Calories are Confusing
Bmccutcheon85
Posts: 14 Member
Hi There
I just started MFP few weeks ago and I am confused. I hear about NET and calories consumed but I'm not sure what is best for me. I'm 5'2 28 years old and weigh 202. I have been trying to NET 1500 calories a day but that means I am eating 1976 calories in total a day.
All the calculators I have found always give me something different. I need a bit of guidance. Would it be ok to eat 1500 calories a day total and then exercise? I usually burn between 300-500 calories a day and workout 5 times a week.
Thanks!
Becky.
I just started MFP few weeks ago and I am confused. I hear about NET and calories consumed but I'm not sure what is best for me. I'm 5'2 28 years old and weigh 202. I have been trying to NET 1500 calories a day but that means I am eating 1976 calories in total a day.
All the calculators I have found always give me something different. I need a bit of guidance. Would it be ok to eat 1500 calories a day total and then exercise? I usually burn between 300-500 calories a day and workout 5 times a week.
Thanks!
Becky.
0
Replies
-
as you're over 200 lbs you can do practically anything for starters.
I don't know how accurate your calorie burn estimates are, looks like over an hour of exercise, but eating 1500 and exercising would be a place to start - after 3 or 4 weeks you can tweak it up or down.0 -
I was eating 1200 calories total and working out so netting about 700-800 a day and for 3 months lost maybe 2 pounds. I started netting 1200 just 2 weeks ago and have lost 2 pounds but now, looking at the calculators and all these posts, I'm really not sure what I should be eating a day.0
-
If you're burning 400-500 calories in exercise then you need to be eating those back, or at least half of them. Your net amount takes into account the calories you've burned- it subtracts them from what you've eaten for the day. If you are only eating 1500 and burning 300-500 then you're only netting 1000-1200 for the day. You need to refuel after your workouts. Don't be afraid to eat :bigsmile:
What is your weight loss goal per week? If it's 2 lbs, try lowering it to 1 or 1.5. Whatever you choose to do, stick with it for at least 4-6 weeks then re-evaluate.0 -
Right. I guess My question is what should I be netting for the day? I manually put in 1500 calories a day in MFP. It had my at 1200 and that didn't work.0
-
Right. I guess My question is what should I be netting for the day?
What rate are you trying to lose at?
Here's what I got with a calorie calculator:
You need 2,034 Calories/day to maintain your weight.
You need 1,534 Calories/day to lose 1 lb per week.
You need 1,034 Calories/day to lose 2 lb per week.
I'd say you're right on track trying to net 1500 calories per day. Eat back your exercise calories, or most of them. That also depends upon how accurately you're tracking them. Don't use the MFP values for exercise, it's widely accepted that MFP exaggerates those numbers. As does exercise equipment, but not as badly. Stick to whatever numbers you set for a month, and see how much you lose.
Check these links as well.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here0 -
Thank you for your post! Very Helpful
0 -
People will VEHEMENTLY disagree with me on this but I think you should be eating enough healthy and nutritious food to keep you satisfied and performing well (i.e. making improvements) when exercising.
If you need a specific number to start with, the recommendations that MFP gives are a good place to start. It's reasonably safe to assume that the exercise calories provided are at least slightly more than you actually burn though so a lot of people got for 50-80% of those.
If I ate back my exercise calories I would be shoving in 3500 calories of food a day instead of 1700-2000 that I seem to need to feel full and have the energy I need to get through a full day of exercise.
No weight loss plan is likely to be successful though if you are hungry all the time so you really want to spend some time finding foods that are good for you and leave you feeling full. Most people stress about losing weight right when they start but I would say the best start is one where you start finding out how to fuel your body well, the weight loss will come along eventually and likely be much more sustainable.
Anyway, good luck, lots of people will probably have ideas for you so hopefully you find some that work well for you.0 -
Hi!
I'm actually a Registered Dietitian, and I think you have a great question!
If you've lost 2 lb in 2 weeks, that is great! Safe weight loss is considered 1-2 lb per week. There really isn't a right or wrong answer to what you SHOULD be netting per day. It all depends on how quickly you are projecting your weight loss to be. Meaning a net of 1800 would lead to slower weight loss than a net of 1500 cals.
Roughly, if you net 1500 cals/day (so eating 1800-2000 cals, and also burning 300-500 cals), you would be in almost an 800 cal deficit per day based on your current weight of 202 lb. This should lead to about 1.5 lbs weight loss per week. Of course as your weight decreases, the cal deficit per day will slowly become smaller, but still significant and still leading to weight loss. You could stay at that 1500 target net calorie for about 12 weeks or until you have lost 20 lbs or so before you may want to re-evaluate for a new target net calorie goal.
Hope that helps!0 -
Thank you and yes it does help! :happy:0
-
I'd also suggest spending some time understanding where possible errors can occur if you are new to logging your food. You can unknowingly have errors that interfere with your goals.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
Good luck!0 -
Do consume ATLEAST 1300 net calories and take care of the macros,especially proteins. With that in mind, try to do the best that you can.0
-
You have the information you need; 3 to 4 posts have provided what you need Best of luck with goals.0
-
If you were eating 1200 calories/day and not losing weight, there was an issue with either tracking calories or tracking exercise.0
-
I appreciate your feedback but no I was tracking/weighing everything and exercising. Anyway when I upped my calories I started losing. I was netting around 700-800 which was making me tired.0
-
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.0
-
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.0 -
I understand your confusion because it is definitely a confusing topic. But I have done a lot of reading and research, and based on my experience with what I'm about to tell you, this is how it works. With your age, gender, weight, and height, you are given a specific amount of calories to be able to consume to acheive a certain goal. We all know this. But the problem is that people don't know if that means before or after factoring exercise. That number you got of 1976 is what I got when I plugged your numbers into a calculator assuming you are moderately active. Now here is what confuses people: This number is what you're given AFTER exercise is factored in. So you don't need to and should not "eat the calories back" because that defeats the purpose of the calculator. So here is what you could probably do to get started. First, decide how much you want to lose per week. 1-2 pounds is a very healthy amount per week, so just choose which one you want. If you want to lose 2 per week, then eat 1500 calories, exercise like normal, and DON"T track it on MFP because it'll just add more calories to your day which just throws everything off. That's what I hate about MFP. But anyways, if you only want to lose 1 pound, then consume 2000 calories, exercise like normal, and don't track the exercise. But keep in mind that this is assuming you're doing the exercise you listed at the times you listed. Now, another user said that you will have to change your calorie goals as you lose weight, which is true. Once you lose about 10 pounds or so, it's time to recalculate your numbers.
I hope this helps and once again, this is what I have researched and I've gotten the best results this way so you should definitely try it. It may not work for everyone, but you don't know until you try. The last thing I would like to mention is that you want to make sure you are hitting your macros as accurately as you can. Don't eliminate a single one, that doesn't do any good in the long run. So make sure you are consuming the proper ratio or proteins, carbs, and fats that the calculators give you, and your body composition will improve and you will reach your goals. I hope this helped!!0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material
*high five*0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material
*high five*
I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.
It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.0 -
Hi guys!
Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.0 -
Hi guys!
Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.
I hear you and I'm glad you started seeing progress. If you get a few minutes, check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiments, it's a good look into human biology and metabolism. Keep up the good work!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material
*high five*
I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.
It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.
If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material
*high five*
I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.
It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.
If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.
I'm welcome? I don't think you understand what you're arguing. Feel free to message me if you want to continue discussing, this thread isn't the place for it.0 -
I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.
Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.
Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.
^^this is thumbs up material
*high five*
I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.
It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.
If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.
I'm welcome? I don't think you understand what you're arguing. Feel free to message me if you want to continue discussing, this thread isn't the place for it.
No thanks, I don't really have time/interest to go around with people in PMs today about calories. Anyone who says a net of 700-800 calories is perfectly fine isn't thinking straight IMO, so I'm glad this girl is getting on track with her food and workouts and finding more success.0 -
Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers0
-
Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers
Basically, YES.0 -
I think I saw the OP slowly backing out of her own thread..... wondering WTF she had started? :huh:
MFP - Eat all the donuts that fit in your macros
MFP - I am a sugar addict, and donuts make me fat0 -
Google TDEE and you will find calculators, put in your info. including the correct amount of activity you do, take that number and subtract 10-20% to get to a deficit (20% would be more like 2 lbs. per week loss). Eat that number of calories, don't worry about net or gross, just keep doing what you are doing, and eat that number of calories.Hi guys!
Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.0 -
Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers
I got ya, friend. I appreciate the response. You're absolutely correct in that a caloric deficit too great is a detriment, it's outright unhealthy - the goal is to mitigate what your body uses for fuel (i.e. fat vs muscle). My thing is that people often rely on this starvation mode idea to compensate for sloppy calculations. Based on past studies it's shown that metabolism doesn't show a substantial decrease until further weight loss will literally kill people. Very interesting stuff if you get a chance to read the Minnesota Starvation Experiments.
Either way, best of luck to OP - determination is the key0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions