Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead

tabinmaine

The more I watch people's weight loss journey's the more I am convinced that as long as your "calories consumed" is over your BMR it does not matter what you burn off.....

I have tried all methods, eating 1200 and excercise cal back, eating my BMR plus exercise calories, eating TDEE -15%, and the people I see with the greatest results and consistant weight losses are the ones who regularily eat over their BMR, closest to maintenance and don't bother with worrying about their net calories even if they are UNDER their BMR...

Could it be that eating back what you burn off is the reason people are not losing weight ? Maybe our body's do not care if we net below our BMR as long as we EAT/CONSUME over BMR's ????

I think the word NET is what is screwing everyone up on here.....just eat over your BMR and leave it at that !

Thoughts ???

shiseido_faerie

bump, curious about this because i've been wondering too

ANewLucia

Tabi, you don't want mine...lol. You know what I am going to say:-)

ElizabethRoad

I think you're experiencing an observational bias. I doubt you've done a systematic study of this.

Maybe our body's do not care if we net below our BMR as long as we EAT/CONSUME over BMR's ????

Our bodies don't care about anything. Our brains do the thinking and caring. Our bodies merely follow the laws of physics.

4my2jays

bump, very interested in comments

bcattoes

I've never really understood the need to eat over your BMR. I get eating your exercise calories back, but once you take exercise calories out of the equation, it seems you'd need to eat under your BMR to lose weight (gross would likely be over, but net should be under).

tabinmaine

Tabi, you don't want mine...lol. You know what I am going to say:-)

I know what you will say Lucia....but the truth is that I have studied many people's diaries who are "eating more to weigh less" and their diaries show deficits below BMR after exercise..... so yes, they eat 2000-2200 calories a day....but they burn off 700-900 in exercise..... so technically, their nets are not above BMR

NeverGivesUp

I think everyone is different and you have to find what works for you. Eating a lot even though I exercise a lot doesn't work for me to lose weight unfortunately either. I wish I didn't have sucha big appetite. I thinking eatin around your BMR is a good way to do it.

tabinmaine

I think what I am saying is that if you eat at your maintenance or close to your TDEE then if you exercise it down below your BMR it does not seem to effect the weight loss...... actually those that do this seem to be having the best results, very little loss in lean mass and scale movement.

NeverGivesUp

Eat under your BMR only if you have been in bed all day doing nothing, otherwise you have more than likely burned more calories than what your BMR is.

deksgrl

The issue is people not understanding the terms they are using. Or, they are underestimating the calories they are actually eating, or overestimating their burn.

For example, just in this thread someone said they don't know why anyone would eat over BMR.

BMR means basal metabolic rate. It is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to keep you alive.

tabinmaine

Eat under your BMR only if you have been in bed all day doing nothing, otherwise you have more than likely burned more calories than what your BMR is.

I am not suggesting eating under your BMR....or even at it..... I am saying those that eat high calories, EXERCISE down below their BMR and are successful with this method.....and they don't eat it back up....

tabinmaine

I see many many women who say " I eat over 2000 calories a day", and it's true, they DO eat that much..... but then they teach a Zumba class, lift weights and go for a walk with their dog..... 744 calories later.....they net below their BMR, but they don't eat those calories back......

_John

eating back what you burn off is the reason people are not losing weight ?

Eating too many cals is why people aren't losing weight. I reckon what some folks do is set MFP to activity level "active" which allows them some more cals to eat. Then they add their exercise in and that adds even more cals to eat. A nice idea but you're getting the cal allowance twice if you do that.

--

deksgrl

I think what I am saying is that if you eat at your maintenance or close to your TDEE then if you exercise it down below your BMR it does not seem to effect the weight loss...... actually those that do this seem to be having the best results, very little loss in lean mass and scale movement.

If people use this site correctly, then their amount that MFP gives them, plus their exercise calories to equal net calories SHOULD come out to about the same as if you figured out your TDEE and then just reduced calories by 15-20% and exercised.

The problem I believe is that everyone chooses the thing that says "I want to lose 2 pounds per week" because, who wouldn't you know, and it puts them below their actual BMR.

Larry0445

I have lost 22 lbs,since March 1st. I exercise 4 times a week and I usually don't eat back all my calories. And on the days I don't exercise,I usually leave any where's from 2-400 cals in the green. I have my intake set at my BMR,and work off that. Feel free to check my diary out. The biggest thing....keep your sugars and fat in the green and you will lose weight.

mangobadango

I try to focus on eating around what my BMR is, regardless of how many calories I burn. I'm finding that I lose weight when I do this and have been doing so consistently. I ignore the Net and just make sure my total calories eaten is around my daily goal.

ouandi

I think it's different for everyone. I've been eating back my exercise calories for awhile now and I'm not losing any weight so this week I started to eat near maintenance and not eat my exercise calories back. I'm sure I'll be below my BMR some days but over the week I bet I'll be pretty close to it or even a bit over.

I don't believe it's just physics. Some people's bodies respond to stress differently then others. Mine goes into shut down mode if I do too intense cardio and my belly starts to expand despite the calorie deficit. Others can eat a diet full of sugar and lose weight, others can't.

I think everyone should try different approaches and find what allows them to lose weight and keep it off!

ladyace2078

I only struggled with net calories when I started working out. Before I was working out, net calories were fine because I had no exercise to speak of, which meant calories consumed = net calories.

My TDEE is 2600 and my BMR 1600. MFP used to set net goal for 1700 net calories. I would try to reach that goal, but found myself eating about 2500-2600 calories a day to do so. This seemed counter intuitive since that's how much I would eat to MAINTAIN and I wanted to lose.

Now I ignore net. I pay attention to my TDEE and BMR. I always consume above my BMR and I take my deficit from my TDEE. I eat about 2200 calories a day which is a 400 calorie deficity from TDEE. Basically I target somewhere less than TDEE but more than BMR for calories consumed.

Here's another way I think of it:

I have 12 lbs to lose, which means I have 42,000 calories in excess storage (3500 calories = 1 lb, so 12 lb x 3500 = 42,000 calories). I need to burn those storage calories off.

I burn a total of 2600 calories from living/breathing/pumping blood (BMR) and exercise/normal life. But I feed my body 2200 calories a day and then it uses 400 calories from my 42,000 calories of storage to cover my energy needs of 2600 calories. I am whittling my 'storage' calories, or excess pounds away at 400 cal/day.

ETA: And I meant to say that this took trial and error over a 2 month plateau for me to figure out. Once I figured out that I was eating enough calories to maintain my weight, it was no suprise I wasn't losing. Then it took a few more weeks to find the sweet spot. At a 400 calorie deficit I lose about 0.5 lb/week. I'm also doing heavy lifting and very close to my goal weight, so I'm not surprised.

bcattoes

The issue is people not understanding the terms they are using. Or, they are underestimating the calories they are actually eating, or overestimating their burn.

For example, just in this thread someone said they don't know why anyone would eat over BMR.

BMR means basal metabolic rate. It is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to keep you alive.

I said that and I know perfectly well what it means. Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight. If you lose, that would just mean that the calculated BMR isn't correct for you (which it often isn't). You have to consume (absorb) less calories than your body will use in order to lose weight.

People on this site rely very heavily on BMR and TDEE calculation formulas when those are just formulas for the average person. It's only going to be a rough estimate on a personal level.

lilpe5512

I asked a personal trainer about this concept last night. He states that you don't have to eat back what you burn. He states just eat something after exercising. He said he problem that people are having is that they eat 50-75% of the burned calories back and their body holds on to those calories. Once you have gotten your body adapted to a good steady work-out routine then you should eat about 25-50% of those calories burned but no more.

ElizabethRoad

Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.

That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...

tabinmaine

To me it just makes perfect sense to eat at your maintenance level or between your BMR and TDEE and exercise..... and then leave it at that.... let exercise create your deficit.....don't eat it back, no matter what amount the deficit is...

If you don't exercise than I am not sure what to say as I have not tried to lose weight by diet alone...

deksgrl

To me it just makes perfect sense to eat at your maintenance level or between your BMR and TDEE and exercise..... and then leave it at that.... let exercise create your deficit.....don't eat it back, no matter what amount the deficit is...

If you don't exercise than I am not sure what to say as I have not tried to lose weight by diet alone...

That makes sense to a lot of people. And from what I have heard, most other sites do it from that perspective. This one is set up so that you can do it by diet alone.

neanderthin

BMR should be stricken from the nutritional landscape, it's apparently too confusing.

graysmom2005

I only struggled with net calories when I started working out. Before I was working out, net calories were fine because I had no exercise to speak of, which meant calories consumed = net calories.

My TDEE is 2600 and my BMR 1600. MFP used to set net goal for 1700 net calories. I would try to reach that goal, but found myself eating about 2500-2600 calories a day to do so. This seemed counter intuitive since that's how much I would eat to MAINTAIN and I wanted to lose.

Now I ignore net. I pay attention to my TDEE and BMR. I always consume above my BMR and I take my deficit from my TDEE. I eat about 2200 calories a day which is a 400 calorie deficity from TDEE. Basically I target somewhere less than TDEE but more than BMR for calories consumed.

Here's another way I think of it:

I have 12 lbs to lose, which means I have 42,000 calories in excess storage (3500 calories = 1 lb, so 12 lb x 3500 = 42,000 calories). I need to burn those storage calories off.

I burn a total of 2600 calories from living/breathing/pumping blood (BMR) and exercise/normal life. But I feed my body 2200 calories a day and then it uses 400 calories from my 42,000 calories of storage to cover my energy needs of 2600 calories. I am whittling my 'storage' calories, or excess pounds away at 400 cal/day.

ETA: And I meant to say that this took trial and error over a 2 month plateau for me to figure out. Once I figured out that I was eating enough calories to maintain my weight, it was no suprise I wasn't losing. Then it took a few more weeks to find the sweet spot. At a 400 calorie deficit I lose about 0.5 lb/week. I'm also doing heavy lifting and very close to my goal weight, so I'm not surprised.

DING DING. I think you've nailed it and I don't think the OP is off either. NET killed me. Worrying about it that is. I workout so damn much that when eating back my exercise calories I was eating way too much. My TDEE is around 2800, My BMR is 1600. I'm eating around 2200 right now. I lost my 8 pounds of Christmas weight and it's still to be determined if more will come off. I'm sore constantly from working out...so I can never get a good day to weigh myself!

shaycat

The more I watch people's weight loss journey's the more I am convinced that as long as your "calories consumed" is over your BMR it does not matter what you burn off.....

I have tried all methods, eating 1200 and excercise cal back, eating my BMR plus exercise calories, eating TDEE -15%, and the people I see with the greatest results and consistant weight losses are the ones who regularily eat over their BMR, closest to maintenance and don't bother with worrying about their net calories even if they are UNDER their BMR...

Could it be that eating back what you burn off is the reason people are not losing weight ? Maybe our body's do not care if we net below our BMR as long as we EAT/CONSUME over BMR's ????

I think the word NET is what is screwing everyone up on here.....just eat over your BMR and leave it at that !

Thoughts ???

YES! I was just starting to think this way. "net" was really screwing me up. So I changed my goals to 1700 and stopped eating my calories back. Yes some days I burn 500 so I am netting under my 1300 bmr, but come on, I am not starving. I am eating plenty. I think it is bad to EAT under your bmr not NET under it.

bcattoes

Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.

That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...

I don't think little things like make enough of a difference in such a generic calculation. If we were somehow able to know exactly what our own body really used at rest, that might make a difference, but how many of us know anything other than the generic formula.

It's really not much different than BMI. It's a formula for the masses.

deksgrl

I said that and I know perfectly well what it means. Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight. If you lose, that would just mean that the calculated BMR isn't correct for you (which it often isn't). You have to consume (absorb) less calories than your body will use in order to lose weight.

I eat over BMR and I am not gaining weight. Not including any activity calories earned / eaten back.

My BMR is 1360 and I rarely eat that little. I normally eat in the 1500-1800 range. If I exercise, then MFP gives me more but I don't eat them usually. My TDEE is 2200.

ElizabethRoad

Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.

That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...

I don't think little things like make enough of a difference in such a generic calculation. If we were somehow able to know exactly what our own body really used at rest, that might make a difference, but how many of us know anything other than the generic formula.

It's really not much different than BMI. It's a formula for the masses.

Even though a formula may not give you an accurate number, BMR is still a real thing, and it's less than the total calories you burn during the day. You can't make a statement like "if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight". That's a ridiculous thing to say. How do you think people maintain their weight when they aren't dieting?

gomisskellygo

Deleted because I confused myself.:drinker: