Calorie Intake or Deficit?
Ok so I've been reading through a bunch of threads and everyone seems to be talking about calorie intake, and how much they eat. But does that really matter? I mean of course it does, but doesn't having a deficit of calories matter more? For example, say I take in 1400 calories but burn 1800. Is that different than taking in 1800 and burning 2200, or 1000 and 1400?
You only want a deficit if you want to lose weight- not everyone does. Many on this forum are young and still growing so they naturally need more than the amount they burn, in order to grow into adults. Only those who are clinically overweight need to lose in order to become healthier and tracking food intake/ calories burned can help improve eating habits sometimes because then u are forced to pay attention to what u eat and be aware of what and how much u are eating vs. how much u actually need. And to your questions, each scenario creates the same amount of deficit so it is the same basically - weight loss will be same over time . Does that make sense? I'm not sure I understand your question
... And also, if the deficit is too much (like over 500-1000) or u decrease your calorie intake way too much - like below 1200, it actually slows your calorie burn rate (metabolism) and u hold onto fat which prevents weight loss... So 1000 calorie intake with 1400 burn may not work too well... That's why slow and steady weight loss is likely to last
Oh my gosh, thanks so much for your answer! You understood my question perfectly, don't worry. And I understand much better now. :)
For losing weight, the deficit matters, yes. For non-workout days I burn 2200 calories and eat 2200 calories. If I work out for 1700 calories like I did the other day, then I add my base which is 2200 + 1700 = 3900. I need to eat a lot more to get to my goal calories that day.