Net calories vs. calories consumed

nxd10

What you wrote is wrong, but I can understand why you're confused.

That 1218 you worked on your shift is your regular - I'm Alive - basic calories. If you put yourself down with an activity level above sedentary, that would be your basic calorie needs from which MFP would subtract your 500 calorie deficit from. MFP estimates it. You have an exact number.

On top of basic I'm Alive, base activity level calories, you also exercised in your cardio workout for an addition 250. THOSE calories you eat back.

---

If you want to work accurately and entirely off your HRM, take all the calories your heart rate monitor says you burn. Subtract 500 calories from that. If you ate that (HRM calories used - 500 calories) you would lose one pound a week because you are NETTING 500 calories less than you are burning. That includes wearing HRM while you're asleep.

If you want to make your life easier, you can count calories used one day to determine what to eat the following day.

Personally, I'd just set a baseline and then use the HRM to measure my exercise accurately.

furtlebet

I don't get why eating back calories is recommended by anyone on here? The biggest loser contestants as an example work out for 3-4 hours a day to burn up in the 1000s of calories (and have lots of rest periods in between). Do they eat their calories back? No.

The whole idea of sustainable 'slow' weight loss has been challenged by the latest research. In their words - Militant weight loss is better than small steps.
http://sciencenordic.com/researchers-rapid-weight-loss-best

The body is more than capable of breaking down fat stores and turning it into energy. The metabolic pathways always prioritise sugars and fats over protein (i.e. Muscle). Muscle is extraordinarily difficult (and inefficient) for the body to turn into energy, so unless you aren't eating at all for days muscle wasting is unlikely.

tryclyn

Modest calorie deficit for fat loss.
Exercise for health.
The deficit should already factored in, but exercise is extra and works better when you actually fuel it.

More info here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912914-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/10118-eat-train-progress

boboff

I so love this debate.

I am so please the biggest looser thing was given as an example.

Would it not be just best to say.

"if you are Obese or more, all rules are out, do as much as you can eat as little as you can"

"if you are overweight or normal and want to loose a little, take it steady, slow is best, keep your body topped up as you haven't got a bucket of lard on your *kitten* to keep you going"

Innit?

tryclyn

I don't believe that The Biggest Loser plan is the best plan for people living in the real world. I would rather take the slow road, less likely to say "*kitten* it" and give up. My own opinion, of course.

Lbriggs82

" as you haven't got a bucket of lard on your *kitten* to keep you going"

Innit?

Class!!! :laugh:

ladyraven68

I don't get why eating back calories is recommended by anyone on here? The biggest loser contestants as an example work out for 3-4 hours a day to burn up in the 1000s of calories (and have lots of rest periods in between). Do they eat their calories back? No.

The whole idea of sustainable 'slow' weight loss has been challenged by the latest research. In their words - Militant weight loss is better than small steps.
http://sciencenordic.com/researchers-rapid-weight-loss-best

The body is more than capable of breaking down fat stores and turning it into energy. The metabolic pathways always prioritise sugars and fats over protein (i.e. Muscle). Muscle is extraordinarily difficult (and inefficient) for the body to turn into energy, so unless you aren't eating at all for days muscle wasting is unlikely.

What an odd first post - resurrecting a dead thread.

Welcome to MFP.

furtlebet

One of the reasons why the faster is better theory has been supported by research is that the faster we loose weight, the more likely we are to stick to it.

Think of the psychology of grinding out the weight loss over a year vs in a few months or weeks (depending on what you've got to loose).

If the problem is unassailable then it is all too easy to lose interest. If however, we can see changes on a short time scale, it is self reinforcing.

furtlebet

Another interesting article... Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting that anyone starve themselves, but the numerous suggestions that there will be instant catastrophic muscle loss etc etc if we drop a few hundred calories below some magic number is a crock and not based in science.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

"After two or three days of fasting, you get your energy from two different sources simultaneously. A very small part of your energy comes from breaking down your muscles — but you can avoid this by doing some resistance training, otherwise known as pumping iron. The majority of your energy comes from breaking down fat.

But very soon, you move into getting all your energy from the breakdown of fat. The fat molecules break down into two separate chemicals — glycerol (which can be converted into glucose) and free fatty acids (which can be converted into other chemicals called ketones). Your body, including your brain, can run on this glucose and ketones until you finally run out of fat."

furtlebet

In other words:

eat good healthy food keeping between the starvation mode minimum and your goal calories each day
exercise as much as you can
rinse and repeat

Don't worry about muscle loss (even if it was a problem you could always just gain it back later anyway)
Don't worry about losing weight too fast (if you are still eating every day, then in practical terms for most people there isn't a 'too fast')
Don't 'eat your calories back'. (That just means you'll have to burn them off another day. All that hard work wasted!)

stripler13

If you really want to know how much you actually burn in a day I would recommend taking a RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) Test at a facility that provides it. Since EVERYONE'S body is different, taking this test will pertain just to YOU. Look it up and it will help give you a better understanding of how much you actually burn just doing nothing. Calculations are ok to get a rough estimate, but to get a closer than life reading of your body, RMR testing is the way to go. Depending on what machine they use it can tell you what "fuel" your body uses for energy such as carbs or fat. It can tell you if your metabolism is slow,normal, or fast. It also will give you the amount of calories you should aim for to be in the maintenance range or weight loss range. Very beneficial information.

Koldnomore

Modest calorie deficit for fat loss.
Exercise for health.
The deficit should already factored in, but exercise is extra and works better when you actually fuel it.

More info here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912914-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/10118-eat-train-progress

If people chose to ignore the advise given in the above threads I have no sympathy when they come back in a couple months crying because they aren't losing anymore or in a couple years when they have put it all back on because they couldn't be bothered to lose in in a healthy and sustainable way. This information is here and readily available in the stickies at the top of this forum. It's working for at least 90% of the people here who are doing it. You are not a "special flower".

kaylacarnicle25

What is net calorie? R u guys talking about myfitnesspal as in net cal?