What does "net" mean....

RitaCarriere

I log in daily and I still can't quite get what it means. I burn an average of 700 calories by going for a 6km brisk walk in just under 60 minutes daily and I rarely ever go over my calorie goal of 1200 a day. I'm always seeing either a - in front of "net" or a lower number. Something like that. Can someone please help me understand what this means. :-)

Rita

FatHuMan1

Net is the total calories left after you add up the # of calories you eat, and then subtract your TDEE. If you eat more than you expend your at a surplus. If you consume less calories than you expend then your at a deficit.

Ready2Rock206

Food minus exercise = net

Your net should not be less than 1200 - even that is very low.

KarenJanine

Food minus exercise = net

Your net should not be less than 1200 - even that is very low.

This.

But be wary of estimated calorie burns - how are you measuring to get 700 cal for 6km? That sounds rather high. A more realistic estimation for the average person is 100 cal per mile or 60 cal per km. See here for a chart of weight against speed for cal burn per mile: http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

A heart rate monitor would give you an even better estimation.

yarwell

Net calories are an MFP concept - food eaten minus exercise logged.

So eat 1400 and do no exercise, net = 1400

Eat 1400 and exercise, 400 net = 1000

Of course exercise doesn't subtract from nutrition, so "net calories" are not a concept widely used.

p4ulmiller

Of course exercise doesn't subtract from nutrition, so "net calories" are not a concept widely used.

Wait. What?

yarwell

net calories are not a term in widespread use, other than here. Never seen it in a single science paper for example.

Apart from calories (obviously) the concept goes astray when it comes to protein intake and micronutrients etc - exercise doesn't cancel out your food so you can eat 1400 calories of food and get your nutritional requirements whether that then becomes 1400, 1200, or any other number of "net" calories by exercising.

Boofuls

Yes, the net thing is very overused here. You don't wipe out vitamins by going for a walk. It's also based on I assume the idea that BMR does not "deduct" calories. I have never understood that. If I eat nothing and do no exercise my net calories should be -[BMR] shouldn't they? Not zero.

yarwell

It's also based on I assume the idea that BMR does not "deduct" calories. I have never understood that. If I eat nothing and do no exercise my net calories should be -[BMR] shouldn't they? Not zero.

If you eat zero and log zero exercise it's zero net calories contributing towards your calorie expenditure (BMR et al) so it's correct as defined, it isn't trying to be your net energy balance (which would be a more scientific concept, probably too much so).

EvgeniZyntx

net calories are not a term in widespread use, other than here. Never seen it in a single science paper for example.

Apart from calories (obviously) the concept goes astray when it comes to protein intake and micronutrients etc - exercise doesn't cancel out your food so you can eat 1400 calories of food and get your nutritional requirements whether that then becomes 1400, 1200, or any other number of "net" calories by exercising.

Somewhat true as exercise does increase certain micronutrient throughput like iron and magnesium. Let's say it's not a one to one relation if you are following sufficient nutritional requirements at maintenance. In a large cut, I'd guess that bets are off.

A little old (1999) but of interest:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10610072
Micronutrients: interaction between physical activity, intakes and requirements.

The present literature review examines the following questions: (a) What is the evidence that micronutrient requirements are increased in physically active people? (b) Is there an association between physical activity and micronutrient intake? (c) Are there any significant differences between indices of micronutrient status between physically active and inactive people? The available data suggest that micronutrient requirements are increased in physically active people because of increased losses through sweat, urine and faeces, and an increased need for defence against free radicals. However the evidence is controversial, and it is not possible to make any quantitative estimations. Micronutrient requirements in moderately active people are not likely to be very much above the levels recommended for the general population. The intake of micronutrients increases with increasing energy intake. Therefore, physically highly active people (athletes) have higher micronutrient intakes than untrained subjects. However, moderate physical activity does not necessarily affect daily micronutrient intake. The available indices of micronutrient status do not support the belief that micronutrient status is compromised in highly trained athletes, even without use of dietary supplements. Hence, there are no reasons to believe that the situation would be different in people who are only moderately active. The results suggest that micronutrient status is adequate for health and functional performance in physically active people who follow a normal, mixed Western diet.

Sarauk2sf

net calories are not a term in widespread use, other than here. Never seen it in a single science paper for example.

Apart from calories (obviously) the concept goes astray when it comes to protein intake and micronutrients etc - exercise doesn't cancel out your food so you can eat 1400 calories of food and get your nutritional requirements whether that then becomes 1400, 1200, or any other number of "net" calories by exercising.

From what I have seen/read, exercise does increase protein requirements - not a 1 for 1, but you will find mention of it even from organizations who have pretty low, IMO, protein recommendations like the WHO.