Is It Possible to Have a Negative Net Calorie Count Daily?
Options
Replies
-
Yesterday, I was able to finish out the day with more calories left over than my entire calorie goal, thus giving me a negative net calorie count.
Is it sustainable to do this every day?
No. You would eventually die.
That said, it's unlikely your numbers are accurate. Possible, yes, but not likely.0 -
What sort of exercise are you doing that's burning that many calories?
I've have burned over my allotted daily calorie intake before. I ran a half marathon and based on my Nike+ Sportswatch and my HRM I burned well over 1,450 calories (which is how much I eat each day). However, I don't plan on running a half marathon every day, it is possible to burn 1000+ calories.0 -
FitBit is ****ing evil. Those steps (even assuming its accurate) corresponds to roughly 15km. At 180 pounds, 15km of walking nets you 500 calories.
0 -
-
For maintaining weight, zero net calories at the end of the day would be perfect - yes, in theory. Your body expended 1,500 calories, and you ate 1500 calories. Of course, everybody has a different basal metabolic rate - 1,500 is mine - anticipated troll response :-)
So if you burn 1,500 calories per day, and you ate 1,400 calories of food, you have negative 100 net calories for the day. Is this sustainable? Well, if you need to lose 100 pounds, you could sustain this, at 3500 calories per pound, for 3,500 days - almost 10 years, until you hit your goal. If you continued at this rate after meeting your goal, the equation does not necessarily continue to hold in a linear fashion. You body would adjust your metabolism and begin to burn calories more slowly. So eventually you may start burning 1,400 calories a day due to the decreased basal metabolic rate, and since you are eating 1,400 calories per day, this is sustainable. Of course, you no longer have a net negative caloric intake per day, but a net of zero.
What may be confusing is that right now my front page shows a big 1625 in green letters (looks positive to me!!), but if I stopped eating for the day I would have a net NEGATIVE 1,625 calories for the day, since my base burn is 1,500 for the day, and I have only eating 258 calories so far, while burning an additional 383 calories from exercise. To get my fitness pal to show a negative number, you actually have to eat more than you burn. So just keep that in mind. I had to meditate on it for a few minutes before I got it straight for myself. The negative calories in this sense are sustainable, but your weight approaches infinity as time goes to infinity! haha not good.0 -
rioricorick wrote: »What may be confusing is that right now my front page shows a big 1625 in green letters (looks positive to me!!), but if I stopped eating for the day I would have a net NEGATIVE 1,625 calories for the day, since my base burn is 1,500 for the day, and I have only eating 258 calories so far, while burning an additional 383 calories from exercise. To get my fitness pal to show a negative number, you actually have to eat more than you burn. So just keep that in mind. I had to meditate on it for a few minutes before I got it straight for myself. The negative calories in this sense are sustainable, but your weight approaches infinity as time goes to infinity! haha not good.
So you can eat 1625 calories today, but you won't because your body is going to burn 1500 as your BMR? I have never been good as translating word problems, so if I'm wrong please tell me.
0 -
The reason people eat back SOME of their exercise calories is because of assumptions : - )
MFP envisions you eating back 100% of your TRUE NET Calories. But this assumes that your food logging is 100% accurate. And it assumes that MFP's guess of what you burn during the day is accurate too.
Because of these assumptions, and because burns as stated usually include the calories you would have burned by being alive during the time of the exercise (in other words the apps give you GROSS, not NET exercise burns), many people empirically eat back 50% to 75% of their exercise calories and call it a day.
This will work well for them as long as they are generally losing between 0.5% and 1% of their body weight per week (with obese individuals with sufficiently available fat deposits being able to safely sustain losses in the 1.5% per week range, and individuals having less fat having to sometimes drop to loss rates lower than 0.5% per week).
If people are generally losing weight at a more rapid pace than considered safe, they may want to review their eat back % decision, or seek to reduce the errors associated with the multitude of assumptions we are making!
You can double check the activity estimates you get from MFP, or any other calculator, by referring to the Compendium of Physical Activities: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
You can use a calculator to convert the Compendium's MET values to Calories: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm
Or you can do it by hand: http://www.mhhe.com/hper/physed/clw/webreview/web07/tsld007.htm
To convert from GROSS MET values to NET MET values subtract 1 MET. If you check out the Compedium Web site there are further adjustments you can make.
Are these values ACCURATE for a particular individual? Heck no.
The reasons for that can range from the incorrect selection of the activity and length of time: "I swam 2 hours at a moderate pace". Really? Did you stop and take a breather during the 2 hours? Did you swim at a faster than moderate pace to pass someone? Or swim at a slower than moderate pace because you were stuck behind someone? To the fact that the values may be different for you because of your size, or physical capability, or muscle adaptation, or...
But they are a heck of a lot better starting point, in my opinion, than most other ways of trying to cross check your exercise burns, including the method advocated by Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight apparently believes that walking (and steps) are "exercises" NOT worth logging, or eating back. I, obviously, seem to believe differently, unless of course you've already included the steps in your daily living activity level, which most people have not.
But, again... all this is not worth the electrical current used in the dark pixels it is displayed in, unless you can correlate it well with your actual weight loss.
No, it is not a good idea to be in negative net calorie territory!
πρώτa η υγεία.
Best of luck!
Christine: I can't understand how are able to not weight yourself more often! You are several weeks into walking almost 20,000 steps and you are only 140lbs! By now you should be able to tell if your walking has accelerated your weight loss or not!
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/PAV88880 -
Ichristinev297 wrote: »
know your kidding, right?
I have upped my speed and now am walking (best estimate I can come up with for now) close to 4.5 mph. I log it as 4 mph, because I based it on an equation I found on the net.
"You need to know the length of each step. Let's assume 2' per step
132 steps * 2 feet = 264 feet
264 feet * 30 minutes = 7920 feet
5280 feet per mile / 7920 = 1.5 miles
Distance/Time = Rate
1.5 miles/ 30 minutes = 5 miles per hour"
My stride is approximately 2 feet, I counted my steps for 1 minute, was 127 steps. I was not pushing as fast as I could, but it does vary. Now i am trying to periodically check my stopwatch and count out how many steps to get an idea how fast i'm walking. So, my best figure to log (at this point) is for 4 mph. MFP says I burned 524 calories for a 90 walk. Today I walked in the real world and not just my driveway (getting stronger and more energy). There was a few hills (kinda steep, harder to keep the pace, but I did not slow too much). Anyway, I'm still not sure if the burn would be accurate. So, I'm sticking to logging it at 4 mph. I'm going to do another 90 minute walk and take another route that has a long road going up hill. When walking that at a somewhat comfortable pace takes about 15 minutes to get up. I'm going to test it and go as fast as I can without my legs giving up. I only eat back 1/2 my exercise calories, often less. I'd like to eat more on some days, but until I am sure of my burns, i'm watching it.
I was going to do the fitbit, but get conflicting reviews from other people. I can't afford at the moment to spend $ 150.00 until I'm sure.
Anyway, i babbled, sorry. I have always wondered about the burns. Some days I'm fine with eating only 20% to 50% of my calories back, but some other days I want a bit more.
0 -
Ichristinev297 wrote: »
know your kidding, right? I have upped my speed and now am walking (best estimate I can come up with for now) close to 4.5 mph. I log it as 4 mph, because I based it on an equation I found on the net.
"You need to know the length of each step. Let's assume 2' per step
132 steps * 2 feet = 264 feet
264 feet * 30 minutes = 7920 feet
5280 feet per mile / 7920 = 1.5 miles
Distance/Time = Rate
1.5 miles/ 30 minutes = 5 miles per hour"
My stride is approximately 2 feet, I counted my steps for 1 minute, was 127 steps. I was not pushing as fast as I could, but it does vary. Now i am trying to periodically check my stopwatch and count out how many steps to get an idea how fast i'm walking. So, my best figure to log (at this point) is for 4 mph. MFP says I burned 524 calories for a 90 walk. Today I walked in the real world and not just my driveway (getting stronger and more energy). There was a few hills (kinda steep, harder to keep the pace, but I did not slow too much). Anyway, I'm still not sure if the burn would be accurate. So, I'm sticking to logging it at 4 mph. I'm going to do another 90 minute walk and take another route that has a long road going up hill. When walking that at a somewhat comfortable pace takes about 15 minutes to get up. I'm going to test it and go as fast as I can without my legs giving up. I only eat back 1/2 my exercise calories, often less. I'd like to eat more on some days, but until I am sure of my burns, i'm watching it.
I was going to do the fitbit, but get conflicting reviews from other people. I can't afford at the moment to spend $ 150.00 until I'm sure.
Anyway, i babbled, sorry. I have always wondered about the burns. Some days I'm fine with eating only 20% to 50% of my calories back, but some other days I want a bit more.
[/quote
something is not right in your calculation. I walk a 1 mile in 18-20 minutes and it only comes to about 3 to 3.3 MPH0 -
Usual step "formula" is height in cm x 0.415 men and height in cm x 0.413 women."You need to know the length of each step. Let's assume 2' per step
132 steps * 2 feet = 264 feet
264 feet * 30 minutes = 7920 feet
5280 feet per mile / 7920 = 1.5 miles
Distance/Time = Rate
1.5 miles/ 30 minutes = 5 miles per hour"
1.5 miles in 30 minutes is 3 miles an hour.
Most phones have GPS enabled apps that can give you a fairly accurate distance vs steps if walking outdoors.0 -
Usual "formula" is height in cm x 0.415 men and height in cm x 0.413 women."You need to know the length of each step. Let's assume 2' per step
132 steps * 2 feet = 264 feet
264 feet * 30 minutes = 7920 feet
5280 feet per mile / 7920 = 1.5 miles
Distance/Time = Rate
1.5 miles/ 30 minutes = 5 miles per hour"
1.5 miles in 30 minutes is 3 miles an hour.
Most phones have GPS enabled apps that can give you a fairly accurate distance vs steps if walking outdoors.
arggg, thank you for pointing this out to me. I so appreciate it. So, that equation is for 3 mph? Fortunately I don't eat all my calories back Still going to do the other 90 minute walk today. But I will push harder. Thank you again! 0 -
Mr. Knight apparently believes that walking (and steps) are "exercises" NOT worth logging, or eating back.
For a very large proportion of MFPers, that's absolutely right. The reasons, I have explained on numerous occassions, are because the typical MFPer doesn't walk far enough to make the burn worth eating back, doesn't walk intensely enough to generate a meaningful physiological response, and calculates inaccurately enough to create a huge burn over-estimate.
In a perfect world where everybody nailed every number exactly, it would be different.
But we don't live in a perfect world - we live in MFP-land.
And in MFP-land, unless you're fit, walking over 4 miles/day, and know exactly what you're doing, you are FAR better off not logging and eating back walking burns.
0 -
So, that equation is for 3 mph? Fortunately I don't eat all my calories back Still going to do the other 90 minute walk today. But I will push harder. Thank you again!
Since you seem to be light on measuring equipment you may want to consider the following:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19362695 (3000 steps in 30 minutes is considered 3 MET = moderate exercise)
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e001801.full.pdf (For physically able and healthy 22yo Chinese young adults, 3150 steps, or 2km, at a rate of 105 steps a minute is moderate exercise. 3159 steps, or 2km, at a rate of 130 steps a minute is vigorous exercise)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 (If you chose to use your steps as a proxy of daily activity, instead of counting them as exercise, this publication might help)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/PAV8888
0 -
Usual step "formula" is height in cm x 0.415 men and height in cm x 0.413 women."You need to know the length of each step. Let's assume 2' per step
132 steps * 2 feet = 264 feet
264 feet * 30 minutes = 7920 feet
5280 feet per mile / 7920 = 1.5 miles
Distance/Time = Rate
1.5 miles/ 30 minutes = 5 miles per hour"
1.5 miles in 30 minutes is 3 miles an hour.
Most phones have GPS enabled apps that can give you a fairly accurate distance vs steps if walking outdoors.
That is bio-mechanically sound, but not correct for FitBit unless the FitBit is only being worn for purposeful walking. To account for FitBits algorithms, the typical fudge factor is to reduce stride length by ~35%.
But it really depends on the individual, and there are plenty of cases where the effective stride length for FitBit is less than half of bio-mechanical stride length.0 -
Metabolic damage.0
-
It's not that I'm not eating or anything. I consumed maybe 1200 calories yesterday (my goal is 1430), but I did a TON of exercise that burned all of those calories off and then some.
That's the same as saying I filled my car up but then attempted to drive twice as far as the fuel would allow. What do you think will happen? Run out of fuel? Breakdown?
What do you think the equivalent of a car breakdown is on your body?
More exercise means more fuel which means eat more. Like 50-75% of your exercise burn. Depending on how accurate your food and exercise logging is.
The mfp target is exactly that, a target. You won't get it perfect but closer is better. Closer in the lower side.
One day probably won't hurt but if you did that every day you would probably lose weight, muscle and fat in proportions you don't want.
0 -
So, that equation is for 3 mph? Fortunately I don't eat all my calories back Still going to do the other 90 minute walk today. But I will push harder. Thank you again!
Since you seem to be light on measuring equipment you may want to consider the following:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19362695 (3000 steps in 30 minutes is considered 3 MET = moderate exercise)
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e001801.full.pdf (For physically able and healthy 22yo Chinese young adults, 3150 steps, or 2km, at a rate of 105 steps a minute is moderate exercise. 3159 steps, or 2km, at a rate of 130 steps a minute is vigorous exercise)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 (If you chose to use your steps as a proxy of daily activity, instead of counting them as exercise, this publication might help)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/PAV8888
Forgive my ignorance. I can get up to 130 and maybe faster, but I know i would not be doing that consistantly. I tested my comfortable rate and came up with 127 steps in a minute. I am going to keep testing this. It's more of a curiosity than anything. I know I am shrinking at a fair enough rate. I am getting faster and stronger (or so I feel I am). I build up a good sweat and my muscles hurt when I'm done with a walk/workout/weights and such. I noticed when I've sat for a bit after each workout, I can feel it and need to stretch a bit. I know I'm being silly and should just get out now and do my other 90 minutes and not over complicate myself ha ha. I did change my log on MFP for today to 3 mph and still will only eat back 20 or 50% of those. I am also more than fine if I don't get to my size 5 jeans in X amount of time. But, thank you for explaining some of this to me. I like to feel like I'm challenging myself
Ok, i'm out, i been procrastinating and I already logged the second 90 minute session, so I best get my bum out there. Cheers! 0 -
So why don't you just state your 4 miles a day caveat instead of just poo pooing people's walking as an exercise activity? You've got Christine and a whole bunch of other people wondering if there is any point to walking!
For a very large proportion of MFPers, that's absolutely right. .... the typical MFPer doesn't walk far enough to make the burn worth eating back, doesn't walk intensely enough to generate a meaningful physiological response, and calculates inaccurately enough to create a huge burn over-estimate.Mr. Knight apparently believes that walking (and steps) are "exercises" NOT worth logging, or eating back.
In a perfect world where everybody nailed every number exactly, it would be different.
But we don't live in a perfect world - we live in MFP-land.
And in MFP-land, unless you're fit, walking over 4 miles/day, and know exactly what you're doing, you are FAR better off not logging and eating back walking burns.
4 miles a day, or about 6.4km is probably coming close to about 10,000 steps for most people.
I would agree with you that the first 3,500 to 5,000 steps probably shouldn't add any calories as this level of activity is included in the MFP "sedentary" setting.
I would disagree with you in that between 5,000 and 10,000 I believe that people should be using the MFP lightly active setting (and if not, they should add the steps as a separate exercise instead). For some people these few hundred calories could generate a meaningful difference to their satiation level and would help keep their weight loss within parameters.
And I am glad we can agree that at over 10,000 steps people should be accounting for their walking either by setting MFP to Active or by logging the exercise and eating back the net calories.
And everyone should be going back to periodically check whether their purported deficits correlate well with their weight loss and adjust as necessary!0 -
So why don't you just state your 4 miles a day caveat instead of just poo pooing people's walking as an exercise activity?
For a very large proportion of MFPers, that's absolutely right. .... the typical MFPer doesn't walk far enough to make the burn worth eating back, doesn't walk intensely enough to generate a meaningful physiological response, and calculates inaccurately enough to create a huge burn over-estimate.Mr. Knight apparently believes that walking (and steps) are "exercises" NOT worth logging, or eating back.
In a perfect world where everybody nailed every number exactly, it would be different.
But we don't live in a perfect world - we live in MFP-land.
And in MFP-land, unless you're fit, walking over 4 miles/day, and know exactly what you're doing, you are FAR better off not logging and eating back walking burns.
I have, repeatedly. And you know that, because you've been there.
And yet you continue to intentionally misrepresent what I've said, while trying to troll me all over MFP.You've got Christine and a whole bunch of other people wondering if there is any point to walking!
You don't speak for Christine. If you knew anything about her, you'd know that nobody speaks for her.0 -
And I am glad we can agree that at over 10,000 steps people should be accounting for their walking either by setting MFP to Active or by logging the exercise and eating back the net calories.
No, we do not agree - stop trying to speak for other people.
That is only suitable in *some* cases.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions