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

beachdiva2010

Bump for later....I'm getting a headache.

themommie

I think that you need to find what works for you, not everyone is exactly the same. While these formulas might work for most people they dont work for everyone. I have lost 101 lbs by eating 1250 cals a day and not eating back any exercise cals, alot of people say you can't lose like this because your body will go into starvation mode, but I have lost doing this. I also have health issues fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and hypothyroid which play into it so maybe this is why this works for me but all I know is this has worked......

Deathangl13

Glad you said something about Sugar!How come most people don't track their sugar?

Because it doesn't matter, if you're already tracking calories. If you look at the nutrient section of the phone app, you will see that all nutrients from scanned labels are tracked, including sugar.

Deathangl13

Can someone help me

I've lost 22lbs
I've 71 lbs to lose
I'm 42 female 207lbs 5ft 2
I do 2 Zumba classes a week & 3 wii Zumba a week
3000 calories burnt
I was eating 1310 calories a day
Then lowered at mfp recommendation as I'd list 2x10lbs
My weightloss is stalling people have helped me saying I should eat more rat my net = my BMR 1649

Now after reading this I'm worried I shouldn't eat net of 1649

I've eaten 1350 or under Net since Tuesday as it was only 620 net before

Can someone tell me how many calories I should eat to lose 1-2 lbs a week do I eat net 1350 or calories 1649
Or something else ?

Thanks

Okay, you need to know your body fat percentage if you want to get EXACT. At least as exact as possible. The higher your body fat, the greater your calorie deficit can be without messing everything up. The LOWER your body fat percentage, the SMALLER your calorie deficit has to be. In other words, you have to eat more. Now this has absolutely nothing to do with "speeding up your metabolism". It has to do with fat reserves and how the body regulates metabolism based on the feedback loop, assuming everything is operating efficiently on a hormonal level (which it usually isn't with obesity). As you lose body mass, your metabolism SLOWS DOWN. This is very important because most people will hit a plateau thinking it's because of "dieting" and start eating more. This is only true at sub 12% body fat levels. Try to think of it like this - As your body weight comes down, what was once a deficit is now MAINTENANCE. You have to eat less as you get lighter, because a lighter body mass burns less calories. And you ALWAYS lose muscle when you lose body weight. Strength training will minimize it, but there is no way around it.

Deathangl13

I think that you need to find what works for you, not everyone is exactly the same.

Unless one of us somehow bypassed Evolution and evolved in the last few decades, yes we are.

Deathangl13

still agree with her, if your gonna eat all the calories back, you might as well watch tv and do nothin, same results is what everybody is saying

Well, no not really. Training (specifically strength training) completely changes the way your body HANDLES those calories. You are better off training and eating more than not training and eating less, if you're concerned about body composition.

AmandaCaswell1982

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...

I started doing this back at the end of 2011-- it helped me through 2 plateaus and has transformed my body. Not only does it fuel me, but it helps me get used to how I will eat at my goal weight My "net" is always around/above my BMR.

wilkyway

This is what I do now: I've set my calorie-goal to maintenance ~ 2000kcals. My activity level is set to 'active' which is more than appropriate. I'm constantly on the move.
Now, with this setting I see my actual deficit, not the precalculated one by MFP, if it were set to 'lose 1 lbs a week'.

So, I don't really eat back my exercise cals, or if then only a bit. I usually use them for special occations...

When I eat my 2000 kcals and exercise, I have created a deficit, by which I am sure not to undernourish my body. For me this works best, I get worried if I have a too high deficit for too long.

leopard_barbie

I started a thread that has a handy little weight tracker based on calorie intake and caloric expenditure. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/576000-weight-loss-simulator

I think the tool is pretty amazing when you manipulate the data. Some people have been confused thinking it was "telling" them to consume a rediculously low number of calories but in actuality it just puts it into perspective with the weight loss goals, like you might be expecting too much too fast.

I have played around with the data by a time frame goal and a lifestyle change goal. For me, it works to put in my job and my leisure time activity for the baseline at low active levels. Then, when I input my data for lifestyle change I use the detailed button and add my scheduled runs/walks that I do per week. This will tell me I am increasing my activity by X%. I can also manipulate my carb intake say for the first 15 days only get 10% of my calories from carbs then at day 11 up it to 30%.

Under the tabulated data, it will tell you exactly how many calories you need to consume and burn each day along with body fat percentage, lean mass etc. Of course, you can also input the calories you want to consume (i.e. 1500) it will then simulate how many you need to burn based on the data you initially put in.

Perhaps this will help people "visualize" the concept.

Here is the direct link if you don't want to go to the thread:

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/

Replying so I can use this link when Im not on works computer.

chevy88grl

I haven't read the entire thread, but I can tell you that for me to lose weight? I have to NET significantly higher than my BMR. My BMR is 1338. I can easily lose weight if I consume 2100-2200 NET calories and I can easily maintain if I consume 2300-2500 NET calories. So, for me .. it is all about NET calories. And there's NO WAY that eating below my BMR is a good idea for me. Not only would I be hungry enough to eat small household pets, but my body would be SO cranky and ticked off at me.

MMarvelous

Bump

dlwyatt82

I haven't read the entire thread, but I can tell you that for me to lose weight? I have to NET significantly higher than my BMR. My BMR is 1338. I can easily lose weight if I consume 2100-2200 NET calories and I can easily maintain if I consume 2300-2500 NET calories. So, for me .. it is all about NET calories. And there's NO WAY that eating below my BMR is a good idea for me. Not only would I be hungry enough to eat small household pets, but my body would be SO cranky and ticked off at me.

That's fine as a way to track your own calories (so long as you don't change your activity level around), but is not valid advice for other people. Net calories is based on whatever MFP reported your original target to be. If your target (before exercise) is much higher than your BMR, then so should your net calories be. My target is 100 calories less than my BMR (Sedentary activity level), so bumping my "net calories" up over BMR would mean I was eating too much food.

cmccorma

I think that you need to find what works for you, not everyone is exactly the same.

Unless one of us somehow bypassed Evolution and evolved in the last few decades, yes we are.

I respectfully disagree. We have all been blessed with certain genetics from our parents which are different than others. Adding to that, I developed gestational diabetes during pregnancy. Three months later, I was still showing some insulin resistance. So for me, I have to watch my sugar. Others may not have to. When I eat more protein and less sugar, my glucose level remains in the normal range. This is not true for someone without insulin resistance.

neanderthin

I think that you need to find what works for you, not everyone is exactly the same.

Unless one of us somehow bypassed Evolution and evolved in the last few decades, yes we are.

I respectfully disagree. We have all been blessed with certain genetics from our parents which are different than others. Adding to that, I developed gestational diabetes during pregnancy. Three months later, I was still showing some insulin resistance. So for me, I have to watch my sugar. Others may not have to. When I eat more protein and less sugar, my glucose level remains in the normal range. This is not true for someone without insulin resistance.

I believe the confusion is in how efficiently the body burns calories when metabolic dysfunction is apparent, like yours. Our metabolism does recognize these abnormalities which does effect our weight loss/gain, but and a conclusive but, it is still accounted for on the out side of the energy balance equation on an individual basis. The hard part is trying to figure out what and how these dysfunctions effect us on an individual basis and make adjustments, like with PCOS and diabetes where a lower carb diet shows much improvement.

waldo56

When I figured out that protein doesn't count (I heavily exercise and strength train, somehting I noted in my data and BMR calculation, BMR rose with protein intake) I busted a plateau where I thought I had a 750 deficit/day but really had a 1250 deficit per day.

I've pretty much reached my goal weight now, and am down to a 500 cal/day deficit tapering out.

My calcuated BMR varies with protein intake linearly.

Right now my total food intake is in the 3000-3500 cal/day area (@190 lbs) and I've got a 500 cal/day deficit (500-100 cal/day exercise). My current calculated BMR is a hair over 3000/day. Before I heavily exercised and strength trained, and upped my protein intake, it was in the 2400/day area @ 220 lbs and over.

My last stall was @ a 1000 cal deficit @ 12% BF, with my target set to 2050 cal/day net (was losing precisely 2 lb/wk for a couple months prior). Upping it to 2300 cal/day busted the stall, now I'm in the 9% BF area.

katcod1522

I am going to say this...I was stuck last week at 133.2 from last Wed to Sunday...today..the scale reads 129.8. I normally eat 1200-1250 cals a day I run 25 miles a week. I am 5'2. Saturday..I ran 12 miles...and burned 900 cals. I ate 2100 cals Saturday....but take off the 900...I only netted 1200. So..my body got tons of fuel (food). I think that dropped the scale almost 3lbs this week! Take a spike day..but make it a harder exercise day. To this day..my dr says there is no science to eating back burned cals. Consume (as in put in your mouth) 1200-1500 cals a day..and lose weight.

heybales

When I figured out that protein doesn't count (I heavily exercise and strength train, somehting I noted in my data and BMR calculation, BMR rose with protein intake) I busted a plateau where I thought I had a 750 deficit/day but really had a 1250 deficit per day.

I've pretty much reached my goal weight now, and am down to a 500 cal/day deficit tapering out.

My calcuated BMR varies with protein intake linearly.

Right now my total food intake is in the 3000-3500 cal/day area (@190 lbs) and I've got a 500 cal/day deficit (500-100 cal/day exercise). My current calculated BMR is a hair over 3000/day. Before I heavily exercised and strength trained, and upped my protein intake, it was in the 2400/day area @ 220 lbs and over.

My last stall was @ a 1000 cal deficit @ 12% BF, with my target set to 2050 cal/day net (was losing precisely 2 lb/wk for a couple months prior). Upping it to 2300 cal/day busted the stall, now I'm in the 9% BF area.

Lest anyone is confused, everywhere you said BMR, you meant TDEE.

Your BMR would not change with change to eating protein, actually, neither would your TDEE for that matter.

dlwyatt82

I am going to say this...I was stuck last week at 133.2 from last Wed to Sunday...today..the scale reads 129.8. I normally eat 1200-1250 cals a day I run 25 miles a week. I am 5'2. Saturday..I ran 12 miles...and burned 900 cals. I ate 2100 cals Saturday....but take off the 900...I only netted 1200. So..my body got tons of fuel (food). I think that dropped the scale almost 3lbs this week! Take a spike day..but make it a harder exercise day. To this day..my dr says there is no science to eating back burned cals. Consume (as in put in your mouth) 1200-1500 cals a day..and lose weight.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, since you contradict yourself. You say that you should only eat 1200-1500 calories per day, yet you also say "take a spike day and make it a heavy workout day." In different words, you've just described what it means to eat back your exercise calories, while also claiming that your doctor says there is "no science behind it".

The short-term weight change over the weekend is fairly meaningless, but even that, you attributed to eating back your exercise calories in your post.

heybales

I am going to say this...I was stuck last week at 133.2 from last Wed to Sunday...today..the scale reads 129.8. I normally eat 1200-1250 cals a day I run 25 miles a week. I am 5'2. Saturday..I ran 12 miles...and burned 900 cals. I ate 2100 cals Saturday....but take off the 900...I only netted 1200. So..my body got tons of fuel (food). I think that dropped the scale almost 3lbs this week! Take a spike day..but make it a harder exercise day. To this day..my dr says there is no science to eating back burned cals. Consume (as in put in your mouth) 1200-1500 cals a day..and lose weight.

Did you know 1500 calories of carb's stored as glucose with required water weigh 3lbs?

Your long run burned off a bunch of carbs, depending on intensity, probably 70-80% of calories burned was carbs. Did the carbs from your extra 900 eaten replenish those stores?

Your Dr doesn't understand how MFP works to every other weight loss calculator where you input expected total activity levels and then take a deficit.

waldo56

When I figured out that protein doesn't count (I heavily exercise and strength train, somehting I noted in my data and BMR calculation, BMR rose with protein intake) I busted a plateau where I thought I had a 750 deficit/day but really had a 1250 deficit per day.

I've pretty much reached my goal weight now, and am down to a 500 cal/day deficit tapering out.

My calcuated BMR varies with protein intake linearly.

Right now my total food intake is in the 3000-3500 cal/day area (@190 lbs) and I've got a 500 cal/day deficit (500-100 cal/day exercise). My current calculated BMR is a hair over 3000/day. Before I heavily exercised and strength trained, and upped my protein intake, it was in the 2400/day area @ 220 lbs and over.

My last stall was @ a 1000 cal deficit @ 12% BF, with my target set to 2050 cal/day net (was losing precisely 2 lb/wk for a couple months prior). Upping it to 2300 cal/day busted the stall, now I'm in the 9% BF area.

Lest anyone is confused, everywhere you said BMR, you meant TDEE.

Your BMR would not change with change to eating protein, actually, neither would your TDEE for that matter.

Actually, it does.

BMR/TDEE whatever, the value that is left when you reconcile scale weight over time with calories in and calories burned.

Protein that is used for muscle building and maintence doesn't count toward your daily energy balance when you are calculating how much fat you should be gaining and losing based on your intake. I've never seen this written anywhere before but self experiments confirm this is the case as do experiements on themselves others have done. The key is though that you have to be able to calculate the setpoint yourself from real weight data, MFP's formula for your setpoint uses all 3 macros and doesn't work nearly enough.

Once I figured this out I had absolute precision in my loss and didn't plateau once until I reached a point that I expected it (1000 cal/day deficit @ 12% BF is where it occurred). My weight graph was a straight line, 2 lb per week precisely. My weight (fat) loss can be predicted 100% by my fat and carb intake alone and a BMR/TDEE for those macros alone calculated from weight data. To use MFP protein is treated as a constant, a 2nd goal to hit every day.

Like I said, my cacluated BMR/TDEE, the reconciled value, rose from almost exaclty what MFP calcuated for me (2450 cal/day) to over 3000 cal/day as I increased my exercise and protein intake. And I do not underestimate my exercise, 750-1000 cal/day is the norm for me (hence my maintence calorie levels will be in the 4000 cal/day area total intake). The increase in calcuated BMR/TDEE rate was linear, exactly 4*net change in daily protein intake rolling average over time.