Net calories?

sharonbrandt0317

Hi all.

I've read that most adults usually need an intake of about 1400 calories daily to keep the body from thinking it's starving and as a result slowing down metabolism. But is that 1400 calculated as a net? In other words, if I consume 1600 calories but burn 400, thus netting me 1200, would I need to consume another 200?

(Sorry if this is a bit rambly. Sometimes hard to get thoughts into coherent sentences.)

sollyn23l2

It's a bit more complicated than that. I recommend looking up a calorie calculator. It will have you put in your height, weight, and activity level and it will give you a calorie estimate of how many calories you need to maintain your weight. Eat a bit less than this and you should lose weight. Eat more than this and you should gain. I'm not going to link one because I think it would benefit you to take the initiative to look it up.

rileysowner

The numbers that come to my mind a 1500 for men and 1200 for women as the minimum for sufficient nutrition. As to whether your metabolism will slow down if you eat less than that, at least if you think it will result in weight loss stopping, that is not accurate. There may be some adaptation, but not generally enough to make a caloric deficit from what is generally considered minimum calories become a surplus. Since Myfitnesspal does not include exercise calories in your daily goal, yes you are supposed to go by your net calories. Due to inaccuracy in estimating exercise calorie expenditure, many people suggest only eating only half the calories your exercise is estimated to burn. Again, this is not to prevent your metabolism from slowing down but to provide sufficient nutrients and energy.

paperpudding

The "most adults" is way too general - your specific calorie needs will be much more individual depending on your gender, age, activity level, current weight.

have you put those into MFP calculator and if so what number did you get?

and yes, that number is the net number.

chris_in_cal

It is a very good question.

The basic answer and even the very specific answer is "it's personal" As @sollyn23l2 wrote, the best answer will come with you being the chief investigator.

But thinking about, and learning the generalities helps.

tomcustombuilder

It’s strictly individual as mentioned. Too many variables. The proof of how accurate your equations are will be how much you’ve lost in a few months. 1 LB a week will be about a 500 per day deficit so you can gauge from there.

AnnPT77

sharonbrandt0317 wrote: »

Hi all.

I've read that most adults usually need an intake of about 1400 calories daily to keep the body from thinking it's starving and as a result slowing down metabolism. But is that 1400 calculated as a net? In other words, if I consume 1600 calories but burn 400, thus netting me 1200, would I need to consume another 200?

(Sorry if this is a bit rambly. Sometimes hard to get thoughts into coherent sentences.)

Not that simple.

A big (not necessarily super fat) person with a very active job burns a lot of calories to maintain their current weight. It wouldn't be unusual for such a person to need 3500 calories daily. If they eat 1400 calories, and don't have much fat to lose, decent odds things will not go well for them.

On the other hand, some in my demographic (non-big, sedentary, retired li'l ol' ladies) may only need 1400 - maybe even fewer - calories to maintain their current weight. If they eat 1400 calories with an intention to lose weight, things aren't going to go well for them, either.

It's impossible to get adequate nutrition on too-low calories. A body needs absolute amounts of certain things to thrive, and the foods that contain those things have calories. If the calorie budget is too small, it's not possible. How low is that, and what nutrition is needed? That's all individual, too - based on size, age, activity levels and types, personal goals.

If a person eats too few calories, there may be a honeymoon period where they feel good, but eventually they're likely to feel weak, listless, fatigued. Guess what happens then? They rest more, move less . . . in ways that can range from subtle to dramatic. That means they burn fewer calories than they would've if they ate a sensible amount. That's not so much "metabolism": It's mostly just low energy resulting in a less active daily life.

If the goal is weight loss, the right answer is to use a research-based method (such as MFP or an outside TDEE calculator) to estimate calorie needs, aiming for a moderate weight loss rate (maybe 0.5% or so of current weight per week). Follow the estimate for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles for those who have 'em), and compare actual average weekly loss to goal. Adjust if necessary, using that 500 calories daily = 1 pound per week rough estimate. Then keep going.

There are two ways to do it: A person can average their planned exercise into their calorie goal (TDEE method), or log their exercise separately and eat those calories, too (MFP method). Either one can work. The TDEE method can break down if the person doesn't do the planned exercise; the MFP method can break down if the person over-estimates their exercise calories.

The foods the person spends the calories on determines whether they get reasonable overall nutrition or not. Those choices can also affect appetite/cravings and energy level, so have an indirect effect on weight loss, too.