People on the margins: A discussion regarding net calories
PeachyCarol
Posts: 8,029 Member
A conversation started due to an issue arising on a friend's feed this morning and I thought I'd bring it to the forums, because I often see two issues arising here that can come into conflict for people on the margins.
Who are people on the margins?
Well, there might be more than those who immediately spring to my mind, but I immediately think of older, shorter women, or shorter women who are already somewhat lean.
What are the conflicting issues?
The recommendations to not eat back too many exercise calories and to not consume too low a figure in net calories.
How do these issues come into conflict?
I'll use myself as an example. I'm 52 years old, 5' 1" tall. I have my goal set to lose 1 pound a week and still have 45 pounds to lose. My base calorie allowance to do this is 1200 calories.
Yesterday, I water jogged for 40 minutes. After as much research as possible into the subject, I determined that MFP's burn agreed with every other source I could find, so I go with what the site records. I logged a burn of 398 calories, but I still don't trust it, who could account for exact intensity, my muscle mass and all the other variables.
I ate 184 of those calories back, almost half which is what people recommend eating back. My gross caloric intake for the day was 1384 calories. A fine intake. And yet, my NET calories were only 986, under 1,000. Too low by most people's reckoning.
Therein lies the conflict for the short people on the margins. We eat 1/3 to 1/2 back and our net calories are low.
My point? Blanket recommendations regarding net caloric intake aren't helpful.
Thoughts?
Who are people on the margins?
Well, there might be more than those who immediately spring to my mind, but I immediately think of older, shorter women, or shorter women who are already somewhat lean.
What are the conflicting issues?
The recommendations to not eat back too many exercise calories and to not consume too low a figure in net calories.
How do these issues come into conflict?
I'll use myself as an example. I'm 52 years old, 5' 1" tall. I have my goal set to lose 1 pound a week and still have 45 pounds to lose. My base calorie allowance to do this is 1200 calories.
Yesterday, I water jogged for 40 minutes. After as much research as possible into the subject, I determined that MFP's burn agreed with every other source I could find, so I go with what the site records. I logged a burn of 398 calories, but I still don't trust it, who could account for exact intensity, my muscle mass and all the other variables.
I ate 184 of those calories back, almost half which is what people recommend eating back. My gross caloric intake for the day was 1384 calories. A fine intake. And yet, my NET calories were only 986, under 1,000. Too low by most people's reckoning.
Therein lies the conflict for the short people on the margins. We eat 1/3 to 1/2 back and our net calories are low.
My point? Blanket recommendations regarding net caloric intake aren't helpful.
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
Thanks heaps for starting this thread!
0 -
and yet here I am hearing Randy Newman in my head ...sorry, sorry...*sighs*
I always wanted to be shorter .. this kind of stuff makes me happy I'm not0 -
I've never taken an MFP burn for anything ... I've always halved it
That would mean, if I was logging it, that MFP would tell you to eat 1200 (NEAT) + 200 (Exercise) and you ate 1384 .. isn't that on target?
I'm tired ... What am I missing?0 -
counting calories isn't perfect, and weight loss is not linear. best method is to set a goal and stick to it fairly consistently for a few weeks, check progress and alter slightly until your actions align with your goals. I doubt anyone gets it right the first time.0
-
I've never taken an MFP burn for anything ... I've always halved it
That would mean, if I was logging it, that MFP would tell you to eat 1200 (NEAT) + 200 (Exercise) and you ate 1384 .. isn't that on target?
I'm tired ... What am I missing?
MFP wants you to eat ALL the exercise calories. So it wants me to eat all 398.
We on the forums tell people to eat half. When they do that, short people are going to have their diaries show they're netting a low number, possibly lower than what we on the forums say they should net. My purpose in starting this thread was to show that it's okay for us shorties to pay attention to gross calories instead.
0 -
counting calories isn't perfect, and weight loss is not linear. best method is to set a goal and stick to it fairly consistently for a few weeks, check progress and alter slightly until your actions align with your goals. I doubt anyone gets it right the first time.
I think you're missing the point ENTIRELY.
0 -
My issue is not quite the same as PeachyCarol's. I'm 5 foot 9 and a half. My only exercise calories earned are my iPhone 6 Heath App steps. It seems to be going overboard to count those as exercise calories earned.
I eat pretty much exactly my total calorie daily limit, but now I gather I'm supposed to eat my net calories, which are way under. Confused.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I've never taken an MFP burn for anything ... I've always halved it
That would mean, if I was logging it, that MFP would tell you to eat 1200 (NEAT) + 200 (Exercise) and you ate 1384 .. isn't that on target?
I'm tired ... What am I missing?
MFP wants you to eat ALL the exercise calories. So it wants me to eat all 398.
We on the forums tell people to eat half. When they do that, short people are going to have their diaries show they're netting a low number, possibly lower than what we on the forums say they should net. My purpose in starting this thread was to show that it's okay for us shorties to pay attention to gross calories instead.
ahhh ... I get it now
No what I do is when I go to log an exercise I actually double click on the calories and half them so I only ever log half the value that MFP database suggests (in fact now I manually log from my HRM and I cut that back too)
... but over time I have checked it against my actual weight (over 6-8 week slots) to check for myself that I'm not overestimating or underestimating what my body does .. cos it's all just estimates anyway0 -
My issue is not quite the same as PeachyCarol's. I'm 5 foot 9 and a half. My only exercise calories earned are my iPhone 6 Heath App steps. It seems to be going overboard to count those as exercise calories earned.
I eat pretty much exactly my total calorie daily limit, but now I gather I'm supposed to eat my net calories, which are way under. Confused.
what are you losing Orphia .. over 8 weeks what's your average weight loss per week? does it match your target loss per week?
If it does then all's good
If it doesn't you can eat more / less
just keep a rolling check on it .. all numbers out there are estimates .. the trick is understanding how your individual body works0 -
When I first started with MFP I ate them all back and lost the weight I wanted...so I am one of those that "eat back half" doesn't apply to.
For women who are smaller/shorter/leaner I do still think 1200 should be the minimum unless you can be assured you are getting in your nutrients. I say this because it is very hard to get in minimums within 1200 calories...let alone 900...
However that being said if it is one or two days it won't "kill" you so I am sure that even my thoughts have exceptions.0 -
My issue is not quite the same as PeachyCarol's. I'm 5 foot 9 and a half. My only exercise calories earned are my iPhone 6 Heath App steps. It seems to be going overboard to count those as exercise calories earned.
I eat pretty much exactly my total calorie daily limit, but now I gather I'm supposed to eat my net calories, which are way under. Confused.
what are you losing Orphia .. over 8 weeks what's your average weight loss per week? does it match your target loss per week?
If it does then all's good
If it doesn't you can eat more / less
just keep a rolling check on it .. all numbers out there are estimates .. the trick is understanding how your individual body works
Ah, that's good to know. Yep, my goal is half a kilo a week, but I'm averaging 0.95 kg, so that means I can eat a bit more. Not that I'm hungry. Since I'm comfortable, would it be ok to stay around the same to stay at the same rate? I'm 89.4 kg and needing to lose 20 kg. I'm eating around 6150 kj (not net).0 -
My issue is not quite the same as PeachyCarol's. I'm 5 foot 9 and a half. My only exercise calories earned are my iPhone 6 Heath App steps. It seems to be going overboard to count those as exercise calories earned.
I eat pretty much exactly my total calorie daily limit, but now I gather I'm supposed to eat my net calories, which are way under. Confused.
what are you losing Orphia .. over 8 weeks what's your average weight loss per week? does it match your target loss per week?
If it does then all's good
If it doesn't you can eat more / less
just keep a rolling check on it .. all numbers out there are estimates .. the trick is understanding how your individual body works
Yeah, that's a good way of doing it, I don't know that the advice to people on the forums regarding logging half or so of the burn so you don't show a low net in the first place comes across.
For me? Well, I've admitted this silliness before. I like the magic eight ball game of seeing the stupid though not true five week prediction based on the whole burn. Bahahaha. So I'm effectively logging like an idiot just for pointless kicks and giggles.
In practice, I pay attention to my gross calories consumed.
0 -
As I understand it, you eat back half of your exercise because that's probably closer to what you actually burned. If you know for definite that you burned 398 calories then eat all of them back, then when you calculate NET it'll be 1200. However if you think it may be closer to half of that and eat back 184 accordingly, then when you calculate NET you should use your estimated burn of 184.0
-
When I first started with MFP I ate them all back and lost the weight I wanted...so I am one of those that "eat back half" doesn't apply to.
For women who are smaller/shorter/leaner I do still think 1200 should be the minimum unless you can be assured you are getting in your nutrients. I say this because it is very hard to get in minimums within 1200 calories...let alone 900...
However that being said if it is one or two days it won't "kill" you so I am sure that even my thoughts have exceptions.
Eh, but that's the point. It's not really 900. I could cut the logging of the burn in half and it would net right around 1200. I'm eating back half. It's just the way the math works out when you down to the margins.
0 -
No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.0 -
Thinking this is only an issue for those "at the margins " ...
lol.0 -
My issue is not quite the same as PeachyCarol's. I'm 5 foot 9 and a half. My only exercise calories earned are my iPhone 6 Heath App steps. It seems to be going overboard to count those as exercise calories earned.
I eat pretty much exactly my total calorie daily limit, but now I gather I'm supposed to eat my net calories, which are way under. Confused.
what are you losing Orphia .. over 8 weeks what's your average weight loss per week? does it match your target loss per week?
If it does then all's good
If it doesn't you can eat more / less
just keep a rolling check on it .. all numbers out there are estimates .. the trick is understanding how your individual body works
Ah, that's good to know. Yep, my goal is half a kilo a week, but I'm averaging 0.95 kg, so that means I can eat a bit more. Not that I'm hungry. Since I'm comfortable, would it be ok to stay around the same to stay at the same rate? I'm 89.4 kg and needing to lose 20 kg. I'm eating around 6150 kj (not net).
Tough question to answer really ... it depends
How are you feeling? Are you energetic, can you do whatever exercise programme you want to?
Are you hitting your fat and protein macros .. and have you rejigged them to a per gramme basis
eg Protein at 0.64 to 0.82g per lb of bodyweight and Fat at 0.35g per lb of bodyweight as minimums
(sorry you'll have to convert to kg yourself
)
Are you getting a good spread of vitamins, minerals, calcium, iron etc
if you can answer yes then you're fine .. if you're not sure then adjust .. it also helps to slow down as you get closer to maintenance so it's not such a big leap .. after all maintenance is about keeping on keeping on not going back to how it was before
But I still think at the end of the day the one who eats the most and still loses wins .. after all if you can fit in another ice cream or glass of wine or slice of pizza after hitting your macro and micro targets .. well, why wouldn't ya :bigsmile:0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »Thinking this is only an issue for those "at the margins " ...
lol.
Good point. Or people who train like beasts and burn loads of calories. I forgot about that. It's just a minute too late to edit my original post!
0 -
No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way0 -
This is why I only log the calories I plan to eat back. Then your net looks right and if you start losing too fast or losing when you shouldn't be (my case) just log a higher percentage next time.0
-
No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
I fail to see how this pertains to the thread, other than the issue of blanket advice not being applicable. We agree there.
However, you introducing the issue of weight loss and true ways? Not germane to the discussion.
0 -
Must still be too early for me because I don't understand the OP. Is it "people who don't net 1200 calories because MFP's exercise burns are too high"?0
-
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
0 -
You're suggesting that the advice doesn't apply to some people, right?PeachyCarol wrote: »No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
I fail to see how this pertains to the thread, other than the issue of blanket advice not being applicable. We agree there.
However, you introducing the issue of weight loss and true ways? Not germane to the discussion.
I'm saying that no piece of advice applies to all people.
Did I misunderstand your original point?
0 -
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Honestly yes it will
OK maybe you need medical intervention to fix your calories out part of the equation but that doesn't negate it
Eat fewer calories than you burn is meant to be basic .. because if the goal is weight loss that's the basic answer .. the one 'true path'
We have free will to create the plan that suits our psyche / our lifestyle / our fancies and desires
But it still boils down to CICO
0 -
Agreed - The overreaching calorie advice is one of my LOL points around here. People clearly have so many different physiques even at the same height/weight.PeachyCarol wrote: »My point? Blanket recommendations regarding net caloric intake aren't helpful.0 -
I think stress is a component. Stress from life, stress from extreme exercise, and even from restricting. I am older and I see a pattern with stressful times and the calories in calories out equation falling apart for me during those times.
I add in all my exercise calories and plan to eat a good portion of them back because I need the calories to train.0 -
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Honestly yes it will
OK maybe you need medical intervention to fix your calories out part of the equation but that doesn't negate it
Eat fewer calories than you burn is meant to be basic .. because if the goal is weight loss that's the basic answer .. the one 'true path'
We have free will to create the plan that suits our psyche / our lifestyle / our fancies and desires
But it still boils down to CICO
I think you and I are having two different conversations, lol. I was talking about weight loss advice. That's all. I'm not getting into the craziness of those CICO fights. If I seemed like I was, I apologize.
If you believe that there is one piece of weight loss advice that will go for every single person, we disagree, but I hope we can agree to disagree on that. 0 -
I'm 55, 5'1 and 135 #. I use TDEE and don't eat back exercise calories. Saves me the confusion.0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions