Eating 1200-1300 calories a day and burning 600-750...is this unhealthy? Watch

LauraRMCF
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I've had trouble with eating in the past "disordered eating" I guess you can say as I myself wouldn't exactly call it an eating disorder. I'd fast for days, workout for a couple of hours and then binge and I'd repeat this many many times. I know about "Starvation mode" and everything to do with metabolism, gaining it all back etc but I never really cared for it and refused to be lectured on all of this.

I am a lot better than I was then and so I'm trying to be a lot healthier. However, I'm afraid that this is still too much. If I'm mainly doing cardio and burning 600-750 calories and eating no more than 1300 is this unhealthy? What should I aim for?

Thank you
0
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
So you burn 750 calories every day? Seems a bit extreme, surely that's over 3 hours of exercising every day?
0
reply
Dhaden
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
If you could tell me your height and current weight i could help you a bit more but yeh. Your body's probably going into starvation mode, you simply aren't having enough calories to support bodily functions.

If your trying to lose weight aim for a healthy 500 calorie deficit and you should burn off 1-2 lbs a week.
0
reply
BKS
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
1300-600= 700 net calories a day is the most you are getting

That's not healthy, you need a few 100 more. Assuming you aren't already really skinny you'll still loose weight if that's what you are going for. If it's not you should probably be eating a fair bit more

(Original post by glousck)
So you burn 750 calories every day? Seems a bit extreme, surely that's over 3 hours of exercising every day?
It's not that hard. I can burn around 400 in the gym then another 300 walking there and back. That's not even being very active because I could then spend 10hrs+ of the day sitting at a desk.
0
reply
LauraRMCF
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Dhaden)
If you could tell me your height and current weight i could help you a bit more but yeh. Your body's probably going into starvation mode, you simply aren't having enough calories to support bodily functions.

If your trying to lose weight aim for a healthy 500 calorie deficit and you should burn off 1-2 lbs a week.
lk
I weigh 116lbs and I'm 5ft2 1/2.

I know that's healthy, but a lot of my weight goes towards my butt and chest which doesn't seem too bad, but it does look disproportional and so I'd like to lose a bit more weight.

It only takes an hour and a bit to burn 750, so it's not like I'm on there for hours.
0
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by BKS)
1300-600= 700 net calories a day is the most you are getting

That's not healthy, you need a few 100 more. Assuming you aren't already really skinny you'll still loose weight if that's what you are going for. If it's not you should probably be eating a fair bit more



It's not that hard. I can burn around 400 in the gym then another 300 walking there and back. That's not even being very active because I could then spend 10hrs+ of the day sitting at a desk.
Unless you live many many miles away from the gym I think the 300 number is quite off the mark there. And whilst I agree that burning 400 in the gym isn't hard atall, I was simply asking OP if she was doing it everyday. To be consuming only 700 net calories every day, well I wouldn't be able to make it through the day without feeling faint and not functioning at 100% if that was me.
0
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by LauraRMCF)
lk

It only takes an hour and a bit to burn 750, so it's not like I'm on there for hours.
I think you may have overestimated the calories you're burning, it's not normal to burn 750 calories an hour.
0
reply
BKS
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by glousck)
Unless you live many many miles away from the gym I think the 300 number is quite off the mark there.
2.5 miles round trip plus detour into the shop is about 300 calories. Maybe more 250

My point was it is very easy to burn 700 a day, even just by walking everywhere then doing a bit of specific exercise
0
reply
S.R
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Too many people forget that they burn hundreds of calories a day just by living. How it's supposed to work is you excercise for 30 mins to an hour which raises your metabolism letting your body itself burn the cals. Unless you're into olympic level sports you shouldn't being doing enough excercise to burn 750 cals. it's not healthy.
0
reply
LauraRMCF
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by glousck)
I think you may have overestimated the calories you're burning, it's not normal to burn 750 calories an hour.
I use a Polar heart rate monitor at the moment and that's the estimate it gives me, the machines at the gym seem to be pretty accurate as they give me a similar number, so I'm going off that at the moment.

When I was going through that difficult stage I was speaking of earlier, there were days where I'd stay 2.5-3 hours and get anywhere from 1400-1700 calories. It all depends on the pace you go at.

Also, if you were to sign into one of those "Fitness tracker" websites, it gives you a general estimate of 756cals/hr on the elliptical.
0
reply
xXxBaby-BooxXx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by BKS)
2.5 miles round trip plus detour into the shop is about 300 calories. Maybe more 250

My point was it is very easy to burn 700 a day, even just by walking everywhere then doing a bit of specific exercise
No it isn't. I burn 300 calories running a 5k, which is 3.1 miles going at 6.7mph. Average walking pace is about half that.
1
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by LauraRMCF)
I use a Polar heart rate monitor at the moment and that's the estimate it gives me, the machines at the gym seem to be pretty accurate as they give me a similar number, so I'm going off that at the moment.

When I was going through that difficult stage I was speaking of earlier, there were days where I'd stay 2.5-3 hours and get anywhere from 1400-1700 calories. It all depends on the pace you go at.

Also, if you were to sign into one of those "Fitness tracker" websites, it gives you a general estimate of 756cals/hr on the elliptical.
Elipticals and other cardio equipment in the gym are notorious for overestimating calories. Trust me, go to anyone who's clued up about fitness and they'll tell you the same. I'm around the same weight as you and an hour on the eliptical (on a high intensity and good pace) will burn about 500 calories. You're probably talking about myfitnesspal in regards to 'fitness tracker' websites which are also very unreliable in terms of calories burned in exercise.
(Original post by xXxBaby-BooxXx)
No it isn't. I burn 300 calories running a 5k, which is 3.1 miles going at 6.7mph. Average walking pace is about half that.
Was going to say this, seems to be so many people overestimating the calories burned without doing their research first.
0
reply
Mark85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
I severely doubt that you are eating so little yet have the ability to work intensely enough to burn 756cals/hr.

You don't just plug yourself into a machine and burn a fixed rate of calories, it depends on you, your level of fitness and how intensely you are working.
0
reply
LauraRMCF
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mark85)
I severely doubt that you are eating so little yet have the ability to work intensely enough to burn 756cals/hr.

You don't just plug yourself into a machine and burn a fixed rate of calories, it depends on you, your level of fitness and how intensely you are working.
I workout at a crossramp of 13 and a resistance of 9 for an hour or so and am dripping sweat afterwards.

The only thing is, I get pretty bad headaches every time I workout and it lasts all day which I'm thinking is probably the fact that I'm not eating as much as I should. This morning I had about 300 calories for breakfast; fruit salad, a yogurt and cheese string lol. I went to Starbucks after my workout today, ordered a Skinny Vanilla Latte as I usually do but noticed that I felt pretty nauseous afterwards. This was about two hours after my workout.

If I was to eat 1600 calories, would you say it's still to little or just enough?
0
reply
Mark85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by LauraRMCF)
I workout at a crossramp of 13 and a resistance of 9 for an hour or so and am dripping sweat afterwards.
I don't know how people can even stay on one of those for an hour. It is so boring. They are very hard to exercise intensely on - you rarely see anyone breathing even heavily on them - and they don't really improve your fitness for much apart from using the elliptical.

I think most people would be better off doing running or even brisk walking for an hour. I would only use an elliptical either after a leg injury/surgery or when I get old and decrepit and my joints aren't fit for anything higher impact.

(Original post by LauraRMCF)
The only thing is, I get pretty bad headaches every time I workout and it lasts all day which I'm thinking is probably the fact that I'm not eating as much as I should. This morning I had about 300 calories for breakfast; fruit salad, a yogurt and cheese string lol. I went to Starbucks after my workout today, ordered a Skinny Vanilla Latte as I usually do but noticed that I felt pretty nauseous afterwards. This was about two hours after my workout.

If I was to eat 1600 calories, would you say it's still to little or just enough?
It is impossible to say how many calories you need. We are all different and have different heights, weight, proportion of lean tissue, daily activity etc.

If you are going to track calories, then the way to find your maintenance level is to fix an amount of calories - eat it regularly every day (try to also keep the roughly same meal times and food types) and to exercise consistently (same amount of exercise per week) and track your weight over a couple of weeks and see what happens. If your weight goes down, the calorie level is under maintenance and if it stays the same - you are at maintenance.

The thing is, if you want to lose weight through exercise and make it sustainable this time instead of starving yourself and then binging - you need to set your calories as high as you possibly can where you can still lose weight. The ideal way to do this is to ramp your calories up until you maintain weight for a week or two and then very gradually lower them.

Also, if you are cutting back on calories - I would be inclined to go for plain coffee instead of vanilla lattes or whatever since they are basically warm milkshakes that won't fill you up as much as eating some food instead.
0
reply
coney
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Mark85)
I don't know how people can even stay on one of those for an hour. It is so boring. They are very hard to exercise intensely on - you rarely see anyone breathing even heavily on them - and they don't really improve your fitness for much apart from using the elliptical.

I think most people would be better off doing running or even brisk walking for an hour. I would only use an elliptical either after a leg injury/surgery or when I get old and decrepit and my joints aren't fit for anything higher impact.
Fair enough it isn't the most practical form of exercise in the world, but as with more or less anything, you definitely can exercise intensely on them if you put enough effort in. If you put the resistance up high and go fast, you will be working hard. Generally the ones you see who are not out of breath have the resistance pretty low and won't be making that much effort. If she's monitoring her heart rate with a Polar monitor that's a fairly decent way to monitor intensity (not flawless, but what is?). I know its not weight bearing, but you could say that about other exercises as well. If its a form of exercise she enjoys, I don't really understand what's so bad about it.

To the OP: 1200-1300 a day is definitely not enough, its the minimum amount you should be eating doing no exercise. As Mark said, its impossible to say how many calories an individual needs, but if you are eating 1200-1500 you should be eating back the calories you burn exercising. If you subtract the calories you've burnt exercising from those you've eaten, it should not be less than 1200, and should probably be a bit more.
0
reply
danny111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by glousck)
So you burn 750 calories every day? Seems a bit extreme, surely that's over 3 hours of exercising every day?
When I cycle around the lake it takes roughly 36-40 minutes and I burn in excess of 400 calories according to my polar watch (I've had over 500 before). The lower your heart rate the less calories you burn, but the higher fat % (in general).
0
reply
danny111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by LauraRMCF)
I workout at a crossramp of 13 and a resistance of 9 for an hour or so and am dripping sweat afterwards.

The only thing is, I get pretty bad headaches every time I workout and it lasts all day which I'm thinking is probably the fact that I'm not eating as much as I should. This morning I had about 300 calories for breakfast; fruit salad, a yogurt and cheese string lol. I went to Starbucks after my workout today, ordered a Skinny Vanilla Latte as I usually do but noticed that I felt pretty nauseous afterwards. This was about two hours after my workout.

If I was to eat 1600 calories, would you say it's still to little or just enough?
I tend to get headaches from not drinking enough rather than not eating enough. So one definitely drink more. In fact, drinking is an easy way to gain calories because instead of drinking a litre of water you could drink juice which is still healthy but gain easily 200 calories or more depending how sugary, etc. the juice is. You could also eat energy bars or something (I used to eat a chocolate flapjack before my late afternoon lecture in my first year at uni to keep concentration up) just before you exercise.

So, if you are taking in that few calories because you just don't feel hungry then there are a few ways to get more without really eating more and without being unhealthy. If you actually want to eat that few and exercise on top then I think you should seek help because that's unhealthy. With regards to losing weight, never heard someone complain about boobs and ass being too big...
0
reply
Mark85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by coney)
If its a form of exercise she enjoys, I don't really understand what's so bad about it.
Does anyone enjoy it though or do they just do it to lose weight?

That was my point - finding a more fun activity is probably a more sustainable habit. If people really enjoy that machine then fair dinkum. Never seen or heard of sports people using them though....

(Original post by coney)
If you subtract the calories you've burnt exercising from those you've eaten, it should not be less than 1200, and should probably be a bit more.
This is a bad way to do it because the figures from the machine are useless. The only scientific way to do it is to hold everything else constant and regular and go by the scale.
0
reply
coney
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Mark85)
Does anyone enjoy it though or do they just do it to lose weight?

That was my point - finding a more fun activity is probably a more sustainable habit. If people really enjoy that machine then fair dinkum. Never seen or heard of sports people using them though....

This is a bad way to do it because the figures from the machine are useless. The only scientific way to do it is to hold everything else constant and regular and go by the scale.
Fair enough, can't really speak for her if she enjoys it or not.

I'm not saying the figures from the machine, I'm saying the figures from her heart rate monitor. While holding everything constant would be the best way to do it, if she's correctly put in her resting HR, max HR, height and weight then while the figures may not be totally accurate, as a rough estimate of calories burnt they're a lot better than 'useless'.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

Are cats selfish

Yes (117)
58.79%
No (82)
41.21%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise