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

heybales

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 BMR

I sure do. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method

And that estimate of future TDEE includes exercise, albeit underestimated. It's what creates the deficit, that and the difference between current you and future you doing the exercise and daily activity and BMR.

So if you came up truly 1700 TDEE, not non-exercise maintenance, then you burned off 400 cal on avg daily - then your current BMR was probably slightly below 1300. Future BMR even less.

I've yet to see a case where if daily activity was done correctly, that on a weekly avg, the NET was always ending up above current BMR.

jamielynn1981

I agree, the ONLY way I can lose weight is to not eat my exercise cals back. I CANNOT lose if I am eating exercise cals back, I know this b/c I done this for a long time and didn't see any results.
I have my goal set to 50 cals above my BMR(sometimes I go a little over) and have lost steady weight since I started doing that.

AND I don't give a crap what everyone else thinks I should be doing b/c this is what works for ME. Everyone is different, different things work for different ppl

dlwyatt82

So there's no point in logging exercise then? Just food.

Logging exercise helps you determine your TDEE for the day. The amount of food you eat is based on that (should be 500-1000 calories below your TDEE for weight loss).

tabinmaine

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.

TDEE that I quoted of 2500 is incl exercise.....what I do in a week, moderately active, 3-5x/wk that is what I need to eat to currently maintain. So I took 500 deficit off of it, exercised and ate that back......because more than 500 cal deficit is frowned upon....

christinehetz80

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.

This finally clicked for me and I stay active a majority of the week, but even on rest days consume close to my maintenance, but definitely over BMR to provide my body with the fuel needed to repair itself from the exercise/fitness etc. Love this post and completely agree!

I still log exercise to keep track, but don't use it as a monitor of what I should eat that day. I pre plan my menu and day and try to stick to that regardless of activity level.

BAtobe

Bumping to read later

lorierin22

I agree, the ONLY way I can lose weight is to not eat my exercise cals back. I CANNOT lose if I am eating exercise cals back, I know this b/c I done this for a long time and didn't see any results.
I have my goal set to 50 cals above my BMR(sometimes I go a little over) and have lost steady weight since I started doing that.

AND I don't give a crap what everyone else thinks I should be doing b/c this is what works for ME. Everyone is different, different things work for different ppl

Congrats on taking the time to find out what works for you and congrats on your weight loss! Great job!

dlwyatt82

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.

TDEE that I quoted of 2500 is incl exercise.....what I do in a week, moderately active, 3-5x/wk that is what I need to eat to currently maintain. So I took 500 deficit off of it, exercised and ate that back......because more than 500 cal deficit is frowned upon....

That's confusing, because you're counting your exercise calories twice. If you're going to use the 2500 number (which already includes exercise), then just eat between 1500 and 2000 and call it a day. You don't need to worry about logging exercise or eating back more calories, because you've already accounted for it.

sunshine45356

Can't we all just get along? HAHAHA I made a funny! :O

heybales

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.....

So if that TDEE figure is avg daily 2500, and you took off 500 to eat at 2000.

You exercise 600. You net 1400.

You are indeed 100 below BMR of 1500.

And on rest day? You eat at 2000.

500 above BMR.

So 1 rest day takes care of 5 workout days.

So if you selected Mod active level for this experiment for 5 workout days at 600 each - probably correct with 2 rest days then.

Weekly avg - 14000 eaten, 3000 exercise burned off, 11000 NET calories available for metabolism - 10500 desired by BMR.

Covered by 500 calories for stressful daily activity not logged as exercise, but not really low key.

See, it does work even using your example.

Lisamobley88

Ohhh lord. I've been on this for 3 days and all this BMR and TDEE. Eat back your calories, etc. is all too confusing.

SuffolkSally

I have the perfect solution :laugh:

SuffolkSally

Three MFP volunteers, for the good of our cyber community, volunteer to be placed in a medically induced coma for three months. We instruct that one is feed exact BMR, One 15% over, one 15% under via their naso-gastric tubes. Observe resulkts and publish. Any takers?

tabinmaine

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.....

So if that TDEE figure is avg daily 2500, and you took off 500 to eat at 2000.

You exercise 600. You net 1400.

You are indeed 100 below BMR of 1500.

And on rest day? You eat at 2000.

500 above BMR.

So 1 rest day takes care of 5 workout days.

So if you selected Mod active level for this experiment for 5 workout days at 600 each - probably correct with 2 rest days then.

Weekly avg - 14000 eaten, 3000 exercise burned off, 11000 NET calories available for metabolism - 10500 desired by BMR.

Covered by 500 calories for stressful daily activity not logged as exercise, but not really low key.

See, it does work even using your example.

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

tabinmaine

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.

TDEE that I quoted of 2500 is incl exercise.....what I do in a week, moderately active, 3-5x/wk that is what I need to eat to currently maintain. So I took 500 deficit off of it, exercised and ate that back......because more than 500 cal deficit is frowned upon....

That's confusing, because you're counting your exercise calories twice. If you're going to use the 2500 number (which already includes exercise), then just eat between 1500 and 2000 and call it a day. You don't need to worry about logging exercise or eating back more calories, because you've already accounted for it.

You are missing the point, that is too much of a deficit and takes me below my BMR, which you are not supposed to do, it's not that I don't agree with you, it's that it's considered a no no.

pukekolive

'Eating for the Future You' or 'Eat More to Weight Less' are not random concepts and you do need to do some calculations first.

What they basically do is give you a daily calorie count, based on the TDEE of your goal weight (future you) and factor in your workouts so that your daily goal calories NEVER change and you will maintain at your goal weight.

Typically, users of these regimes will also enter their activity and daily food intake in spreadsheet to check that their current BMR is 'protected'. Also, your MFP goals will require to be changed and exercise, regardless of burn, is logged as 1 calorie only.

There are 50 pages of posts in reply to one very comprehensive topic by Helloitsdan in late March 2012 :

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map

Please take some time to read this topic - I found that my activity levels were not high enough currently to make it comfortable for me to follow the regime - I will try again once weightloss allows me to workout for longer and more often.

Here is the link for 'Eating for the Future You'

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method

kimgettinfit

bump

jofjltncb6

I'm pretty sure I had a firm understanding of this *before* I read through all seven pages. Now I'm as confused as everyone else.

I'll just stick with my approach (although admittedly no longer for weight loss):

1. keep the daily calories the same for several weeks/months, (but now treat them as daily *minimums* as I am attempting to regain)
2. generally do not add back exercise calories, (unless I'm really hungry)
3. eat whole foods, nothing from a box or bag. (GF beef, pastured eggs, lots of veggies, some fruits, few nuts, NO grains)
4. reevaluate every couple of months. Adjust either up or down depending on which direction I'm moving and my body composition.
5. Repeat

I used to be an "a-calorie-is-a-calorie" kind of guy, but no longer am since I lost 30+ pounds in 6 months while consistently increasing calories in whole foods in excess of my previous baseline. Argue physics all you want, but human beings are *not* closed systems.

Ultrafan14

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.....=\

Sorry.....HELP!!!

overit75

I am not eating my exercise calories back and have been having really positive results. I am stuffed after supper and I am not going to force myself to eat all those calories if I am not hungry. In the past I followed the eat your calories back and it got me no where but frustrated and throwing in the towel. With that being said, I am going to stick with what works for me.

babygurl48

bump to read later.. interested in what everyone has to say.

pg1girl

You should eat back half of how many calories you burn during exercise. NOT ALL. So if your goal is 1500 and you burn 500 calories your net would be 1,000 so you need to eat back 250 calories at a minimum. If you don't eat within 30 minutes of working out you lose half of your workout. I think it's more of what type of calories and foods people are putting into their bodies then eating back exercise calories. It also depends on a million different factors, age, gender, etc.

Sorry, I hate to potentially start another sub-thread here, but there is no evidence to suggest eating 30 minutes after a workout is better than eating say 4 hours after a workout (unless you are hungry of course!). Also, the only reason why you should not eat all your exercise calories back, assuming you already have an appropriate deficit built into your base and your base target does not include exercise, is really because of the fact that MFP and the exercise machines usually over-estimate them.

Ya I thought that was a totally bizarre thing to say. How can half your workout just "poof" disappear. Ummmm research!

heybales

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Ahhhhh.

So your focus is on exercise right now given what you are actually doing - 5 x 600 cal workouts then. That's pretty good.

But you really want your focus on weight loss.

You need to stop providing a harder load to your body so it doesn't have to keep improving. Then only the fat and weight can melt off.

So you are losing inches, that means fat, but now you want scale weight too. Understandable.

Fine - back off the workouts, make them less intense, and eat a tad less.

Keep 2 rest days.
The days before the rest days, make it weight lifting but not heavy, or true intervals. You'll need the recovery from either.
The days before the intense day, make it a cardio workout in the aerobic zone no longer than 40 min, 10 min walking warmup and cooldown. This is above the fat-burning zone, but still a decent 40-45% fat burned.
The other workout day following a rest day, easy intervals, 2 min in anaerobic zone, 2 min in fat-burning zone, 20 min following a 10 min walk. The 30 min of core or lifting stuff.

So spread out the rest days.
easy intervals/core - cardio - lifting - rest - cardio - intervals/lifting - rest

Should be less of a burn by decent amount, less of a load on system, or different load, which is good too.

tabinmaine

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Ahhhhh.

So your focus is on exercise right now given what you are actually doing - 5 x 600 cal workouts then. That's pretty good.

But you really want your focus on weight loss.

You need to stop providing a harder load to your body so it doesn't have to keep improving. Then only the fat and weight can melt off.

So you are losing inches, that means fat, but now you want scale weight too. Understandable.

Fine - back off the workouts, make them less intense, and eat a tad less.

Keep 2 rest days.
The days before the rest days, make it weight lifting but not heavy, or true intervals. You'll need the recovery from either.
The days before the intense day, make it a cardio workout in the aerobic zone no longer than 40 min, 10 min walking warmup and cooldown. This is above the fat-burning zone, but still a decent 40-45% fat burned.
The other workout day following a rest day, easy intervals, 2 min in anaerobic zone, 2 min in fat-burning zone, 20 min following a 10 min walk. The 30 min of core or lifting stuff.

So spread out the rest days.
easy intervals/core - cardio - lifting - rest - cardio - intervals/lifting - rest

Should be less of a burn by decent amount, less of a load on system, or different load, which is good too.

Thankyou ! Something that makes sense to me :happy:

heybales

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Just realized.

Your BMR - estimated by age/weight/height, or bodyfat% method?

Because age/weight/height is over estimated, unless you have managed to keep the same LBM / fat ratio of someone at healthy weight - which is unlikely the more you have to lose.

That Katch BMR method much better base to build from.

That's why it said obese can eat under their BMR - their estimated BMR is inflated, they actually aren't undercutting their real BMR by that much. Hopefully none if doing it right.

Sarauk2sf

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Ahhhhh.

So your focus is on exercise right now given what you are actually doing - 5 x 600 cal workouts then. That's pretty good.

But you really want your focus on weight loss.

You need to stop providing a harder load to your body so it doesn't have to keep improving. Then only the fat and weight can melt off.

So you are losing inches, that means fat, but now you want scale weight too. Understandable.

Fine - back off the workouts, make them less intense, and eat a tad less.

Keep 2 rest days.
The days before the rest days, make it weight lifting but not heavy, or true intervals. You'll need the recovery from either.
The days before the intense day, make it a cardio workout in the aerobic zone no longer than 40 min, 10 min walking warmup and cooldown. This is above the fat-burning zone, but still a decent 40-45% fat burned.
The other workout day following a rest day, easy intervals, 2 min in anaerobic zone, 2 min in fat-burning zone, 20 min following a 10 min walk. The 30 min of core or lifting stuff.

So spread out the rest days.
easy intervals/core - cardio - lifting - rest - cardio - intervals/lifting - rest

Should be less of a burn by decent amount, less of a load on system, or different load, which is good too.

Thankyou ! Something that makes sense to me :happy:

heybales has a habit of doing that!!

Ultrafan14

:sick:

tabinmaine

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Just realized.

Your BMR - estimated by age/weight/height, or bodyfat% method?

Because age/weight/height is over estimated, unless you have managed to keep the same LBM / fat ratio of someone at healthy weight - which is unlikely the more you have to lose.

That Katch BMR method much better base to build from.

That's why it said obese can eat under their BMR - their estimated BMR is inflated, they actually aren't undercutting their real BMR by that much. Hopefully none if doing it right.

I have used many different calculators, the consensus is between 1429-1580, I have had 1500 stuck in my mind cause of that

tinkb1

wow ,ok i didnt read everything however i just joined this week and i went to the gym each day excluding today and i lost 2 lbs so far this week what iam find funny is that i eat the 1200 cals suggested by this app per day and keep track of my exercise throughout the day as well now it doesnt matter to me weather i exercise or not i do not go over my 1200 cals . i have also seen if you under eat that your body goes into starvation mode and stores everything consumed so its a catch 22 . my thoughts here is you should try and at least work off what you consume in one day to loose weight am i wrong in that? dont over eat and dont under eat you body needs fuel to function

Dudagarcia

Very interesting concept, have lost 44 lbs but can't seem to drop the last 10 even tho i w/o 6 days a week but I'm eating back what I worked out. Seems like I lose 1 then go up a 1 and I know I haven't over eaten. Unless my body is wanting to stay at this weight? I will try the BMR 1285 & continue to wo and not eat back those calories or if I do only 25-50 of those calories.