Need to settle this once and for all!
Replies
-
I think I mentioned 800 first.
I also think most people here know there's nothing inherently wrong with eating under your BMR. I think the ones who still don't just tend to appear in the threads where it's being discussed because they strongly believe that they're correct and are saving young clueless waifs from starvation, because it does sound sort of correct on the surface and it did used to be believed here by most people.0 -
why are u eating at BMR? Arent you ravenously hungry?
I eat at my BMR - actually just under - but that is net not total.
And no I'm not hungry. But then my BMR is high, cos I'm a heifer! It just means I can't eat all of the treats I would like to.0 -
Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.
Adult women, too.
It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.
Lol wut? :huh:0 -
Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.0 -
You'll lose more if you eat fewer calories.Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.0 -
Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.
Don't eat back your calories you burned off.
Here's why.
1: the bigger the deficit the bigger the loss.
2. Anything type of energy that your body needs, and you if you refuse to eat, then your body will process your muscles and fat.0 -
and lose more LBM and possibly interfere with hormone regulation.
You'll lose more if you eat fewer calories.Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.
Look it is all context relevant as explained before, if you are morbidly obese yes you can have a higher deficit as opposed to someone with a small amount to lose but you have to consider the benefits and negative aspects of creating a high or low deficit.
For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.
Here is a link that describes to a certain degree what happens when you eat at too high of a deficit...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
I am out as this thread is just going around in circles, OP I hope you got some sort of closure out of this sideshow of a thread.
Best way to describe it in my humble opinion...
0 -
The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.0 -
I am 21, female and weigh 57 kg. My BMR is roughly 1319 and I go to the gym 6 days a week. I burn roughly 350 calories each time I'm there.
My question is; if I'm eating my BMR (minimum calories) do I need to eat back my 'burnt' calories?
Thanks.
OP the hypo 'if I'm eating my BMR' is what was asked so yes eat back your exercise calories.0 -
I just came here to say don't mess with Texas.
Bwahahaha! :laugh:0 -
Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.
Adult women, too.
It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.
Speak for yourself. :indifferent:0 -
Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.
Adult women, too.
It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.
Generalizations of what women do or are capable of is insulting to all women. I would say that a good number of women here are smarter than this and more successful with their fitness than you realize.0 -
An ideology seemingly shared by the majority of the people on this site.
That's like taking dating advice from Kim Kardashian.0 -
For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.
Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.
MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.0 -
Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.0 -
Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.
I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.0 -
For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.
Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.
MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.
Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet0 -
For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.
Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.
MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.
Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet
Say what you want but I know I'm going to be the 5% that doesn't put the weight back on. It's got nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with the will to do what needs to be done.0 -
I googled 'what is net calories' to see. Most of the first page referred to MFP. The only other uses of the term, which I think are both valid uses are (1) total burn minus total intake, aka your calorie deficit or surplus and (2) net vs. gross calories burned through exercise, as in a run burns 100 calories gross per mile or 80 calories net of BMR.
Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.
I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.
No one else considers this a thing: Calories you eat minus your workout calories. That is pure MFP. It only is used here because of how MFP does its math, excluding your workout from your deficit.0 -
I googled 'what is net calories' to see. Most of the first page referred to MFP. The only other uses of the term, which I think are both valid uses are (1) total burn minus total intake, aka your calorie deficit or surplus and (2) net vs. gross calories burned through exercise, as in a run burns 100 calories gross per mile or 80 calories net of BMR.
Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.
I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.
No one else considers this a thing: Calories you eat minus your workout calories. That is pure MFP. It only is used here because of how MFP does its math, excluding your workout from your deficit.
What? I've known about net calories since my 7th grade science teacher explained calories in vs calories out. It was the basis for an entire section of one my college exercise physiology classes. Just because your quick Google search didn't yield you the result you weren't looking for, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.
Google =/= the end all be all in research
Sheesh.0 -
You would say that if...what? If I actually said something about other people's success or potential to succeed?Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.
Adult women, too.
It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.
Generalizations of what women do or are capable of is insulting to all women. I would say that a good number of women here are smarter than this and more successful with their fitness than you realize.
None of the things I listed makes a person dumb.0 -
I googled 'what is net calories' to see. Most of the first page referred to MFP. The only other uses of the term, which I think are both valid uses are (1) total burn minus total intake, aka your calorie deficit or surplus and (2) net vs. gross calories burned through exercise, as in a run burns 100 calories gross per mile or 80 calories net of BMR.
Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.
1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.
Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.
I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.
No one else considers this a thing: Calories you eat minus your workout calories. That is pure MFP. It only is used here because of how MFP does its math, excluding your workout from your deficit.
Actually no. The NEAT method is not unique to MFP.
Also, "netting" low (or restricting calories below your BMR while exercising and not eating those calories back) is actually a problem in the long run as your body will not be getting the sufficient nutrients it needs - not just in regards to fueling your body, but also for maintaining muscle, joint health and such. It is also a red flag as it could point towards the person having disordered eating issues or having an ED (Anorexia Athletica).0 -
Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet
That's not at all what I said.
Not at all.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I am 21, female and weigh 57 kg. My BMR is roughly 1319 and I go to the gym 6 days a week. I burn roughly 350 calories each time I'm there.
My question is; if I'm eating my BMR (minimum calories) do I need to eat back my 'burnt' calories?
Thanks.
OP the hypo 'if I'm eating my BMR' is what was asked so yes eat back your exercise calories.
Thank you! You seem to be the only person who remembers what the original post was.0 -
Can you show me one use of 'net calories', not referring to MFP, where the term is used to refer to 'calories eaten in a day minus calories burned from a workout', like MFP does. Your college physiology class resources would work fine.What? I've known about net calories since my 7th grade science teacher explained calories in vs calories out. It was the basis for an entire section of one my college exercise physiology classes. Just because your quick Google search didn't yield you the result you weren't looking for, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.
Google =/= the end all be all in research
Sheesh.0 -
Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet
That's not at all what I said.
Not at all.
Seemed close enough to me.
My interpretation of these two statements: "Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.
MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism. "
Was that every "diet" including MFP has the same rate of failure and recidivism. Which to me would mean they all have the same level of long term effectiveness0 -
I guess this would be more YMMV then. I used a HRM when I was using MFP's method, and it never hindered my rate of loss. Maybe I was just lucky with my estimates.
HRM accuracy varies. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.
Personally, I find that my Garmin Edge 800 bike computer/HRM does a pretty good job of estimating calorie burn, based on comparison between its estimates and my weight loss. But the Sigma bike computer/HRM that it replaced produced estimates that were 15-30% higher. The Garmin uses Firstbeat's proprietary algorithm that analyzes the time between individual heartbeats, rather than relying on an average; Firstbeat claims that it's significantly more accurate than standard HRMs.0 -
There is so much money and time spent here by people trying to fine tune their estimates, and so much trust in the estimates and concern about them. The reason so many diet plans don't use food scales and BMR calculators and HRMs is because in the end, it's all always an estimate, and a rough estimate is ok as long as you're fairly consistent in your error direction and magnitude, which I think we tend to be.
E.g., maybe the calculators + HRM say I burn 2200 calories on average and my food scale and log said I ate 1700 average. If I'm not losing a pound a week on average (over time, not 1-2 weeks), I don't need to know which value is mis-estimated, I just need to aim for less food or more activity. As long as what I think is 1700 is fairly stable over time, I can aim for 1500 and be pretty sure of being under my former 1700 level. Or aim for 200 calories more of exercise per day. And watch those results.
I think most people here could ignore their burn levels and just eat somewhere in the 1200 (smaller women) to 1800 (larger people) range and just tweak based on their results. It's the 'eat back' thing that makes people go down the rabbit hole with the numbers, and the starvation mode message, if you ask me.0 -
There is so much money and time spent here by people trying to fine tune their estimates, and so much trust in the estimates and concern about them. The reason so many diet plans don't use food scales and BMR calculators and HRMs is because in the end, it's all always an estimate, and a rough estimate is ok as long as you're fairly consistent in your error direction and magnitude, which I think we tend to be.
E.g., maybe the calculators + HRM say I burn 2200 calories on average and my food scale and log said I ate 1700 average. If I'm not losing a pound a week on average (over time, not 1-2 weeks), I don't need to know which value is mis-estimated, I just need to aim for less food or more activity. As long as what I think is 1700 is fairly stable over time, I can aim for 1500 and be pretty sure of being under my former 1700 level. Or aim for 200 calories more of exercise per day. And watch those results.
I think most people here could ignore their burn levels and just eat somewhere in the 1200 (smaller women) to 1800 (larger people) range and just tweak based on their results. It's the 'eat back' thing that makes people go down the rabbit hole with the numbers, and the starvation mode message, if you ask me.
It's a preference and mentality issue. For me , the whole process is pointless if I don't get to see and record my cardio burn numbers. And yes, eat them back. Like seriously. Would jump off a cliff if the concept disappeared0
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