Gross calories vs net calories

CharleneM723

Hi All,

First, please do not critique my exact numbers. I may be off with actual burn amounts, but my question is more of a mathematical one.

Let's say as a 137lb 28 year old female, I burn 1800 calories per day for day to day activities, not including formal exercise. This includes shopping, cleaning, bathing, cooking, digesting, walking to the bus, etc. (Now my 1800 example may be off, I chose it so I could use round numbers). That means, that over a 24 hour period, ON AVERAGE, I am burning 75 calories per hour. Of course some hours may have a higher burn than other hours, but again, ON AVERAGE.

Now let's say I run 6.2 miles every evening in one hour. ON AVERAGE, let's say I burn 500 calories. Depending on course and level of exertion, that may be higher or lower. Technically, I really only burned an additional 425 calories because I would have burned 75 calories regardless during that hour of exercise. Now technically I guess one could argue that the rest of my day may be busier so I will still have to shower, go shopping, etc and those normal activities will be transferred to other hours, but that amount is negligible.

I am a math fanatic. It bothers me that most people don't pay attention to this gross vs net calorie burn. Do you? What are your thoughts on this? Very few weight loss articles take this into account.

Charlene

BigT555

ive thought about this before too, people often forget that you burn calories merely sitting at a desk. im not really sure if values given for calorie burn take this into account or not. perhaps this is why people find that MFP exercise estimations are often high, they might not be taking this factor into account.

personally i dont track exercise in terms of calorie burn. it mucks everything up, i prefer just to keep it simple and average out my intake whether i exercise or not

WalkingAlong

I think very few weight loss articles take it into account because very few weight loss plans have you use a HRM for a calorie estimate and then 'eat back'. I've never seen any besides MFP. If you're not eating based on the estimate, it doesn't matter.

BigT555

I think very few weight loss articles take it into account because very few weight loss plans have you use a HRM for a calorie estimate and then 'eat back'. I've never seen any besides MFP. If you're not eating based on the estimate, it doesn't matter.

i think using a HRM is the only way this wouldnt matter, since that HRM would take into account the fact that you burn calories at a resting rate (from what i understand at least, never used one myself)

if you are counting calories then you should be eating back exercise calories (assuming that you are basing your average intake off of a sedentary lifestyle, which the values from MFP are) so your going to be getting estimate numbers for these burns, either from something like the MFP database or the value given on say an eliptical. the question is whether these values include the calories that you would have burned at rest in that same time period, if so then people are potentially overeating due to misinformation (or what could be considered misinformation to some)

maidentl

personally i dont track exercise in terms of calorie burn. it mucks everything up, i prefer just to keep it simple and average out my intake whether i exercise or not

Same here. I was getting way too bogged down in worrying about all of the numbers. I found a TDEE calculator that told me how much to eat and just started eating that, every day, regardless of exercise. Weight seems to be coming off fine.

IoveIy

It's unfortunate that you really can't be certain of exactly how many calories you're burning off or even how many calories you're eating since there is always room for error (especially when measuring things). Even the calorie count that is printed on the nutrition label is often an overestimate to allow for error.

I don't do any kind of proper exercise routine very much or very often, but even when I do, I don't eat my exercise calories. They're just an added plus for me.

Kita328

personally i dont track exercise in terms of calorie burn. it mucks everything up, i prefer just to keep it simple and average out my intake whether i exercise or not

Same here. I was getting way too bogged down in worrying about all of the numbers. I found a TDEE calculator that told me how much to eat and just started eating that, every day, regardless of exercise. Weight seems to be coming off fine.

^This.

I use TDEE. Makes the most sense to me

rsoice

I think you might be over thinking it but that's just what I think...:laugh:

CharleneM723

I have my activity set to light activity. I am a flight attendant and am on the move ALL the time. Walking, pulling, pushing, lifting, carrying, etc. Most days I log over 14K steps without exercise. Plus I stand a lot, bend over, squat, you know, all things you'd love doing wearing pantyhose, 4" heels, and a dress made from polyester.

Typically, I try to maintain and only exercise for fitness. I like to do triathlons and running races, but recently put on almost 20lbs in 3 weeks from steroids, an illness that kept me out of the sun, and, well, the awfulness of being sick and feeling like poo. I just want to nail down how much I should be eating to create a weight loss. Before, with exercise of 5-6 days per week, I maintained on about 2400-2700 per day roughly. I know eating less than that will be a deficit, but it's hard balancing weight loss with training. Monday I start a formal 26.2 training program and I don't want to struggle thru it, but I also don't have clothes to wear because I am bigger as well as heavier.

Thanks for your suggestions and help.

StaciMarie1974

I think this is where some run into trouble, with overestimating their burn. Such as counting 500 calories for the run instead of 425. Offset by the general recommendation that's posted here to eat back only 50-75% of one's exercise calories. The 25-50% not eaten would take care of it. But that's also assuming when using an app like MyFitnessPal, that someone has not overestimated their activity level. Claiming lightly active when they barely move thru the day, so not burning as much thru daily activity as expected. Which means less deficit, if any.

And then there is the issue where people have unrealistic expectations of what they burn. I burn on average 5-7 calories per minute on the treadmill, between walking and running. My treadmill may say I've burned 530 in 50 minutes. Which is at least 200 too high. My treadmill gives a calorie burn # without an option to enter my height, weight, etc. I know to disregard it, but it would be nice to claim that higher #.

Personally I use an activity tracker (Fitbit One) which estimates my total daily burn, including BMR, based on how active I am/# of steps taken per day. I know its not perfect but its working for me. My official goal is a 500 daily deficit, but I like to end with a little extra as buffer, to make up for the fact the Fitbit cannot possibly be 100% accurate and that no matter how hard I try, I can't be 100% accurate on my intake.

StaciMarie1974

FWIW I have my activity set to lightly active also. I tend to get 12-13k steps per day, and that's a little more than lightly active but not quite active. Here is why I think that:

In telling MFP that I'm 'lightly active', based on my stats MFP expects me to burn 1900 per day total (not counting exercise) and therefore I'm at a goal of 1400 for intake. My personal goal is to burn at least 2100 per day (counting all sources of burn) which I judge by the Fitbit. I tend to 'earn' an extra 200-400 calories, as I'm burning more than the 1900 MFP expects.

Going to active would mean I'd need to burn at least 2150 per day. And as I like to burn more than my MFP goal, but not sure I can consistently do 2200-2400 per day, I've left it at lightly active.

SezxyStef

considering everything is an estimate anyway not sure it really makes that big of a difference....

The only way to get exact numbers is in a lab setting and you can't live in a lab...

If you are losing when you want it's all good..if you are maintaining when you want to maintain it's all good...etc

CharleneM723

http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

I used this calculator.

My BMR was 1412 and my TDEE was 2700. You use dials to adjust time for different intensities based on time. It was pretty consistent with me saying on an average day with exercise, I maintain at 2400-2700. Eating at 1500/day for 9 days, I have lost 2.1lbs which would be about 1,000 cal/day deficit. "Mathematically" I should have lost 2.6lbs, but I have to account for water, hormone, and other fluctuations.

I hope 1500/day is enough to get thru the first few weeks of my 26.2 training plan....I know to increase if I struggle with energy.

justformel

I wear a bodymedia so I know what I burn in a day, so I can always make sure I'm in a deficit, even on days when I seem to eat more. I also am a math nerd so seeing the numbers in front of me makes me feel better and not so bad if I do go over what MFP says I should eat in a day.

I now know on lazy Sundays when I'm not very active I can burn as low as 1800-1900 cals, but if I'm cleaning up a storm that number can be 3000+ just like on my workout days. But an average workday I am in the 2500 range.