Net calorie consistency - are you hitting your target?

DeniseGdz

WOW. okay so I thought I was doing ok??

You can tell I just started at the beginning of April and you can tell the two spikes were Easter- how do I get more on the ball??

dad106

I took a look at mine and it's all pretty consistent except for one weekend when i went out of town and went nuts. Crazy how it turned out that way.

runningneo122

With all of you posting, I figured... why not. My screen capture thing didn't get the bars in it, so I did a photo. Dang Firefox add-on.

The other part that is missing on the right is more of the same. Feb. was when I upped the exercise on top of my running and just couldn't eat that much every day.

Don't know what happened on Feb. 3rd.... Hmmmm

sarah44254

I think maybe the first day is just displayed incorrectly. Feb 3 on many of the graphs posted here is negative, even when we are consistently awesome in the rest.

RiaLucia

Wow, I've only been doing it a couple of weeks, but its a pretty wild rollercoaster ride. However, I have posted a weight loss thus far. I need to invest in a good HRM so I can really know how many calories I burn when I exercise and eat accordingly...

funkyspunky871

SaraTonin

Cooool topic! Unfortunately I haven't been logging, well, hardly at all lately. I'm waiting til my first paycheck when I can start buying food again!

SCC88

Hope this works, I never eat back my exercise calories, and now I understand how extreme that is :noway:
Also I can remember that giant intake day - my anniversary and DAMN those jack daniels ribs were soooo worth it!! :happy:
Some of the ones that go under 500 are pretty scary!

PoleBoy

How do you get the graph of the net calories overlaying the calories eaten on the same graph?

the Gimp (an open source program like photoshop)

erickirb

My 90 day report is almost a straight line of perfection (with one spike to take in the universe's best fried chicken)

Just an FYI: The minimum Net cals for a man should be 1500, unless you are quite short. I notice you are under this amount most days. The 1200 is for women

reepobob

My 90 day report is almost a straight line of perfection (with one spike to take in the universe's best fried chicken)

Just an FYI: The minimum Net cals for a man should be 1500, unless you are quite short. I notice you are under this amount most days. The 1200 is for women

I'm 5'11" and am just following MFP's set up for a 2lb/week loss for my current weight. If I was bonking during workouts or feeling run down, I would probably bump up my intake and lower my weekly weight loss goals, but I am listening to my body and haven't had any issues with how I feel in general. The energy is up and I am getting through my workouts with no issues. I am sure as I get closer to my goal, I will need to up the calories, but I am still maintaining a solid 1.6-1.8 pounds/week lost on average. Thanks for the concern, but until my body starts failing me, I will stay the course...

PoleBoy

I'm 5'11" and am just following MFP's set up for a 2lb/week loss for my current weight. If I was bonking during workouts or feeling run down, I would probably bump up my intake and lower my weekly weight loss goals, but I am listening to my body and haven't had any issues with how I feel in general. The energy is up and I am getting through my workouts with no issues. I am sure as I get closer to my goal, I will need to up the calories, but I am still maintaining a solid 1.6-1.8 pounds/week lost on average. Thanks for the concern, but until my body starts failing me, I will stay the course...

Seriously, 1500 for men. MFP is doesn't apply the gender difference.

My bilaterial inguinal hernias say listening to your body might not work, as you might not get the warning 'til too late.

robin52077

My 90 day report is almost a straight line of perfection (with one spike to take in the universe's best fried chicken)

Just an FYI: The minimum Net cals for a man should be 1500, unless you are quite short. I notice you are under this amount most days. The 1200 is for women

I'm 5'11" and am just following MFP's set up for a 2lb/week loss for my current weight. If I was bonking during workouts or feeling run down, I would probably bump up my intake and lower my weekly weight loss goals, but I am listening to my body and haven't had any issues with how I feel in general. The energy is up and I am getting through my workouts with no issues. I am sure as I get closer to my goal, I will need to up the calories, but I am still maintaining a solid 1.6-1.8 pounds/week lost on average. Thanks for the concern, but until my body starts failing me, I will stay the course...

Bob, by the time you notice a problem, it could be too late. You could have screwed your metabolism up or caused another health problem. The best course of action is to increase NOW, since you ARE getting closer to your goal. Don't wait till your body starts "failing you". :frown:
1500 REALLY is the minimum for men, especially at your height! MFP can't put 2 separate caps on the minimum based on gender so they were forced to do the one.
Doesn't it sound good that you can eat a little more and still have the same loss?
I suggest changing it to ONE pound per week NOW before any damage IS done, that way you won't have to work so hard to repair a damaged metabolism. Just don't damage it in the first place. Sounds like a no-brainer to me!

Just trying to help.
I had to raise to 1500 to lose more, then up to 1600 to lose the last couple. And I'm 5'2" 107 lbs.
I eat 1600-2200 a day now. I can't believe I eat more than a 5'11" male. That's just nuts. If I eat that to maintain, SURELY you can eat that and LOSE, right?!?!?

bjam1234

oops - glad i looked at this :embarassed: think i will look again at eating more of my exercise cals...

good topic - nice seeing all the pretty graphs :happy:

kimark1

I have only been here for about 2 weeks and just looked at my graph. It is all over the place! Need to take a closer look and adjust my habits now! Thanks!

lisabel87

Can someone *PLEASE* explain net calories? I've read posts on it, but I'm still confused. I thought I understood what they were but one day my calories left over were only like 180 but my NET was over 1,000. How is that possible?

lottee1000

Wow! Just looked at mine and the pattern was so clear to see- under Sunday to Thursday, over Friday and Saturday. But waaaaay over! Will have to try to control my weekends!!

PJilly

I've never even looked at that report. Mine looks pretty good. I'm not all together sure this link is going to work. With fingers crossed...

Maybe second time's a charm?

runningneo122

Can someone *PLEASE* explain net calories? I've read posts on it, but I'm still confused. I thought I understood what they were but one day my calories left over were only like 180 but my NET was over 1,000. How is that possible?

Think of it like your checking account.

First thing in the morning, I have 2,000 calories of "bills" to pay out with my regular energy expenditure during the day.(Allowing for my 500 calorie deficit for weight loss.)

During the day, I run for 7 miles and "withdraw" 1,100 more calories.

During this same day, I eat/drink my 5 meals of 600 calories equaling a "deposit" of 3,000 calories.

3,100 burned/withdrawn
-3,000 eaten/deposited
-100 net cals This number would appear in RED on my Food Diary and my Home Page.

I need to eat another 100 calories to be out of the negative. "overdrawn"

Hope this helps.

ohthatmomma

Hi. So I am guessing that my net calories should be negative in order to see weight loss? If this is the case, that explains why I haven't seen much at all.

sarah44254

Hi. So I am guessing that my net calories should be negative in order to see weight loss? If this is the case, that explains why I haven't seen much at all.

The net should hopefully never ever be negative. The net should equal to your daily goal that MFP has set for you. MFP already sets a smaller calorie goal than what you need, so you are losing weight when you eat the goal recommended.

SHBoss1673

Hi. So I am guessing that my net calories should be negative in order to see weight loss? If this is the case, that explains why I haven't seen much at all.

It depends on your idea of NET.

The way we perceive NET on MFP, then no, in order to acheive weight loss, you set your goal to the desired loss, then using the MFP system your NET should be 0 or as close to 0 as you can. Going significantly below 0 would mean possibly creating to large of a deficit and can hamper fat loss if done on a long term basis (more than a couple of days).

If you were speaking of NET the way the rest of the world perceives NET calories (I.E. maintenance Plus exercise minus food) then yes, you'd want a negative number, but since MFP automatically reduces your maintenance to achieve the desired goal loss, you don't want or need to do this.