Need Help Understanding "Net" Calories
Options
ZestyItalian2
Posts: 12
Hey all- this is my first post, and it's regarding something that looks as though it confuses a ton of people in this community: the subject of "net" calories. If this is something that has been comprehensively explained in a knowledgeable way (seriously, the amount of folk wisdom and junk science thrown around these parts is staggering, even to someone who is decidedly not an expert in anything) please be so kind as to point me in that posts direction! For now, I tend to be long winded, so please excuse what will probably be a lengthy lead-in to my question.
First, me: I'm a 31 year old Italian-American dude, 5'10, about 217 lbs (down from around 230.) This is probably beside the point, but I'm broad shouldered and densely built with a lot of natural muscle, no gut and little flabbiness even at 230 lbs. I just sort of get big & wide when I gain weight. It's still fat, it just presents itself as a wall, which probably enabled me to let it get this bad.
In service of my desire to get back down to my college fighting weight of 180, I've recently treated myself to a "FitBit", which, as many of you know, tracks calories burned throughout the day. The Fitbit syncs with MFP and allocates burned calories toward my "net" calorie intake.
I'm no expert, but my plan, based on successful periods of cutting/fitness in the (increasingly distant) past, is this: start with a reasonable but restricted calorie diet, mainly dumping carbs, limiting them to around 100G a day, mostly from veggies. I'm basically going for a protein and, to a lesser extent, fat-heavy diet of around 1500 calories, never going below 1300 or above 1700. For now, the exercise I'm engaging in is limited to long, brisk walks, usually about an hour a day, maybe 3.5 MPH, which is easy due to the fact that I live in Manhattan. More long term, I intend to start lifting and exercising more strenuously, which will coincide with increasing my calories while continuing to keep carbs and sugars reasonably in check.
So far, I've lost a little over 10 pounds in two weeks, I feel fantastic- if a little hungry now and again, and envious of my wife's carb-heavy meals. I'm clear headed and LESS fatigued than back when I was eating normally. My digestive process is healthy and normal. Here's my dilemma though:
MFP puts my "resting" calories burned (i.e. the calories needed to maintain my current weight) at a little over 2,500 per day. I've put my settings to the most aggressive weight loss pace of "2 pounds per week", so it calculates that I need a 1,000 calories-per-day deficit, putting me at around 1,500 per day, which I am more or less hitting (with macros customized to put carbs at about 25%). Now, the "FitBit", perhaps because it calculates my calorie burn continuously, usually allocates an additional 1,200 calories against my "net". This may also be in part because living in New York is strenuous in itself- lots of fast walking, stairs, etc. throughout the day. Therefore, it ends up telling me that my caloric intake, accounting for a 1,000 calorie deficit, should be around 2,700 calories per day (meaning that I'm burning around 3,700.) That CANNOT be right, and seems to presume that I roughly have the metabolic rate of a cheetah.
Is it possible that the FitBit is massively overcounting the calories burned in my long walks, or that it is "double counting" calories burned via normal activity with the "resting calorie burn" already factored in? As it stands, my "Net Calories" as calculated by MFP/FitBit is usually either in the low hundreds or not uncommonly a negative number. I am hugely suspicious of logic that dictates that the only healthy way to lose weight is to consume close to 3,000 calories per day, particularly when all I'm doing is walking a lot.
I'm not sweating this TOO much, as I'm losing weight (though the beginning is always the easiest) and as I feel fine. I think that, for a man trying to drop body fat, eating up to 1,700 protein-heavy calories per day should not be unreasonable. But I wanted to put this out there in case I might be inadvertently doing a disservice to myself and to my longer-term weight loss goals.
Comments, advice and testimonial are heartily welcomed. A caveat: if you're going to bring up the much-mythologized "starvation mode" trope, please have some sound science to reinforce. A 1,500 calorie diet coupled with a few long strolls cannot be the definition of starvation, even for an American.
Cheers to all of you fighting the good fight.
First, me: I'm a 31 year old Italian-American dude, 5'10, about 217 lbs (down from around 230.) This is probably beside the point, but I'm broad shouldered and densely built with a lot of natural muscle, no gut and little flabbiness even at 230 lbs. I just sort of get big & wide when I gain weight. It's still fat, it just presents itself as a wall, which probably enabled me to let it get this bad.
In service of my desire to get back down to my college fighting weight of 180, I've recently treated myself to a "FitBit", which, as many of you know, tracks calories burned throughout the day. The Fitbit syncs with MFP and allocates burned calories toward my "net" calorie intake.
I'm no expert, but my plan, based on successful periods of cutting/fitness in the (increasingly distant) past, is this: start with a reasonable but restricted calorie diet, mainly dumping carbs, limiting them to around 100G a day, mostly from veggies. I'm basically going for a protein and, to a lesser extent, fat-heavy diet of around 1500 calories, never going below 1300 or above 1700. For now, the exercise I'm engaging in is limited to long, brisk walks, usually about an hour a day, maybe 3.5 MPH, which is easy due to the fact that I live in Manhattan. More long term, I intend to start lifting and exercising more strenuously, which will coincide with increasing my calories while continuing to keep carbs and sugars reasonably in check.
So far, I've lost a little over 10 pounds in two weeks, I feel fantastic- if a little hungry now and again, and envious of my wife's carb-heavy meals. I'm clear headed and LESS fatigued than back when I was eating normally. My digestive process is healthy and normal. Here's my dilemma though:
MFP puts my "resting" calories burned (i.e. the calories needed to maintain my current weight) at a little over 2,500 per day. I've put my settings to the most aggressive weight loss pace of "2 pounds per week", so it calculates that I need a 1,000 calories-per-day deficit, putting me at around 1,500 per day, which I am more or less hitting (with macros customized to put carbs at about 25%). Now, the "FitBit", perhaps because it calculates my calorie burn continuously, usually allocates an additional 1,200 calories against my "net". This may also be in part because living in New York is strenuous in itself- lots of fast walking, stairs, etc. throughout the day. Therefore, it ends up telling me that my caloric intake, accounting for a 1,000 calorie deficit, should be around 2,700 calories per day (meaning that I'm burning around 3,700.) That CANNOT be right, and seems to presume that I roughly have the metabolic rate of a cheetah.
Is it possible that the FitBit is massively overcounting the calories burned in my long walks, or that it is "double counting" calories burned via normal activity with the "resting calorie burn" already factored in? As it stands, my "Net Calories" as calculated by MFP/FitBit is usually either in the low hundreds or not uncommonly a negative number. I am hugely suspicious of logic that dictates that the only healthy way to lose weight is to consume close to 3,000 calories per day, particularly when all I'm doing is walking a lot.
I'm not sweating this TOO much, as I'm losing weight (though the beginning is always the easiest) and as I feel fine. I think that, for a man trying to drop body fat, eating up to 1,700 protein-heavy calories per day should not be unreasonable. But I wanted to put this out there in case I might be inadvertently doing a disservice to myself and to my longer-term weight loss goals.
Comments, advice and testimonial are heartily welcomed. A caveat: if you're going to bring up the much-mythologized "starvation mode" trope, please have some sound science to reinforce. A 1,500 calorie diet coupled with a few long strolls cannot be the definition of starvation, even for an American.
Cheers to all of you fighting the good fight.
0
Replies
-
It sounds like you may actually be eating at too steep a deficit.
With the Fitbit, typically what people do is they set their activity level to Sedentary and let the Fitbit make adjustments above that. From what I pieced together in your post, that's what you're doing. It also sounds like you're doing enough walking to earn yourself back a decent whack of calories. That's reasonable.
As a point of reference, my boyfriend is about 6'1", about your weight, and doesn't track exercise outside of his Fitbit either. His average daily burn is in the 3500 range (in fairness: he has something like 130k steps for the week at the moment). As another point of reference, I'm 5'4", 140, and burn about 2100 ...on days I run 3 miles. You being a big tall dude gives you a major calorie advantage.0 -
I'm at about 130K steps per week as well. Your BF and I are a couple of rollin' stones.
Very helpful- perhaps I need to increase my calorie intake slightly. But I still don't think I need to increase it by a thousand. In any case, thank you for sussing out the meaning in my extremely long post.
Also, being ignorant of the way metabolism works, is "net calories" as it relates to metabolism and (again, much mythologized) "starvation" an entirely variable thing? Like, what if I were burning 5,000 calories per day but eating 3,000- would my body be in danger of entering "starvation mode"? That sounds crazy to me.
You say I will have "earned" a generous whack (a wonderful unit of measurement which I thank you for) of calories from my long walks- what's to prevent me from deferring my "earnings" toward fat loss instead of replenishing them with food? As long as I'm meeting my basic nutritional needs and keeping the fires stoked, is there any real danger in that?0 -
In regards to eating well below your target, have you ever figured out your BMR? This site seems to be a good guesstimator
http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
A lot of people would recommend never eating less than your BMR, no matter what. A guy your size probably has a BMR of at least 1800, so many people here would tell you to eat at least that much per day no matter what. It's what your body needs to fuel hormones and nerve activity and stuff properly.0 -
It's hard to say exactly, because everyone is different. But eating sufficiently to maintain life/health (ie - eating your BMR at a minimum) is not necessarily enough to feel good. You'll likely be hungry, you might feel tired or have an unusually hard time getting out of bed in the morning, you might get headaches. You might wind up eating all those calories back in an extraordinary and frustrating binge. You might experience none of that and be totally fine on such a sharp deficit. (I sort of doubt it tho.)
Me, I like food, so I eat as much as I can get while still maintaining a reasonable deficit. Given that you're happy with your burn and you're still feeling okay, I might leave things as they are for a week or two and then reevaluate. If you think you're being excessively restrictive, you can always try bumping up your intake levels by 200 or 300 for a couple weeks and then reevaluate from there.0 -
Thanks to you both- WBB55, that BMR calculator is a great resource. Looks like my BMR is around 1950, which sounds about right in terms of a sustainable number that won't leave me hungry or weak while still losing weight at a slower pace.
But, taking Followingsea's comment to heart, I think considering that I've been well below my BMR for around two weeks, losing weight quickly and feeling terrific (possibly in part because of the gratification of losing weight and seeing results), that it might be okay to continue a more restrictive pace for- let's say another week- before letting things default to a more sustainable 2,000 calorie per day diet continuing to cut carbs. Perhaps work in a cheat day here and there to prevent a total bunker mentality.
Thanks again- I feel like I've gotten some great feedback here.0 -
Make it easy on yourself. Find out how much energy in calories you expend everyday. Now eat 500 less than that to lose about 1 pound a week. That would be your net calories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Make it easy on yourself. Find out how much energy in calories you expend everyday. Now eat 500 less than that to lose about 1 pound a week. That would be your net calories.
I definitely see the wisdom in that. But in just starting out, I see no harm in going a little bit more hardcore in a limited period of time to kickstart the process with some quick, encouraging weight loss- so long as it doesn't result in yo-yo-ing, which I realize is always the risk with anything too extreme.
On the whole, slow and steady wins the race. I personally have always found that "slow and steady" is much more difficult to maintain than declaring total war on your body fat- but it's still necessary to maintain a healthy and normal lifestyle. I'm hoping to begin with a calculated assault and ease into a more reasonable, 1lb/week regimen.0 -
I was just giving an example to find your "net" calories if you didn't understand it. How you lose weight is gonna be your choice.Make it easy on yourself. Find out how much energy in calories you expend everyday. Now eat 500 less than that to lose about 1 pound a week. That would be your net calories.
I definitely see the wisdom in that. But in just starting out, I see no harm in going a little bit more hardcore in a limited period of time to kickstart the process with some quick, encouraging weight loss- so long as it doesn't result in yo-yo-ing, which I realize is always the risk with anything too extreme.
On the whole, slow and steady wins the race. I personally have always found that "slow and steady" is much more difficult to maintain than declaring total war on your body fat- but it's still necessary to maintain a healthy and normal lifestyle. I'm hoping to begin with a calculated assault and ease into a more reasonable, 1lb/week regimen.
Personally I don't think fast weight loss is the way to go, but I don't counsel you so you're going to do what you think is going to work for you.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
OK so I read this thread and I'm still confused! I'm not understanding this net calorie thing. SO I'm going to ask my question super simple and hope that the answer is super simple.
My food goal is 1200 calories (picked by MFP with the guided goal setting thing. I didn't pick them manually) . So I eat 1200 calories. I work out and get a deficit of say 200 calories. That gives me a net of 1000 calories. Am I supposed to eat an additional 200 calories?0 -
In regards to "net calories" on this site it's supposed to be caloric intake minus calories burned through exercise. Using a heart rate monitor and jogging (2-3miles) 5 days a week and approx an hour a day of HIIT 6 days a week I average burning just an additional 1,200cal/day thus I eat approx 2,200-2,400 cal/day leaving a net between 700 on days I double up exercise to 2,400 on the one day a week I rest completely.0
-
OK so I read this thread and I'm still confused! I'm not understanding this net calorie thing. SO I'm going to ask my question super simple and hope that the answer is super simple.
My food goal is 1200 calories (picked by MFP with the guided goal setting thing. I didn't pick them manually) . So I eat 1200 calories. I work out and get a deficit of say 200 calories. That gives me a net of 1000 calories. Am I supposed to eat an additional 200 calories?
Yes - if you use the MFP settings system you are meant to eat back those 200 calories.
ie you eat 1200 (or whatever the thing sets you at) plus any calories earned by exercise.0 -
OK so I read this thread and I'm still confused! I'm not understanding this net calorie thing. SO I'm going to ask my question super simple and hope that the answer is super simple.
My food goal is 1200 calories (picked by MFP with the guided goal setting thing. I didn't pick them manually) . So I eat 1200 calories. I work out and get a deficit of say 200 calories. That gives me a net of 1000 calories. Am I supposed to eat an additional 200 calories?
Yes - if you use the MFP settings system you are meant to eat back those 200 calories.
ie you eat 1200 (or whatever the thing sets you at) plus any calories earned by exercise.
OK will do! Thanks for this nice simple answer
0 -
Don't complicate it. If MFP says 1200 to lose weight and you burn 200 calories from exercise, then eat 1400 calories. Take the 1200 and just add in whatever exercise you did to it and eat that amount.OK so I read this thread and I'm still confused! I'm not understanding this net calorie thing. SO I'm going to ask my question super simple and hope that the answer is super simple.
My food goal is 1200 calories (picked by MFP with the guided goal setting thing. I didn't pick them manually) . So I eat 1200 calories. I work out and get a deficit of say 200 calories. That gives me a net of 1000 calories. Am I supposed to eat an additional 200 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I am exactly the same duck,it really confuses me as well0
-
MFP gives me 1800 To maintain. Sedentary job but I do a half hour walk twice a day plus gym 4 times a week. I do use a fit bit which gives me 200-400extra calories. This has been working for me since Christmas. I always suggest trust your numbers for a couple of weeks, if the results are not what you expected tweek things a bit.0
-
MFP gives me 1800 To maintain. Sedentary job but I do a half hour walk twice a day plus gym 4 times a week. I do use a fit bit which gives me 200-400extra calories. This has been working for me since Christmas. I always suggest trust your numbers for a couple of weeks, if the results are not what you expected tweek things a bit.0
-
Don't complicate it. If MFP says 1200 to lose weight and you burn 200 calories from exercise, then eat 1400 calories. Take the 1200 and just add in whatever exercise you did to it and eat that amount.OK so I read this thread and I'm still confused! I'm not understanding this net calorie thing. SO I'm going to ask my question super simple and hope that the answer is super simple.
My food goal is 1200 calories (picked by MFP with the guided goal setting thing. I didn't pick them manually) . So I eat 1200 calories. I work out and get a deficit of say 200 calories. That gives me a net of 1000 calories. Am I supposed to eat an additional 200 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yesterday MFP yelled at me in red, I thought it was all over a measly 8 calories...maybe it was over 197 calories, now I'm not sure. I got the "*Based on your total calories consumed for today, you are eating too few calories." message.
So here's how yesterdays totals look
MFP calculated: 1200
Total: 1192
Your Daily goal: 1389
Remaining: 197
Earned: 189
Do I just need to make sure that I'm at the 1200 calorie mark by the end of the day? I don't have to eat the whole 1389 calories, right?0 -
So here's how yesterdays totals look
MFP calculated: 1200
Total: 1192
Your Daily goal: 1389
Remaining: 197
Earned: 189
Do I just need to make sure that I'm at the 1200 calorie mark by the end of the day? I don't have to eat the whole 1389 calories, right?
You want to eat a base of 1200 calories.
You did an additional 189 calories worth of exercise, which - added to your base calorie goal - brings you to a net of 1389.
You only ate 1192 calories, which is 197 below your adjusted goal, and fewer than you should be eating.
Eat to the Daily Goal function.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions