I’m trying to lose weight and was told that hwo I eat about 800-1000 calories a day is too low and lowers my metobolism which will prevent weight loss. I’ve looked up some meal plans and can’t really afford stuff like chicken breast, steak, or salmon every week. So that is why I’m wondering how I can eat 1500 calories a day. Are there some alternatives that I can do?
Also I’d like to ask, say I exercise and burn say 500 calories would I have to eat those calories back or no? I ask cuz I’ve been told yes and told no.
As long as calories in < calories out, the source of those calories matter much less (within reason). You could lose weight eating nothing but oreos and hostess snack cakes as long as calories in < calories out. Not great for you for obvious reasons, not least of which vitamin deficiencies, but you’d lose weight.
While strictly speaking calories in < calories out is the most important factor in weight loss, what you eat can drastically affect your hunger and thus indirectly affect your calories in - or at least make you far more miserable in sticking to lower calories. Eating more protein can help but I also find blander food helps as well - which typically means avoiding sugars and sweet foods. You are going to find it extremely hard to stick to a calorie limit eating nothing bot oreos and hostess snack cakes.
Of course, which is why I said within reason. As long as you’re making an effort to make your diet varied, I find trying to religiously track macros tends to be fairly counterproductive for most people, as it makes the whole process far more of a pain in the ass.
I low-key hate the “calories in vs calories out” mantra because I believe it tends to disregard an important source of “calories out:” the ones that don’t get absorbed in the intestines and that you poop out instead. It’s still somewhat early days for the science, but there’s increasing evidence to suggest that a lot of the difference between skinny people and fat people isn’t necessarily that their calorie intake or calorie burn is wildly different, but that fat people’s digestive tracts are better at absorbing all the calories.
“Calorie in” means what your body absorbs. If it absorbs more, then the number is higher for the same amount of food, and vice versa.
How do you measure that for weight loss?
You cannot accurately measure just that. But measuring calories you eat is a good enough approximation to help you control how much you eat. You can estimate you calories out by your weight, if you are gaining weight you are eating (and adsorbing) more then you are using, if you are losing weight then you are eating less - and that is the most important part.
There is also water weight to account for, but realistically there is an upper and lower bound to that and over several weeks you can get a pretty good idea for what level of calories you ingest leads to weight gain or loss. And if that changes for any reason you can adjust the amount you eat in correspondence. We are just looking for averages over time and the overall balance here, no need to be super accurate with exactly what you adsorb and what you have accurately used during an exercise. I never even measure calories burnt as it does not give much value vs just weighting your self over time.