"Netting BMR" is a mathematically flawed concept

dlwyatt82

Hi everyone,

This has become my pet peeve on the MFP forums lately, and I noticed that it's in the sticky posts for this group a fair bit. Before I get into the math, let me make it clear that I am not recommending that anyone eat an unhealthy low amount of food, and that I agree with the basic premise of this group (though I would phrase it a little differently): Maintain a healthy deficit, and no more than that.

Now, on to why seeing advice to "Net your BMR" drives me crazy:

"Net Calories" is a concept introduced in the MyFitnessPal interface by the way it treats calories burned by activities you log in your diary. Instead of increasing your target calories for the day, it subtracts the calories burned by exercise from the number of calories you've consumed. In terms of the relationship between your target calories eaten and your total calories burned for the day (TDEE), this is fine. You can add the same number to both sides of the equation, or subtract the same number from both sides; basic algebra. The problem is that your "Net Calories" moves up and down based on how much of your burned calories come from logged exercise versus choosing a different activity modifier. Consider the following scenarios:

The following two sets of numbers represent two different ways of logging 1500 calories burned over BMR in a particular day for the same person. In one example, the person uses an activity multiplier of Sedentary (I will use 1.2 for the calculations), and in the second example, chooses Active (1.6). The amount of logged cardio exercise will be adjusted so the TDEE reaches the same value of BMR + 1500 for the day. The amount of gross calories consumed will be identical in both examples, TDEE - 500.

BMR: 2000

Scenario 1: Active activity modifier. Initial TDEE estimate (before exercise) = 2000 * 1.6 = 3200. 300 calories of exercise are logged , bringing TDEE to 3500 for the day. The person consumes 3000 calories, a 500-calorie deficit intended to lose approximately 1 pound per week. MyFitnessPal displays this person's Net Calories as 2700 (3000 minus the 300 calories logged as exercise).

Scenario 2: Sedentary activity modifier. Initial TDEE estimate (before exercise) = 2000 * 1.2 = 2400. 1100 calories of exercise are logged, bringing TDEE to 3500 for the day. The person consumes 3000 calories, the same 500-calorie deficit as in Scenario 1. However, because more of the person's calories burned for the day came from the exercise diary, MyFitnessPal displays the user's Net Calories as only 1900 (3000 - 1100), which is under the BMR of 2000.

The same person burned the same number of calories and consumed the same number of calories, and the only adjustment was the distribution of calories between the Activity Level and the Exercise Diary, resulting in a different in "Net Calories" of 800, and in one case, bringing this number under the person's BMR. This makes the comparison of Net Calories (which slides up and down based on Activity Level) and BMR (which is static) completely meaningless.

MyFitnessPal picks your initial target based on your selected rate of weight loss (a 500-calorie deficit for 1 pound per week, 750 calories for 1.5, and 1000 calories for 2 pounds). As long as you keep your net calories close to that target (by eating all your exercise calories), you will be maintaining the desired deficit from TDEE.

Of course, all of these numbers are based on estimates, and you probably don't know your true TDEE (or calories consumed, for that matter). Use this as a starting point, and if you find your weight loss after a few weeks isn't what you expected, make small changes to the calories you eat until it's working as you intend.

fiveohmike

I dont really use the MFP leftover/togo calories thing. I manually set my target at 3176 calories (My TDEE - 20%).

Now, I dont add my exercise calories either, as your TDEE already includes them in. So I just set a custom goal and hit that number under the Food section and disregard the "NET" and "total" calories for the day.

Once again, I hit my TDEE - 20% (3176) regardless of the amount of exercise I do as the TDEE already counts your exercise.

There are certain circumstances where you would need to eat back some extra calories however, on extreme burn routines. If you burned 1100 calories doing exercise that may well be above your set activity level and drop you below your BMR, at which point you need to eat back the extra calories.

gemiwing

We generally use TDEE averages for the week to set our cal goals and then if we exercise more than that 15 or 20% deficit- we eat till our cals are high enough to cover our BMR at least- and ideally to come back to the 15-20% off TDEE range.

I don't enter workout cals into MFP. Just enter the exercise, set it at one cal burned, then eat the amount I was going to get through my TDEE calculations because it's already factored in. Now if I do an exercise above and beyond what I calculated for- say I go for a run which was calculated in my TDEE but then later join a quick game of soccer- that soccer game needs to be factored into the equation. So yes- have to make sure to net enough calories to keep me above BMR.

I don't- and suspect most don't- use MFPs little NET amount since we're going off of separate numbers anyway.

EMTWL goes more off of percentages rather than a flat-rate 500 cals the way MFP does. This way folks with varying weights and activity levels (esp those on the slim side) don't get punished for being smaller.

I'm not following your numbers actually- not an infrequent occurrence as I have a learning disability in math so please help me out if you would.


You've got two people- Person A put in the right activity modifier and Person B didn't. Person A eats back exercise cals and Person B didn't. So yes- Person B needs to eat more. You also have Person B with a much larger exercise expenditure which should have been taken into account when they filled out their TDEE in the first place.

The issue, in this example, to me seems to be the lack of Person B to accurately fill out their TDEE.

dlwyatt82

We generally use TDEE averages for the week to set our cal goals and then if we exercise more than that 15 or 20% deficit- we eat till our cals are high enough to cover our BMR at least- and ideally to come back to the 15-20% off TDEE range.

I don't enter workout cals into MFP. Just enter the exercise, set it at one cal burned, then eat the amount I was going to get through my TDEE calculations because it's already factored in. Now if I do an exercise above and beyond what I calculated for- say I go for a run which was calculated in my TDEE but then later join a quick game of soccer- that soccer game needs to be factored into the equation. So yes- have to make sure to net enough calories to keep me above BMR.

I don't- and suspect most don't- use MFPs little NET amount since we're going off of separate numbers anyway.

EMTWL goes more off of percentages rather than a flat-rate 500 cals the way MFP does. This way folks with varying weights and activity levels (esp those on the slim side) don't get punished for being smaller.

I'm not following your numbers actually- not an infrequent occurrence as I have a learning disability in math so please help me out if you would.


You've got two people- Person A put in the right activity modifier and Person B didn't. Person A eats back exercise cals and Person B didn't. So yes- Person B needs to eat more. You also have Person B with a much larger exercise expenditure which should have been taken into account when they filled out their TDEE in the first place.

The issue, in this example, to me seems to be the lack of Person B to accurately fill out their TDEE.

Both Person A and Person B ate back all of their exercise calories, reaching the same total calorie consumption of 3000 (500 less than their 3500 TDEE).

If everyone here is using a manual calorie target that already includes much of their planned exercise, then your numbers will look very much like Scenario 1. Your initial target is high, and you log a comparatively small number of calories in the exercise diary. That means that the "Net calories" displayed on MFP is very unlikely to go under your BMR, but that doesn't change the fact that the comparison of "Net Calories" to BMR is meaningless. By lowering your initial target and adding more calories to the exercise diary (in the same amount, so your TDEE for the day remains the same), you've lowered what MFP displays as your "Net Calories", even though you consumed and burned identical amounts.

Jacwhite22

Gemi,
I would see this as a personal preference. I am not sedentary but I prefer to list myself as sedentary. This way if I sit on my butt all day and don's do anything I don't eat as much. For me it's too easy when you log activity for a weekly level (active) to say.....ehh I don't feel like working out today and eat the same amount.....one day turns into 2-3 etc. I like to eat......I workout to be able to do it more freely. That said my "number" is under my BMR. Even if I don't exercise I eat up to my BMR.

gemiwing

Both Person A and Person B ate back all of their exercise calories, reaching the same total calorie consumption of 3000 (500 less than their 3500 TDEE).

If everyone here is using a manual calorie target that already includes much of their planned exercise, then your numbers will look very much like Scenario 1. Your initial target is high, and you log a comparatively small number of calories in the exercise diary. That means that the "Net calories" displayed on MFP is very unlikely to go under your BMR, but that doesn't change the fact that the comparison of "Net Calories" to BMR is meaningless. By lowering your initial target and adding more calories to the exercise diary (in the same amount, so your TDEE for the day remains the same), you've lowered what MFP displays as your "Net Calories", even though you consumed and burned identical amounts.

I'm really trying to understand here- maybe I just haven't had enough sleep or coffee. Who knows. I don't enter exercise in MFP so don't go by the NET cals there. I go by the real net- not MFP's display of net.

gemiwing

Gemi,
I would see this as a personal preference. I am not sedentary but I prefer to list myself as sedentary. This way if I sit on my butt all day and don's do anything I don't eat as much. For me it's too easy when you log activity for a weekly level (active) to say.....ehh I don't feel like working out today and eat the same amount.....one day turns into 2-3 etc. I like to eat......I workout to be able to do it more freely. That said my "number" is under my BMR. Even if I don't exercise I eat up to my BMR.

Sure- and if it works for you, keep doing it I need the pre-figured data to keep me accountable because I know what happens when I get lazy. Also- when I think I'm sedentary I'm not really. There's still shopping, cleaning, cooking, well I'm a housewife so perhaps since my job never ends it's different.

When I was going day by day I would figure out the TDEE of the day and take 20% off- then eat that. If I had to chug 500 cals right before bed- so be it. I prefer now to have it less hectic. Personal preference.

dlwyatt82

Both Person A and Person B ate back all of their exercise calories, reaching the same total calorie consumption of 3000 (500 less than their 3500 TDEE).

If everyone here is using a manual calorie target that already includes much of their planned exercise, then your numbers will look very much like Scenario 1. Your initial target is high, and you log a comparatively small number of calories in the exercise diary. That means that the "Net calories" displayed on MFP is very unlikely to go under your BMR, but that doesn't change the fact that the comparison of "Net Calories" to BMR is meaningless. By lowering your initial target and adding more calories to the exercise diary (in the same amount, so your TDEE for the day remains the same), you've lowered what MFP displays as your "Net Calories", even though you consumed and burned identical amounts.

I'm really trying to understand here- maybe I just haven't had enough sleep or coffee. Who knows. I don't enter exercise in MFP so don't go by the NET cals there. I go by the real net- not MFP's display of net.

Strictly speaking, your true net calories should be 0 to maintain your weight, a negative number to lose weight, and positive to gain weight. Leaving MFP's interface out of the picture for the moment, if you ate 1 calorie for every calorie you burned for the day (including your BMR), your "net" would be zero. You'd have eaten exactly your TDEE, and should not be gaining or losing anything other than varying water weight.

I don't bother bringing that up anymore, because that's not what is really confusing people on the MFP forums. When they say "net calories", they're referring to what this website displays.

gemiwing

Strictly speaking, your true net calories should be 0 to maintain your weight, a negative number to lose weight, and positive to gain weight. Leaving MFP's interface out of the picture for the moment, if you ate 1 calorie for every calorie you burned for the day (including your BMR), your "net" would be zero. You'd have eaten exactly your TDEE, and should not be gaining or losing anything other than varying water weight.

I don't bother bring that up anymore, because that's not what is really confusing people on the MFP forums. When they say "net calories", they're referring to what this website displays.

lol Now you're heading into semantics. I'm a nerd- I love semantics

Yes- in all equations to maintain weight there would need to be neither a gain of fuel or loss through burning.

I don't know if 'net calories' means the same thing to EM2WL as to MFP at large. I see your point and hear that you want to help people- I think that's great. All I can say is I don't go by the MFP NET because I'm not logging my exercise here.

I do worry your math concerns could cause some people confusion- but such is life!

jyska

I actually used the net calories to help me determine if my TDEE number was relatively accurate. Since I always found myself below my net calories and I exercise 6-7 days a week, it was easy to see that I needed to raise my TDEE so that I wouldn't have to eat back exercise calories. Now that I'm closer on target with my TDEE number (-15%) I don't find that I drop below BMR often. I think you have to use it wisely, use a HRM, and figure out your TDEE properly. Then you just keep that BMR number in the back of your head so that if you notice a pattern of too few calories, you can make adjustments.

I'm a person that is in the process of repairing my metabolism, so netting above BMR on a consistent basis is very important at this stage. It's too easy for me to net too few calories because I can over-exercise beyond what I put in for a TDEE and not even consider eating enough back. Having that NET number helps me moderate food AND exercise and keep my body healthy.

dlwyatt82

I actually used the net calories to help me determine if my TDEE number was relatively accurate. Since I always found myself below my net calories and I exercise 6-7 days a week, it was easy to see that I needed to raise my TDEE so that I wouldn't have to eat back exercise calories. Now that I'm closer on target with my TDEE number (-15%) I don't find that I drop below BMR often. I think you have to use it wisely, use a HRM, and figure out your TDEE properly. Then you just keep that BMR number in the back of your head so that if you notice a pattern of too few calories, you can make adjustments.

I'm a person that is in the process of repairing my metabolism, so netting above BMR on a consistent basis is very important at this stage. It's too easy for me to net too few calories because I can over-exercise beyond what I put in for a TDEE and not even consider eating enough back. Having that NET number helps me moderate food AND exercise and keep my body healthy.

That's a perfect example of what I said in action.

First thing: You don't "set" your TDEE. TDEE is the true number of calories you burn on a particular day. All the estimates we make based on height / weight / age / gender / exercise / activity are intended to give us a number that we hope is roughly equal to our TDEE.

Second: When you increased your non-exercise calorie target, you moved from a set of numbers similar to Scenario 2 (low starting target, large numbers in the exercise diary) to a set of numbers more like Scenario 1 (larger initial target, less logged exercise calories). MFP displayed your "Net Calories" as higher, even though your total consumed for the day ("gross calories", if you will) didn't need to change. That's why comparing "Net Calories" to BMR is meaningless.

The comparison that matters is your total calories consumed ("Gross calories", not Net) to your TDEE.

31prvrbs

I actually used the net calories to help me determine if my TDEE number was relatively accurate.

That's really the point of it. If TDEE is figured correctly, "netting BMR" becomes a non-issue. I never pay attention to my net cals, because I know that my TDEE is figured correctly, & I'm not going crazy w/ridiculous burns, thus it wouldn't happen. But that doesn't mean that I'm not gonna tell someone else just starting to up their cals not to pay attention to it. So many people choose activity levels that are not accurate, because they're too scared to eat the higher # cals. This is where knowing your net helps you to figure out your true activity level, rather that going low "to be safe."

If someone notices that they're netting below TDEE constantly, we tell them to re-figure the TDEE more accurately. Once this is done, it's not an issue for them either. If the "concept" is never even touched upon, you will have ladies who consistently eat 1500 cals yet kill themselves to burn 1000 in exercise and think that it's ok because they ate their "TDEE -15%." Then those same ladies will wonder months later why they aren't losing weight, and slash their cals even further, thinking that they're eating "too much" when in reality it wasn't enough. If they base their cals on netting BMR, this won't happen..

Basically, it's just a simple way of explaining, in order to help solve a much bigger problem. And most people who have been dieting for as long as they can remember, and stopped seeing results long ago, are helped greatly by such a simple way of figuring out if they're eating enough.


~Kiki

jyska

I actually used the net calories to help me determine if my TDEE number was relatively accurate. Since I always found myself below my net calories and I exercise 6-7 days a week, it was easy to see that I needed to raise my TDEE so that I wouldn't have to eat back exercise calories. Now that I'm closer on target with my TDEE number (-15%) I don't find that I drop below BMR often. I think you have to use it wisely, use a HRM, and figure out your TDEE properly. Then you just keep that BMR number in the back of your head so that if you notice a pattern of too few calories, you can make adjustments.

I'm a person that is in the process of repairing my metabolism, so netting above BMR on a consistent basis is very important at this stage. It's too easy for me to net too few calories because I can over-exercise beyond what I put in for a TDEE and not even consider eating enough back. Having that NET number helps me moderate food AND exercise and keep my body healthy.

That's a perfect example of what I said in action.

First thing: You don't "set" your TDEE. TDEE is the true number of calories you burn on a particular day. All the estimates we make based on height / weight / age / gender / exercise / activity are intended to give us a number that we hope is roughly equal to our TDEE.

Second: When you increased your non-exercise calorie target, you moved from a set of numbers similar to Scenario 2 (low starting target, large numbers in the exercise diary) to a set of numbers more like Scenario 1 (larger initial target, less logged exercise calories). MFP displayed your "Net Calories" as higher, even though your total consumed for the day ("gross calories", if you will) didn't need to change. That's why comparing "Net Calories" to BMR is meaningless.

The comparison that matters is your total calories consumed ("Gross calories", not Net) to your TDEE.

I agree, however I would not have known that my TDEE calculation estimates were off if I didn't have the NET number to work with. That's what I'm trying to say. When I raised my calories to reflect the exercise, you are right...the new goal simply reflected what my total food calories were on a regular basis (I do not actually EAT more). But without the NET to show me I was too low, I never would have considered raising them to a proper level or ever even eating the proper total food calories level in the first place. I would still at this point be eating too few calories (in my total calories consumed and my NET)

So while I agree that what you are saying has merit, some of us need that NET number to help guide us in tweaking our numbers so that they accurately reflect our needs. :happy:

ps. by 'set' I simply meant using TDEE -15% as my main goal.

dlwyatt82

I agree, however I would not have known that my TDEE calculation estimates were off if I didn't have the NET number to work with. That's what I'm trying to say. When I raised my calories to reflect the exercise, you are right...the new goal simply reflected what my total food calories were on a regular basis (I do not actually EAT more). But without the NET to show me I was too low, I never would have considered raising them to a proper level or ever even eating the proper total food calories level in the first place. I would still at this point be eating too few calories (in my total calories consumed and my NET)

So while I agree that what you are saying has merit, some of us need that NET number to help guide us in tweaking our numbers so that they accurately reflect our needs. :happy:

ps. by 'set' I simply meant using TDEE -15% as my main goal.

I'm confused as to why your total calories consumed also increased. When you had the lower starting target (your estimate of TDEE was low), were you eating back all your logged exercise calories? If so, you should have reached the same total, even though the Net number would look different.

jyska

I agree, however I would not have known that my TDEE calculation estimates were off if I didn't have the NET number to work with. That's what I'm trying to say. When I raised my calories to reflect the exercise, you are right...the new goal simply reflected what my total food calories were on a regular basis (I do not actually EAT more). But without the NET to show me I was too low, I never would have considered raising them to a proper level or ever even eating the proper total food calories level in the first place. I would still at this point be eating too few calories (in my total calories consumed and my NET)

So while I agree that what you are saying has merit, some of us need that NET number to help guide us in tweaking our numbers so that they accurately reflect our needs. :happy:

ps. by 'set' I simply meant using TDEE -15% as my main goal.

I'm confused as to why your total calories consumed also increased. When you had the lower starting target (your estimate of TDEE was low), were you eating back all your logged exercise calories? If so, you should have reached the same total, even though the Net number would look different.

When I first calculated my TDEE -15% (using a moderate activity level because I wasn't sure how active I really was) and set that as my main goal for calorie intake, I watched my NET calories to see if they fell below my BMR number in my head. If NET fell below (which it did every day) I would eat enough calories back that day to ensure that the NET number was at or over my BMR. That meant that every day, my total food calories would be higher than my TDEE - 15% goal number. I simply raised my goal number to match what my true activity level was (so the average difference between my total food eaten and my calorie goal) I'm still eating the same amount of food, my goal just reflects it better to start with and my NET now often shows that I'm meeting or exceeding my BMR number so I don't have to think about eating back any extra calories.

If I had not watched the NET number, I would not have known to eat more total calories to start with, would not have known that I was eating under BMR and would never have known to raise my main calorie goal.

dlwyatt82

I'm still eating the same amount of food, my goal just reflects it better to start with and my NET now often shows that I'm meeting or exceeding my BMR number so I don't have to think about eating back any extra calories.

This is what drives me nuts. Your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food." Yet you perceive your Net Calories as being different because you changed how the numbers were displayed on MFP, even though your TDEE and total calorie consumption didn't change.

Someone else might have actually changed the amount of food they were eating (which would very likely have been a mistake, one way or the other), instead of just fudging the numbers the way you did.

jyska

I'm still eating the same amount of food, my goal just reflects it better to start with and my NET now often shows that I'm meeting or exceeding my BMR number so I don't have to think about eating back any extra calories.

This is what drives me nuts. Your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food." Yet you perceive your Net Calories as being different because you changed how the numbers were displayed on MFP, even though your TDEE and total calorie consumption didn't change.

Someone else might have actually changed the amount of food they were eating (which would very likely have been a mistake, one way or the other), instead of just fudging the numbers the way you did.

I didn't fudge any numbers. I discovered that my activity levels were wrong by watching my NET. We don't always know how active we really are. I needed to find out what my true TDEE level was and the NET number helped me do that by showing me that I was exercising more than I had put into my TDEE number in the first place. Without NET I wouldn't have known that I had done it wrong. I would still be GUESSING! Now when I run my numbers with the true activity level, everything works out the way it should, I don't have to worry about the Net calories anymore because I'm usually above BMR NET now.

NET is a great tool to help you figure out if you calculated your activity level properly. If someone just randomly ups their number without considering all the facts then of course they might screw up their progress. But NET isn't flawed just because someone doesn't understand HOW to use it. It's up to individuals to ask questions, learn the process. Anything can be used incorrectly if people don't find out how to use it the right way.

dlwyatt82

I'm still eating the same amount of food, my goal just reflects it better to start with and my NET now often shows that I'm meeting or exceeding my BMR number so I don't have to think about eating back any extra calories.

This is what drives me nuts. Your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food." Yet you perceive your Net Calories as being different because you changed how the numbers were displayed on MFP, even though your TDEE and total calorie consumption didn't change.

Someone else might have actually changed the amount of food they were eating (which would very likely have been a mistake, one way or the other), instead of just fudging the numbers the way you did.

I didn't fudge any numbers. I discovered that my activity levels were wrong by watching my NET. We don't always know how active we really are. I needed to find out what my true TDEE level was and the NET number helped me do that by showing me that I was exercising more than I had put into my TDEE number in the first place. Without NET I wouldn't have known that I had done it wrong. I would still be GUESSING! Now when I run my numbers with the true activity level, everything works out the way it should, I don't have to worry about the Net calories anymore because I'm usually above BMR NET now.

NET is a great tool to help you figure out if you calculated your activity level properly. If someone just randomly ups their number without considering all the facts then of course they might screw up their progress. But NET isn't flawed just because someone doesn't understand HOW to use it. It's up to individuals to ask questions, learn the process. Anything can be used incorrectly if people don't find out how to use it the right way.

I'm not trying to insult you, but "fudge the numbers" is a very accurate description of what happened. If, as you say, you didn't change the actual amount of food you ate, then all you did was make it look different on MFP by having a different number of calories in your initial target versus your exercise diary.

You may prefer it that way, and that's fine, but it still had exactly zero impact on the amount of food you were eating (again, your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food.")

However you reach the number, your TDEE is your TDEE. I could enter an initial target of exactly my BMR and then log every single non-BMR calorie burned as "exercise", and I'd still be at the same number as if I set my initial target to a number very close to my TDEE from the start, and logged very little as "exercise". My "net calories", however, would look very different.

You say that "Without NET, you wouldn't have known that you had done it wrong." I fail to see how you had done anything wrong, since you're still eating the same amount of food. Mathematically, there is no difference between 1500 + 1000 and 2400 + 100, but there is a huge difference between BMR - 1000 and BMR - 100. (I don't have your actual numbers to work with since you only mentioned TDEE-15%, but you get the idea. If you adjusted your original target from 1500 to 2400, and logged 900 calories less as "exercise" in the diary, this is how it would look.)

The situation you have described just emphasizes my original point: it is pointless to compare your Net Calories (as displayed on MFP) to your BMR.

31prvrbs

This is what drives me nuts. Your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food." Yet you perceive your Net Calories as being different because you changed how the numbers were displayed on MFP, even though your TDEE and total calorie consumption didn't change.

Someone else might have actually changed the amount of food they were eating (which would very likely have been a mistake, one way or the other), instead of just fudging the numbers the way you did.

I'm not sure why it drives you nuts, lol. It's really not that serious. :huh: I think if you actually detach (and de-stress, lol) regarding the situation, you'll notice that everyone is saying the same thing. The only thing that is causing the commotion, is that you have a mathematical way of looking at things and some people don't (are you an engineer, by any chance?). As you said "netting BMR" is a concept. It is a concept that helps people to understand something that can be otherwise confusing (as shown by your original post). You know, people do it all the time when NOT talking to people of their same stature/nature (doctors/scientist/parents, etc.), because if they told it to us in "their" terms, we wouldn't have a clue what they were saying, lol.. How much easier is it to tell a person, "don't net below BMR," than to say all that you have said. As I stated in my earlier posts, and as others have shared, it *does* help people to understand if they have their activity level picked properly.

If not, then they WILL be changing the amount that they eat, which is not a bad thing, if the previous amount was not right/working. (whether too high or low) Also remember, that people who are figuring out their stats based on TDEE are often not eating back exercise cals because they're already figured in. So watching their "net" for the first few weeks, helps one to understand if they figured in enough exercise cals.

Obviously, one could simply go based on MFPs #s and eat their cals back, (which we DO tell people to do who are using MFP to figure their numbers) but they would again run into a problem if they picked too low of an activity level. Say MFP has them set at 1200 cals, they burn and eat back 300 everyday, yet their BMR is 1650. See the dilemma? Knowing that you are under BMR would help you to realize that you need bump up your activity level to what it really is.

Because you understand the concept in terms of mathematics, then wonderful, that's the way that you should apply it to your life. The point of this group, is to allow everyone to lose weight on *their* terms, and in a way that is best for *their* body. That includes, making the concept simple enough for EVERY person to put it into action right away, and not forcing them to understand it the way that you or I do. In fact, I really don't think most people are really concerned w/the inner workings of it all. Just the basic breakdown.

Frankly, as many times as I have to re-type the same thing over and over every time someone asks, my fingers would fall off having to say all of that every time. :laugh:


Kiki

dlwyatt82

How much easier is it to tell a person, "don't net below BMR," than to say all that you have said.

That's the problem, though. By telling a person not to net below their BMR, you're giving very different advice to someone who has selected Sedentary and logged a lot of exercise than to someone who has a high initial target, even if their total calories burned and consumed are identical. You're potentially telling someone to eat too much or too little food, which is probably not your intention. That is why I keep trying to explain this point, over and over, until people get it.

Telling someone to eat a certain amount less than their TDEE is great. Telling people not to eat too much below their TDEE is great. Telling someone to eat (gross) at least their BMR is probably great. Telling someone to "Net their BMR" is a mistake.

31prvrbs

That's the problem, though. By telling a person not to net below their BMR, you're giving very different advice to someone who has selected Sedentary and logged a lot of exercise than to someone who has a high initial target, even if their total calories burned and consumed are identical. You're potentially telling someone to eat too much or too little food, which is probably not your intention. That is why I keep trying to explain this point, over and over, until people get it.

Telling someone to eat a certain amount less than their TDEE is great. Telling people not to eat too much below their TDEE is great. Telling someone to eat (gross) at least their BMR is probably great. Telling someone to "Net their BMR" is a mistake.

Again, you're missing a major point...we are not talking about people who use MFPs calculations. We are talking about people who do the calculations THEMSELVES. So if they calculate themselves using "sedentary" then log a bunch of exercise and ONLY eat the TDEE -15% that they calculated, they would be drastically under-eating (which is the point of this group, to STOP under eating, and help people to see just how much they are under-eating). Paying attention to the BMR will help them to know that, and adjust accordingly, so that they are eating enough. Then they will adjust to the right activity level setting and it.becomes.a NON issue. :yawn:

There is no mistake in telling a person who is under eating or over-exercising, not to do so. It would be a mistake NOT to.

If it really saddens you that much, there are plenty of people in the Main Forum who may agree w/you or want to argue over the subject. But that's not what this group is for. It's to help. If this group is not helping you, I'm sorry to hear that.... :ohwell:


Kiki