Confused by Net calories

natibug88

For the last 2 1/2 months I've been not eating my Net calories and was losing weight about 2 lbs a week with a total of 34 lbs, but lately I haven't been losing weight at all! Thinking I had just plateaued I was kept on doing what had worked before but now I'm gaining all my hard work back and not understanding what I did wrong and wanting to fix the problem to get back on track? So doing research I've read that I should be eating my calories I work off because of my net calories or ? Can anyone help and give me a clue of what I actually should be doing?

Here's my Credentials
Age: 25
Weight: 211
Height: 5' 5
Goal: 145
Daily calories set by MFP: 1210
Activity: Sed.

ladynocturne

The way MFP is designed is so you can lose weight with zero exercise.

The concept of net is that if you exercise, you can then eat the calories burned to maintain the exact same deficit as if you didn't exercise and only ate your calorie goal of 1210 that day.

Example:

Today you didn't exercise and ate 1210 calories, both your gross calorie consumption as well as net calories are 1210.

Example:

Today you went to the gym and burned 300 calories. MFP now gives you 1510 calories to eat. You eat 1510 calories today, making your gross calorie intake 1510 and your net calorie intake 1210 (1510-300(exercise)=1210.)

In both of these examples you will lose the exact same amount of weight provided your burn estimate at the gym is correct. But as you notice in the second example, you get to eat more food.

Calories are like budgeting money, you earn more calories when you exercise on top of your sedentary lifestyle, you then get to "spend" them.

The difference between the human body and budgeting your money is that having too high of a calorie deficit can be very unhealthy and even dangerous.

Also please keep in mind that since you lost 34lbs your body no longer requires as many calories to maintain your current weight, making the calorie deficit for weight loss slower. It's perfectly normal to experience a slow down in weight loss as you get closer and closer to your goal weight.

cwolfman13

The way MFP is designed is so you can lose weight with zero exercise.

The concept of net is that if you exercise, you can then eat the calories burned to maintain the exact same deficit as if you didn't exercise and only ate your calorie goal of 1210 that day.

Example:

Today you didn't exercise and ate 1210 calories, both your gross calorie consumption as well as net calories are 1210.

Example:

Today you went to the gym and burned 300 calories. MFP now gives you 1510 calories to eat. You eat 1510 calories today, making your gross calorie intake 1510 and your net calorie intake 1210 (1510-300(exercise)=1210.)

In both of these examples you will lose the exact same amount of weight provided your burn estimate at the gym is correct. But as you notice in the second example, you get to eat more food.

Calories are like budgeting money, you earn more calories when you exercise on top of your sedentary lifestyle, you then get to "spend" them.

The difference between the human body and budgeting your money is that having too high of a calorie deficit can be very healthy and even dangerous.

Also please keep in mind that since you lose 34lbs your body no longer requires as many calories to maintain your current weight, making the calorie deficit for weight loss slower. It's perfectly normal to experience a slow down in weight loss as you get closer and closer to your goal weight.

Good and accurate explanation....

QuietBloom

So you have been eating UNDER the 1210 or over it?

PP explained the way MFP works very well. If you keep entering in your weight, it will do the calculations for you. If you exercise, add that in, and make sure you always NET 1210 (baseline calorie allotment plus the calories you burned with exercise).

And yes, your weight loss will slow as you reach your goal weight. The closer you get, the less of a deficit (how much you want to lose per week) you should set up for yourself, so you won't lose too quickly which can lead to loss of your lean body mass, which will impact your basal metabolic rate, and REALLY slow down your weight loss.

maggie_mae1

I didn't know how to start a new thread. But here's hoping this works. I've been at this for 6 weeks - lose 4 pds gain back the same amount repeat. Frustrated! A typical day is I'll work out with my trainer and burn anywhere from 350-500 cals 4x a week. Sometimes more if I'm not discouraged. Should I stop eating at the 1310 mark? Yesterday I burned 407 cals. My diary said I ate 1636 cals but only netted 1166. What am I doing wrong?

maggie_mae1

I took much of the summer off should say I'm back at it the past 4 weeks.

AbsoluteNG

You don't have to eat your exercise calories back. If it keeps you from binging, do it but you don't have too. You'll also lose slower when eating those calories back. Link below to someone who ate 1200 calories and did not eat exercise calories back.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/981096-jillian-michaels-body-revolution-results-w-pic

Determined82

Food Calories - Exercise Calories = Net Calories

deksgrl

MFP calculates your calorie needs not including exercise. When you do exercise, you need more fuel for that.


1200 (Or the amount MFP tells you to eat)
-300 (amount of exercise you did)
+300 (amount you ate for exercise)
=1200 (Net Calories)

kdh74

I have been wondering about the "net calories." Thank you for the explanations. I do have one more questions to clarify it in my mind...

If I do not get my net caloric intake up to the 1200 that MFP recommends, then is that a negative thing. I guess I would say then that I am not getting the calories that would be my minimum amount. That in turn would be a negative for my body. am I viewing this right? I have just been making sure that I get the 1200 calories. I do exercise most days by at least walking. Therefore I always have extra calorie burn. My goal has always been to make sure I have more calories showing burned than eaten. However, I did not know what the net calories were.

Yesterday
Eating: 1531
Exercising: 430
Supposed to eat 1200 calories so 1630 available
I had then 99 calories left over.

Some days it has been more like 283 extra calories to eat.

I have not been overly hungry. I am trying to eat more fruits and veggies. I just need to understand. do I need to eat more based on the net calories and the burn.

Waitingfornothing

Yeah I wish that it would just tell me my deficit.

deksgrl

You should net 1200.

However... many people say that MFP's calorie estimates for exercise are high. Some people do not eat all their exercise calories because of that.

But.... for most people, a calorie goal of 1,200 reflects a really a big deficit, so an inflated calorie burn isn't going to make a difference.

BenjaminMFP88

The way MFP is designed is so you can lose weight with zero exercise.

The concept of net is that if you exercise, you can then eat the calories burned to maintain the exact same deficit as if you didn't exercise and only ate your calorie goal of 1210 that day.

Example:

Today you didn't exercise and ate 1210 calories, both your gross calorie consumption as well as net calories are 1210.

Example:

Today you went to the gym and burned 300 calories. MFP now gives you 1510 calories to eat. You eat 1510 calories today, making your gross calorie intake 1510 and your net calorie intake 1210 (1510-300(exercise)=1210.)

In both of these examples you will lose the exact same amount of weight provided your burn estimate at the gym is correct. But as you notice in the second example, you get to eat more food.

Calories are like budgeting money, you earn more calories when you exercise on top of your sedentary lifestyle, you then get to "spend" them.

The difference between the human body and budgeting your money is that having too high of a calorie deficit can be very unhealthy and even dangerous.

Also please keep in mind that since you lost 34lbs your body no longer requires as many calories to maintain your current weight, making the calorie deficit for weight loss slower. It's perfectly normal to experience a slow down in weight loss as you get closer and closer to your goal weight.

A few things should be added to this. First of all, for every few lbs you gain or lose, recheck your TDEE/BMR. You can find this on IIFYM Calculator or something. It looks like your BMR is ~1705, meaning you should never eat less then this in a day or negative effects will kick in sooner or later. Also, I wouldn't recommend eating back 100% of the calories you burn off through exercise. I would recommend eating back anywhere from 50%-75%, but again, never netting below your BMR.

Also, weight loss is based on your TDEE. So, your TDEE is roughly 2350, which means a healthy caloric deficit for you would be about 1880 calories per day. This gives you leway with how you eat back your calories, since you want to eat back what you work off, especially if you work off a deficit netting lower then 1705. (however, with this example, it wouldn't be detrimental to not eat back a few of the calories since you do have about 175 above BMR)

Did any of this make sense? I'm speed typing this before I leave work...

kdh74

Thank you for the quick response. The MFP said that I need to eat a 1200 calorie day so that is what I have been shooting for. I just looked at the "net calorie report" and it has me at roughly 975 calories netted almost every day. I guess that would mean that I am not eating enough right? I am not necessarily hungry, but I know that eating too few calories does have its downside...

So...(and by the way...I am new to this really so I thank you for your patience)...do I maybe need to move my sedentary to light for my activity. I based that activity level on the fact that I teach school throughout the day (homeschool) so I am sitting at a desk like a desk job for about 6-8 hours a day. I assumed that would be considered a sedentary lifestyle because I guess I thought it would be better to underestimate my activity level rather than overestimate. Could you suggest my activity level?

also...In a nutshell...I am assuming for my weight 168, height 5'6" and goal of losing 32 pounds (5 down so 27 left)..I try to walk everyday a fast walk of about 45 minutes and do Kinect Biggest Loser 4 times a week. With that said...I should be eating no less than 1700 calories and would still see a weight loss. Is it possible at that rate to still see 1.5 to 2 pounds a week possible weight loss or is that too much weight loss to shoot for. and...should by net calories always bee used up?

also...what is IIFMY...thanks again.

BenjaminMFP88

Thank you for the quick response. The MFP said that I need to eat a 1200 calorie day so that is what I have been shooting for. I just looked at the "net calorie report" and it has me at roughly 975 calories netted almost every day. I guess that would mean that I am not eating enough right? I am not necessarily hungry, but I know that eating too few calories does have its downside...

So...(and by the way...I am new to this really so I thank you for your patience)...do I maybe need to move my sedentary to light for my activity. I based that activity level on the fact that I teach school throughout the day (homeschool) so I am sitting at a desk like a desk job for about 6-8 hours a day. I assumed that would be considered a sedentary lifestyle because I guess I thought it would be better to underestimate my activity level rather than overestimate. Could you suggest my activity level?

also...In a nutshell...I am assuming for my weight 168, height 5'6" and goal of losing 32 pounds (5 down so 27 left)..I try to walk everyday a fast walk of about 45 minutes and do Kinect Biggest Loser 4 times a week. With that said...I should be eating no less than 1700 calories and would still see a weight loss. Is it possible at that rate to still see 1.5 to 2 pounds a week possible weight loss or is that too much weight loss to shoot for. and...should by net calories always bee used up?

also...what is IIFMY...thanks again.

Everyone has to basic caloric numbers. Your BMR which is how many calories you need to eat every day to for healthy living. This is the value that fuels your body functions. And there's also your TDEE, which is your BMR, plus your expected caloric burn through activity. The IIFYM calculator figures this number for you and guides you on how many calories you should eat every day for optimal HEALTHY weight loss.

1200 calories is most likely below your BMR meaning that you will indeed lose weight quickly. However, at potentially severe health risks. At this much of a caloric deficit, especially if you are not eating back your workouts, then your body will begin to suffer. Of course, you won't notice this for a while, but over time, as your body is not receiving the nutrients it needs, functions will begin failing.

For example, I know of a girl who lost most of her hair, skin pigmintation, nails and eyesight because she went on an enormous caloric deficit for a few years. She lost about 102lbs, but she was miserable at the damage she caused her body.

Just net 20% less then your TDEE, and you will lose weight, it's impossible not too

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

deksgrl

BMR is the amount they would feed you if you were in a coma to fuel your basic bodily functions. The minute you get out of bed you need more than that.

yarwell

BMR is the amount they would feed you if you were in a coma to fuel your basic bodily functions. The minute you get out of bed you need more than that.

Wrong. You aren't in a coma when they measure your BMR. That would be unethical, and dangerous.

deksgrl

BMR is the amount they would feed you if you were in a coma to fuel your basic bodily functions. The minute you get out of bed you need more than that.

Wrong. You aren't in a coma when they measure your BMR. That would be unethical, and dangerous.

I didn't say that you are in a coma when your BMR is measured. The hospital estimates your BMR based on your height, weight, age, gender, and feeds you that amount accordingly if you are in a coma.

watfordjc

BMR is the amount they would feed you if you were in a coma to fuel your basic bodily functions. The minute you get out of bed you need more than that.

Wrong. You aren't in a coma when they measure your BMR. That would be unethical, and dangerous.

What is unethical or dangerous about using a formula to calculate the caloric needs of a comatose patient?

It is my understanding that RMR is what is typically measured for resting calorie needs, and oxygen usage for exercise.

yarwell

So you're saying "if you are in a coma in a hospital they will feed you your estimated BMR".

UK clinical guidance says -

"For people who are not severely ill or injured, nor at risk of refeeding problems, nutritional
prescription should usually provide:
25–35 kcal/kg/day total energy"

So for 150 lb individual 1700 - 2380 calories a day. A lot more than BMR. Can't imagine we feed people more than the US.

But in any case nobody on here is either a) in a coma or b) at risk of malnutrition or starvation from illness so I don't really see how hospital nutrition is remotely interesting.

yarwell

What is unethical or dangerous about using a formula to calculate the caloric needs of a comatose patient?

Nothing, though I doubt it's enough.

Putting someone in a coma to determine the equivalent metabolic rate would be unethical and dangerous, but as BMR has nothing whatsoever to do with comas I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

deksgrl

But in any case nobody on here is either a) in a coma or b) at risk of malnutrition or starvation from illness so I don't really see how hospital nutrition is remotely interesting.

The point is, why would you eat less when you are up and active and moving around than they would feed you if you were comatose?