Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead
Options
Replies
-
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
-
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.0 -
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 ppl0 -
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).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.
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....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.
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.0 -
Bumping to read later0
-
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!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.
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.0 -
Can't we all just get along? HAHAHA I made a funny! :O0
-
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.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