Quick question about net calories

leoniemcdee

Hey everyone,

So I've been at this now for over a year. Up until about two months ago I was either eating back all exercise calories (with more to lose it didn't seem to affect things) or just not exercising. Recently though I've gotten into a nice routine of walking, cycling or running every day. And because I have less to lose, and I know MFP massively overstates burns, I'm only eating about half of those calories back. However, this means that at least 3 or 4 days a week I'm netting a little under 1200 calories (but actually eating between 1400 and 1500). I assume this is OK because of those overstated burns but just wanted to double check with the general consensus.

Thanks in advance!

TeaBea

You've been eating half back.....you are already accounting for "generous" calorie burns. So netting less than 1200 most likely is too little for you. 1200 is generally for very petite and/or elderly women.

Are you losing more than 1% of your body weight each week? If yes, then you are losing too quickly. The reason you want moderate paced weight loss is to hang onto a larger % of existing lean muscle mass. But you also need strength/resistance training & a decent protein intake to help with that.

lightenup2016

If the burns are really that overstated in MFP, then you didn't really burn that many. So I don't know if you're really getting that much above 1200 on those days. That being said, I can't really help you with the net calories under 1200 issue, but I know that generally its looked at as a bad thing here. It would depend also on your height, TDEE, etc. My own BMR (at 5'6" and 136 lbs) is about 1360, so netting 1200 would be under my BMR.

ETA: Sorry, I got that backwards in my head. You probably really are burning the 50% of MFP -stated exercise, so I don't think your net calories are getting above 1200 on those high exercise days.

Couldn't you just eat a little more, since you're exercising more now?

lightenup2016

I'd like to just add that if you know your mileage when running and walking, you can probably more accurately figure out your calories burned. I found a good website that helps you find a better approximation (scroll down to the bottom to get the formulas for NET calories burned):

https://www.google.com/amp/www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?amp?client=safari

I had always heard that you generally burn 100 cal/mile, whether walking or running, because you're moving longer when walking, which makes up for the slower speed. But this article explains why this is not so, and also gives you net calories burned after subtracting out your calories burned each hour for just existing. I figured out that I likely burn about 85 calories per mile running, and 40 calories per mile walking. So now I just use those numbers exactly (or something in between for my run-walks). If I'm being lazy, though, sometimes I'll just add back half of what my Runkeeper app gives me, and that half if usually lower than using the numbers above.

leoniemcdee

TeaBea wrote: »

You've been eating half back.....you are already accounting for "generous" calorie burns. So netting less than 1200 most likely is too little for you. 1200 is generally for very petite and/or elderly women.

Are you losing more than 1% of your body weight each week? If yes, then you are losing too quickly. The reason you want moderate paced weight loss is to hang onto a larger % of existing lean muscle mass. But you also need strength/resistance training & a decent protein intake to help with that.

Thanks for this. I had been losing really slow and steady for the first 9 months (18lbs in that whole time) and it has sped up a bit since doing more exercise. I just ran the numbers and I'm probably losing the tiniest amount over 1% so I will up my calories to bring me over 1200. I want to lose slowly, I want to get fit and strong rather than skinny so that's why I thought to double check. Thank you!

leoniemcdee

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'd like to just add that if you know your mileage when running and walking, you can probably more accurately figure out your calories burned. I found a good website that helps you find a better approximation (scroll down to the bottom to get the formulas for NET calories burned):

https://www.google.com/amp/www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?amp?client=safari

I had always heard that you generally burn 100 cal/mile, whether walking or running, because you're moving longer when walking, which makes up for the slower speed. But this article explains why this is not so, and also gives you net calories burned after subtracting out your calories burned each hour for just existing. I figured out that I likely burn about 85 calories per mile running, and 40 calories per mile walking. So now I just use those numbers exactly (or something in between for my run-walks). If I'm being lazy, though, sometimes I'll just add back half of what my Runkeeper app gives me, and that half if usually lower than using the numbers above.

This is incredibly useful, thank you!

TimothyFish

How do you know MFP "overstates burns?"

leoniemcdee

TimothyFish wrote: »

How do you know MFP "overstates burns?"

Well I don't for sure but it's giving me over 300 calories burned for an hour walking at 3.5mph. And similar for 30 minutes running at a (pitifully) slow pace.

To be honest, I was simply going by what is repeated time and time again on these forums. Eat back 50% of exercise calories because MFP overestimates. Other research I've done would suggest the same.

Christine_72

leoniemcdee wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

How do you know MFP "overstates burns?"

Well I don't for sure but it's giving me over 300 calories burned for an hour walking at 3.5mph. And similar for 30 minutes running at a (pitifully) slow pace.

To be honest, I was simply going by what is repeated time and time again on these forums. Eat back 50% of exercise calories because MFP overestimates. Other research I've done would suggest the same.

It's usually stated to start off eating 50-75% back and adjust up or down from there. If you're losing more than your chosen rate, eat back more. Losing less, then eat back less.

Machka9

leoniemcdee wrote: »

Hey everyone,

So I've been at this now for over a year. Up until about two months ago I was either eating back all exercise calories (with more to lose it didn't seem to affect things) or just not exercising. Recently though I've gotten into a nice routine of walking, cycling or running every day. And because I have less to lose, and I know MFP massively overstates burns, I'm only eating about half of those calories back. However, this means that at least 3 or 4 days a week I'm netting a little under 1200 calories (but actually eating between 1400 and 1500). I assume this is OK because of those overstated burns but just wanted to double check with the general consensus.

Thanks in advance!

1) I estimate my calories burned low ... so I choose the slow, light, low options even if I feel like I've had a really good workout.

2) If you're eating about half your calories back and losing the amount you want to lose, it's all good.