Need to settle this once and for all!

Kalikel

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.

You would say that if...what? If I actually said something about other people's success or potential to succeed?

None of the things I listed makes a person dumb.

PikaKnight

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.

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.

I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.

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.

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).

Mr_Knight

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.

monhumbert

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.

WalkingAlong

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.

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.

MelodyandBarbells

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 effectiveness

bwogilvie

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.

WalkingAlong

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.

MelodyandBarbells

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 disappeared

ryanwood935

OP here's my POV. If your goal is to strictly lose weight, don't eat the calories back. Now, if your goal is to look great and be more toned overall, eat them back. The reason being that the further into a deficit you go , the more LBM you will be losing along with fat. Take it slow and you will thank yourself in the long run.

Kalikel

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 disappeared