How come everyone says I “have” to eat 1200 calories a day, but then I can exercise extra to burn 300 of those calories and that’s “okay” without eating more to make up the deficit?

So basically if I eat 1200 calories a day, I’m not losing weigh in a way that’s unhealthy (I know this number can vary a little depending on the person but let’s assume 1200 for the sake of understanding). If I don’t go to the gym and have a normal relaxing day, I’m perfectly “safe” for weight loss (let’s assume).

But if I eat 900 calories that day, I’m starving myself and am suddenly losing weight in a way that’s very unhealthy.

Ok. So I just need to eat 1200 calories a day. Yet my doctor told me it’s ok if I eat 1200 calories and then go for a run without eating extra on the days I ran. I run three times a week and burn 300 calories per run (another estimate, I know, not 100% accurate, but let’s just assume this estimate for my understanding). So then my net caloric surplus on running days is still 900 (1200 in food minus 300 in running).

Why is it ok for me for run and be at 900 net calories, but not ok for me to eat 900 calories and just skip running? Aren’t I having the same net calories overall, with the only difference being that burning those calories for running will be better for heart/muscle health than being stagnant? In the end, it’s the same overall caloric energy input for my bmr.

Is my interpretation of my doctors words incorrect, and I actually need 1200 calorie surplus (with gym deficit or not) for my BMR?

submitted by /u/cocoa_cupcake
[link] [comments]

* This article was originally published here