all going quite well.
It occurred to me on some of my planned bigger exercising days I might easily burn more calories in exercise than I am eating, effectively having a negative calorie day. Is there actually anything wrong with that or is it a good thing?
Every credible article I've read on this subject suggest that calories alone are a useless metric to determine what you should be eating.
Intense exercise requires the consumption of very high number of calories, in some cases, a huge amount!
A calorie is simply a measurement of energy and you need energy to exercise so if you don't take in the correct amount of energy, you'll not have enough to function properly.
What's important is where you get those calories from so think 'nutrition' rather than 'diet'.
Intense exercise requires the consumption of very high number of calories, in some cases, a huge amount!
A calorie is simply a measurement of energy and you need energy to exercise so if you don't take in the correct amount of energy, you'll not have enough to function properly.
What's important is where you get those calories from so think 'nutrition' rather than 'diet'.
flyingscot68 said:
Disastrous said:
I'd have though that when calories in are less than calories out, you'll be doing what's called 'losing weight'?
Wot he said In fact, mentioning calories is a red herring. My question is really whether exercising a lot whilst not eating much is a good thing?
Further, if I am doing it and feeling fine, is that fine?
It's not healthy or sustainable. Your body needs, say, 2000 calories a day just to remain at the same weight. If you eat only 1800 calories then the 200 calorie deficit will come from fat. This approach will be sustainable for month after month and if you're eating the right things will result in healthy consistent fat burning.
BritishRacinGrin said:
It's not healthy or sustainable. Your body needs, say, 2000 calories a day just to remain at the same weight. If you eat only 1800 calories then the 200 calorie deficit will come from fat. This approach will be sustainable for month after month and if you're eating the right things will result in healthy consistent fat burning.
Agree completely, but to me the results aren't quick enough for the effort. Whether I eat 1800 calories or 1000 in a day are both the same as far as effort is concerned so its a bit of a no-brainer.As I said, I know you are right - it just doesn't work for me.
blindswelledrat said:
BritishRacinGrin said:
It's not healthy or sustainable. Your body needs, say, 2000 calories a day just to remain at the same weight. If you eat only 1800 calories then the 200 calorie deficit will come from fat. This approach will be sustainable for month after month and if you're eating the right things will result in healthy consistent fat burning.
Agree completely, but to me the results aren't quick enough for the effort. Whether I eat 1800 calories or 1000 in a day are both the same as far as effort is concerned so its a bit of a no-brainer.As I said, I know you are right - it just doesn't work for me.
Disastrous said:
I agree, and often find myself secretly hoping for a shipwreck or plane crash in the Himalayas (obviously just the plane crash in the Himalayas - you'd never wreck a ship there unless you were a complete navigational ponce) so that the fat just drops off.
I have exactly the same weight-loss fantasy. Another is to actually be Bear Grylls for a week. But instead of sucking protein out of actual cows
t I would simply not suck the protein out of the cowst and be thin as a rake by the end of the week.Also I wouldn't sleep inside hollowed out dead animal so I would be cold and shiver a bit of extra weight off.
blindswelledrat said:
Disastrous said:
I agree, and often find myself secretly hoping for a shipwreck or plane crash in the Himalayas (obviously just the plane crash in the Himalayas - you'd never wreck a ship there unless you were a complete navigational ponce) so that the fat just drops off.
I have exactly the same weight-loss fantasy. Another is to actually be Bear Grylls for a week. But instead of sucking protein out of actual cowst I would simply not suck the protein out of the cowst and be thin as a rake by the end of the week.Also I wouldn't sleep inside hollowed out dead animal so I would be cold and shiver a bit of extra weight off.
I like it.
Incidentally I was watching a thing where some Colorado-an firefighters rescued a fat man from his truck during a flash flood. He was still massive when they saved him so I suspect you'd need to be at least several hours without rescue.
blindswelledrat said:
BritishRacinGrin said:
It's not healthy or sustainable. Your body needs, say, 2000 calories a day just to remain at the same weight. If you eat only 1800 calories then the 200 calorie deficit will come from fat. This approach will be sustainable for month after month and if you're eating the right things will result in healthy consistent fat burning.
Agree completely, but to me the results aren't quick enough for the effort. Whether I eat 1800 calories or 1000 in a day are both the same as far as effort is concerned so its a bit of a no-brainer.As I said, I know you are right - it just doesn't work for me.
Get MyFitnessPal, be totally honest about everything you consume and how much exercise you do and watch the weight fall off
I'm sure that if you drop 500 calories or more from what your body is used to, it stores fat and begins to burn muscle to use as energy.
Loosing weight quick is never the answer. It's a lifestyle change that you need, not a few weeks starving yourself and exercising like mad. I'd happily bet you'll put on more than you lose within 6 months.
Loosing weight quick is never the answer. It's a lifestyle change that you need, not a few weeks starving yourself and exercising like mad. I'd happily bet you'll put on more than you lose within 6 months.
You can do it whatever way you like IMO, but as above "calories" doesn't tell you much.
I vastly reduced carbs, kept protein intake high and fat intake moderate and lost 1.5 stone in 8 weeks and gained muscle.
That was with gym 4 nights a week starting with 15 minute intervals on the bike and 45 minutes weights in the 10-12 rep range plus 5x100m sprints or 20 minutes bodyweight circuits every weekday morning before breakfast.
I had to take a week off to recover after those 8 weeks, I was completely burnt out. But it did the trick. If you think your current methods are sustainable, go for it. But keep protein intake high and don't be afraid of the legumes, nuts, avacados, etc.
I vastly reduced carbs, kept protein intake high and fat intake moderate and lost 1.5 stone in 8 weeks and gained muscle.
That was with gym 4 nights a week starting with 15 minute intervals on the bike and 45 minutes weights in the 10-12 rep range plus 5x100m sprints or 20 minutes bodyweight circuits every weekday morning before breakfast.
I had to take a week off to recover after those 8 weeks, I was completely burnt out. But it did the trick. If you think your current methods are sustainable, go for it. But keep protein intake high and don't be afraid of the legumes, nuts, avacados, etc.
You mentioned something about not eating very many calories - if you undereat, whilst you'll lose more weight, you'll also suffer from various health issues:
-lethargy
-hair loss
-bad skin
-low immunity leading to colds etc
-missing periods making you even more grumpy on PH
Anyway, if you are admitting you'll do it until you get bored, why even bother in the first place? You're just going to be here in a year's time again.
-lethargy
-hair loss
-bad skin
-low immunity leading to colds etc
-missing periods making you even more grumpy on PH
Anyway, if you are admitting you'll do it until you get bored, why even bother in the first place? You're just going to be here in a year's time again.
No it won't do you any harm unless you do it for a sustained period. As long as you don't take the piss, losses in immunity will be minimal and temporary. Same goes for the others Hoofy has mentioned. As you're obviously a bit on the chunky side to ask the question, it would seem unlikely you'll have an issue as the body cannibalises fat to make up a deficit, that is after all, the whole point. You'll also find your body will probably refuse to perform during exercise schedule if your calorie count is too low. It's a clever old thing.
I'd also argue that given the biggest health challenge in the Western world is brought on by excessive calorie consumption, it would probably be healthier for all of us to have a deficit on a regular basis.
I'd also argue that given the biggest health challenge in the Western world is brought on by excessive calorie consumption, it would probably be healthier for all of us to have a deficit on a regular basis.
Prof Prolapse said:
No it won't do you any harm unless you do it for a sustained period. As long as you don't take the piss, losses in immunity will be minimal and temporary. Same goes for the others Hoofy has mentioned. As you're obviously a bit on the chunky side to ask the question, it would seem unlikely you'll have an issue as the body cannibalises fat to make up a deficit, that is after all, the whole point. You'll also find your body will probably refuse to perform during exercise schedule if your calorie count is too low. It's a clever old thing.
I'd also argue that given the biggest health challenge in the Western world is brought on by excessive calorie consumption, it would probably be healthier for all of us to have a deficit on a regular basis.
I didn't mention a timeframe but assumed he'd be doing it until he hit his target weight which might be for a month or more especially as towards the end things really slow down and he wants to kill everyone.I'd also argue that given the biggest health challenge in the Western world is brought on by excessive calorie consumption, it would probably be healthier for all of us to have a deficit on a regular basis.
Hoofy said:
I didn't mention a timeframe but assumed he'd be doing it until he hit his target weight which might be for a month or more especially as towards the end things really slow down and he wants to kill everyone.
I reckon he'd be fine for a month. He'll definitely want to kill everyone though.
Prof Prolapse said:
Hoofy said:
I didn't mention a timeframe but assumed he'd be doing it until he hit his target weight which might be for a month or more especially as towards the end things really slow down and he wants to kill everyone.
I reckon he'd be fine for a month. He'll definitely want to kill everyone though.
As for your other suggestion about a low cal day every few days, good idea. That's basically Intermittent Fasting. You only feel cranky for a day and any excesses during the week will be addressed. Doesn't give fast results like BSR's looking for, though.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff