Would you rather go over by 5-10 cals or be short 80-100
The last 2 days I've found myself 40-100 short of my allowance. It seems like 1400-1450 is a pretty magic number for me and if I fall below the 1400 line I start to stall so I guess I'd rather be at 1455 than 1350, but I'm just wondering in generally is it better to be over your cals by 5 or 10 cals (assuming you exercise) or are you better off just stopping if you're under by like 50-100 (assuming you're not hungry). I've got the rest of my day planned out and I'm short 80 cals and I can't decide if I should eat it now or if I should wait til the end of the day and eat if I'm hungry and what can I eat for 80 cals?
I have no scientific evidence whatsoever but logically, numbers-wise I would want to go over by 5-10 on a consistent basis and then have the occasional 100 cal short day to make up for that. HOWEVER, I tend to cling to my calories all day and worry if I cut too close before dinner because I never know when I'll want a nighttime snack and "OMG! WHAT IF I DON'T HAVE THE CALORIES LEFT!?!" (Yes, I do think I am borderline eating disordered... that's another topic for another thread...) so I always end up lower than what I easily could have eaten and still lost. It's a slippery calorie counting slope for me though so I'm probably not a "normal" case. I can get very obsessive very easily if I let myself.
I keep my calorie target at 1200-1500, but know that I can realistically eat 1600 and be in a good range. So I don't consider myself over, if I'm still below 1600, which gives me the flexibility to eat that extra snack or something. I try to be very careful and only use the extra for a healthy choice, so I know I'm eating out of real hunger and not just boredom or desire for something sweet, etc.
But I also think that if I "officially" changed my target to 1600, I might end up creeping above that. So shooting for the max of 1500 but being ok going a little bit over keeps the flexibility I need without getting out of control over it.
Personally, I believe that if you are not hungry and eating a reasonable amount (anything over 1200-1300, IMO), then I wouldn't worry about not eating enough. But if you are hungry - really hungry and not just wanting to eat some chocolate or something, then I'd listen to your body and have a piece of fruit or an ounce of cheese or something else relatively low cal but with nutrition.
I consider myself a calorie counter and my margin of error is in the hundreds, not 5-10 If I'm + or - 200 of my target I'm perfectly happy (as long as it is a mixture of over or under and not always one or the other.
You're talking about <1% of your allowance, I can't believe it would make that much of a difference.
My range is about 350 calories. But one day this week I had 2000 calories, and today I'm full after 1350 and am done eating. But my weekly average will be within my range.
Check in with your body at the end of the day and see if you are hungry.
I would always rather be over 10 than starving...**** just do 3 sets of pushups, a brisk walk, or a few stair climbs and you'll burn it before you even realize it.
Howdy,
For me, I am a saver by nature, so I would rather be under (100-200) and usually am than over. I don't trust the calorie counts on packages, I assume it is low, I want to give myself wiggle room for upcoming events, and I know statistically it is easier to under estiamte calories than over estimate them even for professionals. i need a dose of humility and realize I am not a professional calorie counter, yet
Would you rather go over by 5-10 cals or be short 80-100
If I'm + or - 200 of my target I'm perfectly happy (as long as it is a mixture of over or under and not always one or the other.
