People on the margins: A discussion regarding net calories

Options
1235»

Replies

  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    Options
    My two cents (probably one cent but inflation ..) is that you want to support your health - obtain the necessary macro and micro nutrients and not stress your body to the point of harm if you are on a weight loss journey that isn't for a body competition of some sort (where theoretically the time period of insane dieting is limited). So there may be very little nutritional difference for a "margin" person between 1200 net calories and 1100 net calories - unless you are doing the LOL-able Twinkie diet or something.
  • mattyc772014
    mattyc772014 Posts: 3,543 Member
    Options
    Great thread OP! Lots of good info here. Personally I like to set it and forget it. :) For about 3 plus months I am not eating any burned calories back. I find it easier and less of a hassle. Adjusts made as needed. I am not surprised at MFP over estimates on burned calories for exercises. The longer it takes someone using the app to loose weight the longer MFP advertises or collects there monthly fee. "When he picked the side I thought he must be crazy but, judging by their performance this season, there's obviously method in his madness."
  • NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner
    NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner Posts: 1,018 Member
    Options
    I reckon MFP has a "net" calorie goal to stop people purposely consuming less than 1200 calories all the time. Or at least covering their own bottom. I never look at my net. I consume what I'm meant to be having and leave it at that :)
  • professionalHobbyist
    professionalHobbyist Posts: 1,316 Member
    Options
    I am in the same boat

    I lowered my activity level on MFP even though I average over 10000 steps a day for 30 day average.

    I am set to drop 1.5 lbs a week and drop 1.

    I think there is a bit of body adjustment that has happened to me. My body has adapted to long term weight loss by running low key. I just don't use the calories the program says

    I accept it and reduce intake.

    But by the book I wouldn't lose weight.

    The food diary is great, I just had to dial it back for me personally.

    CICO is a description of how things work. It is not a breakdown of the exact numbers. For me, those calories seem to go a little extra distance! Slow metabolism.

    When the zombie apocalypse hits, I will be able to live a little longer on my 3 cans of Spam. So who is gonna laugh then!

    :)
  • dawnna76
    dawnna76 Posts: 987 Member
    Options
    My work around this problem is to follow the TDEE method. I eat enough calories to fuel my body well (1690) and then dont eat back my exercise calories at all. I steadily lose .5-1# a week this way. I found the MFP method of estimating exercise calories and eating them back to be to much guesswork.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    The simple solution is to ditch the small deficit and cycle through shorter periods of much larger deficits and possibly longer periods maintenance.

    In that this appeals to me, I'm curious why you think it's a better approach for a margin-type as defined.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    The simple solution is to ditch the small deficit and cycle through shorter periods of much larger deficits and possibly longer periods maintenance.

    The "50%" advice is because so many people are using inflated numbers (ie, out of the MFP database). If that isn't you, then the 50% doesn't apply to you, and there is no conflict.

    PS 160 pounds @ 3 miles -> 312 calories burned. Sounds like you're at least in the right zipcode.

    Interestingly, that's what the Shapesense calculator for water jogging gave me. I never checked to see if they had one.

    I'm going to start using theirs, especially since I'm going to be continuing to do this. I LOVE it. I'll be joining a gym with a deep water pool in November to keep at it. I even bought a water proof Mp3 player. It just feels so good on my joints.

    For what it's worth, the calories for running (hour or less) have generally tended to be pretty accurate for me. I've eaten them all much of the time and when I didn't my losses were higher than expected.

    Longer runs get messed up due to the amount you'd be burning anyway, I think, and I'm skeptical of longer bike rides for the same reason (plus depends on the bike, the terrain, the weather, etc.). IMO, it's often stuff like weights or classes (and of course the elliptical) that get overstated, because there's so much variability possible (or with weights who knows anyway).

    It wouldn't surprise me if your water jogging calories were similarly pretty accurate like I've found running calories to be.

Categories