Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead
Replies
-
If you don't eat within 30 minutes of working out you lose half of your workout.
I have never heard this. Where does this info come from???0 -
I have found my evening reading
0 -
I rarely net my BMR unless its beer time LOL
I have lost 25lbs since christmas and going stong.
I dont know if this will continue but Im full and feeling better than ever so Ill keep going and if I hit a plateau Ill change it up.0 -
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
It's a bit hard to pick the relevant numbers out of this. When you say "3000 calories burnt", is that your total for an average day? If so, then you can eat between 2000 and 2500 (total, not net) and be in a perfect zone for weight loss.
It's your total calories consumed versus TDEE (total calories burned) that matters. Throwing the "net" numbers around just confuses people.
3000 Zumba calories a week0 -
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
Your TDEE is 2549. A 1 pound a week loss would be 500 calories less than that per day. A 2 pound a week loss would be 1,000 calories less than that a day, and put you below BMR at 1549. Better to shoot for up to 1.5 pounds a week loss. That would be 2549 - 750 = 1799.0 -
bump for after my movie lol0
-
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 ???
I think that's horrible advice. I always NET over BMR and eat back my exercise calories, and I've managed to hit goal/the bottom of the healthy BMI scale.
I'm still not sure why you think having your net calories (as MFP displays them) be over your BMR matters at all. This is an example from another thread I posted, but it's relevant here:
Let's take two hypothetical MFP users, Bob and Steve. Both have the same BMR of exactly 2000. Bob sets his activity level at Sedentary and logs all of his exercise into MFP; Steve sets his activity level to Active, and logs fewer exercise activities. For the purposes of this example, let's say the multipliers for Sedentary and Active are 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, putting the calories burned estimates for Bob and Steve at 2400 and 3200.
Here's where your logic falls apart. Bob logs 1000 calories of exercise for the day, and Steve logs 200. They both wind up at a TDEE of 3400. They both eat 2900 calories worth of food, leaving them at exactly the same deficit for the day.
Bob's net calories display as 1900 at the end of the day (100 less than his BMR), and Steve's net calories display as 2700. They both burned exactly the same number of calories, and both ate exactly the same number.
Conclusion: What MFP displays as your net calories consumed is a meaningless number.0 -
My head hurts.0
-
saving this to read later.0
-
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
It's a bit hard to pick the relevant numbers out of this. When you say "3000 calories burnt", is that your total for an average day? If so, then you can eat between 2000 and 2500 (total, not net) and be in a perfect zone for weight loss.
It's your total calories consumed versus TDEE (total calories burned) that matters. Throwing the "net" numbers around just confuses people.
3000 Zumba calories a week
Ah, ok, then that number doesn't really help.
As a general guideline, just eat at least your BMR (1649 gross), maintain a reasonable deficit (no more than 1000 calories below your TDEE), and ignore what your net calories says on MFP at the end of the day.0 -
I have a BodyMedia and agree with OP that eating over my BMR -NET- is what has helped me lose 15 pounds in 2 months and be smaller than I've ever been in my life. First, my BMR is 1429 or something. So I eat 1500 cals AT LEAST a day. Then I increase my activity to make sure I burn 2000+ calories a day, maintaining a 500-calorie deficit.
Yes the BodyMedia is expensive (about $180) but the data it gives me is priceless. And so is losing 15 pounds in 11 weeks without having to worry about what I eat.0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..0 -
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....
I wonder whether there's a difference between those with very high exercise/activity levels and others? I remember working in a very active job on a farm one summer and being astounded how much I managed to eat while still losing weight (we're talking whole loaves of bread at asitting with a full fry up on the side here!) But maybe not realistic for most people. Sorry if this repeats someone else's point, I did have time to read them all!0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
That's not quite right. Your TDEE goes up when you exercise, so if you burned another 600 and ate another 600, you're still at a 500 deficit, and should lose an average of a pound a week or thereabouts.0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Unless I've missed something major, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing according to the majorrity of MFP thread advice? It mostly suggests eating above BMR but below TDEE. When I was trying to make sense of all this I came across a website review saying that medical thinking was that no woman should eat below 1200 or a man below 1800 I think it was - but it didn't seem to be based on anything much except perhaps averages...
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..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 ???
I know I will sound REALLY stupid...but I am beyond confused when it comes to the 'Regular' BMR and then the net and all that....I burn close if not a bit over 1000 cals a day in excersice and I was eating about 1400 clas...my BMR is 1600 apparenty....didn't work....THEN I ate whatever htins thing would tell me were my net calories which was 1200...didn't work...I'm so confused now I have no idea what I'm doing hahaha I've decided to a bit less than my BMR and my excersice cals together so around maybe 2200 and see if that works.....=\0 -
White MFP recommendations are working for you right now, you only joined this month. The reason I started this thread was because MANY on here stall out or "plateau" on their weight loss which leads to discussions about BMR and TDEE..... you will probably have a different opinion in a few months
I'll accept that, but I've also read the introductory materials that recommend I review and probably reduce my weight loss rate as I get nearer my ideal weight. In a few more pounds, I'm planning on reducing my goal to a pound-and-a-half a week. When I hit about 8 pounds to go, I'll probably slow it to one-a-week.
I'm not disputing your longer experience with the site, only trying to say that for a new user, you're going to get a lot of reactions like "my head hurts" and "this is all too confusing".0 -
bump0
-
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
Everyone's body is different.
When I lost my first 30lbs (also using MFP) I used MFP EXACTLY as it's programmed. I ate 1200 cals a day. If I exercised I logged it and ate back my exercise cals. Using that method I lost 30lbs in four months eating around 1600-1800 calories a day (my TDEE is like 2400).
Now I'm trying to use the whole TDEE method and I haven't lost a single point in two months. *shrug* I'm back to using MFP the way it's programmed instead of trying a different method.
So it really is a very subjective thing and people just have to figure out which method works for them.0 -
bump0
-
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.....
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 ???
You must not be looking at all the examples - the ones that I've seen that lose the fastest or most regular DO NET above their BMR.
Some have their daily goal high enough to include exercise, opposite of MFP method, so they don't appear to eat them back, but they obviously do.
And then others have their daily goal set above their BMR by some amount, and do eat back their exercise.
Those are the ones I've seen with the most, best results.
Eating at BMR and exercising off 500 avg each day just forces a slower metabolism again, ending you up in the boat many were in. And I've seen plenty like that that eat slightly above their BMR, but not enough, and exercise a lot, and weight slowed and then stalled.
If you truly are going to exercise a lot as part of new lifestyle, then you could indeed eat at non-exercise maintenance level and not eat back exercise. I doubt you would on avg be NETing under your BMR in that case. So same safety factor happens.
The problem still comes in selecting your non-exercise daily activity level too low. But at least the rest day helps to recover somewhat.
The other problem studies have shown, and this is with people making NO diet changes, not counting calories, ect, is the exercise causes them to eat more, basically the deficit they created.
So there MFP is great for still logging.0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
That's not quite right. Your TDEE goes up when you exercise, so if you burned another 600 and ate another 600, you're still at a 500 deficit, and should lose an average of a pound a week or thereabouts.
Which one of my calculations are you refering to ? 1,2, or 3 ??0 -
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
It's a bit hard to pick the relevant numbers out of this. When you say "3000 calories burnt", is that your total for an average day? If so, then you can eat between 2000 and 2500 (total, not net) and be in a perfect zone for weight loss.
It's your total calories consumed versus TDEE (total calories burned) that matters. Throwing the "net" numbers around just confuses people.
3000 Zumba calories a week
Ah, ok, then that number doesn't really help.
As a general guideline, just eat at least your BMR (1649 gross), maintain a reasonable deficit (no more than 1000 calories below your TDEE), and ignore what your net calories says on MFP at the end of the day.
Thanks alot was eating 1250 gross hoping that's why my losses weren't great
Appreciate your help0 -
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.....
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 ???
You must not be looking at all the examples - the ones that I've seen that lose the fastest or most regular DO NET above their BMR.
Some have their daily goal high enough to include exercise, opposite of MFP method, so they don't appear to eat them back, but they obviously do.
And then others have their daily goal set above their BMR by some amount, and do eat back their exercise.
Those are the ones I've seen with the most, best results.
Eating at BMR and exercising off 500 avg each day just forces a slower metabolism again, ending you up in the boat many were in. And I've seen plenty like that that eat slightly above their BMR, but not enough, and exercise a lot, and weight slowed and then stalled.
If you truly are going to exercise a lot as part of new lifestyle, then you could indeed eat at non-exercise maintenance level and not eat back exercise. I doubt you would on avg be NETing under your BMR in that case. So same safety factor happens.
The problem still comes in selecting your non-exercise daily activity level too low. But at least the rest day helps to recover somewhat.
The other problem studies have shown, and this is with people making NO diet changes, not counting calories, ect, is the exercise causes them to eat more, basically the deficit they created.
So there MFP is great for still logging.
I was under the impression that you advocate that people eat for the future body they want to have... If I were to do that I would eat at 1700 calories maintenace , but..... I exercise 400-600 calories off a day......so if i did that, I would be netting 900, way below my current BMR......
I am not saying the above would not work, but it's what I am getting at..... the 1700 matters, not what I burn and not my current BMR0 -
BUMP0
-
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
Bad math.
Total Daily Energy Expenditure - TDEE - all energy expended, that includes the workout on a workout day.
2500 is non-exercise daily maintenance, or is 2500 TDEE?
Big difference.
If really TDEE, then why are you eating back exercise, it's already in that figure that you deficited 500 from.
If really non-exercise maintenance, then you did it right, and you still have a 500 cal deficit for the day.0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
I don't understand why you would not lose in your second example...if you TDEE is really 2500 and you are getting 1800...that is a 700 calorie deficit per day and really should result in weight loss...not sure why it wouldn't???0 -
I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...
You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.
See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
That's not quite right. Your TDEE goes up when you exercise, so if you burned another 600 and ate another 600, you're still at a 500 deficit, and should lose an average of a pound a week or thereabouts.
Which one of my calculations are you refering to ? 1,2, or 3 ??
I think all of them had the same flaw, but it's hard to tell because you only referred to eating more than your TDEE in the first one. You stated your TDEE is 2500 and treated that as a static number, but any time you log exercise, your TDEE for that particular day has also gone up.
Using the numbers from all 3 examples you gave:
1) You eat 2000 calories (500 deficit before exercise). You burn 600 calories of exercise, and eat another 600. Your numbers for the day are: 2600 calories eaten, 3100 TDEE. 500 deficit, good spot for sustainable weight loss.
2) You eat 1200 (1300 deficit before exercise). Burn 600 doing exercise, and eat another 600. Your numbers are 1800 calories eaten, 3100 TDEE. 1300 deficit, which is more than recommended, but may work for you (You'd be targeting between 2.5 and 3 pounds a week at that rate).
3) You eat 1800 (700 deficit before exercise). You burn another 600 but don't eat anything else. Final numbers for the day are identical to 2: 1800 consumed, 3100 TDEE, 1300 deficit.0 -
Because take me for example...
BMR 1500
TDEE 2500
If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose
If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....
If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..
Bad math.
Total Daily Energy Expenditure - TDEE - all energy expended, that includes the workout on a workout day.
2500 is non-exercise daily maintenance, or is 2500 TDEE?
Big difference.
If really TDEE, then why are you eating back exercise, it's already in that figure that you deficited 500 from.
If really non-exercise maintenance, then you did it right, and you still have a 500 cal deficit for the day.
It's my TDEE exercise included, TDEE with no exercise is 2000. if I don't eat it back than I have been told I am creating too high of a deficit because I already subtracted 500.....0 -
So there's no point in logging exercise then? Just food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions