I've been an avid calorie counter for I'd say the last five years and I know the "golden rule" of not going below 1200 calories because it will cause your metabolism to go into starvation mode, but here's my silly question...

Is the 1200 calorie minimum before or after exercise? Are you suppose to net the calories you eat with the calories you burn off during exercise? For example, I currently eat about 1400 calories which is above the minimum, but I also exercise 5-6 days a week and burn approx. 800 calories during each workout. Taking into consideration my workouts, I have a net intake of 600 calories daily. If the 1200 calorie minimum is suppose to be net of exercise, should I technically be eating 2000 calories a day (1200 min. + 800 calories burned) to not go into starvation mode? I can't believe I have never thought of this before...

From what I understand, an adult sedentary female burns between 1200-1800 calories / day depending on her metabolic rate and current weight etc. The concept here I think is that to lose weight, you have to end up burning more than you consume. So if you are eating 1400 calories and your body is even just burning 1200 calories/day and you are exercising and burning 800 calories, that would be net (- 400) calories and since it takes 3500 calorie loss to lose 1 lb, it would take you 8.75 days to lose 1 pound.

Because they say 1-2 lbs/ week is healthy, I think your current schedule would work well personally and if you were in the upper range metabolically, it may only take a little over 5 days to lose 1 lb.

Most I have read actually recommend the average person eat 1500 calories/ day and exercise... that sounds like what you do.

What in the world are you doing to burn 800 calories/day though? Wow... I thought my 350 calorie burning runs were good

My understanding is that the 1200 is strictly intake. Exercise doesn't matter--you wouldn't "eat back up" to 1200.

Here's how I handle exercise calories:

My maintenance calorie level = say 1600 per day
Calorie deficit = 400 (to lose 0.8 pound a week)
Intake therefore = 1200 per day

Exercise = say 250 per day
Therefore I could eat 1200+250=1450 and still have 400 cals a day deficit.

The problem with this is that estimates of calories burned are often way off. The test is whether weight loss stays on track over time.

Some folks don't even bother to connect their exercise with their food intake. They just eat what they eat and do their exercise, and let the exercise calories "take care of themselves."

800 cals is a lot to burn on exercise. 30 minutes on an exercise bike gets me maybe 250 if I really work... So, what are you doing? Curious minds want to know...


Jay

I don't bother with those calculations, either. I just try to stay in the 1200 range and let the exercise be gravy. (Best gravy I can have, right now. )

I would also love to know how you are burning 800 calories a day exercising.

Thanks everyone!! I was getting worried thinking that I might not be getting enough calories to sustain my activities. My RMR is roughly 1400 so I basically eat just to cover that.

As for the question regarding my exercise...if depends on the day. M,W,F I usually do the elliptical for at least an hour and 15 minutes. 30-45 minutes of that is HIIT. I also lift weight for about 30-45 minutes after that. On T and TH, I run for about an hour and warm up and cool down for about 15 minutes each in order to prevent my shin splits. On Saturdays, I either go for a run or bike ride outside. I know that most machines overestimate the calorie burn anywhere between 10-20%, but in order to compensate for that, I plug in a weight that is about 35 pounds less than what I weigh now. (basically, my ideal weight)

Thanks again for all you help!

I think you have oversimplified the rule a bit. Think of food as fuel - you should be eating enough calories that you are losing weight consistently at a reasonable rate (generally 1-2 lbs per week). You also need to be eatng enough food that you have the energy and strength for your exercise.

The term "starvation mode" is generally used to indicate that point in which you are consuming too few calores and therefore your body will slow its metabolism to hold onto the weight. So despite how much your exercising or how little your eating, your body will work against you. There is no rule that 1200 calories is the point of starvation, everybody is different and depending on how much you exercise your starvation point could be higher (say 1400 calories or even 1600 calories) and this point can change.

Where the 1200 calorie rule comes from is that the general thought is that 1200 calories is the fewest number of calories you could consume and still meet the minimum necessary nutrients.

Somehow we keep mixing the two concepts 1200 calorie minimum and starvation mode and interprettng this as one single rule which it is not.

lorilove has said it perfectly.

Thanks, lorilove!

Jay

Wow. I'm impressed. Most people I know - even the really really fit ones - have a hard time doing a full 45 mins of HIIT ... never mind follow up a session of HIIT with more ss-cardio and weight lifting.

.

Hmm, well then based on lorilove's response (thank you, btw) and the number of calories I eat and the amount of exercise I do, is it possible that I'm in "starvation mode"? I haven't been able to drop a single pound in over 7 months and I keep playing around with the amount of exercise I do, the number of calories I eat, and the ratios of protein, carbs, and fats and nothing seems to be working. I've played within a range of calories between 1000-1550 and I can't seem to find an amount that works. In fact, I've been gradually gaining weight. Is it possible that even 1550 is to low?

You're going to think I'm nuts... but I'd say given that you really are burning 800 cals. a day on exercise, you either need to increase your calories or cut your exercise. I think that indeed it is possible that you are pushing yourself into "starvation mode" with this regimen. Try eating 150 calories more per day than you are now and see what happens--or, eat at the level you're eating now, and decrease your workouts by 150 cals a day. Do this for 2 full weeks, even if your weight goes up a little at first. By the end of 2 weeks, you should be able to see whether anything is changing, and which way it's going.

Just an idea!

Jay

I'll give anything a try. I just need something to work. So since I'm eating at about 1400 now, should I increase to 1550? Or should I go even more to like 1600?

I would start at 1600 you can always go down. Give us some details, how tall are you? What is your age? What is your current weight and target weight.

There are many members that are successful at 1800 and even 2000 calories depending on the details.

I am 5:6", 46 year old and target around `550 calories - that is with exercise 4x per week.

I'm 5'9, 29 years and my current weight is 165. I'm looking to lose about 30 pounds, give or take. I'd be happy anywhere in between 135-140.

As I mentioned before, I currently workout about 5-6 days a week. The 5 days a week is pretty intense where I work off about 800 calories/day. If I decide to do a sixth day it's usually more recreational such as going for a run outside, biking, rollerblading, etc. The 800 calories/day also doesn't include "extra-circular" activities like going for my regular 2-mi walks on my lunch hour, my volleyball league, salsa dancing, etc.

I don't know why, but going from 1400 to 1600 calories kind of freaks me out. I'm terrified that I'm going to gain 10 pounds overnight even though the "rational" part of my brain tells me that it's not possible. I never thought the day would come where I would be worried about not eating enough, rather than too much!!

Thanks again for everyone's advice!

Yes I would say you need to eat more. Go to http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

This will give you a more reasonable calorie range. I prefer to calcaulate my calories before exercise and then add back my own additional calories for exercise. Most of these tools don't do a good job of estimating exercise calories.

It would not hurt for you to get a HRM to keep track of how many calories you are actually burning.

Lori