Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead
Options
Replies
-
That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.0 -
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...0 -
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.0 -
BMR should be stricken from the nutritional landscape, it's apparently too confusing.0
-
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!0 -
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.0 -
That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.
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.0 -
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 2200.0 -
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?
That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.
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.0 -
Deleted because I confused myself.:drinker:0
-
I eat at TDEE - 15% (calories consumed)
If i workout and my burn puts me at a number below my BMR - I eat back until my NET cals are at least my BMR.
Its working for me so far.0 -
I eat about 1400 and burn abiut 600 a day I dont eat excercise calories back. Been doing it 4 years. I just recently started eating more and doing 5 x 5 stronglift program.0
-
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?
That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.
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.
*sigh* Read my post re: taking activity out of equation If you are at rest and you give your body more calories that it can use at rest (BMR), you will gain weight. I never said BMR wasn't real (???)0 -
bump0
-
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.
This is an interesting concept. I will try it out.
I really don't have much of a problem losing the weight when I am excercising regularly, eaty oober healthily, and keeping my net calories below MFP's recommendations. With that said, the reason I think this does work, is because MFP's calculations for my calorie allotment seems to be off. I went to about 10 different sites with calculators and they all said to lose 0.5lb per week I should eat anywhere between 1800-2000 calories a day while I beleive MFP caluclated something around 1500.. I am starting to think a bigger consideration above how many calories you consume a day would be how many you consume in one week, and how you vary your calorie consumption day to day. I hav read it may help to cycle your calories and plan your larest calorie intake day to coincide with your heaviest workout day (therefore still keeping your NET calories low). I am still testing this out. With that said, I think I am gonna keep a closer eye on my TOTAL calories consumed, since I haven't really paid attention to that before.0 -
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/0 -
Deleted because I confused myself.:drinker:
:laugh:0 -
LOL......of course if your at rest and do nothing all day and eat over your BMR you could potentially gain weight, but most people use BMR as a wake up number and go from there. Your explaination of BMR isn't doing anybody any good. Non exercise thermogenesis can be as much as 700+ calories, without doing any exercise whatsoever.
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?
That's only true if you include every single activity. Like typing, walking to the bathroom, brushing your hair...Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight.
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.
*sigh* Read my post re: taking activity out of equation If you are at rest and you give your body more calories that it can use at rest (BMR), you will gain weight. I never said BMR wasn't real (???)0 -
Silly question, what is TDEE?
I just upped my daily by 150 calories and all of a sudden this week, weight is back down..0 -
This topic can easily be summed up by saying listen and do whats best for your body i'm eating on most days between 1000 to 1500 calories a day then I burn off about 400 while training my muscle mass has actually increased and my waist is dropping in size...when I plateau which all bodies do and mine will eventually i'll switch things up...for now i'm going ride it out.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions