Do I correctly understand Net Cals?

heybales

For example try this: input walking at 4mph for 1 hour (4 miles) and see how many calories it gives you, then input walking 4 mph for 50 minutes (4 miles but a little faster so you had to burn more calories) and see what it gives you....hint: it will be less even though you had to be walking faster and burning more if you walked 4 miles in 50 minutes rather then 60.

Well of course that will fail. The formula for walking 4mph is different than walking faster than 4mph, which 4 miles in 50 is.

Use this and you'll see that MFP is using the same thing, but they only have so many speeds in the database, and they are correct, if you happen to be doing that speed.
But you have to pick the right one, or adjust accordingly.
Also, it has to be flat for MFP database entries.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

EmmaKarney

You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.

Will I see any results if I stick to what I'm doing? (1,200 cal per day)
At first when I got MFP I set it to lose .5 lbs per week, and it gave me a net cal of 1,440 cal per day. Then I changed it to 1 lb per week and it gave me a net cal of 1,200.
Should I have gone with a net cal of 1,440?

You'd be much better off with the 1440.

I'm 5ft 6 also and weigh 129 - I'm almost at my goal of 125 and my net calorie goal is 1450. I often go up to 100 over this and I am still losing weight at a very slow but consistent pace.

katscoots

You do understand the net calories, and you will probably eventually see results, but you'll be losing muscle instead of fat. If you want better definition, you need to lift weights and shape your body - not starve yourself to lose pounds. Talk to a nutritionist or a doctor about body fat composition because you already look very thin and your weight/height ratio puts you at a BMI that is very close to underweight. If you eat too little and your body is starving, you will not be healthy and will lose muscle, as I stated before.

RAFValentina

You'd go to the gym to condition your body and help it build muscle... Also it means you can enjoy more food that day and still lowe weight so long as you nettle same. You could use it as additional deficit, Butler you. Current weight/size, you probably shouldn't bother "storing" them and just eat the calories back to help give your bod. Adequate nutrition to change body composition.

erikkmcvay

Well of course that will fail. The formula for walking 4mph is different than walking faster than 4mph, which 4 miles in 50 is.

Use this and you'll see that MFP is using the same thing, but they only have so many speeds in the database, and they are correct, if you happen to be doing that speed.
But you have to pick the right one, or adjust accordingly.
Also, it has to be flat for MFP database entries.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

All calculators are not created equal but I don't agree with MFP's at all. Look at them more closely and you will note that they are generic. Example is that they have 3mph, 3.5mph and 4mph and then you choose minutes at that pace.

Well 50 minutes at 4mph is quite a bit different then 50 minutes at 3.75mph so if you round down you're wrong and if you round up you are wrong. Heck, even at 4mph if you walk around town (which is what I do) then it most likely will be wrong (it always is for me). I've done many different tests and calculators and found that MFP's always yields a low result. Using mapmyrides appears far more accurate so I've done that and manually put the cals burned into MFP's for my daily log.....45 pounds light and I think it's working.

Now, perhaps if you were on a treadmill that is flat (no grade) etc then perhaps it would be fine and there is nothing wrong with using a low number either (after all, if you burned 500 cals but recorded only 400 then you are more likely to not overeat).

Another thing to note is that averages aren't very good either. For example, if you ride at 14mph around town but have to stop at intersection and then take off and speed back up and record an average of 13mph because of it then what you burned in energy will be greater then predicted by an average calculator because it takes more energy to start and stop repeatedly (this is why hybrid cars do so well by the way). It's more difficult to maintain a higher rate of average speed when you are constantly stopping and starting so if mapmyride tells you that you burned 1000 calories riding 13 miles at 13 miles per hour (just an example, not real numbers) then it's more likely you actually burned more based on the above).

None of that matters though because all that really matters is that you see results in the end

dowhatsbestforyourself

The reason that the metabolic rate slows with prolonged dieting of less than 1,200 calories per day is a chain reaction of physiologic responses to the stress associated with such a restricted diet. Your body initially adapts to the stress of low caloric intake by engaging the "fight or flight" stress response, which has several negative consequences, despite you seeing lower numbers on the scale. The "fight or flight" response stimulates the breakdown of muscle in order to supply the body with enough fuel (glucose) to maintain the blood sugar levels in the absence of sufficient dietary calories. This "fight or flight" stress response will eventually wear out, thus slowing the metabolic rate to compensate for what the body perceives as starvation.
Some studies referenced at LiveStrong.com indicate that long-term dieting and calorie restriction can lower your metabolism by up to 40 percent and can take up to one year to correct.

erikkmcvay

The reason that the metabolic rate slows with prolonged dieting of less than 1,200 calories per day is a chain reaction of physiologic responses to the stress associated with such a restricted diet. Your body initially adapts to the stress of low caloric intake by engaging the "fight or flight" stress response, which has several negative consequences, despite you seeing lower numbers on the scale. The "fight or flight" response stimulates the breakdown of muscle in order to supply the body with enough fuel (glucose) to maintain the blood sugar levels in the absence of sufficient dietary calories. This "fight or flight" stress response will eventually wear out, thus slowing the metabolic rate to compensate for what the body perceives as starvation.
Some studies referenced at LiveStrong.com indicate that long-term dieting and calorie restriction can lower your metabolism by up to 40 percent and can take up to one year to correct.

This is one of the reasons I support eating your exercise calories If you do a lot of cardio I think it's quite safe and even agreeable to crank up the calories to match or closely match as the body then thinks "yay! I'm not starving!"

When I was body building we used to do a 10% under/over diet to lose bodyfat. What we'd do is drop our daily intake by 10% below needs for 3 days and then crank it up to 10% over for one day. This seemed to keep the metabolic rate speeding along nicely.

I don't do that now, however, but I also don't eat the lower amounts some try to eat -- for me my target on non cardio days is 1450 cals but I do cardio 5+ days a week so typically eat closer to 2000 a day. This way I lose weight without going insane!

heybales

All calculators are not created equal but I don't agree with MFP's at all. Look at them more closely and you will note that they are generic. Example is that they have 3mph, 3.5mph and 4mph and then you choose minutes at that pace.

Well 50 minutes at 4mph is quite a bit different then 50 minutes at 3.75mph so if you round down you're wrong and if you round up you are wrong. Heck, even at 4mph if you walk around town (which is what I do) then it most likely will be wrong (it always is for me). I've done many different tests and calculators and found that MFP's always yields a low result. Using mapmyrides appears far more accurate so I've done that and manually put the cals burned into MFP's for my daily log.....45 pounds light and I think it's working.

Now, perhaps if you were on a treadmill that is flat (no grade) etc then perhaps it would be fine and there is nothing wrong with using a low number either (after all, if you burned 500 cals but recorded only 400 then you are more likely to not overeat).

Another thing to note is that averages aren't very good either. For example, if you ride at 14mph around town but have to stop at intersection and then take off and speed back up and record an average of 13mph because of it then what you burned in energy will be greater then predicted by an average calculator because it takes more energy to start and stop repeatedly (this is why hybrid cars do so well by the way). It's more difficult to maintain a higher rate of average speed when you are constantly stopping and starting so if mapmyride tells you that you burned 1000 calories riding 13 miles at 13 miles per hour (just an example, not real numbers) then it's more likely you actually burned more based on the above).

None of that matters though because all that really matters is that you see results in the end

Oh yeah, riding is really bad estimates off calc's. Well, unless you have a long ride, and equal wind and hills to balance out.
But short rides with stops and hills and wind is so bad, especially with database entries.

Was that 18 mph avg because I wasn't peddling downhill the whole way nice and easy, or in pace line with only mere minutes actually pulling, otherwise drafting.
Was that 14 mph avg because of total uphill, or in to headwind, ect.

You are correct at rounding on the walking speeds, and it must be consistent. It's great for treadmill, if you limit yourself to those paces available. Otherwise, that other calc is more accurate since you can include incline.